Talk:Song/Archive 1

2004

"Folk songs are songs of anonymous origin that are transmitted orally. They are frequently a major aspect of national or cultural identity. Art songs often become folk songs when people forget who the author was. Folk songs are also frequently transmitted nonorally, especially in the modern era."

This whole area of the evolution and communication of popular music is interesting to memetics theorists, BTW.

I'm not sure about this art song/folk song business. Isn't it more usual to distinguish between art song/popular song? I know that in the broadest sense a "folk song" can mean something by the Sex Pistols as well as an anonymous Hungarian dirge, but the term is used in a more specific way also (the way we have definied in this article: anonymous, orally transmitted), which seems to make this distinction rather shaky, because it appears to leave out a whole wodge of songs. I'd just change it, but I'm not much of a singer... --Camembert

Thinking about it a bit more, I'm not sure if the problem is really with treating "art" and "folk" as opposites (as opposed to "art" and "popular") - after all, "popular" can be used in a specific as well as a general sense. So maybe the problem is more to do with the definition of "folk" here not fitting in with what the rest of the page says. I'll think about it and see if anything comes to me... --Camembert

I think the best thing to do would be to simply create a third category: "art", "folk", and "popular" songs. Also, we would then include non-western songs in "folk". Currently, the only mention that people with vocal chords, and songs to sing, exist outside of Europe is at the end of the "Song forms" section, where they are described as "ethnic", "indigenous" or "aboriginal". Jeez. Its nearing 5AM though, so I'll sleep on it. - Hyacinth 11:28, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Or....I won't sleep on it.Hyacinth

I'd like to weigh in for the three-way taxblahonomy Art/Folk/Popular, as Hyacinth suggested. The current articles on Classical music helps clarify the Art/Popular distinction, and the articles on Folk music and Popular music discuss the Popular/Folk distinction. I think it would also help if Folk music is augmented to clarify the Art/Folk distinction.

Pretty much everything can be fitted into these three, I think, though of course there are many blends (Art/Folk: Sacred Harp music; Art/Popular: Philip Glass; Folk/Popular: Joan Baez).

"Commercium", though interesting, is a much nablahrrower category, so I've moved it to be a link. Opus33 23:24, 11 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Song" leaves me flat. What makes a song important? Not that it is Art, Folk, or Popular. But how it blends music and lyric. So this should be about the things in songs that make them important and how songs are incorporated into life. There should be discussion about the form of the lyrics, rhyming schemes, the music (verses, chorus, bridge, etc...), the uses (religion, festival, theatre, commerce...), etc... Just think about a great song like "Summertime" by Gershwin. Is it important if it is an Art song, a Folk song or a Popular one? I think it fits into all three categories quite well, but who cares! That is not what makes it sing. (and BTW, where is musical theatre in the lists?) --Samuel Wantman 11:04, 30 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the article needs all those things you mention as well as the (slightly boring, I admit) stuff about the way people divide songs into different categories. Feel free to add all that other good stuff yourself! --Camembert

Words

Why can't The Great Gig in the Sky be a song? It isn't fair. --Yath 11:11, 28 Jun 2004 (UTC)

External links

I'd removed all external links and added recommendation found in Lyrics article (to add only comprehensive and scholar sites). The article started to look as link farm. If any of the deleted websites did not belong to spam category, please move it back. Thanks. Pavel Vozenilek 22:38, 29 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song structure

In the song structure section, the order of elements to a song is shown in bullet point form. Surely, it needs to be clarified as to which order they appear in songs. This is because in most other Wikipedia articles, bullet points are used to list, but not necessarilarly in any particular order. As we are trying to show the order in which each part of a song occurs, bullet points alone do not accomplish this. It would be better if a numbering system were to be used, or that a sentence in the preceeding paragraph was included to underline that the correct order is from the top down. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.210.38.48 (talk) 19 April 2006, 18:49 UTC

Popular Songs

I have my usual attempt to be objective that becomes a flip flop thing to say. First off, I think people are right that in essence, popular music is folk music. In many ways folk music in the Renaissance wasn't any different than today, celebrities, complex rhythms and devices, virtuouso instrumental playing and all of the usual frauds as well. I do however, think that it is useful for this article to separate them, largely because most people that come here aren't looking for what is "folk music" in common parlance, you know field recordings or acoustic guitar, but information on how the Shins and Radiohead or whatever they like write a song. So I think it's a useful separation.

As for art music's contempt for folk music, I think you'll find a great deal of that at the conservatory. The sad part is that many of the best composers went and scouted out folk music that was popular, or even what you might call "roots music" the origins of their own art music, to make better art music for people, and even in many cases to study it, and even just because they liked it. Art music has gotten so stuffy, Horowitz played Haydn better at 62 than any 20 year old in the world and they called him a doddering fool that was past his prime. I dropped out of music school largely because of that kind of snobbery. I could never be the "perfect artist" and so I was a reject. Keep your Shins CD's.

