I can see the appeal if this ends up being good at iteration rather than just first-pass generation. A lot of AI music products look impressive for five minutes, but the real test is whether they help someone get closer to a specific thing they actually wanted to make.
Really bad at prompt adherence. Was trying to get it to compose a solo old time banjo piece.
Couldn't get it to stop adding in backing instrumentals at all and it sounded too much like bluegrass style.
"solo banjo instrumental, strictly no other instruments" ... ten seconds later: drums, a fiddle, and a guitar join in.
Given how much Google lives to mash their offerings together, and then sunset them, I live in fear of them killing Google Youtube Music (or whatever it's called), in favor of combining functionality with this, and having my music cycle between my actual library, and bespoke AI-generated stuff.
If it's anything like suno, it probably takes you 30 to 40 attempts to dial in what you were looking for. (And don't get me wrong, the results can be great with suno - there's just a lot of trial and error, and dice rolling.)
Welcome to 2026's reality, most new music is already AI-generated. I don't like it, but it is what it is. YT Music is already full of AI slop, those tools aren't changing that.
If anything it gives Google control of the entire production->sale->delivery process.
I'm honestly not seeing a downside for Google here, can you elaborate?
I just keep reporting AI slop videos (incl music) on YT, and sometimes the videos or even entire channel vanish. I hope I'm contributing to this process to keep YT safe, but I'm just one guy, and they probably have a much bigger effort internally.
The downside for Google is, ultimately, the death of the company. Nobody wants AI slop, and go out of their way to actively avoid it and punish companies that promote it. Google already is running a huge risk by pushing Gemini into every service, and permanently burning customers and users with it.
Microsoft is already seeing the downside of trying to Copilot everything. Their software is now partly slop, shit randomly breaks, companies cancel Azure/Office subscriptions and move to on-prem, FOSS, etc. They've pumped their brakes quite a lot, but the damage may be too great to mitigate now.
If Google wants to lose money in the long run, then by all means, please continue.
What I really hate about all of this, whether it’s music, images, video or anything else, is how much they all use the word “create.” As in, you can create the music you’ve always imagined.
You. Are. Not. Creating. Anything.
You are prompting. Then tweaking, changing, adjusting, etc. The tech is incredible, don’t get me wrong, but it’s advertised so blatantly as the user doing the creating.
Use it as a creativity tool, but don’t get caught up in the false belief that what it spits out is something you created.
Old man yells at cloud. Going back to my cave now.
The models are primitive right now, but we’re clearly heading toward “AI as sound synthesis, human as artist” - much like how producers currently use a DAW to assemble premade loops and sounds from Splice, but with the producer now able to prompt any sound, filter, or effect they can imagine into existence and then rearrange them into a song.
See for example Suno Studio, which is not very good in my opinion, but shows the direction they’re going.
It is not necessary to draw a sharp line that clearly divides everything before saying “this is too far” about something that has, in fact, gone too far.
I asked it to make lofi cafe music and it just made a static web-page. When I asked why there wasn't any music, it said:
> My bad—I forgot to hook up the sound system.
And then it started playing jazz, which I'm not mad about. Nice to see Google trying fun stuff.
I can see the appeal if this ends up being good at iteration rather than just first-pass generation. A lot of AI music products look impressive for five minutes, but the real test is whether they help someone get closer to a specific thing they actually wanted to make.
Really bad at prompt adherence. Was trying to get it to compose a solo old time banjo piece. Couldn't get it to stop adding in backing instrumentals at all and it sounded too much like bluegrass style.
"solo banjo instrumental, strictly no other instruments" ... ten seconds later: drums, a fiddle, and a guitar join in.
Given how much Google lives to mash their offerings together, and then sunset them, I live in fear of them killing Google Youtube Music (or whatever it's called), in favor of combining functionality with this, and having my music cycle between my actual library, and bespoke AI-generated stuff.
I wanted it to make a "PAMS" style radio jingle, like the radio jingles of 70s radio stations but for my website. It failed miserably
This website looks so terrible that I can't tell if it's really owned by Google or a scam.
> Application error: a client-side exception has occurred (see the browser console for more information).
Nice
I’m a little confused about the pricing packages. In what scenario would being able to create 600 songs a month (20/day) be too few?
I could understand if this was an API that people built products around, but it seems to be geared directly at consumers.
Eminem allegedly has hundreds of songs in the vault.
Odds are for every 200 ai songs you generate , 2 or 3 are decent.
Anyway. UMG will probably force you to sign over training rights in future record deals.
The models still can't rap. Sounds like if you asked someone who didn't know what rap was to read a script
If it's anything like suno, it probably takes you 30 to 40 attempts to dial in what you were looking for. (And don't get me wrong, the results can be great with suno - there's just a lot of trial and error, and dice rolling.)
Why did Google bother?
They're a music store, they sell music, both to own, but also renting their vast library out.
Google should learn not to shit where they eat.
Welcome to 2026's reality, most new music is already AI-generated. I don't like it, but it is what it is. YT Music is already full of AI slop, those tools aren't changing that.
If anything it gives Google control of the entire production->sale->delivery process.
I'm honestly not seeing a downside for Google here, can you elaborate?
I just keep reporting AI slop videos (incl music) on YT, and sometimes the videos or even entire channel vanish. I hope I'm contributing to this process to keep YT safe, but I'm just one guy, and they probably have a much bigger effort internally.
The downside for Google is, ultimately, the death of the company. Nobody wants AI slop, and go out of their way to actively avoid it and punish companies that promote it. Google already is running a huge risk by pushing Gemini into every service, and permanently burning customers and users with it.
Microsoft is already seeing the downside of trying to Copilot everything. Their software is now partly slop, shit randomly breaks, companies cancel Azure/Office subscriptions and move to on-prem, FOSS, etc. They've pumped their brakes quite a lot, but the damage may be too great to mitigate now.
If Google wants to lose money in the long run, then by all means, please continue.
Ahh, a rebranded ProducerAI https://9to5google.com/2026/04/20/producerai-becomes-google-...
What I really hate about all of this, whether it’s music, images, video or anything else, is how much they all use the word “create.” As in, you can create the music you’ve always imagined.
You. Are. Not. Creating. Anything.
You are prompting. Then tweaking, changing, adjusting, etc. The tech is incredible, don’t get me wrong, but it’s advertised so blatantly as the user doing the creating.
Use it as a creativity tool, but don’t get caught up in the false belief that what it spits out is something you created.
Old man yells at cloud. Going back to my cave now.
The models are primitive right now, but we’re clearly heading toward “AI as sound synthesis, human as artist” - much like how producers currently use a DAW to assemble premade loops and sounds from Splice, but with the producer now able to prompt any sound, filter, or effect they can imagine into existence and then rearrange them into a song.
See for example Suno Studio, which is not very good in my opinion, but shows the direction they’re going.
Where do you draw the line? Do composers create?
It is not necessary to draw a sharp line that clearly divides everything before saying “this is too far” about something that has, in fact, gone too far.
Yes.
Does the guy who tells the composer "write a song" create?
No.
The line is somewhere in the middle
How does that work with using a camera to take photos?
You press the button to capture the photo. As you note, a different verb is used. When I order take-out, I'm not "creating" it.