Some food for thought about using the terms *tune* and *song*, from the secondary discussion buried in the ’10,000 hour rule of expertise’ thread. Our current use of these words seems to come from a long period of mixed use. Maybe European and North American traditions simply developed in different directions. *Tunes* for instrumental music and *songs* for voiced music is certainly the simplest. The references are from two giant dictionaries we refer to often in our household so we can become ‘attuned” to one another’s second language.
From: The Oxford English Dictionary and Dictionnaire de la langue francaise au Canada.
Tune: noun - Late Middle English – likely an alteration of the word ‘tone’. A rhythmical succession of musical tones produced by (or composed for) an instrument or voice; an air, melody (with or without the harmony which accompanies it).
Tune: verb -1500 To give forth a musical sound; to sing; to produce music from, to play upon an instrument.
Song: Old English (Teutonic) The act (or art) of singing; the result or effect of this, vocal music.
‘Frédonner’, ‘Turluter’ verbs, French ‘frédonner, turluter un air’
To hum; to sing between the teeth without articulating words.
Lilt: verb, Middle English, Scottish dialect - To lift up (the voice): “Lilt up your pipes, Ramsey”; Lilting a tune to supply the lack of conversation. (Emily Bronte)
Lilt: noun, 1728 - A song or tune, especially a cheerful one.
‘Toune’: Canadian French, from English, tune; ‘air de musique’, a musical air ... See ‘Quioune’ (I’ve never heard or seen this word before…)
‘Quioune’: From the English, tune - An air; ‘jouer une quioune de violon’ (to play a tune on the violin); un ‘chanson’ (song)
“Give us an air, song, tune, ‘toon, toune, ‘chune’, quioune, ..Just hum it, play it, lilt it, sing it, tune it….. whatever tickles your fancy..!”
It's pretty simple really. In the context of trad music a song is a vocalised piece of music with linguistically recognisable words (i.e. a dance tune that is lilted doesn't thereby become a song). All the jigs, reels, hornpipes etc. that this site is concerned with cannot properly be called songs. They are just tunes.
I know language develops and changes, but before useful distinctions between words are lost some of us prefer to man the barricades and make some show of resistance.
As I said in the previous thread, is the iPod partly to blame for spreading the idea that any piece of music can be called a song?
= Advice instead of relief; remonstrance instead of help. The reference is to the song:
There was an old man, and he had an old cow
But he had no fodder to give her
So he took up his fiddle and played her the tune;
'Consider, good cow consider
This isn't the time for the grass to grow
Consider, good cow consider.'
Ref: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (1999) Revised by Adrian Room
What about "mouth music", or puirt a beul?
That's where a jig/reel/etc is "sung", but the lyrics used often are nonsensical, or simplistic - the words seem to be more used for the sound effects they produce than for communication, so it's probably closer to "tune" than "song". But it's closer to "song" than lilting, cause actual words are used...
I think it originated from when the British (?) banned musical instruments from certain places, cause they wanted to stop the locals hanging out in rowdy dancehalls. To get around this, people had to "sing" the dance tunes.
So, are they "a cappella tunes"??? ;)
Though, it's more common in scotish trad than irish, I think (check out e.g., Julie Fowlis).
I'm reminded of the invention of the "talkies" and The Jazz Singer heralding the death of cinema as an international art-form and the rise of the dominance of American popular culture.
Isn't American to a large extent an ad-hoc translation from
ancient German?
I suppose these days whole institutions exist to put the new words through Babelfish and check them out as American English, but in the past they will have had nothing as sophisticated and precise...
That would be Al Jolson ~ as opposed to Neil Diamond.
I just watched a Charlie Chaplin film, "The Great Dictator"
(It is a talkie) Amazing to see how much contemporary humourists borrow from his style.
I'm reminded of the time someone said, "Let's just write down the story about Beowulf." Then it's eyes rolling in the back of their sockets, "Oh sure, there goes the Oral tradition. What's it gonna be next? The tunes as well?"
~ when's the last time you played "King Beowulf's Rambles?"
It is worth considering that our US cousins have , as in other cases, preserved an old usage of language. The distinction between tunes sung and tunes played instrumentally for dancing is relatively recent. A few hundred years ago they were one and the same.
I suspect that you are right about the iPod being partially to blame. The problem is, as soon as a word is promoted commercially, (or in the news media) many people follow the trend like sheep. They like to be fashionable - even if a new word (or the new usage of an old one) actually acts as a detriment to good communication.
Another example would be the use the word "harp" for harmonica/mouth organ - especially on this site, where some members play Irish, Scottish or Welsh harps.
But apart from anything else, this site has a "tune" section, not a "song" section, so "tune" is the word that we should all be using here.
david_h - (assuming that yours was a serious question) ...
Although "melody" is a virtual synonym for "tune", there is a subtle difference.
The word "melody" is more often used in the context of songs. For example, on websites that carry traditional songs, it's common to provide two downloadable links against each song:
1) Melody
2) Lyrics
I once heard a story concerning a Chinese student who was studying Engish. He asked his tutor what the difference was between the word "wealth" and the word "riches".
There is actually a subtle difference between the meaning of these two words - I'll leave you to work out what that subtle difference is.
That is the beauty of the English language - subtley. Such a shame when such subtleties get wiped out my the makers of iPods and the like ...
If some interested punter came up to you in a pub, and asked what that song you just played on your flute was, would you answer, "Oh that was a wee set starting with the Humours of Ballyverruca, followed by The Belles of Boggabri and The Contraception" or would you say "Are you stupid or what? That wasn't a vocalised piece of music with linguistically recognisable words!"
Yes, you wonder don't you, what some people would say.
Simple civility would obviously call for (or it used to anyway), a simple explanation of the names of the tunes, starting off with "those tunes were..."
Why be churlish just because you know something that someone else doesn't? Unless you want to prove you're a churl.
It was serious. I was caught using the term "song tunes" on a nearby thread and took it to be a humorous reference to this one. To clarify what I meant I found myself using "melody", but maybe incorrectly.
What I wanted a word for in that context was a sequence of notes focusing on their relative pitches, rather than rythym, dynamics or key. A sequence of notes one of which might be played as a "wrong note" even if it was in time and with the right dynamics.
I think I have seen melody in other discussions here used to to mean something similar. If I remember correctly the discussion was about "chord sequences" versus "linear harmony"
In that context "tune" would have been be the whole jig, reel or whatever. But when talking about song "tune" is sometimes used for less than all the notes in the piece. For example I have read that in the American shape note singing tradition "the tenor part often carries the tune".
