Are pop songs considered pieces of music?

Yes of course.

Technically, even in classical music, a song is a song (or Lied, Chanson, Canzone, depending on what culture it is from and if you are using that culture's language.) Though technically all are pieces, 'piece' is generally reserved for instrumental music, with that hybrid of large chorus and orchestral music being called 'choral pieces.'

I doubt, too, as already stated, that you would hear most pop music fans calling much of anything a 'piece.'

Certainly, the more classical usage of the word 'piece' would apply to an original pop instrumental piece if it were not an arrangement of a song, i.e. just music, no text no vocals. Amongst the pop consumer base, I think the general term there is 'instrumental.'

If you want to campaign for the correct use of the classical terms 'song' and 'piece' in the milieu of the pop fan base, be prepared for funny looks and as appallingly ill-mannered snobbery as has unfortunately shown up in spades here in this thread - as a seemingly near reflex "automaton" reaction simply because you asked matter-of-factly about basic terminology.

It seems the more popular forms of entertainment, and their followers, will mistake your using those terms as trying to appear 'above people.', i.e. they will perceive of you as trying to be 'uppity.' I believe you will find an equal amount of ill-mannered responses from the pop fans, and it will probably come as automatically and with the same reflexive quickness. Which side of the coin of snobbery it is I don't know, but one is the obverse of the other - each side being of equal 'value.'

Class issues abound the world 'round, it seems, and often the first front of those barriers is language and how you use it.

Best regards.

Ehh... technically they are considered pieces of music, but you will never hear anyone refer to a pop song as a "piece."

A composition, a work of art, or a dance (where the dancers are classically trained), is usually considered a "piece." The word has the connotation of being something of substance. Pop music is fun and gets us in a good mood, but often doesn't have substance.

Unfortunately, they (erroneously) are, but in my book they will never be considered "real" music.

A "piece of music" is generally referred to as a full composition. However, there is a requirement that makes something a "full" composition...

Classical music is significantly more complex and involved than pop. The network and system of a Classical piece moves in an unpredictable 'flow'. Pop tends to sway yet bounce with a driving pound that often vexes the listener if done incorrectly. The idea of 'vocals' appears to be the most out-of-place factor in Pop music. What is the purpose of 'vocals'?

When we say 'vocal', we are relating to the human voice. When we say 'music', we are relating to a harmonic collection of sounds and melodies. However, the addition of vocals takes away many of the original purposes of music, such as:

1) Vocals TELL you what to feel; instrumental music should be able to do that on it's own, and not 'tell', but 'let'.

2) Vocals can often distract a listener. If a student is studying for an exam, the enunciated words from the singer will distract him, replacing his thoughts of the scholastic material with the words of the singer.

3) The human voice is always different. I repeat, always. A different voice can make people uncomfortable or not listen to this 'new song' only because they are not familiar with the signer. There are a million different types of voice out there, yet only a small group of major, recognizable instruments.

As predicted earlier in the year, Rock, Pop, Rap, etc. are going to decline, and once again, Classical music will take over. Rappers may become very famous for one to ten years or so, but they always die down to being unpopular. Classical composers, however, tend to last a long stench of their lives happy and healthy. Why is this?

Find a Classical composer who drinks, smokes, is on drugs, or anything like that. I'll just tell you the answer here: there is none. Now, find a Pop singer or rapper who drinks, smokes, is on drugs, etc. That one wasn't too hard, was it?

There are many reasons for this, but one is due to pressure from the audience. Rappers think they will be 'cool' if they drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. Classical composers, however, never get close to those things. Why is that?

And then, we ask why Pop, Rap, etc. songs always revolve around the same things: Girls, money, sex.

What does Classical revolve around? Everything.

In Classical, there's a piece for every instrument. With pop, it's just a guitar, bass, drum, vocal, and that's pretty much it! Orchestra, you have your violin, trombone, viola, piccolo flute, bassoon, double bass, french horn, trumpet, timpani, cello, etc, etc! Sometimes a 104 piece orchestra! 104 vs 3 or 5... which is easier? Which shows more skill? Which genre is often rushed and results in a careless effort?

I don't know when people started considering Pop better than Classical; it simply baffles me. Pop music tells you what to feel. Classical lets you fill your inner feelings into the pot of your life, and lets you dive into that pot and live a world full of remembrance, unleashing new thoughts and experiences.

Yes, of course pop songs are pieces of music. That does not however mean they are good music (or for that matter bad music).

I'd just like to say that I don't think I've ever read so much meaningless drivel as that spouted by "Focus on What's Right", virtually all of it being either incorrect, not relevant to the question, or both...

Pop is NOT considered music.

Yes, they're considered pieces of music. Music isn't just defined as what we like to hear, hahaha.

According to my professors, the definition of music is "organized sound and silence." So, yes, pop songs definitely count.

They aren't considered music in my opinion.

I hate today's pop music, it's just terrible.

Rihanna-Unfaithful?

Neyo-Mad?

Just barely - like a Twinkie is just barely edible, and just barely nutritious.