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.
Lessons of KSHMR
I can no longer stay silent on this and must share this with you guys.. His advice is quite invaluable, even if you don't use exactly what he uses. If nothing else, at least it's great to get insight to how this guy does things and to possibly steal some techniques for yourself.
Enjoy your weekend! 
Comments
Holy.
Crap.
It's not just the guy's skills, it's his confidence.
I was looking at his vocal one:
@richardyot I expect you to get on this shit right away.
I'm gonna need to watch that about 99 more times...
@JohnnyGoodyear thanks for the shout-out. I'm already familiar with just about every technique in that video (although not as proficient as the host), but I'm off to watch the nylon guitar one, as I still haven't really got the hang of getting a decent recording of an acoustic guitar.
Wow, excellent! Now if Cubasis only had audio warping (now I know what it actually is!)
I use it all the time, specifically to align double-tracked vocals as per that example, and also to fix timing errors in my guitar playing, which are frequent. This is in Auria though of course, Cubasis doesn't have it yet.
Yes. In Cubasis I have to create multiple split points in an audio track to nudge small sections or individual notes slightly. This can result in audible glitches so I manually create cross fades. Cubasis will not glue the audio sections back together like it does with midi tracks! Even the ability to glue audio clips back together in a track would be good as a step towards audio warping @LFS
@jwmmakerofmusic
Many thanks, tasty stuff from a a master
@richardyot
One piece of tech for recording acoustic guitar (which you probably already know): record in a hard space, a live room with a small amount of actual slap, rather than a dead/soundproofed space.
@richardyot
The above can just be a wood floor, and the hard quality adds interest to mic placement. For some reason works with wood winds too, clarinet, bassoon etc.
@Littlewoodg thanks, that's interesting I will give it a go. I've tried recording vocals in the bathroom recently in order to get some natural reverb, but it was quite hard to tame in the mix afterwards. I'll give it a go with the guitar though, because I do find it hard to capture the tone of an acoustic guitar in a recording.
I've had the best luck in medium sized rooms like bedrooms, dining rooms. Not ultra hard, just natural, regular rooms as you'd find at home. So many of my places have had wood floors over the years, or wood furniture pieces, and that's a factor. Something about the wood surfaces, it's weird. Wood surfaces in the room or not, acoustic guitar doesn't show up with a live quality when mic'ed in the "proper" way if the space is completely deadened as is usual in studio.
You must be using Tonewood flooring...
Whenever I record acoustic I think about Alan Lomax field stuff
Truth is, as you know, I believe that the iPad/'puter can lead us folks who like to fiddle about into believing/wanting to be all things, the producer and engineer as well as the lyricist/singer/guitarist/bongo player. I have long felt that if I write something I find interesting enough I would get the pros to polish it up, if not completely re-record it. In fact, every morning, shaving in the mirror, I swear I can see emerging elements of Carole King in my craggy face (not the hair). Guess it must be time to think about SOTMC March....
That's the modern world, because technology frees you to do stuff that was out of reach to most people in the past, and also makes you more productive as well you can do everything yourself: write, perform, sing, produce, be your own PR man etc....
I don't think it's a burden though, I see it as an opportunity. It's great that you don't have to rely on other people to do stuff, you can do it yourself. Sure it means learning new skills, so you have to learn to mix and produce alongside writing and performing, but it's interesting (at least I think so), and learning is the whole point of the journey anyway.
Agree to disagree here. Both valid perhaps. I DO agree that being able to do SOME of the work, to get an idea, or to communicate by example what you have in mind, the feel or direction, is useful, but -for me- any more attempt at mastery than this probably leads to jackery.
The gap between what I am relatively good at, what my talents are, and the rest is quite demonstrable, even with practice. And seeing a producer like this so obviously in his milieu only confirms this (for me). I believe in talent in most areas and while I might be able to get to 70% of something with technical practice, I HAVE to believe that others can/will be better and I should not shy away from putting their abilities into the service of my own projects.
I hate to say it, but it falls into the management philosophy of employing smarter people than yourself etc etc. All of which often leads me back to the realization of the power of bands (in their many forms). One and one makes more etc. The only problem being, you know, having to deal with other people
Compelling conversation here. In the recent past, let's say the last decade, I would've been more inclined to agree with @richardyot 's opinion. But I've learned, only recently it seems, that @JohnnyGoodyear 's assessment is 100% on target, at least for me.
Too many years I've convinced myself that with enough resolve, practice, and determination... I could effectively manage and master more than my core competencies. And, for awhile it indeed looked possible.
Ultimately, the end result always suffered with merely adequate components that collectively diminished and dullened the once shining core skill or talent. This realization has only just now completely crystallized for me.
I think I'm going to take a little time very soon to identify and reevaluate what those original core competencies/talents were. And, whether or not I still possess them. If so, I'm going to backtrack and retune and focus on those only, while looking for talented possible collaborators in the areas where I'm really only passably competent. I just hope it's not too late.
There's a couple of strands to this discussion I think.
