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.

I'm obviously the wrong generation to know about these things - but maybe the use of the word 'song' as a generic term for everything (including the kitchen sink) might be due to the advent of digital keyboards and pianos. The display on these things say 'song', whether it's a factory demo classical piece, or it's something you've played and recorded. (I only discovered this when I bought my DP last year, and it annoyed me no end that everything was a 'song' ).

Any comments from the younger sages out there?

Hip hop dj s and producers never claimed to be musicians, rather the opposite. I don t think Jay Z writes his music, he definitely didn t write the parts for his unplugged album (The roots did), and most his music is sampled from someone else's records ... and those who are not are ususally "produced" (i.e., written, in terms o hip hop vocabulary), by others ... So i dn t think it s fair to say he composes ...

It actually uses fewer letters, but the eroding distinction between 'less' and 'fewer' is another among many ways in which our language is evolving ... for better or worse.

It's true, though, that the conventions we choose can be manipulated at will by using different registers in writing as well as in speech. And I also agree that an oppositional culture of anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism perpetuates peer pressure not to sound educated or to use big words.

their claims don't really matter. They are clearly musicians. I think they are just tired of being labelled non musicians that they don't even bother trying to justify themself. A person making some sort of organized sound with a rock is a musician by definition.

And sampling, is harder than you think and does require a certain skillset. The traditional way to achieve this was via a turntable which can be viewed the instrument the performer being a dj.

You don't have to like it or feel they are equal to you but they are musicians. They are making music. I think John Cage cemented the sillyness of defining what is and what isn't a musician. You make music, you are a musician. period.

I always find it humorous when someone wants to sound intellectual and uses improper grammar. An example that I have heard more than once is, "Just between you and I."

As far as the word "song" goes. Romantic composers started naming some of their instrumental compositions "ballade" (ballad) or "romance" (love song). If the composers themselves are calling them songs then why get up in arms about others using that terminology?

First of all, because not every composer calls every composition a "ballade" or a "romance". People use the word "song" to refer to pieces of music that were not called "song" or "ballade" or "romance" by the composer.

Secondly, even those terms don't always imply a "song". "Ballade" can refer to a narrative poem or story -- and by analogy, to a piece of music that tries to tell a story. Same thing with "Romance", which can also refer to a book. ("Roman" means "novel" in both French and German.)

Finally, even if the pieces are being compared with songs (either because they tell a story, or because the melodies are very singable, or for other reasons), they are still instrumental works.

This could be, but then my question is: why does the display on such keyboards call everything a "song"? Why doesn't it say "composition", or "piece", or "recording", or some other word instead?

The same question can be asked about iTunes. Why does iTunes call everything a "song", instead of using some other more inclusive word?

I also hear this frequently, and it drives me crazy. Perhaps it shouldn't. I'm also bothered by the recent explosion in usage of comma splices. I was taught that comma splices are rarely acceptable in English; just this year I've started seeing them all over the place in both formal and informal e-mails, advertisements, blog posts, news, etc. The worst was when a friend's child came running up to him to show him how there was a grammar mistake in a book she was reading; there were two separate sentences, separated by a period, and she told him that they should have been separated by a comma instead. I almost hit the ceiling. Are kids being taught and encouraged now to use more comma splices?

[back to music... back to music... back to music...]

I notice that a lot, even in mainstream news broadcasts and from Harvard educated politicians. I wonder if they think it's politically incorrect to say "you and me".

My guess is that 'song' would have the advantage of brevity in a LCD display.

But then so would 'tune' -- a more logical choice, I would think, for iTunes given the obvious product tie-in. I dunno -- maybe they didn't want to be obvious?

Yeah, but then some classical snob would try to upload Chopin's Op. 25 No. 12, or some other such composition that isn't much of a "tune".

I'd say "track" is a better option for iTunes, since it's pretty standard to both classical and pop musicians to refer to "tracks" on a CD.

I agree that when useful words are dropped from the vocabulary and less-useful ones are used in their places it's a loss for everyone.

On the other hand, I view the use of "whom", careful avoidance of final prepositions, etc. as nothing more than a way of striving for social status. I suppose it depends from where you're.

"Track" is good, but only if you're talking about recordings - and of course people need to talk about live music occasionally, even today.

It would be nice to be able to create a new generic word for "single musical composition of any kind", to replace the over-use of the word "song". Too bad nobody who would do anything about it is listening.

First let me say that, while my tongue was not actually in my cheek it was creeping over my teeth to get there.

I do not know if "ballad" can refer to narrative prose but it would seem a very minor usage of it. Spoken word with meter (reciting poetry) would be considered by many to be singing. My high school French is now but a little pile of rust on the floor, but it was always my understanding that "romance", irrespective of its root, referred specifically to songs. Not that I ever refer to these pieces as songs. I am just trying to provide a little perspective.

