Ed Sheeran’s No.6 Collaborations Project extends reign at Number 1 as Kaiser Chiefs' Duck scores highest new entry

There are loads of artists like ariana Grande, Dave loads and loads more but to he fair they shouldnt be clogging the charts with album tracks, only official singles

He would of had 8 songs in the top 10 which are
#1 Beautiful people
#3 Take me back to London
#4 Cross me
#5 Remember the name
#6 Antisocial
#7 South of the border
#8 I don’t care
#10 Feels

And the rest of the songs in the top 30

#11 Best part of me
#18 Put it all on me
#20 Nothing on you
#22 1000 nights
#27 I don’t want your money
#28 Way to break my heart
#29 Blow

Still very good for a side project and divide had all 16 songs in the top 20

Then it’s just rigged

What's the difference if a song is classified as an "official single" or an "album track" if the masses are consuming it by buying ,streaming whatever ..... MORE than any other song?
It should should be recognized and validated for its true impact on performance
...not a skewed pseudo-version of reality.

Because it's called 'the official singles chart' not official song chart or official track chart. The definition of official single should be classified otherwise it is just a track or song chart and not a single which is an individual release. Originally in vynal days you could have a b-side or even a double a side, onto cassettes which could have bonus tracks on also but was still classed as a single but the other songs were either a taste of the album or a standalone track only available with the single release. Then came along the CD pretty much followed in the same footsteps as cassette but remixes became another bonus more widespread on a CD single. So through the years it's always been defined as a single release or an album release (I'll not delve into EPs right now I'll be here all day). So an album track although a song or track if you like is an entity in itself it's not an official single unless it is released as so. If this had happened in the first place then the rules which have been created for Ed Sheeran would never have had to have been created meaning he holds a record for most top 20 singles at a time which can never be equalled or bettered unless the rules change yet again. Not an easy task to balance things out fairly but allowing artists to have album tracks chart in official singles charts prevents new artists breaking through the singles charts, hence they brought in the rules for the official chart to have a max of 3 'tracks' by one act.

Thanks for the enlightening explanation....... A song is a song...and fair is fair......when consumers have hundreds of songs to choose from by hundreds of different artists and they choose to "consume" a particular song at a much higher rate than any other .... how that song is "classified" is irrelevant really.... if it has performed better than any other it should be officially recognized as such regardless of how it is "classified" It seems like skewing the ACTUAL results doesn't "balance things out fairly" ...Sheeran wrote songs that were more popular and performed better fair and square and maybe, a smaller artist might "feel shut out "but is giving them a placement they don't really deserve the answer???.....5 years ago Sheeran would have been in the same position and no one gave him "handouts"and skewed the charts so his songs would appear more popular than they were. He mastered the craft of delivering to his fans exactly what they wanted to hear and consume, other musicians should learn this skill from him and employ the same kind of perseverance as he did and wait their turn for fame. I suppose now his Divide tour is over and this Collaborations album that he did "for fun" is done...he will now take some time off and the official singles chart will be more accessible perhaps to others.
Let's keep it real and recognize songs that truly perform the best

Well thanks for just exactly explaining what I am already trying to point out. Let's say it was Elton John who had that title and Ed Sheeran released ÷ right now, it would be restricted to only 3 tracks and there would be no way of equalling the record held by Elton John, is that what you call fair?
You seem to be thinking that I am having a dislike to Ed Sheeran which I dont (I've been to 2 of his concerts and 1 where he was the support act for snow patrol in Las Vegas with a small crowd), it's the rules which are changing but not improving things that I am disliking.

The fact is music" consumption" has changed so dramatically in recent years, maybe we go back to the days of 45s and vinyl and cassettes and even 8-tracks...where making a music purchase was a big deal, a commitment, with limited resources you could only choose a limited few and you depended on music critics to tell you whether a album, single etc. was good enough to spend your money on but, that's not the case now ..streaming /You Tube makes huge amounts of different music easily accessible and cheap/free to listen to and decide for oneself if the music is something personally appealing and whether its worth the purchase. So...following my comments above...consumers...when presented with all this music...choose for themselves to listen to ( stream) a select few songs repeatedly and BUY a select few songs repeatedly more than any other....and it is those songs that should be fairly recognized for their actual performance.. no matter who the artist is that created them and no matter how they may relate to another songs performance from the same artist......if it were Sheeran, or Drake, or Ariana Grande whoever....performance needs to be measured in real terms, fair and square, not skewed for appearance sake , if an artist wants to deserve to be in the top ten then they should produce music that people want to hear repeatedly and "consume" more than any other song out there. A side note, many consumers....choose to consciously avoid the top ten type songs and look to the bottom of the charts ,or seek out genre music that doesn't fit the mold...a songs "performance" is meaningless to some or even a signal to avoid a song.

