Commentary: Does Cancel Culture Affect Music Consumption?
- Martina
- 12 May 2026, Tuesday
The phrase “cancel culture” has resonated with the public in recent years. Some support it, while others oppose it. However, more crucial than public opinion is the potential impact of “being canceled” on those affected – most often artists, musicians, entertainers, politicians, and others. Does it actually influence the streaming numbers and demand for their music?
A recent study from Cornell University examined not only what cancel culture might do to artists’ listening and visibility, but also why, in some instances, fans seemingly separate the art from the artist – and in others, they don’t. Let’s explore the findings together.
Cancel Culture in Music: Artists as Symbols of Identity
In music, “cancel culture” (also known as call-out culture) typically refers to the public, often collective, backlash and boycott artists face after controversial statements, behavior, or opinions – these days, primarily driven or amplified by social media.
In practice, cancel culture is often closely tied to people’s ethical beliefs and values. This is also why the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines the practice or tendency to engage in mass canceling as a “way of expressing disapproval and exerting social pressure.”
Music consumption, in particular, is a deeply emotional and social endeavor. For many fans, their connection with a specific artist is often built on relatability. We might like someone’s music, but we also like to think the artist mirrors us in our values, morals, emotions, and ideologies. In a way, an artist can become the emblem of our identity.
This is not just a hypothesis or a debate – research has shown a strong correlation between our favorite songs and our moral values, turning musical preferences into a kind of moral compass. That’s why an artist’s wrongdoing can feel deeply personal, going against what we stand for – and what we believed the artist stood for, too. To a certain extent, the backlash can feel like a betrayal of trust, a collapse of projection, or even a rupture of identity.
In recent years, the public “canceling” of public figures has become particularly commonplace. In an effort to hold those in power accountable, people have been calling out various transgressions, often including long-forgotten tweets, posts, and proclamations that have been dug up and resurfaced.
The music industry, specifically, has offered an entire lineup of scandals, missteps, and presumed wrongdoings, from Kanye West’s antisemitic remarks and praise for Nazi ideology (among many other controversies) to P. Diddy’s sexual misconduct allegations and Roger Waters’ polarizing political statements.
The Repercussions of Cancel Culture on Artists
The impact of cancel culture has long been heavily debated, seen by some as a tool for accountability and justice and by others as an instrument of disproportionate punishment and animosity.
Overall, there seem to be two sides to the coin: it may give power to marginalized voices and hold those at fault accountable, but it might also encourage mob mentality, stifle free speech, foster exclusivity and division, harm well-being, and have a lasting, often detrimental effect (perhaps not always warranted) on one’s career.
The latter has been the subject of a recent Cornell study. Many would argue that in all the cases mentioned above – and in the many more that took place – the controversies negatively affected artists’ popularity, especially in terms of music sales (or nowadays, streams) and revenue. If people project their identity onto their favorite artists, their disapproval of and disappointment in those artists' actions must have had some impact. But is that really true?
Recently, English blues guitarist and singer Eric Clapton performed in Prague’s O2 Arena as part of his extensive international tour. After the concert, one of the local media outlets published a review titled, in translation, “Eric Clapton says horrible things. But as a guitarist, he is wonderful.”
The author, Daniel Konrád, began the article by saying that Clapton has put his fans through an extreme test of loyalty. He was referring to Clapton’s stance on curfew and vaccination regulations during the COVID-19 pandemic, his public statements surrounding the Israel-Gaza conflict, and his comments about Vladimir Putin and the war in Ukraine – all of which have drawn considerable criticism online. Yet despite repeated controversies over the years, the musician still drew an audience of about 15,000 people (roughly ¾ of the venue’s total capacity of 20,000) in Prague alone.
Cornell Study: Music Fans Tend to Separate Artists’ Controversies from Their Art
So, did the backlash against Clapton truly have no impact on his popularity, streaming numbers, or concert demand? Cornell’s research suggests that might indeed be the case.
The study, “Separating the Artist from the Art: Social Media Boycotts, Platform Sanctions, and Music Consumption,” conducted by Professor Jura Liaukonyte and co-authors, analyzed several high-profile controversies, including those surrounding R. Kelly, Morgan Wallen, Rammstein, and Sean “Diddy” Combs, to see the impact of those controversies on streaming demand. The findings were surprising.
The research found that when platforms, including Spotify, maintained the artists’ visibility, there was no evidence that the public backlash would lead to sustained declines in streaming demand. In fact, in several cases, the scandal-related attention even corresponded to short-term increases in streams.
Meanwhile, the clearest declines in plays coincided with streaming platforms reducing an artist’s visibility by changing playlists, recommendations, or other forms of promotion. The most poignant example in the study was the case of R. Kelly, whose career was essentially brought to an end after he was convicted on multiple charges involving child sexual abuse. In light of the allegations and later his criminal convictions, campaigns such as #MuteRKelly encouraged listeners and companies around the world to stop supporting his music.
While many assumed that the subsequent decline in streaming activity resulted from fans simply turning away from Kelly’s art, the largest and most sustained drop coincided with Spotify’s action to remove his songs from official playlists and curated recommendations. This step made it significantly more difficult to find Kelly’s music on the platform. The researchers estimated that the broader streaming decline resulted in approximately $3.2–$4.2 million in revenue loss for Kelly in the U.S. alone.
“Our research suggests that the drop in R. Kelly’s streams was driven primarily by reduced platform visibility after Spotify removed some of his music from playlists and recommendations. For songs that were not removed from Spotify-curated playlists, we found no evidence of a comparable pullback in intentional listening,” said Liaukonyte.
Unlike Kelly, other artists involved in controversies who were part of the study, such as Morgan Wallen, Rammstein, or Diddy, didn’t face any action taken against their music by streaming platforms – they only saw social media condemnation and negative PR coverage. As a result, no sustained decline in music listening and streaming occurred – in some cases, listening not only remained flat but even increased over time.
So, Does Cancel Culture Really Make a Change?
The research ultimately suggests that streaming platforms wield significant power over whether fans listen to a given artist’s music, whereas social media backlash alone does not. When platforms remove artists from their discovery and recommendation systems, the artists’ music simply disappears from many users’ everyday listening habits. Meanwhile, when platforms take no action, a public boycott of the artist tends to fade and may even temporarily boost the artist’s streams.
This puts the popular narrative of “cancel culture” as a career- and popularity-disruptor in a tough spot. Some might wonder whether it truly influences those involved in controversy – whether it helps hold anyone accountable – and, perhaps, even whether our music preferences derive from our values, as some studies suggest.
According to the study, these things still might be true – just perhaps not in the way we originally thought. Instead, the findings suggest that while audiences may feel upset over artists’ behavior and publicly condemn them, their emotional attachment often persists, allowing them to separate artists’ controversies from their art.
Public pressure campaigns may influence corporate policies, but they rarely change mass listening behavior on their own. Only when platforms actively interrupt listening habits and discovery mechanisms can a real decline in an artist’s streaming activity and popularity become visible.
Ready to get your music out there?
Distribute your music to the widest range of streaming platforms and shops worldwide.
Martina is a Berlin-based music writer and digital content specialist. She started playing the violin at age six and spent ten years immersed in classical music. Today, she writes about all things music, with a particular interest in the complexities of the music business, streaming, and artist fairness.
