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.
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.
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.