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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Odessa (LIVE - IT FINALLY HAPPENED!)

1…1011131516…38

Comments

  • oat_phippsoat_phipps

    @realdavidai said:

    @bleep said:
    Cool. Is it possible to add multiple Odessa instances in the same AUM channel (vertically), for less AUM sideways scrolling, or does an AU midi effect always have to be in the input slot of AUM?

    I’ve been thinking AUM could used a vertical stack option with scrolling....would almost feel like Reason

    This is an amazing idea

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Hell, I've even heard blues musicians play stuff like this, only those guys don't usually know they're doing it and couldn't replicate if if you asked them too. Actual human musicians do some very complex things with rhythm and tuning, which is why electronic music so often does not sound human--our stuff is just way too simple and regular to be human.

  • brambosbrambos

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Hell, I've even heard blues musicians play stuff like this, only those guys don't usually know they're doing it and couldn't replicate if if you asked them too. Actual human musicians do some very complex things with rhythm and tuning, which is why electronic music so often does not sound human--our stuff is just way too simple and regular to be human.

    Perhaps once Odessa is out there’d be an opportunity to create another app oriented towards this complex polyrhythmic approach which I’m definitely interested in as well?

  • Bender_RhodesBender_Rhodes

    God bless the poor ignorant blues musicians. By the way, you don’t need “chops” to understand polyrhythms.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    @InfoCheck said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Hell, I've even heard blues musicians play stuff like this, only those guys don't usually know they're doing it and couldn't replicate if if you asked them too. Actual human musicians do some very complex things with rhythm and tuning, which is why electronic music so often does not sound human--our stuff is just way too simple and regular to be human.

    Perhaps once Odessa is out there’d be an opportunity to create another app oriented towards this complex polyrhythmic approach which I’m definitely interested in as well?

    I’m sure eventually AU midi will get swamped with all sorts of great apps. Glad @brambos is getting the show underway :)

  • lukesleepwalkerlukesleepwalker

    @InfoCheck said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Hell, I've even heard blues musicians play stuff like this, only those guys don't usually know they're doing it and couldn't replicate if if you asked them too. Actual human musicians do some very complex things with rhythm and tuning, which is why electronic music so often does not sound human--our stuff is just way too simple and regular to be human.

    Perhaps once Odessa is out there’d be an opportunity to create another app oriented towards this complex polyrhythmic approach which I’m definitely interested in as well?

    Sounds like a job for the quantum dev.

  • DaveypooDaveypoo

    @lukesleepwalker said:

    @InfoCheck said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Hell, I've even heard blues musicians play stuff like this, only those guys don't usually know they're doing it and couldn't replicate if if you asked them too. Actual human musicians do some very complex things with rhythm and tuning, which is why electronic music so often does not sound human--our stuff is just way too simple and regular to be human.

    Perhaps once Odessa is out there’d be an opportunity to create another app oriented towards this complex polyrhythmic approach which I’m definitely interested in as well?

    Sounds like a job for the quantum dev.

    Ha! You nailed it

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @Bender_Rhodes said:
    By the way, you don’t need “chops” to understand polyrhythms.

    Not sure what you mean by this, but am interested to find out. My definition of technique includes the ability to hear and comprehend things even if you can't play them.

  • mistercharliemistercharlie
    edited November 2017

    @brambos said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Well.... no disrespect to Mr. Zappa. But if this is something that only Zappa did once, four decades ago then I think I prefer to keep my UIs simple and not burden them with arcane features like this :D

    No, it was pretty much at the core of Zappa's style from the mid-70s until the end of his life. Complex polyrhythms are a feature of African folk musics, contemporary jazz, Western classical, and Indian classical musics. It's only "arcane" to people without the chops or curiosity to learn about what the most technically advanced musicians are doing and have been since before most of us were born.

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    :smile:

  • Bender_RhodesBender_Rhodes

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @Bender_Rhodes said:
    By the way, you don’t need “chops” to understand polyrhythms.

    Not sure what you mean by this, but am interested to find out. My definition of technique includes the ability to hear and comprehend things even if you can't play them.

    Oh. In my experience, when people refer to a player’s “chops,” i usually take it to mean “how annoying are they in the GuitarCenter amp room?”

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    That's probably the best business decision. I doubt that things like Wilsonic would ever turn a profit (if he charged for it). This is why the most capable music software seems to all be in the public domain--there's just not enough market for it. Apps that make music a push button game that anyone can play will have a broader market share.

