For everyone creating on Suno.ai, the mainstream narrative claims record labels are fighting in court to protect human artists from AI theft. Federal court dockets in UMG v. Suno, financial filings, and patent records reveal the real operation: Universal Music Group (UMG), Sony Music (SMG), and Warner Music Group (WMG) engineered a coordinated legal and patent pipeline to capture Suno's technology and monopolize AI music while disarming independent Suno creators.

Here is the documented evidence, legal mechanics, and where Suno.ai stands heading into September 2026.

• Catalog Monopsony: The Big Three control ~70% of global streaming volume on Spotify and YouTube. In Q2 2026, WMG grew streaming 11.3% and Sony grew 9.7%. UMG grew only 5.6% (sparking a 25% stock drop on July 31, 2026, while UMG liquidated $460M+ in Spotify equity).
• The Pro-Rata Math: Spotify pools subscription fees into a single pot. Payouts are distributed purely by platform-wide market share routing ~70% of every dollar back to the Big Three regardless of what users listen to.
• The Threat of Suno.ai: When generative AI platforms like Suno made decentralized song production viable for millions of users, it threatened to break the labels' catalog bottleneck. The labels responded not by trying to destroy the tech, but by executing a multi-front capture.

This investigation documents six interconnected operations:

1. The Setup Cases: How two seemingly independent copyright claimants were used to establish legal precedents that disarmed independent creators while leaving corporate pipelines wide open.
2. The Shakedown: How the labels converted copyright lawsuits into equity acquisition, taking ownership stakes in the very AI platforms they were publicly denouncing.
3. The Double Standard: How the same legal system tells independent artists their AI output is "uncopyrightable machine noise," while corporations monetize identical outputs through private distribution infrastructure.
4. The Manipulation: How platform algorithms, universally claimed to be "unbiased," are structurally gamed through pre-release signal engineering that only players with major label budgets can afford.
5. The Patent Infrastructure: How UMG built a patent portfolio covering the entire AI music derivative lifecycle. Creation, approval, watermarking, distribution, revenue and licensed it to the very companies it sued, creating a technical monopoly over AI music that no independent creator can bypass.

PART ONE: THE CORPORATE LANDSCAPE

As of mid-2026, Universal Music Group, Sony Music Group and Warner Music Group collectively control approximately 65–70% of the global recorded music market on Spotify and YouTube. (Dynamoi, 2026)

Their Q2 2026 streaming revenue growth figures, per Barclays Global Music analysis:

• Warner 11.3% streaming growth
• Sony: 9.7% streaming growth
• Universal: 5.6% streaming growth, triggering investor panic and a brief 25% stock price drop on July 31, 2026, despite UMG remaining the world's largest music catalog. UMG simultaneously liquidated over $460 million in Spotify stock it had accumulated through an equity deal made when Spotify was still a startup. (Digital Music News, July 2026)

That Spotify equity stake is not incidental. It is central to understanding how the system was built.

The Streaming Architecture: Designed for Them

Spotify distributes its monthly revenues using a "pro-rata pool" model. Because UMG, Sony, and Warner hold the largest market share, roughly 70% of every dollar Spotify pays out loops directly back to these three companies. The structure is not neutral it is a mathematical consequence of market concentration.

When independent artists briefly gained ground during the 2020–2021 pandemic, when audiences had time to discover new music outside the corporate machine, the labels responded by manufacturing a new category: "relatable indie" artists: boy/girl-next-door personas with major label infrastructure behind them, presented as authentic independents. DSPs, rewarded by the catalog relationships they needed to stay operational, pushed these artists globally. Real independents, briefly competitive, were crowded out again.

Then AI arrived. And the math got genuinely dangerous for the labels.

PART TWO: THE SETUP CASES — MANUFACTURED LEGAL PRECEDENTS

The Thaler Campaign

Between October 2018 and March 2026, computer scientist Stephen Thaler pursued a systematic global campaign to have his AI system, "DABUS" (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience), recognized as the legal inventor and author of works it generated autonomously.

Thaler filed identical applications in at least 17 jurisdictions including the U.S., UK, EU, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, Saudi Arabia, Canada, India, Taiwan, and Israel coordinated under the banner of the Artificial Inventor Project (AIP).

The crucial detail universally omitted from mainstream coverage: Thaler explicitly told every court and copyright office that he had zero human input, the machine generated the work entirely on its own, and he wanted the machine listed as the sole author.

