First, I read the questions FAQ for this and I hope this does not violate the rules. I am not asking for personal opinion, but for observations of hard evidence of trends on this subject.
When I studied QM, as a senior in my physics curriculum, the Copenhagen Interpretation was the orthodoxy. It did what most scientists needed: consistently correlated very well with measurements. Of course, it was not perfect as an end-to-end description of what happens; for example, there was the so-called measurement problem. However, I imagine that it retained popularity, at least partly, because anything that was more end-to-end oriented, for instance addressing or side-stepping wave function collapse, was more complicated and didn't predict anything new that could be confirmed.
However, many years have passed. Other interpretations have emerged, such as Consistent Histories combined with Decoherence. Some are certainly very insightful and have a lot of value in their own right.
I am wondering if you are seeing any of those alternatives to Copenhagen really gaining traction/popularity, among physicists, above all the others, and a trend toward a real shift away from Copenhagen as the standard orthodoxy that is passed down in senior and first-year grad texts to new students?
If this question is too fluffy, I will gladly withdraw it, or feel free to close it. Again, I am asking for objective observations of a trend away from Copenhagen, toward some specific alternative, not your personal opinion of which interpretation is "best".