Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Composer's Lounge "Composing" vs "Songwriting"

Hello all!

I'm still relatively new to this board... and to piano... and to playing music in general! [If you want to skip past my history to the actual topic, skip this paragraph.] I have no musical background (I didn't play as a kid or anything) and I started learning to play a couple of years ago on a cheap little keyboard with no touch sensitivity. It was a nice start, but after a while I lost interest. Then I found an old acoustic upright at a thrift store and that really got me going again! Touch sensitivity with the feel of the hammer action keys made all the difference for me. Anyhow, I don't think I'll ever be a "performer" (in fact, I don't really enjoy learning new pieces) but as I mess around on the keyboard, I find that I really enjoy discovering/creating new melodies. I just bought a Casio Privia PX-110 so that I can more easily record (to the computer via MIDI) what I'm doing. Which leads me to the topic...

Do you, personally, make a huge distinction between "composing" and "songwriting"? I know the fact that lyrics are present typically changes what goes on with the melody. But in the case where a song is not using the lyrics to carry the melody, then is there any real distinction? I ask because this is "Composers Corner" and not "Songwriters Section". As I learn more and more about music in general, it seems to me that all of the theory applies to music in general, whether or not lyrics exist.

Anyhow, I just wanted to get people's thoughts to see what the general feel would be on this. OK, back to my C Major scale and chords. Yes, I have a long way to go! But I'm loving it!

dave

A song is only one type of a "piece of music" that is usually short with just a few parts, verse, chorus, bridge.
Then you have sonatas, symphonies, preludes, toccata and fugues, and so on...
All are considered compositions, thus the word "composer"

I think the distinction is at least partly cultural. "Composer" is classical, and "songwriter" is popular.

Schubert wrote songs -- but we wouldn't say that he was a songwriter.

Andrew Lloyd Weber wrote an opera (Phantom of the Opera, which he himself considered an opera but everyone else considers a pop musical) and I don't know that many people would call him a composer.


Personally, I don't see a need for a seperate forum. Writing music is writing music -- doesn't matter if you call it "composing" or "songwriting" or "torturing audiences" etc.

Hey guys, thanks for the replies!

OK, that's a good distinction... "composition" includes any type of an entire body of work, whereas a "song" is just one type of composition. To put it another way, all songs are compositions, but not all compositions are songs. I like that.
Oh, I think you're right. The Andrew Lloyd Weber example is an excellent one. Scores from Rodgers and Hammerstein, for instance, might be in a cultural gray area with regards to this too.

LOL! Yeah, "torturing" is a good term. Well, with the "differences" more clearly defined, I agree that no separate forum is needed. It just looks that my focus is more narrow than the whole of "composition", but songwriting is still composing. Although, one of my goals is to write an entire "rock opera", something that follows the form of Phantom of the Opera, Jesus Christ Superstar, Tommy, Chess, etc.

OK, well, at least I know I'm in the right forum here!

Thanks again!
dave

I think that as time goes on songwriting and composition will become closer and closer together and soon there will be no distinction.
Post-modern rock could still be considered "song writing" to some degree, however the vocal aspect seemed to change from being "voice as narrator" to "voice as texture" to "purely instrumental music".
Some of the leading popular artists of today who still write in the standard verse-churus-verse style I would consider to be composers, like Thom Yorke or Sigur Ros.
Then there is electronic music that melds into the atmospheric, minimalist and ambient music which continues the legacy of 20th century composers. Ex. Brian Eno is a popular musician with music videos on television, putting on concerts to people of all ages but I would still consider him to be a composer as well as a songwriter. His music has a deep concepts but still appeals pop music crowds. In fact, he might be one of the first song-writing composers who broke helped to bring pop music crowds into the "serious" composer music scene because his ambient music drew from previous minimalist composers such as Terry Riley, La Monte Young, Steve Reich, John Adams, and Cage (of course).

Then there's also the subject of electronic music like psytrance which also continues the work of those minimalist composers and also ambient composers like Brian Eno and such, that draws from minimalism ambient music but has an inexplicable energy to it, would you call Psytrance DJ's composers? or song writers? or do they fit into either of these categories.

I guess the point of my rant is that distinctions for the most part of unnecessary, and in this case song writer and composer are melding together to be pretty much the same thing.

