Hmm. That actually makes sense too. People are more likely going to see shows/buy music/become fans of bands they’ve heard of. People are more likely to have heard of bands with a hit. Bands with a hit have some royalties coming in that maybe provides some base income that lets them continue to tour, record, etc.
I have no idea if this is accurate, just thinking it through because it is an interesting question.
Another a-ha hit I remember got quite a bit of airplay:
And yet some believe if we give away our work a bed of roses will be ours
But people still buy music and truthfully the distribution format only matters if it is inconvenient by price or format.
And bacon becomes kosher in such a world.
Some things I’ve heard or read from musicians:
Sounds like a career where success can suck. 
A-ha…sold 100M Albums over 30 years…one hit wonders.
Well, The Guardian should know something about declining popularity.
Yeah it’s like that guy that had that one hit in the UK, what was his name ? John Denver, that was it. One song and then never heard from again 
I guess fake news has had its day.
Songs of theirs that were big hits in my African homeland were Take on Me, Hunting High and Low, Cry Wolf, The Sun Always Shines on TV, Manhattan Skyline, Stay on These Roads, Crying in the Rain, The Blood That Moves the Body and their Bond theme The Living Daylights.
Genuinely great band for the first two albums with some excellent moments on the third. America’s the world, though.
Faith No More comes to mind, their only true mainstream hit was “Epic”, which is the last song any real FNM fan ever wants to hear again (Wikipedia tells me they’ve officially had 2 other songs in the lower reaches of the Billboard 100). But I’d say they’ve managed to do pretty well in spite of it. And think of all the metal bands who’ve never had a “hit single” but still rake. I think Slayer does ok. So is the “top of the charts” the crown or the bowels of the music industry? I suppose the answer is non-binary…
That was my thought too. I get that the US is a big market and charting there is a big deal, but to set that as the minimum standard for success is a bit silly. Nena and Psy have had successful careers in their own countries and internationally. The fact that they charted in the US with songs that aren’t even in English should be seen as an interesting moment of successful careers, not as evidence of their “one-hit wonder status”.
Yes, the binary between chart/non-chart is such a pox on music. Many bands have a great following, and write music that they, and their loyal fans love. That hit they had? That’s also the song all the die hard fans hate, because it brings in noob fans, but also because it usually is a different sound from the rest of the catalogue.
The band that immediately comes to mind for me is Sugar Ray. I didn’t listen to their later albums, but their approach to their first two albums seemed to be to write a dozen songs that leaned towards the heavier side of rock and then one pop ballad. The pop ballad (always, in my opinion, the worst song on the record) would be the single.
I remember someone telling me not to buy their new album because “it doesn’t sound anything like the single, it’s all loud guitars and distortion” and me thinking “Oh thank god”.
If anything can do it, the internet can! *Buys domain: makebaconkosher.com*
Indeed. That’s actually pretty remarkable!
No, no, we’re in Alternative Facts land now.
You need to buy makebaconkosheragain.com
I initially thought that site was satirical, but… maybe not? Kind of a Poe’s Law thing there.
This article epitomizes the stats-plus-superficial-conjecture formula that ought to be the death of culture mags. 1400 words about why one-hit wonders exist with no mention of production influence aside from a throwaway line about labels’ tendency to want artists to “strike while the hype is still warm”? There’s perhaps a little more to it than that…
The analysis here, insofar as it exists, isn’t even skin deep. It’s 90% “here are some things which occurred” and 10% “let me idly spitball at you”. Eh.
Agreed. But I’d argue, in the US market, filesharing and streaming certainly dominate the market (at least among younger people). I think this shifts the market back into singles more than albums (which we’ve talked about before).
As someone upthread noted, this particular article assumes the US market is ALL music markets. As you well know, it isn’t. From what I understand about the current Japanese market, CDs still dominate how people buy their music. And if I’m not mistaken, Japan is still the second largest market for popular music in the world. I’m sure you can either confirm or deny this, as you’re likely more familiar with how people buy music locally.
But I do think that the format does matter. Filesharing has put different people into advantageous positions in the market for music. At best, it can cut out the middle man (labels, record stores, Amazon, what have you), but it can also negatively impact smaller labels who still depend on revenue from physical media. Same thing happened with recordable cassette tapes in the 70s and 80s.
I have to say I kind of totally agree with this. The assumption that the market for popular music existed as a stable thing over the years… hogwash, I say.
Yeah the article itself is imperfect.
Depending on how one measures markets AFAIK thats still true. One thing is that its not just physical media like CDs that contribute to the market size but also getting placement in TV shows, movies and ads. Here anyway that is big money.
Every time the format changes the market adapts. Pre recorded mini-disc was big here as were 3" CD singles but the cassette single never caught on here like it did in the US. People buy what they want even if it means additional cost of a new playback unit simply because they want that content.
Therein lies the “home taping is killing music” pit. By my understanding, most people still bought one copy of the music they wanted and recorded that to cassette so the “loss” was in not buying a second copy of the music.
I do think this is a general trend here in the US, too. Maybe this is a general global trend in the industry? [quote=“Israel_B, post:58, topic:98368”]
Every time the format changes the market adapts.
[/quote]
Agreed, that doesn’t mean it goes back to look the same as before, I’d argue. This was really my point, that format and how people interact with formats can shape markets, hence my comments about cassette tapes.
Oh, I’m certainly not arguing on behalf of the industry here. I agree that the dip in markets had little to do with cassettes at all. That doesn’t mean they had no effect on the market for popular music. They make the same claims about downloading, too, let’s not forget and we all know that’s bunk. I do think cassettes created new opportunities for independent artists to act outside of the established markets, though.
That happened long ago.
We’ve argued this before. I don’t agree and its worth saying again.
Actually for a long time it wasn’t that much cheaper to get cassettes manufactured relative to vinyl. The only cost advantage I ever found was a one time buy of dead stock C15 loop cassettes.