I may come back here again, or I might not, but I just wanted to drop a note. It's actually a very good article.

Tim.

69.223.66.52 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of inappropriate text

Have deleted the following

music is horriable dont listen to it.

from the section Art songs as it would seem to be inappropriate for a Wikipedia article. I came across it by accident, having no interest whatsoever in the definiton of Art songs as such, and am dismayed at finding my first case of what I suppose would be termed either trolling or vandalism (still haven't got round to reading about that yet - I never thought it would be necessary). --Technopat 00:22, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

deleted text

Have deleted the following: ... for instance by an entire band, though the lyrics are usually written by one person, usually the lead singer ... for being too much of a generalization. --Technopat 14:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Not sure if this is the right place, but I think it fits, since its songs;

If we all put out minds together, we could put lyrics for every song that has lyrics - I mean, we have it for The Divils Dead, why can't we have it for The Ace of Spades? (KarKing Jack 21:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

Categorising by lyricist

Hi - I'm after some information on categorisation, and hoping you have some sort of guideline. Whilst attempting to categorise While the Angelus Was Ringing, I ran into a little issue... the song was originally written in French (as Les trois cloches), and was adapted into an English version with lyrics by Dick Manning. If Manning had written the song from new, the article could, of course, be categorised under Category:Songs written by Dick Manning...however, where the song has been adapted from another language, is this an accurate categorisation ? Does it depend on whether the translated lyrics are a literal translation of the original, or if the lyrics have been written from scratch and only the music is the same ? Does anyone have any thoughts on this ? Thanks :-) CultureDrone (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural types

I'd like to weigh in on the "three-way taxblahonomy Art/Folk/Popular". As in, it doesn't make much sense, the only discernable differences are Art songs are for the wealthy, Folk songs don;t have known authors and Popular songs are recorded and played on the radio.

The historical stuff in the Art section is very interesting, and some of the stuff in the Folk section is, too. The Popular section doesn't even begin with a coherent sentence, and I think the whole section could vanish without hurting the article. Huw Powell (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural Examples

I just removed Dutch from the list of examples. Dutch music has not had a large influence on European art songs, whereas German Lieder have, which is why I replaced it. If you have an issue with this, let me know here. I'll be watching the page. Devahn58 (talk) 17:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed

Its not a surprising claim if you are an English speaker. Hyacinth (talk) 05:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Hyacinth. See my comments above. It is surprising if you are a UK native English speaker, and, I suspect in other English-speaking countries too. --Mattmm (talk) 11:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you prove a negative on the other side of the pond? Hyacinth (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The burden of proof is not on my side. Clearly the word "song" is derived from the verb "to sing" and the OED defines the word to mean "that which is sung". If there is a slang usage going on, in some parts of the world, that's worth mentioning, but it needs a citation from an authoritative source. --Mattmm (talk) 19:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are precluding common knowledge and obvious truth, then "song" is not "clearly" derived from "to sing". If, however, the OED truly says so you should be able to actually cite it. Hyacinth (talk) 01:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've added this citation, apologies if it's not the correct format... --Mattmm (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The only discussions of this issue online indicate it is primarily and actually a British issue and contention, such as that between "tune" and "song" in traditional Irish music (and that your insistance that you have never heard anyone claim the sky is blue is not because you live somewhere where people don't, but because you live somewhere where people do more often, and with more vehemence). Hyacinth (talk) 02:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Additional references, original research, general cleanup: October 2007

Such as? Hyacinth (talk) 09:14, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Probably using the way back machine or the history tab and looking at that version. However, it's probably not even close to this version so it should be reevaluated. :) Shinerunner (talk) 10:20, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple issues

If this article still needs to be cleaned up, how, why, and where? Hyacinth (talk) 00:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

In music, a song is a metrical composition^{[citation needed]}.

Rather than the short, incomplete, and possibly inaccurate introduction directly above

In music, a song is a composition that contains vocal parts ("lyrics") that are performed ("sung"), commonly accompanied by musical instruments, exception in the case of a cappella songs. The lyrics of songs are typically of a poetic, rhyming nature, although they may be religious verses or free prose.

I restored the introduction directly above. Hyacinth (talk) 03:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reqphoto

Image added. Hyacinth (talk) 03:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the human voice?

