Has Pop Music Become Stagnant?
Kind of yes but also no
We’re four months away from the release of my debut book, Uncharted Territory: What Numbers Tell Us about the Biggest Hit Songs and Ourselves, and I couldn’t be more excited. Here is what Evan Bogart had to say about it. Bogart not only runs Seeker Music but has written many hit songs, including Rihanna’s chart-topping “S.O.S.”
This book shines a light on the choices, patterns, and instincts behind the hits we love and the songs we write. It reminds me why I fell in love with songwriting.
If you want to see what Bogart is talking about, consider pre-ordering a copy. Also, note that this link should work for almost any country. It was brought to my attention that people outside the US were previously having trouble ordering. If you still have issues, just reach out.
Has Pop Music Become Stagnant?
By Chris Dalla Riva
Once a month, I answer questions that readers send into me. These questions vary greatly. Some are about specific songs. Others require me to speculate on trends. But one question that I answered earlier this month has continued to bang around inside my head:
Since some songs seem to be spending a year or more in the Top 40 these days, do you think Billboard is doing a disservice with its current methodology to determine its Hot 100? Shouldn't they cap songs at a certain number of weeks on the chart and allow other songs/artists to have a chance at some time in the sun? - Dan
When I first answered this question, I agreed with Dan. If you look at the top ten songs on the Hot 100 this week, the median song has been on the charts for 22.5 weeks. The longest running song — Teddy Swims’ “Lose Control” — has been there for 99. That song came out two years ago. Shouldn’t people be listening to something new?
As time has marched on, I’ve realized that my answer to Dan wasn’t up to snuff. This is a newsletter about music and data. My answer had music. But it didn’t have much data. So, I decided to grab the data. It not only forced me to revise how I answered Dan’s question, but it forced me to rethink how musical stardom works these days.
In summary, I grabbed the entire history of the Billboard Hot 100. I’m quite familiar with this data. (It’s what I used to write my book.) I then looked at the percentage of new songs in the top 10, top 40, and top 100 in each week. For example, if 20% of songs in the top 40 are new, it means that 8 songs (i.e., 40 x 20%) were not in the top 40 last week. When you calculate this rate for the entire history of the Hot 100, you see some interesting trends.
In 1960, 12% of songs on the Hot 100 were new within your average week. Similarly, 13% were new in the top 40, and 18% were new in the top 10. In 2025, things have shifted. 18% of songs on the Hot 100 are new within your average week. Similarly, 7% are new in the top 40, and 10% are new in the top 10. What does this mean?
In short, as compared to decades ago, songs within the top 10 and top 40 change less frequently while songs outside the top 40 change over more frequently. You can see a similar related phenomenon when looking at the number of weeks song spend in various places on the charts.
In 1960, your average song in the Hot 100 stayed on the chart for 6 weeks. Similarly, your average song that made the top 40 stayed there for 8 weeks, and your average song to make the top 10 stayed there for 9 weeks. In 2025, your average song stays in the Hot 100 for 9 weeks, the top 40 for 15 weeks, and the top 10 for 18 weeks. These are big changes. For example, the average stay in the top 10 is up 100%. Why? To understand, we need to dig into a few notes I’ve added to these charts.
What’s Changed about the Billboard Charts?
From the foundation of the Hot 100 through 1990, the charts were compiled by surveying record stores, often via phone calls. This system was not only imprecise but subject to outright fraud. That’s not to say that the charts were completely made up in that period. If you had a number one record, your song was certainly popular. Was it truly more popular than the number two song? Impossible to say.
This all changed in 1991 when Billboard instituted SoundScan. Rather than surveying record stores over the phone, SoundScan tabulated the chart by getting actual point-of-sale data from a sample of record stores. Overnight the charts changed dramatically.
First, hip-hop and country started to have a much larger presence on the charts. Basically, the old system undercounted those genres, leading to a preponderance of rock-related songs on the Hot 100. Second, there was less turnover on the charts. Did this mean that people suddenly became less adventurous? No. The old chart was partially a mirage.
