The Genius Community's 25 Best Albums & 25 Best Songs of 2024 (So Far)
Hey everyone, it’s that time of year and we’re excited to kick off the mid-year lists! For reference
Genius Community Discord User Verification
Hi everyone! This thread is intended for verification assistance on the Genius Community Discord server
COMMUNITY PROJECT: Pressburg Elimination
Hi all! I come to you today with some news: a new community project! We all know the havoc that
Unreleased songs in 2024
Post unreleased songs in 2024 https://genius.com/Vincent-t-pop-grogen-lyrics
Genius User Interviews Revamp 2024
I thought it’d be a cool idea if the Genius User Interviews series got revamped again for 2024. It’s been
Oasis reunion - Live '25 Tour
Britpop band Oasis have reunited, fifteen years after brothers Noel and Liam’s legendary falling out. No
COMMUNITY PROJECT: Genius Dictionary 2.0
Genius Dictionary 2.0 Originally created in 2013, the Genius Dictionary was a hub for music slang
What songs are on your "Sad Songs Playlist"?
I have been feeling a lot of mixed emotions right now and I just need that sad music feeling, you know
Recommend me some artists (rap/hip-hop)
So I’ve recently been exploring music genres I’m less familiar with and I’m finding I enjoy some rap and
Top 10 Best Nigerian Record Producers
Singing is one thing but creating a magical beat for a song takes it to another level as no artiste can
This needs to be said.
Hi. If you are a fan of Olivia Rodrigo, Sabrina Carpenter, and/or Joshua Bassett, or at least know of the
YA~! IT"S TIME FOR THIS WEEKS FORUM (what lyrics are special to you, and what artist's era is your current fave?)
(credit to @captainsnickers for the lyrics idea, and @TrepidatedDestruction for the eras idea. yes, i
What songs can you relate to the most? How are you doing?
Sooooo I’ve recently made playlists of sad music: one for when I need some Joshy to get the emotions out
What song(s) do you think will predict your near future?
This is a really weird question, but I was listening to a My Mix on YouTube and predicted something would
Hey everyone!
Tate Talk™ is a new weekly series where the Genius community comes together to discuss annotation culture, with the intention of improving site wide editorial standards. I’ll be kicking us off today and @epaulettes will follow suit next Monday, but we want y’all to be involved too! Sign up here with what/when you want to discuss your topic.
This week I’ll be talking about stretches and how to avoid them. Let’s break it down.
A stretch is an interpretation that is exaggerated or unlikely. Unrelated content, loose connections, exaggerated tropes, and even poor phrasing can all contribute to a classic stretch. If your annotation is marked as a “stretch,” that means your audience finds your interpretation unlikely or hard to believe.
When annotating, it’s important to think about:
Related content: Writing short, sharp annotations is OK! Adding unrelated content just to beef up your annotation actually takes away from the reading experience.
Establishing real connections: Whether it’s connecting two song lyrics or two lovers on a pop song, you should be making it abundantly clear that the things you’re piecing together, actually go together! The next time you’re thinking of quoting song lyrics in an annotation, ask yourself—is there really a connection here?
The difference between a special nugget of knowledge and a trope: We should be super critical of what content we’re adding to annotations and be mindful of the difference between a genuinely special nugget of knowledge and a trope. Ask yourself: is this really that interesting or am I just exaggerating something average?
Phrasing: Poor phrasing is achilles heel of the stretch. Even if what you’re saying is a related/real/special connection or piece of knowledge, if your annotation isn’t phrased well, your argument falls apart. Focus on using the active voice, omitting needless words, and keeping your subject in mind.
But even with all that knowledge, how can we shift the Genius culture to be aware of this kind of stuff? Here are a few ways:
RESPOND to this thread! Breaking this down as a community is a great way to bring everything bubbling up to the surface.