Well, I don't know, pianojerome. As far as I can see, anyone who composes music(of whatever sort) is a composer. I'm happy to call ALWebber a composer. (whether I'm prepared to listen to Memory ever again in my life is another question ). And I'll happily call Schubert a writer of songs, so I'm not sure why I wouldn't call him a songwriter. In fact I think I do.

What I wouldn't do is what my son's recently completed high school English course insisted on - that is, calling anyone who created any piece of work such as a novel, a film, a poem ... a composer - as in "the composer of this text..." ! Talk about blurring the meaning of words!

I agree with Sam's (Pianojerome) view on the "Cultural" aspects. Song writer and composer are basically the same thing; it is not to diminish the achievements of Mozart, Beethoven, Mendelssohn and others in that era, to the likes of popular writers such as the team of John Lennon and Paul McCartney and others in the popular world.

- Mark

Yeah, you are definitely hitting a gray area here. I have already been thinking along these lines with regards to some of the synthesizing modules that are currently available out there. Some of the synthesized "instruments" actually play what sounds like an entire song for each key. So if I "compose" something that consists of the two notes A followed by B, have I really "composed" anything? Eek. I tend to think not. I suppose someone could argue that since I didn't create the notes that come from a piano, that I can't really "compose" anything using one.
Yeah, I think that point is well taken.

Hehe... yeah, just like the A-B "song" I mentioned above would not be considered as such, right?

Ouch! I'm not touching that one!

I'm sure this type of "debate" has been going on for ages. I'm sure synthesizers and computers in music only intensify it, as well!

dave

song= singing
piece= anything else

Composer sounds a lot better than the term song writer, and as people have mentioned above, isn't making even a pop song, composing?

Depends whom you ask, and it depends on the context. Would you call instrumental rock music a "piece" or a "song"? (or an "instrumental song"?)

Are all of the pop fans wrong to call an instrumental piece a "song", or are they right by virtue of the fact that this is how "song" is used by the public?

Stepping out of music for a second, some medical snobs might get tied up in a wad about the public's misuse of the word "allergy." Most people use it to mean any negative reaction to any stimulus, e.g. "I'm allergic to exercise" or "I ate an ice-cream bar and then got a sore throat, so I must be allergic to ice-cream." Actually, "allergy" is a very specific medical term that means something very different, and much more specific, than the popular usage. You can't be allergic to exercise, although you might have aesthma (which is not an allergy). You might get sick from eating ice-cream, but maybe you're just lactose-intolerant (which is not an allergy). But, on the other hand, given that so many people use "allergy" to mean "any negative reaction to any stimulus", does that mean that this is actually a correct definition? So there are 2 "correct" usages of the same word, depending on the context (popular vs. specialist)?


Another example: some grammar snobs might get themselves in a wad upon hearing someone use "impact" as a verb. It's a noun! But, about 50 years ago, a news reporter used "impact" as a verb, and since then, pretty much everyone else uses it as a verb, too. So, what of it? Is it only a noun, and everyone is wrong to use it as a verb? Or is it both a noun and a verb, because that's how people use it?


Another example, back to music: the word 'classical.' Some specialists use the word to mean only certain kinds of music from the years 1750-1800. But the general public uses it to mean basically any music from any era that is not popular or folk. So, what does the word *really* mean? Or can it mean 2 different things?

When we define a word a certain way, are we saying "This is what the word means regardless of how people use it, and anyone who uses it differently is wrong" or are we saying "This is what it means *because* that is how people use it"?

I don't actually think the distinction between a song and a composition has been adequately described. Obviously a song is a vocal work, we sing songs, but the true distinction goes much deeper. Generally, songs are made up of verses and choruses with the option for a bridge in the middle, hence the term ABACABA to denote the typical form of a song. One can certainly add an introduction and/or a coda, and something in the middle (guitar solo, vocal improv, contrasting vocal section, whatever), but in general the melody and chord progression of the verses and chorus (or refrain) remains the same. In a composition (instrumental) there will almost always be significant variation and development of the music as a piece progresses.
Thus writing a song generally consists of composing the verious sections and arranging them whereas composing a piece of music means composing the notes and instrumentation from start to finish. This is why such music is sometimes referred to as "through composed."

