Featuring.. In Song Titles - Suggestions - Forums : Best Ever Albums

thejoj96

i don't care

Robert Anton Wilson
Epic Proghead

Gender: Male
Age: 56
Location: Inside

Well, although it annoys me greatly too I do have to admit that I have to go with lethalnezzle all the way on that one.

Naming the song is the "artists" prerogative, so if the title includes a featuring, then it should be included.

There are lots of songs I I would like to personally re-baptize because I find the artist was too high when he/she give it its title but hey, when I write my own songs, I will give them the title I want.

My first wish would be to re-baptize the Shawn Phillips song
"She Was Waiting For Her Mother At The Station In Torino And You Know I Love You Baby But It's Getting Too Heavy To Laugh"
to what everybody knows it as: "Woman" or "Woman of the land"
but hey ... at least it has no feat. I guess.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

Good points made here by Puncture and RAW. I change my opinion on the subject.
_________________

Jabapac

Gender: Male
Age: 36

I agree with albummaster that it would be better with their own section. but for how it looks now, is a mess!

JMan

Jasonconfused wrote:

Why only feature the singers? And why not just put them in the credits? Limit the song title to the song title.

Does anyone ever read the credits?

Hayden

Romanelli wrote:

"Featuring" (...and this is a new thing, coming from hip hop) is a way for artists to "shout out" to the person who agreed to appear on a track. I suppose that paying them isn't enough...or listing them in the album credits isn't either.

"Featuring" is also a way for artists to place a piece of advertising onto their tracklists. People are more likely to listen to the song "Bitches" by MC Pooper if the track is marketed as "Bitches (feat. SNOOP DOGG).

Ultimately, a musician who plays on a song is not part of the song title, and shouldn't be included on the track listing. It's kinda tacky. Just because someone happens to rap a couple of lines in a song, or play bass, or diums, or a guitar solo, or sing harmony on the chorus...does that mean that they are entitled to be part of the song title?

Please say no to "feat." as part of song titles. It's tacky, and those who do it should find it embarrassing. No musician should ever have their name included in a song title...unless the song is about them, not because they contributed something to the recording. It's foolish.

Well. That was embarrassing to read.

Most of this is either insulting or wrong...

Swans - Song For A Warrior (Ft. Karen O).

What's wrong with that? Karen's the only person that sings on that track.

Flying Lotus - ...And The World Laughs With You (Ft. Thom Yorke)

What's wrong with that? Thom is the only one that has vocals. He should be noted.

Queen - Under Pressure (Ft. David Bowie)

What's wrong with that? Or vise-versa, because that did the song together..

Crystal Castles - Not In Love (Ft. Robert Smith)
Gotye - Somebody That I Used To Know (Ft. Kimbra)
Hercules & Love Affair - Blind (Ft. Antony)
Nick Cave - Henry Lee (Ft. PJ Harvey)
That entire Flaming Lips album...

None of those are hip-hop.... I admit, most hip-hop artists do look for others to do collaborations with, but it's to bring more into the song (if it's done correctly). Not for mass media purposes.

Let's keep it, just for respect? Please?
_________________
Submit Your List for BEA's 2023 Film Poll!

Guest

Romanelli wrote:

"Featuring" (...and this is a new thing, coming from hip hop) is a way for artists to "shout out" to the person who agreed to appear on a track. I suppose that paying them isn't enough...or listing them in the album credits isn't either.

"Featuring" is also a way for artists to place a piece of advertising onto their tracklists. People are more likely to listen to the song "Bitches" by MC Pooper if the track is marketed as "Bitches (feat. SNOOP DOGG).

Ultimately, a musician who plays on a song is not part of the song title, and shouldn't be included on the track listing. It's kinda tacky. Just because someone happens to rap a couple of lines in a song, or play bass, or diums, or a guitar solo, or sing harmony on the chorus...does that mean that they are entitled to be part of the song title?

Please say no to "feat." as part of song titles. It's tacky, and those who do it should find it embarrassing. No musician should ever have their name included in a song title...unless the song is about them, not because they contributed something to the recording. It's foolish.

