D’Addario has admitted that generative artificial intelligence was used to create music for a promotional video for its NYXL HD electric guitar strings, reversing weeks of denials after musicians and producers questioned the authenticity of the audio.
The company confirmed that Suno Studio, an AI music-generation platform, was used to regenerate the original track featured in the advertisement. D’Addario apologized for previously providing inaccurate information and said it would introduce stricter controls around the use and disclosure of generative AI.
Musicians Questioned the Audio
The controversy began after D’Addario released a promotional video for its NYXL HD strings. Guitarists and producers quickly questioned the audio, saying aspects of the performance did not sound like a conventional guitar recording.
Listeners pointed to unusual timing, sonic artifacts and differences between the finished advertisement and the production material later presented by D’Addario as evidence that the recording was authentic.
The company initially rejected claims that generative AI had been used. It attributed the unusual sound to heavy processing and other production techniques, including AI-assisted tools used for mixing and mastering.
The Session Files Raised More Questions
Rather than ending the controversy, D’Addario’s attempt to provide evidence intensified scrutiny.
The company shared footage of a Logic Pro session that it said represented the recording behind the advertisement. Musicians examining the material noticed differences between the session and the final promotional track, including apparent changes in melody and timing.
Guitarist and producer Rhett Shull subsequently examined the original Logic files provided by D’Addario. His analysis added weight to suspicions that the track had undergone an AI-generation or regeneration process.
D’Addario later acknowledged that its earlier explanations were incorrect.
D’Addario Reverses Its Position
In an update to its original statement, D’Addario said it had conducted a full review and confirmed that Suno Studio had been used to regenerate the original track.
The company apologized for sharing inaccurate information and said it does not support AI-generated music. It also said that employees and creative partners would be required to disclose any use of generative AI, while published material would receive additional review.
The company also apologized for its handling of online criticism. During the controversy, critical comments were deleted and some users were blocked, a moderation decision D’Addario subsequently acknowledged was inappropriate.
Why the Controversy Matters
The dispute has become larger than a single guitar advertisement.
For many musicians, the central issue is not simply that D’Addario used an AI tool. The bigger problem was the company’s initial denial and the subsequent explanations that failed to account for discrepancies in the production material.
That distinction is particularly significant for a company whose products are marketed to musicians. A promotional video featuring guitar performance naturally creates an expectation that viewers are hearing a genuine representation of the instrument and strings being demonstrated.
The episode therefore highlights a growing issue for the music industry: transparency about how promotional audio is created.
As generative AI becomes increasingly common in music production, brands, agencies and independent creators may face greater pressure to disclose when synthetic material has been used especially when the audience could reasonably assume that the sound represents a real human performance.
A Warning for Musicians and Producers
The D’Addario controversy also offers a lesson for independent producers working with brands and agencies.
Creators should know whether generative AI is permitted before using it on a client project. They should document which tools were used, retain original sessions and make sure contracts clearly address AI-generated or AI-assisted material.
Keeping those records can become particularly important when questions arise later about who created a piece of music, what tools were involved and what the client was actually given.
D’Addario’s experience demonstrates why production documentation is becoming more than an administrative detail. In an increasingly AI-assisted industry, the ability to show how a piece of music was created can become part of protecting a creator’s reputation.
AI-generated music itself is unlikely to disappear. Producers, musicians and brands will continue experimenting with generative tools. But as synthetic audio becomes harder to distinguish from human performance, transparency may become one of the most important forms of trust between creators, companies and audiences.
The Bigger Issue: Trust
The D’Addario case illustrates a broader challenge facing the music business.
D’Addario’s final admission closes one part of the controversy, but the larger question remains: when an advertisement is designed to demonstrate a musical product, should audiences be told when the music they hear was generated or regenerated by AI?
For D’Addario, the answer now appears to be yes. The company says future work will require disclosure of generative AI use and closer review of its promotional content.
The controversy serves as a reminder that in an industry built around authentic performance, AI may be easy to use but trust is much harder to rebuild once it is lost.