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.
Apple as recording label?
![[Deleted User]](https://secure.gravatar.com/avatar/63f44aa3010acdf0df624ae21b07b103/?default=https%3A%2F%2Fvanillicon.com%2F08d2f26fe847e2a8929b58db50a1de6e_200.png&rating=g&size=200)
Like Lennon's man on a flaming pie, it just came to me....Apple, could launch an IOS based recording label.
The talent is out there (and in here) the apps are more than good enough. As an addition to Apple Music, the label could encourage and promote, in numerous ways, as a more professional and far wealthier soundCloud.
Artists would get their small percentage from play clicks, with the more popular music makers being offered contracts and more serious A&R development. Stars would be made.
They won't, of course, but what if...
- Would you sign up?28 votes
- Yes, in a heartbeat.17.86%
- I'd need to read the small print.60.71%
- Never, I don't trust them.21.43%
Comments
Voted B, but almost C.
Viva independence!
Yeah, I voted B too.
The idea of having somewhere to up,lad stuff that Apple would study for monetisation, etc, has its appeal. But...
So, after a few hours, it would appear that nearly 60% of the few who ventured an opinion would consider signing up, if the terms were right.
But the vast majority of forum members who took a look, don't give a damn what Apple do. Or, are just too shy to say.
I wouldn't, but not because I don't trust Apple. All the tools needed to promote your music are right there in front of you already, why give someone 30% to do what we can do ourselves these days?
It's not really a label if you can get on it by signing up, right?
Then it's basically TuneCore, which which is how my old band keeps its music on iTunes.
I'm with Tarekith. Apple is not necessary in this equation, although even less necessary is a label.
If Apple were to sign up acts onto its label it would be with a view to making money out of those acts - because that seems to be the point really. And I know full well whatever I do has zero monetary value for anyone so I doubt that a) apple would want my electronic noodling, or b) I would have the courage to submit anything.
As others have said there are plenty of avenues out there already.... but for me personally I know it's just something I enjoy for myself - so I will keep on with my noodling around (keeps me out of trouble) :-)
Doubleplus this!
Call me old school but I like my record labels to be run by music lovers.
That's really old school.
What are the tools y'all are talking about? Serious question, sorry if it sounds dense, but it's not obvious at all to me how to promote music even with the magic intertubes machine thing all these kids are crazy for...
Yes. I get that we can all upload our work, create websites, join SoundCloud, etc, etc. But after that we are still easily lost in the tide of others.
Serious global promo always takes money, and a team of people who know what they are doing. If that costs 33%, we are still left with 66% of what could, with sufficient backing, be a huge success. Surely, if there was a reliable way to DIY we'd all be doing it?
Have to agree. If you follow through with a plan and have the tools (i.e. talent & songs) I believe you can release music and make a profit. It's just a difficult endeavor if you take failure hard or aren't prepared to keep doing it success or not.
Plus, I think the Beatles Apple Corp. would have a real problem with Apple starting a label. Actually they said they would NOT ever do so as part of their settlement with Apple Corp. over the trademark. Once they broke the deal with MIDI implementation in one of the early Apple II's, settled again, and have continued to have run ins with McCartney, Starr, Olivia Harrison & Yoko Ono over iTunes and even Logic.
Cupertino wouldn't want the hassle for an endeavor they really have zero business participating in.
Sorry, but that is wishful thinking. Okay, you might break even on a small venture through sheer hard slog. But you are never going to be well known outside of a very small circle, unless a big company picks up your work and promotes the hell out of it, which costs money.
A perfect example of this is any number of brilliant Northern Soul acts, easily as catchy and talented as their Motown or Stax equivalents, but still largely unknown because the did not get the machine behind them.
>
Now that really pisses me off. How much money do The Beatles need? An agreement whereby Apple can't start a recording company named Apple is fair enough, 'cause that name is taken. But if they wanted to start one called Peach, what the fuck has it got to do with Macca, Ringo and the estates of Harrison and Lennon?
Much as I respect the music, I must admit to disliking the surviving Beatles. Ringo, because of his mean-sprited stance on signing autographs, and Macca because he could use his vast influence and wealth to do something really good in this world. But he doesn't.
