
Is Spotify Killing the Top 40? - daegloe
https://qz.com/1899097/is-spotify-killing-the-top-40/
======
ehnto
I hope so. Top 40 lists are constructed not observed. They seem to have no
relationship to what music is favored by listeners, just what is being pushed
on pop radio. A self satisfying loop.

~~~
laurent92
It is astonishing when you realize it. Since the MCM times, we’ve transferred
music bands from sound to image, and we noticed the commercial drums (and
repetition on radios in particular) produced linear return in investment, and
music characteristics hadn’t much to do with it. To the point that today, any
music will do. It’s much easier for the labels, since they can pimp anyone
among the 1-10% of the population who can sing, and therefore they can choose
people on character and ethnicity. Studies on thousands of pieces showed that
melodies recouped more and more, the chorus started earlier in the song, songs
got shorter, and instrument-based tricks reduced. Meanwhile loudness increased
(screams and whisper are at the same volume) to make it fitter for bad-quality
players (radio, speakers etc.)

~~~
tobr
You say “music characteristics hadn’t much to do with it” but then you list a
number of specific characteristics that make music more likely to work on
radio. That suggests the opposite of “any music will do”. Only music with very
specific qualities will do.

Or maybe you just meant to say you don’t like pop?

~~~
TheOtherHobbes
It means pop has turned into a social psychology experiment designed to
maximise the return invested in production, and not an individually expressive
art form.

The obvious end point will be AI-generated muzak which tweaks all the right
receptors but is devoid of any disturbingly non-optimal fleshy surprise.

~~~
freyr
Has "pop music" ever been anything other than this? Since the beginning, it
has typically been manufactured by producers and songwriters for mass appeal.

~~~
squiggleblaz
Not only that, but it's such a young form of cultural expression that saying
it isn't what it used to be is kinda pointless. For thousands of years, we had
people singing songs badly in pubs. Maybe someone could afford an instrument.

And then someone invented the wireless and the record player. According to the
myth, it quickly reached its optimum time when some fashionable person was in
their youth. And it has been degrading ever since.

Now, as for me, I would think all commercial music is worse than all
traditional music. If you can talk, you can sing. But here someone in this
thread has suggested that perhaps as little as 1% of the population can sing
well enough to be autotuned! (This is insane. The proportion of the population
who can sing well enough to be autotuned is much closer to 100% than to 90%.)

Someone else might say that commercial music has done quite well, and it keeps
doing better. Certainly there's more and more detail added to it.

But the fashionable story is that at some point, probably in the 1960s, music
became brilliant, and then all these grubby gen-xers and millennials got their
grubby hands on it and turned it all into the most dreary computer driven
sounds imaginable.

~~~
rsynnott
> And then someone invented the wireless and the record player.

Even before that, you had music halls as popular entertainment (and music hall
music was indeed very formulaic, arguably more so than modern pop music).

------
wfme
Personally, I used to be able to listen to a large portion of the top 50 on
Spotify without skipping too many. As of late last year, though, I've found
that the top 10 are almost exclusively songs made popular on TikTok. I can't
stand to listen to these songs, not because I necessarily dislike the songs
(or TikTok for that matter), but because there are 15-30s sections of the song
that I have heard dozens of times, posted on TikTok as a part of some new
trend. As soon as I hear one of these parts, I instinctively skip, because I'm
generally listening to Spotify to chill out, and hearing something that is so
tightly associated with a social network really works against my "chill".

~~~
swilliamsio
In a lot of TikTok songs, the 15-30 seconds of the song that you've heard
dozens of times is the best part of the song, with the rest of the piece being
rather dry and bland. "Hit or miss, I guess you never miss huh" and "I'm
already Tracer" are my quintessential examples of this.

~~~
kjakm
Is this the natural progression from 'albums are full of filler I just want
the singles'? Now it's 'the single is full of filler I just want the chorus'?

