Skip to main content ↑ ↓

Notice

Please note that most of the software linked on this forum is likely to be safe to use. If you are unsure, feel free to ask in the relevant topics, or send a private message to an administrator or moderator. To help curb the problems of false positives, or in the event that you do find actual malware, you can contribute through the article linked here.
Topic: Why do (some) people call tracks "songs"?? (Read 1705 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Why do (some) people call tracks "songs"??

Why do (some) people call tracks "songs"?  That implies the track has vocals... :weird:
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.

Re: Why do (some) people call tracks "songs"??

Reply #1 –
Quote from: fooball on
Why do (some) people call tracks "songs"?  That implies the track has vocals... :weird:
The term "song" is often used interchangeably with "track" or "piece of music," even though a "song" traditionally refers to a piece of music with lyrics and vocals. The reason people sometimes call instrumental tracks "songs" could be due to habit, generalization, or cultural language shifts where "song" has become a catch-all term for any piece of music, regardless of whether it includes vocals.
In many contexts, especially in casual conversation, people may not distinguish between "songs" and other forms of music (like instrumental tracks), leading to the broader use of the term "song" to refer to any musical recording. It's more about convenience and convention than a strict adherence to definitions. However, those who are more precise in their language might reserve "song" for music with vocals and use "track," "piece," or "composition" for instrumental music.

Re: Why do (some) people call tracks "songs"??

Reply #2 –
It's curious, because (I suppose being of an older generation) I've never called even a vocal track a song (nor heard it called that, except in these forums).  Songs are what we used to do at school.

I'm aware parlance on the forum uses it interchangeably, hence the question, but that does not explain why.  Is it youth-speak?

Even "track" is euphemistic, since that refers to an individual item from an LP... and the track itself is actually continuous!  Nonetheless that is the terminology adopted by the music industry – the LP cover would list tracks and refer to them as tracks.

I suppose I have answered my own question: the youth of today have had no exposure to analogue music, so have not been exposed to the terminology on LP and cassette covers.  And yet, don't CD covers list tracks?  Don't MP3 players show a "track" listing?  Isn't the ID3 standard tag "TRACK" (not "SONG")?

To me, talking about "songs" is almost as puerile as "train stations" (should be "railway stations").
It's your privilege to disagree, but that doesn't make you right and me wrong.