http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/music/3753830.stm

DJ has lowest-selling number one

The UK's number one single has reached the top spot with lower weekly sales than any other chart-topping single.

Swedish DJ Eric Prydz sold 23,519 copies of Call On Me last week to return to the top of the chart.

It was the lowest-selling number one since records began in 1969, compiler The Official UK Charts Company said, as music downloading becomes more popular.

In 1997 Elton John's Candle In The Wind topped the chart with highest weekly sales of more than three million.

Decline slowed

In 2002, the finalists of ITV talent show Pop Idol, Will Young and Gareth Gates, both had million-selling singles.

Prydz, whose single samples Steve Winwood's 1982 hit Valerie and was accompanied by a suggestive "aerobics class" video, originally reached number one last month.

After spending three weeks at the top, it was displaced by Robbie Williams' Radio for one week, before returning on Sunday.

The decline in the singles market has slowed this year, dropping 10% in 2004 so far compared with a 30% fall in 2003, said Official UK Charts Company chart operations manager Paul Clifford.

Meanwhile, download sales have taken off, and are estimated to stand at 150,000 per week.

Legal digital music services are seen as crucial to the music industry, aiming to convert file-sharers into customers.

"From nothing, we had quite a strong downloads market," Mr Clifford said.

"People are potentially replacing single purchasing with downloads."

The company has produced its own download chart since September.

"Next year, we are looking at ways of integrating the download chart into the singles chart," Clifford said.

why do they keep insisting it's because downloads are becoming more popular? IT'S BECAUSE PEOPLE DON'T WANT TO BUY THE MUSIC!

Yea, why don't they just come out and tell the truth. We will not be forced into buying recycled rubbish time after time and shall not be told what we should buy and not buy. To be honest I refuse to both download or buy the rubbish they call music now, and go with music from Europe instead, because the likes of Rhapsody; have a passion and create everything from scratch and every song is fueled with originality and passion to which they each have, and not the concern of how quick they can get it done and rip off people. European Music bands do it for their fans, as Rhapsody have done. A once a year album with songs lasting in access of 7 - 10 mins and for the money you pay (£16.99) for it it's a bargain, compaired to the 30 - 1 min songs of the so called PoP stars? Where you pay the same price for a 30 sec one song on a cd.

Yea Will Young and Gareth Gates, and look where they are now?

If the predictions that have come through here earlier are on the money, this is to be expected. One of the articles posted here mentioned that the days of the megahit is about over.

It is part of what has the music business on the ropes. (The other part is the obstinate refusal to accept the market has changed significatantly and they have less importance in the new market).

Everything the majors have been doing for the last generation or so has been geared to the big hits, the gold and platimum sales albums. It is easier to produce one "big hit" that sells multitudes of copies than it is to invest in songs with smaller returns. This was one of the driving factors that led to the majors dropping the single. The idea that there was more money in you buying a cd or album than just that one song you wanted. They got to depend on the rest of the cd being not important as everyone wanted that one song and the rest of the album became filler. People finally reached a point where 15 and 16 bucks is too much for that little.

Much like the automobile manufactors in the 70's they forgot the customer is king. If the customer doesn't want it, they can't give it away. So how does the majors and the RIAA figure they have a right to be compensated for loss of sales in bad years? The customer didn't make those business decisions; the customers choice was easier. Do I buy this cd of music for say 15 bucks or do I buy that older game and pocket 5 bucks?

If the prediction is true that there will be less money in a hit than there was in the past, the majors are in for some rough times till they figure out how to incorporate this into their business model. Everyday they don't is another less shiney day in music sales.

The internet is a great thing. The information diseminator that gets the word out, good or bad. During the 50's and 60's you didn't hear much of artist hassles with their label, it was all sort of hush hush unless you were an insider. Not the same today. Read some of the blogs on the net from some of the artists for real eyeopeners of how the music business is run and what it does to the individual artist. This was something you didn't hear much of.

Not the same today. Every move a corporation makes, especially the RIAA is examined with a microscope for tracks. Much of what was able to be hidden now comes to light, a lot remains to see the light of day. All the same, the public is hearing whats going on. Slowly but surely the word is getting out.

It isn't going to get better for the music industry till they get right with the customer they serve. Sueing the customer base has got to be one of the dumbest ideas I think I ever heard. But then again we are talking the RIAA here...

Let's not forget one other thing. Before all of the download services got started, the music industry was quietly, but steadily cutting back on shipments of singles. This was to force people who wanted a particular song or two to buy the whole album, thus making the label more moolah. Lack of available singles is part of the reason people started turning to "unauthorized" downloads to get their music. Also, I don't think they count download sales with these figures. So, of course the single sales figures have been declining and will continue to do so.