Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Black Note Etude

Oh, but you did. Your turn to reread:

"...will have the same response as a History of Music..."

:p

Hey holystorm, look what you started. Do you have any more "innocent questions"

*laughs* Damn, I even reread it before I posted to see if I actually had used the word. Nice one.

Funny how a recent thread on the Piano Forum seems to imply that here in Pianist Corner posters do not engage in argument for argument's sake ...

Let me volunteer:

song, n.
1. The act or art of singing; the result or effect of this, vocal music; that which is sung (in general or collective sense); occas., poetry.
2. a. A metrical composition adapted for singing, esp. one in rime and having a regular verse-form; occas., a poem.
b. the Song of Solomon, Song of Songs, one of the books of the Old Testament.
c. Naut. the call of soundings by the leadsman in the channels.
d. Mus. A musical setting or composition adapted for singing or suggestive of a song. song without words, an instrumental composition in the style of a song (after Mendelssohn's title ‘Lieder ohne Worte’); also transf.
e. transf. A sound as of singing.

educated, ppl. a. (and n.)
a. That has received education, mental or physical; instructed, trained, etc.; see the vb. Often with an adverb prefixed, as half-, over-, well-. Phr. educated guess, a guess based upon a background of experience of the matter in hand.
b. transf. Carefully tended, trained into shape.

educate, v. trans. or absol.
1. To rear, bring up (children, animals) by supply of food and attention to physical wants. Obs.
2. a. To bring up (young persons) from childhood, so as to form (their) habits, manners, intellectual and physical aptitudes.
b. To instruct, provide schooling for (young persons).
3. To train (any person) so as to develop the intellectual and moral powers generally.
4. a. To train, discipline (a person, a class of persons, a particular mental or physical faculty or organ), so as to develop some special aptitude, taste, or disposition. Const. to, also inf.
b. To train (animals).

Praeterea censeo, ad maiorem subtilitatem colendam, disputam lingua latina tantum continuandam esse. :rolleyes:

You've forgotten:

Song
1. A Chinese dynasty (960-1279). Under its rule China achieved one of its highest levels of culture and prosperity.
2. A distinctive or characteristic sound
3. (idiom) At a low price: bought the antique tray for a song. (See also: "a very small sum")

Now, argumentatively, your item #2 is fairly close to mine, but the choice of language in the words I referenced lends a distinct quality to our discussion... at least, for most music, far more than the Chinese dynasty.

the melody of the black key etude can be sung, for it is in the bass line. however, a song is derived from the word sing.

according to Websters dictionary:

Sing - 1. to utter a series of words or sounds in musical tones. 2. to render in tones with musical inflections of the voice. 3. to proclaim or extol, especially in verse.

Just a thought.

Everyone is pulling out their dictionaries.

If it was as simple as looking it up in the dictionary, then there wouldn't be a 3-page discussion (which, incidentally, includes at least half a dozen people quoting dictionary definitions of 'song' and 'sing')


The question isn't, what does the dictionary say. The question is, how do people (not dictionaries) use the word 'song' in reference to music for solo piano, and is this an appropriate synonym? The other question is, how do people (not dictionaries) use the word 'sing' in reference to piano playing, and is this an appropriate analogy?


Dictionaries are irrelevant. (especially now that probably a dozen people have given us dictionary definitions that we already knew anyways)

(especially now that probably a dozen people have given us dictionary definitions that we already knew anyways)
Ok, you sooo did not know about the Chinese Dynasty... :p

Sam: Define 'people' .

Just out of interest, how many (ignorant) people have to (mis)use a word before their error becomes so widespread that it is accepted as a common usage alternative?

Then at what point does the (previously) erroneous usage become predominant, and the former definition get relegated to the classes of obsolete/archaic?[1]

I think you will find that certain contributors to this thread did not just quote from dictionaries, but did indeed refer to what is common usage, i.e. the generally accepted definition, as used by people. But just because certain people use a certain word or construction, it doesn't make it elegant or acceptable to (the majority) of others

- Michael B.
[1] The (mis)usage of the word 'song' does nothing to add any further nuance or shade of meaning to the language[2]; quite the opposite in fact. It is merely mp3 tag jargon for describing a computer file, and by extension anything contain in it. The English language would be poorer for it being adopted wholesale... IMNSHO
[2] It has nothing to do with the relative cantabile characteristics of any piano piece; the idea of a piano 'singing' is an irrelevance and distraction from the main point of discussion.