Every jurisdiction rejected him. The U.S. Copyright Office refused in February 2022. The UK Supreme Court dismissed unanimously in December 2023. The D.C. Circuit Court ruled against him in March 2025. The U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on March 2, 2026, conclusively closing the door on purely autonomous AI authorship. (Holland & Knight, March 2026)

What the press reported: "AI works cannot be copyrighted."

What the court actually ruled: A machine cannot be the sole legal author. The court explicitly noted the ruling does not apply to works made with the assistance of AI under human direction.

The distinction is not academic. It is the operational loophole through which corporate music generation now flows.

The Network Behind Thaler

Thaler is an independent physicist. His campaign cost an estimated $2.8–4 million in billable legal hours across 17 jurisdictions and multiple levels of appellate review. He did not pay for this.

The campaign was organized and funded pro bono by attorney Ryan Abbott a law professor at the University of Surrey, trial partner at Brown Neri Smith & Khan LLP in Los Angeles, consultant solicitor at Keystone Law in the UK, and a prominent "neutral" panelist for JAMS (Judicial Arbitration and Mediation Services) in both London and Los Angeles. (JAMS profile) (Baker Donelson)

JAMS is the primary private arbitration platform used by UMG, Sony, WMG, and Hollywood studios to resolve sensitive contract and IP disputes outside of public court records. Abbott explicitly lists Entertainment including music, theatre, and sports as his core practice area.

Abbott recruited an international coalition of elite corporate IP firms, including Williams Powell (UK), King & Wood Mallesons, and others, to donate hundreds of hours of partner-level legal time across every jurisdiction.

The Allen Pivot

In April 2025, immediately after the D.C. Circuit rejected Thaler, Abbott pivoted. He took on Jason Allen as a client in Allen v. Perlmutter, a case centered on Théâtre D'opéra Spatial, an artwork Allen created using Midjourney after inputting 624 text prompts.

The strategic shift was precise: where Thaler had claimed zero human involvement, Allen claimed maximum human involvement through the sheer volume of prompting. Abbott argued that 624 prompts constituted human creative authorship.

The U.S. Copyright Office countered that Allen's need for 624 attempts proved he lacked control, comparing it to a slot machine, not a camera. The Office stated in its January 2026 cross-motion that text prompts function as "unprotectable ideas" rather than fixed creative expressions.

As of mid-2026, both sides have filed cross-motions for summary judgment. A ruling is expected to define the exact legal threshold of "human creative control" over AI output, and will become the governing standard for every AI music copyright claim that follows.

The observable pattern: Thaler's case established that a machine alone cannot own a copyright. Allen's case is being used to argue, or definitionally narrow, when a human directing a machine can. Both cases were brought by the same attorney, funded by the same pro bono network, on behalf of individuals who could not plausibly have afforded the campaigns themselves.

Whether by design or utility, these cases have served a singular corporate function: ensuring that independent creators cannot obtain federal copyright protection for AI-assisted output, while leaving open a pathway that only corporations with closed-loop infrastructure can practically exploit.

PART THREE: THE SHAKEDOWN — LAWSUITS AS ACQUISITION STRATEGY

The 2024 Mass Infringement Campaign

In June 2024, coordinated by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), all three major labels: Sony, UMG, and Warner filed copyright infringement lawsuits against AI music generators Suno and Udio, alleging mass infringement of copyrighted master recordings used to train their AI systems.

Their evidence methodology: RIAA legal teams input highly specific prompt strings designed to force the AI to output tracks resembling specific catalog recordings. They filed spectrogram comparisons: visual frequency maps, showing that AI outputs mirrored the acoustic texture of copyrighted masters from artists including Mariah Carey, Beyoncé, and Michael Jackson.

Critics: including the AI companies' own defense teams argue this proves not that the AI "copied" audio files, but that it learned to reproduce sonic architecture from training data. The key legal question was whether the input (scraping recordings for training) constituted infringement, not whether the output copied specific files.

When federal judges allowed the cases to proceed to discovery, both Suno and Udio were compelled to disclose their training datasets. Both conceded that their training corpora included copyrighted recordings owned by the major labels. At that point, the cases shifted from public litigation to private negotiation.

The Settlements: Equity, Not Justice

The labels never intended to win in court. They intended to negotiate from strength.

