PK9 didn’t say that *music* needed words, he said that putting “words into a musical context” was “the minimum definition of a song” not of ‘music’. A song is something one sings – that’s why it’s called that. If it doesn’t have words – if you don’t sing it – it’s not a song. And of course, there’s nothing wrong with music not being a song; many of the best and best known pieces of music have no words at all. But they don’t fall into the category ‘song’.

(One might even argue – if one were to take PK9’s definition very literally – that a piece of music with no intelligible lyrics – scatting or nonsense syllable songs, or vocalizations of originally instrumental pieces (cf. the Swingle Singers) – are also not songs, as such. I personally would rate them as songs, but to a lesser degree than songs with lyrics.)

I’m also very pleased to be working in a competition with the group assembled. The talent in our group puts on a pressure to improve, and while it’s evident that some artists do better or worse each week, it’s also evident that everybody here has serious Fu. Thank you for being good and making us better.

One of the reasons I like your song is that it was wholly different from everyone else’s. Like Molly, you took the rules for the round and ran in a different direction from everyone else. The song also reminded me of some of Les Claypool’s work. I’m a HUGE fan of his.

Some things I’d change: While I liked the direction you went with the lyrics, I’d make them a bit more intelligible. Not so much that you ruin what you were striving for, but a bit. Also, while I like the random-noise intro, I didn’t really start digging the song until the real rhythm started. Perhaps a shorter intro (or skipping it entirely), along with a bit clearer lyrics would have made your song more accessible to some more people in the voting.

Seriously, though, I see what you’re doing with it, and I though it was compelling enough for one of my votes.