I remember when I was first learning figure drawing, and I looked at the work of those who were proficient in it, who could draw amazing human figures from their imagination - it looked like a miracle, how could they remember all those details? Those shapes and proportions. Well eventually, after many hundreds of drawings I also was able to do that, made my living from it for a few years drawing storyboards in the high-pressure environment of advertising agencies. I even did some nice drawings occasionally....
I've read a lot of books on the subject of talent and learning, it's an area of particular interest of mine, and all the scientific evidence points to the fact that talent doesn't really exist in the sense that we believe it to. Generally the people who are really good at something have simply practiced it more than others.
For example the music students in Gladwell's famous book Outliers.
Or psychologist László Polgár who wanted to prove that talent was made, not born, by training his 3 daughters to become chess prodigies.
Now of course I want emphasize that there needs to be nuance here - there are differences between different people, some people are clever, some people are physically strong etc... so I'm not saying that everyone is the same, and at the very highest level maybe there is some intrinsic difference that separates Roger Federer from Andy Murray, or whoever. But on the whole work seems to be a much bigger factor than talent, whatever that really is. But of course there are some tennis pros that work very hard and yet are ranked 100 in the world - so I'm not claiming by any means that this is a black and white issue.
But I've spent the last 3 years reading many books on mixing, watching videos on mixing, and of course practising it every month with SOTMC, and I know I've made progress. More importantly I've learnt most of the main techniques and learnt the language - it's no different to figure drawing really, it's just a technical skill like any other. Other than careful listening it doesn't require magical powers. I'm not claiming to be as good as the pros, or KSHMR of course, but I haven't had the chance to practice as much as they have. They speak the language more fluently because they have been immersed in it longer.
IMO it's not so much about talent - it's really about how you choose to spend your time. If mixing is not something that's interesting enough to you, then you would be more than justified to spend your time doing something that has more interest, such as writing or performing. That's really the crux of it for me.
The main problem with the jack-of-all-trades syndrome is that we have limited time, rather than limited talents, so it's very hard to learn multiple things to the standard that is required. But I don't think mixing is such a difficult thing to do though - writing something compelling is infinitely harder, and maybe just maybe that is the one thing that does require some special insight - or talent.
Anyway, please don't see this as a bun fight, let's call it an exchange of ideas.
Like everything else in life, it's about balance. The more you can do yourself, and the better you get at each element, the better. However, we can only develop natural talent so much, and that's when we need to reach out to others whose strengths can compliment our strengths by reducing/eliminating our weaknesses.
Gawd, I hope that makes sense.
So the other strand of the discussion is the other people thing. And there I think I agree, more minds, more ideas, are always better - more input, more filtering, a whole greater than the sum of its parts etc.... all these are good things. But at least you don't need other people to get things done, if something we do ever becomes worthy of other people's attention we can always enlist help, but while we're scratching away in our basements and sheds we can still do the work, and get those hours of practice in and have something to show for it.
I think that the purpose is not to become the best but to become good. Same thing if you delegate the mix to a sound engineer. You will most probably not hire the best because he will be just too expensive. You will hire the guy you can afford and probably he will be good, but how much better than you? On the other hand, I'm convinced that if you spend one week with an engineer that will show you every tricks he know, then you will quickly become much better. Sound engineers are like magicians...there is always a trick ;0)
I haven't read any of this as a "bun fight". It's a very compelling exchange of perspectives.
I don't agree that all anyone needs is enough time to practice something. I used to think that too, but I've changed my mind on that. There's a canyon of difference between becoming good enough at something, and being truly great at something.
About a year ago I had no experience with sound at all. I've obsessively spent my waking hours learning all I can. Sometimes I'll get by with only 2 hours sleep until I've figured out a solution or resolved a sound related problem. I've become decent at a handful of skills, but I won't ever be great. I don't have that "special sauce". It doesn't matter much to me because my main goal is personal pleasure and forcing my brain to learn new disciplines. The exercise of the brain intended to better function overall with other creative problem solving.
There are skills I have that I didn't have to work hard to develop. They just came naturally. I don't even think about it. And yet, I've seen others who've tried to do the same thing. Have spent 100's of thousands of dollars on seminars, books, retreats, expensive tools, years of obsessive practice and reading, etc. only to become merely good, but not great. They have put in more than the 10,000 hours but will likely never get any further along. They don't have the "special sauce".
@richardyot I don't know what your real skills or talents are. You sound like you're very knowledgeable about mixing. Are you a master of mixing? Are you a masterful musician? Are you a great singer? Are you a genius song writer? If not, do you believe you could you be a master at all of these disciplines at the same time if only you had enough time to spend honing each skill to master level? Or, do you believe that you could become good enough at most, but excell to the highest level in only one or two talents you were born with an advantage to excell at?
This isn't an argument p, and I don't know the answer for sure myself. But, I have come to believe at this point, that there's something to the idea of natural born talent.
I'm none of those things
I work as an illustrator, so my primary skills are drawing and 3D.
I played guitar in a couple of bands in my early twenties, then gave it up to pursue my career in visual arts. I came back to music in my forties.
