2011 reported the higest units of singles ever sold in the UK.

 

However..I did some research. (figures are not the price at the time, they are what the equivalent cost these days, allowing for inflation and average weekly wage rise).

cost of a download 2011 . round about 99p.

Cost of a single in 1980, £8!.

........................in 1965 £15!

 

So, coupled with the ease of downloading..its not surprise units sold have risen sharply. Id love the see sales revenue from singles, rather than units sold, that would give a truer comparison I think.

Edited December 23, 201113 yr by Olympus

I heard that artists and record labels now make very, very little money from sales of songs anymore. They make more money from things such as touring, or being payed to perform on TV shows, music videos, etc.

 

If I was alive in 1965, I don't know how I'd've coped. I don't think I would've ever bought songs if they costed "£15". I probably would've just had the radio on all the time. :lol: Although I guess back then you'd get B-sides, remixes, etc. included with the single, not to mention, the actual physical object, but still.

I heard that artists and record labels now make very, very little money from sales of songs anymore. They make more money from things such as touring, or being payed to perform on TV shows, music videos, etc.

 

If I was alive in 1965, I don't know how I'd've coped. I don't think I would've ever bought songs if they costed "£15". I probably would've just had the radio on all the time. Although I guess back then you'd get B-sides, remixes, etc. included with the single, not to mention, the actual physical object, but still.

 

Touring has always been the biggest source of income with very few exceptions for the very largest acts (e.g. Abba)

 

Laughing at the idea of remixes in 1965 though!

 

 

I heard that artists and record labels now make very, very little money from sales of songs anymore. They make more money from things such as touring, or being payed to perform on TV shows, music videos, etc.

 

If I was alive in 1965, I don't know how I'd've coped. I don't think I would've ever bought songs if they costed "£15". I probably would've just had the radio on all the time. :lol: Although I guess back then you'd get B-sides, remixes, etc. included with the single, not to mention, the actual physical object, but still.

I was 12 in 1965. Would take me about 15 weeks to save up enough pocket money to buy a single. lol. as for albums...about £40 in todays money. I bought just one album in the sixties(Beatles, Revolver)...it wasnt until I started work in 1970 that I could afford to buy more. I spent almost my entire first weeks wages on Zeppelin, Sabbath and Deep Purple albums :)

 

 

 

 

At the same time there's a lot more to spend money on than there was in 1965...

he decline in singles sales has a simple answer..... shops just don't stock them anymore..... I don't think thje record buying public have fallen out of love with the single at all..... but te record company bully-boy tactics determine that no shop sells them anymore. A disgrace, really.

he decline in singles sales has a simple answer..... shops just don't stock them anymore..... I don't think thje record buying public have fallen out of love with the single at all..... but te record company bully-boy tactics determine that no shop sells them anymore. A disgrace, really.

 

What decline in singles sales?

 

At the same time there's a lot more to spend money on than there was in 1965...

There's a lot more to spend money on, that you don't really need in 2011!

 

1965, I was in my 20s. No Telephone (not really needed). If you wanted to watch TV, then you went to the neighbours house. Most people had a Radiogram. As Radio was a must. If only to listen to Family Favourites, Pick Of The Pops, & The Clitheroe Kid! But those figures given are no bases for today. You could buy a house for a couple of thousand in 1965. It would take about 10 years to buy it, so it's not much different than today. A house in the South East today...say £180,000 for a terrace & it takes nearly 20 years to pay for it. No, we were better off in 1965. Crime was low & the country wasn't grossly overpopulated. On the whole people had more manners. There was no "I want, I want, I want", because you couldn't have it anyway! If you did have a TV, it wasn't over run with bad soap operas, all running the same storylines. You could actually have a good laugh, because people were not afraid of upsetting others, & censorship was rather limited. Give me 1965, any day & yes Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister.

 

Yep, you saved your shillings for the gas meter & if you had electricity in your house, then you were lucky! The record buying public were not that hard up, because you had the #1 single selling at 200,000 a week, not just at Christmas. So, that's nonsense to start with. Though possibly, because everyone was definately not waisting money on things that, they simply did not need i.e. the high waste of cost of Mobile Phones...quite easily the biggest unneeded high cost thing ever invented today.

Edited December 23, 201113 yr by davetaylor

What decline in singles sales?

 

I think it's fairly obvious he's talking about cd singles.

Harold Wilson as PM - YES please, a real person not a PR loving Etonian prick!

There's a lot more to spend money on, that you don't really need in 2011!

 

1965, I was in my 20s. No Telephone (not really needed). If you wanted to watch TV, then you went to the neighbours house. Most people had a Radiogram. As Radio was a must. If only to listen to Family Favourites, Pick Of The Pops, & The Clitheroe Kid! But those figures given are no bases for today. You could buy a house for a couple of thousand in 1965. It would take about 10 years to buy it, so it's not much different than today. A house in the South East today...say £180,000 for a terrace & it takes nearly 20 years to pay for it. No, we were better off in 1965. Crime was low & the country wasn't grossly overpopulated. On the whole people had more manners. There was no "I want, I want, I want", because you couldn't have it anyway! If you did have a TV, it wasn't over run with bad soap operas, all running the same storylines. You could actually have a good laugh, because people were not afraid of upsetting others, & censorship was rather limited. Give me 1965, any day & yes Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister.

