How Spotify silenced rock bands, from Blur and Oasis to Arctic Monkeys and more

Today, the entire notion of a band going in with a bullet at number one like Oasis or Blur is frankly absurd.

They used to rule the airwaves, but since 2000, only 10 groups have made it to number one - and streaming algorithms mean that trend is here to stay.

Next week, one of those oft-celebrated music anniversaries comes around again. It’ll be a staggering 29 years since the summer of Britpop, as Blur and Oasis fought it out for number one in the singles charts. Heady days for rock indeed, and not just because between them, the two bands sold a frankly incredible 490,000 singles in just seven days.

And yet today, the entire notion of a band going in with a bullet at number one - or even number 40 - is frankly absurd. Consider this; the Manic Street Preachers were number one in January 2000.

Since then, only 10 bands - and we’re defining them strictly as your typical rock or indie line-up, rather than a pop group - have reached the top of the charts. Re-entries and remastered novelties aside (hello, The Beatles), the last original number one by a band was Spectrum (Say My Name) by Florence & The Machine, 12 years ago.

In fact, the last indie rock song to rocket to number one out of nowhere was Arctic Monkeys’ debut single I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor, in 2005. Compare that to the similarly brilliant Chaise Longue, Wet Leg’s Grammy Award-winning debut single from 2021. Peak chart position? 76.

You can see why it’s tempting to ask, as Richard Osman did recently on The Rest Is Entertainment podcast: Where have all the bands gone?

This isn’t a question borne of BBC Six Music dads railing against modern music or manufactured pop. It’s just that when there are only two songs from bands in the Official Charts Top 40 tracks of the year so far - those being 21 and 37 years old respectively (The Killers’ Mr Brightside and Fleetwood Mac’s Everywhere) - it does feel like the charts are out of kilter and the Spotify algorithm might be loaded against them. Indeed, the whole idea of what success might constitute for a rock band is changing.

So, what is going on? Gordon Duncan owns APB PR, one of the most respected music PR agencies in the UK. Over the years, he’s looked after the fortunes of everyone from The Spice Girls to Blossoms and Lewis Capaldi - for whom he won Music Week Awards’ PR Campaign Of The Year earlier this year. He also manages a number of emerging acts.

And he suggests streaming services - and the algorithms they run on - have made it incredibly difficult for new bands in particular to make any kind of return on investment. While that doesn’t necessarily put them out of business, it does mean they’re unlikely to gain traction, promote themselves and, ultimately, trouble the charts.

“Being in a band is still one of the most exciting, satisfying things you could ever do,” says Duncan.

“And I say this from experience, most people don’t start out thinking they’re going to be rock stars. They play music and write songs and make some noise in a garage. They persuade a pub down the road to put them on, and it might start to grow from there.

“But the problem is, even if they can then record something quite cheaply and get it released on a streaming service, reaching enough people that will stream it enough times that they can do it for a living - and then multiplying any costs by the five people in your band before dividing any proceeds between the same five people… it’s just going to be very difficult to maintain that unless you have significant financial backing from somewhere.”

It has always been the case that a band is more expensive than going it alone, but take Country House versus Roll With It as an example. In 1995, 490,000 £3.99 CD singles would have netted Oasis and Blur nearly £2 million ($4.24m). Stream a song 490,000 times today and the income is approximately £2000 ($4240.59).

Blur and Oasis fought it out for number one in the singles charts.

So at the basest of levels, no wonder it feels like there are more solo acts these days, because being so just makes far more economic sense for both artist and label. Of course, they still have to work incredibly hard - Duncan cites the examples of Gerry Cinnamon and Dylan John Thomas, both of whom properly worked the circuit in Scotland before playing huge gigs and finally breaking through across the UK.

“I’ve taken bands on tour knowing that it’ll be prohibitively expensive - but you don’t get to a bigger level unless you’re out there doing it in front of people,” says Duncan. “So you have to build a tour where you can make a small profit where you know your fan base exists, and then carefully choose venues elsewhere so you’ll fill rooms and not lose too much money.”