A problem with english is that not only do words have subtly different meanings, but in discussion people will often choose to use near synonymns to set apart differences that may only matter in the context of that discussion. But elsewhere it is regarded as good style, to make things more interesting, to use synonyms for the same thing rather than keep using the same word. Really annoying when things have to get translated into other languages and confusing even for native speakers if they don't regard the words as synonyms.
English is such a rich language, with wealth of different words for the same thing.
liig, I believe the gangsta rappers get really annoyed when you refer to one of their raps as a "song"
The trad world is much more broad-minded and tolerant of course
A guy came into my session with a backpack and said he played the harp. I was looking all over for a harp, but none could be seen, which is odd because they're really big and difficult to hide. Then the guy pulls a harmonica out the backpack. Oh, right.
tune = melody song = words sung to a tune (melody)
interesting point about american music - many tunes do have words but are still referred to as tunes. For example here are the first few words of the "The Cotton-Eyed Joe":
Pick up your fiddle, rosin up your bow
Play an old tune called "The Cotton-Eyed Joe"
from an American cultural standpoint , in reference to it as a piece of American music, I suppose it could correctly be called a song or a tune. Nonetheless, most of the blugrass and old-time players i know refer to their music as "tunes" no matter how much singing is going on. I've seen them play the same tune for ten minutes straight with one verse and chorus croaked out somewhere in the middle. Is that a song?
"The distinction between tunes sung and tunes played instrumentally for dancing is relatively recent. A few hundred years ago they were one and the same."
Got any evidence for this, tone dumb harry?
Etymologically and semantically a song is clearly something that is sung. But interestingly not everything that is sung is called a song. For example it would be a curious use of English to call a hymn a song. Likewise lilting and other forms of 'gob music' that essentially is imitative of musical instruments is a form of singing but what is produced cannot sensibly be called a song. You could sing your telephone number. and if someone said 'What was that song you were singing?' you'd probably say 'That was no song...'
Itunes has had nothing to do with it. The appalling habit of calling songs tunes and tunes songs has been going on here for a lot longer than iTunes has been around. It's even more grating on the ear when you hear Canadian musicians and djs with their vaguely fake nowheresville Americana drawl (I've played more strip joints and honkey tonks than you've had hot dinners son type of thing) call songs "toons". It is nothing except cringeworthingly embarrassing. I refuse to listen to most radio and TV over here for this very reason.
No evidence at the moment Lissa, just something I read and assimilated. I'm pretty sure I haven't made it up. Ii crops up in the introductions to tutors and books about O'Carrolan I think.
My point really is everyone is blaming iTunes, which is fun, , but I suspect this travesty of the English language predates the internet by a lot
I am in north america. I was going to say I have always referred to traditional melodies* as tunes. I often heard the phrase ~ Fiddle Tunes. When I was growing up it was common. Perhaps I am one of the rare ones' using the terms tune & song the way they are used in Ireland.
It is important to have clear communication. However, I lament the loss of subtlety & ambiguity in language. I will continue to use the term tune on this forum. It seems my only practical course. But I won't be discouraging anyone from using tune, melody, & song however they wish.
I am not trying to wind anyone up with the following. I play flute/whistle & have always felt it is vocal. I am not a good singer. But I do like the idea that a flute (or fiddle) can sing.
* The word "melody" is more often used in the context of songs. ~ M. O'Lydian
The mangling of the English language certainly predates the Internet, but rise in the use of personal computers and the Internet spreads it very quickly.
As a result, we now have what Microsoft is pleased call "International English" foisted on us all - in reality, pretty much American English.
An engaging ‘conversation’, subtle ‘exposition’, humourous ‘exchange’, everyone! Missed commenting as I was asleep. The ‘world’, ‘planet’, ’ territory’ is so big, large, huge, vast …
Evensong despite its name is not a song, though it is sung. It is a religious service during which responses, canticles, psalms, anthems, and sometimes hymns, are sung. None of these individual elements would normally be called a song. The choir that sings them may rehearse in what many Anglican cathedrals call a 'song school'.
Ah, the delights of the English language, with all its wonderful subtleties and occasional absurdities...!
Just wanted to add that here in Ireland, several of my (definitely not American) trad-playing friends still ask questions like "what song did you learn in today's class?", etc. Everytime, I'm convinced that they've started learning sean-nos songs or something, until I realise that they meant "tune". So, I don't think it's exclusive to one side of the Atlantic.
Could it be, as david_h suggested, that it's only when you feel the need to distinguish between "near synonyms", that you actually NOTICE a difference?
So, when you're mostly playing instrumental music, it's more unusual to sing a song (and you appreciate it all the more, because of that, I think), and so the word "song" starts to have a definite distinction from "tune", that is lost to people who are just coming down to listen to the "music".
In which case, it may not be an America vs Europe divide, as suggested...
Also, nobody answered my question about how "mouth music" fits into the scheme... boo hoo... sniff... :(
Seriously, to me lilting is quite similar to mouth music, and I would consider you lilt a "tune". However, mouth music does have "linguistically recognisable words", but they're generally not communicative, like lyrics of a song, but more chosen for rhythmic & melodic effects. Which makes me think it's closer to "tune" than "song"...
The definition of what constitutes song might be fuzzy round the edges, but there is a distinct basic semantic difference between 'a song' and 'a tune' that nobody with any pretension to knowing anything at all about music and whose first language is English should get wrong when contributing to this site. They are semantically related words but are not near synonyms.
Mouth music might be regarded as 'song' in the generic sense but that is different from saying that an individual piece of mouth music is 'a song'. Just like when you speak you always make speech, but in most cases rarely make 'a speech'.
I agree with ronan that it may not be a US v Europe divide here. I have heard people in their teens and twenties use song for tune - so I'm getting the impression it';s a generational thing. That's partly why I suggested iPod might be partly to blame for fostering the trend.
I’ve lived in the US all my life. Nearly fifty years ago, when I was a young phart playing in bands, I was personally clear and consistent about the distinction, but some of my friends and bandmates called every piece of music a song. Of course, nearly every piece of music they ever listened to was, in fact, a song.
“I know language develops and changes, but before useful distinctions between words are lost some of us prefer to man the barricades and make some show of resistance.”
I’m with you there. I try to not be a pest, but I’ve lived long enough to have witnessed examples of the loss of specificity and nuance (the computer industry and the military have a lot to answer for). I also know that I’ve contributed to that loss, but I try to avoid it. I would never directly correct someone for calling a tune a “song”, but if the question comes up, I defend the distinction.