Just out of interest, how many (ignorant) people have to (mis)use a word before their error becomes so widespread that it is accepted as a common usage alternative?
A-wo-hun, a two-who, a three-eee. *crunch* Three.

Then at what point does the (previously) erroneous usage become predominant, and the former definition get relegated to the classes of obsolete/archaic?
When all the old people stop complaining about the "misuse" of a word that has a "new" use, or, perhaps more properly, when there are more young people yelling than old people.

It is merely mp3 tag jargon for describing a computer file, and by extension anything contain in it. The English language would be poorer for it being adopted wholesale... IMNSHO
Dunno what all them tag jargon letters stand for, but "song" was around WAY before the mp3 craze. Like, way...

the idea of a piano 'singing' is an irrelevance and distraction from the main point of discussion.
Actually, the MAIN point of discussion was supposed to have been teh Black Key etude....whoopsie!

You know, it's funny... more people are concerned about "song" versus "[insert random correct word here]" than "Black NOTE" versus "Black KEY", or the other far worse post I saw: "How is this [thing] called?" instead of "What is this [thing] called?" If anything, that last one is the greatest blaspheme of the English language than the "song" debate. So, again, I must roll my eyes to the "I'll take this argument to the grave because I'm right and it's a damn PIECE!" sayers who say nothing about other far worse blasphemes of the English language. If you're going to be picky, after all, be picky about EVERYTHING. Don't pick one little word that, in the community may be correct or incorrect, and then claim to be an expert on the language. :rolleyes:

Thanks for answering my questions .

"song" was around WAY before the mp3 craze. Like, way...
Not in my experience. As I mentioned before, I had never heard it used in such a way during 30 years of British music-making, some of which was (shock, horror!) with visiting Americans... Regarding the other solecisms you mention, I had assumed that people who asked questions such as "How is this *** called?" are not native speakers, as such constructions so clearly reflect French/German/Spanish/etc usage. As I wrote before, I don't think it fair to leap heavily upon the errors of non-native speakers. I contribute to a few French-language forums (and indeed work in French, written and spoken, 8-10 hours per day), and of course, as a non-native speaker I make the odd grammatical or vocabulary mistake. However, this is not the same as being ignorant of one's mother tongue.

Don't pick one little word that, in the community may be correct or incorrect,
See above.

and then claim to be an expert on the language :rolleyes:
I do not claim to be an expert, but as a speaker/reader of a few foreign languages (and not all European either), I would claim to have some insight into the subject; indeed part of my Masters degree did include a 15'000 word study concerning speech errors [1].

- Michael B.
[1] This however was concerning the Arabic language and dealt mostly with the development of the Classical language and how it influenced the formulation of Islamic law up to the 14th century CE. So no pieces/songs, nor black notes/keys

As I wrote before, I don't think it fair to leap heavily upon the errors of non-native speakers.
I don't find it constructive to leap upon them, either. Interestingly enough, I also do not find it constructive to ignore mistakes of non-native speakers. They never learn the language that way.

This however was concerning the Arabic language and dealt mostly with the development of the Classical language and how it influenced the formulation of Islamic law up to the 14th century CE.
Is it written in English? (Can I read it?)

Derulux: Yep, all the Arabic examples were transliterated into Roman script. The last time I remember seeing my copy it was in a box in my parents' attic ~10 years ago, which was ~10 years after it was written[1] . I used my Arabic degree(s) for about 5 years after graduation (working for various Arabic publications in London), after which their importance faded, and French/German/Italian became more professionally useful again.

- Michael B.
[1] This was when the university had BBC Micro's plus green-only screens, and one had to store things on really floppy floppy disks. The electronic version is long lost...

Hmm... where do your parents live? :p


(I have an interest in mythology, language and history--the last two, in particular relation to the development of each culture's mythos.)