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
Think it was meant for the next album, along with Penny Lane, but EMI wanted another single. Shame, they would have worked well on the album, making it less 'crap'.
Well, we can't have everything.
If only George Martin had been a touch more talented; no crap at all.
I absolutely agree. I used to be openly MOCKED. by my contemporaries in Jr. High in the early '90's for my love of the Beatles. Today, young people almosy universally embrace them.
I said there's no absolutes in my post, many don't succumb to a generation gap rebellion and totally dig music of the past. My point was about the "successful" music at the top of the charts. All artist's can he influenced by the previous generation(s) but the charts bear out what sells most is the "new" music, artists and genres at least on the surface to not be overly influenced by an older generation.
For instance, for every Adele, who is an excellent singer, and IS a throwback to the young ingenue vocalists like Dusty Springfield, Aretha, Mary Hopkins, etc. there are 10 hip-hop acts like DJ Khaled
, 10 anonymous "male vocalists/singer songwriters" like Ed Sheeran or an EDM, left field act.
I'm sorry, I try to give all music a chance, but that music, at the top of the charts, I can't get behind at all. There are exceptions but not in awhile. That was my point. There's tons of great music here in our community, on SoundCloud and on iTunes if you dig deep enough. My point was geared towards the more successful "Pop" top of the charts end of the spectrum.
Well if you listen to album without any of the cultural baggage, it's hard to really believe that it's one of the greatest albums of all time.
Looking at the track listing, we have (IMO of course, your list might be different):
Great Song: A Day In The Life.
Good Songs (or in my view "OK songs"
): Sgt Pepper's Lonely Hearts (Pts 1 & 2), With A Little Help From My Friends, Lucy In The Sky With Diamonds, Within You Without You
Mediocre Songs: Getting Better, Fixing A Hole, She's Leaving Home, For The Benefit Of Mr Kite, When I'm Sixty-Four, Lovely Rita, Good Morning
The inclusion of Strawberry Fields would definitely have given the album a lift, but for me it's not even in the top five Beatles albums. I think the praise heaped on Sgt Pepper has become received wisdom, rather than people actually listening to the record. What people forget is that amongst all the arty experimentation there was also a fair amount of what John dismissively called "Paul's granny music". McCartney had better moments on the White Album and Abbey Road.
Having said that, I love McCartney and I think he's written some of the best songs ever written, but they're not on that album
Sometimes the cultural significance of a musical event takes precedence over the actual music. I think Sgt Pepper is a case in point. In the 90s it was the Battle Of BritPop, and all the fuss about who was going to be no.1 between Blur and Oasis. A big deal was made of it all, but the two songs in question (Roll With It and Country House) weren't worthy of all the hype and weren't anywhere near the best either band could produce. But that's not always obvious at the time, because it often takes hindsight to really appreciate musical worth. I always preferred Suede and Radiohead anyway...
Suede lol.
Richard, your gripe seems to be the 'greatest album of all time' thing. That's just a label some people have given it, which obviously is going to be contested as it's personal opinion. I don't think it's even the best Beatle album, but I think it fully deserves recognition as one of the most influential and groundbreaking albums of the era musically and technically.
I think it was just all the celebrity endorsements on the cover.
That's because it was the example offered in that video in the original post that kicked off the thread, to say music was a lot better in the past. I just thought it was a poor example
(as a Beatles fan!)
Suede were good. Seriously, give them a listen.
Oh, come on, that is a really good Macca song,
I've always preferred Suede and Radiohead anyway...
That explains a lot.
When did music end for you? Was the 1970s? Do you like anything from the 90s onwards? Anything from this century? Just curious.
Not ridiculing, just asking. I thought the 90s was a pretty good decade for music, with some terrific albums that have stood the test of time. First decade of this century was also great IMO. This decade less so, but there's still hope.
James Joyce and Sir Robert Peel were massive fans apparently.
Apparently Hitler wasn't and insisted he be removed.