“I'm reminded of the invention of the "talkies" and The Jazz Singer heralding the death of cinema as an international art-form and the rise of the dominance of American popular culture.”
I had no idea you were that old, Michael.
“…it would be a curious use of English to call a hymn a song.”
Really? Well, there’s a subtle British/American difference I’ve never known. Interesting.
"but some of my friends and bandmates called every piece of music a song. Of course, nearly every piece of music they ever listened to was, in fact, a song."
I think you're on to something there, Bob himself. It fits with my suggestion that it's a generational more than a national difference in usage. There''s very little purely instrumental music in popular culture. In such a narrow context the distinction in meaning is not so much required in order to talk about the music.
From an earlier post of mine in this thread:
" 'The distinction between tunes sung and tunes played instrumentally for dancing is relatively recent. A few hundred years ago they were one and the same.' Got any evidence for this, tone dumb harry?"
And the reply:
"No evidence at the moment Lissa, just something I read and assimilated. I'm pretty sure I haven't made it up. Ii crops up in the introductions to tutors and books about O'Carrolan I think."
I've been looking into this. I don't think you did make it up, harry. Turns out the word tune used to mean the same as tone, of which it was a variant spelling. In its variant form it came to mean something like 'the sound or tone of the voice"; and the meaning equivalent to 'melody' developed from this as recently as the 19th century, presumably via the idea that the sound of the voice is an important aspect in singing. So yes the two words tune and song were closer in meaning once than they are today, but at the wrong end of the spectrum (i.e. the 'song' end) to account for their interchangeability to mean an instrumental piece of music today.
Bob himself - perhaps I should have qualified my saying that it would be odd to call a hymn a song. Generically of course a hymn is a song. If someone said 'Name 10 types of song", clearly hymn could be one of the answers. What I meant was that in certain contexts (e.g. some churches) it would be curious to consistently and exclusively refer to hymns as songs. I expect that might be the same in the US, but am always grateful for enlightenment.
Interesting point re mouth music. Personally I'd call it song, simply because it's sung rather than played, even if its original purpose was to serve as a dance tune.
And after all, some unaccompanied songs that aren't mouth music are sung just as rhythmically as mouth music, but they'd still clearly be songs rather than tunes.
Whack fol the diddle tooraloo. If I felt the need to make firm quasi-legal distinctions, I would say that mouth music and lilting constitute an additional category. But I don't. Feel the need, that is.
Random - any chance of an example of Betty Davis, a link or something? not sure I've found the right singer on Youtube, and I'd like to hear some tuneless singing!
As it happens last nights BBC Radio Scotland 'Travelling Folk' had a long section on R Burns songs. Where he found tunes, the sort of words that fit a dance tune (often repetetive), how some of the dance tunes that he adopted for songs are now being taken back as dance tunes by instrumentalists.
I knew that comment would come back to haunt me. It was after way too much coffee. I even know I spelled the name incorrectly.
Should have been Bette Davis, the film actress. During WWII she volunteered to entertain servicemen. I believe it was the 1st time she began *singing* in public. She may have continued preforming songs after the war. In any case she has won great praise for her war efforts . . . but her mastery of the art of singing has received rather lower marks.
There may be YouTube clips of her film "Hollywood Canteen" (I recently heard her singing on the radio).
In an Irish session a tune is what the instrumentalists play.
This changes alot when you have a singer. The singer takes the tune & adds words. What do the instrumental players do?
Nothing, if the song is solo. Perhaps join in on (the words of) the chorus .
A few might play some minimalist notes or drones. Or you can play a bit of harmony. Most often the *tune* is not being played by the players. The tune is being sung by the vocalist.
I'm not suggesting a session shouldn't have singing. Just trying to stickw/ the theme; Tunes and/or Songs.
I thought of this following david_h's post;
" some of the dance tunes that (R Burns) adopted for songs are now being taken back as dance tunes by instrumentalists. We do that.
That's by no means always the case, Random - that "the singer takes the tune and adds words" (unless it's mouth music of course). Often the words and tune evolved together as one entity; or the words came first.
True, sue. My intent was not to suggest the order in which words & music come about. I was searching for a way to say, "when a singer (in session & w/out instrument) sings{plays?} a song . . . it is her voice which is like an instrument; expressing the tune through words."
Point is, when one sings w/words the tune is still there.
Thanks for bringing it up because you are right. For his 250th birthday I believe we can all appreciate the interplay, of dance & song ~ tune & poetry which were so much a part of Robert Burns' life.
I was able to locate some audio of Bette Davis on NPR.
Bette Davis: In Those Eyes, Always a Glint of Fire
by Bob Mondello http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89349572
Scroll 1/2 way down the page where you will find 3 links;
'Turn Me Loose On Broadway'
'Just Like a Man'
'Purple Rose'
You may want to grab a hankie. I cried like a baby.
;)
I thought a song was an organized pattern of sounds which you performed with your voice by singing but a tune was an organized pattern of sounds which you performed on one of the artificial devices which we have invented and made just for the purpose of making music.
Faux - one way of putting it... and seems reasonable. But does that raise the question of what's artificial? doesn't that imply that singing is the only natural way of performing sound?
As a listener I am not sure there is much difference between a slow air played on, say, a flute or whistle, and a slow song sung by a traditional singer in a language that I don't understand.
The fact that you pay more attention to the tune when you don't know the words doesn't change the fact that it is a song. And the fact that a tune is taken from a song doesn't make the tune the equivalent of the song.
I suppose there is rather more justification for calling a slow air a song even when played instrumentally, but I guess that most people who know them just as tunes rather than as songs will call them tunes. But in any case, none of this justifies the curious practice of referring to purely instrumental dance tunes as songs.
Fauxcelt brings up an interesting point. However, like the chicken and the egg argument, it may never be solved. Which came first, the tune or the song? Or, was it both together, as a song without a tune is simply a rap, or a poem, or a speech? A chant?
They date the first bones with holes in them to blow through and make 'notes' to 9,000 years ago. Some debate that the first real bones with a few holes to blow through and make noise with were made 43,000 years ago.
There's little doubt that shamanic chanting to drumming was done before anyone figured out you could adjust whistling noises by covering and uncovering holes made in the said whistling device, bones first and foremost, but as we're saying above, a chant without a tune is a speech, or a poem.
Ah, nothing like a little Saturday morning archaeo-musico-philosophy, eh? Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go play Star Wars Legos with my sons. We've got a busy day of battling the evil empire ahead. Long live the rebellion! Up the Jedi!
I was merely trying to suggest a possible solution to this question but it seems that I have only managed to make matters worse.
