Just wondered.....

I'm currently learning a transcription of a song.

So is a transcription of a song a "piece" or still a "song"?

A song is defined as a piece of music with lyrics accompanied or unaccompanied.

"lyrics"

So I guess humming along at the same time doesn't count?

To put it in a nutshell, a song is a musical piece with words(lyrics) and a piece is without lyrics.

Who mandated this rule? Is there a musical bill of rights?

Another stupid rule: You can only "sight read" a score one time.

If anybody say about himself or herself im a good sight reader then he or she have to sight read any piece of music in one time.

It's not a rule. It's a definition. "Song" comes from "sing".

"Song" is fine. Jazzers often say song or tune.

It's not a rule. It's a definition. "Song" comes from "sing". [/quote]

Yes the two English words are related. Does anyone know how this plays out in other languages, Spanish, or Chinese? Is English unique in making this distinction?



A common definition is "music that you could sing, or music written in that form". Even if you don't actually sing it or if there are no words.

But the rule is not 100% and there are many exceptions

Although the pieceniks may disagree I think it's fine to use the two words interchangeably - to me piece sounds kind of nondescript.

Just my 2 cents...

I usually refer to compositions that never had lyrics, say a Chopin Nocturne for example, as pieces.

But if you were to play Imagine by John Lennon on the piano without singing along I'd still call it a song.

So if I hear someone playing Piano Man by Billy Joel I'm not going to tell them they played that piece well, I'm going to tell them they played that song well.

Bottom line, it's a piece when speaking to other musicians. It's a song to everyone else. This way you don't end up looking like a tool!

Well as long as you don't attempt to correct anyone.



You are right there should be a more clear distinction between reading/playing at first sight, and playing from the notes on the sheet without memorizing too much or anything at all.

I don't know the formal definition of piece versus song. Words change their meaning over time since language is alive and even the dictionary people have to update their dictionary from time to time. To me a song is short piece of music, often 5 minutes or less, often with lyrics, but not always, some times just lyrical. When the music gets long it's not a song even if singing is involved. Also, some short music just aren't songs like the theme of Star Wars or Indiana Jones even though people still say theme song.

I think lots of beginner's music are mistakenly called songs because they are so short, often 20 to 40 seconds long when performed. Even a sonatina is really short, but they are definitely not songs.

My car displays the music I'm playing in Artists/Song format as in Artist: Karajan / Song: Beethoven Symphony #9. I don't know, does it matter? There's definitely singing in that one.

I agree, while it's obviously useful to use dictionaries etc prescriptively - so we all more-or-less understand each other, they do in fact describe - they reflect the evolution of language as it changes in the wild...

We've had this discussion before and some people said that didn't apply to single words, but I don't see why not. Helped along by a hundred million iPods and other contexts that need a short one-word generalisation, piece will slowly but surely become song as the 'piece' advocates die out. Which I think is great because like somebody else said, piece is such a boring word - toast and Scriabin's creations called the same thing - it's just not right

Many tend to describe a 'song' as a melody or a metrical composition that is sung with lyrics, because technically 'song' means 'to sing.' While a 'piece' is referred to as musical composition, not necessarily having any lyrics.

But it is common for people, experienced in music or not, to refer any aural composition as a 'song.' It seems the two have blended together so much that their meanings are practically the same. I suppose it depends on how anal you want to be when describing your work.

In Polish, the word for "song" (piosenka) is not even remotely similar to the word for "sing" (śpiewać). Also, the piece/song confusion does not exist because there is a good and short word, utwór, which means "musical piece or composition" (it may be also literary, but that is typically obvious from the context).

So I think the root of the problem is that in absence of a specific, short, and not very formal word in English, many people whose only exposure to music is pop/rock where virtually all compositions are songs, make a false generalization that all music are songs.

Which, as mentioned by 4evr88, is seen also in the user interface of MP3 players etc. where a symphony movement would be referred to as a "song" and the whole symphony as an "album".

BTW, I have a publication with the following title: Franco Concina, "Easy Piano Classical Anthology. 43 all time classical songs arranged for easy piano".

Needless to say, not even one piece has lyrics.

What's wrong with tune or melody? There are plenty of general terms for music in the English language why insist on using one word with a specific meaning incorrectly?

Jingle , ditty, air, music, piece of music?

Or why not try being more specific? I'm learning a new piano concerto, or TV theme/folk tune/film score/nursery rhyme/carol/mazurka/rag........

Taking BazC's point a little further, the use of the word "song" to denote any "piece" of music is simply lazy, an unwillingness to learn the appropriate language for what we are trying to describe. IT-speak (and I write as someone with a long history in IT) leads Windows Media Player to label all music as "songs." So would any of us call Fidelio a "song", or even a series of songs? After all, it is "sung." We have a more precise word: opera. (And yes, having failed Latin twice I nevertheless do know that to the Latin scholar "opera" is plural and that Fidelio is an "opus." The musical world long decided not to follow Latin grammar strictly, using "opus" for any type of composition, "opera" for works like, well, Fidelio, as opposed to "oratorio" for works like Messiah)
So, as a pianist, I play sonatas, nocturnes, preludes etc (even Songs without Words - a nicely precise title by a composer who maintained that music is more precise than language).
I listen to symphonies, concertos etc and, yes, songs.
There is nothing pedantic about using the right term for what we want to communicate. Using the most precise terminology available helps to understand and be understood.
If we choose to be vague, our choice, then let us not be surprised at being misunderstood.

