I actually really enjoy this little hommage à Chopin.

I live on the edge.

We admire risk takers. Go for it !!

I believe I'm correct in saying that usage eventually determines meaning. Anyone who is around people 25 years old or less knows that for virtually everyone in that group "song" means any musical composition whether sung or not. If it is already not defined that way in some dictionaries I have little doubt that within a few years it will be.

Maybe someone will correct me, but I believe 'song' as a generic word for any musical composition only came into general use when MP3 players (which can only record 'songs', even if you load it with a 90 minute Mahler Symphony) came into general use, replacing the Walkmans that preceded them, because that's what the LCD display says, and as we know, computers are never wrong.....

I certainly don't remember anyone around me (not even teenagers) calling non-vocal music 'songs' before then.

Not even for Für Elise......

I can't help agreeing with you.

I agree totally. While I'm with those who would sort of like "song" to be reserved for how we use it, we're fighting a losing battle. And really, there isn't much point to the battle. I think if anything, we should be glad that more and more people, including those not more heavily immersed in classical music training, are interested in classical music, including to the point of participating in a forum such as this. And language evolves. I'm sure there are hundreds of words and phrases that all of us pedants use, without a second thought, which were originally 'misuses.'

Speaking of which, there's another current 'misuse' which I would bet 99% of us pedants now use without a second thought, which bothers me a lot more than this song thing. In fact, I might even be the only one who considers it a misuse but that's my story and I'm sticking to it:

"Shipping," when no boat is involved.
I cringe a little every time I see the term. I call it "delivery." How it got to be "shipping," I don't know. But it is what it is.

I'm happy to correct you.

We called them "songs" when I was growing up, in the '50's, and I continued doing it into the early '60's.

In fact, my first teacher did it, even though she was a formal type -- probably not because that was her usual way of doing it but to use the same vocabulary that her kid students used. There did come a time when she started getting on my case for saying "song."

But "delivery" is wrong, too, because it refers only to the act of actually turning the product over to the recipient, and not the actual process of transporting the product.

(Logistics people hate the term "delivery" where it means "transportation". Almost as much as classical people hate the term "song" when it replaces "piece" or "work". Although technically, "piece" would be wrong, too, because it would indicate that the thing itself is part of a whole. And "work" would be wrong, because the physical labor has already been done. What you have is not the "work" but the "product". See how futile this all gets?)

Then you'll love this use: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shipping_(fandom)

This term is actually used, vigorously and passionately, by certain kinds of people.

-J

Allow me. You're wrong. People, kids in particular, have been doing it all my life which unfortunately predates mp3s.

Ah, I'd always suspected I live on a different planet.

My suspicions are happily confirmed.....

"Delivery" doesn't exactly also mean transporting??

Huh......I guess you're right!
(Nice get!!)

That's one that I had gotten so used-to that it never occurred to me that it didn't mean literally what I thought.

So, from now on I'm going to insist on "transporting."

Until Derulux points out that it's not "transporting" unless PORTS are involved.


Ha!!
(Didn't know that one!)

It must be the same planet that I live on, because I had never heard "song" used in the context we are discussing until only a few years ago. None of the students I studied with over the years ever said "song" unless they meant "song."

Before you rush to remind me what a backward country Canada is when it comes to "hip" culture, let me remind you that I lived in the US from 1969 to 2005, and only began hearing "song" for "composition" (et al.) in the late 90's.

Regards,

We must both be living on Alpha Centauri Bb (or is that B flat?). Great to meet a fellow Centaurian.......

Hahaha you got to "ports" faster than I did, actually. If you hadn't said it, I might not have even made the connection.

To the wiki link.. that is both hilarious and disturbing at the same time.

Yes the rising 16ths. The very first chord I play with 4-1 in the left hand and 2 in the right, then play the rest with single notes in the left and double in the right.



I was being waggish, but hey, why not take it apart note by note?

Damn! I thought I was the only person ever to discover and use that trick (well,okay, doubtless it didn't escape the likes of Busoni and Friedman!). Cat's out of the bag now, well and true. No more gasps of admiration over my apparent faultless ease here... will just have to find something else to fake equally impressively.

