The nature of a song

When I call myself a "songwriter", I mean it as something that is distinct from a "composer". Or, rather, it is a more specific sort of composer: a composer of songs. This, of course, begs the question of what a song is.

It isn't as easy a question to answer as one might think. We can certainly identify a song as something separate from, say, a string quartet. Songs are pieces of music written for the voice as an instrument. There may be other instruments in songs, but the voice is the focus. But we already know this, right? It's in the dictionary.

As with most definitions, however, there are deeper layers of complexity and specificity. We certainly have heard songs where non-vocal lines are the most memorable parts, or even "instrumental songs". The latter are often instrumental tracks on albums of primarily vocal material. There is usually some other instrument that replaces the voice as the instrument of focus.

There are also pieces of music that are vocal but may not fit everyone's idea of what a song is. Listen to, say, the soundtrack for Star Wars Episode I. There's a lot of ominous vocal stuff going on there. But does that make the vocal parts songs? Most people would say no. Why not?

Everyone will have their own definition of what is or is not a song, and most people have not and will never think long enough about it to put that definition into words. Some people insist that all songs are vocal and have lyrics, while others have very broad definitions that could be applied to just about anything. Here I will outline my own definition, which you may or may not agree with. I don't think there is a precise right answer. But when I say that I am a songwriter above all else, these are the qualities of the music that I compose and think of as songs.

Chris Torgersen's three (somewhat loose) qualifications for songs:

1. Songs are self-contained.

This is not to say that songs cannot be part of something larger, just that they have their own beginning, middle, and end. They are recognizable as distinct pieces within the larger piece.

2. Songs have hooks.

"Hooks" can be interpreted widely. They can be rhythmic, melodic, or whatever. The point is that songs aren't just tense background mood music. They have some quality to them that is identifiable as being distinctly "that song" and memorable as such.

3. Songs spotlight solo instruments.

This is not always the case, but the vast majority of songs give the spotlight to one instrument (overwhelmingly voice) over others. The instrument of focus may change within a song, but usually this is not the case. Importantly, a song must be recognizable as itself by the use of these solo lines alone. This is a tricky qualification because it is even more subjective than the others. For instance, I do not think of string quartets as songs because, even though they can have different solo instruments, they are interdependent. Individual lines don't capture the essence of the piece.

This is probably a much wider net than most people would have. I'm sure it captures quite a few things that I would not consider songs, simply because I did not include the necessity of vocals if nothing else. But these are loose guidelines.

So, then, how can we say that one song is the same song when played in vastly different ways. After all, most Americans have heard "The Star-Spangled Banner" played at sporting events in many different ways, and recognize Jimi Hendrix's version of it as the same song. This is because songs can be distilled down to their essential elements and reconstructed in different ways.

This is an important concept for me. When I say that I write songs, I mean that I write these essential essences. I can interpret my own songs in a variety of ways, but my interest lies more in the writing of the underlying song than in the instrumentation, production, or performance of it.

So when I say that I am a songwriter primarily, this is what I am talking about. If I record a song that switches moods unpredicatbly or relies heavily on production (as many of mine have), there is always an underlying essence that is there when the rest is stripped away. A song is not its production or performance. It is the intangible thing underneath that can only ever be heard through interpretation. It is a theoretical, abstract object that must be made concrete by production or performance.

Therefore, most songwriters also take up performance and/or recording as a sort of secondary craft. This can go both ways. In my experience, I have seen more performers or studio wizards who have taken up songwriting as a secondary craft than the other way around. Performance, production, and songwriting are separate skills that do not always (actually, rarely) exist strongly in one person. Most often, a person has one of these skills and uses the others as means of showing it. And different audiences value these things differently, but that's another discussion.

I am a songwriter first. I have learned how to do some recording in my little home studio, and I'm not terrible at it (though I'm really far from good). I am not much of a performer. It took me a while to realize this about myself. Knowing this about myself and approaching music from this angle helps me to work in the way that is most rewarding for me.