“Millennials have short attention spans and constantly move on to the next new thing. When it comes to music, if a song is a month old, it’s ‘ancient,’ they don’t want to hear it anymore, they want something new and they want it now…”
This is a statement you’ll hear made by Gen Xers and Boomers, as well as Millennials who self-identify as “generation fluid,” not wanting to be defined by their demographics and wishing they “were born in a different generation.” Shit, I’ve probably said something similar to that statement. The fact of the matter is, this is a statement that’s been uttered about every generation when it comes to music, and the more startling fact is that it’s actually less true of this generation than any previous generation (actually, the more startling fact is that I’m about to defend Millennials).
To prove this, we’re going to use the Billboard Hot 100. Some may argue against this, but Billboard is THE trend tracker, adjusting their rules and weights over the years to best display what is being listened to/consumed the most. It’s a sales, airplay, and streaming chart all in one. And it tells us that in the 1970s and 1980s, there were far more hits than there were in 2015.
A “hit” is relative for Billboard. It doesn’t matter if 6 million copies of a 7” single were sold in 1974 and only 1 million copies of a digital download were sold in 2015, if those were the highest selling songs of those years, they were #1 hits.
In 1980, while over 80 songs made their way to the top 10 of the Billboard Hot 100, only 18 stayed there for 10 or more weeks, with the longest stay in the top 10 notched by Queen’s Another One Bites the Dust (15 weeks). Now, before you accuse me of cherry picking a year to prove my point, it should be noted that it gets worse as the decade goes on… from 1985 to 1989, only two songs had double digit runs, Phil Collins’ Another Day in Paradise and Dionne and Friends’ That’s What Friends Are For both spent 10 weeks in the Top 10. Hundreds of songs hit the top 10 in that 5 year span, and TWO lasted 10 weeks. The rest were in and out faster than a hooker at a convention for premature ejaculators.
In 2015 barely 50 songs made the top 10, but because of this they all had much longer runs. 30 of those songs were in the top 10 for more than 10 weeks, 9 of those songs had a run longer than 20 weeks, and Mark Ronson and Bruno Mars’ Uptown Funk stayed there for 31 weeks. The same song was being downloaded, streamed, and played on the radio for nearly 8 months. This wasn’t just luck, this is a trend: 2014 saw 31 songs stick around the top 10 for over 2 and a half months each; 2013 had 33.
“Millennials just don’t get sick of songs as quickly as people did ‘back in the day.'”
So how can this be? I mean, these kids today with their Instagrams and their Xboxes and their non-existent attention spans (AMC considered making theaters available to Millennials who would want to text during a movie because these kids today can’t watch a movie without also being on their phones you know!), there must be a reasonable explanation! Well, if you have one, feel free to post it in the comments below.
I’ve considered a number of angles… maybe there’s not as much competition now? Well that’s simply not true, in fact there’s more than ever. Everyone and their brother can record something in their basement these days, you don’t need a multi-million dollar studio. And the Internet turns things that would have been obscure jokes into major hits. Psy’s Gangnam Style was #2 on Billboard’s Hot 100 BEFORE they started counting YouTube views (in fact, it was because it didn’t hit #1 despite clearly being the most popular song in the world that they added YouTube stats to their tracking). When they did start counting YouTube views, the first song to really take advantage of it was Baauer’s Harlem Shake, a song that sat at #1 on Billboard for 5 weeks just on the strength of an Internet meme. Based on this, Billboard’s charts should be a revolving door now more than ever, no song able to ever really hold the throne for more than a couple weeks
Maybe the industry isn’t pushing music the way it used to? We know that recorded music sales are way down, so it would make sense that the labels don’t want to spend the money to promote music that’s just going to earn them fractions of pennies in streaming revenue. But who needs money when you have social media? Beyoncé’s “secret album” (the self titled Beyoncé) released at the end of 2013 debuted at #1 on Billboard’s Top 200 (their album sales chart) completely on the strength of social media and word of mouth. She did zero promotion, not even teasers leading up to it. One day there wasn’t a new Beyoncé album, the next day there was and it was all everyone was talking about. Taylor Swift just has to tweet that her new video is out and it’s the most watched thing that day on YouTube.
