Hey kid, if all the music you listen to is “songs” made by “bands,” that’s not eclectic. And if you don’t listen to any music more than two months old, that’s not eclectic either.
<Caveman rant>
You kids with your orchestras and your Beethoven and your clarinets! Back in my day, all we had was our animal skin drums to bang around the campfire! And we LIKED it that way!
</Caveman rant>
You misundersood him. He just really likes Big Country.
We have both kinds of music. Country and Western!
Uh… why not? It’s silly, but even if you only listen to popular music and really new popular music, there’s still a big variety out there.
Lisa Simpson at a jazz concert: You have to listen to the notes she’s NOT playing.
Audience Member: I could have done THAT at home.
As opposed to… what? “Manifestos” by “crazy guys on the bus”?
What I mean is – most music can be described as a “song” by a “band”. It includes “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel, “Gaudete” sung by Steeleye Span, “Flowers on the Wall” sung by the Statler Brothers, “Boulavogue” sung by the Clancy Brothers, and “Happy Phantom” by Tori Amos. And those songs are pretty disparate in type and fandom.
Had to go to M-W to be sure:
eclec·tic
2 : composed of elements drawn from various sources; also : HETEROGENEOUS
So, it seems, the definition really depends on what your sources are, and if you consider them “various” enough. Sounds like an ear-of-the-listener type of thing.
That said, I really like the idea of this exchange:
**
Thing One:** What kind of music do you like?
Thing Two: I’m mostly into songs, by bands.
I’m going to start using that.
As a kid (bah. 20. I still count, dammit) I have to say I disagree. Looking at the Billboard Top 100, if I like Nelly Furtado, Beyonce, Jessica Simpson, Panic at the Disco, Ashlee Simpson, the Red Hot Chili Peppers, Nickleback etc etc I think that’d make for an “eclectic” musical taste.
And what exactly does “songs” made by “bands” mean? I have to like solo singers? Classical music? As it happens I like both, but even if I didn’t I don’t see why I have to like a particular “form” of music on top of everything else to have an “eclectic” taste; I just have to like a wide range of music.
If we’ve exhausted all the synonyms for “shitty,” that is. 
Please please tell me that’s a whoosh.
Or a composition performed by an orchestra, or a song performed by an individual, or a choral piece, or tape loops spliced together by an engineer, or…
Most modern popular music, that is. The notion of the song as the default musical style and the band as the default performer is very modern (think the past 60 years or so).
As opposed to… what? “Manifestos” by “crazy guys on the bus”?
What I mean is – most music can be described as a “song” by a “band”. It includes “The Boxer” by Simon and Garfunkel, “Gaudete” sung by Steeleye Span, “Flowers on the Wall” sung by the Statler Brothers, “Boulavogue” sung by the Clancy Brothers, and “Happy Phantom” by Tori Amos. And those songs are pretty disparate in type and fandom.
Another song by a band is Rio, by Duran Duran.
Heh. I went to their webstie to get some ideas, and was just going down the list thinking “Wow, all this music is crap”. Our charts are just as bad as yours, though.
Excellent double-posting technique! That was what, 20 minutes difference?
And I understand what you mean; still, if it’s melodious rubber-balloon-rubbing I’m listening to or didjeridoo-jamming or whatever, I still consider it a song if it is intended to be a piece of music. If for no other reason than clarity and utility. Call me a Philistine, but I’m likely to :rolleyes: if I, all unknowing, call a song a ‘song’ and get sneered at and informed it is a ‘piece’ or a… I don’t know what crazy words you kids today are using.
Likewise, I call a group of people who sing and/or play instruments or twiddle computers or records or whatever a ‘band’. If it is one person, they are a ‘musician’.
I might be wrong, and certainly I have some ignorance on the subject, but I don’t understand why the distinction is ever so necessary. And I do believe you can still listen to ‘songs’ played by ‘bands’ that still encompass vast varieties of cultures and styles of music.
OK, by the same logic, I assert that the vast majority of music can be classified as ‘ditties realised by consorts’.
Tip: don’t answer classical music questions in Cafe Society, unless you use the right terminology, even if you know the right answer.
when i was in band in high school and college, we called every piece of music we played a “song.” mainly because it was easier than saying “piece of music.” i’m with the ninja.
I will say, I’m not totally sure what you all mean my “eclectic” other than “extremely various” (I never use the word eclectic). But that music you listed is NOT “extremely various”. Even within the realm on modern popular american major-label music, it gets wayy wayyy wayyy more “extremely various” than that list. And of course thats definitely not condering any international or older music even.
I agree. However I will say, I undestand the OP’s point that “bands” sometimes doesn’t encompass everything in the wide world…but “songs”? Isn’t every song a song?