It kind of hints that people nowadays only want the highest quality content
which is ironic given the same content is used to soundtrack some of the
lowest quality/most unoriginal content (e.g. 10 second clips of people doing
the same dance to the same music).

~~~
toyg
_> some of the lowest quality/most unoriginal content _

The point of meme content (which is basically what these "same dance" videos
are) is not originality; the point is taking part, belonging to the hivemind.
Human beings fundamentally want to _belong_ , not to be original.

~~~
kjakm
I understand your point about taking part but what percentage of people take
part vs. people who simply watch? It's not just the dance videos too. There's
very little interesting content on TikTok in my opinion. It will certainly
suck you in and have you watching mindlessly for hours a day but I think it's
possible to do that and still be considered low quality and unoriginal.

~~~
toyg
_> what percentage of people take part vs. people who simply watch?_

I'd argue that the percentage has actually gone up pretty dramatically, when
compared to the previous media (TV/cinema/theatre/music).

In reality, I would argue, more people than ever now make or take part in
"something". Because 90% of everything is crap, though, the firehose is
inevitably returning more crap than ever.

Do we need better consumption filters and better ways to emerge talent? Sure.
Is this worse than before? I don't know, but it's definitely more
_democratic_.

 _> It will certainly suck you in and have you watching mindlessly for hours a
day_

Not at all like TV, then. Oh wait

------
toby
This article says that the Top 40 has dropped from 35mm to 30mm plays on a
Wednesday. Then it says:

"The decline is likely partially the result of an overall decrease in
streaming after Covid-19 hit the US, due to the absence of people listening to
music on commutes and in stores. But it’s not just that. The biggest hits are
declining, while the streaming of smaller hits remains about the same."

Seems like it could be "just that". This analysis is weird without knowing
whether overall numbers have dropped and whether retail / gyms / public spaces
primarily played Top 40 hits (which I'd guess is likely).

~~~
mNovak
Yeah I agree. I anticipate some amount of people still discover music on the
radio (even pop mega hits you have to hear the first time somewhere), then go
seek it out on spotify.

I haven't much been in a car, thus haven't heard the radio, in 7 months. I
have no idea what's on the top 40 right now.

~~~
chrisseaton
> I haven't much been in a car, thus haven't heard the radio, in 7 months.

What's the connection between being in a car and listening to the radio?

Do people not generally have radios in their homes where you live? And you
must have a phone or laptop to be typing this where you could listen to the
radio!

~~~
theshrike79
Radio just works. Someone else is choosing the playlist and you kinda hear the
music in between the ads and annoying hosts.

At home, I can select what I want to hear. I don't need to keep my attention
on the road.

~~~
chrisseaton
Do you not have radio stations where you value how the host selects, curates,
and gives the background to the music for you?

What about the current affairs, plays, comedy, history?

I can’t imagine going without the radio!

~~~
ndespres
No, not really in America. There are a few freeform music stations that still
have actual DJs in the booth selecting records that they like, but mostly al
the FM broadcast stations here are owned by 1 or 2 advertising companies who
play preselected songs, have canned DJ banter, and a very low music-to-ad
ratio.

~~~
chrisseaton
Isn't A Prairie Home Companion a massive thing in the US?

------
swiley
This would be great. The idea of “best ranked music” results in mediocre,
bland music that’s mostly ranked based on the social connections of the
artist. Musical culture and genres are extremely diverse and trying to rank
individual pieces of music makes discovery harder.

I doubt they’ll actually do this of course. Their monetization model relies on
ranking.

~~~
29athrowaway
Based on the songs being aggresively pushed by record labels, it seems that
the ultimate goals of mainstream music industry are:

\- To glorify violence, substance abuse, disrespect of women, domination
behavior, anti-intellectualism.

\- To reinforce racial stereotypes, including fear of minorities.

\- To make people superficial.

Songs are an effective way to deliver a message to be repeated over and over
and over again until people break and assimilate the message.

~~~
gruez
>it seems that the ultimate goals of mainstream music industry are: [...]
Songs are an effective way to deliver a message to be repeated over and over
and over again until people break and assimilate the message.

It sounds like you're saying that the music industry is engaged in a
conspiracy to change people's behavior. Is this a correct characterization? If
so, is there any evidence for this conspiracy, or some plausible motivations?
I'm not sure how the powers that be would benefit from people being more
violent abuse drugs, or disrespect women, for instance.

