Back to template

1,797,935pages on
this wiki

Is an instrumental a "Song"?Edit

It's not really a song if it's instrumental, is it? :) --Vatzec 15:20, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're getting at, but all instrumentals are songs, they just don't have lyrics/spoken parts... --WillMak050389 18:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
My point is, the word "song" is probably derived from "to sing", which is to emit voice accordingly to a melodic line especially composed to fit a musical composition, right? :D --Vatzec 22:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Good catch, maybe it should read: "This composition is an instrumental."? --WillMak050389 22:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
But what if it isn't a composition either (e.g. an improvisation)? We could use "This is an instrumental piece", which should cover all bases… But in normal every-day life the word "song" is generally used for instrumentals as well, so unless we get more votes for changing it, I'm for leaving it as it is. Now, if someone had suggested getting rid of the box-in-a-box…
Ahh, but the formal definition of "song" (see wikipedia) includes lyrics. Your "instrumental piece" description should work, though. --WillMak050389 22:33, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I did actually check wp, and right in the third paragraph of the introduction it says: "Colloquially, song is sometimes used to refer to any musical composition, including those without vocals." (I suspect they only use "sometimes" instead of "often" or "usually" because they couldn't find a source for the latter…) I'll bring it up on the community portal; I doubt many people will have this page no their watchlist. — 6x9 (Talk) 23:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Track or piece. Either will do. --Frontway 23:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I prefer track.  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
'Track' or 'composition' please. 'Piece' does not sound correct.  Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 09:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Piece = part of something ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 09:43, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Piece of music? Part of an album? (Except for those that consist of only one track, of course.) — 6x9 (Talk) 12:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Piece = gun  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:22, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Piece = 'a single item which forms part of a set'. Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 17:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
From Musical composition Wikipedia16 (where Piece of music redirects, BTW):
"Musical composition is: *an original piece of music, *the structure of a musical piece, *the process of creating a new piece of music"
…and right below, the very first sentence starts with:
"A piece of music exists in the form of… etc."
I've also heard musicians announce "the next piece" on live recordings numerous times, but can't remember ever hearing "the next track" or similar. I rest my case. I'm a piece-loving guy *groan*6x9 (Talk) 17:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I, myself prefer "track". I hope this sets 6x9 on the right... track *cough* --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   18:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Haa haa Nice one RD...he almost had us there :-)  Яєdxx Actions Words 18:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
RD's vote doesn't count, he's just too afraid of Red to disagree with her :-)
I must say, though, that I'm deeply disappointed. In all of you. I had secretly hoped that someone would come forward and say "While you're changing this bit, could you also please get rid of that hideously ugly, uglily hideous box? There's already the lyric box anyway, we don't need a second box inside it." I would have brought this up myself, but I'm no longer allowed to. — 6x9 (Talk) 18:40, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
How terrible would "{{SONG}}" is an instrumental. be? This gets rid of identifying what type of musical composition/piece/track/etc. it is. We'd have to add a parameter to specify the song name though, just in case we have a double colon problem. Also, I don't like the box either, but I'm not going to bring it up. --WillMak050389 18:59, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That might actually be the best solution (as long as no-one minds that the text might wrap for long song titles). Anyone else gonna bring up the box? Please? *makes puppy-eyes* — 6x9 (Talk) 19:11, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, OK. Get rid of the box! It's ugly and unnecessary because the lyric box is now required, back in the day when we didn't have to wrap it with lyrics tags, it looked good, but now it is ugly and redundant. --WillMak050389 19:14, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That box is a piece of art. Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 19:39, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I totally agree notime. Nope we been there, we done that and I know you detest the box with a vengeance 6 because it don't look so pretty for you in IE6 as it does for us FF users, but the box stays.... I'll tell on you....Hey Kiefer...  Яєdxx Actions Words 19:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I use Firefox btw. --WillMak050389 20:01, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Remember this ??  Яєdxx Actions Words 20:04, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I do. I distinctly remember that of the five people who voted, three were for getting rid of the box. And IE6 is probably the only browser where the Instrumental template looks good… because it simply doesn't display the banner box! Another reason for me to keep it – it's got taste!