I would like to know when a song became only things that were created by voice. I am slightly confused about this. --Driken 05:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC),pop music[reply]

Music that isn't created by a human voice, but by instruments, is generally referred to generally as a piece, or more specifically by its form, such as symphony, string quartet, or waltz. Devahn58 (talk) 17:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whereas I'm confused by this assertion: "Colloquially, song is sometimes used to refer to any music composition, even those without vocals". I've never come across this, is it a quirk of US English? I'm British, by the way. Mattmm ( talk) 20:13, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a speaker of US English, my confusion goes the other way. I'm surprised not to find that the primary definition is any piece of music. mkehrt (talk) 09:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's a quirk of many instrumental bands. And I would argue that they more than anyone else get to decide whether they are writing 'songs' or not. I am not going to disagree about the technical meaning of the word, but I feel this article is a little heavy handed and unforgiving – I feel like my use of this term is being chastised by wikipedia while the broader culture tends to embrace it. This article is providing more judgement than information -- " 'Song' should only be used to describe a composition for the human vocals." is a little 'fist-poundy' and excludes many other important uses of the term, including bird songs and I'll just say it, instrumental songs. -Steven

To repeat, I think this must be an Americanism - I have never heard anyone this side of the pond refer to an unsung piece of any genre as a 'song' (a exception would perhaps be Mendelssohn's Songs without Words, a somewhat esoteric usage!). If this is in common usage in US popular music I can't see any reason why the article shouldn't say so. It would be interesting to get a view from another English-speaking country on this issue. Mattmm (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is that most people in the U.S., to the extent that they listen to music, listen almost exclusively to short vocal (and non-choral) compositions. Therefore, when they are looking for a word for a piece of instrumental music, they will use the word they know: "song." Descriptively, then, one definition of "song" is any musical composition. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. It would be silly to write an article about the broader definition of "song," since there is already an article about music. If this article is going to exist at all, it should be about the narrower class of vocal, non-choral compositions. Prescriptive language such as "should only be used" does not, however, belong in the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.67 (talk) 18:16, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I generally hear people refer all musical pieces referred to as "songs" in multiple contexts, including "theme song", "play a song", "non-lyrical song", etc. I have not before heard of it referring strictly to lyrical music, though etymologically it makes sense. However, as the way the term is used is often in direct violation of the definition on the article, the article needs to be changed to reflect that, or at the very least mention it. Aeonoris (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking on behalf of the trance music genre (popular in Europe by the way, not America, so this hardly an American thing) we (the trance listeners) tend to identify individual pieces of trance music as "songs" not "pieces" regardless of whether they have vocals or not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.104.143.228 (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC) I've always thought of a song as having to have words. But I've noticed on musical websites people use the word 'song' when refering to an instrumental. When I asked the question there it looked like most people to comment thought of the words as interchangeable : http://www.last.fm/forum/5/_/682471/1#f14808121 Rich Headey 22.4.2011 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.107.128 (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit dispute

"Colloquially, the word "song" may refer to music without words." is a rewording of "A song is a piece of music for accompanied or unaccompanied voice or voices" I ask that the editor use the talk page to please explain why a reworded repeat of the first sentence in that paragraph is useful to the article. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Unaccompanied or accompanied voice means a capella or not a capella, that is to say as sung music. Music without words means unsung music, music which can neither be or not be a cappela. It is not a repeat, it helps complete the description of how the word is used.168.103.127.39 (talk) 20:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at it, you are correct, the two sentences are not the same, however, I suggest you look up the definition of song in a dictionary. Can you provide a link to a dictionary that defines music as without words? Because Wiktionary, Dictionary.com, thefreedictionary.com, and Mirriam-Webster all suggest otherwise. - SudoGhost (talk) 20:28, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review a thesaurus, this word is used synonymously with words that describe instrumental music. Furthemore, most dictionaries will give as one sense of the word something like "a musical composition suggestive of a song". Only a few dictionaries, like the OED, include specialized info on colloquial use, this is usually not available through free online dictionaries. IOW, they are describing how song is used to describe things that are technically not songs.168.103.127.39 (talk) 20:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you to provide some proof of your addition, not to ask me to review a thesaurus (which I have). Looking through the two reference books at my home, and many dictionaries and thesauruses online[1], have described a song as "music with words". None have suggested that a song is music without. As was discussed on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Music/Archive_15#Instrumentals_vs_songs, "The word "song" shares its roots with "sung" and "sing". It's not "just" an academic distinction; and as this is an encyclopedia, even if it were, it would be relevant. It's also entirely appropriate for an encyclopedia to follow musicological (if that's what this is), rather than common, usage... ...songs have lyrics and are sung. There's a reason why we have separate articles for Song and Instrumental." - SudoGhost (talk) 20:51, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it is primarily an academic distinction, a useful one too in certain contexts. But in everyday speech it is typically unimportant whether the music is instrumental or not. It is a quite pedantic argument to make that noting that the word has shifty semantics should be avoided. To interpret what these dictionaries are saying as meaning "songs must have words or voice" is hypercorrectively pedantic. American Heritage's variation on what I noted above is "a brief composition written or adapted for singing", Webster's New World gives "a piece of music sung or intended for singing". These definitions are more nuanced than the musicological ones and they implicitly include the possibility that the song may be performed unsung. The musicological definitions are not being disputed and rightfully form the basis of the article. This one sentence under contention simply acknowledges that every time a reader sees the word "song" somewhere, it does not have to refer to the topic of this article. There was a time when music perhaps only came from the human voice, but times change and so does language.168.103.127.39 (talk) 21:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What you are describing is an instrumental, not a song. The sentence as included is in opposition to the definition of a song. You still have yet to provide any source for this addition of this content. - SudoGhost (talk) 21:19, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke of instrumentals, but you must not've understood what I said because I discussed more than that. I also referred you to two dictionaries and provided you with quotes. Yes it gives an apparently opposite, more like different and nuanced, definition. But that does not negate the article or academic distinctions.168.103.127.39 (talk) 21:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Encyclopedic content must be verifiable. Your additions have not been verified, and you've provided no sources which verify the information. Material that is likely to be challenged must be attributed, which you have yet to do. However, I have provided links that show the material you've added to be false. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true. - SudoGhost (talk) 00:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Are you being obtuse or are you ignoring the sources I have mentioned? If the former I urge you to note that reliable sources (the better dictionaries) NEVER state that "song" ONLY means "that which is sung". If the latter then I assure you the dictionary entries I have referred you to are both existent and reliable and that you need on;y look to verify.168.103.124.101 (talk) 07:28, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning an edit dispute