I don't agree. When I was growing up, my mother was constantly correcting my grammar. She also pushed me to avoid talking with a heavy New York accent. Her motivation originated with her immigrant parents who wanted their children to become assimilated and educated. I reaped the benefits. Speaking and writing with correct grammar and a large vocabulary has helped me get jobs. It also gave me an advantage when I was working toward my graduate degree. I am perfectly comfortable using correct grammar because it is who I am. I pity the young adult who applies for a job saying all those "likes", "you knows", "sweets" and "dudes".

Please don't use song for reference to anything other than something with words that is sung. The other terms are fairly interchangeable, except for arrangement, which means what it implies: a piece not in its original form.

Gentle Reader: In the above-mention cases, you may use ballade or romance or piece or work or composition. But not song. A song has words and is sung (or arranged as an instrumental), unless it is by Mendelssohn as in Song without Words. In the latter case you may refer to it as Song without Words or the other aforementioned terms, but not as song.

True, Romantic composers began using more descriptive words for their compositions, their works, but they also wrote songs, pieces with words that were actually sung.

Consider the above only if you want to share a vocabulary with other musicians and be taken seriously.

"Social status?" Oh, no! I've lived too long. Language should be precise and can be colloquial, but speaking a beautiful language beautifully should not be put down as a negative. Please! Imagine your favorite Chopin nocturne played with wrong notes here and there. How jarring is that?

Piece: "single musical composition of any kind"

Much ado from pianists who all strive to make their instrument "SING" their pieces!!!

I do not refer to music as "songs" unless it is a "vocal work" but I do not correct others especially youngsters who are not likely to change their usage. It puts them down for very little lasting benefit really.

You have succeeded in making my point for me, and have provided a clear example. Your grandmother was keenly aware of the low social status that comes from speaking in a way that's perceived by others as improper, lower-class, or foreign, and felt that it was important for her children and grandchildren not to be burdened with that marker of low status. As you said, you have reaped the benefits - but the benefits have come from your efforts to eliminate low-status cues like accents and certain types of slang. Your intelligence, creativity, and hard work have never depended on your lack of regional accent or your vocabulary.

You are right, but my vocabulary, grammar and diminished regional accent made it easier to succeed in graduate school and enhanced my ability to find employment!

What's interesting to me is the fact that all three of my children, (ages 20 - 29), speak with correct grammar and do not fall into the repeated speech patterns of "like" and "you know" when speaking with adults, bosses, instructors, etc., but they have told me they deliberately slip into those patterns when the social situation calls for it. Unfortunately, the dominant form of communication among their peers employs lazy grammar, limited vocabulary, slang and "like." My nagging succeeded in making them aware of correct speech and the implications of speaking poorly. It also gave them a chameleon-like tool to use in certain social situations.

Please never try to play cantabile as you may get cramps from excess irony.

Regards,

Tara

Metaphor is not the same as equation.

Just because a piano piece has "orchestral" textures does not mean it is a symphony. Just because a piano piece has a "percussive" accompaniment does not mean it is a drum solo. Just because a piano piece has a "cantabile" melody does not mean it is a song.

Why?

Because the birds outside my window do not break into arrangements. The sound of a stream breaking over rocks is not a piece. Yes song is voice, but a voice may be anything musical.

Dead notes on paper are a piece, a composition, an arrangement. Once brought to life through voice, be that an orchestra, a piano or even pebbles tumbling down a country road after a pick-up - those notes are now song.

Precision has its place but sometimes the most precise use is the colloquial.

Imagine a romantic setting – the sun's waning rays warming an ebony piano. A young woman with limpid blue eye sits at the foot of a piano. She asks her love, “play an arrangement for me darling”.

Doesn't sound quite right does it? How about “play a piece for me darling”. Eh, that just sounds slightly obscene, yes? Because we all know he must play for her, what? A song.

First of all, I don't always strive to make my piano "sing" - I'm with Bartok on that point.

But youngsters who are interested in classical music need to know the correct usage, if for no other reason than that it remains the usage in classical music. That is, you don't (and I hope, won't) see a collection of Brahms shorter piano works with the title of "Collected Shorter Songs for Piano by Brahms".

And of course, the current usage isn't retroactive, so youngsters won't be seeing it when they read older writing about music.

Yes, in the rarefied atmosphere of learning I agree students must understand general terminology. However, "song" is the one word that represents the soul of an idea - the idea of music.

"Music" as a word simply sounds too harsh ("Play music for me" seems more a command than request.) "piece" is plagued by sketchy alternative meanings, "arrangement" is too dry and "composition" completely lifeless.

