When is a song a song??

[Ryst]

I have met a lot of people who say they have "over 100 songs" they have written in a short amount of time. But I am curious, when is a song a song? It has taken me over 3 years to write 13 songs which equals about 80 minutes of music for my new record. I can't imagine being able to write over 100 songs. That blows my mind. Maybe it's the difference in genre. My music is experiment/ambient rock and most people I have talked to that have written a {censored}load of songs are in the singer/songwriter genre.

 

Any thoughts? How many songs have you written?

[blue2blue]

I've got about 150 songs with lyrics -- that I feel like I can put in front of people... there are a LOT of fragments or just plain crummy songs, too, that I keep salted away for rework, reinvention... jokes.* I've thrown back a lot of songs over the years. And some of the one's that stayed in my bag were a bit neglible, anyhow.

 

But I've been writing for decades. That's only about 5 finished songs a year on average. (That said, there were periods where I wrote a few songs a month and many other periods where I was lucky to get a song out every few months.)

 

 

FWIW... for me, any song is subject to spontaneous reinvention, usually through a new arrangement, even new chords or a recast melody. So a song, for me, is almost always some kind of work in progress. You know... until the big book closes...

 

 

[* - sample lyric frag from the fragment locker: "Well, she's shaped just like a blimp / but it hasn't been a good year for her..." You can see why stuff like that is in there and not generally out here.]

[Billster]

A song is a song when you say it is. It could be 30 seconds long, but if it's complete, it's complete.

 

I've got about fifteen 90 minute cassettes from the years 1986-1996 of all kinds of stuff. Some have been re-polished into my signature links There's another batch of stuff since 1996 that's reduced to tape on DAT, and now CD, and still more stuff that is yet to be recorded but is definitely written.

 

If my stack of cassettes averages four minute tunes, that's over 330 pieces right there. Of course, like Blue, not everything is for public consumption. Some of it is purely experimental, some is absurdist, some of it is really dated stylistically, so it wouldn't be really useful for my personal projects.

 

I think it would be kind of narcissistic or the height of hubris to collect those pieces into sets of 12 and inflict them as "albums" on an unsuspecting public. But it's mostly all good music. Something I've considered doing is going back into that catalog and re-recording them with modern sounds for the purpose of enrolling them in production music libraries - I could rule the Nature Channel documentary soundtracks

[the stranger]

I wonder though. That acoustic improv piece in my sig is about two minutes or so, but I wouldn't call it a song. It could be the seed for a song, but I think the word "song" implies some form of structure. Which is relative, but most genres do have structural guidelines. Free form jazz and stuff of that nature is hard to call songs. But if it is a "piece of music", than it may fit the "song" definition.

 

Like a story. Once upon a time there was a guy named Dick, who married this girl named Jane. They had a successful family and wonderful children. One day they went to the mall.

 

Is that a story?

[Mittens]

When it has singing.

[rasputin1963]

I'm vicious, and apply rigorous standards before I'll call something a song.

 

I need to see:

 

 

melody and melodic development

 

harmony and harmonic change

 

rhythm and rhythmic development

 

if lyrics are present, they must demonstrate some craft and style.

 

A beginning, a middle and an end.If those elements aren't present, I call it: a groove. a vignette. a loop. an experiment. a riff. Maybe even "a ditty", a chant, a rap, a tune, or a singsong, possibly an "air".

 

But not a Song, proper.

 

And if it's really on the ball, it will demonstrate:

 

 

Theme and Variations

 

Countermelody

 

Modal Modulation(s)

 

Excellent end rhyme and internal rhyme

 

Wordplay and rhetorical tropesBut all the digital wizadry in the world still, IMHO, cannot take the place of those first five criteria above. So shoot me.

[UstadKhanAli]

I'm vicious, and apply rigorous standards before I'll call something a song.

 

I need to see:

 

By these definitions, much of Brian Eno's stuff, experimental music, some dub, and a fair amount of indigenous music from around the world would not be considered songs.

 

Note that I'm not arguing with you, but simply pointing this out based on your definition. I say this because I personally don't have an exact definition of what a song is and am intrigued by what it might be.

[Ryst]

As of right now, I consider a song a song when I feel like I can share it with people. If it's not worth sharing, it's not a song to me. Right or wrong it's how I currently gauge my work. I have written a lot of stuff but haven't shared a lot of it because I don't think it's presentable. So to me, those aren't songs.

[Spin Cycle]

I'm pretty sure that at the time of his death, Frank Zappa had over 300 unfinished to nearly-finished pieces. That guy was a beast, though.

[Spin Cycle]

I'm vicious, and apply rigorous standards before I'll call something a song.

 

I need to see:

 

+1. I like your style.

[Billster]

 

If it's not worth sharing, it's not a song to me. ... I have written a lot of stuff but haven't shared a lot of it because I don't think it's presentable. So to me, those aren't songs.

 

 

There's different types of songs, and music for that matter.

 

Like I said in my earlier post, some music is personal. It may be cathartic just to do certain things with music, things that you do not need to share with the world at large, or even with your closest friends.