Bottom line is it's all about organizing sounds.

song writing usually means composing for something to sing, with lyrics usually. also, songs usually follow some sort of 'song form', which has some specific ways to construct 1st phrase, 2nd phrase, ... etc. usually in sort of square structure, and has basic ABA or ABACAB sort of forms. if you analyze a folk song for example, its structure is very square and formulated.

but anything beyond the song form, the structure is more complicated. for some large work, such as symphonies, you'd have each movement with not only themetical difference, but also harmonic difference and form difference. now, we're talking about composing.

You're talking about popular songs here, which probably should be made clear. The classical song repertoire consists of thousands of songs, some of which are strophic and many of which are through-composed. I see "song" as a term describing a piece of music which is sung. This includes Lieder by Wolf, Schubert, R.Strauss, as well as songs by Faure, Poulenc, Britten, de Falla ... etc. These are songs, but they are also compositions. Anything that is composed is a composition isn't it? Or a piece of music, if you like? Unfortunately we can't control how people use language, or what meanings they start to put on certain terms, but for me:
writing music = composing
one who writes music (of any sort) = composer
music which is composed = composition
composition which is sung (solo or small group) = song
one who writes songs (of any sort) = songwriter. Or composer, depending on the context. I'm happy to call Schubert a songwriter!

But surely you don't mean that Schubert was composing when he wrote the Trout quintet, but not composing when he wrote the original song The Trout (die Forelle)? (which has a simple strophic structure)

there's a simple answer for that: because he used his previous song material and rearranged it for his quintet. there's nothing wrong with that. i was just making that statement in general. there're however many exceptions, such as Ravel's Bolero which has a simple structure form-wise.

OK, but I still don't think that somewhere (at what point??) along the simple-complex line a piece turns into a composition and its writer into a composer.

For me too!

And, incidentally, for any dictionary that you'd care to consult as well.

Where the personal opinions, bunfights and general snootiness comes in is when you capitalise it and start talking about Composers with a capital C.

Rough Rules of Thumb for Recognising Composers:

1. Dead (the deader the better). During his lifetime Puccini was probably regarded as a popular tunesmith - much like Andrew Lloyd Webber - but he is unquestionably dead enough now to be revered as a Composer. As a long time fan of Opera By Dead People, I can assure everybody that much of it was as corny and awful in its day as anything modern (and if you remove the veneer of deadness respectability, much of it still is. ).

2. Serious. No jingle writers, penners of pub tunes, or dirty limerick merchants please.

3. Extra points for bizarre hair and/or episodes of madness or angst.

I am a composer (small c). I have created and written music. I can even (grammatically correctly) claim to have composed the odd thoughtful letter (usually asking for something). However I'm definitely not a Composer (but check the obituary columns, I'm not getting any younger... :p )

Cheers,

Chris

Making music = composing no matter what genre...

Even a DJ could be potentiall composing (unless all he does is matching BMPs, right?).

Track: anything on media. A single piece of audio
Piece: usually not with words
Song: usually with words.
Schubert: In between everything... The bastard...

Hmm, I mostly agree with you Nikolas - but with reservations. What follows, of course, is just my armchair opinion

For me, there is a difference between the dictionary definition of composing vs. what I have in my minds eye as the work produced by "a composer". I accept that this is arbitrary to a certain degree.

Unless the DJ is using their original work, I'd struggle to view them as composing, in the same way that I see a difference between a chef and someone who simply replicates someone else's recipe.

Also, if you take a sequenced track of repetitive hooks that you may find examples of on, say, on MTV bass etc. doesn't "feel" like a composition, despite it being valid to describe it as such as per the dictionary.

It is hard to explain but I do feel there is a certain "je ne sais quois" that differentiates someone who makes a track comprised of sequences with little variation from a composer. It's hard - some of the trance-style of music that you get from artists like Crystal Method very much come across as compositions, whereas the bare-bones rhythm & jingle sequences behind some R'n'B tracks are little more than sound stages for the vocals...for some reason, these feel more like "songwriting" than "composition".

Naturally there are exceptions and I don't mean to generalize across entire genres. It's probably easier to stay within the literal dictionary definitions that encompass all musical construction as "composition" with "songwriting" being a structured form of composition with vocal arrangements along the lines of what Steve C. described earlier.

Whatever I myself may be, one thing is for certain - I'm very much an amateur hehe