Of course, since we are talking about words with music, perhaps I should have said that I merely made matters verse instead of worse.
Maybe it is natural for us to make artificial things.
Then there are the people who say that the human voice is the instrument designed by God.
As for the chicken and the egg.....reptiles lay eggs and (according to the standard theories of evolution) reptiles appeared first before mammals such as chickens.
SWFL Fiddler, May The Farce Be With You! (and your sons)
I haven't taken the time to read all the comments here and it surprises me there are so many! Lissagriffin said it all in the first response in that tunes are melodies and songs have lyrics. Any other interpretation is confusing although I got into big trouble in trying to defend this principle on a recent post about a BBC2 "Blas Ceoil" programme.
fauxcelt, I agree with you about the chicken and the egg "problem" not being a problem, with evolution. In fact, if one could say that there was one single chicken that was the ancestor of all today's chickens, then it would have been an egg first, then hatched into a chick, before growing into a "chicken"! Egg wins yet again! ;)
Though, I'm not sure on your suggested definition for song vs tune. 'Cause, then 1. lilting would be singing, and 2. in pop, rock, etc, the only people in a band that are part of a song would be the "singer(s)" - the guitarists, drummers, keyboard players couldn't say they were "playing a song".
SWFL Fiddler, great link! Cheers!
bannerman, if you don't want to get confused, and are happy with that useful, but kind of black & white answer, then don't bother reading the rest of the comments. You're probably just as well off, cause I think most people here are still in agreement that "a tune is NOT a song"!!!
But, if you do want to try & understand the greys of the question, read the rest, cause there have been some interesting/insightful/amusing comments!
Anyway, all this typing is making me hungry... but what should I have to eat? Chicken or egg? ;)
this is not about a single (exclusive) meaning for the word tune.
nor a single meaning for the word song.
it is about a session mate saying, "Let's have some tunes"
& the other mates contribute reels & jigs & such.
& a little later some one can say, "let's have a song."
It is in that instance, depending on the craic; & what happens next ~ that is what this discussion is about.
or I am wrong. in which case my 1st two sentences above ^ can be changed accordingly.
;)
Thank you -ronan-. I read the comment about the chicken and the egg in an issue of a science fiction magazine approximately twenty-five years ago. The author of the article claimed he was quoting from the Mensa magazine.
To summarise:
In general, if one is playing instrumental music, one is playing tunes.
Songs involve singing.
Songs have a tune (with some unfortunate exceptions, as Random_notes has pointed out!), but the converse is not necessarily true.
This tune can be played separately as an instrumental piece (& if you play it on the pan pipes, it will then be played in elevators... grrr!).
Indeed, some songs are written by taking a tune and adding lyrics/poem to it (e.g., Raglin Road).
Some forms of music, e.g., lilting, mouth music, don't fit neatly into tune vs song categorisation, but then as Lissa & harry pointed out, the categorisation may be fairly recent (and English itself is only a few hundred years old anyway), and anyway we're talking about Irish music here, so why are we being fussy about which English word to use to describe Irish music? ;)
A lot of English-speaking people who aren't very familiar with instrumental music, maybe aren't aware of the USEFUL distinction between tunes & songs. This annoyance predates the iPod, though the iPod's sloppy categorisation system don't help matters!
If one of these people demonstrates their ignorance on this matter to you in a session (or elsewhere), you ARE perfectly entitled to enlighten them... However, they are then also entitled to call you a grumpy curmudgeon...
Also,... rap music is an oxymoron.
Also,... I'm thinking of becoming a grumpy curmudgeon...
Did I forget anything important or get something wrong?
No offense ronan . . . I'm thinking Jack Nicholson, on the witness stand, w/Tom Cruise baiting him in "A Few Good Men" You just don't have what it takes to become a grumpy curmudgeon.
Good luck though. I can tell you have your heart set on it.
Other than, good summary. Might as well disregard the following. I am sure it has already been covered further up the thread. Cheers!
puirt-a-beul (mouth music) does seem to weave it's way between the tunes &/or songs question.
They are dance tunes & rhythmic songs at the same time. There are subtle distinctions, but for practical purposes (in this case) tune & song are nearly synonymous.
This article is the 1st time I have read about Puirt-a-beul http://www.siliconglen.com/culture/puirtabeul.html
Tunes and/or Songs?
Tunes and/or Songs?
Tune and/or Song?
Some food for thought about using the terms *tune* and *song*, from the secondary discussion buried in the ’10,000 hour rule of expertise’ thread. Our current use of these words seems to come from a long period of mixed use. Maybe European and North American traditions simply developed in different directions. *Tunes* for instrumental music and *songs* for voiced music is certainly the simplest. The references are from two giant dictionaries we refer to often in our household so we can become ‘attuned” to one another’s second language.
From: The Oxford English Dictionary and Dictionnaire de la langue francaise au Canada.
Tune: noun - Late Middle English – likely an alteration of the word ‘tone’. A rhythmical succession of musical tones produced by (or composed for) an instrument or voice; an air, melody (with or without the harmony which accompanies it).
Tune: verb -1500 To give forth a musical sound; to sing; to produce music from, to play upon an instrument.
Song: Old English (Teutonic) The act (or art) of singing; the result or effect of this, vocal music.
‘Frédonner’, ‘Turluter’ verbs, French ‘frédonner, turluter un air’
To hum; to sing between the teeth without articulating words.
Lilt: verb, Middle English, Scottish dialect - To lift up (the voice): “Lilt up your pipes, Ramsey”; Lilting a tune to supply the lack of conversation. (Emily Bronte)
Lilt: noun, 1728 - A song or tune, especially a cheerful one.
‘Toune’: Canadian French, from English, tune; ‘air de musique’, a musical air ... See ‘Quioune’ (I’ve never heard or seen this word before…)
‘Quioune’: From the English, tune - An air; ‘jouer une quioune de violon’ (to play a tune on the violin); un ‘chanson’ (song)
“Give us an air, song, tune, ‘toon, toune, ‘chune’, quioune, ..Just hum it, play it, lilt it, sing it, tune it….. whatever tickles your fancy..!”
# Posted on January 7th 2009 by JNW
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
It's pretty simple really. In the context of trad music a song is a vocalised piece of music with linguistically recognisable words (i.e. a dance tune that is lilted doesn't thereby become a song). All the jigs, reels, hornpipes etc. that this site is concerned with cannot properly be called songs. They are just tunes.
I know language develops and changes, but before useful distinctions between words are lost some of us prefer to man the barricades and make some show of resistance.
