Loopy Pro: Create music, your way.
What is Loopy Pro? — Loopy Pro is a powerful, flexible, and intuitive live looper, sampler, clip launcher and DAW for iPhone and iPad. At its core, it allows you to record and layer sounds in real-time to create complex musical arrangements. But it doesn’t stop there—Loopy Pro offers advanced tools to customize your workflow, build dynamic performance setups, and create a seamless connection between instruments, effects, and external gear.
Use it for live looping, sequencing, arranging, mixing, and much more. Whether you're a live performer, a producer, or just experimenting with sound, Loopy Pro helps you take control of your creative process.
Download on the App StoreLoopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.
Comments
I love the fugees killing me softly cover..... alas wyclef saying 'one time' in the back ground makes me want to strangle him ....... or at least ask him ... why.... clef?
way to ruin a track.
No , you're missing the point - he did it in a very obvious , almost tongue in cheek way A LONG TIME AGO on comparatively basic equipment . It doesn't need to be done again , particularly now when you can put together your own drum loops and breaks AND MAKE SOMETHING NEW
Bands like The Beatles and Pink Floyd embraced new technology to take their music forward , inspiring millions of others to do the same . Other bands did it through writing . Shoving big chunks of other artists work into your own isn't promoting anything other than ' just take what you want - you don't need to bother to create your own , just copy this and go back on the internet for lols '
Samplings great - I love chopping and mangling my own loops and recordings into new shapes , and even the occasional free or commercial sample - it's the taking of whole chunks and phrases of other artists work which is a turn off for me
@carol is it possible that you come from a musical/cultural/whatever background that positions you to better understand FatBoySlim as a samplest than someone like J Dilla?
From where I sit, the Beatles and Pink Floyd, to take your examples, did amazing innovative things in their music after a while but both band's first couple of records involved quite a lot of 'sampling'. They definitely weren't rip off artists—they 'borrowed' from what they heard and what inspired them and added their own thing to it to make it theirs—but they most definitely and most deeply sampled other musicians.
ok. Then create your own work.
Forget about the western tuning and build your own including your very own instruments and don't abuse other people's work and ideas.
Good luck with that. You won't get far.
+1
As I said earlier - it's not the playing of musical phrases or working within existing genres that grates , but the use of large chunks of recorded musical audio , particularly when this is done without the original artists permission ( even if they get paid ) .
I find the lack of creativity involved , and the dismissal of the original creators feelings , a very stupid thing
As for the bands mentioned - they started with existing formats ( 50 years ago ) rock and roll or whatever , and took them further .
I can't keep writing the same thing , so see the reply to syrupcore
Please try and read my posts . Nowhere am I suggesting that tuning or single drum hits are in any way stealing others work . That's a very silly response
(
I'm getting out of this thread as you're just taking my comments out if context or completely ignoring what I'm saying . Goodbye .
This guarantees you can do new stuff with it.
How stupid, huh? Lol
That's was what you wanted new fresh and original stuff.
Mc Donalds has the copyright on the phrase "I am loving it"
I will sign up for the copyright of the phrase "I love you"
Now have fun with the fucked up language and the phrases you can't use.
Culture just doesn't work like this.
It's not created in a vacuum.
I have to agree with carol. Sampling and performing someones work are not the same thing, not even close. Anyone who is a musician would understand that. Reworking of classical pieces is an art in itself which requires a lot of technical knowledge of composition and the ability to perform it. How anyone can compare that to 'Copy 'n Paste into your DAW' is beyond me.
I'm not against the clever use of sampling in music provided all parties are happy, but lets not confuse it with interpretation and rearrangement or with learning musical vocabulary on your instrument to play different genres.
Luckily the Bundesverfassungsgericht are wise people.
If you are having problems with such a solomonic judgement something must be wrong with you, or you just don't understand.
I love sampling what ever it may be, TV-Shows, Radio, Movies, Games, Nature, Everydaysounds and maybe a beat or two heck I used to sample drums from Run DMC tunes before I had any kind of drum-machines and also other tunes where i could find clean sounds (pads, leads, sound effects etc.) that would be useable, prime example for synth sounds was one old Vinyl EP with multiple versions of Axel F for clean drums, bass and other synth sounds.
I love sampling individual sounds/hits but to re-use loops and musical phrases that are instantly recognisable feels 'wrong' unless it gets mangled beyond recognition in a creative way. One of the sounds that still haunts me to date is the 'Ax Ganging in the Garage' in the beginning of Stallones Cobra, a drone, slamming axes and great atmosphere and well it's a blast to speed up elvis whappabolooba duwhappabamboom and mix it with a jungle-beat, still makes me laugh, or mixing some Jimi-Hendrix riffs with a Johnny cash tune...
With a bit of creative programming it's also possible to re-create something very close to the original and in some cases with the same gear it was originally made with, it would sound like a 'sample' but wouldn't be one...
For me sampling is the highest form of flattery and when ever sampling how small the sound-sniper is the credits should be at least mentioned when a piece is brought to an audience.
I disagree, you could get very far. There are infinite frequencies to choose from, in-between any that have already been used. Instruments could be built using rulers on desks, or modular synths or even software modulars. Of course, the computer would have to use electrons that nobody else has used, and transmit the sound through air molecules that nobody else has vibrated.
I see.
Precisely like so many modern samplists.
This thread is making me think of the common phrase "I don't like ______, it all sounds the same". Said by many about every genre of music ever. If I'm honest, for me that blank would be filled by modern country music. Same remixed set of chord progressions and same-same vocal style. To my ears.
