What is a song?

[jb]

But if we're trying to talk about stuff, you gotta agree on terminology before you can actually communicate ideas effectively. (Even cavemen had to agree that two grunts meant "club" and one meant "sharpened rock").

To use the caveman example, they could the following week decide they need different grunts to describe different length clubs, but if they then used the 'two grunt' to describe any club, it might be wrong, but they would both get the message. For me language is first and foremost about communcation. As Laurie Anderosn sang 'Language is a virus' - it evolves and mutates so if 'song' has become a catch-all word for lots of types of music, then we should embrace it. Other words do not need to be forgotten as a result.

In short, I'm agreeing with you, I think!

Well, call me a throwback, 'cause I don't agree that "song" is what everybody else wants it to be. But perhaps you're right, perhaps this mutation of "song" into a catchall for any musical piece is indicative of the diminishing stature of anything other than what I would define as a "pop song". Or perhaps we should think in terms of context. "Song" in a college classroom will mean one thing, whereas "song" in the high school lunch room will mean another.

*growing tired of the whole thing*

[jb]

Yes, definitely. But in that case admittedly not very much less. In some cases a LOT less, as in my Chinese opera example.

Well, if knowing allows you to enjoy the piece, because you begin to recognize an underlying structure which reveals a tie to the history and evolution of music of which that piece is a part, whereas not knowing means you think it's just boring and the same the whole way through, then perhaps the ability to recognize sonata-allegro form would matter a great deal.

[JonPorobil]

(I'm addressing a tangent and willfully avoiding the actual topic here.)

As I was just starting to get into rock/pop music a few years back, Radiohead had a new album out. Kid A. I completely didn't get it. How could I, if I didn't understand the musical context of how pop has evolved over the years, what their peers were doing at the time, and what kind of background Radiohead themselves came from?

I can enjoy Kid A these days, but back then, it flew clear over my head.

In that respect, knowing your background on something of course increases your appreciation of it. Similarly, we tend to "digest" songs and in most cases like them more with repeated listenings.

[Rabid Garfunkel]

As Laurie Anderosn sang 'Language is a virus'

Where'd all the hyperfocused nitpicking go?

Language is a virus from outer space.

Which might change the meaning it carries in your example. Or I'm just shocked at the Chinese Opera.

[Jim of Seattle]

[quote="GenericSimilarly, we tend to "digest" songs and in most cases like them more with repeated listenings.[/quote]

Remember that the whole idea of a song, or any piece of music really, "growing on you" over repeated listenings, is a relatively recent product of the recording age. Imagine living hundreds of years ago, when the idea of having a catalog of hundreds of known songs in your head would be virtually unheard of. For most of human history, I can imagine that people probably heard the same 2-3 songs about a billioni times, (those being the only songs the people in their house knew how to play), and every other piece of music they ran across would be heard once and only once.

Sometimes when I, or Patrice or Madi even, is heard humming along with a classical piece already committed to memory, I remember that 99% of the audiences for that piece only ever heard it once in their lives, and I wonder what that would be like, only ever hearing music you don't know.

Which brings me to another tangent: Is the phenomenon of having a song stuck in your head only a recent development, at least the extent people nowadays experience it? I probably having a song running through my head 75% of my waking hours. If I lived 200 years ago, would that be the case?

[jb]

Which brings me to another tangent: Is the phenomenon of having a song stuck in your head only a recent development, at least the extent people nowadays experience it? I probably having a song running through my head 75% of my waking hours. If I lived 200 years ago, would that be the case?

I'm pretty sure some of the pop songs of 1804 were arias. There's always been theater, and I bet there's always been songs in theater. There was in Shakespeare.

And there've always been drinking songs. We still sing them, but once they were a big way to pass the time while knocking back a few at the pub.

Then there's hymns. "Holy Holy Holy" is catchy catchy catchy. A catchy hymn is a good hymn where the preacher is concerned. Get the word of the Lord stuck in your ever lovin' head. Amen.

[Caravan Ray]

Which brings me to another tangent: Is the phenomenon of having a song stuck in your head only a recent development, at least the extent people nowadays experience it? I probably having a song running through my head 75% of my waking hours. If I lived 200 years ago, would that be the case?

Interesting thoughts in your post Jim.

To go off on another tangent - When I lived in the Kiribati islands, I was amazed at the oral culture of the people. Before Western impact - the I-Kiribati did not keep written records - but recorded their histories, genealogies, legends etc. in their heads - often in the form of songs and dances.

A lot of the "old" songs are still remembered and performed regularly - get any number of I-Kiribati people together for any length of time and without fail someone will start up a song - and everybody else will join in. It's like the islanders collective memories are a database of I-Kiribati history. The weirdest thing about it is though, some of the songs are in old, lost languages that the islanders themselves don't understand. The songs have survived as pieces of music - but the meanings have been lost in the comings-and-goings of people around the Pacific in the last couple of thousand years

Anyway - this leads me to think that the idea of "getting a song stuck in your head" has been around for a while
(it's here I would've liked to have added a joke along the lines of "...ever since Adam started humming Evie, Evie, Evie let your hair hang down..." but it's a joke probably only Australians would get)

[j$]

As I was just starting to get into rock/pop music a few years back, Radiohead had a new album out. Kid A. I completely didn't get it. How could I, if I didn't understand the musical context of how pop has evolved over the years, what their peers were doing at the time, and what kind of background Radiohead themselves came from?

Um, by you know, listening to, and liking, the music? If you find something boring, doesn't matter whether how much erudition went into it. It will still be boring after you've figured all that out. To say 'oh I get this, now I am smart enough to get it' reflects badly on you, and Radiohead.

I don't need to understand the impressionist movement to see an impressionist painting to enjoy it/dislike it. If I do like it, it might encourage me to find out more, and put it into context.

There was a movement in Literary Criticism called New Historicism that says it is irrelevant to judge any work outside of what appears on the page before you. While I think this is a bit lazy (:)) it is actually a healthy reference point for most forms of art. You might put it as 'leave your pre-conceptions at the door. Judge something for what it is. If you feel too 'stupid' to enjoy something, then most likely, it is the artist's fault for not communicating their idea clearly enough.'

J$