~~~
29athrowaway
Many conspiracies can be just explained through emergent behavior. For
example, there could be demand for that music, and the labels are just
creating content to respond to that demand... without any ethical
considerations about what they're promoting, that is.

But to be honest, a conspiracy of some kind could be an explanation, who
knows.

For some people, there are substantial tangible, material benefits to dumbing
down society.

For example, the "gangster rapper" stereotype is pushed aggresively by the
music industry. The popularity of "gangster rap" results in "gangster"
aesthetics becoming fashionable, even among law abiding people who are not
gangsters. However, when people see a person that resembles the "gangster"
stereotype (purely based on their attire) pushed by the entertainment
industry, they will be more likely to call 911, eventually resulting in an
innocent person being killed for no valid reason. Is this a racist conspiracy?
who knows.

Likewise, oversexualization results in people having unplanned kids, causing
them to ultimately become poor, and more susceptible to predatory loans, low
wages, political manipulation and all the machinery that exists only to abuse
the poor. Similar to anti-intellectualism.

And then, glorification of violence, competition, non-compliance, etc... this
just makes people very divisive, and in order to dominate a large population
you want them to be as divided as possible, and constantly distracted with
immaterial disputes while you lobby the government.

So, yeah... it could be a conspiracy. It is very profitable to make people
vulnerable and susceptible to manipulation and abuse. Especially political
manipulation, which is already prominent in American journalism.

It kind of resembles the psychological warfare techniques used by the Soviets
(i.e.: ideological subversion).
[https://youtu.be/IQPsKvG6WMI?t=60](https://youtu.be/IQPsKvG6WMI?t=60)

~~~
bad_user
> _conspiracy of some kind could be an explanation, who knows_

Actually we do know. It’s safe to say that conspiracies involving a lot of
actors are mathematically impossible.

[https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...](https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0147905)

~~~
newen
Snowden’s leaks were about a conspiracy that involved many more than a 1000
people and it lasted for years. You get reports about one government program
or another that’s been kept secret for decades. These are conspiracies.

Statistically improbable is different from mathematically impossible. It’s
also much less improbable when the people involved have to join through
rituals like government classification designations.

Again, government programs regularly involve much more than a 1000 people and
are known to be kept secret for decades. These programs are clearly
conspiracies.

~~~
bad_user
Not sure of what conspiracies you’re thinking of, but if actual evidence was
leaked, then we are talking about a clear failure of those involved, therefore
this is evidence for the claim that large scale conspiracies are indeed
impossible ;-)

You can believe what you want of course, but from my POV when the discussion
ends up in non-falsifiability land, you might as well talk about the existence
of God or Santa Claus, an interesting discussion for sure, but not one that
can yield any useful insight.

~~~
newen
If it is possible for a significant period of time, then it is possible.
Saying something is impossible because it "only" lasted for 50 years is
stupid.

------
1vuio0pswjnm7
"In a seminal 2004 essay in Wired titled "The Long Tail," journalist Chris
Anderson argued that digital culture would help niche music, books, and movies
thrive. With fewer gatekeepers and more avenues to find likeminded fans,
people would be more likely to indulge their true interests, rather than just
accept what was offered by the mainstream."

Nice idea, there is some truth to it based on what we've seen so far, but we
can also see how the corporations that control "what was offered by the
mainstream" are now controlling (financing) the gatekeepers of the web and/or
personal computing device (for lack of a better term). The new gatekeepers
have become entrenched thanks to centralisation, lock-in and using the system
itself as the world's most powerful hype machine, or "network effects".

The entertainment industry has gatekeepers, so too does the web (perhaps even
the wider internet) and the personal computing device.

If and when things get tight for the gatekeeper business, they (web
gatekeepers) will also control the so-called "long tail". What we are seeing
is that it is not the "gatekeeperless" distribution channel many might
imagine, as YouTube deletes a seemingly non-commercial video and arguments
ensue over rights to "free speech".