 

There's other stuff that is purely experimental, but that doesn't mean it isn't a song. There's things I've done that don't need to be inflicted on any other listener, but if I hadn't written them, I wouldn't have been able to write other stuff that I feel is extremely worthwhile for anyone to listen to.

 

Think of it as practice makes perfect. You don't need an audience to practice rudiments or rehearse songs on your instrument. But if you didn't practice in private you would never have the ability to perform in public.

[kurfu]

The definition of a word is not subject to one's opinion, it's meaning is fixed and found in any dictionary

 

song /s??, s??/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sawng, song] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

 

[Billster]

Kurfu, that's what a song is, not when a song is.

 

Please continue.

 

[kurfu]

 

 

A piece of music becomes a song when it fulfills one of the above quoted definitions.

 

 

End of thread.

[blue2blue]

That was fifteen minutes ago, Kurfu.

 

Language is not static. It's a living thing. A chaotic thing.

 

There is no "end of thread" when you're talking about language. (As long as there is anyone left to use language, anyhow. All things must pass.)

 

So, while your definition was entirely reasonable at some point in the past it's relevance today must be proven all over again... Same thing tomorrow.

 

Take it from me. I might have been an English major if I'd ever declared.

 

[kurfu]

That was fifteen minutes ago, Kurfu. Language is not static. It's a living thing. A chaotic thing. There is no "end of thread" when you're talking about language. (As long as there is anyone left to use language, anyhow. All things must pass.) So, while your definition was entirely reasonable at some point in the past it's relevance today must be proven all over again... Same thing tomorrow. Take it from me. I might have been an English major if I'd ever declared.

 

 

Dude, lay off the bong before lunch time.

 

The question is not about "language" the question refers to a "song" which is indeed a fixed (usually) and tangible thing.

 

The "End of thread" comment was tongue-in-cheek because I felt that I had supplied the final answer to the question that was asked in the subject line of this thread.

 

 

...and it's probably best that you didn't declare as an English major.

[Billster]

As long as we're challenging pedantry, I don't agree that a "song" requires words. Probably needs a melody, but definitely can be without words.

[UstadKhanAli]

Absolutely. The definitions being supplied are vocal-oriented, and I for one would challenge that, as many songs in Western and non-Western culture would not qualify as songs when in fact I believe that they are songs.

[tradivoro1]

Basically, it's all a matter of experience and technique... If you have great compositional technique, and a great understanding of music and lyrics, it's not that difficult to have hundreds of songs in your repertoire after a couple of years... And by songs, I mean either complete combinations of lyrics and music, or to satisfy the more obscure, complete pieces of music that can be played from beginning to end...

 

So, in time, if you really focus on the compositional process, you too will have over 100 songs written in time and you'll remember when having 13 songs was something else...

 

I have met a lot of people who say they have "over 100 songs" they have written in a short amount of time. But I am curious, when is a song a song? It has taken me over 3 years to write 13 songs which equals about 80 minutes of music for my new record. I can't imagine being able to write over 100 songs. That blows my mind. Maybe it's the difference in genre. My music is experiment/ambient rock and most people I have talked to that have written a {censored}load of songs are in the singer/songwriter genre. Any thoughts? How many songs have you written?

[kurfu]

As long as we're challenging pedantry, I don't agree that a "song" requires words. Probably needs a melody, but definitely can be without words.

 

 

Just listen to any Enya CD.

[kurfu]

Absolutely. The definitions being supplied are vocal-oriented, and I for one would challenge that, as many songs in Western and non-Western culture would not qualify as songs when in fact I believe that they are songs.

 

 

A song is a piece of music that uses the human voice.

 

It is called a "song" because we "sing" it.

 

If there is no one singing, then it cannot correctly be called a song.

 

[Marc G]

I rather take 3 years and write 13 great songs than 3 years and 100 songs.... quality....not quantity.... I used to jam with a gutuirist that would roll out songs like they were going outta style...complete songs...thing was for every 10 he wrote 1 was good....

[Lee Knight]

 

 

 

 

I happen to think that is an awesome line. Really. In a Fountains of Wayne sort of way. It would have to be married to a great melody but that's great.

 

She's shaped just like a blimp

For her, it hasn't been a good year

Once an hourglass, but that time has past

Now it's DVDs, nachos, and beer

[Ryst]

 

I rather take 3 years and write 13 great songs than 3 years and 100 songs.... quality....not quantity.... I used to jam with a gutuirist that would roll out songs like they were going outta style...complete songs...thing was for every 10 he wrote 1 was good....

 

 

That's what I am skeptical of everytime I hear someone say "i wrote over 100 songs this year". I wonder how good some of them are. It's kinda fascinating.

[Frantag]

I have a friend who does a workshop entitled "Write a Song in 20 Minutes!"

 

Most(if not all) of her songs sound like they were written in 20 minutes. She has hundreds of songs and none compelling.

 

And then there's Imogen Heap. I could listen to one of her songs every day for a year and still not digest the whole thing. She takes lots of time and time off to write. It shows and I love her. She has redeemed music for me.