I don't think it's anal to want to be accurate. I accept that people will call pieces songs even when they're not, but I'd still like to be able to say "I really love this song by Schubert" without having to add "I mean a piece for voice and piano, not a piano piece as you might think if you're used to calling everything a song."

Maybe there's a better word than piece for a general description of "some music", but I don't think song is it. If you were a poet would you mind if people read one of your poems and said "that was a good novel" ? That's how describing a Beethoven sonata as a song sounds to me.

As I said, I accept that language changes. I just don't have to accept this particular example of it without a fight.

Some random thoughts...

A piece is a musical work. In common usage they are the same thing.

Piece subsumes song, i.e., every song is a piece, but not every piece is a song.

Humming or singing nonsense syllables to an instrumental piece doesn't make it a song.

Every song has lyrics. Playing a song as an instrumental doesn't change it's status as a song - nor does humming it's lyrics.

A "Song without Words" is a contradiction in terms.

Adding lyrics to an entire instrumental piece creates a song.

Adding lyrics to part of an instrumental piece creates a new musical work which is a song, but doesn't change the original status of the work as a piece.

Singing a song a capella doesn't change it's status as a song.

A song without composed music is a poem.

Poems set to music become songs.

A song with the music as all the same note is still a song.

End of random thought. For now...

JF

A musical work without lyrics is a piece until you know it will secretly irritate the person you are speaking with...then it becomes a song.

Song without words a contradiction? Swingle singers? What about all the "la la la" choruses? Does the "piece" of music become a song in parts and something else in other parts when it has words for the verses and sounds for the chorus? If they are not songs, what are they?

Have to admit, in all my life, I had never heard a piece of instrumental music, referred to as a 'song' until I posted some music on the internet.

The song thing, kind of grates with me, purely because I am not used to it.

But if someone wants to say "I love your songs", I am not going to come over all pedantic with them, and simply accept the compliment as it was intended :-)

But then again...........if someone said "I hate your songs"...........

It's not a matter of rules. It's a matter of definitions.
You can play a piece as many times as you want with a score. There's no law (musical or otherwise) against that. However, the second time you play something you are - by definition - not sightreading it.

Song - by definition - includes singing. To call a piece of music without singing - like a Chopin prelude, or Mozart sonata - a song is just not correct.

Some people get bent out of shape about people using the word "song" when their talking about musical compositions. I don't. It doesn't matter to me, but I think of the people using the wrong word a little differently (more ignorant). Sorry, but that's how I view it. Use whatever words you want -no problem with me - but expect to be viewed accordingly. That's life.

The confusion about sightreading is more important, IMO, because there are a lot of threads where people ask for advice on either reading music, or sightreading. A lot of advice in these threads I've read over the years here have been erroneous because people have mistakenly defined sightreading as any note reading.

In spanish it's the same. A song (Canción) is a musical composition for the human voice (commonly accompanied by other musical instruments) and with lyrics.
The word “canción” (song) is related to the word “cantar” (sing)
"Song" can only be used to describe a composition for the human voice.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines the word to mean "that which is sung"
The Real Academia Española (Spanish Royal Academy) says the same.

Regards.

Well put.

I don’t think the definition of song is at all clear-cut.

Nor is every 'song' necessarily a 'piece' (ie, involving musical accompaniment). My edition of The Concise Oxford gives 6 definitions for song - #5 is “a short poem in rhymed stanzas.” Blake’s Songs of Innocence and Songs of Experience might be an example.

Also, what about a capella? And scat singing? I found a clip of "Mumbles" from "Oscar Peterson's Finest Hour" - the clip is only a few seconds, but Clark Terry's "vocalizing" continues through the whole tune. Is it a song?? He’s not using words, but it’s vocal, & the syllables suggest words.

I quite often “sing” a melody in syllables, rather than hum it, & my teacher does it a lot, especially if she’s trying to explain timing and/or dynamics of a ‘piece’.

Just my 2-cents worth...

In Greek 'song' is τραγούδι while sing is τραγουδώ, which is almost identical (if you can read the characters).

Song for me has the meaning of someone using their mouth to produce sounds. Most usually it's with lyrics, but humming will do. If someone plays the piano/violin/something then they are playing a "piece".

Incidently I don't like the word "piece" either. It feels like it's a 'piece of something' and I hate this connection in my head. I usually talk about my pieces in terms of 'works' or even 'scores'. Academics seem to agree with me (in the sense that they've not corrected this tendency of mine), but can't be 100% certain it's correct and my dislike of 'piece' (and even more of 'song') is valid or just personal.

This is truly a fascinating discussion and almost Socratic in it's nature. Here's a thought; Would it have been better for Keith Jarrett to title his wonderful "composition" "My Piece" instead of "My Song?" Is he implying by the title that the music represents feelings and emotions equivalent to words that are unexpressed? I certainly wouldn't call it a song. It's not epic in length as in some of his other great "pieces" but it is very complex and each theme is explored extensively. I'd call it a piece. Of course this is mostly playful banter on a beautifu, warm, sunny day in New England.

Andy