There's no doubt people are, essentially, sampling in modern country music. They may not be using a machine to capture and loop chunks of recordings but they're copying all manner of stuff—chord progressions, pick ups, drum beats, vamps, guitar sounds, vocal styles, slang words, harmony structures... All the time.
That said, there's also no doubt in my mind that I, due to my own musical and cultural history, am simply missing/not understanding a lot of what so many people (millions!) love about it.
I understand that you're tapping out if this thread but for some reason I still find myself hoping that you'll at least consider the possibility that you have similar biases with regard to electronic sampling and hip hop.
I agree entirely with Carol regarding the existence of bad sampling, unskilled sampling or lazy sampling I just entirely disagree with the opinion that fatboy slim is the definition of non-lazy sampling when I actually think he popularized the laziest form of sampling in modern times. I also do not agree that because of the time in which he did it or the equipment that he used that it was an exceptional example of the art form in any way. He did it in the 90's and didn't use anything special as a matter of fact Carol I would submit to you that endtroducing by dj shadow which came out earlier than fatboyslims stuff was eminently less lazy compared to the fatboys... I guess not unlike yourself that's just my opinion and as opinions go by their very nature they are equal... You obviously like sampling I guess I misinterpreted the spirit in which you delivered your opinion.... Sounds like you like sampling but you just don't like those pesky rapkids and didn't agree with the recognition that the German judiciaries gave to the value of what those pesky rapkids produce there by validating their contribution to the fabric and culture of musicality.
anyways this was before fatboy and less lazy in my opinion, of course there's a caveat... it's hiphop.
I enjoy the creative use of sampling by various artists back in the '80s before it became common place — Paul Hardcastle, Skinny Puppy, Tack Head, Bomb the Bass etc...
That's the difference right there. Basing your work on someone else's and actually using the work they created in your own are two different things. No intention of being elitist. They're just not equivalent.
Nah, every frequency between 20 and 22.000 hz has been played by now, and I guess all melodies and rhythms have also been played before in the last 30.000 years ...
Stuff isn't as original as we like to think.
We are not talking about a few hundred years of book printing or something.
So tell me how original your stuff is in the face of 30.000 years of history.
This is pretty much my feelings on sampling. Sampling is like the tape loops that John Cage used, that the Beatles's used on "Tomorrow Never Knows" and the coins/money loop Floyd put through "Money" but with better technology. The digital quality & convenience and editing aspect is really the only difference. We digitally tapeloop a 350ms hi-hat hit and call it sampling.
I have no issue with creating samples from instruments or your own works. I do think taking a melody line, lyric or hook or some huge elemental sound signature from a preexisting work is sticky though. I am not saying to ban the practice, I don't do it and think the way most sample clearance has been done the last 15 years has worked decently. To me, as long as the sampled source's owner/copyright holder says it permits the use and a songwriting credit is given to insure publishing income off the "new" track/song be given to the original writer, beautiful.
Problem is music is now a world wide free for all where downloads and streaming are the way most people "consume" their music. Technology is still very much in its infancy where tracking streaming plays and digital distribution is concerned. It's there, but not perfect. Big artists can get paid some of their royalties, but just research all the strife and litigation around digital distribution and you'll see it's far from being close to fully workable and fair.
Instead of a global organization where countries participate and agree to a unified copyright code, we still have the decades old system from the vinyl days where an artist would have several different contracts & labels for different territories. The very fact a German court makes a determination on sampling speaks volumes. In the 21st century, where virtually all tangible music media is dead and now a persons work exists in the depths of cyberspace, there needs to be a global consensus for music regulations and bylaws along the lines of the United Nations, NATO, etc.
To me, sample all you want. Puffy wants to make a hip-hop track using "Classical Gas", more power to him. Just give Mason Williams songwriting credit and a fat (or is it phat) check. I'm sure he'd appreciate it. But if some unknown cat in Pennsylvania or something uses the song in a mix tape track that suddenly gets hot, and the thing flies under the radar but temporarily enriches the said unknown cat, well that's bull***t.
You people confuse me with your confused ideas,
We had greenpeace, AI, and now NATO. Lol what's next?
Khomeini Playing the Lyra to the burning cities of the western world with Santa Claus playing the tambourine to the rhythm of love me do over some sampled words from Cory Doctorow killing copyright ?
Have a nice sunday.
No -1 . I don't have a bias against sampling - I've already pointed out I like some if the original innovators work in this area , and I have no problem with using short samples if they're either my own , copyright free , or the original creator is happy for me to use his work in one if my own tracks
As a left leaning Labour voter would I be happy to discover a far right band had grabbed a large chunk of one of my tracks to use in a Tory campaign ? No I bloody wouldn't - regardless if I was being paid or not . A major part of my arguement is that the original artist should have a say over where their music is used and who by .
What was that?
Thank you , you've got the point I was trying to make across much better than I was
)
I heard a mashup mix that was really great
It was old d&b mixed with best of the Beatles
That was fun and creative, I was laughing my ass off.
And now we can do this without Paul McCartney crying you are ripping me off and you can't publish this.
This is good for the art
Just as well musicians like The Beatles wrote and recorded great music in the first place , otherwise you'd have nothing to rip off , and would end up in a self - sampling loop before disappearing up your own backsides lol
Yes someone has hit a stone with a stick before
And Everybody can copy and paste it,
Just like everybody can learn 3 chords.
So one of the things is of value and the other isn't,
because you don't like the method?
Yeah , basically . And your point is ?
p.s. feel free to grab large chunks of Beatles tracks and stick one of those raps that you like over the top , upload it and paste the link on here with your personal contact details , to prove your point that Paul McCartney has no rights over who can use his own music .
My point is how it was created has nothing to do with the value of the work.
That's like saying I dislike photography because it's not drawing.