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.
The Generative Fallacy
You may disagree, I've no idea.
I propose that there's an impulse in all of us to like, gravitate towards, or otherwise be compelled by the idea of a 'black box' concept of generative music generation whereby we are the king or queen and we issue a decree (or tweet an executive order) and sit back and say 'make it sew' and this then becomes the reality while we watch the fruits appear.
In other words, the idea of a generative thing, algorithm, state machine, or other black box, has appeal. I don't know why, but I'd say a lot of people here would hold their hands up and say yes, I'd like that sort of thing, providing I'm master of that universe, and a lot fewer people would hold their hands up and say don't be silly, not interested.
I propose that it is a realm of disappointment, when we get there. It sounded like a nice idea, but when we get what we want, things are different. We get the specified output according to our rules or influence or just random frantic attempts at prodding. We get a machine that goes on and on and on, perhaps changing as it goes, perhaps not.
In all cases, I propose, there's something lacking. The lacking thing is 'me'. I'm not in there anywhere. It not only could have been made by anyone else, interchangeably, but more importantly, it honestly does sound like it was made by nobody.
I propose that the more time I spend chasing the intricacies of generative sequencers of any type, the more time ends up wasted.
Comments
I wonder how one would feel, if one listens to a set up that sticks to one rule of settings for let's say a year (of course not continuously, but normal use case).
Would it still feel like it was made by nobody?
Very interesting post, and an opinion that I'm inclined to agree with. Though I love "electronic sounding" music (this encompasses many genres), and really enjoy having the sound kind of dictate the song's direction, I find, almost with out fail, that my best songs started out with piano/vocal or guitar/vocal. Organically created, in almost a stream-of-consciousness way, and then arranged, developed and refined from there, often with the use of electronically generated sounds. I'm pretty much a believer that a great song should be able to be distilled to piano/voice or guitar/voice and still maintain whatever makes the song great. I know there's probably some highly differing opinions on this, but that's pretty much my belief in the matter.
Largely agree, but consider it more of a personal feeling (for me) rather than a belief.
I'm a bit on the fence regarding arpeggiators. Generative sequencers or even sequencers with complex ratcheting and rule-based switching in and out of situations seem to me to always result in something interesting but uninteresting. Well, unengaging. Arpeggiators, on the other hand, seem to have a bit of 'me'-ness still in them if they're not too rule-based and are simpler and more interactive. Yet, I still remember chucking input into an arpeggiator to get seemingly 'random-y' sound and after many attempts at capturing a piece of the output, just ended up recreating it myself the way that satisfied me (would've been quicker if I'd started that way).
Love this thread and the questions posed and statements made. I largely agree with @Joel75 but ask if the main premise about the basis of a good song actually supports limited generative accompaniment. Meaning: could a generative engine follow the foundational backbone of the creation (composed on piano, guitar, uke, jaw harp, whatever...) and delight the composer with an arrangement that doesn't follow the composer's usual accompaniment paths?
Actually now I remember, it wasn't an arpeggiator, it was Sector.
In 1971 when Pete Townshend plugged the output of his Lowrey organ into his EMS VC3 synth's sample & hold filter and began to play the block chords of "Won't Get Fooled Again" he indeed benefited from the "magic box" element of the VC3's pulses...BUT it was HIS chords and HIS playing that made the song so incredible. The VCS was salt & pepper on the steak that was the SONG-melody, rhythm & lyric.
Like many AB forum regulars I am constantly putting over how great iOS music production is and how we're riding on the lip of the wave into music's future. I truly believe it. But I refuse to bullshit myself or the community and not point out the double edged sword of these magical music apps.
I like EDM, hip hop, dub, etc. But there are far too many apps that are pretty much paint by numbers for that kind of music. I like what the potential can be for an app like Blocs Wave, but a complete musical novice can now download that app for free, select these premade clips & loops that are automatically tempo & key matched into a rough sequence and say he's "written" a song and call himself a music producer.
Sorry, but taking sample packs of pre made melodies, grooves and hooks and assembling them like Legos isn't songwriting.
It's a fine line that was drawn a long time ago. Like, I have long had a love/hate with sampling. I feel if you take a snare drum sample, ONE sound, and use it in a kit with your own groove in an original song, I say great. That type of sampling makes getting good drums & cymbals down possible for many of us who literally play the samples like we would the individual drum or cymbal in reality.