    That said, you've been really sucessful at abstracting complexity in the apps you have out already, and making it accessible to people who don't have your own level of understanding. Please don't discount your own accomplishments in that regard, and please don't underestimate your ability to take that even farther. And hopefully make money off of it.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]
    edited November 2017

    @LeonLeroy said:

    @Richtowns said:
    ^ AUM for me completely transends all references to money. I look at it sometimes and just wonder where in the hell this thing came from. It really is light years ahead of ANY ios app afaik. All hail j lilla, dev god! (@Brambos is up their too)

    well said. couldnt agree more. aum is almost as essential to ipad music as my ipad itself

    AUM is like having a big old, hardware mixing desk in your studio. It's the first thing to be switched on, and everything else then connects to or feeds through it. The hub. The fact professor Brambos is building apps to make it even more essential is the icing on the pie, and the main reason I'm still using the iPad for music.

  • DatGoodDatGood

    This thread Infuriates me because this app is not here yet and I want it to be so I can complete my tool kit and I can quit buying apps. Ha

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    I did not make myself clear--even blues musicians with average techniques routinely pull off complex polyrhythmic tuplets. This happens when you're feeling the spirit, turn off your left brain, and start moving your fingers as fast as you can just to see what comes out.

    It's sort of the human version of randomise, except it's not totally random. It's shaped by the fingerings you already know on your instrument. It's going to come out differently for each musician, and saxophonists will have different patterns than keyboardists, than guitarists.

    Again, it's not "arcane"--any improvising musician has done this by accident if not on purpose--every one of us.

    A developer who can figure out how to implement this kind of "humanise" function into a sequencer and thus make human-sounding, complex melodic polyrhythmic tuplets available to the rest of us would be a genius and hopefully make a lot of money.

  • brambosbrambos

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    That's probably the best business decision. I doubt that things like Wilsonic would ever turn a profit (if he charged for it). This is why the most capable music software seems to all be in the public domain--there's just not enough market for it. Apps that make music a push button game that anyone can play will have a broader market share.

    Hmmm.. I'm not sure. It depends what your definition of capable software is. It's a continuum. And on one extreme there are musicians like the aforementioned mr. Zappa, Jordan Rudess, Tomas Haake, et al. These are people who push the technical boundaries, have mastered their instruments and come up with chord progressions that have only been played twice in the last century.

    There are tools for this kind of purpose. But my personal interests lie in the other extreme of "capable software" (so it's not even purely a business consideration). I like to explore the intersection of "fun" and "creative flow", without turning my tools into what you describe as a push button game. I have no problem with leaving out poweruser features if that helps me create a user experience that nicely balances positive challenge, possibilities and learning curve.

    As I recently discussed with another esteemed forum member, as a designer I've always ascribed to the functionalist design rationale of Dieter Rams; I like functional minimalism - not just visually, but especially the conceptual elegance of it. And I think this is also reflected in the way I approach the design of musical tools. It's just my personal style and approach. I think each instrument designer has his/her own signature :)

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    @brambos said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    That's probably the best business decision. I doubt that things like Wilsonic would ever turn a profit (if he charged for it). This is why the most capable music software seems to all be in the public domain--there's just not enough market for it. Apps that make music a push button game that anyone can play will have a broader market share.

    Hmmm.. I'm not sure. It depends what your definition of capable software is. It's a continuum. And on one extreme there are musicians like the aforementioned mr. Zappa, Jordan Rudess, Tomas Haake, et al. These are people who push the technical boundaries, have mastered their instruments and come up with chord progressions that have only been played twice in the last century.

    There are tools for this kind of purpose. But my personal interests lie in the other extreme of "capable software" (so it's not even purely a business consideration). I like to explore the intersection of "fun" and "creative flow", without turning my tools into what you describe as a push button game. I have no problem with leaving out poweruser features if that helps me create a user experience that nicely balances positive challenge, possibilities and learning curve.

    As I recently discussed with another esteemed forum member, as a designer I've always ascribed to the functionalist design rationale of Dieter Rams; I like functional minimalism - not just visually, but especially the conceptual elegance of it. And I think this is also reflected in the way I approach the design of musical tools. It's just my personal style and approach. I think each instrument designer has his/her own signature :)

    Sounds like you've really thought a lot about your design esthetic. I see the developers in this space as artists in their own right, and you're right up there with the best of them. If it weren't for you guys, I would never even have considered buying an Ipad.

  • brambosbrambos
    edited November 2017

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    I did not make myself clear--even blues musicians with average techniques routinely pull off complex polyrhythmic tuplets. This happens when you're feeling the spirit, turn off your left brain, and start moving your fingers as fast as you can just to see what comes out.