Maybe new songs just don’t come out quickly enough? The Hot 100 is a singles chart after all. Except rule changes over the years have allowed basically ANYTHING to be considered a single. “Back in the day,” when people apparently had great attention spans and played outside and drank from garden hoses and blah blah blah, there was a narrow definition of what a single was, and only those songs could end up on the Hot 100. Now, every song on an album, mixtape, or EP is fair game if people are buying it individually or streaming it. And the old method of “send a single up the charts, wait until it’s dying, and then release the next one” is a tactic that’s either been forgotten or ignored, probably because Millennials have short attention spans so why wait, right?
In 2013 when Bieber released Journals, he released a new song every week for 10 weeks to promote it. When Zayn broke off from One Direction and announced the release of his new album, he was promoting new songs left and right. However, his first one, Pillowtalk, is the only one still on Billboard, sitting at #5 as of writing this (and enjoying an 11 week run and counting in the top 10). If these kids had such short attention spans, wouldn’t Pillowtalk have been supplanted by Like I Would, or one of the other songs on his album? Apparently, they aren’t sick of Pillowtalk yet.
Maybe music’s just not as good as it was? Clearly, there were just so many awesome songs coming out back in the day that there’s no way anything could stay in the top 10 for too long. Yeah, Men at Work, Toto, Culture Club, Duran Duran, and Dexys Midnight Runners were so much better than what we have now. How could anything stay in the top 10 with such masterpieces as Der Kommissar and Puttin’ On The Ritz tearing up the charts in ’83?!
No, the best explanation seems to be this: Millennials just don’t get sick of songs as quickly as people did “back in the day.” No one wants to hear it, but your generation wanted “new and now.” This generation seems content to listen to Rihanna’s Work (12 weeks and counting in the top 10) until the batteries run out of that phone they can’t be separated from.
NOTE: Buckley’s been listening to the same mix CD in his car since 2008.
Image: Daniel Zedda, self-portrait, licensed under Creative Commons 2.0 Generic (CC by 2.0).
How about commercial radio stations having smaller, fixed playlists than they in previous generations? Less songs getting airplay on radio means more plays for those that get added, resulting in longer stays in the hot 100.
Radio only accounts for a very small percentage (definitely less than 50%, I’ll have to look it up again but I believe it’s about 30%) of the weight on the Hot 100, with purchases and streaming services accounting for the rest.
true, however, radio is still a great source for discovering music. so if you get your radio promotion straight, you can count on at least some traffic to your streaming profiles. huge amounts of payments to radio stations seem to accord that.
in simple terms: i might listen to only 30 minutes of radio every week, but these are the 30 minutes where I truly discover music. YouTube might just be the best way of following up on that and listening again to what I was discovering.
You should look at a streaming chart sometime. Like the Spotify top 50. Its movement tends to be glacial as fuck.
Nah, it’s just that radio and playlists on streaming services are pushing the same few songs down our throats for months on end and they give a chance to only a small selection of all songs released. Just looking at mainstream pop music, there are so many great singles released that radio simply ignores.
Except for the fact that you can make your own playlists and pick your own songs on many (if not all) streaming sites, not to mention that streaming and digital downloads both account for more than radio play does.
You have it completely backwards.
A person with a long attention span will get tired of a song more quickly, because, well, they are paying attention to it.
One with a short attention span has to listen to it over and over and over again before being able to pay attention enough to hear all the parts of the song. If that ever even happens.
You’re logic is genuinely flawed. There is no correlation between what you are saying and the point of this article.
If you were right then nobody would still be listening to classical music, or hell, even classic rock more than once.
If you think you need to delve into the nuance of a song to want to listen to it multiple times, you’re an idiot.
C. You might be right. And though Rudy was incorrect in regards to this isolated case when it comes to music. It’s still true that those with short-attention spans usually don’t have such a fast time in catching nuances in music.
Still though, in the end Rudy was wrong since when it comes to music it really doesn’t matter whether one has a short-attention span or not, this only matters in matters of reading or watching a movie. What should have been the focus of this article is that Millennials simply like listening to their old favorite songs over and over again. Which is true. This coming from a millennial.