The tentacles of these gatekeepers keep reaching out further. No "long tail"
seems to be safe from their influence and ultimately their control.

~~~
duxup
Doesn't the article indicate...the long tail might be true?

~~~
Barrin92
somewhat but the decline seems relatively small. My intuition is that the
dynamics of digital content lower the barrier for new talent to go very
quickly to the top, think Billie Eilish and her brother producing an album out
of their bedroom, but that the centralisation still means most eyeballs go to
the top, maybe that part even got worse given how monotonous viral spread is.

I don't think there is much indication that there is a broad shift from the
top to the middle. Other mediums like Youtube and Twitch almost exclusively
concentrate attention at the top as well, with IIRC two thirds of streamers
not even having any viewers.

------
baron816
> While blockbuster movies are only growing in importance...

Obviously, there have been no real blockbusters released this year. I don’t
have evidence, but for me it seems like indie movies are thriving. The
Streamers are all pouring money into original movies—I can’t think of a single
movie that Netflix, Prime, or Hulu has produced that was a sequel.

~~~
teruakohatu
You need to create originals before you can cash in on sequels. Or buy them
eg. Disney buying Marvel for $4b and making $18 billion 10 years later from
the IP.

Off the top of my head a Netflix original Christmas movie has had two sequels.

~~~
theshrike79
That christmas stuff was 100% algorithm driven stuff.

They analysed that christmas movies sell and pumped out a bunch for 2-3 years
straight now. None of them are especially good or bad, it's a way to spend 1-2
hours while eating christmas candy.

------
l4r5
This is a little bit off topic, but I read this interesting article how it's
possible to do money laundering through Spotify with the help of streaming
farms: [https://ppcprotect.com/spotify-streaming-
farms/](https://ppcprotect.com/spotify-streaming-farms/)

This seems to be a bigger issue than I thought - this article quotes up to
$300 million as damage: [https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/how-to-
fight-spoti...](https://www.rollingstone.com/pro/features/how-to-fight-
spotify-streaming-fraud-850990/)

------
pointyfence
Spotify has definitely changed how I listen to music over the years. I have my
core segments, but I'd say that 33% of my time on Spotify is just stuff that I
bump into for random of reasons: a music beef between artists I don't listen
to, stories from friends with different tastes in music, a news article about
a band in the 50s, etc.

I find myself listening to the music to give context to the stories I bump
into. And then I just sort of get lost in it for a bit like you would reading
random stuff on Wikipedia. Wrecks havoc on my music suggestions though.

~~~
ehnto
I'm similar, I spend a lot more time discovering and exploring than I do
listening tonold favourites. Which is saying a lot, because I used to DJ House
and DnB for a community online radio station.

~~~
lowdose
Isn't soundcloud better for house?

~~~
ehnto
Yeah lots of better places than Spotify. I only listen to house when I am
mixing or listening to a friends set these days so it has to be from my own
collection or theirs. It's all the other genres I listen to that are on
Spotify.

------
kabacha
Honestly I've never met a person who listens to Spotify's top/trending
playlists - they are notoriously awful random mess (like all top hit charts)

Spotify is definitely killing top lists but not on purpose - turns out
arbitrary top lists are an awful idea once we have free access to music and a
strong communities that can curate the music properly. It'll continue to
decline as people are learning how to control their playlists better.

------
kevin_thibedeau
I just ran across a three year old pop song on YouTube today with 200+ million
views. I've never heard it on the radio. The top 40 gatekeepers are killing
the top 40.

------
whywhywhywhy
Why does it matter? Top 40 only really had relevancy to what journalists talk
about, music journalists are not really relevant because the idea of having to
go to town to a store to buy music is no longer a thing when you can just
listen to any music instantly and make your own mind up quicker than you can
read a review.

Think they're getting annoyed at modern way of consuming music affecting an
antiquated meaningless chart that had already been made irrelevant by the very
way music listening had changed.

------
notafraudster
I once audited the playlist of local radio stations. I recorded a few months
worth of data and asked, for each day, week, and the full time period, what #
of songs constituted 50% of overall song playtime. In all commercial formats
in my market, the number was under 75, and in most under 50. I find Spotify
pretty crummy at surfacing new music, but it's a lot better than the same
30-50 songs being played again and again and again and again.

