Hello all.Could some one please give me the definitions of:composition\piece\arrangement\work\song.Or could someone give me the link here where I could look them up.I'm sorry,but I have searched these forums and have not been able to find them already discussed.Thank you.

"Arrangement - The selection and adaptation of a composition or parts of a composition to instruments for which it was not originally designed or for some other use for which it was not at first written." (http://www.music.vt.edu/musicdictionary/)

They all mean essentially the same thing--they all mean "piece," or "song"--with the following distinctions. You would generally use the word "composition" when emphasizing the creative or structural elements of a song or piece. "Piece" generally refers to a classical composition, as distinct from a popular, rock, or country "song." And since jazz has now achieved almost the status of "classical" music, jazz compositions are referred to as "pieces" rather than "songs."

The word "arrangement" generally means a later adaptation of an original piece or song, for example, for different instrument than what it was intended for.

"Work" is a rather highfalutin word for song or piece. You'd hear this a lot in academic circles.

"Song" generally refers to popular, rock, or country compositions, as distinct from classical pieces. But in the final analysis, all five words basically mean "song."

Nicely put Gyro. I'd just like add that many of us take vehement exception to calling an instrumental piece of classical music a "song" because songs are sung.
Within the popular music genre, the term "song" has become synomymous with any piece of music, (even Itunes uses it,) but for me, the inaccuracy of calling instrumental music a "song" is a neverending source of irritation. (Yes, I know about Mendelssohn's "Songs Without Words.) Sorry, it's just a pet peeve of mine.

That last sentence isn't true. A 'song' is specific type of composition (as the first sentence states and as per gooddog's explanation), and the other terms also refer to compositions. The most general term that encompasses all the others is composition, not 'song'.

We could argue the semantics of definitions all day.

Or simply use a dictionary and accept the common usages:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/

Classical or not, a song is a song. Whether strummed, hummed , sung,
by voice, instrument, bird, insect ...
A song doesn't need to have words.
A song is a song is music...

Cheers!

In classical music, not all compositions are songs.

Many composers did write songs, though, besides other non-vocal types of compositions -- for example, Chopin's 19 songs amongst amidst 200+ other kinds of pieces. Mixing them up by calling them all 'songs' would lead to confusion, while limiting the use of 'song' to its established meaning avoids confusion.

Nope. Allowing generalized, sweeping labels to creep into the vernacular compromises accurate communication and dilutes the richness of our language. If we lose the nuance and shades of meaning available to us, we might as well go back to grunting. A song is vocalized. Period.

I will not start an argument. I will no start an argument. I will not start an argument. I will not...

The English language has been around for a long time now and, if the degradation you're afraid of really happened, we _would_ be grunting by now.

I think, for better or worse, the 'song' battle is lost. Time to find new battles that we might actually win.

I don't believe any 'battle' exists in classical music, where song has a specific meaning. It doesn't encompass non-vocal classical music, and there's no controversy about that ... except among people who don't understand the usage or who choose to reject it.

Would Germans (whether high-brow or low-brow) countenance calling all pieces of music 'Lieder'? Or the French doing the same with 'chansons'? I think not. So why do we (I refer principally to North Americans here, as the British don't tend to use the word in this manner) use 'songs' to refer to all pieces of music, whether sung or not? (BTW, 'sing' is derived from 'song').

Because they're different languages?

Here's my take on this:

1. The vast majority of popular music is vocal. Therefore, it makes sense that there would be few words in the popular music world to distinguish among different types of non-vocal music. Everything is called a "song", because there's rarely any need for any other word. Therefore, using "song" to refer to an instrumental work is not confusing, because it's the only word that really has wide-spread relevance, and everybody knows that it refers broadly to any piece of music.

2. In the classical music world, there are dozens of different types of compositions. There are songs, sonatas, symphonies, quartets, quintets, sextets, octets, preludes, polonaises, suites, souvenirs, concertos, and many more. Even among vocal works, we distinguish among operas, choral works, vocalises, and songs. Therefore, by necessity, we have many words for different types of compositions. We have to, because there are just so many different forms to distinguish among, far more than exist in popular music.

3. It's like the common question: why do Eskimos have so many words for snow, but we only have one in English? Someone just explained to me that of course Eskimos have many words for snow, because their lives are centered around snow. They spend so much time in snow, doing things with snow, building things with snow, navigating through snow, that they have to know how to distinguish different types of snow in order to survive. Thus, they developed complex language to describe the different kinds of snow that they deal with. But in Texas or Arizona, how much snow does one get? What variety of snow does one get there, and why does it matter? Our lives aren't dependent on snow in the same way, so we don't have any need to distinguish. The same thing is true with music, which is basically what I tried to explain above. There's no need for eskimos to look down on Americans just because we call all snow "snow", just as there's no reason for Americans to call Eskimos highfalutin or arrogant for using many different words to distinguish one type of snow from another. There's no need for classical musicians to look down on popular musicians for having just one word for music ("song"), just as there's no reason for popular musicians to look down on classical musicians for having many words. It's all a matter of relevance and necessity.