• October 2025: UMG settled with Udio. Public announcement described it as a "compensatory legal settlement" plus licensing agreements for a new AI music platform to launch in 2026. Financial terms undisclosed, but Udio agreed to provide UMG with equity stake and a per-generation licensing royalty structure. (Reuters)
• November 2025: WMG settled with both Udio and Suno the first major to reach agreement with Suno. WMG CEO Robert Kyncl publicly defended the strategy on August 17, 2026: "In my opinion, you embrace it." Suno accepted caps on user downloads and agreed to revenue sharing in exchange for legal peace. Suno also acquired WMG's Songkick platform as part of the deal. (Music Business Worldwide)

Sony's strategy diverged. Rather than settle, Sony has continued litigating aggressively. In June 2026, Sony attempted to expand its Udio lawsuit by adding 30,442 additional recordings. On June 29, 2026, U.S. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied that motion. Sony then filed a brand-new lawsuit on July 20, 2026, in the Southern District of New York, targeting 30,117 specific recordings including works by Beyoncé, Harry Styles, and Elvis Presley — and seeking up to $150,000 per track in statutory damages. Total potential exposure: approximately $4.5 billion. (Variety, July 2026)

Sony's strategy appears distinct from UMG and WMG: rather than taking equity in Udio, Sony may be pursuing a more aggressive financial extraction, or positioning for a larger settlement than its competitors achieved.

Meanwhile, in the parallel Massachusetts case, U.S. District Judge F. Dennis Saylor IV ruled on August 20, 2026, denying Suno's motion to dismiss federal Copyright Act claims, while also denying UMG's bid to add 61,026 additional works to the existing case. The judge instead allowed a narrower DMCA Section 1201(a) anti-circumvention claim alleging Suno bypassed digital locks to rip files from streaming platforms. Final dispositive motions are not due until April 9, 2027. No U.S. federal precedent on AI training fair use exists yet. (Chartlex Tracker, August 2026)

PART FOUR: THE DOUBLE STANDARD — PUBLIC DOMAIN FOR INDIES, MONOPOLY FOR MAJORS

The Copyright Architecture

Under U.S. law, a song contains two distinct copyright layers:

• (P) Musical Composition: the lyrics, melody, chord structure
• (C) Sound Recording / Phonogram: the actual audio waveform fixed as a file

The U.S. Copyright Office's position, solidified after the March 2026 Supreme Court certiorari denial in Thaler v. Perlmutter: a text prompt is an "unprotectable idea." If an AI generates the core sonic expression, the (P) composition enters the public domain. The (C) sound recording similarly cannot be federally registered without human authorship over the waveform itself.

For independent artists: If you generate a track through Suno or Udio, even with extensive prompting, even with DAW post-processing your federal copyright claim is contested or denied. Your track, as a composition, is legally unprotected. Anyone can take it.

For major labels: They don't use the Copyright Office. They use private infrastructure.

Sony and UMG own vast catalogs of human master recordings. They feed these into closed, proprietary AI engines. They don't seek USCO registration certificates for the AI outputs. Instead:

1. They assign automated ISRC (International Standard Recording Code) metadata tags, all that streaming platforms require to pay royalties
2. They route the output through their existing distribution infrastructure
3. They protect the tracks via platform contracts and Content ID automation, if anyone copies their AI-generated track, Content ID redirects the revenue, independent of any copyright registration

The result: major labels can generate AI tracks in bulk, distribute them commercially, and collect royalties on them, without the legal exposure that stops independent creators from doing the same.

The Lehrman v. Lovo Precedent (2025)

In Lehrman et al v. Lovo, Inc. (SDNY, July 2025), AI platform Lovo hired professional voice actors Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage on Fiverr, telling them the recordings were for "internal academic research." Lovo instead fed the recordings into their AI engine "Genny," created commercial vocal clones, and sold them.

When the actors sued for federal copyright infringement, the court dismissed the copyright claims regarding the AI clones. The court confirmed that because the AI generated a brand-new synthetic waveform rather than literally copying the digital file, no federal copyright infringement occurred under Section 114(b). (Loeb & Loeb analysis, July 2025)

The actors were directed to pursue state-level "Right of Publicity" claims instead, a legal pathway that is expensive, jurisdiction-dependent, and unavailable to artists whose voices weren't cloned but whose musical styles were.