As I said in the previous thread, is the iPod partly to blame for spreading the idea that any piece of music can be called a song?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Or iTunes to blame for spreading the idea that any song can be called a tune?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by kjay_bc_box
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
here's one _
'The tune the old cow died of'
= Advice instead of relief; remonstrance instead of help. The reference is to the song:
There was an old man, and he had an old cow
But he had no fodder to give her
So he took up his fiddle and played her the tune;
'Consider, good cow consider
This isn't the time for the grass to grow
Consider, good cow consider.'
Ref: Brewer's Dictionary of Phrase & Fable (1999) Revised by Adrian Room
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by hungry grass
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
What about "mouth music", or puirt a beul?
That's where a jig/reel/etc is "sung", but the lyrics used often are nonsensical, or simplistic - the words seem to be more used for the sound effects they produce than for communication, so it's probably closer to "tune" than "song". But it's closer to "song" than lilting, cause actual words are used...
I think it originated from when the British (?) banned musical instruments from certain places, cause they wanted to stop the locals hanging out in rowdy dancehalls. To get around this, people had to "sing" the dance tunes.
So, are they "a cappella tunes"??? ;)
Though, it's more common in scotish trad than irish, I think (check out e.g., Julie Fowlis).
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I'm reminded of the invention of the "talkies" and The Jazz Singer heralding the death of cinema as an international art-form and the rise of the dominance of American popular culture.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Two peoples, separated by a common language...........
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by AlBrown
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
"...Separated by a common language..."
Isn't American to a large extent an ad-hoc translation from
ancient German?
I suppose these days whole institutions exist to put the new words through Babelfish and check them out as American English, but in the past they will have had nothing as sophisticated and precise...
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by nicholas
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
That would be Al Jolson ~ as opposed to Neil Diamond.
I just watched a Charlie Chaplin film, "The Great Dictator"
(It is a talkie) Amazing to see how much contemporary humourists borrow from his style.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Not sure what it means, but a song needs a tune, while a tune has no need for a song.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
1st we'll take Tunes. Then songs, or is it . . .
I'm reminded of the time someone said, "Let's just write down the story about Beowulf." Then it's eyes rolling in the back of their sockets, "Oh sure, there goes the Oral tradition. What's it gonna be next? The tunes as well?"
~ when's the last time you played "King Beowulf's Rambles?"
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
It is worth considering that our US cousins have , as in other cases, preserved an old usage of language. The distinction between tunes sung and tunes played instrumentally for dancing is relatively recent. A few hundred years ago they were one and the same.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by greg sheils
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I'll join you on those barricades, Lissagriffin!
I suspect that you are right about the iPod being partially to blame. The problem is, as soon as a word is promoted commercially, (or in the news media) many people follow the trend like sheep. They like to be fashionable - even if a new word (or the new usage of an old one) actually acts as a detriment to good communication.
Another example would be the use the word "harp" for harmonica/mouth organ - especially on this site, where some members play Irish, Scottish or Welsh harps.
But apart from anything else, this site has a "tune" section, not a "song" section, so "tune" is the word that we should all be using here.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Where does "melody" come into this ?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by David50
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
david_h - (assuming that yours was a serious question) ...
Although "melody" is a virtual synonym for "tune", there is a subtle difference.
The word "melody" is more often used in the context of songs. For example, on websites that carry traditional songs, it's common to provide two downloadable links against each song:
1) Melody
2) Lyrics
I once heard a story concerning a Chinese student who was studying Engish. He asked his tutor what the difference was between the word "wealth" and the word "riches".
There is actually a subtle difference between the meaning of these two words - I'll leave you to work out what that subtle difference is.
That is the beauty of the English language - subtley. Such a shame when such subtleties get wiped out my the makers of iPods and the like ...
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
If some interested punter came up to you in a pub, and asked what that song you just played on your flute was, would you answer, "Oh that was a wee set starting with the Humours of Ballyverruca, followed by The Belles of Boggabri and The Contraception" or would you say "Are you stupid or what? That wasn't a vocalised piece of music with linguistically recognisable words!"
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Bren
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Yes, you wonder don't you, what some people would say.
Simple civility would obviously call for (or it used to anyway), a simple explanation of the names of the tunes, starting off with "those tunes were..."
Why be churlish just because you know something that someone else doesn't? Unless you want to prove you're a churl.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Skull Duggeraigh Dubh
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
It was serious. I was caught using the term "song tunes" on a nearby thread and took it to be a humorous reference to this one. To clarify what I meant I found myself using "melody", but maybe incorrectly.
What I wanted a word for in that context was a sequence of notes focusing on their relative pitches, rather than rythym, dynamics or key. A sequence of notes one of which might be played as a "wrong note" even if it was in time and with the right dynamics.
I think I have seen melody in other discussions here used to to mean something similar. If I remember correctly the discussion was about "chord sequences" versus "linear harmony"
In that context "tune" would have been be the whole jig, reel or whatever. But when talking about song "tune" is sometimes used for less than all the notes in the piece. For example I have read that in the American shape note singing tradition "the tenor part often carries the tune".
A problem with english is that not only do words have subtly different meanings, but in discussion people will often choose to use near synonymns to set apart differences that may only matter in the context of that discussion. But elsewhere it is regarded as good style, to make things more interesting, to use synonyms for the same thing rather than keep using the same word. Really annoying when things have to get translated into other languages and confusing even for native speakers if they don't regard the words as synonyms.
English is such a rich language, with wealth of different words for the same thing.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by David50
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
"A song needs a tune"? Tell that to the gangsta rappas.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
A tune with no melody maybe ?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by David50
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
liig, I believe the gangsta rappers get really annoyed when you refer to one of their raps as a "song"
The trad world is much more broad-minded and tolerant of course
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Bren
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
ha ha, yeah, I bet they do.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
A guy came into my session with a backpack and said he played the harp. I was looking all over for a harp, but none could be seen, which is odd because they're really big and difficult to hide. Then the guy pulls a harmonica out the backpack. Oh, right.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by DrSilverSpear
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
tune = melody song = words sung to a tune (melody)
interesting point about american music - many tunes do have words but are still referred to as tunes. For example here are the first few words of the "The Cotton-Eyed Joe":
Pick up your fiddle, rosin up your bow
Play an old tune called "The Cotton-Eyed Joe"
from an American cultural standpoint , in reference to it as a piece of American music, I suppose it could correctly be called a song or a tune. Nonetheless, most of the blugrass and old-time players i know refer to their music as "tunes" no matter how much singing is going on. I've seen them play the same tune for ten minutes straight with one verse and chorus croaked out somewhere in the middle. Is that a song?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Rappers?