~~~
spiderfarmer
Spotify is actually pretty good at surfacing new music when compared to radio
stations. As a music lover I never had it this good. If you just rely on
Discover Weekly it offers you more new songs than you could ever discover by
listening radio and if you're a little more proactive, you can discover new
music in myriad ways.

------
werber
I’ve personally been listening to more calming music, classical and “study
beats” and haven’t felt cultural pressure to check anything out recently (
besides wap ). It’s kind of a relief to have less cultural moments for me

------
perardi
I guess it’s reasonable to worry that Spotify is creating a sort of
algorithmic filter bubble where it just delivers you more of what you want…but
man, the Discovery Weekly feature just works. I have, weekly, discovered a lot
of artists I would never have heard of.

Am I finding as wide of a range of music as I would have when I worked at a
college radio station? Probably not. Have I discovered more and better music
than whatever was on the radio in Peoria growing up? You betcha.

------
d--b
It must be an algorithm change in the spotify recommendation engine.

Either because the top50 playlist overstated the correlation between "liking
Drake" and "liking Taylor Swift", or because they found that by trying to
broaden the spectrum of what people listen to, they get people to listen to
more music, and they get less-than-top50 artists happier.

------
pdx_flyer
Spotify makes me miss Rdio. The Rdio algorithm for finding new music based on
an artist, song, or album was really fantastic while Spotify just gives me a
playlist of similar songs in the same genre as my “radio”.

I know Pandora incorporated some of Rdio’s technique but its UI leaves a lot
to be desired.

~~~
tolbish
Spotify did this for a while, but the more advanced recommendation algorithm
got axed after the acquisition and now it just plays songs from similar
artists.

I really wish Spotify brought back that deeper music analysis because I'm the
type of listener who will like one or two songs from an artist while not being
a fan of the artist's general style of their more well-known work. Thus,
Spotify's current recommendation algorithm is incredibly hit or miss for me.

------
oshea64bit
I think it's interesting that there's some periodicity in the graph showing
the "Share of US Spotify top 200 streams going to top 40 songs" where the
share spikes during each summer. I have no substantive conclusions about this,
just thought it was worth pointing out.

------
zeus_hammer
The NYTimes Popcast podcast recently[0] took up a form of this question while
examining the relevance of album sales and Billboard charts as a whole. I
highly recommend the episode, as well as the podcast generally.

[0] [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/22/arts/music/popcast-
mercha...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/22/arts/music/popcast-merchandise-
bundles.html)

------
arrakeen
"killing" might be an extreme way of putting it, but it's definitely showing
that the older models to determine music popularity are outdated (billboard,
top 40 radio)

see also Post Malone Shatters 54 Year Old Beatles Record:
[https://kiss108.iheart.com/content/2018-05-09-post-malone-
sh...](https://kiss108.iheart.com/content/2018-05-09-post-malone-
shatters-54-year-old-beatles-record/)

------
londonatil
Spotify's statistics are super misleading, and they will continue to be
misleading until they make all "listens" from each account equal in value.

------
iunternik
That would be a good thing, honestly. I mean...look at rotten tomatoes, lots
of times critics have no idea what they're talking about

------
raverbashing
Oh is it? Good

Top 40 are only relevant to music executives that make their living pumping up
the worse kinds of musical garbage to people that base their musical tastes
into what "other people" (payola, it's payola) like.

And it seems that, as the internet came and the music distribution became more
long-tailed, the worse the "top 40" became.

------
brat81
Who would've thought that retail outlets and other public places had such a
large impact on how the TOP40 is shaped.

------
shmerl
I prefer stores like Bandcamp.

------
LockAndLol
"Killing"... What a sensationalist title with an article isn't even indicating
" death". Why do you put up with subpar clickbait like this?

------
ImAlreadyTracer
I haven't started streaming my music yet but if it leads to a greater
diversity of tastes in listeners then I'm all for it.

------
Icedcool
I can only hope..

------
tiku
Spotify is really the true top 40. Because there are direct statistics about
what is most played and shared..

