Rapper Macklemore is a vocal supporter of Palestine and Gaza residents. During a recent concert at MetLife Stadium, he yelled “Free Palestine!” onstage, projected images of devastation in the area, and performed protest song “Hind’s Hall.”
Now, it seems that American venues are not willing to play ball with the Seattle artist, and he has been dropped from Ed Sheeran’s Loop Tour.
“After discussions with stakeholders, Macklemore will not be performing on the remaining support dates,” according to Messina Touring Group, the promoter of Loop Tour. This news follows backlash from organizations like StopAntisemitism and others, such as pop star Pink.
It’s likely not up to him as he has contractual obligations that could ruin more than just his own livelihood.
The whole system is fucked. Rotten to the core
EDIT: these replies are peak left self harm.
Macklemore: free Palestine
NFL Stadium Owners: drop Macklemore or we’ll cancel your show
label and tour management: we can’t lose all these venues, so Macklemore has to go
Lemmy community: how could Ed Sheeran do this??
Like, how about we point our anger at the people actually causing the problem, instead of the guy trying to salvage his tour in a no-win situation because of racist fucks
Won’t somebody think of the millionaires? His whole livelihood is at stake here!
And it’s not like his livelihood is even at massive risk - he’s a big enough name that any arena worth his time to perform at will be big enough that there won’t be other acts available that will sell enough seats at short notice, so they’re pretty likely to cave if he puts his foot down.
THIS is the part that gets me. Ed could have come at Kraft and the other venue owners and threw some hate to ticketmaster for good measure and probably come out fine
Get in a line; https://apnews.com/article/justice-live-nation-ticketmaster-swift-cca2b9881881fb016d0862b945ccddee
I don’t really care about him, but this line of thinking creates assumptions and expectations that are almost never going to be met. He is one of the wealthiest musicians, he isn’t just a performer, he is a businessman. If he was willing to risk or limit the success of his brand for his views (assuming his views are pro palestine), he probably wouldn’t be in the position he is in.
At the end of the day, it is a mainly systemic issue, not an issue of moral failiure. Some individuals will push against the systemic currents, but this will always be the exception, not the rule.
The only way to combat systemic issue is by changing/replacing the system through collective action, not individual action. Ed Sheeran chancling his tour in solidarity with Palestine would not stop western nations from supporting israel. The only way is a nations citizens collectively applying pressure.
If becoming one of the world’s wealthiest musicians requires prioritisation of your brand over improving the world in ways you absolutely have the power to do, then becoming a wealthy musician is absolutely a sign of moral failure. It’s also not even necessarily detrimental to the brand to associate it with acting morally - that only made Dolly Parton more beloved.
There is no if, that’s generally how it works. As I said, there are always exceptions, but when you are a super famous pop star on a major label, you probably ended up there because you do what your label/manager tells you to do, not because you alienate part of your fanbase/boss/business associates.
I don’t even fundamentally disagree, I just think you are setting a moral standard that unfortunately will not be upheld by a majority of people if they were given the chance, which means you are setting yourself up for disappointment. Most people would choose not to swim against the current and take a “neutral stance” (or whatever stance their boss wants to them to take) over risking their career, that’s just how most humans work.
That’s why it is useless to expect CEO’s, politicians, business owners, etc, to act according to your morals. They act based on incentives, and the only way to make them act according to your morals to some degree is by forcing them to.
If your entire brand is “I’m a pop musician who makes unprovocative pop music for everyone and don’t make public statements about controversial political issues“, it can absolutely be detrimental…
I really don’t think it’s that surprising: Venue owners band together and tell that multiple concerts of your huge tour with 15 support acts is essentially chanceled unless you kick one support act. For pretty much any tour promoter/organizer/manager, the decision is obvious…
To be honest, I’m hardly familiar with Dolly Parton, but wasn’t she famously silent on controversial political issues? At least I found this quote from her sister
"You know, I’ll tell everything, and I like everybody know what I think about it, not her. Because she’s a good businesswoman. She’s a good businesswoman.”
I also didn’t find any comment on Israel or Palestine from her, so I’m not sure why you are using her as an example, maybe I’m missing something? Because it seems to me that maybe she was beloved across the political spectrum because she didn’t publicly speak out on controversial issues…
I don’t expect them to act morally - we live in a system that puts immoral people into positions of power - but I also don’t have to make excuses for those immoral people acting immorally. I can expect that the system produces bad outcomes because it’s put immoral people into positions that can influence the outcomes, and explain that as the behaviour of the system, while still condemning the immoral people for acting immorally. At least some of them do have a sense of shame or a vested interest in appearing likeable, so normal people do have a degree of influence when they complain enough.
There were plenty of things that she spoke out on (or directly acted on) that had no good reason to be controversial, but nonetheless were, e.g. personally funding COVID vaccine research and giving books to millions of children. She often wasn’t vocal about the causes she supported, as the goal was to get good things done with the unspendable amount of income she was receiving rather than to spend money to improve her image, so it was often long after the fact that people would discover she’d been the benefactor making something possible. She’s often listed as the example of a good billionaire because she wasn’t a billionaire, but would have been several times over if she hadn’t given away so much money.