Check out this rapper website:
http://www.bristol.rapper.freeuk.com/
... quite a few tunes - but only one song.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
ha ha, I'm amused that they've had less that 3,000 hits in 5 years
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by llig leahcim
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
the Casio player is awesome! hehheh
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
That's because it's very much a minority pastime, Liig. I'll leave to to speculate why ...
.. but I'm pleased that you were amused ...
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Indeed, Pipes!
160 per minute is a snail's pace for him!
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
"The distinction between tunes sung and tunes played instrumentally for dancing is relatively recent. A few hundred years ago they were one and the same."
Got any evidence for this, tone dumb harry?
Etymologically and semantically a song is clearly something that is sung. But interestingly not everything that is sung is called a song. For example it would be a curious use of English to call a hymn a song. Likewise lilting and other forms of 'gob music' that essentially is imitative of musical instruments is a form of singing but what is produced cannot sensibly be called a song. You could sing your telephone number. and if someone said 'What was that song you were singing?' you'd probably say 'That was no song...'
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
here's a really long song:
http://ie.youtube.com/watch?v=sN7Mpklsuk4
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
True, Lissagriffin - but you would "sing" a hymn.
And in many churches, the evening service (where hymns are sung) is called "Evensong".
.. methinks that you have just opened up yet another can of worms ...
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
here's one way to "sing" a 'tune":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canntaireachd
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by pipewatcher
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
The nouns are 'tune' and 'song'.
The corresponding verbs are 'play' and 'sing', yes?
Am I being too logical again? Sorry, I'll stop.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Itunes has had nothing to do with it. The appalling habit of calling songs tunes and tunes songs has been going on here for a lot longer than iTunes has been around. It's even more grating on the ear when you hear Canadian musicians and djs with their vaguely fake nowheresville Americana drawl (I've played more strip joints and honkey tonks than you've had hot dinners son type of thing) call songs "toons". It is nothing except cringeworthingly embarrassing. I refuse to listen to most radio and TV over here for this very reason.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Patkiwi
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
No evidence at the moment Lissa, just something I read and assimilated. I'm pretty sure I haven't made it up. Ii crops up in the introductions to tutors and books about O'Carrolan I think.
My point really is everyone is blaming iTunes, which is fun, , but I suspect this travesty of the English language predates the internet by a lot
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by greg sheils
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
soory Patkiwi, crossed post.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by greg sheils
Tunes
I am in north america. I was going to say I have always referred to traditional melodies* as tunes. I often heard the phrase ~ Fiddle Tunes. When I was growing up it was common. Perhaps I am one of the rare ones' using the terms tune & song the way they are used in Ireland.
It is important to have clear communication. However, I lament the loss of subtlety & ambiguity in language. I will continue to use the term tune on this forum. It seems my only practical course. But I won't be discouraging anyone from using tune, melody, & song however they wish.
I am not trying to wind anyone up with the following. I play flute/whistle & have always felt it is vocal. I am not a good singer. But I do like the idea that a flute (or fiddle) can sing.
* The word "melody" is more often used in the context of songs. ~ M. O'Lydian
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
The mangling of the English language certainly predates the Internet, but rise in the use of personal computers and the Internet spreads it very quickly.
As a result, we now have what Microsoft is pleased call "International English" foisted on us all - in reality, pretty much American English.
Often, with suspect grammar, for example:
Instead of: "Have you forgotten your password?"
We have: "Did you forget your password?"
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Q. Did O'Carolan ever sing carols?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Mix O'Lydian
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
An engaging ‘conversation’, subtle ‘exposition’, humourous ‘exchange’, everyone! Missed commenting as I was asleep. The ‘world’, ‘planet’, ’ territory’ is so big, large, huge, vast …
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by JNW
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Evensong despite its name is not a song, though it is sung. It is a religious service during which responses, canticles, psalms, anthems, and sometimes hymns, are sung. None of these individual elements would normally be called a song. The choir that sings them may rehearse in what many Anglican cathedrals call a 'song school'.
Ah, the delights of the English language, with all its wonderful subtleties and occasional absurdities...!
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
http://danhames.blogspot.com/2006/10/cows-are-in-corn.html
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Just wanted to add that here in Ireland, several of my (definitely not American) trad-playing friends still ask questions like "what song did you learn in today's class?", etc. Everytime, I'm convinced that they've started learning sean-nos songs or something, until I realise that they meant "tune". So, I don't think it's exclusive to one side of the Atlantic.
Could it be, as david_h suggested, that it's only when you feel the need to distinguish between "near synonyms", that you actually NOTICE a difference?
So, when you're mostly playing instrumental music, it's more unusual to sing a song (and you appreciate it all the more, because of that, I think), and so the word "song" starts to have a definite distinction from "tune", that is lost to people who are just coming down to listen to the "music".
In which case, it may not be an America vs Europe divide, as suggested...
Also, nobody answered my question about how "mouth music" fits into the scheme... boo hoo... sniff... :(
Seriously, to me lilting is quite similar to mouth music, and I would consider you lilt a "tune". However, mouth music does have "linguistically recognisable words", but they're generally not communicative, like lyrics of a song, but more chosen for rhythmic & melodic effects. Which makes me think it's closer to "tune" than "song"...
Here's Dolores Keane & John Faulkner singing(?) some mouth music:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1YKWXJyrZGg
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
The definition of what constitutes song might be fuzzy round the edges, but there is a distinct basic semantic difference between 'a song' and 'a tune' that nobody with any pretension to knowing anything at all about music and whose first language is English should get wrong when contributing to this site. They are semantically related words but are not near synonyms.
Mouth music might be regarded as 'song' in the generic sense but that is different from saying that an individual piece of mouth music is 'a song'. Just like when you speak you always make speech, but in most cases rarely make 'a speech'.
I agree with ronan that it may not be a US v Europe divide here. I have heard people in their teens and twenties use song for tune - so I'm getting the impression it';s a generational thing. That's partly why I suggested iPod might be partly to blame for fostering the trend.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I’ve lived in the US all my life. Nearly fifty years ago, when I was a young phart playing in bands, I was personally clear and consistent about the distinction, but some of my friends and bandmates called every piece of music a song. Of course, nearly every piece of music they ever listened to was, in fact, a song.
“I know language develops and changes, but before useful distinctions between words are lost some of us prefer to man the barricades and make some show of resistance.”
I’m with you there. I try to not be a pest, but I’ve lived long enough to have witnessed examples of the loss of specificity and nuance (the computer industry and the military have a lot to answer for). I also know that I’ve contributed to that loss, but I try to avoid it. I would never directly correct someone for calling a tune a “song”, but if the question comes up, I defend the distinction.
