being narky about 'songs'

[Tash]

ok do i have the right to get narky when people call 'pieces' 'songs' or am i just going over the peak of musical snobiness? because i am highly offended at the fact that my ipod doesn't give the option of categorising all my music as 'songs' or 'pieces' or 'compositions' at the least. it's like some kind of generalisation that all people who own an ipod will be listening to songs and not instrumental music. so should i look at my ipod in its biased generalisations or just move on and stop being such a narky know-it-all?!!

[galonia]

Tash, someone needs to take a stand!  I fully support you (even though I am opposed to ipods for my own reasons) - instrumental music definately should not be called "songs"

[klavierkonzerte]

i totally agree

[anda]

not everybody speaks good english, some of us have to search for the "nearest match" in our memory to get to say what we want!

[quasimodo]

Sure "song" is not etymologically correct, though in counterpoint (Bach...) you talk of "Voices". And there were Mendelsohn's "Songs without words"  .

"Piece" has a learning connotation, I prefer "Work" but then it's not quite accurate. A Sonata is a work but a movement from a Sonata is a piece (but you might as well call it a "Movement"  ).

"Words, words, words..."

[rlefebvr]

I love you Tash, but personally, this is one of the most stupid peeves I have heard in this forum. You are not the only one to make a big deal about the "pieces instead of songs" thingamajig.


What bloody difference does it make. So many more important things in life than arguing over the spelling of Tomato or tomAto.

I think it's good to point  it out, but to make a big deal out of it, is to me anyway very very childish.

 

don't be mad....

[Floristan]

It's not just a pet peeve for me because music download sites are all organized on the basis of "songs," "artists," and "albums" which just doesn't work for classical music -- so it makes them hard to use, even if they have a decent classical section (which most don't).  iTunes has about the best selection of classical (unless there's one out there I haven't found), though it's still pretty lame.  They organize the music very broadly by chronology (baroque, classical, romantic, etc.), but they maintain all the features of the pop sites -- like "top sellers," which are always things like Pachelbel's Cannon.  But having to navigate iTunes as though you're looking for a "tune" is pretty bad.  I guess classical is such a small, small part of the business that there is no incentive to modify the classical portions of these sites to be arranged by "composer" or "piece" or "category" or anything else that might make sense to us.

Likewise iTunes on the desktop persists in organizing by "songs" and "albums" and "playlists."  There is no easy way to organize classical music in a sensible way.  You have to create "playlists" that contain all the music on an "album" which is a pretty typical way we look at things -- because the "album" will often contain, say, the entire Chopin etudes, and that's how we'd like to see it organized, not as a series of 24 "tunes" in our "library."

So my beef isn't with the naive use of the word "tune" to describe a "piece" or "composition," it's with the lame organization of classical music that results.

[galonia]

Floristan, I agree - the "songs" vs "pieces" thing is just scraping the surface.

In Sydney, one of the major newspapers is the Sydney Morning Herald.  If you want to read music reviews, you'd think to look under "Music", right?  Of course, right - if you are interested in rock and pop music!  If you are interested in any other kind of music performance, you need to look under "Arts" where it is hidden amongst the visual arts and all other types of performance arts.

So now any type of music other than rock and pop are not music, but an art.  And rock and pop music are not art.

[Tash]

I love you Tash, but personally, this is one of the most stupid peeves I have heard in this forum. You are not the only one to make a big deal about the "pieces instead of songs" thingamajig.


What bloody difference does it make. So many more important things in life than arguing over the spelling of Tomato or tomAto.

I think it's good to point it out, but to make a big deal out of it, is to me anyway very very childish.

 

don't be mad....

oh i'm not mad, i'm on the verge of thinking it's stupid to get irritated about as well. however then i thought, if i was speaking to some car fanatic and called a porsche a bmw then i think they'd get pretty annoyed at me, especially if i said 'what's the difference', actually that's probably more like getting composers muddled up...ok like say if i called a motorbike a car, it's not a car it's a motorbike

and for those who don't have the best english, then this isn't aimed at you- the ipod people i'm assuming are well-speaking americans who should have some decency to include the classical listeners in their creations!
actually this whole thing really is just a good way to spark a debate with a non-classical music person cos they have no idea what you're on about and thus you can give them a huge lecture

except ipods do have a 'composer' section except that's just annoying cos then i'd have to manually type the composer in and move it from 'artist' since that's where it's automatically placed...oh this is too complicated!

