I came across this post on Reddit, and I couldn’t agree more with the author’s frustration: https://www.reddit.com/r/SunoAI/comments/1wbofwh/bye_bye_suno_im_cancelling_my_subscription/ Suno’s newer models may offer cleaner production and higher technical fidelity, but for my workflow, something important has been lost. I haven’t been able to get results from V6 that sound as good, or as interesting, as what I could create with V5.5 and earlier models. The older versions had distinct strengths and quirks. They could produce genuinely surprising music, while V6 often sounds more generic and overly polished to my ears. I understand that Suno may face legal and financial concerns surrounding the data used to train its earlier models. It makes sense that the company would want future models to be trained using properly licensed material. What I don’t understand is why that must mean removing models that paying customers already had access to. Why couldn’t Suno preserve those older models while directing all future development and training toward V6? Even if the legacy models stopped receiving updates, leaving them available would allow creators to choose the model that works best for a particular song or workflow. Replacing several useful creative tools with a single newer model is not necessarily progress. Sometimes a model’s imperfections are part of what makes it creatively valuable. For users like me, removing that choice feels less like an upgrade and more like a major step backward. I hope Suno listens to the creators who relied on these models and finds a responsible way to bring them back.

V6 is live! Let's see how it sounds. Please share your first thoughts. Have to find the right prompts again it feels like. It's definitely different sounding.

Hey fam, not complaining, genuinely trying to find the step I'm missing, and I'd love the @Jesse Hull 's read on this. I've been uploading for over a month on one artist project. 3 albums, 4 singles live and distributed. Every title keyword-researched the way it's taught here. No paid promo, no shortcuts, nothing off-book. Result: zero. Zero views on YouTube, zero streams, nothing on any platform. Not "low." Actually zero. Here's my problem with the model as I understand it. Search-based discovery assumes the platform will surface me to people who search. But platforms rank by engagement signals, completion rate, saves, repeat plays, watch time. A brand new artist has none of that. So there's nothing for the algorithm to rank, which means nothing gets surfaced, which means no engagement ever happens. That's a closed loop. Keywords make me eligible to be found. They don't seem to make me found. So my actual question: what produces the first 100 plays? Because if the answer is "keep uploading and search will find you," I've now tested that for a month with real volume and got a flat zero. I'm willing to believe I need more time or more releases. But I'd like to know the mechanism, not just the instruction. Specific things I'd love answers to: 1. On a project that worked for you, where did the first plays actually come from? Search results, or somewhere else? 2. Is keyword first really about being categorized correctly, rather than being searched for? Those are very different promises. 3. Has anyone here gotten a genuine cold start ? no existing audience, no playlist pitching, no ads, no friends, nothing, purely from title SEO? If yes, how long and how many releases before it broke? If someone has cold-started on SEO alone, I'll happily go do more volume and shut up. But I'd rather find out now if the missing step is an engagement seed, because that changes what I should be spending my time on. Thank you :)

Hello Guerrillas. As you already know, Youtube releases are taking a very long time to appear (or sometimes not appearing at all). Even after resubmission, many days have passed and I still can’t see the albums... This makes me wonder, is Youtube adding more restrictions on AI music, or declining it altogether? What do you think?