IMO, in lists of numbers of #1's, top 10's etc, only bands, solo artist singles & lead-artist credits should count towards the total.

 

If not, we could get into a ridiculous situation of someone being credited with several #1's, without ever contributing much to any of them. You might just as well credit every individual member of the Band Aid singles with a #1. :rolleyes:

 

But what do you think?

There aren't exactly many artists to have acquired a significant amount of #1s through features. It's not a problem IMO...

IMO, in lists of numbers of #1's, top 10's etc, only bands, solo artist singles & lead-artist credits should count towards the total.

 

If not, we could get into a ridiculous situation of someone being credited with several #1's, without ever contributing much to any of them. You might just as well credit every individual member of the Band Aid singles with a #1. :rolleyes:

 

But what do you think?

 

I agree but are there that many?

 

 

There aren't exactly many artists to have acquired a significant amount of #1s through features. It's not a problem IMO...

Yeah, we're lucky that Akon isn't even bigger here, to the point where he can get stuff to #1 just by featuring on it :o

 

But seriously, the only reason there hasn't been that many is because it's only really been a prolific trend since the rise of hip hop artists in the charts. Dance artists have always used featuring a heck of a lot, too, but they used to nearly always be more unknowns (who sometimes went into their own career afterwards, like Tina Cousins and perhaps most famously, Seal, but they were still unknown at the time which is the point). Compared to hip hop artists who love to pop up on other people's singles, and now even pop artists are adding rappers to their own singles to get cross-genre appeal, and then there's rappers who need somebody (preferably female these days, with first preference being Rihanna) to sing the hook.

 

So reallly nobody has a significant amount because nobody's had time to build up that many featured #1s yet. I wouldn't be surprised if someone had quite a collection in about five years from now. Hot tips would be Rihanna and David Guetta. The former is more likely than the latter, who will probably be old hat by 2016 in favour of the next 'producer of the moment'. Maybe will.i.am too? I dunno. I also anticipate the next generation of rent-a-rappers to follow in the footsteps of Akon, Pitbull, Flo Rida, Lil' Wayne and Nicki Minaj, but alas their tactics didn't get them many (or indeed any at all in some cases) #1 hits so who knows!

 

Anyway, I agree it isn't a problem, but I do think it should be put with an asterisk next to it though, so it's made clear that it's not on the same level as someone who has all their #1s hit on their own back...

Edited January 24, 201114 yr by superbossanova

I completely disagree, because it's often the featuring artist that makes something a number one. Would 'American Boy' have been number one without Kanye West? I doubt it. A more extreme example but David Guetta has had three number ones recently, and would they have been number one without the vocals of the featured vocalists? No, not at all.

Personally, I always mention how many of the #1s the act has as lead artist.. For example Diddy has just one (I'll Be Missing You)

Proper duets should be credited to both (Celine Dion & Barbra Streisand, Jason Aldean & Kelly Clarkson, Michael Jackson & Akon) but featurings probably shouldn't

 

It's difficult both ways.

 

But to count groups for solo artist's total is ridiculous. Music Week did it with Cheryl Cole as far as I remember.

Edited January 24, 201114 yr by SKOB

I completely disagree, because it's often the featuring artist that makes something a number one. Would 'American Boy' have been number one without Kanye West? I doubt it. A more extreme example but David Guetta has had three number ones recently, and would they have been number one without the vocals of the featured vocalists? No, not at all.

But most artists (in the case of hip hop, not dance) are featured on lesser parts. Should Flo Rida really get equal credit for a #1 hit where he only raps one verse compared to one of his own where he raps three different verses? He's done less work at the end of the day. His contribution to the song IS less compared to his own credits, regardless of whether he did anything in "helping" the song to #1 (which is very much opinion anyway). Same with Kanye West.

 

Plus many featured artists don't join in the promo events etc, so again they're doing lesser work. Like I saw Alexandra Burke perform Start Without You on various different shows a few times, but I don't recall Laza Morgan being there in any of them. He may have been there in other performances I didn't see.

 

Dance features are kind of a different matter entirely though... but if you're going to treat hip hop ones as "secondary" you have to do it to every other genre too, I suppose, for the sake of fairness.

 

Of course, it really varies in hip hop, too. Someone singing the chorus is arguably more "important" than someone just doing a random rap verse. It is difficult, really. Likewise, there's people like will.i.am who has his own bit on the song and produced it (like he did on OMG). Just too many different ways of "featuring".

 

We need to introduce different words for each kind to make it easier to know how to deal with them, IMO :lol: I say this half-jokingly, but it is kinda stupid how this one whole term has evolved to be used in such varying degrees of contribution to songs. Oh well.

Edited January 24, 201114 yr by superbossanova

It's really only in the last couple of years that there has been a significant number of collaborations with 'featured' artists in the chart. I was recently looking back at some retro charts, and I noticed that at the beginning of 1990, only ONE song in the top 40 was a collaboration, these days you'd probably get around 10!

If they are featured in the song, like "featuring..." or "and/&..." (not counting remix versions on singles, etc.) then they should be credited, whatever genre IMO. They worked on that song, no matter how small their contribution are.

 

In some cases, many radio and TV stations mentions only the main act, and not the featured act. e.g. Ed Drewett on Professor Green's 'I Need You Tonight'.

 

I understand when some don't get labelled on a song. It's them that decided it to label like that. I think Tinie's 'Pass Out' labels him only, because they wanted the public to focus only on him.

Edited January 24, 201114 yr by FM11

But to count groups for solo artist's total is ridiculous.

 

I agree, as that's not what I meant. It's only relevant if you want to count, say, how many #1 Paul McCartney has been involved in...

I completely disagree, because it's often the featuring artist that makes something a number one. Would 'American Boy' have been number one without Kanye West? I doubt it. A more extreme example but David Guetta has had three number ones recently, and would they have been number one without the vocals of the featured vocalists? No, not at all.

 

I only liked American boy because of Estelle - I thought Kanye West was superfluous.

 

Kath

I only liked American boy because of Estelle - I thought Kanye West was superfluous.

 

Kath

 

But the same doesn't apply to the rest of the country.

 

The fact that every other single involving Estelle has flopped miserably would imply the country preferred Kanye to Estelle.

But the same doesn't apply to the rest of the country.

 

The fact that every other single involving Estelle has flopped miserably would imply the country preferred Kanye to Estelle.

No it doesn't. It implies that Estelle managed to get one single that caught on with the public but none of her other material particularly did. Loads of artists only have one hit (and not because they had a big name attached to it) and then the rest flops. Estelle is the same as all of them.

 

'American Boy' did well because it had a very strong melody, a great beat etc. Kanye helped it to get airplay (although I still think such an obvious commercial hit would have been picked up regardless anyway) probably but the rest was due to a very solid pop song, no doubt. If anything the song was successful because of will.i.am, not Kanye! :lol: And at the end of the day, people would be singing the chorus to the song, which had absolutely nothing to do with Kanye.