Then there's the fact that banners like WP-Song and the current Instrumental template really, really don't like each other. And that using {{Banner}} where plain text would be sufficient is unnecessarily complicating things. (Remember K.I.S.S.?) — 6x9 (Talk) 20:24, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Is there a box with 'This composition is narration' or 'This composition is narration set to music'?  Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 22:18, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
"This musical composition is an instrumental." is fine if a change must be made. Personally, if I asked someone what song they were listening to, and they answered "None." and I said, "But I can hear it playing." and then they said, "It's not a song it's a musical composition, since it doesn't have any words and is therefore not sung." I think I'd not talk to that person again. :-] Yeah, it may be technically correct, but I don't know anyone who has ever made that distinction before now. And I've known/worked with some seriously anal-retentive and fanatical Music majors. Common, colloquial use differs from the dictionary term. It happens.
As for the lyric tags around the template: It's useful for applications using the site. A programmer can use the lyric tags on song pages to "pluck" out the lyrics, or in this instance, the fact that lyrics for the musical composition do not exist, as it is an instrumental. No lyrics tags on a page could be interpreted as us not having the lyrics/data for the song, when the correct answer is a more distinct and data-precise "This item is an instrumental." Removing the lyrics tags would change a basic structure unit of the site. Song pages include lyrics tags (whether they are technically a musical composition with no lyrics and technically merely an instrumental or not.  :-] ) Let's not have a big argument about this again, okay? (At least it won't be on my talk page, though...!  :-] )    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:06, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) The discussion isn't about whether we should remove the lyric tags (no-one suggested that), it's about whether {{Instrumental}} needs the additional box inside the lyric box, provided by {{Banner}}.
@notime: I don't think we need a template for that – you can use the addtext parameter in {{Song}} (like here), or put it in italics above the lyrics words. — 6x9 (Talk) 02:47, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
Thank you 6x9, I found, used and was happy with addtext only the other day, but like {{Instrumental}} it'd look better and be more prominent in a nice box within a box.;) Time for a vote before we run out of space? Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 14:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
This made me curl up: Personally, if I asked someone what song they were listening to, and they answered "None." and I said, "But I can hear it playing." and then they said, "It's not a song it's a musical composition, since it doesn't have any words and is therefore not sung." I think I'd not talk to that person again. Classic! Thanks Kiefer, I haven't laughed so much for ages!  Яєdxx Actions Words 17:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC) P.S. I couldn't agree more.
Sorry if someone's already said this, you guys wrote too much for me to read everything at the moment so I'll just say what I wanted right away - I think that "composition" fits the communique well, doesn't matter if a piece is improvised or something, because that's a composition too (though created quite rapidly). Other candidates could eventually be "tune" (but that's too colloquial IMO) or "track", but that's more like series of data on a disc. --Vatzec 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
I blame Frontway. He started it ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 03:22, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I think what is most mystifying is Times sits there staring at the screen while an instrumental sound scape is playing, if he was using iTunes, he could see a cool icon and the one word "Instrumental" (no piece, song, composition, concerto, {SONG}, etc.) :] ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 03:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, I think you could have something there Echo...  Яєdxx Actions Words 04:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
*The sound of a slapped forehead.*    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   05:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Haa haa well I think you can tell from the above that I had a bit of difficulty taking the matter seriously ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 12:41, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The sound of one forehead slapping? Well, with two it would be more a *bonk* than a *slap*… So, anyone have a nice icon? Preferably not iTunes' since that's probably copyrighted? (IIRC this suggestion came up last time as well.) — 6x9 (Talk) 12:57, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

it's really the iTunes widget's (Harmonic) interpretation of our tl|Instru. see Image:InstruMental.png. Would be nice to have a param for the template to allow distinction btwn drum|guitar|trumpet|vocal (scat/yodeling) instrumentals, but that's probably too much for some ;] ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 13:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
How about Slapshead?  Ñôīέ2çяȳTalk 13:34, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Kingnee has tried something like that (Echo's idea, not notime's), see {{Instrumental2/Test}} and this test page. He also added a different subcategory for each, which might be overkill… — 6x9 (Talk) 13:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
