Thanks so much for the spotlight and all the kind words! Making that song was probably the most fun I've had with music ever haha. I kinda wanted to go for a kind of "Clams Casino" vibe with it originally but it just kinda flew its own way once I started getting stuff in.
I have no idea what genre to put it under either though so you're not alone there!

To the other musicians in the spotlight, I loved hearing the tracks! Some personal comments:

Biophile: Man, you hit that perfect modern hype-rap feel with that song dude. Loved the video game sounds in there and that beat!

willowingwhispers: Damn dude, you got that bass on lock! The way it hits in my headphones is amazing!

coldkace: I actually love everything about this. I love live recordings with the noises in the background still present especially when it includes sounds of nature. A+ on that dude.

blackmist-squamata: This piano work is simply amazing. It hits all of the right emotional chords with me man. Those high notes meld so well with the chords you're laying down. It actually gave me chills. Incredible.

I compose with headphones on, so each song is usually best heard with headphones haha

Thanks! Loved your song, too. It was sooo nice.

Those were some nice songs! Congrats to everyone on it :3

P.S. I have synesthesia with music, so technically I was watching the show :P

Awesome spotlight! I'm glad that this was my second one, as it was a super awesome spotlight. :3

Thanks a bunch for what you said about my piece! ^^

I'd like to note that my song won't play on my page for some reason, but it will play if you hit the "download" button. :)

Man, I'm in some amazing company here, glad I could be among such talented musicians for my first spotlight. Thanks for the spot and the kind words, it means a lot. ^^

"Song..."

You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means.

May I ask what you would define a song to be?

Song: (n)

1) A short poem or other set of words set to music or meant to be sung.
2) Singing or vocal music.
3) A musical composition suggestive of a song.

Most of these were not suggestive of anything to be sung and none of them had any vocal work at all.

My apologies, but a song is also something that represents melodic structure. I am sorry if you do not like it, but most pieces of music now days are reffered to as songs. Vocals do not need to be present in a piece for it to be called a song. I know, you have the legal definition of the word "song", but that is not how the socially accepted version of it is partained.

Every dictionary I have ever consulted, Oxford, Webster, Funk and Wagnalls, does not define it that way. Sorry if your definition disagrees with every authoritative source out there.

Oh, and add to that, while Oxford does indeed show the "legal" definition, Webster shows "common usage" definitions, and they do not define it as you describe.

Strictly speaking, the usage of a word comes before its definition, not after. A word is used in practice by a collective before it's written down into a dictionary. There are several languages around the world and throughout history and prehistory that do/did not have dictionaries, considering they do/did not have writing systems or standardized rules. And yet their words still have/had real, understandable meanings given merely by context.

On top of that, language is a flexible, dynamic organ, and the meanings of words change to assist the trends of culture. This is true across time, but also across different contexts within the culture. As beneficial as standardized language compiled by dictionaries are to more formal settings, it's monolithic attitude tends to be rather clumsy when applied to more complex real-world settings. "Song" in one real-world context might refer strictly to vocal work, but "song" in other real-world contexts can and do take the broader meaning, where "piece" or "work" would sound awkward. To appeal to a dictionary kind of misses the point when it comes to the real world.

When the word "music" was first coined in Ancient Greek it referred to the practices of the Muses (hence "muse" + "-ic"), which personified the inspirations driving literature, science, and the arts, both visual and auditory. In that sense, shouldn't "music" have a much broader definition than the way we use it now - than strictly the auditory art? The word evolved - it jumped from one idea to another - to give us something easier and more natural to say than "auditory art," which would be annoying and clumsy.

Dictionaries and grammars have a way of working most efficiently when they're descriptivist rather than prescriptivist. In other words, when they attempt to understand how words already are being used rather than dictate how words *ought* to be used. To that end dictionaries are in a continuous state of revision to keep up with new ideas, technologies, and cultures (e.g. "furry"). This is because it's the responsibility of dictionaries to stay relevant to current usages of words, not vice-versa.

Hope you don't mind the rant, but as a linguist I'm quite passionate about this topic. owo

---

On the other hand, the case could be made that we should see some more vocal work represented in the spotlights, considering there weren't any vocals this time around. And I would agree - I'd like to hear some voices next time. But that argument would be irrelevant to linguistic ethics regarding the definition of the word "song."

^.=.^

Case in point. ^w^

I figure that in today's society it's an acceptable term to use in this topic is all. I realize that a lot of words nowadays are misused, but unfortunately, over time, these things happen.