To put the beginning of 2005 into perspective, total sales for the whole singles chart for week-ending 15/01/2005 were - wait for it - 265,042. For the whole chart. This was around the time downloads outsold CDs but the chart still stubbornly remained physical. It meant at least acts like Erasure and Dana Rayne could get top 10 hits out of nowhere, but also gave rise to the annoying myth that continues today, that "You don't have to sell anything to get to number 1 these days". Not then you did, but you definitely do now!!

 

Equivalent sales for that week this year - 14/01/2012 - 3,396,364.

Right onto 2005 and I may as well club these all together...

 

ELVIS PRESLEY- JAILHOUSE ROCK- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7e/Jailhouse_rock.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 2

 

ELVIS PRESLEY- ONE NIGHT/ I GOT STUNG- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/ae/ElvisNight.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 3

 

ELVIS PRESLEY- IT'S NOW OR NEVER- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/01/Elvis_presley_nowornever.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 6

 

Yes all three of Elvis's 2005 No 1 re-issues takes a fall here to varying degrees. Whilst nothing was doing great shakes even over a period of 14 days (let alone 21 days) they were never the best selling singles in the land, JR fell 1-10-50, ON 1-20-40 and INON 1-14-27 in part due to the limited release numbers (30,000 each). Once they proved popular, well enough to outsell the initial 30k production was upped but non of them cracked the 70k mark come the year end, they did however set two records, biggest fall from No 1 and the 1000th No 1 single with the same single "One Night".

 

U2- SOMETIMES YOU CAN'T MAKE IT ON YOUR OWN- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a4/U2_Sometimes_CD1.png

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 3

 

Parked behind bigger hits by Emiinem and Jennifer Lopez, U2 complete a full house, yes they've lost all their chart toppers post 1991 on this thread proving their ability (perhaps more than Westlife) to be more fanbased than almost any other act singles wise. A fall of 1-7 would back this up coupled with the fact that sales wise it wasn't until Jennifer Lopez's "Get Right" in late Feb that the chart got going sales wise.

 

NELLY FEATURING TIM MCGRAW- OVER AND OVER- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b9/NellyOverandOver.jpeg/220px-NellyOverandOver.jpeg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 2

 

Well perhaps Nelly can't grumble here as he upped his weeks at No 1 tally with both Dilemma (2002) and "My Place" (2004) but finds himself between a strong J-Lo release and a massive McFly first week sale otherwise it'd have been a different story.

 

Oh dear I've only just realised that Dakota is likely to be the next demotion. It wasn't a good initial chart run and being knocked off by McFly's comic relief release spells certain doom.

So what is #1 now in the first few weeks of 2005? Steve Brookstein getting extra weeks basically by default? :rofl: A mess. People complained about the Elvis re-issues at the time but they were practically the saviour of the singles chart in that ridiculous period compared to the alternatives.

 

On another note, not happy to see Get Right actually gain a week - a truly heinous piece of music with those obnoxious horns. :arrr:

Edited June 17, 201213 yr by superbossanova

On another note, not happy to see Get Right actually gain a week - a truly heinous piece of music with those obnoxious horns. :arrr:

I Couldn't agree more- it was the worst thing she ever committed to CD and she has some competition on that front! :lol:

Gah! Dakota is my fave number 1 of 2005 so I hope it keeps it's #1!

STEREOPHONICS- DAKOTA- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Stereophonics.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 3

 

Blocked by a Comic Relief due of McFly and Tony Christie there was little doubt that a comparatively dismal sale of 40k in its first week spiralling to 71k after 3 weeks wasn't even going to come within touching distance of those two mammouth hits which each sold over 160k in their first week on sale. For the Stereophonics this was the only chart topper, a double blow therefore.

 

In a different era Dakota could have kept the status under this system. Alas early 2005 really was a dreadful time for the charts.

STEREOPHONICS- DAKOTA- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Stereophonics.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 3

 

Blocked by a Comic Relief due of McFly and Tony Christie there was little doubt that a comparatively dismal sale of 40k in its first week spiralling to 71k after 3 weeks wasn't even going to come within touching distance of those two mammouth hits which each sold over 160k in their first week on sale. For the Stereophonics this was the only chart topper, a double blow therefore.

 

 

<_<

OASIS- LYLA- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/39/Lyla.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 2

 

Well to add to the list of rock bands that Crazy Frog annoyed you can add Oasis now, who on this thread are stripped of another number one (they've lost three so far) thanks to "Axel F". The track opened brightly enough of sales of 75k but slid on second week sales of just 25k, nowhere near enough to challenge the frog who even on this thread enters at No 1.

 

Aw damn, poor Stereophonics. I bet Gorillaz is going to get demoted too and make 2005's chart toppers look so much worse.

OASIS- THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING IDLE- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Oasis_-_TIOBI.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 2

 

....OK make that 4 demotions for the band. Yes even their much better record can't hang on here, yeah I bet they wish their record was hot like the Pussycat Dolls as girl power kept the boys off the top slot, meaning that Oasis's No 1 career (according to this thread) ends with "Hindutimes" back in 2002.

 

I don't care so much for Lyla's demotion, but The Importance of Being Idle was one of the few really good songs they did in the 00s :( its a shame to lose Dakota as well

Oh yeah, and The Importance Of Being Idle. :( Far better than Lyla and one of Oasis' best records overall, shame.

"The Importance of Being Idle" might have held onto its status had it been the first single as it would have surely opened with more than 75k - although it's doubtful that "Lyla" would have made #1 as a post-album release in real life.

 

Unfortunate that the fanbase buys that kept the quality of #1s decent in this period seem to be evaporating. Also sad that Gorillaz can't add to their #1 count with "Feel Good Inc.".

Also sad that Gorillaz can't add to their #1 count with "Feel Good Inc.".

 

That one was stuck behind Lonely until it no longer really mattered, wasn't it, so no chance for promotion despite being a long-running #2? Shame, it's far preferable to Dare as well, even with that one being amazing, and getting stuck behind Akon of all people...

STEREOPHONICS- DAKOTA- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Stereophonics.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 3

 

 

OASIS- THE IMPORTANCE OF BEING IDLE- NON NUMBER ONE

 

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Oasis_-_TIOBI.jpg

 

NEW PEAK POSITION: 2

ARSE. There go 2 of 3 of the best number 1s of 2005, followed soon I suspect by the other (DARE) <_>

Wow at McFly holding on to their chart topper with I'll Be OK despite being easily the biggest "non-#1" outside of the Elvis re-issues that year. Talk about luck. :coffee:

 

Somehow I thought Daniel Powter had the chance of promotion in that little August stretch - despite being behind James Blunt during its weeks at #2 it held up much better directly afterwards and surely must have been contention. Although I'm glad it didn't as I despise the vile little song.

 

I suspect the last three one weekers left in 2005 will all take the chop to round out the year. Gezza ain't going to be popular after two of them though. :o