It was all King's idea to begin with, I saw some of his 'hopelandic' flags, it needs to be documented well, not as easy to reckon as German dialects :) ... ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 14:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
Rfl@this  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
I really like Image:InstruMental.png. Can we use that? Pleeeeeeese? --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   19:08, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry RD I don't think black pages are a great idea ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I do hope there isn't a misunderstanding here. We are still talking about changing the wording for the instrumental template, aren't we? Because whilst I have no objections if the majority want to change the wording to "Instrumental" (or similar, as suggested by Echo), or to add an icon, I'd still vote to keep the box.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:57, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Also available as text: 𝄞 ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 02:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Whatever that is, it shows up as 01D11E in a box for me. Same as the S in your signature shows as 2681 in a box, your contributions link shows as 23sB in a box and the deletions link shows as 2328 in a box. Whatever you are using doesn't appear to be universal. Probably some character/language add-on you have that I don't.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   02:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Seems like you learnt the lingo Kiefer but I'm still struggling to understand "Also available as text: 𝄞"  Яєdxx Actions Words 02:45, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The add on i have is called Unicode, lol. Useful for CJK and other things here. You probably don't see aqua's sig correctly either. File:ESsig+Gclef.png, the icon/text is "g clef" as text. ES (Talk) 02:49, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Well I don't know how it looks to everyone else, but your signature doesn't look like that for me: File:Echo's signature.gif. This is how Aqua's looks to me: File:Aqua's sig.gif.
 Яєdxx Actions Words 03:06, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, it's Unicode. The point though is that some Unicode isn't as Universal as the name would imply. Apparently your characters (unlike Aqua's, whose sig shows fine for me), does not work for all. (Not UTF-8, perhaps?) I have tweaked with my settings to see if that could help, but nothing has changed or improved yet. Redxx is lucky because at least the red link shows for her. I am trying to research the situation, but haven't come up with a solution yet. I'll be back if/when I find something.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I tweaked with all my settings too. I seem to have plenty of Unicode character settings I can use in my browser. I got some nice varieties, e.g. CJK, Arabic, I even got a nice green colour at one point but it didn't change your signature to anything like what you see. I don't think I can have the same Unicode typeface as you installed on my PC.  Яєdxx Actions Words 04:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm guessing that is the case. I downloaded the CODE2000 font (from here), and I get the characters, but ones not nearly as pretty as in Echo's picture. I'm guessing it's the Arial Unicode MS font that he has that we don't. So, yeah, it's like I thought. Ah, well, I added a bunch of other language sets that I didn't have yet while I was at it, as well.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:54, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry Keifer & Red, got side tracked with that huge picture. The font that contains the musical symbols is Apple Symbols unfortunately, not available for download. As for the looks, the big problem with windows is that it it stretches everything vertically, which is why Red's screenshot of my sig looks so bad compared to my version.Gclef ES (Talk) 06:10, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
I don't think it has to do with Windows so much as the font that is being used to render the character, though. You likely have one that was built specifically for those characters and to be as nice-looking as possible, while we have sub-standard versions. Mine is obviously meant to be a very quick substitute: EchoSierraSigKief That's not exactly a visually appealing version. I may still try to find a few good Unicode-extended fonts, but the situation is good as a reminder that not everybody will have these. Using these in a signature or on one's User Page, etc., is a personal choice. (Anyone who has Microsoft Office 2000 and beyond will have them show up perfectly fine, so that's a fairly large group.) But since it'll cause problems for those who don't have a suitable font, it should be kept in mind not to use them in non-personal site items. It was a fun exercise to research things, though!    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   16:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
Alright, before this topic dies down and the current issues with this template stay unresolved once more: Is there anything wrong with Echo's idea of changing "This song is an instrumental" to icon (treble clef seems like the best option) + "Instrumental"? Whether we want to keep the box-inside-a-box (and, if yes, how we resolve all resulting display issues) can be decided afterwards. — 6x9 (Talk) 16:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
How's this look? No ugly box… No long-winded discussion over whether it should be "song", "composition", "track", "piece", "bit of music"… No ugly box… Works far better with badges than the current one… No ugly box… Image size and font type (bold, italic, regular, greyed-out) can of course be adjusted. — 6x9 (Talk) 20:11, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
I think it looks magnifico! One thing; can we have the box back? (just kidding!)