I'm going to try and be as polite as possible, because I know you have admitted to knowing little about hip-hop and that you are trying to better your understanding. (Personally, I'd steer away from making sweeping, stupid generalisations until I did understand the genre, but it's your call Dino.)

You are painfully inaccurate. Having an artist featured on a song - except, admittedly, in a very small amount of cases whereby a label wants to help a new artist by getting said artist a "co-sign" from a recognised star (which are usually lead, or even standalone, singles anyway) - is not a way of "shouting out" an artist, but rather giving another rapper a verse in order to improve the track, be it through a variation of voices on the track or simply through the faith that the featured artist in question has something that is genuinely of value to add to the track. It is not a form of advertising.

In non-instrumental hip-hop (i.e. 99.9% of all mainstream hip-hop releases), the rapper is paramount. Within hip-hop culture, people do have arguments over who the great producers are and who makes better beats, but it is generally the rapper who most people rely on, talk about and spend hours and hours scrutinising and picking apart. A rapper can make a bad beat into a good song with a strong verse; the vice versa is rarely true. Therefore, when a guest rapper appears on a song, it is only right that the audience should know who that guest rapper is within the title. The album isn't credited to every rapper who appears on the album. If a hip-hop fan were to stumble across this site and find an album listing without the featured artists in brackets then they would simply assume that this site did not give a shit about hip-hop, that it was probably rock-centric and move on to another site. Why do you think we have so few avid hip-hop fans here? It certainly isn't because there are a shortage of smart, internet savvy hip-hop fans who want to share their views on music, and if you think otherwise then you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and the backwards stereotypes that you have of others. Seriously, it's entirely selfish and somewhat prehistoric to stop people from adding featured artists to a song title. Until there is a feature in place on this website in which people can add featured artists there is no way that people should be stopped from putting said artist into the title. I know it probably annoys you somewhat that this site isn't full of classic blues rock anymore Romanelli, but times have changed, and hip-hop fans need to know who is featured on a track because it matters to us. It may not matter to you, but it matters to us, and disallowing people from putting a featured artist into the title is essentially telling a potentially large section of the site's demographic that BEA does not give a shit about them, or their music, and has no intention of catering to their tastes. It says that hip-hop is not real music that doesn't deserve to be discussed alongside proper music that white people with guitars make. If adding featured artists to song titles is banned, or if I see that data that I personally have inputted has been changed in order to get rid of the featured artist from the title, I will have lost any faith in the integrity of BEA.

Lastly, "Bitches"? "MC Pooper"? Really? I thought you were better than that. If that's the way you see hip-hop, you're a fucking moron who doesn't deserve a fucking comment on any type of music. Yes there are song titles that are less than respectful towards women, but they aren't a majority. And trust me on this, I would know. You couldn't have just put "Song Title"? You had to insult a whole genre? You strike me as a closeted racist; a fucking dinosaur who doesn't like the fact that guitars are no longer paramount in pop music and who refuses to get with the times. You hate the term "dadrocker"? It's because you fucking embody that term. Fuck off.

thejoj96

lethalnezzle wrote:

I'm going to try and be as polite as possible, because I know you have admitted to knowing little about hip-hop and that you are trying to better your understanding. (Personally, I'd steer away from making sweeping, stupid generalisations until I did understand the genre, but it's your call Dino.)

You are painfully inaccurate. Having an artist featured on a song - except, admittedly, in a very small amount of cases whereby a label wants to help a new artist by getting said artist a "co-sign" from a recognised star (which are usually lead, or even standalone, singles anyway) - is not a way of "shouting out" an artist, but rather giving another rapper a verse in order to improve the track, be it through a variation of voices on the track or simply through the faith that the featured artist in question has something that is genuinely of value to add to the track. It is not a form of advertising.

