Charts!!

[Scarlett]

How come these days you have to sell only a few singles to get into the charts? It didn't used to be like this, did it?

[rja211077]

1) because nobody buys singles 2) no, it didn't

[andy hughes]

Essentially, the previous answer is correct. With the advent of other interests for young people - computers and video games principally, the impact of pop music has steadily decreased over the last twenty years. in the 1960's a group like The Beatles could, and regularly did sell copies of sinlges numbered in the millions. Now, with the law of diminishing returns, it requires only a few thousand sales to get into the chart, and a pretty low number to actually reach Number One. It's all part of the ever changing face of popular culture, and at this point, as a 50 year old, I'm supposed to ramble on about how different iwas in my day - which it was, but the point is, t'was ever thus. Culture changes and evolves, thank heavens or we'd all be listening to Al Martino records on 78's!

[Scarlett]

Thanks rja and andy! I thought as much. No wonder singles are now being sold for �3.99 a pop.

[mcmikeymike]

I bet people still get the tracks in the numbers that they used to.

 

Singles sales have plummeted so far that selling just 21,000 with get a number 1.

 

Downloaded singles have overtaken the cd singles, while illegal downloads are damaging sales of both.

 

That is why records are not selling as they used to.

[jills]

mcmikeymike, you are right in that recently, downloads have damaged the sales of singles.  But this decline dates back 15 years, maybe more.  Downloads have only accelerated the pattern that Andy described.

[QmunkE]

And, whilst it is true downloading appears to damage single sales, album sales have dramatically increased. Since singles are a complete rip off a lot of the time anyway (who's going to pay �4 for three tracks when you can pay �10 for 12?) I don't really buy into the fact that it is "damaging" the music industry.

[Greedyfly]

It never used to be like this - thios is the result of declining music buying and the uprise of download

[mcmikeymike]

Another part of the problem may be the increase of compilation albums available, and the better sound quality over the last few years.

 

Most big hits soon appear on albums such as the NOW series.  When they first started on vinyl, to get 40 tracks on a double album would have meant a poor sound quality as the grooves would have to be so close together.  So early compilations may only have 7-8 tracks per side to keep a reasonable sound quality.

 

The onset of the popularity of cd has lead to 40 tracks easily spreading across a double cd.  People know that soon enough most hit singles would appear on compilations, hence they don't buy the single.

 

Maybe, as QmunkE says about the cost.  �4 for 3 or 4 tracks (which in some cases, a couple of which may be remixes, instrumentals or accapella versions of the lead track) or a full album for 3 times that price.

 

Which appears to be the best value for money, especially as the discs are also the same size, taking up the same space in your collection.

[Gevs]

you couls also look at the peolpe who actually buy singles, usually  young girls/boys in their early teens who don't have much money but like cr*p music. This is why talented musicians/singers/bands who record good music and appeal to a wider audience have number one albums but their singles will rarely get above about No 5 and why cr*p like the cheeky girls will get a number one!