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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 126 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (54 children)

"American Venues"

Not sure who's calling the shots here

EDIT:

The rapper alleges that Gillette Stadium owner Robert Kraft gave Sheeran an ultimatum.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 54 child comments
  • [–] 126 points 3 weeks ago (34 children)

    Nothing says "good guy" like compromising your principles for money, right? tf is your argument here?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 34 child comments
  • [–] 48 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (32 children)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 32 child comments
  • [–] 94 points 3 weeks ago (23 children)

    Ed Sheeran has an estimated net worth of around $350 million to $400 million

    Won’t somebody think of the millionaires? His whole livelihood is at stake here!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 44 points 3 weeks ago (8 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    If becoming one of the world's wealthiest musicians requires prioritisation of your brand over improving the world in ways

    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.

    becoming a wealthy musician is absolutely a sign of moral failure.

    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.

    It's also not even necessarily detrimental to the brand to associate it with acting morally

    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..

    that only made Dolly Parton more beloved.

    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..

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    That’s why it is useless to expect CEO’s, politicians, business owners, etc, to act according to your morals.

    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.

    To be honest, I’m hardly familiar with Dolly Parton, but wasn’t she famously silent on controversial political issues?

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    we live in a system that puts immoral people in power

    Not just that, it pressures people to act immoral.

    but I also don't have to make excuses for those immoral people acting immorally.

    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.

    some of them do have a sense of shame

    Shaming people into acting moral is not very effective imo.

    There were plenty of things that she spoke out on

    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)..

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 3 weeks ago* (5 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago

    And the truck & bus drivers, catering, roadies, grips, crew, wardrobe, sound guys. You think he puts in all the work himself?

    No. You think they only work for him?

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (8 replies)
  • [–] 14 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 3 weeks ago

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    good thing the earth is so tiny and most of the universe completely misses this shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    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 10^24^ kg by the estimated total mass of the observable universe, ~3 x 10^52^ 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 61 points 3 weeks ago* (8 children)

    If Robert Kraft and the other stadium owners break tour contracts over a "we don't like your opener" thing after they already signed, it'll be huge fees and possibly a lawsuit. Ed Sheeran had leverage here and he didn't use it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    His record label had the leverage and chose not to use it. There's very little say the artists themselves actually have in these kinds of things.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

    This isn't some starving artist we're talking about here. This guy already has more money than you'll make in your entire life working an honest job.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 3 weeks ago (3 children)

    He already has a name, time to cut loose?
    All them big name artists could put their money where their mouth isn't and build a venue, i'm sure it wouldn't make Bono any poorer.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 3 weeks ago

    This is, actually not a bad idea. Someone send this to someone like Jack White. Get together a bunch of top musicians to actually fund the creation of a network of publicly owned venues. They can share resources and even pay artists real wages for performances. Call it a public option. Just needs the seed money

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 0 points 3 weeks ago (1 child)

    You realize their record labels hold all their IP, don't you? So they cut loose and go indie and build a venue. What happens when their old label tells them they can't play any of their music?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 3 weeks ago

    Didn't Taylor Swift have similar issues?
    I'm guessing bad publicity would be a deterrent for those labels. I guess poor ol' Ed would have to create new stuff too.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 54 points 3 weeks ago (7 children)

    It's not like Macklemore has been quiet about his stance on Palestine. If it were a problem with Ed Sheeran, he probably wouldn't have been on the tour in the first place.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 3 weeks ago* (1 child)

    Watch. If he had refused to go on without Macklemore, these guys would've said "oh the rich baby didn't want to go on because Macklemore said Palestine" or some shit.

    Blame the rich fucks for their crimes; don't invent new catch-22s to hang on them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 3 weeks ago

    If "these guys" you're talking about are Zionists, then I don't think he should care what kind of vitriol they try to brew up for him. In fact, pissing them off is often the correct stance.

  • source
  • parent