Thank you for being so jocular, and for letting me down easy.

I tried to follow the progression of your fingering. LH, assuming 14-3 2132 1? RH, same as me (below), except for the distribution of the "E" on the first chord? This is what I use:

LH: standard chromatic (31 3213 1)
RH: 12-13 24-15-24-15 24


EDIT: And thank you. Because of this question, I went back and read through the piece in its entirety. Haven't touched it in at least four years, but it was manageable and enjoyable.

Well, "delivery" suits me just fine. Believe it or not, the idea of someone handing over a product I've ordered and taken it for granted would be transported to me, is exactly what I anticipate and intend to transpire on ordering it. And, moreover, I seriously believe my delivery address to be the place where that is most likely to transpire. Call me nuts or what?

What's the point of giving a shipping address, I ask. How the heck do I know what the ship's address is (er, "no fixed abode", "moved away", perhaps?)?

Likewise "transportation" address, except that would be even vaguer. At least your ship's address is likely to be somewhere on the seven seas. No such clues where the latter term is concerned.

Call me cranky, but I genuinely maintain it's helpful to use words that convey to others exactly what's meant, especially when they're trying to do something on my behalf.

Exactly!

RH: 2---13---24---15---24---15---24
LH: 41----3----2----1----3----2----1

So, you'll hand a package to someone and say, "Delivery this for me"?

The term, "shipper" is extremely accurate. It means, "a person who ships goods or makes shipments."

However, the legal terms usually applied are "consignor" and "consignee". The logistics industry uses these terms interchangeably with "shipper" and "receiver". (I actually happen to have about a decade of experience in this particular industry.)

No, not unless you used a boat.
(And perhaps a radio.)

But seriously folks....that's interesting.

Although I'm sure there's someone who's sitting there disagreeing and still not getting a word of it.

I find this digression interesting too! I will read Jason's Wiki link later today.

My view is that "ship" is seen by some as a generic term for "transportation vessel". Thus what is casually called a ship could be described more specifically as a seaship; hot-air balloons, zeppelins, and planes are different forms of airship; Armstrong et al traveled in a rocket ship (or rocketship) in 1969, which could also reasonably be called a moonship; and in science fiction it is natural to travel to the stars in a starship. In short, if we view ships as not limited to vessels that travel across the sea, the modern usage is logical and sensible.

I do remember it being used that way, prior to the age of iTunes, for very small children and others who might not be expected to be able make the distinction, or didn't have the working vocabulary to express it.

Actually, I first ran into the current form of misuse quite a while before it was popularized, way back in the 1980s. It turned up as part of the verbiage used to describe MIDI, maybe because the nerds responsible for creating that protocol didn't really care all that much about the linguistic aspect of what they were doing (but I don't know that for a fact). My old Yamaha SY77 synth even calls its MIDI recording mode "song mode".

I don't know how long synths and digitals have been around for (I never took any notice of them until three years ago, when I, er, bought one....), but maybe they started the rot, rather than iPods and the like .

It annoys me no end that when I record myself on my digital, it insists on calling it a 'Song' - though there's no way I can record myself singing Schubert while playing the piano part. Though my digital is the most customizable on the (current) planet, that doesn't extend to allowing its user to correct its inappropriate use of English..... .

We must find the culprit and make them pay!

I know that this topic is old, but

Having listened dozens of renditions, live, from CD's and on youtube I must say that:
- technically this is very demanding piece, and there are many of horrible places like octaves in the middle section
- there's dozens of recording on youtube, when people play it and you clearly can hear that this STATE OF THE ART PIANO MUSIC PIECE is immensly hard to play, both technically and musically even worse.

It's based on polish dance calles polonaise as you know, with the base rythm.

just listen to Blechacz - this is how this piece should be played
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m0olrJAmX60

Perfect tone, style and tempo.
Non plus ultra? Perhaps.

I can also play the firt and second pages. They are easy compared to rest

Edit few hours later:
SAMSON FRANCOIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ylB7TORrH4 - how is he doing this? It's immense.