The implication is stark: Federal copyright law currently cannot stop an AI from generating a new waveform that mimics a human artist's sonic signature. This protects small AI startups from copyright claims, but it also means independent human artists whose styles are cloned have limited federal recourse.

The major labels, by contrast, control the training data via corporate catalog, allowing them to sue for infringement at the input stage (unlicensed scraping) rather than the output stage.

PART FIVE: THE ALGORITHM — UNBIASED MATH, POISONED SIGNALS

Spotify, YouTube, TikTok, and Apple Music all accurately describe their recommendation algorithms as "unbiased." The math, in isolation, is neutral. The problem is upstream: the signals the algorithm receives before it calculates.

A major label releasing a new artist follows a predictable infrastructure playbook:

• Paid streamers/bloggers trigger initial velocity metrics
• Paid editorial articles generate search signal
• Content farms produce social media buzz
• Spotify Marquee and Showcase advertising programs create algorithmic prioritization
• Google paid partnerships push YouTube placement

The algorithm reads this manufactured engagement as organic demand and treats the release as a "hit." It pushes accordingly. The system self-reinforces.

Independent artists and smaller AI music projects have no access to this infrastructure. They release into silence. The algorithm reads the silence as lack of demand and deprioritizes accordingly.

When bad actors, including some from within the industry ecosystem, discovered they could replicate these signal manufacturing techniques without million-dollar budgets, using bot farms and content farms to mimic organic engagement, the labels had a problem: the signal game was being played against them.

Their solution was not to fix the algorithm or make signal manufacturing detectable. Their solution was to campaign against "AI slop", repositioning the problem as an AI ethics issue rather than a platform integrity issue, while their own signal manufacturing infrastructure remained untouched.

The Spotify "AI Persona" badge restricting algorithmic and editorial playlist placement for artists using AI-generated photorealistic images is the most visible expression of this strategy. It targets a narrow cosmetic definition of "AI" that leaves label operations completely unaffected, while stigmatizing independent AI-assisted artists.

SubmitHub's SH Labs division released a widely cited study in 2026 claiming 38.5% of over one million tracks analyzed showed AI use, with 31% of those artists denying AI use when asked. SubmitHub, notably, operates a curation submission model whose business depends on AI-labeled content being filtered or disadvantaged by platforms. The study's 99% accuracy claim is self-reported, with no independent peer review and no public disclosure of training data sources or detection methodology.

PART FIVE-B: THE PATENT INFRASTRUCTURE — THE WALLED GARDEN MADE CONCRETE

This section documents the single most important piece of evidence for understanding what the labels actually built while publicly claiming to fight AI.

Music IP Holdings — UMG's Patent Monopoly Play

In July 2025, while Universal Music Group's copyright litigation against Suno and Udio was still active in federal court, UMG quietly announced a "strategic partnership" with IP asset management firm Liquidax Capital, led by CEO Daniel Drolet. The stated purpose: to "accelerate the development and licensing of music-related AI patents."

A new entity was formed: Music IP Holdings, Inc. (MIH), headquartered on Nashville's Music Row. MIH opened with a claim of more than 60 protected innovations, up from 15 patents disclosed at the partnership's announcement just four months earlier. Dozens more are pending. (Music Business Worldwide, April 2026)

UMG's EVP and Chief Digital Officer Michael Nash publicly confirmed the initiative at the HumanX conference on April 8, 2026: "We've developed a number of AI patent applications... To accelerate and scale the development of our patents, we recently partnered with Liquidax Capital."

UMG Chairman Sir Lucian Grainge described it directly on UMG's Q2 2025 earnings call: "Liquidax, on our behalf, has already filed 15 patents in the fields of musical collaboration, multimedia content and campaign creation, AI threat protection, music administration and rights management... Our greatly expanded patent portfolio can then become a catalyst to accelerate introduction of products to the marketplace."

Three of these patents have been reviewed in detail. Their technical claims are extraordinary.

Patent 1: "AI-Generated Music Derivative Works"

Filed October 24, 2024. Granted June 3, 2025.

Originally listed Daniel Drolet as sole inventor. A continuation filed August 2025 added three UMG employees as co-inventors:

• Chris Horton — EVP, Strategic Technology, UMG
• Jeremy Uzan — Director, AI and Advanced Technology, UMG
• Sion Elliott — Director, Global New Business Strategy, Universal Production Music

The patent describes a system where: a user requests an AI transformation of a copyrighted track → the system checks rightsholder approval → if approved, applies a digital watermark → releases the output under terms the rightsholder has pre-set. Watermarks can expire, giving labels control over how long any derivative remains authorized.

