Artistically anything goes. But i think it is right to try to protect the definition of the word song. For me the essence of a song is a tune with words and to a lesser extent harmonic structures that go with it. And all these elements are open to interpretation which makes it even harder to pin down. Songs can also become cultural artefacts that live on in folk memory long after the people who wrote them are dead. What could be better that to have created such a thing.skipkent wrote:I have always referred to that as 'the Campfire Test'... ; )crumhorn wrote:If you can't bash out the chords on a guitar or piano while singing the tune/lyrics then it's not a song...
Still, there is ample room for Pieces, Performances, Experiments and so on.
For songwriting (guitar, bass, vocals) I think Live is great. Jam on ideas in session, lay it all out in arrangement. Create a folder of simple midi drum tracks to use instead of the metronome. Open a new project, drag in a drum track, enable recording and you're off.
I like to use just one channel for recording the whole time, and then drag the recorded clips to wherever I want them to go 'rhythm guitar', 'lead', 'bass', whatever.
Very quick, very easy, Live stays out of my way but is always there when I need something!
Anything beyond these basics and what you have is an arrangement or production of the song. Wildly different productions can still be recognisable as the same song.
Take away the singing and it's not a song any longer it's something else. There are plenty of words to describe these other types of music.
So to me the question is why do "write" music as opposed to just improvising it. To me both approaches and anything in between are valid. Personally I like an element of both; inspired improvisation within the confines of a written musical structure.
Music at its best is a social activity so some kind of repeatability and structure is essential to allow people to participate.