But if you take a complete groove off a record and use it as the framework for a song, to me that's different. I can live with it if all the instruments put on TOP of the loop are original, but if it's just the beginning of a cut & paste loop pack thing, ehhh, fuck it.
This opens up a huge can of worms in this digital world of ours as 21st century musicians. Is using a preset keyboard sound then "not real music"? I think we'd all say of course not: the sound, preset or not, is similar to a piano or guitar, that sound can be used by 100,000's of musicians in completely different ways.
The line does get blurred however with those apps and DAW tools that begin to remove all of the creative element from music production by providing melodic & rhythmic elements in a complete form.
Whether arpeggiators are too 'falsely generative' is a personal call. As I said, one shot samples & presets are just instrumental colors on the palette to me. I'd like to think the musician or producer themselves could see when music making crosses over into just assembling premade song elements into another order and abandon the talentless, ball-less endeavor.
But the way AutoTune is now as ubiquitous as reverb I dont think we are safe from from seeing a #1 single made up entirely of shit that came with Maschine...
I see it as like cinnamon.
Generative is just an ingedient. Do I want it? HELLZYAH!
A whole bowl of it?
haha, pretty much feel the same way, but I don't need a large quantity. Just a nice variety!
Interesting post, the lines between hitting a random button or generative thing and composing are kind of grey sometimes. Often the generative part can be the spark to get something started. Also what would be considered generative is kind of grey, even something I would not call a generative app (Fugue machine) others might see as generative rather than compositional. Then there is something like the Youcompose app where you "compose" and it is then generative around your composed melody, apps like that and Fugue machine, Sector etc still have that "me-ness" that was mentioned
Some of the coolest bits in my sequenced tracks are the result of "happy accidents." Generative apps seems like happy accident facilitators to me, but I agree that it often seems like I can spend a lot of time in search of one that probably would have been better spent focused on original ideas. That said, it doesn't dissuade me from hoping I will find an app that offers a high ratio of incidental success. I just bought Refraktions, for example, and haven't spent enough time to say if it's money well spent, but we shall see. Something that takes an original idea of mine and spawns variations seems much more useful to me.
On the topic of "real music," I'll just say that there is a difference in the concerns of a musician and the integrity of their craft from the general enjoyment of music experienced by all of us. In the latter context, if it sounds good (entirely subjective) and didn't exist previously (i.e. no copyright lawsuit involved haha) then I think you're good. In a larger sense, I would say that probably matters more to most people. For the record, it does take skill to layer grooves and melodies in such a way that they create a new, consistent and enjoyable whole just as it does to assemble Legos into an original castle or spaceship that is generally recognizable and appreciated as opposed to the random brickwork of a young child. The cost of entry may be lower, the curve to "competency" less steep and the workflow faster, but that's what technology is all about.
I really had to fight the temptation to sprinkle "quotes" much more liberally throughout this post.
I love randomness, self-evolving generators....but I usually have to tweak and edit the results, and then use these as building blocks for a finished thing. Sometimes though, the raw chaos is better than my attempts at polishing the captured moment.
@oddSTAR Happy Accident Facilitators is an excellent band name.
Why does generative music have to categorized as a black box? There are people who design the algorithms just as there are people who compose music using more traditional ways. There are people who listen to both types of music. Increasingly there are a wide range of options in between being a composer and a listener. People can decide what level of involvement they want to have.
Music does not exist in a vacuum and much like language, there is a historical and cultural context. It seems reasonable for people who create music to often have strong opinions about acknowledging their own contributions and those of others who enable the creation of music. It seems unreasonable for everyone to agree upon this. As in many human endeavors, people often focus on justifying why their perspective is correct and how those who disagree with them are mistaken.
As to the appeal of being the Queens or Kings of black box generative music makers, I think a number of people find the balance between novelty and consistency inherent within generative music appeals to them in a way that's different than traditional recorded music which sounds the same every time you push play. There are others who find the ability to create music in a different way associated with the appeal of fresh new technology while others will be turned off by it.
Heh...
FL Studio claims to be "the fastest way from your brain to your speakers." That's hyperbole, of course, but that's what most of us are striving for -- that magical workflow.
