If you are not a subscriber of The Fanbase Builder, join 1.000+ artists, creators, and music industry executives who receive it for free.
Let’s dive into today’s topic:
Are artists obliged to be activists?
The people who decide who gets a microphone are the real antagonists.
Why it matters
I don’t think anyone missed the Ed Sheeran Loop Tour controversy. In short:
Macklemore, known for his pro-Palestine remarks, opens for Ed Sheeran at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey, USA, and says “Free Palestine” on stage.
Several NFL stadium owners threaten to cancel shows at their venues if he stays on the tour.
Macklemore is dropped from the tour. Ed Sheeran responds with a statement that lands badly.
All remaining opening acts, and Ed Sheeran’s touring band, quit in solidarity.
First, to provide some context for how I see this, let me be clear about where I stand: Free Palestine. I was therefore pleasantly surprised by how Macklemore handled the situation, from his statement to donating his tour earnings. But that doesn’t mean I oppose Ed Sheeran’s choice to stay out of politics.
How it works
This is a good reminder of how short-sighted people on social media can be, and how easily public opinion is steered by people with power and knowledge.
The main antagonist in this story isn’t Ed Sheeran. It’s billionaire Robert Kraft, owner of the Gillette Stadium and a prominent supporter of Israel, who, together with three other NFL owners, threatened Ed Sheeran’s team not to host the tour as long as Macklemore was on it.
Instead of debating the value of freedom of speech, which, from my European perspective, feels obvious, we’re stuck in a debate that goes like this: Macklemore good, Ed Sheeran bad.
And all because people want Ed Sheeran to speak out. I don’t agree with that. We can’t force artists to speak out, form an opinion, or become activists just because they have a platform. They can, but they aren’t obliged to. We can’t “out” somebody’s opinion just to form our own. I think that’s poor human behaviour.
Instead of a Macklemore versus Ed Sheeran debate, this should be about people with power who successfully interfere with free speech. But that’s not the case, and those with power have played it well.
Yes, but..
Ed Sheeran’s statement that accelerated the debate was terrible. His team should have managed this much better.
Artists aren’t obliged to speak out. But staying neutral in the middle of a fight is a message too.
Take action now
Artists can decide whether to:
Speak out on a topic proactively.
Speak out when asked for an opinion.
Choose to keep their opinion to themselves.
Your thoughts
Further reading
The 40-minute phone call that left Ed Sheeran’s tour hanging by a thread (The Wall Street Journal)
It’s important that I set out some facts. (@teddysphotos on Instagram)
Ed Sheeran responds to backlash over removing Macklemore from tour after ‘Free Palestine’ comments (The Guardian)
Harnessing brand activism for artists (The Fanbase Builder)
How fanbases can make a social impact (The Fanbase Builder)
Why artists play it safe (The Fanbase Builder)
I'm glad you mentioned Kraft like this because while Sheeran has taken a big lambasting for this, Kraft seems to be nothing but a footnote who thinks his money and power entitle him to shut other people up. This is a dangerous precedent.
And expecting every artist to take a stand on everything is totalitarian in itself.