As I mentioned in my edit summary, I reverted the insertion of unsourced content that contradicts the last sentence of the lead. As per WP:BURDEN: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. You may remove any material lacking a reliable source that directly supports it. This is why the added information is being reverted. Is there a reliable source that backs up this information being added? - SudoGhost 07:08, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Definition of Song:

Poetry put to music.--Maziarmafi (talk) 17:00, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What a song is...

I've never heard it referred to to be only a piece of music with vocals. Anybody I've ever talked to just uses it as a general term for uh... songs. Pieces of music? Shouldn't the common usage be mentioned in the lead? 98.145.12.124 (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Like Beethoven's 5th Song...

Like Beethoven's 5th Song... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.27 (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Birthday to SAI SREE

Italic text — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.204.47.119 (talk) 11:37, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Happy birthday 🎂 Alexis Bruce (talk) 14:23, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Instrumentals vs songs

Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music#Instrumentals vs songs, where I have raised some concerns about discrepancies in the way we deal with articles about instrumental recordings. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:40, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here it is 2016 and this issue still is unresolved. IMO a song involves vocalization (maybe not articulate, but at least a human voice). An instrumental is music that does not involve a human or human-like voice. With today's digital technology, I suppose it could be blurred, but when I play a guitar without singing, I don't call it a song. I call it an instrumental. --71.10.153.53 (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A song does not need vocals. A song is broadly speaking, colloquially speaking, any piece of music. Music in general, broadly speaking, is the process of using instruments (including voice) to make sounds that sound good. So the difference is merely that songs tend tend to be in a short format, but that can be extended longer in instrumental songs. --Skywalker8 (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)Skywalker8 2020[reply]
- A lot of laypeople call all music "songs." Someone might hear the beginning of Beethoven's Fifth Symphony and say "This song sounds familiar." People who study and perform music generally know better, and do not make this mistake. Not all music consists of songs; a symphony is certainly not a song, and neither is a concerto, a drum cadence, a bugle call, etc. A song is just one of the many forms of musical composition. Generally songs are sung. I can think of some possible exceptions. A song is arguably still a song if the singer is replaced by an instrument but the overall form of the song stays the same. And electronic popular music without lyric is sometimes referred to as "songs" though I think that there "track" is used about as often. If you are looking for a generic term that works for any piece of music, use "piece." Or for recorded music you could use "track." Baller McGee (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"歌" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect 歌. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 October 14#歌 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:31, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lyrics

Should I include lyrics in every song I edit? Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 07:00, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Kabelo Lesooana: no, lyrics should not be added to articles. See WP:NOTLYRICS for our policy on that. You can add them to Wikisource if the songs are in the public domain or are freely licensed, although most songs aren't. Woodroar (talk) 18:09, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Woodroar Thank You fellow Wikipedian Kabelo Lesooana (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Writing style

"This is often done at distinct and fixed pitches (melodies) using patterns of sound and silence." Really? Who wrote this garbage? It's like a teenager trying to sound smart and important. 62.205.114.180 (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEBOLD and feel free to improve that, if anything. Brandmeister^talk 10:51, 20 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]