--    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   20:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I approve of the new Instrumental display. It looks horrible with the four badges, but how many instrumentals are going to have that many? Not many. I guess we can deal with those situations on an individual basis.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   01:15, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

I also suggest the following: {{Instrumental}} adds the page to Category:Language/Instrumental directly instead of Category:Instrumental, and the language parameter in SongFooter is then no longer required. (This wasn't possible before Sean installed the variables extension, or we might have done it all along.) Any reason not to? — 6x9 (Talk) 15:09, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me 6  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:20, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
So we're doing away with Category:Instrumental? (Probably keeping the page, I'd guess, and giving a brief explanation of the situation and linking to Cat.:Lang./Instr.?) I guess so, although it seems a bit backward to me. The Language cat. was created because the parameter existed for other songs musical compositions and we weren't sure what to tell people to do because it was important that we include the language parameter or it would keep getting flagged as not having a language assigned. That the two lists are (well, should be) identical is a bit vexing, but I think the Cat.:Instrumental is more apropos and accurate. I suppose if there is an explanation on the page and a link as I mentioned (as opposed to an instant redirect), then it'd be fine though. I'm still a bit "weirded out" by this, though. I can't put it any better than that, however.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   04:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Makes perefect sense, Times, because Language will be automatically identified for Instrumentals, and they won't show in SNLI, so I suppose the language param on all song pages that contain tl|Ibstrumental will be ignored and become redundant? In the SongFooter doc we can clearly state that Instrumental template takes care of the language param and whether lang is there or not, filled or not, it will be ignored. How does that sound? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 04:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
@Kiefer: Which category we keep doesn't matter really. If people prefer Cat:I, we'll keep that and do away with Cat:L/I instead. It's just a name anyway, the structure needn't change.
@Echo: Yep, that's exactly what I had in mind. — 6x9 (Talk) 12:44, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Are you done with it yet, 6? I'm itching to see the new template in action! Hustle! Hustle! --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   18:20, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If you say it'll work, then I believe you. I think keeping everything under Category:Instrumental makes more sense, since the Lang/Instrumental bit was a necessary construction and there really isn't a language that is instrumental, if you know what I mean. But, how does one get to the Instrumental category? We don't link to Instrumentals from the Main Page, and I'm not sure where else it's linked to, except at the bottom of instrumentals! At least on the Language page, there's a link, although it's within all the languages. Whatever you decide I'm sure will be good, though.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   18:25, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
We can make Cat:Instrumental a subcategory to Cat:Language. (It's currently a subcat. of Cat:Songs only.) The reason why I'm not updating it already is that it needs an addition to SongFooter (because of the language bit), and if I'm changing that I might as well include all pending changes to Song and Star as well. — 6×9 (Talk) 18:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Yowza! If you're doing all of that as well, take as long as you need. I can wait. If patience is a virtue, I must be a saint (does Red have an emoticon with a halo?) --    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   19:02, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Angel Of course RD (did you doubt it..? lol)...