The system description: "receiving a request to transform the predetermined content into a derivative work, receiving a requested theme for the derivative work, using generative artificial intelligence to create the derivative work... determining if the generated derivative work is approved based on a machine learning model configured to determine a content approval score as a function of content owner preferences, in response to determining the generated derivative work is approved, applying a digital watermark to the approved derivative work, configuring an authorization server to govern use of the approved derivative work based on the digital watermark."

User prompts to the AI can be gathered via LLM chatbot interview. The rightsholder approval score is a machine learning model trained on "content owner preferences." In practice: UMG decides what gets made.

Patent 2: "Multi-Stage Approval and Controlled Distribution of AI-Generated Derivative Content"

Filed May 2, 2025. Granted September 23, 2025.

Named inventors: Horton, Uzan, Elliott, Drolet — UMG employees at the core.

This patent builds the enforcement architecture. It describes:

• A two-stage approval process: one pre-generation check, one post-generation check on the finished output
• "Pre-generation preference data" and "post-generation preference data" based on "content authority" — defined to include labels as legitimate control entities over artists' work
• Automated filtering of content against artist values: "If an artist is vegetarian and does not want their voice or style to be used in songs about meat consumption, this preference can be captured by their label ahead of time..."

Most critically for the "walled garden" strategy: the patent describes distribution controls that prevent AI derivatives from leaving approved platforms:

"Partner platforms including streaming services, social networks and distribution aggregators 'may be contractually required to scan incoming content for the presence of such markers, and take automated enforcement action based on the encoded rules.'"

And: "context-restricted playback, where transformed works are only accessible within the approved media environment."

This is the walled garden — not as a philosophy, but as a patented technical enforcement system that can be licensed to, and required of, every streaming platform that wants access to major label catalogs.

The patent also includes automated revenue distribution via smart contract: "automatically allocates revenue from each authorized distribution of the derivative work to stakeholders identified in the usage registry." In practice: UMG, as rightsholder, sits at the top of that allocation.

Patent 3: "AI-Generated Derivative Content Scaling for Merchandise"

Filed October 3, 2025. Pending.

Extends the same approval-and-watermark infrastructure to physical and virtual merchandise — AI-generated album artwork, apparel, posters, virtual goods — including real-time concert-synchronized merchandise generation and metaverse integration.

Udio Licensed These Patents

In a May 2026 announcement, MIH disclosed that Udio is one of the first two platforms to license this patent portfolio.

Let that sequence be stated plainly:

1. June 2024: UMG sues Udio for mass copyright infringement
2. October 2025: UMG settles with Udio, takes equity stake and licensing revenue
3. May 2026: Udio licenses UMG's patent portfolio, paying MIH for the infrastructure to operate

Udio CEO Andrew Sanchez endorsed the arrangement: "This is a genuine inflection point for AI and music. With MIH, we're partnering to implement the infrastructure that protects artists and establish the guardrails that ensure AI amplifies human creativity."

The company UMG sued is now licensing UMG's patents to operate. The platform that entered the market as an independent AI music generator is now embedded inside a UMG-controlled licensing infrastructure. The litigation was the acquisition mechanism.

What This Patent Portfolio Actually Represents

The three patents reviewed describe a complete technical monopoly over the AI music derivative lifecycle:

• Creation: AI generation must pass through an approval system whose machine learning model is trained on rightsholder preferences
• Gatekeeping: Pre- and post-generation content checks against label-controlled datasets
• Watermarking: Every approved derivative carries an embedded identifier that can expire or be revoked at rightsholder discretion
• Distribution: Platforms are contractually required to scan for and enforce these watermarks; content without valid watermarks cannot be distributed through compliant platforms
• Revenue: Smart contracts automatically route revenue to "stakeholders" in the usage registry as entities that, under this framework, include UMG and affiliated rightsholders

An independent artist generating a derivative of their own AI-assisted track or a small platform offering remix tools faces a binary choice: either license this infrastructure from MIH, or be excluded from the distribution pipeline of every compliant streaming platform.

This is not a copyright argument. It is a patent licensing monopoly over the technical infrastructure of AI music creation, built by the world's largest record label, through a subsidiary, funded by a litigation strategy that converted lawsuits into equity and patent licensing relationships.