Song it must be. There is no acceptable substitute. Perhaps the experts should get together to create a new and beautiful sounding musical word. One that will keep the wordsmiths' hackles down while still conveying the magic of all song.

What does 'song' have over 'tune'?

The word "song" is short, so it fits well on the display. Your other examples could be confusing on a keyboard with multiple functions. "Piece" could also refer to a part of a sample. "composition" could be part of a sequencing function.

Also, Itunes doesn't call everything a song. It allows for movies and a few other things.

I am guessing here (a somewhat informed guess), but I think most of the current usage in keyboards, computers, and the internet is derived from usage in early sequencing programs and MIDI. It is probably traceable to a few poor decisions made by very few people. Researching it is probably possible, but time-consuming. The story might make for an interesting magazine article.

It's because the majority of these users are in fact interested in songs (contemporary, pop, etc.) and the technology grew out of that interest.

If you hum as you play are you playing a song or a piece?

Bech

Sorry to disagree, but one sings a song. Birds sing birdsong, darling asks her lover to "strum out a tune," or "play Melancholy Baby" or play a song, not meaning Op. 10, No. 1, unless she wants to ask for a Beethoven sonata.

I think you are caught up in the romantic notion described as being "on wings of song," which can be almost anything expressive, including poetry. You may certainly say you went to the symphony concert and enjoyed all the songs, but you won't be communicating.

I can assure you that them youngsters will understand older usages of musical terms when and if they get to read about them. If not, Google translate or a futuristic version thereof will translate from older English..

In the mean time, too much Bartok can hurt your ears*. Some cantabile will do you a world of good.

* I happen to have listened to Op. 14 today played by Bela himself. I had forgotten how interesting that piece is. Uncommon tonalities.

"Music" is a beautiful word. Prima la musica. An die Musik.

I suspect you are misusing the other terms.

You're probably playing Bach, ala Glenn Gould.

I'm looking forward to the concert I'm attending tonight of some nice songs. One of them is Rachmaninoff's 3rd Piano Concerto played by Denis Matsuev.

Or do I mean the trilogy of songs by Rachmaninoff?

Or 'Triptych' (to go high-brow)?

No, you're going to hear a *symphony*, of course!

(That's like "just between you and I". People think they're smart by calling anything played by an orchestra a "symphony"!)

Hello,

Not the first nor the last time I will be accused of misuse. At this point in my life it's become a natural hazard born of occupation to survey with wider boundaries than most. Music is indeed a beautiful word "inspired by the muse". Now exactly which muse are we discussing?

I entirely support consistent music theory using "song" as pertaining only to pieces involving human voice. It's song's informal use garnering grammatical complaint that reeks of affectation and misguided proof of esoteric knowledge.

As a music student I fully support proper definition and use in a learning environment. As a member of the general public I keep my mouth shut if someone nearby says they enjoyed "all the songs" where there were none.

I believe as a teacher you are correct for the right reasons in answering the original thread question.

I also believe those complaining about the use of song=any music being a no-excuses grammatical error need to, well...I believe the old saying is "Lighten up Francis".

Kind regards,

Tararex

Is it esoteric knowledge that there are different words for different kinds of music, other than "song"?

Tell an elementary school student that there are different words for music which is sung and music which is played on an instrument. They'll get it. Tell them that there's a difference between an opera (singing, orchestra, theater), a choral piece (just a choir), and a song (singer with a band). They'll get it. I did when I was that age. It's not esoteric.

Well, okay, here I am lightening up. But there's a difference between informal use and misuse. Misusing the word song is not a grammatical error. It's more akin to a malapropism. And that's all I have to say about it.

I fail to see why classical pianists are such fans of the word "piece." This has unpleasant connotations in English. Couldn't they have come up with better word?

Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

What's unpleasant about the word "piece"? It sounds fine to me.

"Piece of art"

"Piece of furniture"

"Piece of pizza"

"Piece of writing"

"Piece of technology"

"Piece of land"

"Piece of a puzzle"


The word "piece" is not limited to classical music; it is extremely common, in many different contexts, and it only rarely comes with negative connotations.

Every person who is a member of different social groups that have different language expectations possesses this chameleon-like tool - it doesn't come from any special effort on the part of their parents. The young people littering their job interviews with "like" and "you know" haven't yet become members of a social group that rejects those things, but they very quickly will - and with surprisingly little effort.

Every time I go back to my home town, I find myself speaking in my mother's accent. I never even knew it WAS an accent, until I moved and got a new one.

If it's a classical piece -- as opposed to, say, a piano arrangement of a pop song -- you're still playing a piece ... while humming a tune.