USE the “mark as a stretch button”! I feel like the stretch gets a bad wrap. Often we associate a stretch with something being wack, but I don’t think that’s the case. As you can see above, a stretch can take many forms. We have this tool for a reason, let’s use it.
MESSAGE your peers. NO ONE here is above constructive criticism or feedback, staff included. If you see someone doing something and you think “that could be better"—hit them up about it.
What do y'all think? Are there other things we should be thinking about to avoid the stretch? What do you think of Tate Talk™? HIT ME!
tirant out
I love the idea for this series! It can be such a helpful resource for improving the annotations we create, even to editors and mods. Awesome job!
Also, know your artist! I find it unlikely that Young Thug will bust out a quintuple entendre, but you can never tell with a rapper like Lupe—point is, whats a stretch for one rapper may be perfectly feasible with another.
Banking off @swinelord, but know the songwriter(s). Particularly with popular artists, annotations tend to get clogged up in a mile and a half of speculation about who lyrics are about – if you really know your songwriters and the back history behind a song, you’ll be able to move past speculation into confirmation or denial of those kinds of fluffy claims.
For example, “Love Drought” by Beyoncé – Ingrid confirmed it wasn’t about Jay. Obviously we can make the argument that Bey deliberately chose this particular Ingrid song for LEM but knowing the songwriter clears up a lot of what we know about a lyric and/or a song.
Time period’s important as well – knowing the era that a work belongs to can help narrow down speculation about what a song means.
btw loving the thread idea, my dearie dear tirant. <3 @Michael
-sereinik
The biggest problem with related content is framing. Sometimes the connection could be good, but it comes off super weak because of the way it’s framed.
Writing analysis in your tate and then being like, “Feta Wap also rapped about cheese in his song ‘Greek Fries’: [quote]” is bad framing. Okay, gouda, he rapped about cheese then, too. But what is the relevance of that connection? That’s just filler. We want more meat on our sandwich.
For related content to be substantive, the writer has to accomplish two things:
- Connect the related content to the referent’s thematic elements.
- Illustrate how the related content connects to the referent’s thematic elements.
Unpolished EX:
Feta Wap continues his cheese-related saga which began on ‘Greek Fries’:
[quote]
Whereas he once had mixed feelings about gruyere, here it seems he has progressed into a deeper appreciation of the cheese by pairing it with a baguette and sweet Riesling.
Thoughts?
I’ve said it before, but I think that the guidelines for writing quality annotations could use a cutting of the fat. While it’s quippy and totally Rap Genius to have the style guide mimic Biggie’s Ten Crack Commandments, it doesn’t make for the clearest manual (no shade intended).
Tangentially, I find the “How Genius Works” page challenging to navigate. I think if we broke off the style guide and presented a more robust rubric for quality tates, we would find proliferating good site rhetoric more manageable.
@Empath My main thought is THAT’S A BAR. My second thought is:
- Connect the related content to the referent’s thematic elements.
- Illustrate how the related content connects to the referent’s thematic elements.
that’s a pristine definition of logically-grounded argument, though I’m not sure how it would translate to the hoi polloi. Perhaps by juxtaposing a good and bad version of the Feta Wap example, we could evidence how users should build claims rationally?
Incredibly important topic, and difficult to avoid sometimes.
Related content: Writing short, sharp annotations is OK! Adding unrelated content just to beef up your annotation actually takes away from the reading experience.
Cosign heavily.
Ask yourself: is this really that interesting or am I just exaggerating something average?
There’s no need to dig deep into Future talking about Xanax, or Future talking about weed, or Future talking about women. I’d argue most of the time those lines don’t even need to be annotated, unless he’s introducing a new form of slang, or using one we think users might be unfamiliar with.
Phrasing: Poor phrasing is achilles heel of the stretch. Even if what you’re saying is a related/real/special connection or piece of knowledge, if your annotation isn’t phrased well, your argument falls apart. Focus on using the active voice, omitting needless words, and keeping your subject in mind.
