Yeah, one of the things I didn't like about this analysis is that it really didn't do a very good job of differentiating between a band that really is a "one hit wonder" and a band that may only be in the top 40 for a short time but still has a dedicated following and is able to make a good, long career of it.

Take his "prototypical example" of Of Monsters and Men. I am glad that he did mention that the band "has enjoyed continued success since their 2012 breakout", but as a big fan of this band, I'd say they have a really dedicated following. I think in their case they were more of the "quirky band shoots has an immensely mainstream popular single, then goes back to being a quirky band, just with a much bigger following".

Rather than just look at placement in the top 40, which is only going to be songs that have wide applicability and are usually heavily promoted, I think it's more applicable to see how long these folks can have a career in music. As another example, think of someone like Andre 3000. Sure, he may never surpass his fame from Outkast's "Hey Ya" in 2003, but he's been working prominently for 30 years.