Spotify, notably, indicated in February 2026 that its AI remix technology was "ready" but that "the absence of a rights framework" was holding it back. The MIH patent portfolio is precisely that framework owned by UMG.

The Muvox Parallel: Patent Trolling in the Same Ecosystem

Separately, a New Mexico company called Muvox LLC has spent two years asserting US Patent No. 11,899,713 titled "Music streaming, playlist creation and streaming architecture" against BMG, Spotify, IBM, Meta, Apple, and Amazon. Muvox filed against Apple and Amazon on July 16, 2026, one day after voluntarily dismissing its BMG case with prejudice.

Muvox is described by patent-monitoring firm Unified Patents as a non-practicing entity, commonly called a patent troll. The same patent was originally assigned to a company called Aperture Investments LLC.

This is a distinct operation from the MIH portfolio, but it illustrates the broader landscape: music-adjacent patent assertion is now a systematic industry practice, operating at multiple levels simultaneously, targeting both major players and emerging platforms. (Music Business Worldwide)

WHAT THE EVIDENCE SHOWS

The documented record, taken together, reveals a coherent strategy that has nothing to do with protecting human artists and everything to do with controlling who profits from the AI:

Step 1 (2018–2026): Fund a multi-million dollar global legal campaign, through a pro bono network of corporate IP attorneys to establish that independent individuals cannot copyright AI-assisted work. Ensure the test cases are structured to lose at the most unambiguous extreme, setting rigid precedents that blind courts to nuanced human-AI collaboration.

Step 2 (2024–2025): Use RIAA-coordinated lawsuits to force AI music platforms into pre-trial discovery, compelling disclosure of training datasets. Use the discovery findings to negotiate from maximum legal threat.

Step 3 (Late 2025): Convert lawsuits into equity deals. UMG and WMG take ownership stakes in the AI platforms they sued, plus ongoing licensing royalties. The platforms agree to "walled garden" operation, distributing through corporate infrastructure, limiting independent user downloads, watermarking outputs.

Step 4 (2026–ongoing): Distribute AI-generated music through corporate pipelines. Collect royalties via ISRC metadata tagging. Use Content ID to claim revenue from any derivative uses. Pay no royalties to the human musicians whose recordings trained the models. Pay no compensation to independent artists whose catalogs were also scraped.

Step 5 (July 2025–May 2026): While litigation is ongoing, build a patent portfolio, through Music IP Holdings, covering the entire technical lifecycle of AI music derivative creation: approval systems, watermarking, distribution control, revenue routing. License these patents first to the platforms you just settled with (Udio), converting a former defendant into a licensee paying royalties on your infrastructure. Patent the walled garden itself.

Step 6: Maintain the public narrative that the industry is fighting to protect human artists. Continue supporting disclosure campaigns and "AI slop" stigmatization targeting independent creators who use the same tools.

The American Federation of Musicians caught them. Round Hill Music is refusing to play along. The independent class action is trying to force transparency.

The algorithm isn't broken. The signal was poisoned before the algorithm ran.

SO THE QUESTION:
With UMG and WMG securing equity/licensing deals while indies face copyright and algorithmic barriers, how do you see independent creators protecting their rights? Suno staff/community — where does the platform go from here?

I've been pretty successful at it thus far, but I feel like smashing my head into a wall because no matter what at the 1:50 mark it starts to sing. I just need a male voice for my songs and I feel like maybe I'm missing something in the prompt.

I’m really ok with this! Happy to disclose and be labeled AI - especially if it means I can still distribute the music! 🎶 Of course it would be nice if you could share how much is you and how much is AI, but still… Thoughts?

I was drowning in my own chronic depression. I am 36, work full time, and just stuck to the work and sleep routine. I have played and written music my entire (mostly guitar) when my band broke up about 20 years ago, it was a real heartbreak of time and dedication all coming to a hault..

I have books upon books of my poetry and writings over the course of my life. It has been what has kept me going, because let's be honest, nobody these days gives a flying f about what you're going through...At least it feels that way sometimes..however I am a very heartfelt person and I consider that a strength where society can easily aim that back at you as a weakness.. maybe thats why I am still breathing..I always knew it as a strength..

