Isn't this just Econ 101 playing out in real time? We've gone from an oligopoly of MTV and record labels manufacturing scarcity to something approaching a perfect market where anyone can drop a track on Spotify.
Turns out when you remove the gatekeepers, the market satisfies a much wider spectrum of musical tastes instead of force-feeding us a few manufactured pop stars.
Sort of agree but hesitate with perfect market claim. Let me work through a view point of how someone might find different music.
there were plenty of independent shops, college radio and small labels in the 80s/90s so to those that cared, there has always been accessible alternatives. from a fan standpoint, there was competition in those days.
Spotify algorithm is not totally agnostic as a free market for music to rise. It has built in bias like any algorithm driven platform and that’s kind of the point. Quick research of US market: Spotify with 36% of streaming audience, Apple 30%, Amazon almost 25%, and YouTube around 7%. That looks like a concentrated distribution market with fans on each platform being fed depending on material is served.
And most of us get directed to music through other social platforms so a bit of a recursive (closed) loop happening. The market has changed, just wondering if it’s that different - to find new and different music still requires fans set off on that journey.
The top 100 is one of the first echo chambers: things are popular because they are deemed popular. As Derek Thompson pointed out (don't know how original source,and others have done the same) , Billboard changed its methodology in the '90s from store owners self-selecting stock they wanted to move to point of sales. The churn before then, in which there could be more stars, was artificially propped up. The increase in the last decade could be attributed to more flash in the pan popularity, or increasing options of new things.
You joke about Elton John not being forever, but if his Christmas 2021 colab with Ed Sheeran, "Merry Christmas" had charted two places higher (42, when it came back around a year later in December 2022), then he would have regained your criteria for stardom, thanks to his top ten hits earlier in 2022 with Britney and Dua Lipa, "Hold me closer"(7) and "Cold Heart"(6).
As it is he can reenter if he scores another charting hit by 15th Jan, so if enough of us stream "Merry Christmas" or "Step Into Christmas" over the festive season, Sir Reg May yet prove you wrong ;-)
In my opinion the industry of marketing music and creators of has become a chief element of making it Possible to be called star. Artistry is a cherished gift that may for a while become stardom. Artistry transcends eras. It remains way past the lives of human creators. There was an online Billboard article in 2014 regarding top American women singers listed by the industry’s report of millions of $ made by each. Forty groups were named. I was surprised at the declaration of which was # 1. My sisters and I: The Emotions.
No, I believe there will continue to be music stardom - because the spotlight can find them again generations ahead.
Really interesting analysis and it makes a great deal of sense.
It could also be interesting to consider the role of awards and 'best of' lists in the longevity of music stars, since these seem to play a bit of an outlandish role in who is perceived as a 'star'.
As always, this is fantastic. I was wondering, however, if it's a bit too focused on America, since only the Billboard charts are taken into account. Someone whose popularity has waned in the US could still be a star in the rest of the world. Perhaps an alternative could be whether they have a Number 1 single or album anywhere (within reason) over the last 5 years.
Isn't this just Econ 101 playing out in real time? We've gone from an oligopoly of MTV and record labels manufacturing scarcity to something approaching a perfect market where anyone can drop a track on Spotify.
Turns out when you remove the gatekeepers, the market satisfies a much wider spectrum of musical tastes instead of force-feeding us a few manufactured pop stars.
Sort of agree but hesitate with perfect market claim. Let me work through a view point of how someone might find different music.
there were plenty of independent shops, college radio and small labels in the 80s/90s so to those that cared, there has always been accessible alternatives. from a fan standpoint, there was competition in those days.
Spotify algorithm is not totally agnostic as a free market for music to rise. It has built in bias like any algorithm driven platform and that’s kind of the point. Quick research of US market: Spotify with 36% of streaming audience, Apple 30%, Amazon almost 25%, and YouTube around 7%. That looks like a concentrated distribution market with fans on each platform being fed depending on material is served.
And most of us get directed to music through other social platforms so a bit of a recursive (closed) loop happening. The market has changed, just wondering if it’s that different - to find new and different music still requires fans set off on that journey.
The top 100 is one of the first echo chambers: things are popular because they are deemed popular. As Derek Thompson pointed out (don't know how original source,and others have done the same) , Billboard changed its methodology in the '90s from store owners self-selecting stock they wanted to move to point of sales. The churn before then, in which there could be more stars, was artificially propped up. The increase in the last decade could be attributed to more flash in the pan popularity, or increasing options of new things.
You joke about Elton John not being forever, but if his Christmas 2021 colab with Ed Sheeran, "Merry Christmas" had charted two places higher (42, when it came back around a year later in December 2022), then he would have regained your criteria for stardom, thanks to his top ten hits earlier in 2022 with Britney and Dua Lipa, "Hold me closer"(7) and "Cold Heart"(6).
As it is he can reenter if he scores another charting hit by 15th Jan, so if enough of us stream "Merry Christmas" or "Step Into Christmas" over the festive season, Sir Reg May yet prove you wrong ;-)
In my opinion the industry of marketing music and creators of has become a chief element of making it Possible to be called star. Artistry is a cherished gift that may for a while become stardom. Artistry transcends eras. It remains way past the lives of human creators. There was an online Billboard article in 2014 regarding top American women singers listed by the industry’s report of millions of $ made by each. Forty groups were named. I was surprised at the declaration of which was # 1. My sisters and I: The Emotions.
No, I believe there will continue to be music stardom - because the spotlight can find them again generations ahead.
Really interesting analysis and it makes a great deal of sense.
It could also be interesting to consider the role of awards and 'best of' lists in the longevity of music stars, since these seem to play a bit of an outlandish role in who is perceived as a 'star'.
As always, this is fantastic. I was wondering, however, if it's a bit too focused on America, since only the Billboard charts are taken into account. Someone whose popularity has waned in the US could still be a star in the rest of the world. Perhaps an alternative could be whether they have a Number 1 single or album anywhere (within reason) over the last 5 years.