“I'm reminded of the invention of the "talkies" and The Jazz Singer heralding the death of cinema as an international art-form and the rise of the dominance of American popular culture.”
I had no idea you were that old, Michael.
“…it would be a curious use of English to call a hymn a song.”
Really? Well, there’s a subtle British/American difference I’ve never known. Interesting.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
"but some of my friends and bandmates called every piece of music a song. Of course, nearly every piece of music they ever listened to was, in fact, a song."
I think you're on to something there, Bob himself. It fits with my suggestion that it's a generational more than a national difference in usage. There''s very little purely instrumental music in popular culture. In such a narrow context the distinction in meaning is not so much required in order to talk about the music.
From an earlier post of mine in this thread:
" 'The distinction between tunes sung and tunes played instrumentally for dancing is relatively recent. A few hundred years ago they were one and the same.' Got any evidence for this, tone dumb harry?"
And the reply:
"No evidence at the moment Lissa, just something I read and assimilated. I'm pretty sure I haven't made it up. Ii crops up in the introductions to tutors and books about O'Carrolan I think."
I've been looking into this. I don't think you did make it up, harry. Turns out the word tune used to mean the same as tone, of which it was a variant spelling. In its variant form it came to mean something like 'the sound or tone of the voice"; and the meaning equivalent to 'melody' developed from this as recently as the 19th century, presumably via the idea that the sound of the voice is an important aspect in singing. So yes the two words tune and song were closer in meaning once than they are today, but at the wrong end of the spectrum (i.e. the 'song' end) to account for their interchangeability to mean an instrumental piece of music today.
Bob himself - perhaps I should have qualified my saying that it would be odd to call a hymn a song. Generically of course a hymn is a song. If someone said 'Name 10 types of song", clearly hymn could be one of the answers. What I meant was that in certain contexts (e.g. some churches) it would be curious to consistently and exclusively refer to hymns as songs. I expect that might be the same in the US, but am always grateful for enlightenment.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Interesting point re mouth music. Personally I'd call it song, simply because it's sung rather than played, even if its original purpose was to serve as a dance tune.
And after all, some unaccompanied songs that aren't mouth music are sung just as rhythmically as mouth music, but they'd still clearly be songs rather than tunes.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by suesinger
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Don't forget, most songs have tunes...
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Don't ALL songs have tunes?
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by suesinger
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Some songs (lyrics, poems . . . ) have more than one tune . . . melody . . . Betty Davis' songs have little to no tune in them.
# Posted on January 8th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Whack fol the diddle tooraloo. If I felt the need to make firm quasi-legal distinctions, I would say that mouth music and lilting constitute an additional category. But I don't. Feel the need, that is.
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by Bob himself
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Random - any chance of an example of Betty Davis, a link or something? not sure I've found the right singer on Youtube, and I'd like to hear some tuneless singing!
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by suesinger
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
As it happens last nights BBC Radio Scotland 'Travelling Folk' had a long section on R Burns songs. Where he found tunes, the sort of words that fit a dance tune (often repetetive), how some of the dance tunes that he adopted for songs are now being taken back as dance tunes by instrumentalists.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00gfq8l/Archie_Fishers_Travelling_Folk_08_01_2009/
Second half of the program, maybe all the last hour, the bit about tunes at about 1 hour 30 mins.
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by David50
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I think the reference is to Betty Davis married to Miles Davis Random. Is that right please?
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by greg sheils
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I knew that comment would come back to haunt me. It was after way too much coffee. I even know I spelled the name incorrectly.
Should have been Bette Davis, the film actress. During WWII she volunteered to entertain servicemen. I believe it was the 1st time she began *singing* in public. She may have continued preforming songs after the war. In any case she has won great praise for her war efforts . . . but her mastery of the art of singing has received rather lower marks.
There may be YouTube clips of her film "Hollywood Canteen" (I recently heard her singing on the radio).
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
In an Irish session a tune is what the instrumentalists play.
This changes alot when you have a singer. The singer takes the tune & adds words. What do the instrumental players do?
Nothing, if the song is solo. Perhaps join in on (the words of) the chorus .
A few might play some minimalist notes or drones. Or you can play a bit of harmony. Most often the *tune* is not being played by the players. The tune is being sung by the vocalist.
I'm not suggesting a session shouldn't have singing. Just trying to stickw/ the theme; Tunes and/or Songs.
I thought of this following david_h's post;
" some of the dance tunes that (R Burns) adopted for songs are now being taken back as dance tunes by instrumentalists. We do that.
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
That's by no means always the case, Random - that "the singer takes the tune and adds words" (unless it's mouth music of course). Often the words and tune evolved together as one entity; or the words came first.
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by suesinger
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
True, sue. My intent was not to suggest the order in which words & music come about. I was searching for a way to say, "when a singer (in session & w/out instrument) sings{plays?} a song . . . it is her voice which is like an instrument; expressing the tune through words."
Point is, when one sings w/words the tune is still there.
Thanks for bringing it up because you are right. For his 250th birthday I believe we can all appreciate the interplay, of dance & song ~ tune & poetry which were so much a part of Robert Burns' life.
I was able to locate some audio of Bette Davis on NPR.
Bette Davis: In Those Eyes, Always a Glint of Fire
by Bob Mondello http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=89349572
Scroll 1/2 way down the page where you will find 3 links;
'Turn Me Loose On Broadway'
'Just Like a Man'
'Purple Rose'
You may want to grab a hankie. I cried like a baby.
;)
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I thought a song was an organized pattern of sounds which you performed with your voice by singing but a tune was an organized pattern of sounds which you performed on one of the artificial devices which we have invented and made just for the purpose of making music.
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by fauxcelt
Words ~
http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hl=en&q=dictionary&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
# Posted on January 9th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Bette Davis' songs have a tune. Bette Davis does not sing in tune. Big difference.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by suesinger
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Yeah but I really did cry. I listened to all 3 tunes hoping she would come around.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Faux - one way of putting it... and seems reasonable. But does that raise the question of what's artificial? doesn't that imply that singing is the only natural way of performing sound?
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by suesinger
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
As a listener I am not sure there is much difference between a slow air played on, say, a flute or whistle, and a slow song sung by a traditional singer in a language that I don't understand.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by David50
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
The fact that you pay more attention to the tune when you don't know the words doesn't change the fact that it is a song. And the fact that a tune is taken from a song doesn't make the tune the equivalent of the song.