Rudy you are correct indeed.
Very true. They’re always so distracted that they don’t even know or care if they’ve heard it before. Listening to the same songs when you have such a massive number of options to choose from could indicate that they really just don’t care about music very much.
I’m not so sure this writer has spent enough time with millenials. Most of them recognize the past through pictures and not talent or longevity. There is a major disconnect these days due to how quickly they can throw away music like its a fad.
Say’s someone who obviously cannot connect with millennials. Let’s talk about fads… Tell me any that still exist and is relevant from any time period and maybe you’ll have a semblance of a point.
Unless you’re still having fun with your pet rock….
Of course fads are no longer around, that’s why they’re called fads!
I just explained that music was “thrown away like a fad” in the old days, in fact faster than it is today. The top 10 was a revolving door compared to today, where songs chart longer. If, as some suggest, radio is the culprit, I can’t help but wonder if they read Mediabase (I’m guessing they don’t). Often times, songs that are still charting highly aren’t even in the top 100 on Mediabase’s Pop charts. Radio stations have stopped playing Adele – Hello (still #37 on Billboard) and Justin Bieber – Sorry (#21 on Billboard) in current categories, and have either moved it to Recurrent or are resting it. Hell, Purple Rain is #17 this week on Billboard, and I can guarantee you that radio play accounts for absolutely none of that.
Correlation is not causality. More rapid turn over in the charts could be caused by any number of factors. Other than the dates involved, do you have any reason to associate this with the attention span of the human mind??
Regardless, it’s an interesting observation.
For no reason other than instinct, the potential cause that seems most likely to me is that the overall marketplace is less competitive at the top of the charts and more splintered into more specific sub-genres on the bottom. A small number of larger companies releasing fewer albums that are considered “sure things” with large marketing budgets homogenize the culture. The Internet counterbalanceservice these trends by empowering small groups with unique tastes and interests resulting in a greater number of artists fighting for the left overs.
I think Troglite has hit upon more significant in this regard.
True, but i think what he means is alot of people are purchasing/streaming songs because theyre hearing them on the radio as well, thus radio still does have its influence on the charts…
As a millennial and professional musician, I agree with those who suggested that this Buckley has come to a completely unrelated conclusion. You cannot seriously argue that because people can “create their own playlists” as someone in the comment above suggested that somehow that means that there are more choices, and therefore Buckley’s original point is valid. If you have taken the time to actually look through popular playlists on Spotify or Apple music, you will notice that they are either created by Spotify or major labels under different names (a quick Google search will reveal that) and the few user-generated playlists that do get attention essentially push the most popular songs (i.e. Top 40) in order to gain listeners and increase the chance of being featured. Yes, interesting playlists do exist outside the Top 40/Mainstream realm, but that is a niche demographic that has its own popularity contest.
There are plenty of millennials who love music and will spend more time than people in previous generations ever did listening to every piece of an artist’s catalog over and over again to try to hear every layer, decipher every lyric, and remember every melody. However, as it always has been, there is a large group of people who are happy to like what is popular and will not delve any deeper than that.
Recorded music is no longer a social event among most millennials. You don’t go over to someone’s house to listen to a record. Live music still has an impact in the life of the average millennial, but as anyone can plainly see, they are more concerned with being part of the event – whether it be a festival, a popular summer tour, or a unique, limited line-up of bands – than the music itself.
It’s important to point out as I have, that I’m speaking of the average millennial, who is not much different than any other person who isn’t a huge fan of music and follows pop culture or trends, etc. It was the same during the “alternative movement” of the 90s when it went mainstream. Consumer patterns really aren’t drastically different when you get down to the meat of it. The difference is that the industry is much smaller than it once was and the labels have found a formula to lower the risk while maintaining much of the control, and therefore revenue.
Buckley is drawing conclusions, as he did in his final paragraph, that miss the point in favor of a convenient tagline,
“No, the best explanation seems to be this: Millennials just don’t get sick of songs as quickly as people did “back in the day.” No one wants to hear it, but your generation wanted “new and now.” This generation seems content to listen to Rihanna’s Work (12 weeks and counting in the top 10) until the batteries run out of that phone they can’t be separated from.”
