Key highlights
- 78% of 1,200 US musicians surveyed by Muse Group say they are open to AI tools; 70% are already using them
- The most common use case is noise reduction and audio cleanup (54% of current users), not composition or generation
- A strong majority oppose AI replacing musicians and oppose their music being used to train AI models without consent
Musicians are using AI, mostly to fix technical problems
Muse Group, the parent company of Ultimate Guitar, Hal Leonard, MuseScore, and Audacity, surveyed 1,200 US-based active users about their relationship with AI tools. 78% said they are open to AI in their music-making process. 70% are already using it. The numbers look like broad acceptance until you break down the 70%.
You can download the report here:
Of those already using AI, 54% use it for noise reduction and audio cleanup. Not composition. Not melody generation. Fixing recordings. That’s a utility use case, not a creative one, and the distinction matters for how AI tool developers read the data.
What the survey found
Muse Group describes the findings as showing “clear boundaries.” The openness to AI as a technical tool coexists with strong resistance to AI as a creative replacement. A strong majority of respondents oppose AI being used to replace musicians, and oppose their work being used to train AI models without their consent.
The Muse Group community spans hobbyists, educators, and working professionals across its four platforms. The 1,200-person US sample represents a practical cross-section of musicians who already use software tools daily, making the resistance to replacement and unconsented training harder to dismiss as technophobia.
This maps onto what individual artists have been saying publicly. The Kanye West AI controversy and Flying Lotus’s deleted AI promo video both show the reputational cost of the generation category. The Patreon CEO’s statement on AI consent framed the same line as existential. Muse Group’s survey puts a number on it.
Why it matters for AI music tool positioning
The AI music streaming policy landscape has been drawing the same line that musicians draw in this survey: platforms distinguish AI-assisted from AI-generated, and the treatment is different. The Muse Group data confirms that musicians are drawing that line themselves.
Tools that frame AI as a technical assistant, noise reduction, stem separation, mixing help, face less friction than tools that frame AI as a creative agent. Using Moises for stem separation or a cleanup tool is a different conversation than using Suno to generate a full track from a text prompt. 78% openness is real. It just doesn’t mean what the headline implies.
The full Music Ally report covers additional breakdown from the Muse Group findings.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Muse Group AI survey find?
Of 1,200 US musicians surveyed, 78% said they are open to AI tools and 70% already use them. The most common use is noise reduction and audio cleanup, not composition. Most oppose AI replacing musicians or training on their work without consent.
Who does Muse Group own?
Muse Group owns Ultimate Guitar, Hal Leonard, MuseScore, and Audacity. Its musician community spans hobbyists, educators, and working professionals.
Do musicians support AI music generation?
The survey shows a clear split. Most musicians are open to AI as a utility tool for technical tasks. Resistance is concentrated around AI as a creative replacement and around AI training on their work without permission or compensation.
What AI tools do musicians already use?
Based on the Muse Group survey, noise reduction and audio cleanup are the most common AI use cases among working musicians. Broader production AI tools like Suno and Udio represent a distinct, more contested category.