I also want to focus on the order in which we write annotations. @Empath has been pivotal in helping me understand that a lot of the time I was waffling on like Pitchfork for the first paragraph. Answer the question of “what does this mean?” in the first line. This might mean dropping a short sentence, like “Timmy Turner is the lead character on the childrens show Fairly Odd Parents.
Ok, done, the reader can even switch off after this and start to skim your annotation for other useful information. But don’t make them skim from the get-go to try and find the answer to the question they’re asking.
Also, know your artist! I find it unlikely that Young Thug will bust out a quintuple entendre, but you can never tell with a rapper like Lupe
So so so so true. And this where problems arise… We know someone like Jay Z or Pusha T layers their tracks with loads of meaning. Where do we stop? Do we include every possible interpretation? An example where we might be able to incoprorate an extended meaning is here. There’s evidence via the video that this could be true. An example where we could go either way is here, there’s a link back to Kanye’s lyrics, but those actually came out 8 years after this track was released. So it’s harder to prove a connection.
A theory is great, but we need some level of proof that the theory is true. Is there an interview where they’ve expressed this before? Other song lyrics? Is there something in the video? Is there a tweet from the producer?
Particularly with popular artists, annotations tend to get clogged up in a mile and a half of speculation about who lyrics are about
@sereinik brings up a great point. Don’t waste too much time on suggestions saying “this is a shot at Drake” or “this is a shot at Kendrick.” Unless there’s solid proof that it is, archive. Otherwise, every single Kendrick/Eminem/Lil Wayne/Jay Z/Drake song would be the most explicit diss track since “Ether.”
@Tyrant While I have significantly varied the length of all my annotations since 2015, this still has to be one of the most contentious points of mastering annotating EVER
Related content: Writing short, sharp annotations is OK! Adding unrelated content just to beef up your annotation actually takes away from the reading experience.
Unrelated and intangible writing ideas, have no correlation to length unless you are parodying filibustering in political campaign speeches.
Don’t treat every songwriter (Especially in Rap) AS IF they all write with the same level of depth as @swinelord articulated. Could you imagine if top tier lyrical emcees saw that their lyrics had the annotated depth of say, Soulja Boy????
Many emcees have clowned and criticized Genius for this, do something about it.
Here’s a few points of my own
On interpretation, FOCUS on the mostly logical and reasonably ascertainable meanings, PERTINENT to the diction and prose being used by the lyricist at hand. @Theonlydjorkaeff finally resolved our differences and hilariously realized we are now the 2 users who get accused of this, yet everyone else does this way more than we do. THIS should be the main idea of every TATE TALK session, tbh.
When analyzing and explaining literary devices, how about you LIST THE GOD DAMN DEVICE BEING USED, so users can stop misconstruing “metaphors” for “similes”, just as one constantly tedious example.
Point out the definitions of words the average reader or songwriter doesn’t use in songwriting. ALSO, explain whether grammar errors were deliberate or not (to lyrically express something or not). This helps weed out the amatuers from the professional annotators.
Start respecting users from regions, who know what the fuck they’re talking about on artists/musicians from their indigenous region. I’m from the West Coast, so you might want to value my input more than those not from any part of this side of the U.S., yet believe they know EVERYTHING about a certain artist.
Understand that RHYME SCHEMES (Technical ability in Rap) have very little to do with LYRICISM. So any who add that extraneous, babble shit to distract what the lines actually MEAN, leave it all out. Cover that shit in a Verse tate or something, or make pages like how I do. We are here about the meaning of the lyrics first, not some god damn Matrix subatomic level to linguistics and phonetic principle.
TRANSCRIBE LIKE @Freeus, if the lyrics aren’t right, annotations go awfully awry in minutes, leading to a “Suggestion Xmas list from hell” of never ending scrolling proportions.
NEW KINDS OF PYONGS! – make one type a part of editing in some way, **that way the activity can be updated to everyone’s notifications AT ONCE who follow that song. This will reduce the amount of suggestions by a TON, if everyone who can edit then swarms to that exact annotation.