 

Yep, you saved your shillings for the gas meter & if you had electricity in your house, then you were lucky! The record buying public were not that hard up, because you had the #1 single selling at 200,000 a week, not just at Christmas. So, that's nonsense to start with. Though possibly, because everyone was definately not waisting money on things that, they simply did not need i.e. the high waste of cost of Mobile Phones...quite easily the biggest unneeded high cost thing ever invented today.

 

You do realise the above makes you sound like an old fogie, right? :P

There's a lot more to spend money on, that you don't really need in 2011!

 

1965, I was in my 20s. No Telephone (not really needed). If you wanted to watch TV, then you went to the neighbours house. Most people had a Radiogram. As Radio was a must. If only to listen to Family Favourites, Pick Of The Pops, & The Clitheroe Kid! But those figures given are no bases for today. You could buy a house for a couple of thousand in 1965. It would take about 10 years to buy it, so it's not much different than today. A house in the South East today...say £180,000 for a terrace & it takes nearly 20 years to pay for it. No, we were better off in 1965. Crime was low & the country wasn't grossly overpopulated. On the whole people had more manners. There was no "I want, I want, I want", because you couldn't have it anyway! If you did have a TV, it wasn't over run with bad soap operas, all running the same storylines. You could actually have a good laugh, because people were not afraid of upsetting others, & censorship was rather limited. Give me 1965, any day & yes Harold Wilson, as Prime Minister.

 

Yep, you saved your shillings for the gas meter & if you had electricity in your house, then you were lucky! The record buying public were not that hard up, because you had the #1 single selling at 200,000 a week, not just at Christmas. So, that's nonsense to start with. Though possibly, because everyone was definately not waisting money on things that, they simply did not need i.e. the high waste of cost of Mobile Phones...quite easily the biggest unneeded high cost thing ever invented today.

You mean the days when casual racism was commonplace and homosexuality was illegal? The days when burglary was lower because most people had nothing worth nicking?

You mean the days when casual racism was commonplace and homosexuality was illegal? The days when burglary was lower because most people had nothing worth nicking?

 

I'll put forward another point since davetaylor seems to be incapable of formulating a logical argument. FREE. MUSIC. EVERYWHERE. Media is at its most fluid and transparent EVER, that's a damn good thing for the consumer.

I was 12 in 1965. Would take me about 15 weeks to save up enough pocket money to buy a single. lol. as for albums...about £40 in todays money. I bought just one album in the sixties(Beatles, Revolver)...it wasnt until I started work in 1970 that I could afford to buy more. I spent almost my entire first weeks wages on Zeppelin, Sabbath and Deep Purple albums :)

All of which must make you wonder HOW singles sold (apparently) so much in the 60s surely if they were beyond the scope of most teenagers (surely the biggest audience for pop music?

Yep, you saved your shillings for the gas meter & if you had electricity in your house, then you were lucky! The record buying public were not that hard up, because you had the #1 single selling at 200,000 a week, not just at Christmas. So, that's nonsense to start with. Though possibly, because everyone was definately not waisting money on things that, they simply did not need i.e. the high waste of cost of Mobile Phones...quite easily the biggest unneeded high cost thing ever invented today.

But 2011 saw the BIGGEST unit sales for single ever in the UK. Thats my point. back then, yes, singles sold, but not as much as they do now. thes days, (apart from the very low reletive cost) you can buy album tracks, etc, and there are probably more acts to choose from.

Put it this way, if a single costs the equivalent of 99p in 1965 and you could buy individual album tracks..then single sales back then would dwarfed todays I think.

 

All of which must make you wonder HOW singles sold (apparently) so much in the 60s surely if they were beyond the scope of most teenagers (surely the biggest audience for pop music?

Teenagers didnt have computer games, mobile phones, etc etc....most entertainment was spent on records, concerts, the pub and dance halls.

I'm not saying singles didnt sell then, they did, its just they sell more in total these days.

 

The whole point of my OP was that, imo, the increased unit sales do not mean better quality music, it just means the product is so much cheaper etc etc.

Edited December 24, 201113 yr by Olympus

Teenagers didnt have computer games, mobile phones, etc etc....most entertainment was spent on records, concerts, the pub and dance halls.

I'm not saying singles didnt sell then, they did, its just they sell more in total these days.

 

The whole point of my OP was that, imo, the increased unit sales do not mean better quality music, it just means the product is so much cheaper etc etc.

My point is that even if teenagers didn't have anything else to buy with their money they still had to save up for about 15 weeks for 1 single so clearly how can singles be selling in such volumes as they appear to be? I have personally always been sceptical of pre 1983 sales as they relied solely on the discretion of shop managers and assistants, and there is evidence to show that some info was just made up or severely adjusted in order for shops to get record company freebies.

Edited December 25, 201113 yr by Dasher76

I also think the singles buying market was older in days gone by, so a higher proportion of buyers would have been employed rather that at school. No evidence for this, just personal experience.

You mean the days when casual racism was commonplace and homosexuality was illegal? The days when burglary was lower because most people had nothing worth nicking?

 

Harold Wilsons government put pay to alot of that through liberalising social spheres but then thatcher created the inequalities which led to great social exclusion and hence greater crime!! :P

I'll put forward another point since davetaylor seems to be incapable of formulating a logical argument. FREE. MUSIC. EVERYWHERE. Media is at its most fluid and transparent EVER, that's a damn good thing for the consumer.

 

Theres 2 sides to everything though - people no longer value music and see it as throwaway and so without money to invest in new talent only rich people or the very lucy to benefit a hectic social media sphere will beable to promote their songs!