~~~
mrweasel
It's even better for smaller countries. Denmark has a best selling music list,
published by the record industry, which is often used as the basis for TOP XX
playlists on the radio.

That seems reasonable, until you realize that it's actually within the reach
of a dedicated individual on a normal salary to affect the list. The best
selling album have in some weeks sold in the low hundreds.

------
blaser-waffle
Good! Top 40 -- and why 40 instead of 50, or 100? -- is useless pop nonsense
for bland radio stations.

------
chriselles
Has Zipf’s Law ever applied to the distribution of music consumption?

When shaped by industry, algorithm, or serendipity?

~~~
dredmorbius
Yes, strongly.

The influence of hitmakers and gatekeepers adjusts _what_ makes the curve, and
shifts it somewhat, but the overal outlines of _any_ informational domain will
be governed by Zipf.

~~~
chriselles
I thought so.....but it's always good to hear validated or contrarian thought
on the topic.

Maybe I'm just in a self-created confirmation bias loop or force fitting, but
I'm noticing what appears to be Zipf's Law all around me since I've become
aware of it.

------
exnuber
The top-40 is killing me, so it only seems fair.

------
dredmorbius
The pop music industry has seen at least three disruptions to its controlling
gatekeepers since the 1950s (1956-60, ~2000 with Napster, and presently with
Spotify and YouTube), but each time a dominant hegenomy re-emerges. I doubt
this time will be different, though the brief renaissance will doubtless be
appreciated.

Charles Perrow wrote of this in the mid-1980s:

 _After the critical period from about 1956 to 1960, when tastes were
unfrozen, competition was intense, and demand soared, consolidation appeared.
The number of firms stabilized at about forty. New corporate entries appeared,
such as MGM and Warner Brothers, sensing, one supposes, the opportunity that
vastly expanding sales indicated. Some independents grew large. The eight-firm
concentration ratio also stabilized (though not yet the four-firm ratio). The
market became sluggish, however, as the early stars died, were forced into
retirement because of legal problems, or in the notable case of Elvis Presley,
were drafted by an impinging environment. Near the end of this period the
majors decided that the new sounds were not a fad and began to buy up the
contracts of established artists and successfully picked and promoted new
ones, notably The Beach Boys and Bob Dylan. A new generation (e.g., The
Beatles) appeared from 1964 to 1969, and sales again soared._

 _But now the concentration ratios soared also. From 1962 to 1973, the four-
firm ratio went from 25 to 51 percent; the eight-firm ratio from 46 to 81
percent, almost back to the pre-1955 levels. The number of different firms
having hits declined from forty-six to only sixteen. Six of the eight giants
were diversified conglomerates, some of which led in the earlier period; one
was a new independent, the other a product of of mergers._

 _How did they do it? The major companies asserted “increasing central control
over the creative process”[352] through deliberate creation and extensive
promotion of new groups, long-range contracts for groups, and reduced autonomy
for producers. In addition, legal and illegal promotion costs (drug payola to
disc jockeys, for example) rose in the competitive race and now exceeded the
resources of small independents. Finally, the majors “have also moved to
regain a controlling position in record distribution by buying chains of
retail stores.”[353] The diversity is still greater than it had been in the
past, and may remain high, but it is ominous that the majors have all the
segments covered. As an executive said, “Columbia Records will have a major
entry into whatever new area is broached by the vagaries of public tastes.”
But for a concentrated industry, the “vagaries of public tastes” are not
economical; it is preferable to stabilize and consolidate them. This would be
possible through further control over the creative process and marketing._

Charles Perrow, _Complex organizations : a critical essay,_ 1972, 1985. pp.
186--187.

The dynamics, actors, and economics remind me strongly of the software / high-
tech industry, though with much weaker coupling and different lock-in
mechanics.

------
vmception
Perfect

------
gregjw
Betteridge's law of Hacker News headlines

------
peter_l_downs
No (Betteridge's law)

~~~
myself248
Damn. That's one grave I would dance on so hard I'd probably twist an ankle or
something.

