String manufacturer D’Addario has acknowledged that generative artificial intelligence was used in the music for a controversial product demonstration after previously denying that generative AI had been involved.
The dispute centred on a promotional video for the company’s NYXL HD electric guitar strings.
After musicians online questioned whether the music accompanying the demonstration involved generative AI, D’Addario initially rejected the allegation.
D’Addario confirms Suno Studio was used
Following a subsequent internal review, the company changed its position and confirmed that Suno Studio had been used to regenerate the original track.
In its updated statement, reported by Guitar World, D’Addario acknowledged that it had previously shared inaccurate information and apologised.
The admission followed an evolving explanation of how the promotional music had been produced. D’Addario had previously pointed to recording-session material and AI-assisted production tools while maintaining that generative AI had not been used to create the music.
Continued scrutiny of the finished track ultimately led to a fuller review and the acknowledgement that Suno Studio had been involved.
New disclosure rules promised
D’Addario said it would change its processes following the controversy.
The company stated that employees and creative partners would be required to disclose the use of generative AI and that future content would receive closer review before publication.
It also stated that it does not support AI-generated music.
Why an AI product demo matters
The controversy raises an unusual issue for musical instrument and accessory companies.
A conventional product demonstration is generally intended to help musicians judge how a piece of equipment performs. Whether the product is a string, pickup, amplifier, instrument or microphone, customers expect the recording to represent the product in a meaningful way.
If generative AI changes or recreates musical material used in that demonstration, the distinction between product demonstration and creative production can become less clear.
That does not automatically mean the product itself has been misrepresented. However, disclosure becomes particularly important when sound is part of what customers are being asked to evaluate.
Listeners may not be able to recognise AI music themselves
The controversy also illustrates why disclosure cannot simply be left to listeners to work out for themselves. In a large blind listening study, 97% of participants failed to reliably distinguish fully AI-generated music from human-created music.
As generative tools improve, audiences may increasingly depend on musicians, platforms and brands to clearly state when synthetic material has been used rather than expecting listeners to identify it purely by ear.
A wider transparency question for music brands
As AI tools become embedded in editing, mastering, image creation, marketing and music production, companies will increasingly need to define where they draw the line between ordinary digital processing and generative content.
The D’Addario episode shows how quickly that distinction can become a matter of trust when a brand’s audience consists of musicians who are directly affected by the growth of generative AI.
Meanwhile, the debate extends well beyond marketing. Music publishers are challenging how AI companies obtain the creative material used to build their systems, including a new case in which Sony Music Publishing and Warner Chappell are suing Anthropic over alleged use of copyrighted songs and sheet music in AI training.
Taken together, these disputes show that the music industry’s AI debate is no longer only about whether machines can create convincing music. It is increasingly about disclosure, copyright, licensing and trust.
