• tacosanonymous@mander.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    19
    ·
    9 days ago

    Did Ed Sheeran actually have any say in this? The thing I read said “the stakeholders” made this decision.

    That being said, I’m not a fan of Sheeran’s silence.

    • ClimateStalin [they/them, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      43
      ·
      9 days ago

      Sheeran is one of the wealthiest and most popular musicians in the world. He has the leverage to say “I’m not performing without him, eat dicks,” and he might have his shows cancelled but he’d be fine.

      And more than likely that wouldn’t happen anyway. Those venues wouldn’t want to refund hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of tickets. He’s a big enough name and financially secure enough that the venues need him more than he needs them.

    • mayo_cider [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      9 days ago

      Yeah, he’s free to work with who he wants to, he chose money instead of murdered people

      We have a few terms for people who place a monetary value for human lives, but I don’t want the admins to get in trouble for fedposting

      • ProletarianDictator [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        9 days ago

        You would think having all that money would make rich creatives more inclined to say “fuck it, I will survive the repercussions” and be willing to lose revenue streams, but no, they always behave like their bourgeois handlers.

    • mar_k [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      9 days ago

      I googled it, he owns his own label and regularly makes choices that most artists wouldn’t have the freedom to (e.g. releasing albums w/out any radio singles or MVs). He left Warner Music 15 years ago when he was rich enough to go independent