In the internet era, who exactly is a musician? (Part 2)
Yes, we finally have The Kiffness here.
This essay is part of a series where I’m exploring how the internet has changed culture, life and business in the 21st century, a project titled The First Quarter.
One thing about transformative technologies like the internet and Generative AI is they make us think of questions about culture and associated professions in ways which we wouldn’t have before. For example, if anyone can generate an image by entering a few words into Midjourney, who really is an artist? What skills does an artist need today? Is knowing how to write a great prompt more artistic than knowing how to mix paints on a palette?
And once you transpose this line of enquiry to past technologies and debates, it gets even more interesting - especially music. A guitarist from the 80s may think those who use Suno to “make” AI music today are cheating (and I’m not even wading into the copyright issues). But then, maybe a musician from the 19th century will look at all those effects pedals and say the 80s guitarist is cheating too. And throat singers from the 15th century… You get the idea.
The point being - music has always changed, and what it means to be a musician has also changed. Forget needing formal education (John Lennon and Paul McCartney both, famously, couldn’t read notation), now you don’t even need to know how to play an instrument. But if you can think of a good melody in your head that moves people, does that matter? Should execut-ability be a mandate to be an artist, or is it a form of gatekeeping (instruments proper are expensive, after all).
These are thoughts touching culture, technology, business and philosophy - an intersection I love wading into. And this series of essays is a way to share some of those thoughts. The first part of this particular topic was published last week, which you can read here - and I’d suggest starting there since we have to get back to…
The music ← → personality spectrum
So far (from left to right), we looked at utility / functional music makers (stock music, sample makers), studio / session musicians, and niche specialists (big names in podcast themes, video game music and more).
Let’s move ahead.
Functional music brands
Earlier, we came across (largely anonymous) folks who make functional music for going to the gym, or background while studying, etc. Now, we take the branded version of that. And there is no better example of this than LoFi Girl.
It’s a YouTube channel with several livestreams with anime-themed characters and looping music to relax / game / sleep / scribe manuscripts (actual title) to.
Where channels / creators like these differ from those functional music makers is the community, branding, merchandise (yes) and other extensions. In many ways, these are closer to popstars and the fandom they attract, than an anonymous stock music maker - there is personality (even if virtual!) involved. Lofi Girl has even done branded collabs with LEGO, Renault, Fortnite and chess.com. Yes, chess.com. Beats to play chess to. Genius. You will find similar channels like Chillhop Music, and Grizzly Beatz.
Functional music brands can be creators (like Lofi Girl’s anonymous Dimitri), or can be, well, brands. You will find apps giving you music tailored for specific purposes. For example, RockMyRun provides music tailored to your heart rate while running. There’s Calm and Headspace for meditation. Many of these, incidentally, may have ‘functional music makers’ working for them - just like how Muzak (which again, was a company) hired musicians.
You may feel I’m force-fitting this onto this spectrum, but I think it’s an important one - this is a group that will expand and evovle. Already, we rely more on ‘music for studying’ playlists than fire up, say, a playlist by a specific chill-pop artist.
For example, another channel I’m fond of is WherePostRockDwells. It’s a YT channel curating some excellent post-rock music from around the world, so much so that it’s become a brand by itself - with 120+ Patreons. They were digital partners for a post-rock festival in Mumbai that featured Irish legends God Is An Astronaut. Not bad for a channel that ‘just’ puts up full albums from underrated artists - but that’s the power of a community that’s being built.
And that’s why I think this part of the spectrum is important. I think community and personality will be built around many things. Maybe AI-generated music for very specific activities. Maybe curation of certain kinds of music. Maybe community around certain tools.
Let’s keep going ahead.
Performers
We finally talk about who you think of when you hear the word ‘musician’. The rock band. The pop star. The ageing legends. The up-and-coming sensation. All of them. In order to avoid this article becoming longer than it should be, I’m clubbing three kinds of artists here - all of whom have different ratios of craft and personality.
And we’re wading into debatable territory here - so let me make it clear, I have no judgement on where musicians choose to position themselves, I’m not saying one is better than the other. Just saying it as I see it.
Craft-first: Those for whom the music, songcraft, skill, talent comes first… often at the expense of ‘branding’ or personality. Many may even look down upon consciously building their brand (at least, their fans often do!). Those whose music is the draw for fandom more than their persona. Many of my friends will place their favourite metal bands here. Legendary guitarists, blues musicians, influential singer-songwriters, all fall here. May struggle to adapt to new mediums. Renowned by those further down the spectrum. Picked up guitar for passion as a kid rather than to become college stud. Will hire publicist reluctantly.
Examples - Dream Theater, BB King, Amit Trivedi, Blackstratblues, early Metallica, late Beatles.
