DWUW! Was it really necessary to cut Do What U Want from ARTPOP completely?

[Quartz 12,576]

2 minutes ago, 27monster27 said:

This is why I think a DWUW collab with Britney Spears that would have had visuals heavily focused on tabloids, paparazzi, 2012-2013 for Lady Gaga, and 2006 - early 2008 for Britney Spears would have been amazing.

Oh my GOD that would have been EPIC. Can you imagine omygod

[ManuelColon 702]

To me it is highly hypocritical to point at Gaga because of her collaboration with R Kelly (doesn't even matter when it happened) when we have artist like Drake and Nicki Minaj supporting and collaborating with pedophiles, assaulters, rapists and abusers. And many other artists do it too still and don't get called out enough for it.

 

DWUW is still one of my favorite Gaga songs and i personally don't care which versions it is i still love the song, but it makes me mad how she it feels she stills has to explain her reasons when we have all these other artists staining their hands and not getting the hate she received.

[Quartz 12,576]

1 minute ago, ManuelColon said:

To me it is highly hypocritical to point at Gaga because of her collaboration with R Kelly (doesn't even matter when it happened) when we have artist like Drake and Nicki Minaj supporting and collaborating with pedophiles, assaulters, rapists and abusers. And many other artists do it too still and don't get called out enough for it.

 

DWUW is still one of my favorite Gaga songs and i personally don't care which versions it is i still love the song, but it makes me mad how she it feels she stills has to explain her reasons when we have all these other artists staining their hands and not getting the hate she received.

I think it's because she has used her voice consistently against rape and whatnot while Drake and Nicki never did. If she were to be a beacon and voice for change, she had to be consistent I suppose.

[Sister 9,907]

1 hour ago, tomsches said:

yes, because as a solo song people would have accused her of capitalising on the controversy. Also, the lyrics might just be something she doesn't feel comfortable about anymore, especially as the memory of R Kelly remains.

Yes. She probably also wanted to send a heightened message that would not be put upon her in a negative light. I still like the song.

[FfFfFfFF 56,607]

19 minutes ago, 27monster27 said:

Wait he also wrote some of Lady Gaga's lyrics?

Songwriters don't always get credited for lyrics but also for melodies. A song's writing process is both lyrics and text but also musical notes. That said, I don't really know how they did the song but it's possible he also wrote some of Gaga's lyrics. 

[alecks 747]

I see it argued here a lot that R Kelly “still has writing credits” on a solo version but tbh I just don’t see how that’s impossible to get around. 
 

It was a solo song before he jumped on with his verse. If they released the earlier version before he joined with his contributed lyrics, I can’t see any reason why he would still receive any writing credits for that. Also, the Christina version is still up and streamable, which uses the lyrics from the solo version. How is he not getting credit for that?

Simply put, I think removing the track was a lazy fix that could have been approached another way. And as problematic as the R Kelly version is the song still slaps. Don’t forget it was originally just a promo single but when used in that Beats commercial caught a ton of positive attention. 

[March34th 1,973]

yes. we need to realize as a fanbase that even if we enjoyed that song, it was partially created by a sex offender/abuser/child predator, and i can tell you all first hand that seeing your abusers artwork exist can be extremely triggering, having your abuser being successful and being praised is triggering. we should not be allowing abusers to succeed in life and there is no chance to redeem oneself if you abuse someone - ESPECIALLY a child. dwuw can rot with r kelly. that whole song was tinged by him, plus gaga was forced to collab with him by her label and was basically manipulated into thinking he was a good person, and fed lies that the media fabricates things about him to make him look like a bad person, which she related to, so she felt bad for him.

[March34th 1,973]

26 minutes ago, alecks said:

I see it argued here a lot that R Kelly “still has writing credits” on a solo version but tbh I just don’t see how that’s impossible to get around. 
 

It was a solo song before he jumped on with his verse. If they released the earlier version before he joined with his contributed lyrics, I can’t see any reason why he would still receive any writing credits for that. Also, the Christina version is still up and streamable, which uses the lyrics from the solo version. How is he not getting credit for that?

Simply put, I think removing the track was a lazy fix that could have been approached another way. And as problematic as the R Kelly version is the song still slaps. Don’t forget it was originally just a promo single but when used in that Beats commercial caught a ton of positive attention. 

unfortunately that's part of how music works when it's made under a highly successful label. some indie labels have more leeway with songwriting credits and creativity of the artist and their own image/brand/sound and stuff, but with labels like interscope there's so many more layers to the process of making an album that when stuff like this happens, it's sadly easier and better to just abandon the song entirely, than to try to fight it in court to have his writing credit removed.

[high culture 2,208]

It’s ok the real fans still have it because we bought it on iTunes 

[joannesrats 26]

No - R Kelly still has credits on the solo and one with Xtina. She wanted to make sure he didn’t get any royalties or credit for anything else she put out. 

[alecks 747]

20 minutes ago, March34th said:

unfortunately that's part of how music works when it's made under a highly successful label. some indie labels have more leeway with songwriting credits and creativity of the artist and their own image/brand/sound and stuff, but with labels like interscope there's so many more layers to the process of making an album that when stuff like this happens, it's sadly easier and better to just abandon the song entirely, than to try to fight it in court to have his writing credit removed.

Is this not the case for the Christina version too then? How is that still considered “ok” for him to profit from if so? Or does featuring someone else change the credits in a way that he’s cut out?

[Cookie Tookie 10,546]

Wasn’t it the rabid fans who were calling for the song to be removed? I remember it vividly.

[March34th 1,973]

1 minute ago, alecks said:

Is this not the case for the Christina version too then? How is that still considered “ok” for him to profit from if so? Or does featuring someone else change the credits in a way that he’s cut out?

the xtina version still has his writing credits i believe because he was credited on the song itself, xtina's version is sorta like a cover. i don't think the xtina version should be on streaming services either, the entire song needs to die and the gays need to move on from it

[S0436 10,215]

It was one of the best songs on the album and she forfeited her art.  I think replacing it with the solo version and buying out R Kelly for his songwriting credit would have been ideal.

[LadyEnigma 1,296]

I feel terrible because I love the song sm but i feel like i shouldn't u know