The creative internet crowd had barely recovered from Spotify CEO Daniel Ek’s tone-deaf tweet claiming that the “cost of creating content is close to zero” which sparked widespread backlash for being both out of touch and clueless about what it takes to produce quality content, when yet another tech CEO decided to bless us with their sweeping wisdom. This time, it’s Mikey Shulman, CEO of Suno, the AI music generator, declaring, “It’s not really enjoyable to make music now.”
Ek, for his part, backpedaled, explaining that cheaper equipment has led to an “unprecedented explosion” of content across all forms, not just music. Shulman, on the other hand, doubled down during his interview on the 20VC podcast, stating, "It’s not really enjoyable to make music now. I think the majority of people don't enjoy the majority of the time they spend making music." He attributes this to the time and effort required to master instruments or production software—an alleged "barrier" for most people.
“Time and practice required to master an instrument or production software is a barrier for most people,” Shulman notes in his interview with Harry Stebbings. “I think the majority of people don’t enjoy the majority of the time they spend making music.”
Among other golden takes of his podcast appearance was his claim that “AI-generated music is an opportunity to drive greater engagement for both listeners and creators,” all while casually admitting that Suno uses copyright-protected music for its AI training data because, in his words, it’s “stock standard” and “every AI company does it.”
Naturally, this predictably terrible take was not well-received in the music community. Social media lit up with posts pointing out just how out of touch Shulman is, with many wondering if he’s even tried "learning an instrument himself."
“These silicon valley CEOs who have never spent a day producing art need to stfu,” one user on Reddit says. “That's wild, making music is probably the most easily enjoyable artistic process there is” or “Next up: outsourcing having sex, eating chocolate, watching movies, getting massages - people don't want to do stuff!” And the rant list goes on.
One commenter took it further: “I love that we live in this ‘democracy,’ but an idiot like this gets to decide whether people can make a living from music based on his whims.”
While much of the criticism was cutting, the last one did highlight a legitimate issue. Alright, let's be generous here and interpret Shulman’s comments as a poorly phrased observation about the challenges of making a living in the hyper-competitive music industry, it’s still people like him making it harder for creators to survive. His platform enables a flood of AI-generated tracks that, let’s admit, can sometimes sound decent. But now musicians aren’t just competing with millions of human peers; they’re up against millions of AI creations churned out by Suno’s tools.
“Increasingly, taste is the only thing that matters in art and skill is going to matter a lot less,” Shulman said in the interview. “Thirty years ago, you wanted to be a rock star. Fifteen years ago, you wanted to be a DJ. And now people want to be influencers.”
We don't have any official stats on who Suno users are occupation-wise and only assume that its primary user base isn’t even musicians. Allegedly, it’s people who don’t want to or can’t write music themselves (which isn't a crime!). So yes, Shulman’s brainchild is part of the reason some creators might feel less joy in making music—they feel frustrated to compete against a machine that might not even legally exist without scraping the work of the very artists it threatens to replace. Suno's users generate thousands of tracks daily, that's for sure.
Many creators fairly pointed out that Suno is creating a problem and pushing their product as a solution. Classic marketing here, but with a small nuance: ironically, Suno owes its existence to musicians who genuinely enjoy making music. They own its existence to musicians whose entire catalogues they’ve allegedly used without their consent to train Suno.
Shulman also added that Suno isn’t just about making music—it’s about “making musicians.” This phrase I especially liked.
Though beautifully put, it's not something that The Recording Industry Association of America and the majors agree with. RIAA and major labels seem less enthusiastic about Shulman’s vision, clearly thinking that Suno’s methods are somewhat destructive: "Their [Suno's and Udio's] vision of the ‘future of music’ is apparently one in which fans will no longer enjoy music by their favourite artists because those artists can no longer earn a living," RIAA published in a statement amidst the legal hurdles with the AI generator and its closest competitor Udio (and ironically, now an ally), accusing the companies of unauthorised use of copyrighted recordings in their AI training.
The RIAA is seeking damages of up to $150,000 per infringed work, arguing that unlicensed AI platforms like Suno undermine the potential of truly innovative AI by exploiting copyrighted material under dubious “fair use” claims. “Copying an artist’s life’s work and profiting off it without consent or payment” is how the trade body frames Suno’s business model.
Indirectly addressing the lawsuit, Shulman described the legal offensive as a waste of resources: “It just seems silly to throw a bunch of venture dollars at lawyers instead of sitting down and talking about how you could work together.” Still, he admitted the stakes are real. While assuring listeners that “the company’s not dead” if the labels win, he conceded the outcome would be “obviously not good for us.”
Predictably, Shulman took aim at the music industry’s fondness for litigation, while simultaneously admitting that Suno’s AI training involved copyrighted music. “The music business is one that has such an embedded fixed pie mentality,” he said. “There’s a fixed pie of money out there, and we are all just trying to divide it unfairly for ourselves.” Despite the looming threat of potential legal challenges, Shulman struck an optimistic note about AI’s role in music. “The future is ours to build,” he declared. “We can build a good future of music with AI and we can build a bad future of music with AI or we can sit back and let someone else do it.”
Whether that “future” involves working with or against the artists whose work powers Suno’s algorithms remains to be seen.