    It's sort of the human version of randomise, except it's not totally random. It's shaped by the fingerings you already know on your instrument. It's going to come out differently for each musician, and saxophonists will have different patterns than keyboardists, than guitarists.

    Again, it's not "arcane"--any improvising musician has done this by accident if not on purpose--every one of us.

    A developer who can figure out how to implement this kind of "humanise" function into a sequencer and thus make human-sounding, complex melodic polyrhythmic tuplets available to the rest of us would be a genius and hopefully make a lot of money.

    I understand what you said. And I just like using the word "arcane", it's one of those wonderful semantic gems in English that doesn't really exist in my native language (as is "discombobulation".. love it).

    Anyway, I think it's important to make a distinction between tools designed for live performance, and tools for sequencing/jamming/noodling. I like noodling. It's one of my favorite musical pastimes :D But it takes a different approach to design than tools made for use on the stage..

  • ModerndaycompilerModerndaycompiler

    @brambos said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    That's probably the best business decision. I doubt that things like Wilsonic would ever turn a profit (if he charged for it). This is why the most capable music software seems to all be in the public domain--there's just not enough market for it. Apps that make music a push button game that anyone can play will have a broader market share.

    Hmmm.. I'm not sure. It depends what your definition of capable software is. It's a continuum. And on one extreme there are musicians like the aforementioned mr. Zappa, Jordan Rudess, Tomas Haake, et al. These are people who push the technical boundaries, have mastered their instruments and come up with chord progressions that have only been played twice in the last century.

    There are tools for this kind of purpose. But my personal interests lie in the other extreme of "capable software" (so it's not even purely a business consideration). I like to explore the intersection of "fun" and "creative flow", without turning my tools into what you describe as a push button game. I have no problem with leaving out poweruser features if that helps me create a user experience that nicely balances positive challenge, possibilities and learning curve.

    As I recently discussed with another esteemed forum member, as a designer I've always ascribed to the functionalist design rationale of Dieter Rams; I like functional minimalism - not just visually, but especially the conceptual elegance of it. And I think this is also reflected in the way I approach the design of musical tools. It's just my personal style and approach. I think each instrument designer has his/her own signature :)

    Fair enough @brambos and many thanks for your reasoned responses. I thought I would inquire because I love your tools and believe odessa has potential to support this. @Wlrds2ndBstGeoshrdr already covered my thoughts on the topic well.

    I do not personally think what Zappa and others have done is as rare as it may appear on the surface. Stravinsky and the Rite Of Spring comes to mind. While my inquiry was related to subdividing individual beats many artists use uncommon time signatures as well. I was quite surprised by the variety of music in this list (The Allman Brothers, Genesis, ELP, Gratefull Dead, Nine Inch Nails, Here Comes The Sun by the Beatles,...).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures

    The use of tuples as I described for the Black Page also long preceded Zappa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet

    Interestingly iOS apps like the built in midi file player of bs-16i or the nifty miditrails app support playing and showing complex time signature and tempo changes. That is likely the easy part. Entering those types of things into a sequencer is definitely going to be more difficult to do elegantly and you made a great case for your design approach :smile: . I hope some sequencer on iOS will provide this some day.

    Here is an iPad screen record of miditrails playing bs-16i. The midifile is Pedro's Dowry which I created 20 years ago. Started the project on Amiga Bars and Pipes and finished it on Cakewalk when it became clear I needed a sequencer that supported multiple time signatures, complex tuplets, and ramping of tempo. The miditrails view shows midi in action quite well in this case. Unfortunately the time signature and tempo changes are cut off by the Apple slide over window.

    Sorry to derail this thread...

  • brambosbrambos

    @Moderndaycompiler said:

    @brambos said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    That's probably the best business decision. I doubt that things like Wilsonic would ever turn a profit (if he charged for it). This is why the most capable music software seems to all be in the public domain--there's just not enough market for it. Apps that make music a push button game that anyone can play will have a broader market share.

    Hmmm.. I'm not sure. It depends what your definition of capable software is. It's a continuum. And on one extreme there are musicians like the aforementioned mr. Zappa, Jordan Rudess, Tomas Haake, et al. These are people who push the technical boundaries, have mastered their instruments and come up with chord progressions that have only been played twice in the last century.

    There are tools for this kind of purpose. But my personal interests lie in the other extreme of "capable software" (so it's not even purely a business consideration). I like to explore the intersection of "fun" and "creative flow", without turning my tools into what you describe as a push button game. I have no problem with leaving out poweruser features if that helps me create a user experience that nicely balances positive challenge, possibilities and learning curve.