Millennials, and let’s be honest, most people today, don’t want to be separated from their phone under any circumstances. It’s easy to continue to listen to ‘Work’ when it’s on virtually every playlist and every radio station. Again, music is not the focus point in the sense of sitting down and listening to an album without distractions.
It would make more sense to try to identify a possible connection between trends (in terms of their length compared to pre-Internet) and marketing. Is it that millennials actually enjoy the same music for longer or that because there is too much noise and fragmentation, music that is pushed into the mainstream remains there longer not only because it has more relative power in terms of shorter consumer attention spans and infinite choice? Have you stopped to consider that perhaps the although there is less money relative to the end of the 90s, mainstream/major labels/radio/streaming companies (i.e. mainstream music industry) actually have more power because there is too much choice? When there is too much choice, it’s common for people to go with the same-old-same-old. Top 40/Billboard 200/etc. effectively limits the amount of music that is relatively available compared to 20-30 years ago. There is more overall music available, but without the unique, regional social component and perceived value of music (t’s free, now) you’re seeing a homogenization of culture and a lightning fast appropriation of niche cultures (underground, regional sounds, etc.). And have you ever stopped to consider that perhaps given the lack of recorded music revenue, it is in the major labels’ best interest to extend the life of their releases are long as possible so not to oversaturate the market with new material and to possibly recoup as much as they can from the recording and marketing process?
Just some food for thought.
Thank you for sharing these thoughts. I found your analysis very interesting.
It seems that consumers are more willing to pay for “experiences” and “identity”… and increasingly less willing to pay for information and media.
Thanks Troglite.
You bring up an interesting point. I don’t necessarily think it’s much different. People identified with the Beatles and the Rolling Stones, and practically every other musician and songwriter of the 20th century. Listening to most music is a very personal experience and the goal is in some way to get the listener to feel something and identify with you.
But, I think you were probably emphasizing ‘social identity’ as seen through the lens of social media, which again is part of it, but slightly different as it is more public.
Perhaps a better question to ask would be whether or not the average teenager or 20-something millennial still continues listening to an album an experience?
I’ve heard the stories from family, older fans, and musical mentors who grew up saving up to buy one new album and then would go over to their friend’s house, maybe even with a few of their friends, and listen to the album from start to finish. And then listen again. And again. Sometimes even with something to “enhance” the experience.
What do a lot of young kids do now? They play video games or online gaming. The older kids go to clubs and EDM shows (not much different from going out dancing in the 70s and 80s at clubs, except they were bands). I think most of us would agree that those were all experiences and in some way formed a some part of a young person’s identity at a certain point in time. So, I don’t think that it’s much different now than it was in the past other than the mechanics and events.
Are millennials more fickle than Gen X’ers? How many Gen X teens/20-somethings started wearing flannel and listening to grunge? How many listened to “Smells Like Teen Spirit” on ad nauseum and completely hated In Utero, later moving on to the next fad? How is that any different than what we’re experiencing now?
The only glaring difference I see now is that there is less opportunity for new, original artists to emerge and affect the mainstream on the same level we saw in the past. There’s less money in recorded music and therefore less incentive for record labels (whose job has always been to SELL recorded music) to invest in new artists. What’s the point in signing some young rock band that writes their own music or recorded their own album when you could sign a pop solo act and put together a team of producers and songwriters that will write something that is familiar and acceptable, which the labels can own a piece of the songwriting, publishing, and the master (good luck getting a young band that recorded their own album to give up their master) in addition to a cut of merch, live performance sales, licensing deals, etc. etc. etc. It’s a no-brainer.
It seems pretty logical to me that because of that (“that” being the lack of development of new, unique artists with a voice) you don’t get as much new talent being thrown in the mainstream pool and being given a chance to cut through the noise on the same scale artists in the past were given. And because of the paradox of choice, people will listen to the new Rihanna single because it is not only being relentlessly promoted, but because she is familiar and they know what they’re going to get. It becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy when there aren’t many new significantly different artists being promoted.