Have a “Anecdotes” section for annotations on other info OPEN to further deliberating and analysis, NOT TO BE ARCHIVED FOREVER TO NOT NEVER BE ACCESSED AGAIN, but put in a visible “side area” for temporary access to update annotations. **Basically a “Folder” for all Genius song pages, on info and details that weren’t included, yet are still VALUABLE for consideration upon future editing. Or think of this as Cliffnotes/Sparknotes for Genius on designated annotations. This can be one solution to @Theonlydjorkaeff’s and @Empath problem’s with how best to handle that.
My reasoning: Do detectives throw away old case files to crimes? No, even the cold cases get put in crates, JUST IN CASE they pursue to find new resources, or leads – perhaps even decades later.
@Michael my bad, I forgot Tyrant isn’t your tag anymore, oh well lmao – and sorry for the length, I provided way more than a FEW. But, if any of those ideas (even one, idrc if the rest don’t) get put into action by the staff, I’ll be satisfied.
To the rest of the community, we can change how we approach annotating and interpretation. This isn’t as hard as we make it out to be, experiment with styles from other websites that format things in a way @Empath advised.
Seriously, I just remembered how AMAZING the format to Sparknotes was, and checking details on the most famous and classic (sometimes overrated) literature.
Excellent post, @Michael. I cosign everything—especially “establishing meaningful connections.” I’m seeing a lot of needlessly annotated lines. The key question is whether you’re really, honestly, truly adding anything to the reader/listener’s understanding of the song. It’s OK to see tate-free lines on song pages. Less is more. It makes the good stuff stand out that much more.
Along the lines of what @sereinik said, don’t be too proud to tag @genius-editorial-board or a certain artist’s top scholar for help and trust their edits. I had an annotation on “I Got the Keys” that I only annotated because I knew the sports reference, but I fully trusted that Ben Carter to edit it how he saw fit since he’s the Jay stan.
There is one thing tho:
no need to dig deep into Future talking about Xanax, or Future talking about weed, or Future talking about women
How are you going to mention Future cliches and not talk about lean? Smh @Theonlydjorkaeff
wrt. “real connections”, I think there are a variety of degrees of connection that can all, depending on the context, be relevant.
1) An explicit reference to another song (for example, “Bloodflood pt. 2” contains explicit references to “Bloodflood” and “Fitzpleasure”). These should probably always be pointed out, and with confidence.
2) A subtler allusion to another song that could.be debated but are probably deliberate. “Bloodflood pt. 2” has “assassin de la police”, which with the music is probably a reference to “Sound of Da Police”. Sometimes we overstate our certainty with cases like this, but they should still be pointed out if we’re reasonably confident. We’ve just got to be sure that someone familiar with both songs would probably make the connection.
3) Thematic connections that aren’t necessarily direct allusions. Here, you’ve got to be careful to frame the connection properly. Don’t say “this is a reference to”, but something more nuanced like “there are some parallels to be drawn with…”
As an example of #3, yesterday I edited this annotation. The line is addressing a sentiment most famously voiced in “My Generation”, so the connection adds something… but it isn’t a direct reference to “My Generation”, so you’ve got to be careful not to label it as such. Or on a song like “Peggy Sang The Blues” – I think the “Let It Be” connection would be valid even without the “words of wisdom” line, because they’re such similar songs. But without that line, calling anything a “reference” would be a stretch.
So, you’ve heard a line, and it’s instantly made you think of another line. How do you make sure you aren’t reaching?
1) Don’t oversell the connection. Rather than a reference or even a sample, stick to “similarity” or “connection” unless you’re completely confident.