Just like you I have had a change of perspective, but in the other direction. When I was learning guitar and doing some godawful attempts at singing in my twenties the idea that "you either have it or you don't" was prevalent everywhere. Everyone told me to give up singing, so I did. Eventually I also gave up the guitar because I thought I was better at the visual stuff. But when I really had to do the visual stuff for real, for money, and I really had to know how to draw well, I also realised how little I did know, despite having spent most of my adolescence drawing in my room. So in my thirties I had to work extremely hard to actually get good at drawing and at doing 3D and it completely changed my perspective.
So when I got back to music I applied the same ideas, I worked consistently on improving, and eventually I made progress. My wife, who told me I was wasting my time trying to learn to sing, because I "didn't have it" begrudgingly admits that I did in fact manage to learn to sing in my forties. It can be done. I have no idea how far it can be pushed, any of it, but it's silly to limit yourself on a supposition. Of course this is all IMO and YMMV etc....
This is an interesting point - one which also requires a clarification: are we talking art or technique? Because in the main I've really only been discussing technical skills, not creative ones. Drawing, singing, playing the guitar, mixing, I see these as learnable technical skills, nothing more.
Art is something else, and quite separate from technique. Art is having something compelling to say, and that IMO is where the special sauce resides.
Someone might play guitar rather well, but have nothing to say, and ultimately that's not going to be a compelling listen. Another person may have pretty poor technique but a quirky and interesting worldview that comes out in his or her songs, and that's infinitely more interesting to me.
I would have to agree with you that no one should give up the ghost because they're told they don't "have it" or don't believe they do. They should certainly try and give it their all.
That being said, not every guitar player will achieve the master level of playing that say someone like Prince, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Hendrix, etc. achieved no matter how much they practice. Most will hit an ultimate cap limitation at some point that they will never get past. Some won't ever even become "good".
We can all reach for the heavens though. Only the very rare superstar will get there.
Yup, no audio glue is a real pita.
@skiphunt @richardyot Good chat chaps. May we take it further one day on the gondola of our choosing, but for now, have a fine weekend and practice or be brilliant as the opportunity presents itself etc.
Indeed! Tah-tah for now.
I believe that @richardyot drew this one on the quiet....
And that sums it up quite nicely, I think. I always tell my son you have to put in the hours. Hendrix, Beethoven, Orbison, Einstein, Tolkien, Hemingway, Sagan ... they put in the hours. The days. The weeks. The years.
Recently saw a bit online suggesting that if you read about a subject for one hour a day, after 7 years you'll be an expert. Not sure about the source or the metrics, but rings true enough. I am also a self-taught digital designer, illustrator, writer, guitarist, singer, songwriter, mixer, and currently working on the self-mastering challenge.
Being a polymath is all about the urge to pursue until a satisfying level of mastery is achieved. I think it's within most people's ability, but we gravitate toward particular urges, and some focus on one or two areas, while others voraciously tackle new endeavors as they come along. I'm not much of a keyboard player because I've never vigorously pursued that. Piano rolls interest me more, nowadays.
As for the "it" factor, I've always associated that a lot more with "being in the right place at the right time" rather than sheer ability in a field, as it requires an audience. Neil Young, Lemmy, Willie Nelson ... none of them are going to bowl you over with their magnificent vocal abilities. But they managed to make a go of it. In other words, in order to have "it," someone with the ability to advance your career needs to hear/see you to make the observation, "He/She has the IT factor!"
A pet hobby of mine is fanatical devotion to bands who 13 people or so have ever heard of. I have no doubt that Trouble, Urge Overkill, Angel Witch and Tank all had "it." But they missed their "right place/right time" opportunities. For instance, when EMI came scouting in London circa 1980 to see a show and sign one of those NWOBHM acts, they saw a drunk Angel Witch struggle through their set. Later, a young but more sober Iron Maiden put on a great show and walked away with the contract. Both bands had a strong local following at the time. Right place/wrong time vs. right place/right time made all the difference.
@eustressor good addition to the discussion. And the old saw 'the harder I work the luckier I get' has probably got a place in there as well. I believe fully in the idea that 'rink time' plays its significant part for most of us, but I'm also pretty sure that the 'it' is still something. I might be prepared to discuss the range of 'it' depending on the exact area of endeavor we choose to talk about. And I will also admit that the written word is a mountain range that fills up the living room of my own eye, to the exclusion of most everything else in this debate. I have felt the ideas and collisions of expression people have shared with me that didn't simply take time, effort, experience or even luck. Bastards.
Switching to another field (literally), a thousand years ago I used to play rugby at a serious level. Most of the players were good. Some trained harder. Were bigger, smarter, faster. But the best of them (a small group) shared one thing beyond measurement; they had more time, they could see (or feel?) what was happening and what they wanted to happen next in a way the rest of us couldn't quite. They had 'it'.
For the record that none of us are keeping, I am going to leave Mr. Kilmister and Mr. Nelson for other champions, but I think Mr. Young has a great voice in the vocalist line, maybe the other two do too for their particular work, but Mr. Young can really write and that, for me, is his talent beyond simple practice. So, what is talent then? If it is something beyond learning? Empathy? Understanding? Insight? And then, in this case, the ability to express it?