And how do new artists cut through the noise and appeal personally to listeners who are open to music outside the mainstream and begin to form a joint-identity to them? That’s the million dollar question.
Great point, The Dude. Maybe it has something to do with that idea of the paradox of choice, as explained by Barry Schwartz. There are so many options today that it becomes overwhelming and, consequently, most people may prefer not to choose at all, which makes for a less adventurous relationship with music.
Thanks Henri, that’s exactly what I was talking about. The paradox of choice, or the idea that a person will become overwhelmed when they are presented with too many choices such as at the grocery store or on a restaurant menu, and will either be unable to choose, or will default to something they have experienced before. I believe this is a great analogy to what we have been experiencing in music for almost ten years now.
I would argue that initially the Internet did help to promote new bands, specifically the end of the nineties and the early 2000s. We had not yet transitioned to the “music is completely free” model and although file sharing was occurring, the music industry had not completely tanked. Because file sharing and the speed and connectivity of the Internet was still relatively new, new bands were able to be exposed more efficiently because the pool was still relatively small for unknown artists. So, those who took the initiative and put their music online actually benefited and some were able to secure record deals, tours, and new fans out of the experience.
I would also argue that whether it be because recorded music was still viewed as an “experience” or because file sharing was a novelty, this also benefited some (emphasis on some) new artists.
The relationship among millennials and music (and therefore artists) isn’t primarily about the music for most people anymore. It’s always been a combination, but listening to the new David Bowie record in the 70s with your friends was the experience (in addition to seeing him and other artists live). We should all keep in mind that the way humans have consumed and listened to music has changed formats several times over the 20th century to present.
It seems somewhat antiquated to continue thinking about music linearly as we have in the past. Clearly, the music industry still can’t shake that thought process. We’ve seen it most recently with the RIAA allowing streams to count as part of the certification process.
I’m not advocating you throw the baby out with the bathwater and stop making albums or recording music. No one would tell a classical composer to stop printing sheet music or start using only software instruments. But it doesn’t make much sense to me to compare apples to oranges as if they are both apples as the music industry (and websites such as DMN) continue to do year after year.
I still hear “Hello” all the time on the radio, it just won’t go away.
Hey Mk, we get it, you’re a crusty, old, barely-alive relic – don’t you know you belong in a museum? Why do you hate millennials so much, because you know that each subsequent generation that passes brings you closer to your impending death? Go back to the Vietnam War and vote for Richard Nixon you looser. How can you even type with a keyboard? You threw typewriters out like a fad didn’t you, oh wait you probably blame millennials for that too. I guess you can shove of back to your neo-nazi old folks home so you go recognize the past through talent or longevity, because that’s how remembering things works. Newsflash for you; Music is crap, it’s always been crap, it always will be crap. Just because you remember listening to the same music back when your bladder still worked doesn’t elevate it to the status of unassailable classic for the ages. We get it, you’re blind with Nostalgia. You can shove your Holier-than-thou attitude right up your catheter and go back to the 50s! I hope you get arrested in a McCarthy-era communist witch hunt – though you’d probably blame millennials for that too. Good day!
You da bomb.com
Lol, look at all these defensive comments because other generations can’t even take this tiny shred of criticism. Actually, this isn’t even really criticism, it’s more of just an inferance. And you people say millenials are too sensitive.
I’m 22 and in college. Nobody seems to care that much about anything.
Some people have mentioned the fact that these top songs are streaming on radio and online, but that wouldn’t affect the Billboard data since it’s not purchased. Radio may be forcing you to listen to a song while you’re on their station, but they’re certainly not making you purchase it.
I think the evidence here demonstrates music purchasing habits of today’s society, rather than the musical attention span of millennials. There are two factors I can think of off the bat that could be affecting these stats:
1. Global market and widespread availability: are American pop hits more easily accessible to a wider market now than in the past, thanks to iTunes, etc.? Any kid in any country with an internet connection can download Uptown Funk, but could he have bought a Phil Collins album in his town in the 80s? Was American culture even as widespread and influential back then as it is now? And is there a geographical time lapse across countries (e.g., the USA got it to #1, but other countries maintained it there later)?
