If music were a ship, who would you say steers it — the captain (the musician) or the ocean (the audience)? It’s tempting to pick a side and stick to it, especially if you’ve spent time in studios or on stages. The musician makes the sound, chooses the words, and decides when a record is finished. But the audience holds the map of taste: they vote with streams, shares and ticket sales, and their preferences ripple back into what gets recorded next. The short answer is: both matter — but not in the same way or with equal power at every moment. Below I argue that musicians are the primary creative agents who can initiate new directions, while audiences (and increasingly, platforms and algorithms) shape which of those directions become dominant. I’ll use concrete examples and up-to-date industry data so the case stays practical, not merely philosophical.

Musicians are the originators, the ones who change the vocabulary

Musicians invent. They create sounds and images that did not exist before, and those innovations can ripple outward. Think of the Beatles in the 1960s: they popularised studio techniques and song structures (back-masking, non-standard chords, concept albums) that other artists and listeners adopted; within a decade, popular music’s vocabulary had shifted in ways few had predicted. More recently, artists such as Beyoncé or Drake have repeatedly reframed what pop or hip-hop can contain: Beyoncé made visual albums and politically charged pop a mainstream event; Drake blurred the line between rapping and melodic vulnerability. Those artists didn’t follow the audience so much as invite the audience into a new conversation. Music critics and cultural historians routinely cite such creative leadership as crucial to genre evolution.

Creators also take risks that audiences are reluctant to back at first. Radiohead didn’t invent the idea of an experimental rock record, but when they released Kid A in 2000 they pushed a major pop act into ambient textures and fractured song forms — and the world adjusted. Innovation springs from artists because they can make choices that the marketplace won’t initially reward. In other words, musicians navigate possible futures; audiences later confirm, contest or ignore those futures.

But audiences are the market: they select, amplify and discipline

An idea may originate with an artist, but audiences decide what becomes a hit — and in the streaming era that power is more visible than ever. The money and attention that define success now flow through streaming platforms, social apps and festivals; those are audience-driven metrics. IFPI’s data shows that global recorded music revenues are still growing and are driven by streaming subscriptions and ad-supported listening — in 2024 the industry reached almost US$29.6 billion, with streaming contributing the lion’s share. That means millions of listeners, not gatekeepers in record labels, have a big say in what pays.

Even more strikingly, short-form social media has become a powerful amplifier. TikTok’s role in breaking songs is well documented: several reports indicate that a very high share of charting singles had measurable TikTok traction before they hit Billboard or the UK charts. In 2022, for example, most of the year’s No.1 hits had been driven by viral trends on TikTok — that platform’s tiny, highly shareable clip can turn a previously obscure chorus into a global earworm. The audience there is not passively consuming; they are creators of the meme that recontextualises a song and amplifies it.

So while musicians create, audiences (directly and via platforms) choose which creations scale. The practical effect is that artists often tailor material to those selection mechanisms — short, hooky choruses for TikTok, or playlist-friendly two-minute tracks for streaming — which changes how music is written and produced.

Platforms and algorithms: the new intermediaries

This is where the debate gets modern and slightly messy. The old model was linear: artists → labels → radio → listeners. Today a key intermediary — the algorithm — exerts enormous influence. Recommendation engines, curated playlists and social feeds determine what millions encounter. Research and industry reporting indicate that algorithmic curation skews exposure toward songs that fit platform heuristics (replay-ability, short length, strong hook), and that can narrow diversity of what breaks. Academics and industry watchers have raised concerns that algorithmic curation can reduce musical diversity and create “taste tautology.” In short: the algorithm acts on listener behaviour, but it also nudges listeners toward what the algorithm can easily surface.

That means musicians are not operating in a vacuum: they are composing into an ecosystem where the algorithm rewards certain shapes. So when an artist shortens a song or repeats a hook within the first 15 seconds, it’s often a strategic adaptation to the mechanics of discovery, not just capitulation to “bad taste.” That adaptation, however, does create feedback loops: artists change craft to suit platforms; platforms reward what fits; audiences consume what is recommended.

Who’s to blame for “bad music”?

