Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Adult Beginners Forum What's the difference between a song, a piece, and an instrumental version?

I was asked the question yesterday and got stumped in the process.

My wife asked if a song is a score which contained sung words and a piece is a score written for an instrument,(no sung words), then what would you call it when someone performs an intrumental version of a song?.

Since in the instrumental version of a song, the instrument is now *playing* the words in the form of a melody, would'nt that make it a *piece* since by definition, no words are being sung?.

Basically, in a song, the words are spoken in the form of singing them thus it is a "song". If these words are reproduced in the form of a tone/melody, and not actually "sung", does that convert the former song into a piece?.

Hmmm!

Hi,

I think you might be looking at this the wrong way round. The human voice is also an instrument (in fact it's often argued that it is the premier instrument). Singers follow a score just like instrumentalists do. The same part that the singer was 'playing' with voice can be taken by another instrument. Or it can be re-arranged in any number of ways - the singer could hum the bass part, or whatever.

You asked what you'd call it if someone performs an intrumental version of a song. Personally, I'd call it just that - an instrumental version of a song. I'm sure that most people would understand that description to indicate that the music also has some associated lyrics. I don't think it really matters all that much what you call a piece of music as long as you enjoy it.

Cheers,

Chris

Seems to me that,

A definition of a song is a musical composition which is sung. Makes sense to me. An instrumental version of a song, is, well....an instrumental version of a song...I don't think there has to be a single word for every single particular possibility.

Is the last movement of Beethoven's 9th Symphony a song? What about the other three movements? What about the entire symphony as a whole?

Maybe it's more precise to say that to me a "song" implies a shorter composition sung by generally a small group of singers or a single one. Choral works don't seem to fit the term "songs", the way I see it. That's what the term means to me, though I guess the strict definition is still "a musical composition which is sung".

Well, my wife argued that when an (musical, man made) instrument played the "vocal" part of a song, it was'nt the same as when it was sung.

She said that in a song where the words are "sung", a person is able to understand and comprehend the *words* that are spoken (in song).

She said, in a song, if someone did'nt know the words to say "My favorite things", like "when the dog bites, when the bee stings" etc, they would at least be able to listen to the words and thereby get more meaning out of them.

In an instrumental version of a song in which the instrument takes the place of the spoken (sung) word, a listener (not being familiar with the words) would not have the ability to learn them (from that performance) or even get any further meaning from the words since they don't exist in an instrumental version.

Your right, there does'nt have to be a specific meaning or name for every single particular possibility, it just came up in conversation and I thought to seek the answer.

Would it be correct to call an aria a song?

Well, determines who gets to determine what is "correct". I would call an aria a song.

Hope this helps...

Great question. Here's what I've found so far.

The dictionary makes the distinction, a "song" is music written with words. I would go a bit further and say the words are for singing, leaving the category of music with spoken words, scat, rap, etc., left to interpretation.

I would say that an instrumental version of a song is, as Late Beginner says, an instrumental version of a song. The voical part transcribed to the instrument of choice, even if the melody is buried in the chords.

A "piece" describes a broader term, a musical composition, whole or possibly part. This implies it can contain songs...arias.

Using logic, a musical piece can be a song, although it's probably not refered to as such outside of classical vocal, operatic community.

Hi again,

Following up on Lizzy's dad's work with the dictionary, I thought I'd consult my copy of Grove's Concise Dictionary of Music (Grove is usually considered to be the musical equivalent of Britannica).

There's an entry for 'Song' about a page long. But it begins (much as Lizzy' dad found) by saying:

A piece of music, usually short and self-contained, for voice or voices, accompanied or unaccompanied, sacred or secular.

There follows a page of examples of historical developments. There's a good chunk about Schubert's songs (which it's quite happy to call 'songs' and does not insist on only using the German term lieder, although it does refer to it).

Further down the page is an entry for 'Song without words':

A short piano piece of a lyrical nature.

The term was invented by Mendelssohn and used for 48 pieces he composed between 1829 and 1845. Tchaikovsky also used the title.

So there you have it. A song is described as a piece of music, and a song doesn't have to have words, presumably if the composer feels that it's 'songlike'.

And of course, people refer to birdsong, whale-song etc as well. But if it's still confusing - maybe you could call them all tunes.

Oh, and Mahler wrote something that he called a 'symphony' (some say 'symphonic song-cycle') which use a pretty large orchestra plus a male and a female singer. It has six parts, runs for about an hour, and is called "Song of The Earth".

Cheers,

Chris

Boast 1:
PS For anybody who missed that shameless piece of showing off I'll just repeat it ...... consult my copy of Grove's Concise Dictionary of Music ... Lovely book.... :p

Boast 2:
I also have all the Mendelssohn Songs Without Words on CD but, interestingly enough, the exact number appear to be debatable as there's 49 not 48 on the CDs. I just put on the Mahler Song of the earth as I type this too. Spine tingling vocal work from Kathleen Ferrier. Good to hear it again..

