Image Source: Music Times

It is not surprising that attention has moved to Kanye West’s music associations. Including his label situation and streaming services, as he continues to escalate his antisemitic remarks. Adidas joins the list of companies to cut ties with him after Balenciaga, CAA, and others.

We’ve been down this road before: Similar queries surfaced as the severity of R. Kelly’s sexual misdeeds. Following months of requests, Kelly’s longtime record company, RCA, ultimately ended its relationship with the singer.

Spotify v. R. Kelly

However, Spotify’s attempt to outlaw Kelly’s music in the only natural way possible failed. Kelly had not been found guilty of any crimes at the time of the ill-defined ban, which it characterized as covering both “hate content,” or music with a terrible message like white supremacy, and “hateful conduct,” or an artist’s or creator’s actions. Within minutes, commentators started pointing out that music on Spotify and other streaming platforms was helping convicted criminals and even murderers like producers Phil Spector and Jim Gordon make money. Together with Eric Clapton, they wrote the legendary rock anthem “Layla.”

Spotify quickly retracted its position on the policy’s behavior clause. The streamer resolved not to make such company-wide decisions based on a creator’s behavior, even though it has continued to be done in practice.

That ruling returned the duty of deciding conduct to the music’s copyright holder, typically a record label. However, it is crucial to remember that these rights holders contribute music to streaming services and that the streaming service often only removes music that it finds to include hate speech.

Except for his 2013 collaboration with Lady Gaga, “Do What U Want,” Kelly’s entire discography is still accessible on all of the primary streaming services offered by Sony Music. However, in January 2019, she requested the song be taken down. Sony and Universal Music, the owners of the song’s copyright, complied with her request.

What happens to Kanye West’s material

It’s different with Kanye West. Kelly was guilty of inflicting physical damage on others. Although Kanye West hasn’t said it, it might be argued that hate speech and any subsequent provocation. The racist protests in Los Angeles over the weekend, showed that racism is not different from actual physical violence. The activities that caused Twitter to suspend Donald Trump for his participation in the attempted uprising on January 6 are identical.

West hasn’t explicitly expressed hate in his music yet, and even if he did, it’s unlikely that a label would distribute it or a streaming site would host it. And while some of his songs are offensive or potentially harmful, there are many more violent lyrics from musicians across musical genres.

West’s discography is still accessible on streaming sites and retail locations run by Universal, much like Kelly and Sony. And sure, his remaining shoe and clothing sales and the revenue from his catalog continue to bring in money for the artist, the rights holders, and other parties involved.

However, according to Luminate, West’s U.S. streaming saw a 23% decline between October 13 and October 20. Also, his airtime decreased by 13%. Despite a relatively small 2% decline in global streams, his sales globally decreased by 17.5%. They will decline more as long as he keeps making anti-Semitic remarks.

Legal issues

There are complex moral and legal considerations raised by the debate over Kanye West’s music. It would be a form of censorship, and the prohibition should apply to everyone else. Drawing that border is a challenging problem with no ideal answer, as Spotify discovered in 2018.

In a far better world, the owners of the rights to West’s music, or Kelly’s clothing and accessories, might donate those sales to organizations that fight against sexism or bigotry. However, regarding streaming services, the money made by individual artists goes to the rights-holders.

Sometimes terrible people create great art. It is up to the individual if they want to acquire their goods and services.

Image Source: NPR

Can Will Smith win his second Oscar despite the controversy over the slap heard worldwide?

That’s the question Apple has to answer now that it has said it will release “Emancipation.” A movie about a slave who escapes and paid Will Smith $35 million to star and make. 

The streamer is betting that the uproar about Smith’s attack on Chris Rock at the Oscars has died, especially since Smith made an awkward video to apologize.

But even if Will Smith wins back-to-back Oscars for best actor, as Tom Hanks did. He won’t be able to pick up his award in person. He won’t even be able to get it through a satellite. 

Smith quit the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Sciences in April because he would almost certainly be kicked out. Almost right after that, the Academy Board of Governors decided to ban him from the Oscars telecast. As well as other events put on by the Academy for ten years.

The Academy can still nominate Smith for and win another Oscar, even though he can’t accept his award on TV.

It needs to be clarified how hard Smith will try to win the award or if Apple will help him in the crowded race for best actor. But Smith won’t be able to press the flesh at any gatherings of Academy members. Instead, he will have to go to events put on by groups like the SA and the Golden Globes.

Can Will Smith beat his blacklisting?

If Smith’s performance was good enough to overcome what the public thought was a “blacklisting.” The Academy’s Actors Branch can put him on their ballot for a nomination from January 12 to 17. They will make the names public on January 24.

In the movie, Smith plays Peter, a character based on the famous “Whipped Peter.” Whipped Peter was an escaped enslaved person whose picture of his beaten back. Became one of the most famous images of the anti-slavery movement during the American Civil War.

But Smith can be put forward for more than just that category.

The Academy comprises 18 branches with about 9,600 members who can vote. Each person also votes in the best picture category. In addition, there are ten spaces on their ballots for them to write their picks of movies for the year.

Smith made history last year when he was nominated for both best actor and best picture for “King Richard.” He was the second Black man to be nominated in both categories, after Denzel Washington for “Fences.” And the first Black man to produce himself in an acting win.

Emancipation makes all the difference

A theater in Washington D.C. showed “Emancipation” this past weekend. As part of the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s Legislative Conference. Groups from the Congressional Black Caucus, Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Power Rising, and #WinWithBlackWomen were there. At the event, both Smith and Fuqua spoke in person.

Early reactions from people who were there were positive.

Tonya J. Williams, the director of strategic communications for Emily’s List, called it “a powerful and gut-wrenching look at the horrors of slavery.” Will Smith, who played Peter so well, talked about how he (and we) have a place in this world by talking about Peter’s life.

Angela Rye, CEO of IMPACT Strategies, said it was “not only a powerful story about our history. But also about how strong we are as a people.”

But it’s important to note that Smith is not the only one who owns “Emancipation.” Antoine Fuqua, a respected and admired director for over 25 years, is in charge. The same person who gave Denzel Washington his long-overdue lead actor statuette for “Training Day” (2001).

If the buzz about the film’s quality is true and we’ve reached our “Fuqua moment.” Considering the Academy has only nominated six Black directors in the past 94 years.

Can Apple weather this “Emancipation” storm for all the creatives involved? Are Oscar voters and people ready to forget about the slap? Awards season will show.