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
Okay, so at first i didn't read the thread now I have. Anyone who uses other people's drum loops, and phrases is lame AF. That's coming from a "milenial". If I were to take an entire loop from a musical score that would be fake and YAY! End of story.
its fake and gay?
why don't I do it all the time than?
I should
@lala it's an internet meme, ,don't take it personal. I can speak eloquently if I want to, but this is an internet forum after all and I am typing from a cell phone . If you are YAY!, straight, donkey, or an elf you deserve equal love and opportunity. I was just saying that stealing artwork is fake and YIPPEEE! Not in the literal meaning of YAY but in the south park meaning as in lame.
im typing on a phone too,
but that doesn't mean I write retarded when I mean brain dead
Oh hey let's just shit all over free speech while we are at it . Can't say that or it might offend someone oh lord have mercy. I apologize I will never say the G word again. How dare you insult the handicapped community for saying retarded. My brother is a slightly retarded FlamGender Attack helicopter.
lol, you know what it means
use it appropriately, than you don't make a fool of yourself
thats what my friends from the 4th class said
just another swell gay day out on the net, I know
mkay i'm just going to walk backwards in a very slow fashion. You enjoy your safe space.
<<<< ZFG face
While I agree that it really can be lame sometimes (and most definitely in the example you gave, someone taking an entire loop from a musical score), the point is it should not be ilegal, because as long as the author is credited and financially compensated, it isn't theft. I think no one should be blocked from using publicly available content - again as long as the author is credited and financially compensated, so this ruling was a small step in the right direction.
That reasons for my thinking are many and quite well developed (both from a practical and an ethical stance), so I simple won't debate them here unless someone presents a strong, good argument (and there wasn't any in this thread, simply as that: just emotional rants from both sides and futile attemps at shaming, again by both sides).
All the best!
@theconnactic I never said it needs to be illegal. I said that I was not in favor of some people taking others phrases and using them and calling them art without proper credit. dubstep "producers" put melodies and samples into bass all the time. Lazily I might add. Someone tinkering around with some good old pink Floyd, or Rolling Stones, maybe some Frank Sinatra, just for the sake of doing it is fine. I do it all the time because I listen to "old school music" and it's great to recreate some of the best musicians to have ever lived purely out of admiration. Now if you made a mixtape based off of 8 bar phrases from frank and added some boom baps is where sampling should not be allowed. IMHO. That's called free marketing without clearing samples.
In other words, you do think it should not be legal - that is, she/he should be not allowed to do it and sued for doing it anyway. At least in the scenario of agressive sampling. I'm fine with it, but I couldn't disagree more (and as I said, I won't ellaborate it further unless I see a compelling argument).
I think as long Frank and whoever other artist/composer of the sampled songs is credited and financially compensated, no further clearance should be required. And I truly think it's slowly going in that direction now (the jurisprudence, I mean).
But, yeah, probably I would not buy the record. Unless all those sampled pieces were blended in a really genial way. Like you, I listen and cherish a lot of old stuff.
All the best!
InCorrect
The courts laws tend to ruin anything artistic and benefit the greedy. I'm saying if it is an obvious sample that person must give credit, but shall not be forced by law to do so. You can sue anyone for anything in a civil court case. You cannot stop people from being greedy. Now making sampling ILLLEGAL is ridiculous. @theconnactic
There is an old saying "Whoever has the most money in court wins" If they made sampling illegal. They would create a law for governments with unlimited budgets. They can drag out court cases and suck money from the little guy, that would be ethically wrong. However; You cannot stop a wealthy individual from doing the same thing. This is how America works unfortunately. Whoever has the most money will drag out the court cases. Which will force the opposite parties to concede. My opinion of it being lame to choose not to give credit, or agressive sampling means nothing. I'm against all forms of aggression initiated by government no matter what the occasion.
Very good, so here we agree 100%.
@theconnactic I believe anyone with empathy would say the same thing. No one wants to stop someone from expressing their form of art by using the governments law. This is what I would call "fake and lame" .
Let's hope you're all still in agreement when an artist you don't particularly like, takes your work without permission and passes it off as their own.
I can tell.
Strawman fallacy, @carol: are you really willing to resort to this to force your point of view?
Nobody is talking about or praising plagiarism of any sorts, nor does the german courts in the decision that originated this debate. Calm down.
All the best!
Just to clarify, we agree 100% sampling should stay legal. And people should not be forced by law to ask permission to get clearance, only pay for the use and give the author proper credits (something like "beat sampled from the song 'BlahBlah' from the artist 'Somebody Smith'" in the song credits would do).
100 % ,we are on the same wave length my man. Respect and ethics are what needs to be spread not laws and punishment.
I've never said it should be illegal to take single samples from existing tracks, particularly as most of them these days already come from sample libraries anyway. If you read my posts you'll see that. What I'm against is others taking large chunks of others songs, and these being used without the original artists permission and being passed off as their own.
I do wish people would read what I've written before having a go at me.
Thanks for the lecture. As I said, I hope those happy for others to take LARGE CHUNKS of other artists work that they took time, and expense recording, without permission, to pass off as their own, are still smiling if it happens to them.
Got a link to your Soundcloud account? I could do with nicking some big chunks of audio as I can't be bothered to create my own. I'll shove it into Samplr, chop it up and stick a Patterning beat over it. Job done. I'm a fookin genius innit.
Hey @carol , do you know what Walter Sobchak was saying to "Donny" every time he wanted to say something?
hahah.
Can we apply that sentiment to the whole thread?
After pages and pages of shouting, I have to ask: Did anybody actually listen to the sample in question? Carol, did you listen? It is one bar of synthesized drums that becomes completely unrecognizable when the music starts. (And holy shit, what terrible music!)
The producer of "Nur Mir" didn't have to ask permission from Kraftwerk according to this ONE ruling. HOWEVER. Unlike the U.S. legal system, German copyright law seems not to be based on precedent (or at least to the same extent). This ruling doesn't mean anyone can sample "LARGE CHUNKS" of other artists' work. Not remotely. And who does that anyway, outside of the photographer Richard Prince?
The complaint that somebody can shove something into Samplr and stick a Patterning beat over it sounds like seriously sour grapes. This is an aesthetic argument, not a legal one: curation versus creation. Lazy sampling must be very galling to someone who has "old school" ideas about what makes a song: musical skill, theoretical knowledge, and — disturbingly — the cost of the process.
But in the words of Joe Strummer, "If you've been trying for years, we already heard your song."
us vs. them... the fundamental flaw.