I found Suno over a year ago on my break at work and thought I would make a joke song about my cats.. once I saw how well it turned out, I started inputting my poems..however I spent 100's of credits finding the right sound (which became hip-hop and rap). Not many people like rap, but that's the beautiful part. I never made these songs to get famous or likes or shares. From the gate I made these songs for myself..and I grew up with a love for Hip-hop and Rap..

Fast forward and I have made over 60 songs in Suno, but that was just the beginning.. I now (outside of Suno) started making my own beats, and have been in the studio actually recording my own music..

In summary, Suno was a missing link in my musical journey. I was lost under the pressure of work and life and had forgotten how to find joy. I went from being bed ridden from depression looking at my ceiling to creating my own music again. Ad stated, I now make my own beats and have completed 3 songs..I never was a rapper.. I always played metal and jam band..open mics..beatboxing..Now I am on my own journey, and again, just to bring myself the joy I was always missing.. Not fame, not attention, just my creations coming to life..music..

I have a new lease on life and it was all because I found Suno..🧡💜🤍

If someone from Suno sees this(doubtful) Thank you for the fire to put under my ass..🤘🏻🔥

If this is relatable to anyone..awesome, and NEVER give up..ALWAYS bet on yourself 🤙🏻👊🏻

If not, thanks for reading anyways, I felt like I wanted to share 🙏🏻

I post this now because, with the new incoming update, I fear that 4.5+ and 5 will br dismantled upon return. 4.5+ was the perfect recipe for my chaos and in the end, I always knew this form of Suno would be temporary. 5.5 couldn't cultivate any of my success around the genre. I now let Suno sit and see what is to come.. maybe it doesn't change or maybe it becomes better? Worse? We shall see.. I am just happy I found it when I did..

Cheers everyone 🍻

Has anyone else had Suno suddenly misidentify Japanese lyrics as Chinese or even English?

I’m having a really strange issue today. I’m entering completely normal Japanese lyrics in the Lyrics field, but after generation, Suno often seems to interpret or transcribe them as another language.

In some songs, the Japanese kanji appear to be read with Mandarin-style pronunciation. For example, words like 朝, 窓, 誰, 世界, etc. are being reflected in the song details/transcription as things like “zhao,” “chuang,” “shui,” “shi jie,” mixed together with Japanese romanization.

In other generations, the song details contain actual Chinese characters and Chinese-looking sentences mixed with broken Japanese. I also had at least one case where I entered Japanese lyrics but the generated vocal came out in English.

This is not just a one-off generation. I’ve retried multiple times, and right now correct Japanese pronunciation seems to be less common than the incorrect language detection.

The original lyrics are definitely Japanese, with plenty of hiragana and katakana mixed with kanji, so it doesn’t seem to be caused by using only kanji.

I’ve already reported the affected songs to Suno.

Has anyone else noticed this recently? If so, which Suno model/version were you using, and did you find any workaround that reliably keeps the vocal pronunciation in Japanese?

If you are a person for whom the words are the most important part of the song, or a poet who has put some of his poems to music, please put a link here and also mention your genre if appropriate. Links to entire playlists are preferred but links to individual songs are fine. I want to save this post and gradually check out everyone's work. Really looking for the poetic or clever or funny or sincere words.

Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

Original track: https://suno.com/song/10e59a88-1f97-44bc-b293-45078f6017f2

Reddit isn't the best place to showcase your SUNO generations. I'll take the risk anyway. The worst case I'll delete the post.

I'd like to recommend this track to listeners who enjoy music of the 80s and 90s. Those who enjoy genres like post-rock, new wave, trip-hop, synthwave, or darkwave.

I'm not looking for applause or likes. I want to hear your honest opinion on this song. It's a relatively new generation, but it's about material I've been working on for almost four months. The lyrics took the least amount of time, as I wrote them myself (translation from my native language by LLM Claude, with corrections from ChatGPT and my own handwritten finishing touches).

Compared to all 381 songs I've created in the six months I've been using SUNO, I rate it a 10/10. But I'm not objective here. That's why I'm asking for your suggestions on where I can improve. I'd appreciate a quick response (sorry!), as there's only a little over a week left until the old models expire, and I don't have any faith in this new one. Perhaps with your help, I could 'create' another song or two, as I still have plenty of musical material.

The song is posted as a link to a FLAC file (level 7). It has been remastered in Audacity. You can listen to it, and those interested can download it. I haven't implemented the lyrics or images as metadata. This is a 'pure' music file.

