Hi, I know youve gotten bombarded here - but the single greatest low-effort high-reward change y'all could make would be allowing data labels to be outside the data (immediately above or below). Currently you can only do base, mid, or top. In finance (my field) pretty much all charts have a second ghost bar with the same numeric value put above any bar chart, for the sole purpose of removing the filled color and putting the data label in the base (i.e. immediately above the real bar).
You would be a hero to thousands and thousands of junior bankers if you made this change lol.
I don't think this is really a reflection of any sort of quality of new music vs. old music, but rather the structure of how people listen to music. If you listen from a main playlist on Spotify and add 100 songs a year and you listen to it generally on shuffle, you'll progressively listen to less and less new music as a proportion of your total listening. This is despite you being interested in the same amount of new music each year. This seems like a likely culprit particularly considering the 18-month limit this infograph seems to consider as new music.
In ye olden times one had to actively choose music to listen to, lending itself to the newer albums, and a relatively weakened aggregate power of one's back catalogue. Spotify and similar services lend themselves to a very passive means of listening however (shuffle and go) that will naturally give more listening to the music which has greater quantity (old music of course).
It doesn't feel right, but if it's any consolation there isn't anything super juicy there, plus he pretty much admitted it was him without making a big fanfare about it.
Agreed. I'm kinda shook at a lot of the comments here, IMO missing the point (or lack of point) of the article. It's a slice of life view into a poignantly tragic story of a kid "lucking" into a terrible pair of golden handcuffs - a view into the apex of parasocial relationships. Someone who so clearly lacks any semblance of a social life, in the same hand creating a social environment for thousands of people - chiefly centered around making fun of him. There's no moral "good" or "bad" here.
As readers we can draw our own conclusions here, but to call the author biased into making the life/platform/phenomenon of twitch streamers bad? That's just a really narrow view of a fairly compelling article.