You suggested a blunt thesis: if there is bad music, artists are the cause, because they decide what to make. It’s provocative, and it’s partly true, but incomplete. Musicians do choose — and when lots of artists choose similar, low-effort formats, the market is flooded with formulaic output. But why would they? Often because the market pays better for certain formulas (short tracks, high replay potential, viral hooks). Labels, publishers and even producers can strongly incentivise those choices. In parallel, algorithms that promote “what’s trending” magnify wins for formulaic tracks. So responsibility is shared: artists are authors, but the business model and discovery systems shape incentives. IFPI’s reports and multiple industry analyses have flagged these structural incentives — streaming economics and playlist dynamics play a real role in shaping output.

That said, we shouldn’t absolve artists. Some performers and writers have leaned into formula because it works commercially. Others resist. The contemporary musical landscape is a mixture: risk-taking and trend chasing exist side by side.

Examples and anecdotes that show the interplay

A few concise examples help clarify the mechanism:

• TikTok hits: A snippet becomes a viral dance. Labels rush to push the full song to streaming playlists. Radio picks it up. The artist goes from indie to mainstream. Here the audience (and platform environment) catalyses success much faster than in pre-social eras.
• • Artist-led change: Kendrick Lamar’s albums or Beyoncé’s visual projects reoriented conversations by making bold artistic choices that audiences and critics then digested and often emulated. In those cases the artist led; the audience followed.

So how do musicians “manage” audience focus?

You argued musicians can “navigate the audience focus as they like” because they make the music we listen to. That’s partly right: musicians can propose directions. But to navigate successfully, artists must also understand the distribution channels and listeners’ behaviours. Successful navigation often requires aligning creative choices with practical exposure mechanisms — a bridge between craft and commerce. For example, artists who want to change sound but keep reach will stage that change across multiple formats: leak a single to tastemakers, tour with collaborators who bridge genres, or use visual storytelling to reframe expectations.

There’s also agency in authenticity. When an artist changes direction genuinely, audiences often respond positively (provided the transition is communicated well). History is full of examples where daring work later became mainstream, from jazz innovations to today’s genre melding.

What should listeners do and what can artists do?

For listeners who dislike the sharpening effect of platforms and formulas, the practical response is simple and powerful: vote with your attention. Actively seek artists who take risks, follow independent curators and pay for music (buying merch, attending shows) to directly support the creativity you want to see. That said, organised listener behaviour is hard at scale; platforms still mediate much of discovery.

For artists, the path is twofold: innovate where you can, but be savvy about release strategy. Keep experimenting — because innovation is the only long-term way to shift culture — while recognising the immediate realities of playlists and social media. A third actor — labels and managers — should also re-align incentives away from spammy short-term tactics and towards sustainable artistry.

Final take: a dynamic partnership, not a duel

Musicians start trajectories; audiences ratify, amplify, or ignore them. Platforms and business models shape incentives and can tilt outcomes. If you want to hold a single party wholly responsible for “bad music,” the evidence points to a shared responsibility: artists produce, but artists also respond to incentives; platforms curate; audiences decide what they stream. Change one lever and the ecosystem shifts. Want more adventurous pop? Support artists who take risks; demand diversity from curators; and reward creators who prioritise craft over instant virality. Musicians can steer, certainly, but the course depends on the waters they sail in — and on the crew that rows with them.

Sources (key references for claims above)

IFPI — Global Music Report and industry revenues (2024): streaming growth and revenue figures.

Music Business Worldwide / TikTok reporting — viral trends and chart influence (2022–2024 examples).

Academic and industry writing on algorithmic curation and its effects on taste (studies and reports, 2023–2025).

Historical and cultural examples of artist leadership (Beatles, Beyoncé, Drake, Radiohead) and their influence on genre and practice.

💬 Join the Conversation

Do you agree that musicians truly shape the direction of music, or do you think audiences have the final say through their tastes and trends?

Share your thoughts below — let’s hear what you think! Who really holds the power: the creators or the consumers?

📖 Read More from LyricsSphere

• Tiwa Savage Talks About Choosing Quality Over Streams
• 2Baba at 50: Celebrating a Living Legend of Afrobeats
• Justin Bieber’s “Speed Demon”: Racing Through Redemption
• Adekunle Gold’s “Believe” – A Love Song with Deep Roots
• How Streaming Platforms Are Fighting Deepfakes and Spam Music
• Bad Bunny Set to Headline the 2026 Super Bowl Halftime Show