Politics and music

[sawdust123]

Music has often had political overtones and celebrities often use their stardom to espouse their views. This week it is Macklemore and Ed Sheeran taking the spotlight. Every once in a while, an artist views will earn them a spot on a DNP list (ours or the clients). When was the last time you've had that happen?

You may recall many country fans rejecting the Dixie Chicks after they threw shade on Bush in 2003. Or perhaps you're old enough to remember when John Lennon said the Beatles were more popular than Jesus and got similar rebuke. There is a long list of such examples. Will the Macklemore/Sheeran news make that list or will this fizzle out to fast?

 

[DJ Bobcat]

I don’t listen to Macklemore, anyway, so his anti-Israeli rants don’t bother me much. I pretty much ignore the political opinions of ALL celebrities, because most of them are pretty ignorant, and most of them live in a bubble, and are not exposed to any views that differ from their own. There have been protest songs ever since I can remember, and that’s fine. Some I agreed with, and others I didn’t. I’d still listen to a good song, if I liked the tune and the vocals. I can ignore the lyrics. However, if a performing artist gets SO political, that all I associate with them is their biased political views, it makes it very difficult for me to BUY their music, or choose to play it. There are too many good tunes out there to listen to, other than those from a stupid recording artist who I think is full of…

 

[Proformance]

Whether celebs and musicians are politically ignorant or not is secondary to their decision to use politics as a means to boost or elevate their business endeavors and public profile at the expense of patrons (ticket buyers.) Macklemore made a crude decision to adopt currently loud political anthems as a way to attract attention to himself and enlarge his presence and prominence on a stage that was not his own.

That's the thing about FREE SPEECH - you have to deliver it at a venue that belongs to you in some way. That means your own property or the public square, streets, organized rallies, to which you are legally enjoined. You can't appropriate someone else's commercial property to advance your own cause.

It was stupid and disrespectful to Sheeran, the promotions team, and to every stadium owner involved in the tour. It was disrespectful and a form of sales fraud to every ticket holder who planned to see a music show rather than a political rally. The Stadium owners and promoters had every right to dump him, and if Sheeran knew in advance this this what Mackelmore would do on stage in NJ, than he's just as much at fault. If he didn't know - then he's just as much a victim of Macklemore's narcissism. There's no need to pretend he tried to mediate for the guy. The issue here isn't Palestine - it's remedial business decorum.

The simple fact is: Mackelmore was not removed simply because of his opinions. He was removed because of the legal liability and injury risks posed by his unannounced and uninvited politically "rally" amidst a crowded stadium of onlookers who DID NOT SIGN UP FOR HIS ANTAGONISM.

 

[sawdust123]

However, if a performing artist gets SO political, that all I associate with them is their biased political views, it makes it very difficult for me to BUY their music, or choose to play it. There are too many good tunes out there to listen to, other than those from a stupid recording artist who I think is full of…

Completely agree. I am sure I play lots of music from artists with views I vehemently oppose. I just don't know what their views are to know that I oppose them. Macklemore spoke up and has earned himself a place on my artists to avoid list. It won't break him and it won't break me.