[xvimbi]

It's not just a pet peeve for me because music download sites are all organized on the basis of "songs," "artists," and "albums" which just doesn't work for classical music -- so it makes them hard to use, even if they have a decent classical section (which most don't).  iTunes has about the best selection of classical (unless there's one out there I haven't found), though it's still pretty lame.  They organize the music very broadly by chronology (baroque, classical, romantic, etc.), but they maintain all the features of the pop sites -- like "top sellers," which are always things like Pachelbel's Cannon.  But having to navigate iTunes as though you're looking for a "tune" is pretty bad.  I guess classical is such a small, small part of the business that there is no incentive to modify the classical portions of these sites to be arranged by "composer" or "piece" or "category" or anything else that might make sense to us.

Likewise iTunes on the desktop persists in organizing by "songs" and "albums" and "playlists."  There is no easy way to organize classical music in a sensible way.  You have to create "playlists" that contain all the music on an "album" which is a pretty typical way we look at things -- because the "album" will often contain, say, the entire Chopin etudes, and that's how we'd like to see it organized, not as a series of 24 "tunes" in our "library."

I don't see the problem with your Chopin example. Since iTunes categorizes well in terms of Albums, there is no issue with accessing entire albums, including cover art. Although I agree that iTunes could do a slightly better job with organizing Classical music, there are in fact ways to get the job done fairly well. You need to make use of the "Grouping" category. Example: Let's say you buy a CD with Beethoven Piano Sonatas.

For every "Song":
"Album" = "Alfred Brendel Plays Beethoven Sonatas"
"Composer" = "Beethoven, Ludwig van"  (or however you have him in your library)
"Grouping" = "Sonata No. 29 in B-flat Major Op. 106 ("Hammerklavier")
"Artist" = "Alfred Brendel, piano"

The "Songs" themselves get the following titles:
"Title" = "I. Allegro"
"Title" = "II. Scherzo"
"Title" = "III. Adagio sostenuto"
"Title" = "IV. Largo; Allegro risoluto"

... and everything is fine!

This works very well in iTunes, but less well on an iPod, because the information displayed is insufficient. Given the fact that I mostly listen to non-Classical music when I use my iPod, that's not too big a deal for me.

[rlefebvr]

I use Musicmatch to import my music to the computer. It's not freeware however.
From there I add them to Itune so I can Upload to my Ipod.

My classical stuff is easily found, but Artist, song, Album or genre.

I find I tune lacking also, but what do you expect when you get something for free.

[Floristan]

I don't see the problem with your Chopin example. Since iTunes categorizes well in terms of Albums, there is no issue with accessing entire albums, including cover art. Although I agree that iTunes could do a slightly better job with organizing Classical music, there are in fact ways to get the job done fairly well. You need to make use of the "Grouping" category. 

I understand about the equivalencies you suggest, but how do you search iTunes for all the recordings they have of Chopin's complete etudes?  Or, another example, every recording of Beethoven's Op. 111?  And you never know with iTunes if Beethoven will be found in the Composer or Artist category (they are not consistent), or whether the title will be the full album title (which you may or may not know), or whether the performer will show up under artist.  I just want a function that allows me to enter the name of the composer, then some identifying information like opus numbers:  Chopin, Op. 25, No. 1-12 -- and then have it turn up only recordings containing all of Op. 25.

I understand the workarounds; they just aren't very good IMO.  Still I think it's a function of classical being an afterthought.  The catalog is so impoverished that it's rare to find multiple recordings of anything, let alone recent recordings.  Everything is public domain stuff.  If iTunes is paying for new-release pop, why not new release classical?

[Tash]

For every "Song":
"Album" = "Alfred Brendel Plays Beethoven Sonatas"
"Composer" = "Beethoven, Ludwig van"  (or however you have him in your library)
"Grouping" = "Sonata No. 29 in B-flat Major Op. 106 ("Hammerklavier")
"Artist" = "Alfred Brendel, piano"

The "Songs" themselves get the following titles:
"Title" = "I. Allegro"
"Title" = "II. Scherzo"
"Title" = "III. Adagio sostenuto"
"Title" = "IV. Largo; Allegro risoluto"

but they're not 'songs'! and that's just what annoys me, i feel like i'm offending the composers by placing them in such a category. and then calling the composers artists cos that's where they automatically go when i burn cds, and then i don't have the name of who the actual artists are, and then half my album names aren't there, so it's just a huge muddle. i should probably try sorting it out one day...