He thought Macca's granny music was overrated. Big fan of Suede, apparently.
Admitting to liking Suede leads to comparison with Hitler
Sure. Warp records, Tricky, Massive Attack, Bjork, PJ Harvey, Slint. Given how nostalgic Suede were, I'm not sure they're the poster child for forward looking modern tastes though...
Incidentally, for those decrying modern pop. Look at the top 30 lists for 1994, and 1995. Mostly dreck - with plenty of stuff now seen as classic nowhere to be seen.
In all seriousness though, the Suede sidetrack alley is quite interesting because it relates to the issue of cultural baggage. It's really easy to dismiss music because of image, and I can understand the scoffing at Suede to some extent, because I scoffed at them too at the time, it was only much later that I re-evaluated them and decided they were pretty good after all.
That's the challenge, to listen to music without prejudice and forget all the baggage and judge it on its own merit. You might even like Suede. I'm also a fan of Neil Diamond, The Carpenters and Elton John (!) amongst other horrors, and not ashamed to admit it
I loved Warp, Massive Attack and Slint. Add Pavement, Orbital and a million others to the list. I mentioned Suede in comparison to their peers Blur and Oasis, not as figureheads of 90s rock.
As a regular Radio 2 daytime listener it's hard to escape Elton, unless I get to the volume control in time.
Don't mind a bit of Carpenters though, or their modern reincarnation Rumer.
I'd rather eat my own earwax than listen to Suede though, to quote the late Winston Churchill.
Toast.
Everything, apparently. Have a nice evening.
Elton in the 70's, powered by Bernie Taupin's poetry, wrote some powerful stuff. After that, not so much. Then when he got Disneyfied it was beyond awful.
Can't argue with the pitch perfect voice of Karen Carpenter. Tony Paluso's work on Goodbye to Love is among my favourite guitar solos. Rumer, mmmm yes.
Suede, always came across as Bowie Lite, but without the visual, lyrical or sonic imagination.
I just thought it was funny that you brought them up and then asked if Monzo (who I like to think is really Mark E. Smith) if he liked any modern music. Even at the time all three bands sounded very dated.
Music never ends.
As for who I like from more recent times, a few names that spring to mind are; Massive Attack, John Newman, Joe Bonamassa, PJ Harvey, Alabama Shakes, Moby, Leslie Mendelson, Pink, Bat For Lashes and Sinkane, plus dozens of others.
See how you've misjudged me now.
I am lad.
Funnily enough even in the olde days, the '70's' bands I liked (Hawkwind, Gong, Can, Residents, Beefheart etc.) were still making new albums, so it was still contemporary. I just thought Daevid Allen was light years ahead of, say, 'Boy' George or Tony 'pencils' Hadley.
Even now I'm mostly listening to new music (check our new album, by the way) - mostly sourced via Soundcloud, YouTube and The Wire mag.
Though to be fair it is generally all a terrible racket.
I like one Elton song - 'I want love', and I probably only got into that one because I thought it was someone else (check the vid). I agree his old stuff was better generally, but it's not my cup of tea.
I remember when Rumer's Slow was first played on the radio - for a while I thought it was The Carpenters. It was played endlessly until I got fed up with it, but then one day it grabbed me, and from then on I got shivers up my legs every time I heard it. I even had to pull the car over one time, and wiped a tear from my cold, bloodshot eye.
Weird how music can grow on you like that, like some crafty sort of moss.
To be fair I posted music from this year earlier in the thread (examples of what I think is decent mainstream music). The whole Blur/Oasis point (which got lost along the way) wasn't about their current relevance, but about how sometimes cultural issues cloud the music - the point I was making is that the fuss that was made about the battle of the no. 1s (Blur vs Oasis) was all over two pretty mediocre songs. So I think you're taking what I said out of context somewhat.
Also I know Monzo likes off-the-wall stuff and I respect that.
My question was actually directed at someone else, and it wasn't asked in order to sneer, I really wanted to know.
Comment of the day