Why *shouldn't* featured artists get the recognition though? They contribute to the song so it's only fair that they get credited, no? 'Various Artists' is hardly gonna be that good on a will.i.am track. Various Artists - Feelin' Myself. Not quite the same as will.i.am featuring some well known names like Miley and Wiz Khalifa. It's the big names that get some more interest for the track. Like with this new Busta Rhymes track, I'm not entirely sure why/how it's blown up but surely Kanye and Lil Wayne's names are enough to get some of their own fans interested. Q-Tip isn't quite as big a name.

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't get credit just that years ago the credit would be published in the single sleeve which obviously isn't an option now.

 

I'm also of the opinion that some of these contributions are so minimal it's barely worth a credit. Also the inconsistency. Why did we have Rihanna feat Calvin Harris but not Cheryl feat Calvin Harris just months later?

 

Like I said earlier I'd much rather not see hundreds of collaborations anyway. Most of my favourite artists don't collaborate often so it's a novelty when they do and the added contributions actually mean something.

The only reason the OCC should 'not count' featured artists beyond a certain number should be to save database space. I really don't see why it should even matter how many featured artists someone wants on their track?

 

And besides, like Thermo said, all the artists on 'Feelin' Myself' *do* contribute to the song anyway.

 

I'm also of the opinion that some of these contributions are so minimal it's barely worth a credit. Also the inconsistency. Why did we have Rihanna feat Calvin Harris but not Cheryl feat Calvin Harris just months later?

 

Because it depends on how the record label want to push it. I would guess Rihanna's label wanted to help break Calvin through in the States (and it worked).

I think if the ft is there to draw attention to the contribution of a new upcoming artist (for example Ella Eyre on a Rudimental hit last year), or if it's there to recognise that a particular contribution was sizable then fair enough, but when you get a list of several featured artists it's almost a mathematically certainty that their contributions were not that huge. You have to remember that even decades ago popular artists, as well as minor ones, often made contributions to other artist's music if they were in the same studios, for example check out this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncredited_background_singer, perhaps it was mildly unfair they went uncredited but it also made it instantly clearer who's single it was meant to be in the first place, and therefore easier to remember to buy it by simply remembering it as whoever's latest single. Do we really want a situation in the future where every background singer, contract musician and studio engineer and producer always has to be listed as a featured artist? I also don't like the tendency now to list multiple featured artists in situations where for example the main artist and one featured one appear on all versions, but the several other featured artists only appear on one particular version each, I mean we know there will be dozens of versions of a track available nowadays and we know that one obvious way of making alternative versions is to release versions involving every possible combination of the artists involved, but usually there is one combination that is by far the main version, and that is the only version who's featured artists need go down in chart history for that track. Finally on a related note, a little pet hate of mine is downloads, CDs and sometimes some sources of chart stats, where the featured artists become a bracketed part of the title instead of being part of the artist credits, as I've never quite understood that (apart from it possibly being a space consideration on databases maybe), so I spend ages changing the titles and artist credits on anything I download or rip from CD on my own iTunes.

Edited January 26, 201411 yr by DanChartFan

I think if the ft is there to draw attention to the contribution of a new upcoming artist (for example Ella Eyre on a Rudimental hit last year), or if it's there to recognise that a particular contribution was sizable then fair enough, but when you get a list of several featured artists it's almost a mathematically certainty that their contributions were not that huge. You have to remember that even decades ago popular artists, as well as minor ones, often made contributions to other artist's music if they were in the same studios, for example check out this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncredited_background_singer, perhaps it was mildly unfair they went uncredited but it also made it instantly clearer who's single it was meant to be in the first place, and therefore easier to remember to buy it by simply remembering it as whoever's latest single. Do we really want a situation in the future where every background singer, contract musician and studio engineer and producer always has to be listed as a featured artist? I also don't like the tendency now to list multiple featured artists in situations where for example the main artist and one featured one appear on all versions, but the several other featured artists only appear on one particular version each, I mean we know there will be dozens of versions of a track available nowadays and we know that one obvious way of making alternative versions is to release versions involving every possible combination of the artists involved, but usually there is one combination that is by far the main version, and that is the only version who's featured artists need go down in chart history for that track. Finally on a related note, a little pet hate of mine is downloads, CDs and sometimes some sources of chart stats, where the featured artists become a bracketed part of the title instead of being part of the artist credits, as I've never quite understood that (apart from it possibly being a space consideration on databases maybe), so I spend ages changing the titles and artist credits on anything I download or rip from CD on my own iTunes.

 

The multiple featured artists aren't 'background singers', they still remain uncredited in 99% of songs (the only song I can think of that specifically credited a background singer is 'I Love It' and to be fair Charli XCX did write that song as well). And I can't think of a single example of the part I've bolded.

DJ Mustard originally wasn't featured on Feelin' Myself (and he usually doesn't get featured on the songs he makes). But I think it's good he got credited, because since will.i.am is also a producer, people would probably assume he did Feelin' Myself.

The multiple featured artists aren't 'background singers', they still remain uncredited in 99% of songs (the only song I can think of that specifically credited a background singer is 'I Love It' and to be fair Charli XCX did write that song as well). And I can't think of a single example of the part I've bolded.

 

Re the emboldened part, there was certainly an example in the last year or two where the chart listed about three featured artists, yet they were not all on the same version so the credit as listed on the chart did not in itself match any of the versions, unfortunately I can't remember which track it was. I may have exaggerated somewhat by saying there was a tendency to do this, but there equally is the possibility for this to happen with any track that has multiple versions featuring different artists on different versions, so there must be at least a few incidences out there.

Two is enough for me. More than that makes the title (and tag on last.fm) look ugly. <_<

Because it depends on how the record label want to push it. I would guess Rihanna's label wanted to help break Calvin through in the States (and it worked).

I don't think Rihanna's label would have any direct interest in promoting Calvin Harris, but my theory is that his label would only give permission for him to appear if he were credited because *they* wanted to break him into the US market. I don't think Cheryl has ever been famous anywhere Calvin wasn't.

Any more than two features is a bit ridiculous.

I don't like featuring as a credit at all. If the contribution is significant it should be "and" and be treated as a duet or group. Cher, going back decades, had at least half of the Deadringer For Love record but received no credit for it cos in those days artists did guesting on records as favours not as a means of getting credit for something they have assisted with but not created. Bowie's list of hits could greatly increase the amount of "featuring"s he could claim! Pet Shop Boys ditto.

 

I suppose I'm asking the question "how many acts would agree to appear on a single if they didn't get a credit?" Rihanna's a serial offender but her contibution, say to Princess Of China, is a major part of the record's appeal and I'd be very happy with a Coldplay and Rihanna credit.

What are you actually asking for here? For artists to not even be allowed to have more than one or two extra artists to feature on the track? That would be a bizarre request to say the least.

 

If you're just concerned about how it's credited, why can't you just edit it to whatever credit you feel is more appropriate?

One credit I really wanted to see happen was Becky Hill featured on 'Afterglow' by Wilkinson. In fact, I am still unsure as to why it wasn't.

Avicii hates crediting singers on his songs!