The drama and the debate around the axing of Macklemore from Ed Sheeran’s US tour - after venue owners objected to the rapper’s on-stage support for Palestine - continues.
Sheeran himself has been heavily criticised from multiple directions, including by fellow artists, for failing to stand up for his support act, with his official statement on the matter simply prompting more criticism.
Though within the music industry there has been some sympathy for Sheeran expressed in some quarters, including from people who wish he’d fought harder to keep Macklemore on the bill. Mainly on the basis that the various issues highlighted by this controversy are much bigger than one pop star, and won’t be addressed by verbally bashing Sheeran in public.
That position has also been expressed by some in the political community. US Congress member Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez told TMZ, “this is not just about one music artist, or two music artists, this is about how a handful of stadium owners and the elite can prevent an entire massive issue from being discussed”.
“In this case the issue is the genocide in Gaza”, she went on, “but it doesn’t stop there, it could be speaking out about AI, it could be speaking about any issue”, and the real concern is that “just a handful of stadium owners can ensure an entire person’s career can be jeopardised if they speak out about any issue”.
Macklemore confirmed on Monday that he had been dropped as a support act at eight upcoming Sheeran shows. The Israeli American Council had previously launched a petition demanding he be pulled from the line-up following his performance at two of Sheeran concerts earlier this month, where he made a short speech in support of Palestine.
But the real pressure for Macklemore to be removed came from billionaire businessman Robert Kraft, who owns one of the stadiums Sheeran’s tour is set to visit later this month. Kraft, a vocal supporter of Israel, said he would cancel Sheeran’s shows if Macklemore was still on the bill and then lobbied other stadium owners to make the same threat.
In his own statement, Sheeran said it was ultimately his tour’s promoter, Messina Touring Group, that decided to cave to Kraft’s demands and remove Macklemore from future shows. Although he had spoken to Kraft himself directly, and it seems likely that - had Sheeran simply refused to play without Macklemore on the bill - his promoter would have been forced to call Kraft’s bluff.
Many pundits and activists, and some fellow artists, argue that that’s exactly what Sheeran should have done, even if there was a reasonable chance of Kraft and the other stadium owners going through with their threat to cancel his shows.
Some have also argued that Sheeran should now cancel the shows himself given the controversy, and especially since all of his other support acts have pulled out in solidarity with Macklemore.
Of course, it’s hard to know if Kraft or any of the other stadium owners would have actually gone through with their threat to cancel the shows had Sheeran stood his ground. We also don’t know what the legal, logistical and financial ramifications would have been had the tour collapsed - or what they will be if Sheeran now voluntarily pulls the plug.
The respective role of the venue, promoter and artist in delivering any one show varies according to each specific deal, though the artist and their team is often responsible for most of what happens on stage, and they hire the people and companies that help make that happen.
We don’t know what contractual terms would be breached, who would have to cover the costs, and to what extent insurers would step in if the tour was called off over a dispute regarding the political content in a support act’s performance.
Speaking to Channel 4 News about the controversy, Paloma Faith - an outspoken advocate for Palestine - referenced those commercial challenges when asked if Sheeran should now cancel the rest of his tour. She said, “ideologically, I think that would be the right thing to do, but I don’t know what the implications of that would be financially to his team or whether it could bankrupt him”.
She added, “I don’t know if he can [cancel the shows] insurance-wise - I don’t know the small print of that, it’s much more nuanced in a legal sense”.
Of course, there’s still an argument that, despite those challenges, the issues here - whether that’s the silencing of an artist by billionaire stadium owners and/or the specific move to stop on-stage criticism of Israel at major events - are sufficiently important that an artist as successful and financially secure as Sheeran should have taken all that risk anyway. Though really Sheeran is only part of this saga.
It seems likely Sheeran himself will remain at the centre of this story until at least his current US tour is completed, assuming it’s not cancelled. Though for the music industry the debates are bigger than this one tour and this one pop star, and should definitely continue beyond this particular drama.
Among the things to debate: Can pop stars really be apolitical entertainers? Can an artist be vocal on one political issue but apolitical on another, as Sheeran has been? It definitely feels like it’s becoming harder and harder for musicians to stay completely out of all political debates.
In addition to that, how can artists effectively stand up for freedom of expression when operating in a world where the likes of Kraft have so much control over what happens on some of the biggest stages? That’s a big one and - within the music community itself - perhaps more attention should be put on how the industry at large can tackle that challenge, rather than what Ed Sheeran should have done.
Which is a key point made in a social media post yesterday from music industry executive Sammy Andrews. She has been heavily involved in music industry initiatives to support the people of Palestine, but expresses concern about the Ed Sheeran pile on that is happening online this week.
After noting the many good causes Sheeran has backed over his career, she writes that this particular controversy “is so much bigger than one gig or one artist. If Kraft and the people behind him can force this, they can silence whatever they choose next. Women’s rights, anti-ICE voices, ANY speech they don’t want on their stages. But none of you are posting about that, right??? Instead you’re all taking swipes at someone who has given SO much to so many causes”.
“Point your anger UP, not sideways”, she continues, “at the billionaires deciding who gets a stage, not the artist they turned into the story so you’d stop looking at them. Channel that venom at the powers that be. Write to your MP. Post about what’s happening in Gaza. Refuse to attend shows in venues that censor what’s said on their stages. Refuse to buy the brands funding genocide”.
“And if you don’t like Ed, his music or his politics, don’t go to the show”, she then concludes. “But don't let this story be hijacked the way it has been to demonise someone we all know has done more for more causes over the last 20 years than just about anyone else in this game”.