And sorry 6, I didn't realise that you was intending on doing away with the instrumental category. I definitely think we should keep both. Why don't you just build into template to link instrumentals to both language instrumental and category instrumental?  Яєdxx Actions Words 19:26, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Why do you want two categories with exactly the same pages in them? — 6×9 (Talk) 19:39, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
To preserve the status quo? I understand what you are saying, but I just think it would be better to retain Category:Instrumental as an independent category. Just like songs are independent of language. Instrumentals should be too. Just seems right to me that way.  Яєdxx Actions Words 20:07, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdenting here to clarify something I hope) Hey Redx, looking at your two posts above, I could be wrong but it appears to me that you were thinking that they want to do away with Category:Instrumental. What they want to do away with is Category/Language/Instrumental. Since instrumental isn't actually a language and they had to classify it that way before. Now they don't have to. That is all I wanted to say. *hugs*    RainbowDragon    talk    contribs   15:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Aye, aye Cap'n, indeed I did. It was when Kiefer said So we're doing away with Category:Instrumental? and the conversation that ensued after that. I'm glad someone round here understands me ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Think about it this way: Fruits and Vegetables are subsets of the Superset called 'Plants', however, since such hierarchial distinctions are deemed confusing and inadmissable, we construct categories for potatos & oranges as subcat of plants, as welll as subcats of fruits as well as declaring, all individual fruits and vegetables to be top level entities, at the same level as "Fruit" & "Vegetable". Roger? Haven't you ever looked at or worked on, or wondered about, the categories at Lyricwiki? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 22:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC) Set theory doesn't belong in a database
Yes Echo I spent many months before you was made admin sorting out the language categories.  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
(1) Preserving the status quo is not a reason, unless there's a reason for the status quo (and, as stated above, the original reason is no longer valid). (2) Also as stated above, the two categories are (or will become) identical and therefore can hardly be called independent. That leaves only (3) "just seems right" as reason, and you'll admit that's rather weak. — 6×9 (Talk) 22:17, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
It may well be a weak argument but I'm sicking with it ;)  Яєdxx Actions Words 22:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry to hear that. Hope you get better soon. — 6×9 (Talk) 23:30, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks it was a Freudian slip. Too much rushing about in ambulances today (lol)  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
languages? Look at the Songs Category page. Songs with legal downloads are alongside all the Songs fLetter cats, as well as covers etc. Logical categories, vs. that's the best I could come up with and I'm sticking with it categories. Obviously we all agree with whatever Inertia approves. You see Times why it is that the Related Artist discussion is progressing so rapidly? The best advice was of our best minds so far is still on your talk page...deemed not worthy. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 23:41, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
If I were evil I'd mention Parkinson's Law… — 6×9 (Talk) 23:51, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

(Outdent) @Echo - Everyone is entitled to their opinion and I believe that should be respected. I have expressed my opinion and I will continue to do so whether anyone agrees with my opinion or not. It's all getting very boring and predictable now and I really don't know what you are hoping to achieve with all this, but if you want to continue mocking me then you go right ahead. But you certainly aren't doing yourself any favours from where I sit.  Яєdxx Actions Words 01:29, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Is there any objection to having logical categories? Is this a subject best discussed in Category Users User Group? Certainly anything here can be called trivial by somebody. If cooked up categories are ok, is that to the exclusion of all other well understood categorizations? Would logical categories require Parental Advisory, or Administrative Advisory labels? Your taste is respected, What else is worth respecting? ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 02:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
You know, your points might be better received by all if you weren't acting like an Angry Young Man. These points have no bearing on the discussion at hand and are a digression, anyway.    Kiefer    talk    contribs    admin   03:05, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
A discussion which we shouldn't even have in the first place. Cat:L/I was born out of a necessity – that of having Instrumentals not stuck in SNLI. That necessity is no longer there, so Cat:L/I can be done away with. It's that simple. — 6×9 (Talk) 03:09, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Preserving the staus quo is hardly an attribute that one would consciously wish to spout. The Angry Young Man that keifer refers to, describes the Get Over Yourself, stick with the staus Quo character, (not my description). Hopefully SMW will bypass the lack of cognition. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 06:00, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok so choosing to ignore Echo's last "comment" and get back to discussing how we can improve LyricWiki, which is certainly what I come to this site for:
So 6 are you saying that we can keep Category:Instrumental and still have the song footer language automatically completed like you mentioned above? If so, that's what would get my vote.  Яєdxx Actions Words 10:33, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
No, I'm saying (and have said, or written, several times already) that we can keep Category:Instrumental and delete Category:Language/Instrumental because the language parameter in SF will be ignored if {{Instrumental}} is present. — 6×9 (Talk) 14:35, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Ok I was just checking I understood correctly because of this @Kiefer: Which category we keep doesn't matter really. If people prefer Cat:I, we'll keep that and do away with Cat:L/I instead.  Яєdxx Actions Words 15:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
If we are all expected to prefer and defend the status quo, why on earth did Sean spend his perfectly serene sunday morning moving servers and installing SMW ? That's my clue about status quo, and grocery lists masquerading as categories. However, I vote for whatever it is that Sean is doing. ∃cho⚡ierr∀ ( ) 15:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Around Wikia's network

Random Wiki