I suppose there is rather more justification for calling a slow air a song even when played instrumentally, but I guess that most people who know them just as tunes rather than as songs will call them tunes. But in any case, none of this justifies the curious practice of referring to purely instrumental dance tunes as songs.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by Lissagriffin
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Fauxcelt brings up an interesting point. However, like the chicken and the egg argument, it may never be solved. Which came first, the tune or the song? Or, was it both together, as a song without a tune is simply a rap, or a poem, or a speech? A chant?
They date the first bones with holes in them to blow through and make 'notes' to 9,000 years ago. Some debate that the first real bones with a few holes to blow through and make noise with were made 43,000 years ago.
http://www.greenwych.ca/fl3debat.htm#From
There's little doubt that shamanic chanting to drumming was done before anyone figured out you could adjust whistling noises by covering and uncovering holes made in the said whistling device, bones first and foremost, but as we're saying above, a chant without a tune is a speech, or a poem.
Ah, nothing like a little Saturday morning archaeo-musico-philosophy, eh? Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go play Star Wars Legos with my sons. We've got a busy day of battling the evil empire ahead. Long live the rebellion! Up the Jedi!
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by SWFL Fiddler
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
A chant has a pitch (even if only one note) and a rhythm different from normal speech. Its a sort of song.
Just stirring.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by David50
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I was merely trying to suggest a possible solution to this question but it seems that I have only managed to make matters worse.
Of course, since we are talking about words with music, perhaps I should have said that I merely made matters verse instead of worse.
Maybe it is natural for us to make artificial things.
Then there are the people who say that the human voice is the instrument designed by God.
As for the chicken and the egg.....reptiles lay eggs and (according to the standard theories of evolution) reptiles appeared first before mammals such as chickens.
SWFL Fiddler, May The Farce Be With You! (and your sons)
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by fauxcelt
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
I haven't taken the time to read all the comments here and it surprises me there are so many! Lissagriffin said it all in the first response in that tunes are melodies and songs have lyrics. Any other interpretation is confusing although I got into big trouble in trying to defend this principle on a recent post about a BBC2 "Blas Ceoil" programme.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by Bannerman
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Legos and/or Lego?
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by McDermott
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
fauxcelt, I agree with you about the chicken and the egg "problem" not being a problem, with evolution. In fact, if one could say that there was one single chicken that was the ancestor of all today's chickens, then it would have been an egg first, then hatched into a chick, before growing into a "chicken"! Egg wins yet again! ;)
Though, I'm not sure on your suggested definition for song vs tune. 'Cause, then 1. lilting would be singing, and 2. in pop, rock, etc, the only people in a band that are part of a song would be the "singer(s)" - the guitarists, drummers, keyboard players couldn't say they were "playing a song".
SWFL Fiddler, great link! Cheers!
bannerman, if you don't want to get confused, and are happy with that useful, but kind of black & white answer, then don't bother reading the rest of the comments. You're probably just as well off, cause I think most people here are still in agreement that "a tune is NOT a song"!!!
But, if you do want to try & understand the greys of the question, read the rest, cause there have been some interesting/insightful/amusing comments!
Anyway, all this typing is making me hungry... but what should I have to eat? Chicken or egg? ;)
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by -ronan-
ITM Tunes ?
this is not about a single (exclusive) meaning for the word tune.
nor a single meaning for the word song.
it is about a session mate saying, "Let's have some tunes"
& the other mates contribute reels & jigs & such.
& a little later some one can say, "let's have a song."
It is in that instance, depending on the craic; & what happens next ~ that is what this discussion is about.
or I am wrong. in which case my 1st two sentences above ^ can be changed accordingly.
;)
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
Thank you -ronan-. I read the comment about the chicken and the egg in an issue of a science fiction magazine approximately twenty-five years ago. The author of the article claimed he was quoting from the Mensa magazine.
# Posted on January 10th 2009 by fauxcelt
Summary
To summarise:
In general, if one is playing instrumental music, one is playing tunes.
Songs involve singing.
Songs have a tune (with some unfortunate exceptions, as Random_notes has pointed out!), but the converse is not necessarily true.
This tune can be played separately as an instrumental piece (& if you play it on the pan pipes, it will then be played in elevators... grrr!).
Indeed, some songs are written by taking a tune and adding lyrics/poem to it (e.g., Raglin Road).
Some forms of music, e.g., lilting, mouth music, don't fit neatly into tune vs song categorisation, but then as Lissa & harry pointed out, the categorisation may be fairly recent (and English itself is only a few hundred years old anyway), and anyway we're talking about Irish music here, so why are we being fussy about which English word to use to describe Irish music? ;)
A lot of English-speaking people who aren't very familiar with instrumental music, maybe aren't aware of the USEFUL distinction between tunes & songs. This annoyance predates the iPod, though the iPod's sloppy categorisation system don't help matters!
If one of these people demonstrates their ignorance on this matter to you in a session (or elsewhere), you ARE perfectly entitled to enlighten them... However, they are then also entitled to call you a grumpy curmudgeon...
Also,... rap music is an oxymoron.
Also,... I'm thinking of becoming a grumpy curmudgeon...
Did I forget anything important or get something wrong?
# Posted on January 11th 2009 by -ronan-
Curmudgeonly grumpiness?
No offense ronan . . . I'm thinking Jack Nicholson, on the witness stand, w/Tom Cruise baiting him in "A Few Good Men" You just don't have what it takes to become a grumpy curmudgeon.
Good luck though. I can tell you have your heart set on it.
Other than, good summary. Might as well disregard the following. I am sure it has already been covered further up the thread. Cheers!
puirt-a-beul (mouth music) does seem to weave it's way between the tunes &/or songs question.
They are dance tunes & rhythmic songs at the same time. There are subtle distinctions, but for practical purposes (in this case) tune & song are nearly synonymous.
This article is the 1st time I have read about Puirt-a-beul
http://www.siliconglen.com/culture/puirtabeul.html
# Posted on January 11th 2009 by Ben Steen
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
None taken, Random_notes! ;)
And nice link!
# Posted on January 12th 2009 by -ronan-
Re: Tunes and/or Songs?
the earlier side of its 'language period' prompted this inclusion :
* the word 'tune' first recorded in the english language before 1325 _ with 'in tune' and 'out of tune' appearing in Middle English c.1440
* whereas 'song' is probabily before 1200, developed from the Old English 'sang' appearing in 'Beowulf' c. 725
Ref : Robert Banhart's 'Dictionary of Etymology' (1988) Chambers _ but first published in the US
# Posted on February 3rd 2009 by lisaniska