In non-instrumental hip-hop (i.e. 99.9% of all mainstream hip-hop releases), the rapper is paramount. Within hip-hop culture, people do have arguments over who the great producers are and who makes better beats, but it is generally the rapper who most people rely on, talk about and spend hours and hours scrutinising and picking apart. A rapper can make a bad beat into a good song with a strong verse; the vice versa is rarely true. Therefore, when a guest rapper appears on a song, it is only right that the audience should know who that guest rapper is within the title. The album isn't credited to every rapper who appears on the album. If a hip-hop fan were to stumble across this site and find an album listing without the featured artists in brackets then they would simply assume that this site did not give a shit about hip-hop, that it was probably rock-centric and move on to another site. Why do you think we have so few avid hip-hop fans here? It certainly isn't because there are a shortage of smart, internet savvy hip-hop fans who want to share their views on music, and if you think otherwise then you need to take a good, hard look at yourself and the backwards stereotypes that you have of others. Seriously, it's entirely selfish and somewhat prehistoric to stop people from adding featured artists to a song title. Until there is a feature in place on this website in which people can add featured artists there is no way that people should be stopped from putting said artist into the title. I know it probably annoys you somewhat that this site isn't full of classic blues rock anymore Romanelli, but times have changed, and hip-hop fans need to know who is featured on a track because it matters to us. It may not matter to you, but it matters to us, and disallowing people from putting a featured artist into the title is essentially telling a potentially large section of the site's demographic that BEA does not give a shit about them, or their music, and has no intention of catering to their tastes. It says that hip-hop is not real music that doesn't deserve to be discussed alongside proper music that white people with guitars make. If adding featured artists to song titles is banned, or if I see that data that I personally have inputted has been changed in order to get rid of the featured artist from the title, I will have lost any faith in the integrity of BEA.

Lastly, "Bitches"? "MC Pooper"? Really? I thought you were better than that. If that's the way you see hip-hop, you're a fucking moron who doesn't deserve a fucking comment on any type of music. Yes there are song titles that are less than respectful towards women, but they aren't a majority. And trust me on this, I would know. You couldn't have just put "Song Title"? You had to insult a whole genre? You strike me as a closeted racist; a fucking dinosaur who doesn't like the fact that guitars are no longer paramount in pop music and who refuses to get with the times. You hate the term "dadrocker"? It's because you fucking embody that term.
Fuck off.

That was beautiful. Well done.

Jasonconfused
If We Make It We Can All Sit Back and Laugh

Gender: Male
Location: Washington

lethalnezzle wrote:

It says that hip-hop is not real music that doesn't deserve to be discussed alongside proper music that white people with guitars make.

Great points, but I have a bit of issue with this part. Blues and blues-rock is heavily influenced by Black artists. Not only influenced by them, but one of the gods of blues-rock, Hendrix, is Black. This just seems a bit non-sequitur. Perhaps you're just addressing the fact a larger portion of the music is made by White people. I guess that much is true. I don't necessarily think that because someone judges or hates rap (not implying that Romanelli hates rap, although he might) means that it's a racial thing. For a long time I looked down on the electronic music that's so prevalent today because it relied so heavily on computers rather than "real instruments" (not sure how else to refer to them so I put them in quotes) but I really don't think that had anything to do with race. I had a problem with the essence of how the music was being mad, which is how I would interpret someone's dislike for rap.
_________________

Guest

Jasonconfused wrote:

Great points, but I have a bit of issue with this part. Blues and blues-rock is heavily influenced by Black artists. Not only influenced by them, but one of the gods of blues-rock, Hendrix, is Black. This just seems a bit non-sequitur. Perhaps you're just addressing the fact a larger portion of the music is made by White people. I guess that much is true. I don't necessarily think that because someone judges or hates rap (not implying that Romanelli hates rap, although he might) means that it's a racial thing. For a long time I looked down on the electronic music that's so prevalent today because it relied so heavily on computers rather than "real instruments" (not sure how else to refer to them so I put them in quotes) but I really don't think that had anything to do with race. I had a problem with the essence of how the music was being mad, which is how I would interpret someone's dislike for rap.

I was talking more in terms of the fact that rock music is a genre that is mainly made by white people, and seen as a genre that is mainly white. The fact that there are occasionally black rock musicians does not stop this from being true. Hip-hop music is a genre mainly made by black people, and is seen as a genre that is mainly black. The fact Eminem raps doesn't stop that from being true either. Rock is an overwhelmingly white genre; hip-hop is an overwhelmingly black genre. A stubborn refusal to even attempt to cater to hip-hop fans strikes me as being slightly, if almost certainly subconsciously, racist. It may not be remotely racist, but that's how it appears to me.