Would you believe me if I said no? To be a song, a work has to feature a single voice as the primary instrument (or only a few voices). The vast majority of classical music is not songs.
The heckler’s earlier comment about the violinist (“Sounds like she’s hitting a baby with a cat”) never fails to amuse me.
Cite? You’ve just defined “aria”, not “song”.
Although it’s not an accurate or comprehensive definition of either, I’d say Ultrafilter’s closer to song than aria.
I consider my cd collection to be quite “eclectic”. Usually because most people that look at it comment “I have never even heard of the majority of the artists/bands of the cds you have.”
Over 3/4 of my collection is of CDs that you can not find at BestBuy and are usually imports from around the world or underground domestic labels.
Of course I do have my share of “pop” or “popular” music. I consider anything that gets radio airtime, you can get at Walmart, has been on the billboard 100, has been on the cover of Rolling Stone, as “Pop” music.
Aria: Originally an air; a song; a tune; sung by a single voice with or without accompaniment.
Song: Any composition designed to be sung, either accompanied or unaccompanied.
Hardly my music dictionary of choice. By that definition, an entire opera is simply ‘a song’. And ‘aria’ has far more complicated definitions and associations than suggested there.
I agree. I was just using those different bands/singers to illustrate my point; you don’t have to like anything older than “two months” to have an eclectic taste in music. Sure, there are other bands/singers/groups I could have named, but i’m not confident that everyone would know who they are and so what music they’re known for.
I just used that dictionary because it was the first Google search, but it’s consistent with other music dictionaries I’ve seen. My main contention was with ultrafilter’s statement: “To be a song, a work has to feature a single voice as the primary instrument (or only a few voices).”
That’s ridiculous… even if we agree that a “song” is only the stuff played on mainstream radio stations, I can still name several that don’t fall under that definition.
I know dictionaries speak otherwise, but for ME, personally, a “song” is any piece of music, and doesn’t necessarily need lyrics.
If i hear a classical piece on a radio, and I like it, i’ll say “I like that song”. Regardless of the prescence of singing or not.
Of course, the dictionary probably proves my definition wrong, but if I think this way, I’m sure there are many others that over-widely use the term “song” as well.
Like even background music in games or movies…I consider those “songs”
I’ve met people who use “I have eclectic taste” to mean that they listen to whatever garbage is on the top 40 station. The objectionable part is not “eclectic,” though. It’s “taste.”
I don’t agree with that definition of a song; I agree with what I posted (and if GorillaMan cares to post the textbook definition, I’ll probably agree with that). As a result, I think that there are some pieces played on mainstream radio that are not songs.
Which textbook shall we opt for? 
Let’s start with Wikipedia, which makes it clear that there’s no easy definition. And you’re right, that there’s plenty mainstream popular music which cannot meaningfully be described as songs.
You know what else is a song by a band? Bohemian Rhapsody, by Queen.
Then what are they? Aside from vapid piles of shit, I mean.
Um, no offense to GorillaMan or anything, but why is he the only one capable of posting the textbook definition? What does “textbook definition” mean, anyway? I posted a definition from a music dictionary, he posted from Wikipedia. Um… and? So who’s to say who’s right?
I think we’re arguing over semantics here, and that’s not really what I meant to fall into, because I hate doing that. But from the Wiki site: “Colloquially, song is commonly used to refer to any music composition, even those without vocals. In European classical music, however, this usage is considered incorrect and song should only be used to describe a composition for the human voice.”
This, to me, says that it’s basically cultural. I mean, if you spend your time listening to and discussing European composers, or even play their works and compose your own, then yes, you might recoil at the fact that somebody might dare to call your latest work a song (the HORROR!!). But to the vast majority of humans, a song is a song, and I still say your particular definition of a song is incorrect.
Everyone will agree with this, no matter what their definition. Did you mean to say something else here?
I picked GorillaMan because he’s the only musicologist on the SDMB that I know of.
…and as such, ain’t gonna be trying to pin down a definition of ‘song’ any time soon 
No, I meant what I said. I was echoing the sentiment stated in Posts 16 and 20, that the word “song” is generally understood to mean “a piece of music”.
How about instrumental pieces specifically designated “song” by their composers, such as Mendelssohn’s Frühlingslied (“Spring Song”)?