In connection with that, "song" is also what English-speaking preschoolers have tended to use for any music, while their vocabulary is still in its infancy. So we might come to the conclusion that, as is true of so much of the rest of the culture, the use of "song" is part of an overall infantalization that is taking place.

I don't disagree with your basic point, but, by the way, the Eskimo snow thing is a myth: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eskimo_words_for_snow

(There's also a classic book of essays called The Great Eskimo Vocabulary Hoax.)

-J

Woops! Thanks for pointing that out. That's very interesting. One of the articles linked in wiki listed over 40 English words for snow, to show that not only do the "Eskimos" not have hundreds of words for it, but that we English speakers have many more than claimed!

There is a counter-culture in the English speaking word that very much disapproves of the use of precise terminology and the attitude has very much spread into mainstream thinking. It is now considered embarrassing to speak with correct grammar - for example, now you actually have to finish your sentence with a preposition, even if you were taught otherwise, because it will attract commentary and criticism of being snobbish if you do it the "correct" way. Eg. It's expected you would say, "who did you go with?" rather than, "with whom did you go?". I think "song" has become the safe word in modern society so as to avoid the accusation of snobbery that you might get if you used the word, "piece", "work" or even more precise terms.

So, I don' think it's intentional dumbing down or infantilisation, but a form of - peer-pressure that leads people to simplify their language. It is a great shame because without precision we spend a good deal more time either misunderstanding each other or spend longer trying to get to the point.

There is also a strong "cool" factor in the English speaking world. There are people out there actively trying to invent new terms every day to give themselves street-cred and notoriety. Especially in the Rap music culture. Snoop Dog for example makes up words all the time and is revered by his followers as some kind of hero. This applies to spelling as well. Language is not just about communication anymore, it's fashion and class-distinction.

I don't like it, but it's here to stay.

composition , the act of creating a piece of art. Thats it. The genre is irrelevant, the medium is irrelevant.

Jay Z whether you like it or not is a composer. I know the term is more used to describe those that deal with the more traditional side of things such as using an orchestra and so on but there really is no way to draw the line.

Interestingly, pop culture tends to use a more specific word than classical culture: song-writer. Here in the classical world, we tend to refer to Schubert as a "composer of songs", not as a "song-writer". These words have strong connotations in the English language. "Composer" connotes "classical" -- "Song-writer" connotes "popular" -- for better or for worse.

what about DeadMaut5 , a well known EDM artist

making electronic dance music with no words.

not a song writer but his music has definitely crossed the pop barrier.
most would say producer but that has other implications that don't really capture what the artist is doing.

the point is that you can't with any logic draw the line as to what composer entails. It really is the creation of art. What ever art that may be. You are a composer. A good composer ? that is another thing.

If composer conotates classical music, then there are no composers alive unless they are just rehashing what has already been done. In that case i think the term redundant would suffice instead of composer.

I agree that the lines are blurry; that's why the discussion is so common and interesting. Some pop artists do refer to themselves as composers. But that doesn't mean there aren't general connotations.

I think the amount of embarrassment derived is in direct proportion to the comfort in which you say it.

To nit-pick the nit-picking, ending one's sentence with a preposition is perfectly correct grammar in both formal and informal English; the fact that the same construction is nonsensical in Latin is irrelevant.

Calling all types of music "song" is like calling all types of food "sandwich"; if you really do eat only sandwiches, then it works out fine.

I agree with BadOrange really... What if one is using loops, or premade stuff to create music? The creation IS there... Perhaps it might not seem as creative as coming up with a new symphony, but it's still composition...

But I will admit that a few DJs that I've spoken to were quite timid of me and all admitted that they don't feel like 'true composers', to which I replied that since they're creating music, regardless the tools or the medium they're all equally composing! (plus I've done some very nice things with loops, so...)

Very nicely put.

Glad to see you posting again.

-J

Somebody who builds a watch by machining each part from raw metal, and somebody else who builds another watch from spare parts he has found, are both watchmakers - just different kinds of watchmakers, I guess.

Yes, it is, but my point was that people who use the older form tend to get looked at strangely these days if it's used in casual conversation. It's ok in a speech though. I have found that I have to adopt a different set of language conventions based on the different circles I associate with (yes, preposition at the end, I know!). It's not my preference to do that, it's more to put others at ease because I see the unease in some people when they hear educated language. The preposition thing is not problematic in itself because it doesn't reduce the precision in language. I only raised that as an example of the peer-pressure aspect of language evolution. It's the situations when descriptive words are lost to the general vernacular that it becomes disturbing. "Song" is a perfect example of this. It creates a lot of redundancy if precision is required. "Song in a sort of old classical style with 4 violin type instruments" is as good as you'll get from most teenagers these days. "Baroque String Quartet" uses a lot less letters and still has more precision. I'm not that interested in formal styling, but I am interested in descriptive precision.