English definition of "song"

[LeCiagoPanda]

EDIT: tl;dr: does a "song" have to have lyrics, or can you call an instrumental a song?

I had an argument with my dad about the definition of the word "song".

My definition
Catch all term: song
-Any piece of music (used with article)
-Singing as an art/activity (used without article)
-A "song" with singing is simply a "song (with singing)"
-A "song" without singing is simply an "instrumental"

My dad's definition
Catch all term: piece of music
-A piece of music with singing (used with article)
-Singing as an art/activity (used without article)
-A "piece of music" without singing is simply "a piece of music"

My definition uses the same word ("song") for pieces of music and pieces of music with singing, but distinguishes instrumentals. My dad's definition uses the same word ("piece of music") for pieces of music as for pieces of music without singing (what I call "instrumentals"), but distinguishes songs (as in pieces of music with singing). Because of this, I feel like both systems are able to distinguish all forms of "a piece of music" semantically. His view was that I use the word immaturely and without clarity, but I feel like by that definition, English is immature and unclear in comparison to Russian when it comes to colour names. I don't believe my view is per se less developed or correct, it is simply different. I do, however, understand that it is not necessarily the most common usage.

I do not feel, unlike my dad, that I do not distinguish between "music" and "song". I don't understand this, any ideas? To me, a "song" is an instance of music with a certain duration, amount of effort, and co-ordination. You can't just play three notes on a piano and say that's music. It's three notes.

I also, unlike my dad, feel that the distinction between more erudite forms of music (e.g. "concertina", "sonata", "passepied") are not important, and do not "naturally" (really, as we're human, everything we do is intrinsically "natural") occur. There are certain situations in which such a distinction is important, but only if you're in a music crowd. My dad disagrees, for example, with me calling a sonatina a "song"; it is a "sonata". I could, however, call it a "piece of music" if I was being vague.

More background information: I do not really enjoy music enough to bother listening to it, I listen to at most a couple of songs a day, and usually I don't listen to music at all. My dad, however, listens to a lot of music. I feel like his distinction is more borne of necessity, as he would be more often in situations in which a clear distinction is important. I also have a background of playing piano, as I have done so for years, and would call the pieces I played "songs", without anybody ever calling me on it. My dad plays some guitar. He is also an English teacher, and studied Old English in university, and has a PhD in English.

Everyone besides my dad and brother seem to be fine with my definition, so I'm wondering if there's a semantic shift occurring. My dad disagreed. He, however, is fine with innovations of grammar and punctuation (to an extent), as am I. I don't understand this, and feel like this second point conflicts with his view of the word "song".

My questions
Your thoughts?
How do you use the word "song"?
Have you noticed any usage of the word resembling mine, or even another way entirely?
What are some interesting natlang distinctions between song/instrumental/piece of music etc.? (not in Italian/French please)
Do you feel like my usage is incorrect? Also, how much does it matter?

[Io]

Your thoughts?

ocd or sperg; perhaps both?

[din]

No, I've had this discussion a few times with people who are either very interested in music, or are involved with music professionally.

(Although the argument could/should have been described in < 5 sentences)

My conclusion is that people to whom music (esp. classical music) is important, prefer to distinguish, roughly, between a song (with vocals) and a piece (either with or without vocals, but often without). In every day discussions, most people don't bother, because in popular music it's hardly a very important distinction.

[finlay]

Yeah, a song has to have singing. Without it maybe track or piece of music.

[Salmoneus]

To me, a song must have singing. In most cases I'd probably only use it for an independent short piece of music - so a lied would be a song, but an aria wouldn't be - I'd admit that it was under questioning, but I wouldn't call it that normally.

I am aware, however, that Young People These Days seem to be using 'song' to mean roughly 'anything that's one track on iTunes', including a bunch of things that don't have singing, and thus aren't, to me, actually songs.

The overarching term, as din said, is just "piece".*


*[In some circumstances, 'piece' to me connotes something small - I'd usually call symphonies, operas, oratorios etc by their names. Also, multimedia things like operas aren't pieces, though their scores might be and individual arias certainly are. "The manuscripts for three unpublished pieces" are going to be for piano etudes or string trios or something. So the really overarching term, I guess, is 'work', but this sounds quite stuffy. And having said all that, I might still talk about 'the first piece' in a concert even if it's a symphony. So, it's complicated.]

[Qwynegold]

To me a song prototypically has singing in it, but I don't feel that it's that wrong to call an instrumental a song.

[clawgrip]

"Piece" seems hard to apply to more modern styles of music, e.g. "Did you hear that new piece by Daft Punk?" I guess people tend to say "track" in that case.

[gach]

I guess people tend to say "track" in that case.

Track strikes me as a nice word here. It would be nice to know if any other languages have this generalised use of "track". For example, if you use its direct translation "raita" in Finnish, you are referring much more directly to an actual track on a disk. I guess it's possible to use "raita" also when there aren't any real tracks but you are still talking about the storage media rather than the music contained in it.

I don't think I've heard anyone using something like the following, but is it possible to refer to pieces without a specific content word and using only context, like

"Did you hear that new one by Daft Punk?"

[Rui]

"Piece" seems hard to apply to more modern styles of music, e.g. "Did you hear that new piece by Daft Punk?" I guess people tend to say "track" in that case.

Yeah, piece to me implies orchestral, usually from the classical (in the broad sense) era, but can apply to soundtracks too (John Williams, for example). "Track" to me implies some kind of digital composition, like house or electronic music (like Daft Punk)

[Whimemsz]

From the perspective of someone who knows nothing about music: for me, "song" can mean any piece of music. Of course I mostly associate it with a piece with singing.

[Zaarin]

For general use I'd say "song" for either, but in discussing soundtracks (especially Disney or other musicals) it can be useful to distinguish between "songs" with singing and "orchestral pieces."

[Civil War Bugle]

Coming from a classical music background, my usage is similar to that described for your father, or by the other people in this thread who listen to classical music. I play an instrument and am aware that I will call some things songs even when no singing is involved, if it is an arrangement for my instrument that I am practicing for technical purposes or the like, and where no actual singing is involved, but that originally had words for singing. And there are occasional pieces with names along the lines of "song without words".

[SilentMember]

I would say the most general term for myself would be "(piece of) music" meaning any kind of song/music/track/piece/etc., although it has the more specific meaning of "Music without singing" as well. A "song" must have singing; no questions about it. I would probably only call music a "piece" if I can has physical copy of it (ie. sheet music). Otherwise, "track" is probably more relevant, although it does bring forth the connotation of being digitalized in some way (eg. on a cd or iTunes). Thinking about it, "piece" for me refers to a nondigitalized version of a song/piece of music in opposition to "track". For example, "Green Day played their best piece at the concert" vs. "We played our favorite Green Day track at he party".

[TehranHamburger]

I never use the word 'song' actually, I always use the word 'track'. However when I hear someone say 'song' I definitely think of basically your average 2-4 minute long versus-chorus-verse track. I don't think people would use 'song' to refer to 60 minute long symphonies or progressive death metal concept alba with jazz fusion rhythms or what-else makes people feel they have advanced music taste.

[Radius Solis]

Songs can definitely be shorter than 2-4 minutes; otherwise I'd agree with that. Tracks in excess of 10 minutes are pretty much out, though I can think of one or two I'd still count as songs. On the other hand, you can reasonably get through the lullaby "rock-a-bye baby" in ten seconds, and I'd still call it as a song too.