Very very cool chart

Nothing like the combination of raw data and sleek graph design to give us a new way of looking at the world. Here's a graph of the most popular bands in 2009, according to listening habits on last.fm (which I've never used before - have you?).

To really appreciate it, click here to look up close. It compares listening habits in two trend-setting cities, New York and London, to those of the rest of the world. The accompanying article argues two things: cities have "edgier" listening habits than suburbs and "the rest of the world"; and non-pop bands, like, say, Animal Collective, can remain "obscure" in the general public yet sell out huge shows to their niche.

Delaney Flushboy argues that's a good thing:

Not sure if I agree with the author's final conclusion about Animal Collective and other extremely popular "obscure" bands. I've read other authors who make the same argument: that pop music has become boring because bands like Animal Collective can't break through in the internet age. I'm sure that Animal Collective would appreciate the extra money (and god knows they deserve it) but I actually think that the music world has gotten more diverse and more interesting in the past ten years for just this very reason. Many more bands can have success like Animal Collective's, and while they might not be "breaking through" like Nirvana did, they're doing well financially (at least making a decent, stable living I imagine) and thriving artistically. I'd rather see more artists have the opportunity to make a living as musicians while doing their own thing than everybody in the industry taking part in a crap-shoot to make it big or go broke trying.