Then in the late 1990s, Billboard began to let album-only tracks to chart. Up to that point, a song had to be specifically released as a single to qualify. This led to more turnover on the charts. From that point, things have been relatively stable in the top 10 and top 40. In 2000, for example, 8% of the top 40 and 13% of the top 10 were new in any given week. Today, it is 7% and 10%. In short, streaming — which Billboard began to count in 2013 — didn’t have a huge impact on the stickiness of the top 10 and top 40, or the biggest hits. What it did change was songs outside the top 40.
In 2000, 6.5% of the Hot 100 was new within any given week. In 2013, 8.7% of songs were. Today, 18.4% of songs are new! I take this to mean that while the top of the charts has had the same level of stickiness for the last 25 years, the lower rungs of the charts have become much less sticky.
There are constant concerns that popular culture is stuck. And I think this is true to some degree. But I don’t think that stuck-ness is due to streaming specifically. The seeds of it were planted when music first came on the internet. At the same time, songs that are popular but not massive hits (i.e., outside the top 40 but in the top 100) are less stuck than ever before. We see more turnover today at that part of the charts than in any other era. I think that’s the result of streaming providing more selection than ever before. We have problems in the arts, but rest assured not everything is bad.
A New One
"Friends with Aliens" by Roe Knows Best & MAUCH
2025 - Indie Rock
Roe O’Brien had an idea. She wanted to sit down with producer Max Rauch and write and record an EP from scratch. The result was Weekend at Mauchies…Vol. 1, the first in hopefully a set of releases that sees the two New Jersey natives collaborating. “Friends with Aliens” is my favorite release from this first collection. Not only does it have some punky edge, but the melodies are sure to be bouncing around in your head for days.
An Old One
"Rush Rush" by Paula Abdul
1991 - R&B
In Chapter 9 of my book, I write extensively about the implications of Billboard switching from their old, imprecise system to the SoundScan system. One of the artists that was hurt by this system was Paula Abdul. One of the biggest stars of the late 1980s, SoundScan made it clear that Abdul’s record sales were not as real as the old system suggested.
Believe me, I don’t like Paula Abdul. Her songs would have been better served by another vocalist. But I do have a soft spot for a few of her songs, including “Rush Rush,” her pre-SoundScan number one hit from 1991. “Rush Rush” is not good. It’s a gooey ballad with a violin solo that could make you throw up. But for some reason when I hear it, it makes me feel like I’m dancing at the senior prom with my girl knowing full well that we are about to go to college on separate sides of the country. Sometimes bad music hits just right!
If you enjoyed this piece, consider ordering my book Uncharted Territory: What Numbers Tell Us about the Biggest Hit Songs and Ourselves. The book chronicles how I listened to every number one hit in history and used what I learned during the journey to write a data-driven history of popular music from 1958 through today.
I often ponder how lucky we are to have streaming music available at our fingertips. I spent the first 30 to 40 years of my life being very limited as to what I could choose to listen to. I believe this is why I appreciate streaming so much. In another 30 or 40 years there will be very few people alive who will know what it's like to not have anything you want at the push of a button.
I realize that statement was a little off subject.
I could go on about music, charts, and radio for ever.
Thanks for your great further research into my question. You mention some interesting facts. If there is more turnover in the lower rungs of the chart why can't more of these songs move in to the Top 40? I think part of it has to do with the allowance of album cuts today. When major acts release new albums the tracks tend to take over and then disappear once the initial interest wears off. I'd be curious as to how varied the artists are in that lower sixty. It seems there may be a lot of new songs there but not by a lot of different artists.
Of course, I say all of this as I lament the loss of pre-Soundscan Billboard! Whether the change made the charts more legitimate or not could be debatable. I recently re-discovered the weekly Top 40 surveys I kept from my local Chicago radio station, WCFL, in the 1970s. I loved how the chart was constantly changing and there were new songs every week replacing those that were played out. There also seemed to be much more diversity in terms of music genres back then. In the end, I still think Billboard should cap the number of weeks songs remain on their Hot 100. Really? 99 weeks for Teddy Swim?! That definitely signals some stagnation.