I don't think Mendelssohn's "Songs without words" really defines the meaning of the word..after all, if a song was just a piece of music...why did he have to indicate that it didn't have words in the title? Well, you know what I mean :p It's like saying that "symphony" doesn't just mean a piece of music for symphony because Alkan happened write a "Symphony" for solo piano.

I do know exactly what you mean.

But I don't think that Grove is saying that a song is "just a piece" of music - any piece of music - it has to be lyrical or 'songlike' in some way. I think that they are is suggesting that Mendelssohn broadened the definition somewhat (something that can happen with any term).

You could also argue about what type of vocal sounds constitute lyrics or words too. Does an "Ooby dooby do" or a "Bop sham bam" qualify? Can it still be a song if the vocalising is chanting, humming, throat-singing, nonsense words or even simply in a language you don't understand?

And if the criteria are that it should be short, have musical accompaniment and some recognisable words, then is "Things Go Better With Coke" or similar ad jingle a 'song' or not?

I don't really think it matters all that much.

Cheers,

Chris

Hang on... This clears it up I think:


Last night Justice Cocklecarrot exclaimed, with his customary lucidity, that if a cow with handlebars is a bicycle, within the meaning of the Act, then a bicycle with four legs instead of two wheels is a cow. (J.B. Morton as Beachcomber)


I think he made a similar ruling about songs. :p

Chris

Chris...Man, you really crack me up! You were way ahead of me...

The way I have always understood the terms, and have always heard them used by the musicians I have heard and/or known are:

A "piece" is a general term for a musical composition. As such, a piece can be a song, a symphony, an opera, an instrumental, whatever- it is a "piece" of music.

A "song" is a self-contained piece of music, with words, intended to be sung. An aria is not a song, because it is part of a larger piece of music, an opera. The finale of Beethoven's 9th is not a song; it is part of a larger piece, a symphony.

And "instrumental piece" is a piece of music intended to be played by intruments of some sort. Again, this can be anything from a symphony to a jazz piece to a "song" re-arranged for instruments only without voice.

Others may have other definitions and uses for the terms. I don't think anything is really completely cut and dried. It depends on your interpretation.

Wow, now my brain hurts!!.

Mak, not to disect your definitions, but on one hand you refer to a *song* as a self contained piece of music with WORDS. Then you refer to a *piece* as basically everything included (which I tend to agree with btw).

By definition, if a song contained words, and a piece did not, then an opera could NOT be a piece since it contains words!!

Now listen, while this IS interesting to discuss, for me it's all just in fun. I really don't care what it's called it's just that I once referred to a piano score and called it a *song* as opposed to a *piece* and just about wore out my flame suit on its maiden voyage!!

Go post on the pianist corner and start referring to numerous piano scores as *songs* and see what happens!!.

Hint:, wear a flame-suit and bring a spare!!

Hi,

Checking my Grove's musical dictionary again, their definition of an "Aria" begins: "Term for a song either independent or part of a larger work".

Aria is the Italian word for 'air' and we also use the word 'air' in English to mean a song, as in "Londonderry Air (the tune used for Danny Boy).

I agree with the second part of your posts "It depends on your interpretion". Some people like to use words like 'Lieder' (a German word for 'songs') and 'Aria' to describe certain types of song, perhaps because they give useful clues as to what specific type of song they're referring to, or maybe even just because they think it sounds weightier and more impressive.

I think that the important thing is whether people can understand what you mean, not whether some pedant wants to flame you for alleged misuse of a term. (I hope this post sounds like the flame of a candle intended to shed light, not the blast from a flame thrower... My inner pedant sometimes escapes and has to be caught and chained up again.... )

Cheers,

Chris

Yeah, I didn't think an aria had to be part of a larger piece. What about a cantata? Is a Bach contata a song? Is a Bach minuet a piece? Why does it sort of annoy me when my wife asks me to "play that Chopin song you play"? Is the word "piece" merely a vestige of petit bourgeois intellectualism, and middle class elitism? Can cows sing songs? Do bicycles have pieces?

Yes, sorry, my bad on the aria. I do know that an aria can be an independent piece of music, not contained in a larger piece.

And, Mr. S-H, for me, a piece is ANY musical composition, words or not. Songs, intrumentals, arias, cantatas, symphonies, concertos, string quartets, jazz improvisations,what have you- they are all pieces of music. The other terms would come under the umbrella of "piece."

But again, it's all relative. And partially dependent on who you are working with and what is agreed upon. Is it a song? A piece? A tune? As long as everyone is on the same page when it is necessary, I'm not sure it matters. Tho there are some conventions- dictionary definitions for one. And genre classifications, as well. I doubt you would ever hear a classical musician refer to a "tune" he was playing, unless he was doing something non-classical at the time.

I guess it all stems from the fact that my wife always asks me "what song are you working on now"?.

I tell her, it's not a *song*, but rather a *piece*. She then says the same thing every time....... "excuse me dork, would you care for some grey poupon"!,

Never fails, every time!