Balanced: Those who are good musicians and, undoubtedly, good brands. Both aspects are important. Probably those who are best suited to survive changes in media. Still will call themselves a musician first, even if they land brand deals and stuff. Fair share of critics will call them sellouts, but they’re walking to the bank. Massively popular but a large section will say that they make at least above average music. If they had to choose between studio and press event, would choose former. Understands publicist is important.
Examples - Black Album-era Metallica, early Beatles, KISS, prime Michael Jackson, Taylor Swift (there, I said it), Sunidhi Chauhan, Swarathma
Personality-first: (and again, I present this here without judgement) These are those for whom music is just a vehicle, the persona is what matters. They’d probably drop music if there’s something else that’ll get them fame or money. Publicist chosen over music lessons, will do what sells or puts them in the spotlight.
Amouranth, who we started the first part of this essay with, is an example here. Paris Hilton making music falls in this category too. Rock snobs fed up of his antics might place Machine Gun Kelly here. I don’t know enough about electronic music or hip-hop to place an example here but I assume more well-versed readers will be able to find examples. And sure, Yo Yo Honey Singh. Basically, all the ‘musicians’ who attendees of the first NH7 Weekender complain about. This is on the right-most of the spectrum and while this certainly always existed, the internet era and its various un-gatekept tickets to virality has opened up possibilities even more. Rebecca Black and her infamous Friday is a good example - it’s hard to think of that being released in a pre-internet era.
I know I basically clumped everyone from Dream Theater to Rebecca Black here but if you’ve read this far you’ve certainly appreciated the nuance.
Sagacious readers may have realised there was a bit of a space in my spectrum between balanced and personality-first performers. Good catch. And that’s because I feel one last set of musicians falls there, and this is VERY internet era…
Platform-natives
Ok now this is fun. I believe that with every technology shift - especially within the internet era, there are some folks with the right mix of craft and personality who create things specific to a medium, maybe specific to a time. These are not musicians who adapt to the internet age - they create stuff based on the sub-technologies, cultures and more.
In the internet era, my favourite example is David Scott, a South African musician who goes by the monicker The Kiffness. He takes trending videos of cats doing silly things and turns them into legit masterpieces. Sample this!
21 million views on YouTube alone, this song is more than just a digital hit. Scott tours the world and just listen to this crowd!
And comments like this.
I mean - you may not think what he’s doing is high art, but you can’t deny that it’s moving people. Isn’t that what art is supposed to do?
I like to think of people like Scott as 'musically-minded rather than purely musicians - they use the memes, culture and tech of the day to create interesting pieces of art. I can think of many more platform-native examples.
OKGo have become known for their incredible videos (which far outpace their music)
Yashraj Mukhate, Anshuman Sharma and Mayur Jumani have gone viral in India turning memes into songs. Here’s how to make any Ritviz song, and here’s Vivekamunan (sorry to remind you this existed) - again, this is so internet-native in many ways.
Liquid Death - the outspoken water brand - turning hate comments into music (many artists have also done this)
We may also include musicians from other parts of the spectrum here when they do one-off experiments. I remember John Mayer jamming with fans during the pandemic with Tiktok’s Remix Feature…
One of my favourite examples of all time is when indie band The Academic took advantage of the delay that happens between recording and broadcast during a Facebook Live and created this. Again… Imagine this happening without the internet, and this is made all the better knowing that context.
I am sure there will be many more examples. Maybe those who find ways of playing music while gaming on Twitch. Doing loops round the clock on a livestream. Writing a song so it loops back to itself on TikTok. A band making an album of 100 songs each of which are 30 seconds since there’s no Spotify incentive to make ‘em any longer (exists). And so on.
Ok well there you have the spectrum in its entirety.
All this was to answer the question - who really is a musician in the internet era?
Okay, so you may not like some part of the spectrum. You may think that platform-natives are a fad. You may lament that those with actual skill are relegated to anonymity unless they hire a publicist. You may bemoan that the internet has given a platform to those with more algo-hacking skills that fretboard skills.
Whatever your inclination, if you’ve read this far you will hopefully agree that all of these folks - from muzak maker to opportunistic socialite - make music for money and can be called musicians.
My point of making this spectrum was not to put Paris Hilton, Mikael Akerfeldt and Hans Zimmer under the same umbrella, but to…
Show how many roles have opened up (even if not all of them may pay equally). The term ‘musician’ is really sprawling - it’s like saying ‘digital marketer’ in 2025. Which part of it are you?
Show that this spectrum existed to some extent always - and what some purists might hold up as revered today, may have beebn reviled at one point of time (indeed, in the 60s many may have seen the Beatles as showboats, and in 2050, our descendants might see The Kiffness as a pioneer).
Next week, I’ll conclude this series by thinking about what comes next. Now that we have this framework and looked at some fundamentals, what does it mean to be a musician in the age of Generative AI? I don’t have an answer, but just some thoughts - do send in yours if you would like to add an opinion here.
Thank you for indulging me as I do these long-ish exploratory pieces.
Chuck