2) Think how likely it is that the artist would actually make that reference. alt-J are self-referential and like to drop old-school hip-hop lines. The Who were very famous in the early 70s. “Let It Be” is unmissable. But it’s unlikely that a song by The Who in 1971 would reference Bowie. It’s unlikely that a Paul McCartney song from 2011 would reference Frank Turner. If it’s unlikely, then talk about the zeitgeist (“lots of songs referenced Molly in 2013, famously including…”), or talk about “uncanny parallels”. But as always, only do that if it could actually be interesting.
Connections don’t have to be explicit and caste-iron in order to belong in an annotation, but overselling them is the quickest way to make a stretch.
Some more ideas – people mentioned “Future songwriting clichés”. Yeah, “he also mentions lean on this song” or even “he talks about lean a lot” is boring af. That doesn’t mean that the connection is always boring. For example, if Future made a song called “Goodbye Purple” about finally giving it up, then it would be appropriate to say “Future talked about the harm that lean had done him on Song 1 and Song 47, and his recent hospitalisation has finally given him the kick he needed”, or “Future previously tried to give up lean in 2014 as per Song 348, but he soon fell back into his old habits”. I think talking about how someone has changed and why, the different ways a motif is used, what something usually represents symbolically (e.g. “Future uses lean to help him overcome emotional pain; drinking it here shows that he is quietly struggling, as he was on Song 27 and Song 6”) can be interesting and really add an extra layer on understanding. Maybe I’m overselling Future, but I think we have meaningful things to say about how discographies tie together.
I really wanna hear “Greek Fries” now.
A lot of stuff sounds smarter when said with our sexy inside-head-voice. If something feels sketchy you can repeat it out loud a few times to get a better feel for it. Bonus: if anyone’s currently around you and their reaction is “what the hell are you talking about” then you will have confirmed that what you’re thinking is in fact bonkers.
lots of great posts here! to recap/reiterate a few great ones:
@swinelord said:
Also, know your artist!
and @sereinik said:
Know the songwriter(s). Particularly with popular artists, annotations tend to get clogged up in a mile and a half of speculation about who lyrics are about – if you really know your songwriters and the back history behind a song, you’ll be able to move past speculation into confirmation or denial of those kinds of fluffy claims.
this is really important. if you are working on an artist you’re not so familiar with, reach out for help—tag top scholars, tag @genius-editorial-board, etc.
@Empath dropped knowledge:
For related content to be substantive, the writer has to accomplish two things:
- Connect the related content to the referent’s thematic elements.
- Illustrate how the related content connects to the referent’s thematic elements.
couldn’t agree more. this is something we went over a lot with quoting lyrics from other songs. simply dropping a block quote in there doesn’t tell the reader how it connects! we need to provide context.
this leads into what @Theonlydjorkaeff said:
A theory is great, but we need some level of proof that the theory is true. Is there an interview where they’ve expressed this before? Other song lyrics? Is there something in the video? Is there a tweet from the producer?
we need to provide proof, but as @Empath said, connect the related content to the referent.
and we should be conscious of what @Vesuvius has explained, there’s levels to this shit! think about if your connection is:
An explicit reference to another song
A subtler allusion to another song that could.be debated but are probably deliberate
Thematic connections that aren’t necessarily direct allusions
@ScopeY coming through with the goods—read your annotations OUT LOUD!
A lot of stuff sounds smarter when said with our sexy inside-head-voice. If something feels sketchy you can repeat it out loud a few times to get a better feel for it.
what else are we thinking when it comes to stretches? loving the discussion so far!
My favorite thing about this discussion is what @Empath said, particularly about framing:
The biggest problem with related content is framing. Sometimes the connection could be good, but it comes off super weak because of the way it’s framed.
If you’re going to make a heavy, in-depth, or seemingly implausible interpretation, the most important thing is how it flows and how it’s presented.
You need to choose your words carefully. Be a philosopher and try to consider it from multiple angles. Once you know why something is unlikely, but you’re still sure, you can frame it in a way that takes that “unlikely” edge off.
A carefully worded sentence is the most persuasive tool in your bag.