The Ed Sheeran example was in reference to the other user quoted saying this:
In a physical CD single chart situation, Ed Sheeran might have got to no.1 in the UK for a week or two and then be dropping as time went on. Currently he's on his 11th week at no.1. because his song is added to every playlist going and his fans are streaming the song ten times a day. I'm not sure that fully represents what the UK is listening to as a whole.
If Ed also has the best-selling
song in the last 10 weeks, then maybe he *is* reflective of what the UK is listening - not as a 100% complete whole, maybe, but by the best kind of metrics which can most accurately be tracked.
You say you don't see an issue with having a conversation about the charts and asking questions, but when someone simply tries to engage in that conversation and give examples of how streaming may actually be less
prone to manipulation than other means of consumption, they're called "condescending".
Others have articulated the objective reasons why streaming gives us more accuracy to music consumption and how the charts are better and more relevant for it, not less. Again, as I've never tried to suggest, no one has
to like what is popular music or what most of the country listens to - something charting has never
meant it's inherently good, be it in 1971 or 2021. If we have these conversations though, there's no harm in discussing the objective facts of streaming's benefits.