Perhaps you relied on music critics to tell you if a single or an album was good enough back then, I certainly didnt. That is more your own personal opinion rather than a fact. You think people choose to listen to a few tracks then 'BUY' them. If a consumer is listening to tracks on YouTube or via a streaming service then I doubt very much they would 'BUY' that track. They may buy an album in a physical format but who would waste money on a streaming service or you tube subscription to then buy a single?
If as you state that performance should be measured in real terms you are again proving my point, why restrict to only 3 tracks/songs by 1 artist when they have other tracks available performing better than other tracks/songs out there but are not allowed to chat in the official chart?
Keeping on track with the debate which is that the rules which are being invented are not being fair, I was merely suggesting an alternative method which I think would be fairer for actual individual tracks/songs to be classed as 'official songs' and album tracks to be used as albums. Perhaps there could be two charts for tracks/songs one for official singles and one for all songs which includes all album tracks also.
I'm sure I agree with your sidenote either as I think people just have different tastes in music, I feel a lot of tracks which make the top ten are awful but that doesn't mean there isnt many decent tracks that make it there too. I cant imagine anybody just avoiding the top ten biggest consumed songs of a particular week just because they are doing so well? Makes no sense whereas preferred artists, genres etc whether they be ones that manage the success of higher echelons of the charts or their individual taste doesn't chart at all but its music which they like so they will listen and consume not avoid if suddenly the act they like has a top ten hit they will no longer listen to them.

For people like myself who didn't have a lot of money back then, the only way we heard NEW music was if we heard it on the radio or if a friend bought it and let us listen to it. Naturally, when we saved our money we would use it to buy the NEW music of our select favorite musicians when we could. Today, streaming is the thing that opens up a whole new world of accessible music to everyone ...I stream music all the time..it's convenient.....BUT..when I really love a song or an album
I BUY it.....and I believe so do many others who like the idea of having music in a tangible form not requiring an internet connection ,or an iPhone ,or a laptop, and love to listen to the music the "old fashioned way".... it is a much more authentic experience,hence the new popularity of the "old" vinyl records.
My concept of The Official Singles Chart is that it was designed to collect data and report which songs performed the best in a given time period and rank them in order of performance. Period. Especially now with streaming making ALL music more easily accessible to ALL in any given time frame...even if an album is released and all the songs hit the market at once....if a song stinks... even if its on a great album people won't listen to it more than once . At the same time another song from another artist is in the same pool and the same time and it is competing fairly for attention, if that other song doesn't inspire repeat consumption at the same level as the album song it doesn't deserve to be ranked higher .
A placement on the chart is only a measurement of a songs' popularity at any given time frame. Popularity is only important to those who create music primarily to make money. If a musician is in the business to make money then to be successful they need to be mindful of strategy and business sense and knowing their fan base and marketing directly to them, and creating a "product" specifically designed to meet their fan's demand. If a musician wants to create music that appeals to a limited few more power to them...but don't expect to win a "popularity contest"in the charts and win a position in the charts by default.
Fair is Fair...report the actual data as it is... let each song EARN its position .

I really do not want to harp on about all your flaws here but basically you are making yourself sound stupid as I am trying to explain to you the rules invested in the last few years are not making sense and are not fair, yet you constantly keep stating that each track is getting fair. Look at the charts the other week when old town road was the number 1 listened to track in the UK but wasnt no.1, it looks pretty similiar this week when senorita wont be no.1 even though it will most likely be the best performing song of the week. Yet you think it's fair and songs have earnt this?

If you feel that you need an internet connection to stream music then no wonder you feel the need to purchase a track. If you have a streaming subscription you can listen to any track any time just save them to the device you wish to listen to them on and they are yours just like a good old fashioned download!

.... Sure you can download to a device......and keep it and carry it everywhere if you want ... Buying a download from a streaming service IS a purchase, and is considered as a purchase in calculating the data for the charts...is it not?
I was referring to vinyl...as the old fashioned way of listening to music ,it has a specific sound quality and experience...perhaps I didn't communicate that properly. I have Sheeran's last two albums on vinyl....as well as many old ones like The White album...that I've collected and inherited over the years. I also have cds, gasp...that I bought before streaming existed and some new ones...I mainly enjoy listening to those in the car on road trips and to and from work each day ...yeah...my old car has an old cd player that works just fine...and music sometimes sounds it best that way in a car on those tiny little speakers combined with the road noise and wind blowing through your hair. Judge me ..go ahead..don't care.
The only point I was trying to convey is that data should be reported accurately and not skewed in any way for any reason, that's it.
The limited to 3 restriction seems to skew actual results,in my opinion.
You obviously think differently and that's ok, for every opinion there can be a counter opinion. Sorry to have gotten you all riled up.

No downloading a track from a streaming company is not considered a purchase, it's the way music is consumed these days. So when you next connect to the internet the device you are listening to a track on will sync with how many times you have listened to each track and they are counted as streams. A purchase is a download purchased from what pretty much is only iTunes these days as they were the giant taking all the income from it for a short period compared to the length of time vinyl, cassettes and CDs were around. Also there are a few sales in these formats also, which is increasing due to the retro feel.
I agree that the data should be recorded accurately but it clearly isnt and because the major record companies get a say also it makes it very hard to show a true and fair official chart, hence back to the beginning where I stated it should be called official track or official song chart because it is not an official single chart anymore and in my opinion it should be updated to reflect that

God you hate him don’t ya 🤣