We are not short on problematic musicians. It feels like every other day a well-known artist makes headlines for , or . Anything awful you can imagine has probably been done by someone with more than 500,000 monthly Spotify listeners.
This constant wave of scandals is so intense that it can be hard for even the most chronically online fan to keep up. It鈥檚 a tall order to expect casual listeners to track everything the musicians they listen to say or do. Even when we do learn that a musician we listen to has done something wrong, it鈥檚 easy to move on and keep listening as before: What difference will your one little stream really make?
Well, just like any form of consumerism, your individual participation might not seem to make a significant change. But en masse, making more ethical decisions about what music should be consumed can have a big impact. Ultimately, even if we are giving artists only , if they鈥檝e done harm, we should withhold our support.
But what do we consider to be awful enough to warrant a boycott? As I said, musicians can be called problematic for a wide range of reasons, some of which might seem unfair. For example, Beyonc茅 was recently criticized for , given the United Arab Emirates government鈥檚 . Sometimes, backlash against an artist is misdirected. For instance, Doja Cat has stirred up controversy throughout the promotion of her newest album, 鈥淪carlet,鈥� with some and her fans upset with past behavior, including an incident in which she .
But Doja Cat has also done more seriously harmful things which have garnered less public attention which might challenge her fans鈥� ability to justify listening to her music. Her new boyfriend faces serious , which Doja herself responded to one commenter by saying 鈥淕OODBYE AND GOOD RIDDANCE.鈥� More recently, she posted a photo of herself wearing a t-shirt featuring an . When she received backlash for the post, she reposted the photo with the t-shirt cropped out, captioning the photo with multiple eye-roll emojis.. If you don鈥檛 care about any of these things, that is your prerogative, but I know that many would, at least enough to detract from their enjoyment of her music. Many people advocate separating art from the artist, but if you do, then you also need to take ownership of what your continued support means.
However, for the more conscientious, how can we be expected to hold problematic artists accountable? Often, fans are the most aware of scandals involving their favorite artists. If anyone could deprive them of the money and support that helped their career flourish previously, it would be the ones religiously buying and promoting their music like it鈥檚 their job. Such boycotts have succeeded in the past. The fast-growing world of K-pop is infamous for its of artists, but few have seen mistreatment on the level of the group Loona. The members of the popular girl group were per day and allegedly . The final straw was when one of the members, by the record label, leading the 11 other members to file injunctions to leave the label as well. The label then amid the ensuing legal dispute. But the plan backfired: Loona鈥檚 fanbase boycotted not only the new release, but all of the group鈥檚 music. Though their previous albums had sold copies in the first day, the newest release copies in its first 24 hours, making the boycott an overwhelming success and forcing the label to cancel the release. Subsequently, all of the Loona members against the label and became free artists.
In this case, fans intended for the boycott to benefit the artists. In similar fashion, a Swiftie would have no trouble boycotting original recordings of her albums in order to instead stream 鈥�.鈥� As fans, it is clear that our actions matter. In some instances, even superfans should be able to draw a line. The problem with a case like Doja Cat鈥檚 is that it wasn鈥檛 her label that was acting up, but her 鈥� the one person her fans endlessly support. It shouldn鈥檛 come as a surprise, then, that her newest album has been an , despite her bad behavior. And, of course, while Doja does have some pretty serious scandals floating around her, hers still pale in comparison to some other artists who also still have major fan support. For example, Chris Brown, despite his , just . Mass-organized boycotts by fans aren鈥檛 the only forms of leverage we can rely on as listeners to hold artists accountable. Anyone who has made a personal decision to consume more ethically (e.g., not eating meat) knows that, even if your contribution is small, a lot of individual changes add up. If we all act in accordance with our beliefs, it will have a gradual, positive impact.
So, when you鈥檙e just a casual listener, should you really be expected never to listen to 鈥淧lanet Her鈥� on Spotify again, knowing full well that Doja Cat will still be highly successful whether you support her or not? Well, that part is up to you. Unless you are impassioned enough to organize mass action against her, your abstention probably won鈥檛 make a large difference. However, principles have to come into play at some point. Even if you鈥檙e only giving a problematic musician like Chris Brown half a cent per stream, that still counts as a form of support. If all of us don't care, those cents will start adding up, just as if we all act based on principles, the positive effects will also become visible. And do you really want to contribute to an abuser鈥檚 bank account? I know I don鈥檛.
