base talk Social media shortened attention spans, yet hits stay on top longer than ever. Why?

[Feanor]

 

 

Much has been written about how social media has shortened people's attention spans and how the public now moves on from stuff much more quickly. Trends are in and already out again within a week, smash movies may dominate the conversation for a few weeks but then become old news right after and pop, sports and political news always move from one headline to another at a daily rate.

 

Yet when you look at Billboard or Spotify to see what people actually listen to, you'll see the same hit songs or album stay high up the charts for months. Not to sound too old here, but I remember how much faster the turnaround used to be in the digital/iTunes age, when hit songs would maybe stay in the top 10 for maybe 2-3 months, and then there'd be a new batch of hits songs to take their place. Even radio seemingly switched out songs much faster than they do now, where you now have the same songs get airplay for months as well.

 

For example, Katy Perry managed to get 8 individual hits in a ~24 months timeframe with the 'Teenage Dream' era, which averaged out to a new hit every 3 months. And there are other examples too from even earlier, think Janet Jackson with 'Rhythm Nation 1814'. Something like that is pretty unimaginable nowadays with just how much the public sticks to a certain few big hits for like half the year.

 

 

So why do you think do hit songs/albums now have more longevity, despite people having shorter attention spans overall?

Shouldn't the streaming era have actually led to new hits rising up and falling down the charts quicker than ever before?

 

[shyboi]

correlation =/= causation 

[RideOrDie]

 

Edited 6 hours ago by RideOrDie

[Princess Aurora]

Well it sucks

[Badgalbriel]

Not my fave

[New Edition]

Because no one's paying attention

[anti-bitch]

31 minutes ago, Feanor said:

 

So why do you think do hit songs/albums now have more longevity, despite people having shorter attention spans overall?

Shouldn't the streaming era have actually led to new hits rising up and falling down the charts quicker than ever before?

The attention span thing is making the songs shorter and shorter. But on social media, these hit songs get spammed for months, years even. That's what's making them stick on forever.

 

Ngl, that "A Bar Song" that was just #1 on the Hot 100 for 17 weeks says nothing to me, but if I might recognize it from Tiktok, lol.

[Robyn.]

I'd say back in the physical/digital age, you had to buy the album/song ONCE and then consume it as much as you wanted without it counting to its chart position on the following weeks regardless if people were consuming it or not.

 

With streaming, you're tracking the consumer's music habits daily so it's more accurate I'd say.

Edited 5 hours ago by Robyn.

[Blue Jeans]

I guess the chart rules, especially streaming playlists and radio that keep having the same songs. Albums are fewer and should stay on top longer than songs of which there are thousands every month.

[Erreur2 La Nature]

Because  people actually streaming music are a minority and they're mostly using playlists where they'll hear the same songs again and again. The amount of songs that are considered hits nowadays is crazy and most of them are unknown to people irl.

[smartalek22]

streaming 

[anti-bitch]

Just now, Robyn. said:

I'd say back in the physical/digital age, you had to buy the album/song ONCE and then consume it as much as you wanted without it counting to its chart position.

 

With streaming, you're tracking the consumer's music habits daily.

This, exactly. You just can't compare the pure sales era to streaming era.

[hallucinate]

idk i feel like most viral hits don't last long on charts after a certain time tbh

also the streaming era, especially the playlists play a huge part in this

[swissman]

It's because pop music doesn't have the same functions as movies, trends, news or politics. Pop music is ALL about replay-ability. The goal has always been to create a song so catchy that people want to hear it over and over. And something that has not changed in decades is one of the most important markers of a song's success is radio where hits are played many times a day by a single station.

 

BUT NOW we are in the streaming era, an era where the consumer has the choice to play a song as many times as they please and unlike with sales, each and every replay will count towards the sales/chart success of the song.

 

There are many instances where the public gets distracted and move on from a song. It's not like every hit lasts for months in the Top Ten. But those that do clearly have mass appeal that makes it so that even if some people get tired quick and move on, there are always more people to discover it. And social media being what it is, the reach of one song, one viral hit, one clip or chorus can go way farther than ever before.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by swissman

[Kayseri Mantisi]

because short attention span can be inspected by long tracks or long albums, not by how many days a song is sitting on #1

 

what you said actually proves that the short attention span is real because people discover one song and just get obsessed with it & stick to it - because they don't have the energy or attention span to discover brand new songs or albums, especially long ones

[jomarr]

Chart rules. Radio should be a non factor at this point.

[bielneira]

8 minutes ago, Kayseri Mantisi said:

because short attention span can be inspected by long tracks or long albums, not by how many days a song is sitting on #1

 

what you said actually proves that the short attention span is real because people discover one song and just get obsessed with it & stick to it - because they don't have the energy or attention span to discover brand new songs or albums, especially long ones

[Abracadabra]

A combination of streaming and radio

 

Having a short attention span doesn't mean you quickly stop listening to songs you like

[swissman]

It's interesting to note that before 1977, no song had ever spent 10 or more weeks at #1.

 

In the 1980s, only one did.

 

In the 1990s, there were 12.

 

In the 2000s, there were 12.

 

In the 2010s, there were 14.

 

In the 2020s (and we are about to be halfway through) there are 6.

 

so, [at least with #1 hits] it seems that actually we are rather on par with the tally for the previous 30 years.

 

 

Edited 5 hours ago by swissman

[smartalek22]

1 minute ago, swissman said:

It's interesting to note that before 1977, no song had ever spent 10 or more weeks at #1.

 

In the 1980s, only one did.

 

In the 1990s, there were 12.

 

In the 2000s, there were 12.

 

In the 2010s, there were 14.

 

In the 2020s (and we are bought to be halfway through) there are 6.

 

so, [at least with #1 hits] it seems that actually we are rather on par with the tally for the previous 30 years.

The BB H100 was incredibly airplay driven in the 90s and 00s. That would never have had happened with pure sales of physical singles alone.

[Trent W]

I think the industry is just able to buy chart positions through radio and playlists 

 

Basically if you have budget you can buy a hit

 

I think in the next decade people are going to realize that Billboard is completely irrelevant now

[StayFrosty]

19 minutes ago, Kayseri Mantisi said:

because they don't have the energy or attention span to discover brand new songs or albums, especially long ones

This is me and I ******* hate it. I find comfort in sticking with old tv shows/movies/songs than be attentive to new ones.

 

I can't even watch a full movie without being on my phone. IM COOKED

[swissman]

8 minutes ago, smartalek22 said:

The BB H100 was incredibly airplay driven in the 90s and 00s. That would never have had happened with pure sales of physical singles alone.

And so too would it not happen with pure sales of physical singles alone today.

[shoganai]

Because of ADHD: as I have it myself I repeat a song until I'm drained and then not listen it ever again

[Onyxmage]

You just answered your own question.