[xvimbi]

I understand about the equivalencies you suggest, but how do you search iTunes for all the recordings they have of Chopin's complete etudes?  Or, another example, every recording of Beethoven's Op. 111?  And you never know with iTunes if Beethoven will be found in the Composer or Artist category (they are not consistent), or whether the title will be the full album title (which you may or may not know), or whether the performer will show up under artist.  I just want a function that allows me to enter the name of the composer, then some identifying information like opus numbers:  Chopin, Op. 25, No. 1-12 -- and then have it turn up only recordings containing all of Op. 25.

OK, I got confused by your using the term "iTunes" when you obviously mean "iTunes Music Store". As far as I can tell, they are getting better with the composer/artist mix-up. Both of your examples turned out hits with Beethoven or Chopin in the composer field, but not when I put them in the artist field instead (Composer = Chopin, and Song = 25 gives me about 80 hits). Furthermore, I usually search on Amazon, then look if iTMS has the recording I'm interested in.

Also, you need to complain to Apple (I did). Only when they realize that Classical Music fans feel left behind will they do something about it. Of course, you first have to ship off all those Brittney Spears fans first and lock them up on an island, but I'm afraid even Australia won't be big enough, so we will have to suffer a little. Imagine, you managed to survive without iTMS for so long. Consider it a freebie.

[xvimbi]

but they're not 'songs'! and that's just what annoys me, i feel like i'm offending the composers by placing them in such a category.

Would you stop it now! We should most likely call them "pieces" either. They are "works", but I rarely see anyone using that term. Imagine all those Britney Spears fans who would get utterly confused if we started talking about "Have you heard the most recent piece by Britney Spears", or even "This monumental work by Britney Spears surely will make it into the Top 10".

We should be able to cope with such marginalities.

and then calling the composers artists cos that's where they automatically go when i burn cds, and then i don't have the name of who the actual artists are, and then half my album names aren't there, so it's just a huge muddle. i should probably try sorting it out one day...

Keep in mind that most of this information is not on the original CD to start out with. You usually have to download it from CDDB or similar in the first place. Printing labels solves this problem.

[janice]

Tash, you have my full support on your pet peeve!  I get totally annoyed at stuff like that, too!

[willcowskitz]

I agree with rlefebvr.

It is more annoying to read the guaranteed-to-come replies about the difference between songs and pieces, than witness the actual rare use of the word song in wrong reference. It was certain moment in time, I think, when this "they're not songs, they're pieces!" war started, and it seems to me it inspired a lot of people to "set straight" others. Although I agree with the original point about the importance of distinguishing pieces from songs as music that doesn't contain words or singing, I think the ranting against the use of the word "song" has become more tiresome and irritating than the reason for ranting itself - for some people it is simply an opportunity to satisfy their need for recognition. Don't get me wrong, I do support the idea that people are put straight if their self-expression is confusing in general terms, but how some people take the importance of correct use of a single word into irrational heights is only consuming.

To be honest, musical snobbiness seems to be quite favourable on this forum, for the simple reason that it is a relatively small community in size, and wants to feel secure about itself by promoting elitistic thoughts and creation of illusion of some sort of special value over normal people. Of course, when you let "outsiders" enter into this special realm, the value of being a member in it drops rapidly and you can no longer attach this image of importance that you got from feeling yourself as one with the group, to yourself. Oh no, do you even exist anymore?

[Tash]

ok i'm accepting and moving on now

[Floristan]

Also, you need to complain to Apple (I did). Only when they realize that Classical Music fans feel left behind will they do something about it. Of course, you first have to ship off all those Brittney Spears fans first and lock them up on an island, but I'm afraid even Australia won't be big enough, so we will have to suffer a little. Imagine, you managed to survive without iTMS for so long. Consider it a freebie.

xvimbi--

Good advice as always (complain to Apple)...and the stuff about Brittney, priceless  !

[mound]

yes. lets all please get back to practicing our songs.

 

[Rockitman]

"yes. lets all please get back to practicing our songs."


Doh!

[thomas_williams]

Tash, you have my full support on your pet peeve!  I get totally annoyed at stuff like that, too!

I AGREE!!  All this "song" buisiness must come to a STOP!  And as for the services like iTunes, I've never tried using any of them, but it is a GREAT idea to complain to Apple (and the other companies) about the problems with their services!  IF YOU USE ONE OF THESE SERVICES, GET AFTER THEM!  YEAH!!!!![/color]