I picked B. If it looked like a good deal, I'd be all over it. I've never been interested in maintaining a physical mailing list, an email list, a website, promoting, etc. I don't even like trying to book gigs. I've always just wanted to write, play, and record.
Exactly. Lots of music makers would agree, I believe. I'm happy to build and maintain a dedicated website, but I'd much rather pay someone else - whose bag it is - to do promo and commerce. 'Cause the time I'd spend on that is time away from making the music.
I suspect they would only promote the acts that are already big and expensively managed.
@Zen210507 I should've been clearer. By "make a profit" I mean just that, make some money. Didn't say " make a living" or "get rich". I totally agree with the acts you mentioned, outside of Jerry Butler those cats did not get the attention & acclaim they deserved. But that was still on the big machine, huge label era. My point was about current self produced releases in the 21st century. It can be a slog as you say, but there are a few thousand acts on Bandcamp alone that I wouldn't mind having their monthly take in my pocket. Again not millions but profit nonetheless.
As to the second point, while I agree Apple Corp can be quite Draconian in their business practices, protecting the greatest intellectual property in the history of mankind probably made them supremely effective in getting the best possible deals.
As to the Beatles themselves, saying McCartney doesn't do anything charitable is way off base. He saved his former school from demolition and created the Liverpool Institute for the Preforming Arts. Last time my wife & I were in London we took a day trip to Liverpool and saw LIPA, and what they do for musicians, engineers, etc. is brilliant.
Plus those who've attended one of his shows will find out real quick he has several causes he pushes. In the programs, the charity reps in the concourse and in the admittedly overlong introduction before the band takes the stage are appeals & education for animal rights, world hunger, Adopt-A-Minefield and several others.
There it is.
They do that already, with their radio App.
Surely, the profit here is in enticing unknowns to roll the big dice, and in so doing find some great work, almost free of effort on the part of Apple.
>
Sorry, JRSIV, but that made me laugh. Saving a school etc, especially in Liverpool, is chicken feed to Macca. Reputedly worth £500,000,000.
I was think more of him donating a truly huge sum to something that afflicts all of mankind, and has touched his personal life twice, with fatal results. How about him giving £100,000,000 to Cancer Research.
There's also the idea of organising rolling Live Aid style concerts, one a month for a year, all over the world, and getting all major acts to play. Add to that what could be squeezed from governments, and it should be possible to raise a billion quid.
Macca then has the chance of going down in history as the man who killed cancer.
@Zen210507 We'll agree to disagree. The fact is I have no respect for the über wealthy. When 63 billionaires hold more wealth than 2/3 of the entire worlds population something is seriously fucked up. I could go chapter & verse on what the supposed "leader" of the country could do with his wealth but we'll never know how much that is...
Unless both of us sit down with McCartney's accountants we're both speculating on how charitable the man is or isn't. But for me, from as "little" as having had my spirits lifted on a shit day by one of the songs he wrote/co-wrote to as great as having a strong influence on my participation in this music stuff period, McCartney has given something back to humanity in my view...whether it's as big as saving mankind from cancer I'll leave up to the individual.
>
No worries.
I actually agree with your billionaire reference. They're just as bad, if not worse. It boggles the mind when I think of what half a dozen of these guys could do for the world, and still retain fabulous wealth.
I also enjoy many of Macca's works, and respect him as a musician. Who doesn't.
In my mind, the only right way to do something actually really "good", would be to do it incognito, without big press or smiling faces/shaking heads on covers worldwide. Thus, I try to not speculate so much, and just believe there's good people within the "billionaire's club" , too. Apart from that, i just try to the good thing as much as I can (with scarce income, but idealistic wishes..., thus more in a more subtle way), it's hard enough the way things are (and I am). Strongly believe, this makes all the difference. That's me, I know...
>
Amen to that.
I must admit, Max23, that what you suggest is very possible, even likely.
But there has to be a chance that whoever was put in charge of such a venture would spread their net wider. Apple are happy to sell all kinds of music, so someone there must realise that a broad spectrum audience exists.
I'd rather someone other than the new tech overlords took this on.
They're too powerful already, I'd thatcher (I typed 'rather' but quite like the autospell version) they kept their grasping mitts away from creative folk's work.
Reagan’t sap our effort without recourse to dishonesty, the truth will out, the truth is up there, keep watching disguise.