2. Billboard’s chart doesn’t reflect the ages of the consumers. Typically consumers of pop music have been younger, but my mom loves that Bruno Mars song like a year later and I can’t stand to hear it again. Granted, she won’t be downloading Work anytime soon, but the point is that we have no idea who the people are that are buying these songs, and many of them could be purchased by older crowds and not just millennials.
If you want to know about the musical attention span of millennials, it would be more effective to look at play counts in iTunes and timeline data on those plays, if that exists. Or even probably looking at Spotify streaming hits would be more effective than Billboard since there’s no commitment to your songs, and the demographics for Spotify streaming probably skew younger than on purchasing (though I don’t know that for sure).
But also at the same time, who cares? This article is one man’s (interesting) observation and conjecture (for entertainment purposes). But who cares about the musical attention span of millennials? Is this all just to prove the older crowds wrong? Because you know they’re just going to shit on us forever, if (when) not on this then on something else, so probably best to just ignore it. Also what am I doing with my life writing this whole comment anyway?
I totally agree with your first point. I am an Indian and a lot of people here listen to songs after they have peaked at Hot 100. The song which was popular in US a month before is popular right now in India. People are still downloading and watching “Lean On” by Major Lazer.
I think that young people have always had great “musical attention spans”, as you put it. It’s just that it’s only been in the past 25 years or so that the record industry has recognized this and taken advantage of it.
TLDR Buckley complains about everything! He’d complain about salt shakers dispensing an uneven amount of salt for each shake if he could.
Well, maybe one reason can be that a lot of people from Non-English speaking countries stream and download popular Hot 100 songs well after they have released and charted. I live in India and the songs which were popular in US a month before are popular currently among the masses. India’s large upper middle class population may contribute a lot to streams and Youtube stats even after that song has peaked at Number 1 on Hot 100 which would keep that at Number 1. This has started happening recently with the globalisation of India. But what do I know, I am a millennial.
How dare you criticize Der Kommissar, one of the best songs ever made? Kys
Doesn’t anyone on here know how to leave a concise answer? Christ, the diatribes left by some are staggering…!
Segmented audiences across multiple formats allows a song to stick around longer today – back in the day, one station (Dick Clark or comparable) + one audience (everyone) = quicker mass exposure around most tracks on major outlets, forcing you to buy the song and listen to it repeatedly on your own while radio picked up something new due to high demand of exposure to new artists and music.
Today, you go #1 on Shazam, then they push for #1 on Pandora, then Apple Music, then Spotify. Then they release the lyric video to get exposure on YT, then the official video to Vevo for #1 position. THEN they go to radio, which could take months.
All the while, the song lurks on Billboard as a result.
Long attention spans plus not paying for things equals a bright future for artists.
Anyone can get their song on YouTube whenever they want, but without any exposure/marketing machine behind the song, it won’t get anywhere. As a 27 year-old who is at university with millennials, I’ve noticed that even though they subscribe to Spotify and have access to thousands of tunes, they still stick to the same 20-30 songs that have been on heavy rotation on the radio for the past 2-3 months. It’s the illusion of choice, they’re paying $10 each month to hear songs they could hear every day on the radio for free, but when and where they want to, I suppose.
As for why songs stick around longer, it’s simple. These days if a friend hasn’t seen a video you link it to them, then they link it to their friends, who show their parents, and so on. Not to mention the obvious, that radio stations only play songs sent to them by three companies, Universal, Sony and Warner, according to a playlist created by someone sitting behind a desk in an office building. If you look at any given radio station chart from the 1950s or 60s you will see an enormous diversity in the labels whose releases charted in the top 40, not so anymore. When there were dozens of labels mailing records to radio stations every day, there was more chance of a greater variety of songs being played on the radio and becoming hits.
YouTube as well as Spotify and other streaming services direct you to the songs they’re plugging as well; YouTube has autoplay enabled by default these days to send you to the new Justin Bieber vid, and again, most people I know who use Spotify use it to play pre-made playlists like “Top Pop Hits” or “90s music.”
As for the attention span argument, make a trip to any club popular with students and you won’t hear more than 20 seconds of any given EDM remix of a song.