“Then you’re hoping for merch sales and maybe some little corporate sponsorship here and there just to put the whole thing into some kind of financial viability. Right now, it is really, really tough to keep going - you’d be surprised at how big a band has to get to break even.”

As Richard Osman noted, in the first half of the 1980s there were 146 weeks in which bands or groups sat at number one. Ten years on to the first half of the 1990s, it was 141 weeks. The first half of the 2020s, it’s three weeks; The Beatles, a Radio 1 Live Lounge All Star Group, and Little Mix.

Paradoxically, to understand why the landscape for bands has changed so much, it’s instructive to go back to the period in which Arctic Monkeys went from a local Sheffield indie band to a national sensation by developing a massive following on MySpace, and actively encouraging their music to be shared on the internet. By the time they actually released I Bet You Look Good On The Dancefloor, they were already selling out 2000-capacity venues. They’d created a buzz which made them go viral. Looking back now, it feels like online access to music - and bands themselves - ought to have democratised the charts.

Arctic Monkeys went from a local Sheffield indie band to a national sensation because of MySpace.

But at the same time, television talent shows were taking over. The X Factor, Popstars, Pop Idol, American Idol, Fame Academy - they weren’t just good entertainment, their stories and their record deals dominated the musical, and radio, landscape. So by the time Spotify did reel in millions of subscribers and the charts began counting streams, the algorithm simply pushed the same kind of music back to its users - and didn’t concern itself with what was a specifically released “single” and what wasn’t (that changed when songs from Ed Sheeran’s album ÷ (Divide) ended up securing 16 places in the top 20; now only three songs from an album are permitted for entry).

“Look, the industry will follow trends, of course,” says Duncan. “It’s always been that way. If artists like Taylor Swift or Billie Eilish are doing well, then naturally a label or an artist will try to see if they can slipstream into that world. It’s self-fulfilling.”

Today, there’s little sense that Spotify’s algorithm is truly honed to our personal listening habits alone. It’s pretty much accepted that however much you listen to Fontaines DC’s new single this summer, Favourite - which, while brilliant, peaked at 95 for one week in July - you will in the end find Sabrina Carpenter’s huge pop hit Espresso lined up for you in the streaming service’s autoplay queue.

That’s because it is, in part, based on the behaviour of all users, rather than just your own. And then there’s Discovery Mode - where artists forgo some of their royalties to enable them to get included in algorithms - effectively mirroring the way record labels paid radio stations to play their music back in the day.

So frankly, it’s no wonder that a new, or even new-ish band, is not going to get anywhere near the singles charts. BBC Six Music, Radio X and BBC Introducing aside, they’re not going to get played on the radio either, because it’s largely in thrall to narrow playlists - influenced by Spotify’s own - to keep audiences on the station and listening to the adverts.

“They play the stuff that they know the audience likes,” says Duncan. “Which is not to say there’s no chance for a new band, but they’d really have to work hard on social media for their ‘content’ to break through. And ultimately, just because you can sing and play doesn’t mean you know or have the time to sit down … [and] think [about what] a particular social media platform will want this week.”

Which, of course, doesn’t mean bands have disappeared. They just don’t dominate the singles charts in the way they once did. Look at the album charts and the picture is rosier - ironically, Oasis and Blur are in the top 20 this week, but there have been number-ones for Kasabian, James, The Libertines, Elbow, Green Day and Shed Seven this year. And before anyone derides them as heritage acts, The Last Dinner Party’s debut album hit the top spot in February and Idles followed that up in March.

That their likes continue to hold on - and perhaps even prosper - despite the challenges and economic pressures is important, says Duncan, and not just for the bands themselves.

“Making music for a living is a luxury, and it’s a brilliant thing to do, but I do have to say that a lot of the music that we love from the past comes from working-class perspectives which challenge accepted norms, reflects the sort of the difficulties that people go through and the challenges of life,” he says.

“I would hate to think that we’re losing that because the algorithm is pumping out mainstream music to as wide an audience as possible - without finding a way of developing and supporting acts who have a different perspective.”