Not just that, it pressures people to act immoral.
First of all, explaining isn’t excusing. Second of all, one perversity of the system is that it makes everyone complicit by forcing everyone to participate, as consumers, participants in production, as participants in the political system, etc… If you push that to it’s logical conclusion, everyone who isn’t committing their entire life towards overcoming the system can be blamed to act immoral, depending on how strict your morals are.
Putting too much focus on blaming people’s morals instead of focusing on the system that corrupts people’s morals is counter productive and creates a culture where people trying to do the right thing burn out and adopt an attitude of indifference because no matter how much you are trying to do the right thing, there are always more things to do. It also creates a culture where people compare and compete with eachother’s moral worth, which can lead to fracturing and infighting.
Shaming people into acting moral is not very effective imo.
She sounds like a decent person, but my point is that if you look hard enough, you will find moral failings (same as with every human). I could blame her for not speaking out against Israel, for eample, and condemn her for it.
To be clear, I’m not in general against applying pressure on people in power by voicing disapproval or outrage where it is effective. What I find moderately annoying in this example is that people seem to focus more on Ed Sheran instead of focusing on the people with the actual power behind the decision to kick him (like Robert Kraft)…
Macklemore did it, why can’t Sheeran do it too? Because he either doesn’t hold these views, or he likes money more. Simple.
You can even use the publicity of being cancelled to talk more about the issue. It’s not hard when you have a spine.
Did you not read the part where I said “more than his own livelihood”? Or did you just choose to ignore it?
There are so many more people than just Ed Sheeran who would be hurt by him breaching his contract. Everyone working that tour would be hurt. Likely hundreds of people who are doing gig work for this tour.
That’s so American: 100’s of Americans might lose their paycheck, so we can’t do anything to protest the 1000’s of non-Americans getting killed.
please quote where I said “do nothing”.
because “don’t do this” is not the same as “do nothing”
Why would Ed Sheeran be breaching a contract if he hadn’t caved? The arena owners were threatening to refuse to let him play, they would have been them in breach of contract, not him.
source on that please?
Stop FUDing, they’d get another gig, it’s literally their job.
yeah I mean who cares about people losing their jobs, you just go get another one, easy 🤡
Again, stage technicians and alike make a living roaming from gig to gig. Sure, they can stay with one specific artist but it’s not a necessity, so stop FUDing.
Also… Just following orders™, eh?
And the truck & bus drivers, catering, roadies, grips, crew, wardrobe, sound guys. You think he puts in all the work himself?
Listen I’m not defending Ed Sheeran’s decision here but don’t forget it’s not always about JUST his money - he personally knows a shitload of people who are going to lose their next 18 months’ income without much recourse if he bails now, who aren’t millionaires. Tour work is literally gig work.
Sheeran has more than enough money to pay those people out of pocket for any dates that canceled.
No. You think they only work for him?
Yup. People seem to be ignoring the part where I specifically said “more than his own livelihood”.
And this isn’t even touching on the impact to future contracts. Venues and other businesses don’t want to sign contracts with people who have shown a willingness to breach agreements for personal or political reasons.
It doesn’t even sound like it’s his decision. Seriously, how much agency do people really think musicians have over their performances, venues, lineups, etc.? That’s all handled by record labels, agents, managers, etc.
If the venue says “not so-and-so” and the record label says “okay,” there’s literally jack-shit that the headliner can do about it…
He has enough of a name to start his own label.
Those same contractual obligations should apply to the stadium owners.
Is he responsible for his obligations if the stadium refuses him? Sounds to me like he would have made an effort to meet his contract, but someone else refused him.
Honest question, I have no idea how these things work, but have a hard time believing Sheeran had no choice but to give in
Separate contracts. Sheeran’s contract and Macklemore’s contract are unlikely to be contingent on each other. Plus there are probably terms in the contract regarding conditions under which the venue is allowed to break the contract “for cause” which Macklemore’s situation likely breaches
I would tell the “system” to get bent. Ed Sheeran doesn’t have to do anything. It’s his tour, if they don’t want to allow him to perform over human rights, that’s on them.
If this is true, I’m going to remove every Ed Sheeran song from my music library.
good thing the earth is so tiny and most of the universe completely misses this shit.
Okay, bear with me here but, if I’ve gotten this right (good probability I haven’t), if we divide the earth’s mass of ~6 x 1024 kg by the estimated total mass of the observable universe, ~3 x 1052 kg, Earth represents 0000000000000000000000 0000000000000000000 00000000001% of the total mass of the observable universe.
I’d say that effectively, though not technically, none of our absolute fuckery has any impact on Big Universe, if only by mass comparison. Thank fuck.
Because Ed could personally payout all of the staff working on the tour and cancel it. Because “Staying Neutral” is really just siding with oppressors. Because in a no-won situation you want to support the people who are currently being genocided and not venues paying you big bucks to keep quiet.
You are right we should be calling out the people actually causing the problem, but Eds decision actively helps them continue causing said problem.
If the venue is giving him an ultimatum then he clearly has the agency to tell them no. Otherwise they would be executing the contract not making demands.