IMO it is where only one artist is credited, but what do you think?

The same, solo means unaccompanied.

I voted for 'other' because it can mean any of those things depending on the context (well not so much the second one). The first definition is just not the one that the OCC are usually referring to and I'm not sure why certain people seem to have such difficulty understanding this.

I voted for 'other' because it can mean any of those things depending on the context (well not so much the second one). The first definition is just not the one that the OCC are usually referring to and I'm not sure why certain people seem to have such difficulty understanding this.

 

ISTM the difficulty is more in terms of disagreeing with it.

There's far too much "featuring" these days. What it leads to is rap sections which have nothing to do with the rest of the track - it's almost as if rappers are going into the studio, rapping something over a click-track and then, later, somebody at the label pairs them up in order to give more exposure to a new artist or maximise the sales of another by pooling the fan-base of each.

 

It used to be that new artists "featured" on records before going on to solo work e.g. Yazz and Lisa Stansfield with Coldcut, Dina Carroll with Quartz. Now it's nearly always the case that the featured artist is the more famous one, and it's just a synthetic push if you ask me.

Your opinions on featured artists aren't really relevant to this thread though?...

 

I agree with Bray - it depends on the context, but in this case, it most definitely means 'as a solo artist', ie. Cheryl Cole, as opposed to Girls Aloud. Cheryl Cole feat. Will.i.am still constitutes a solo Cheryl track, because it says her name there. Makes total sense to me?

I don't think 'solo' should be limited to one artist, BUT I do think it should only be counted towards the sales total/chart stats of the LEAD artist.

Your opinions on featured artists aren't really relevant to this thread though?...

 

I agree with Bray - it depends on the context, but in this case, it most definitely means 'as a solo artist', ie. Cheryl Cole, as opposed to Girls Aloud. Cheryl Cole feat. Will.i.am still constitutes a solo Cheryl track, because it says her name there. Makes total sense to me?

 

So, does it also count as a solo hit for Will.i.am? I think my opinion on featured artists is very relevant...that's the exact point I was making. You're not addressing the other half of your argument. It's bloody obvious that Girls Aloud doesn't constitute a solo hit...but what if it were Will.I.Am featuring Cheryl Cole? Is it a hit for Cheryl then?

So, does it also count as a solo hit for Will.i.am? I think my opinion on featured artists is very relevant...that's the exact point I was making. You're not addressing the other half of your argument. It's bloody obvious that Girls Aloud doesn't constitute a solo hit...but what if it were Will.I.Am featuring Cheryl Cole? Is it a hit for Cheryl then?

 

A song credited to will.i.am feat. Cheryl Cole would be regarded as a solo hit for both artists, yes (so if it went to #1 it would be counted in both the list of will.i.am's solo #1s and the list of Cheryl's solo #1s). The 'solo' is only needed in those descriptions to distinguish #1s by or including will.i.am/Cheryl Cole from #1s by or including The Black Eyed Peas/Girls Aloud and any other groups/ensembles either chart as a member of, it has nothing to do with whether the songs are collaborations or not (in *this context* I must stress, I understand the definition of solo could be argued to exclude any collaborations but that is not what it is being used to mean).

So, does it also count as a solo hit for Will.i.am? I think my opinion on featured artists is very relevant...that's the exact point I was making. You're not addressing the other half of your argument. It's bloody obvious that Girls Aloud doesn't constitute a solo hit...but what if it were Will.I.Am featuring Cheryl Cole? Is it a hit for Cheryl then?

 

You've totally missed the entire point of this thread. It's not "state your opinion on featured artists" which is what your post did, it's about what actually constitutes as a solo #1 whether you like featured songs or bloody not.

 

It would count for will.i.am, because his name is listed there, and he's not on it as part of a duo or a group, he's there himself. Two SOLO artists are credited, ie. not part of a group, and this is the definition that the OCC are using. There really isn't any more to it than that so I don't get why anyone's struggling to understand it :lol: Both Heartbreaker (will feat. Cheryl) and 3 Words (Cheryl feat. will) would count as hits for BOTH.

Fair enough, you don't like discussion to veer off the topic. Even if it may provoke more interesting discussion in what is a very closed topic otherwise. Keep up the tight moderation, sir.

 

Why in the name of Christ is there any discussion at all about whether a group record is considered a solo hit? Of course it isn't.

Fair enough, you don't like discussion to veer off the topic. Even if it may provoke more interesting discussion in what is a very closed topic otherwise. Keep up the tight moderation, sir.

 

Why in the name of Christ is there any discussion at all about whether a group record is considered a solo hit? Of course it isn't.

 

You've totally missed my point again. I was stating the difference between definitions that the OCC uses :lol: Cause there are more than one, hence this argument:

 

- One means solo as in, not part of a group, ie. Cheryl Cole without Girls Aloud. There's no DISPUTE as to whether it's a solo hit or not, cause it isn't, simple as that. It's more discussion as to whether it counts the featured artists or not. I simply used the Girls Aloud example to differentiate the two definitions.

 

- The other means solo as in Cheryl Cole - Fight For This Love being a solo hit yet Cheryl Cole feat. will.i.am - 3 Words not being one, due to will appearing on it as well and therefore Cheryl is technically not solo. I can see why this could be used but it is most definitely NOT what the OCC are using so this whole dispute is a storm in a teacup.

I count a solo #1 as a #1 where an individual artist that isn't part of a group features on a #1 single. They ARE the solo artist, so it contributes to THEIR solo discography and so is THEIR number 1 as a solo artist, no matter if their just a feature on the song or the lead artist. (lot of capitals) It looks better if they're the lead artist, but c'est la vie.

 

I don't really see the point in this debate, as someone said in the other thread, the OCC have confirmed that they are counting solo like the above and Rita Ora has the record. Nothing's really gonna change from this.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by Chez Wombat

Ok, fine. I'll try not to go off topic. But as has been said consistently through-out, there doesn't seem to be any debate over this. I'm not missing the point, honest, it's just not really worth me starting a new topic to have a moan.

God forbid anything in the chart forum could turn into an actual discussion. This thread would be so much more interesting if we could actually put our opinions across. Otherwise why isn't the thread just 2 posts? Question and answer.

It's not exactly a particularly thrilling discussion? Just pedantic arguing of semantics being countered by other pedantic arguing of semantics. People are not going to 'agree' on what 'solo' means because it doesn't only have one meaning (which makes the entire concept of this thread flawed). It's pretty obvious what the OCC mean by Rita matching the record for most #1s by a UK female solo artist and anyone arguing against it because 'solo doesn't include collaborations' is massively missing the point.

Thrilling it may not be, but I actually find discussing the increased frequency of featured artists as interesting. Why can't a thread just drift that way discussion wise if people here actually want to post about it?

I would say that Rita hasn't got the record for the most solo female #1s tied with Geri yet. Hot Right Now isn't her song, anyone better could have sung it and it would have sold twice as much. Imagine it getting the ALEXANDRA treatment!

Three things about "Hot Right Now":

 

1 - She sings all the vocals.

2 - It was included on Rita's debut album.

3 - She still performs the song at every festival she goes to without DJ Fresh.

 

So how is it not her song?

Because it is DJ Fresh's song. He needed a vocalist to sing the lyrics, in comes Rita. No doubt she'll be trying to cling on to this success by including it on her album, and performing it at festivals without DJ Fresh.

Edited May 19, 201411 yr by THE GRIFF