Ed Sheeran’s supporting acts withdraw in political protest, but must every artist be vocal?
Ed Sheeran’s “Loop Tour” has gained substantial traction across social media platforms after Macklemore’s expressed support for Palestine resulted in his release from future tour dates.
Sheeran responded with claims of a neutral stance on the situation, resulting in all of his supporting acts dropping out following his underwhelming statement as well as immense backlash online.
Sheeran responded with claims of a neutral stance on the situation, resulting in all of his supporting acts dropping out following his underwhelming statement as well as immense backlash online.
What started it all: Macklemore’s first (and final) performances
The debacle began on Sept. 4 when Macklemore performed his first show on Sheeran’s “Loop Tour” at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey. He told the audience: “A big part of the reason why I wanted to do this tour in the first place is so that I could stand up in stadiums like this and say two words that are very, very dear to my heart: Free Palestine."
He followed this statement with the performance of his song, “Hind’s Hall.” The title refers to the renaming of Hamilton Hall at Columbia University to "Hind's Hall" in honor of Hind Rajab, a five-year-old Palestinian girl killed by the IDF in the Gaza Strip; the song highlights Macklemore’s pro-palestinian history and criticism of the American government’s reaction to the ongoing war.
The following night, Macklemore performed and spoke with similar candor, expressing the same ideas of global freedom reminiscent of the day prior.
A swift removal
Just ten days after his first performance, Macklemore was removed from the remaining dates of the “Loop Tour.” On Sept. 14, he released a statement on Instagram announcing his dismissal, claiming that none of the people involved in this situation are victims except the Palestinian people.
The fellow supporting acts of Sheeran’s tour — Finneas, Aaron Rowe, Lukas Graham, and Beoga — followed suit, dropping out in support of Macklemore and Palestine.
Macklemore’s political history & Sheeran’s lack thereof
This political crusade is not new for Macklemore or to any of his longtime supporters. Since Hamas’ surprise attack on Israel from the Gaza Strip on Oct. 7, 2023, Macklemore is one of many musicians who was immediately vocal with his support for the victims involved.
Nearly every other post on Macklemore’s Instagram features him with a Palestinian flag on stage in sold-out stadiums, so his political views clearly weren’t a major issue for fans or Sheeran when choosing him to be his opening act.
Sheeran quickly responded in his own post shared online, claiming to have personal views on the issue that he is simply choosing to not state publicly.
Viewers took this vow of silence to be a political statement in itself. Sheeran attributed his reasons for his private individual views and lack of political messaging in his shows to his diverse audience.
Sheeran is widely recognized as one of the least controversial musicians, with his only prior accusations and lawsuits referring to similar chord progressions and plagiarism claims, which is a tale as old as time.
Sheeran's political stance has been historically neutral, with exceptions relating mostly to accessibility of the arts. Sheeran advocated for the Equality Act, criticized the American conservative government for not supporting arts, and wrote a letter urging the UK government to protect and expand music education in schools.
Main critiques of Sheeran’s statement focus on the irony of his politically neutral identity, pointing to Ukrainian support in 2022 and BLM advocacy in 2020.
What’s the big deal?
The majority of online responses have been supportive of Macklemore and critical of Sheeran, but for what reason? Sheeran never explicitly supported Israel or Palestine, nor did he fold to any external pressures to choose one to advocate for. He even made a $2 million contribution to aid in the Middle East after the ordeal.
In today’s political climate, picking no side is just as shameful as picking the wrong one to many. This is no different than the other debate that frequents the media today – is voting third party a wasted vote, as it is one less vote for the lesser of evils?
Many commenters on Sheeran’s post emphasized how this isn’t a political issue, but a humanitarian issue. Staying neutral when you could’ve influenced your millions of supporters to donate with one single post is what many consider “tone-deaf.”
Sheeran’s stance is understandable to some. If you look back at other artists who ventured from nonpartisan to activist, many have faced irreversible effects. Look at the Dixie Chicks in 2003. After criticizing the Iraq invasion during the Bush administration, the band lost major corporate sponsorships, while radio stations pulled their songs from air and fans organized CD-smashing events. While they have recovered to some extent, that part of their fan-base was lost forever.
If that is a risk an artist is willing to take, it can pay off in the long run. No one wants to be friends with someone who believes such different things, so it makes sense they wouldn’t want supporters to either.
Some artists even go so far as to suggest that people who disagree should unfollow the artist altogether. Most notably, P!nk urged MAGA supporters to unfollow her and stay away from her work as there is no common ground with her work and the movement.
When one stage closes, another one opens
People who never listened to Macklemore found him from his act of civic engagement and supported him purely because of that: this opened doors to a whole new audience for him. Macklemore hasn’t been a household name since the early 2010s, so this definitely sparked a new surge of support for him.
And for Sheeran, he definitely alienated a good part of his fan-base, but Sheeran arguably wasn’t that popular of an artist for the generation most vocal about the Gaza war: I can’t name a single person that goes to Sheeran for anything but those slow, nostalgic tunes like “Perfect” or “Thinking Out Loud.” I can’t imagine this altered a huge percentage of his listening base aside from the vocal Gen Z minority.
It's the first time I read ed's post. from what he says it seems it wasn't his choice. although he could've still found a solution where macklemore wasn't excluded for his political views imo and if that meant cancelling maybe he should've - And indeed, this made him look like pro israel although his post suggests otherwise. Also, such a bad PR move, I think people won't forget it
ReplyDeletegirl i so agree! i think it wasn’t really his fault at all and honestly, i think artists have a choice like everyone else to talk about what they want to: he clearly doesn’t disagree with macklemore’s message, as macklemore was a close friend and very vocal about palestine before making him his opener. he wouldn’t have included him if that was the case. i wrote another version including all the stuff about robert kraft but had to cut it down a bit, i mainly wrote this to say why Gen Z as a whole responded the way they did!! sorry for the rant i found this situation super interesting lol
Deleteno, honestly I loved reading about it!! completely agree on their friendship too as you said they probably wouldn't even be friends if they had different opnions. can't wait to read more from you diva <3
Delete