Recently, I watched some news coverage of the controversy surrounding Macklemore being removed from the remaining U.S. dates of Ed Sheeran’s tour after using his performances to make statements about the war in Gaza. One audience member interviewed in the coverage said, essentially, that they hadn’t bought a concert ticket to hear a political speech—they just wanted to hear some music.
That comment got me thinking about my own musical life and the many times I’ve used my work and my platform to draw attention to various social justice issues.
I completely understand that mixing music and politics—or music and social issues more broadly—is not everyone’s cup of tea. Years ago, when I approached a string quartet about taking part in my #music4HRDs campaign, one of its members told me very directly that music and politics should never mix.
You know what? That’s completely fair.
Especially from a musician’s perspective, we each have to decide what we want our art to communicate. Music is a form of expression, and every artist should feel free to communicate what is important to them—or to choose not to address certain subjects at all. There is nothing inherently wrong with wanting a concert simply to be a beautiful, entertaining, or escapist experience.
But what about those of us who feel passionately about using our musical voices to bring greater awareness to injustice?
Is there ever a situation in which an artist should be prevented from making that statement?
I struggle to think of one.
I’m sure there are many musicians who would like to speak more openly about issues they care about but hesitate because they worry about what it might mean for their careers—and, ultimately, their ability to make a living. Those are very real concerns. Presenters, venues, donors, audiences, collaborators, and employers can all have enormous influence over an artist’s opportunities.
But to me, one of the purest reasons to be an artist is to say something.
That “something” doesn’t have to be political. It can be deeply personal, spiritual, playful, abstract, beautiful, uncomfortable, or confrontational. But art has always provided a way for human beings to wrestle with the world around them. For some of us, that inevitably includes the injustices we see in that world.
Of course, audiences are equally free to disagree. They can dislike the message. They can criticize it. They can decide not to attend another concert or listen to that artist again. Freedom of artistic expression does not mean freedom from criticism or consequences.
But disagreement with what an artist says is very different from saying that the artist should not be permitted to say it at all.
That distinction feels important to me.
I don’t expect everyone who hears my music to agree with every perspective behind it. In fact, I think art can be most meaningful when it opens a space for reflection, discomfort, questioning, and conversation.
What matters to me is that artists continue to have the freedom to enter that space—to use whatever platform they have to speak about the world as they experience it.
Because if artists are only permitted to make statements when those statements are comfortable, universally accepted, or commercially convenient, then I wonder how much of the reason for making art in the first place gets lost.