I like generative stuff I can manipulate and shape into something musical, or even to make interesting "silly noises" to use as SFX.
+1 what he said
If music is directing the composer then the results are honest...if on the other hand the composer is controlling the music then you have dishonesty and the record business
These are the sentiments of Vangelis
Only in that the processes are separate and generally one after the other. You set up all the marbles in the algorithm or state machine design process, then (and maybe after turning the kettle on for an intermission of a cup of tea or coffee) a different process begins, the other having conceptually ended - the actual sitting back and reaping the reward of pressing the 'go' button. The generative processes are not the same as the harvesting of the results. Of course, you're the same person doing the both, and there are cases where it becomes interactive to the point that they're not separated processes, and not black box but white box (such as for example NodeBeat), but the thing generating is thought of as a 'finished' bit of thinking before we 'start' on using it.
Incidentally, I'm not anti generative music, merely a bit disillusioned by the use cases. I'd say it has a use, but not so much for the artist (at least in my case), but rather, for, well, industrial uses. I can see generative music being just the thing for shopping sound ambience, perfect for public spaces. Imagine if christmas songs in shops didn't just play on repeat over and over sapping the sanity of those who work in shops. Imagine if there were more generative music for that role. However, I'd say it needn't be attached to an 'artist' who 'composed' it at all. It could quite feasibly be the job of a robot.
They'll be doing almost everything else soon, so why not.
It depends on what your goals are, but even if you use all of the "cheats," you still have to assemble it into music that is pleasing to you or the listener. That's the 'me' thing.
Here's a thread I started in October with examples of AI music...
https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/15552/collaborating-with-artificial-intelligence-music-or-muzak
With randomizers everywhere it is already there. But you still could program generative music with own algorithms.
So are you the master or the slave now? As long as it makes happy
@u0421793 while generative music can certainly lend itself to AI programming, so can traditional music. There are a number of apps that generate music in a traditional style of music based upon relatively little user input or knowledge.
As with traditional music, using a generative process can be very interactive where you try things, listen to the results, and adjust what you try next based upon what you've heard. In the most extreme case where the user has no idea what's in the black box, these interactions can lead to a perceived understanding of what's inside the black box. So rather than telling the black box what to do, the user is learning its capabilities.
There are even generative music setups where the user changes various parameters on the fly versus a programmed piece of generative music where you push a button and it goes.
As other posters have mentioned, some musicians will add generative elements to their music. Ironically enough, sometimes this generative integration is used to humanize sequences that would otherwise sound very robotic in an attempt to create the impression of a human player (e.g. a drummer).
Perhaps generative music isn't that different than traditional instruments in the sense that a certain amount of learning is needed to use the instrument and despite learning to play a particular instrument, the sounds you create while playing it may not appeal to you. There can certainly be another level of abstraction composing with generative music versus traditional instruments but the same could be said of musicians who create their own synth patches versus those who use patches created by others.
I will see your Generative Fallacy and raise you a "Ambient Soundscape".
Most of us know the black hole of melodic and ambient soundscape projects that seem to appear in the middle of some totally unrelated project.
Soon, an hour has passed and you (or me) has made some beautiful sounds. But, it is no song.
I think many people conflate "Ambient personal jams and excursions" with "songs" others would want to listen too.
Moral of the story for me if it seems too easy to be that good, well you are right.
THis is my off tangent approach to your topic that has been on my mind at times.
I am not attacking anyone, just talking really about myself and what occasionally happens.
(takes a long slow hit......)
...isn't it all generative dude?
I totally think so, @lukesleepwalker. For example, I used SessionBand Acoustic Guitar to create a basically full-length song, but using a chord progression I came up with on my own. The guitar pattern was similar, but not identical, to a fingerpicking part I'd usually fall back on. I then composed a melody that I played and sang over the SB accompaniment. If I was to ever release the song, I'd likely end up recording myself actually playing the part that SB generated.
@JohnnyGoodyear, yeah, "belief" was probably the wrong word. I certainly don't mean that other people can't write great songs that didn't come from actually playing an instrument. For me personally though, my best songs are those that start in a purely organic form, and then undergo various stages of production.
I'll need to make myself a white Russian to fully contemplate.
Generative is cool as long it gives me some control over the keys and/or scales.
I believe the whole universe is generated a long time ago, so why not use it with music.