• WANTED: Happy members who like to discuss audio and other topics related to our interest. Desire to learn and share knowledge of science required. There are many reviews of audio hardware and expert members to help answer your questions. Click here to have your audio equipment measured for free!

Philosophical question about "song"

OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
I don’t think the song and the manifestation can be the same thing. If that were the case, every recording or performance of a particular song would be a new song
That's exactly my puzzlement. Read below...

Normally (or at least, in terms of copyright law) a distinction is drawn between a “song” (a melody, chord progression, etc., i.e. something rather abstract) and a specific recording of it (which is what you’re referring to I believe).
"a melody, chord progression, etc., i.e. something rather abstract" isn't this "perception" of such musical elements? Somethings "abstract" you elaborate within your mind? (patterns? mental think object? not sure how I would identify somethings abstract within my mind).
But what about elements that are totally related to "sound"?
Timbre is not somethings "abstract" I think, its an aspect of sound you perceive and elaborate DUE to the sound you got.

So the puzzlement:

a. we consider timbre part of a song (at least, instrumental one)
b. timbre is related to sound
c. sound changes on every new playback/manifestation

Thus:
d. c imply that TIMBRE change as well on every new playback/manifestation
e. d imply that song change as well (since timbre is a part of it) on every new playback/manifestation

o_Oo_Oo_O
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
That's exactly my puzzlement. Read below...


"a melody, chord progression, etc., i.e. something rather abstract" isn't this "perception" of such musical elements? Somethings "abstract" you elaborate within your mind? (patterns? mental think object? not sure how I would identify somethings abstract within my mind).
But what about elements that are totally related to "sound"?
Timbre is not somethings "abstract" I think, its an aspect of sound you perceive and elaborate DUE to the sound you got.

So the puzzlement:

a. we consider timbre part of a song (at least, instrumental one)
b. timbre is related to sound
c. sound changes on every new playback/manifestation

Thus:
d. c imply that TIMBRE change as well on every new playback/manifestation
e. d imply that song change as well (since timbre is a part of it) on every new playback/manifestation

o_Oo_Oo_O

Interesting take Nowhk. My response is to say that timbre is an aspect of a recording or performance, but not part of the “song”.
 
OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
Interesting take Nowhk. My response is to say that timbre is an aspect of a recording or performance, but not part of the “song”.
You are lucky :) I'm listening music that is mainly driven by timbre, which seems the principal part of the track itself (heavy bass, distortion/harmonic content, sweep filters, and so on).

So you simply filter out elements like "timbre" listening to music? "All Along The Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix its the same for you played with a classical guitar?
I feel that its timbre what affect the experience I have... that guitar/distortion sound... :cool:
 

andreasmaaan

Master Contributor
Forum Donor
Joined
Jun 19, 2018
Messages
6,652
Likes
9,399
So you simply filter out elements like "timbre" listening to music? "All Along The Watchtower" by Jimi Hendrix its the same for you played with a classical guitar?
I feel that its timbre what affect the experience I have...

Not at all. Timbre is of course very important. Recordings are important. Performances are important. But they aren’t the song!

This is precisely why we say that Jimi Hendrix did a recording (or cover) of All Along the Watchtower, but that doesn’t change the fact that the song was written by Bob Dylan.

To put it another way: when Dylan wrote this song, he could not have known Hendrix would cover it, let alone how. And yet, when Dylan played it it or hummed it or possibly even imagined it in his head for the first time, it was a song. Long before Hendrix even heard it. How could you say the timbre of Hendrix’s recording was an aspect of that song?
 
OP
Nowhk

Nowhk

Member
Joined
Dec 22, 2017
Messages
99
Likes
15
Not at all. Timbre is of course very important. Recordings are important. Performances are important. But they aren’t the song!

This is precisely why we say that Jimi Hendrix did a recording (or cover) of All Along the Watchtower, but that doesn’t change the fact that the song was written by Bob Dylan.

To put it another way: when Dylan wrote this song, he could not have known Hendrix would cover it, let alone how. And yet, when Dylan played it it or hummed it or possibly even imagined it in his head for the first time, it was a song. Long before Hendrix even heard it. How could you say the timbre of Hendrix’s recording was an aspect of that song?
Thats simple different definition/semantic.
Lets say that you are right, and song is somethings more abstract than "sound" properties (basically, melody and harmony).

Now, whats the Hendrix work? Let say (as you stated) that is a recording. So we return to evalutate and consider "also" timbre. Can you state that the recording is static? I don't think so. Playing in different setup change properties as well. In some aspects, we are dealing with his work.

Are a recording really a piece of physycs work that is considered to play as we prefer? Because the sound we can perceive from a record is really aleatory...
 
Top Bottom