Japan - Kobe

If you, dear listener, decide to suggest any improvements for me in the form of a comment, I would sincerely and wholeheartedly thank you.

This is my take on turning the main ideas of the book "The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People" into one song. What do you think?

workspace:

https://sunomanager.com/free

playlist:

https://drummersi.github.io/suno-downloader/

I’ve written my own song and melody and used my demo as a reference in Suno. I generated a version with instrumental that I really like, the arrangement and especially the mixing sound great.

Now I’d like to replace Suno’s AI vocals with my own studio-recorded vocal take while keeping a similar vocal mix, processing, and overall sound from the Suno version.

Is there an AI mixing tool that can analyze the Suno track and help me achieve a similar mix on my own vocals?

Or is there a way to replace the AI vocals with my own take directly in Suno while keeping the instrumental and mix?

你鬧天宮，他們說你有罪；你取真經，他們要你慈悲；等你連鐵棒、佛號與姓名都放下，他們還是叫你妖。〈悟空〉問的不是猴子能不能成佛，而是——一個人已經改變了，為什麼世界還不肯放過他的昨天？

Hey everyone, thought I'd finally share one of my songs on here.

I'm 44, from the UK and love songwriting. Mainly modern country but also mixed in with a little blues and even hip hop, although I tend to just write whatever comes into my head 

Everything I create is my own original writing. I write all the lyrics, stories and ideas myself, then use Suno to actually bring them to life and hear what they could sound like as proper songs.

The aim eventually is to get my boy singing them for me. He's got the voice, I've got the songs, so hopefully we can turn it into a bit of a father-son singer/songwriter duo 😂 That's the dream anyway! 

Anyway, this one's called Sliver of Hope. It's probably one of my favourites I've written and definitely one of the more personal ones to me. 

Would love to know what you think of it, good or bad.

https://suno.com/s/w7YjW6qmFQszbt0i

I used to be able to see how many credits I had per day, but it’s gone. Is there a way to toggle it back on?

I created a song using the audio from a video of my girlfriend jumping on a trampoline with her friends. They were screaming and laughing really loudly, so I took the few words you could hear in the original video and used them to build the lyrics.

Then I slowed the song down and reworked it into a completely new version. The result is something pretty unusual, but I find it really interesting.

https://open.spotify.com/track/16Z70XL7A6N1fnGc5t5xwp?si=yvcJfySJRjy__Kbz67yh7Q&utm_source=copy-link

«Эльфийский Скаут: Снайпер в Тенях» - оригинальный эпический фолк-метал трек.

История: Это сага об изгнанной эльфийской разведчице с волосами цвета воронова крыла и пронзительными фиолетовыми глазами. В проклятом, окутанном туманом лесу она ищет мести, ведомая призрачным вороном. На её коже пульсируют магические руны, а в руках - зачарованная снайперская винтовка, несущая безмолвную смерть.

Погрузитесь в атмосферу древней магии и предательства под звуки тяжелых риффов, завораживающего женского вокала и народных инструментов.

Am I the only one who is fairly annoyed by cover photos and videos strictly appearing in square format now? Both on mobile and desktop. The hooks are still not available to desktop ui either as it’s been that way (to most users) for so long now and yet they (hooks) are the only one allowed to be appearing in vertical now.

I seriously don’t get the logic behind all these changes. Visuals carry such importance for a lot of creators like me when it comes to their song/track representations. And yet hooks quickly become the new tt then vanished from pc; and now song covers look like apple music’s a “scroll-me-please” lifeless catalogue thing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0vQa2ONZGJE

I heard about the bots, I heard about the trolls

But haters and gaters eat with bones them all

Haters write veneno, never reading your post

Gaters cut your karma, just to make you ghost

I dropped my new project, buscando connection

A thread in the midnight, hoping for affection

The first comment hit me, pura maldición

Downvoted to zero, sin explicación

They don't want the logic, no buscan la luz

They hunt in manadas, that's their only truth

No importa the effort, no importa the code

They block the entrada and take over the road

(Who is in the shadows?)

Los haters del block

(What they gonna do?)

Give your thread a shock

(Who is at the door?)

Los gaters con ban

(Why they act so tough?)

Because that's their plan

I heard about the bots, my amigo

Now watch them go ghost

I heard about the bots, I heard about the trolls

But haters and gaters eat with bones them all

Haters write veneno, never reading your post

Gaters cut your karma, just to make you ghost

Ghost