    As I recently discussed with another esteemed forum member, as a designer I've always ascribed to the functionalist design rationale of Dieter Rams; I like functional minimalism - not just visually, but especially the conceptual elegance of it. And I think this is also reflected in the way I approach the design of musical tools. It's just my personal style and approach. I think each instrument designer has his/her own signature :)

    Fair enough @brambos and many thanks for your reasoned responses. I thought I would inquire because I love your tools and believe odessa has potential to support this. @Wlrds2ndBstGeoshrdr already covered my thoughts on the topic well.

    I do not personally think what Zappa and others have done is as rare as it may appear on the surface. Stravinsky and the Rite Of Spring comes to mind. While my inquiry was related to subdividing individual beats many artists use uncommon time signatures as well. I was quite surprised by the variety of music in this list (The Allman Brothers, Genesis, ELP, Gratefull Dead, Nine Inch Nails, Here Comes The Sun by the Beatles,...).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures

    The use of tuples as I described for the Black Page also long preceded Zappa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet

    Interestingly iOS apps like the built in midi file player of bs-16i or the nifty miditrails app support playing and showing complex time signature and tempo changes. That is likely the easy part. Entering those types of things into a sequencer is definitely going to be more difficult to do elegantly and you made a great case for your design approach :smile: . I hope some sequencer on iOS will provide this some day.

    Here is an iPad screen record of miditrails playing bs-16i. The midifile is Pedro's Dowry which I created 20 years ago. Started the project on Amiga Bars and Pipes and finished it on Cakewalk when it became clear I needed a sequencer that supported multiple time signatures, complex tuplets, and ramping of tempo. The miditrails view shows midi in action quite well in this case. Unfortunately the time signature and tempo changes are cut off by the Apple slide over window.

    Sorry to derail this thread...

    No problem. Always happy to be inspired with unexpected insights. Sometimes these kind of things can be easily accomplished without changing the overall UI paradigm. In which case I'm usually more than happy to enable it :)

  • j_liljedahlj_liljedahl

    @bleep said:
    Cool. Is it possible to add multiple Odessa instances in the same AUM channel (vertically), for less AUM sideways scrolling, or does an AU midi effect always have to be in the input slot of AUM?

    This is on my TODO list, some kind of non-audio node slots in AUM for these MIDI-only plugins. Exactly how it will look and work is not decided yet..

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    Even though I’m the kind of tester that nags for features, I can appreciate @brambos having this ease of use / minimalist approach.

    To be honest, I would like lots of AU bits and pieces. By this, I mean lots of little specific and fast (read easy) AU midi or even audio apps to populated a shell host. I like the mix and match to the occasion approach it caters well to - modular before modular became such large and expensive multi use units.

  • ModerndaycompilerModerndaycompiler

    @brambos said:

    @Moderndaycompiler said:

    @brambos said:

    @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr said:

    @brambos said:

    Ok, fine. I'll leave that to the most technically advanced musicians then, and keep my software easy to use for the rest of us.

    That's probably the best business decision. I doubt that things like Wilsonic would ever turn a profit (if he charged for it). This is why the most capable music software seems to all be in the public domain--there's just not enough market for it. Apps that make music a push button game that anyone can play will have a broader market share.

    Hmmm.. I'm not sure. It depends what your definition of capable software is. It's a continuum. And on one extreme there are musicians like the aforementioned mr. Zappa, Jordan Rudess, Tomas Haake, et al. These are people who push the technical boundaries, have mastered their instruments and come up with chord progressions that have only been played twice in the last century.

    There are tools for this kind of purpose. But my personal interests lie in the other extreme of "capable software" (so it's not even purely a business consideration). I like to explore the intersection of "fun" and "creative flow", without turning my tools into what you describe as a push button game. I have no problem with leaving out poweruser features if that helps me create a user experience that nicely balances positive challenge, possibilities and learning curve.

    As I recently discussed with another esteemed forum member, as a designer I've always ascribed to the functionalist design rationale of Dieter Rams; I like functional minimalism - not just visually, but especially the conceptual elegance of it. And I think this is also reflected in the way I approach the design of musical tools. It's just my personal style and approach. I think each instrument designer has his/her own signature :)

    Fair enough @brambos and many thanks for your reasoned responses. I thought I would inquire because I love your tools and believe odessa has potential to support this. @Wlrds2ndBstGeoshrdr already covered my thoughts on the topic well.

    I do not personally think what Zappa and others have done is as rare as it may appear on the surface. Stravinsky and the Rite Of Spring comes to mind. While my inquiry was related to subdividing individual beats many artists use uncommon time signatures as well. I was quite surprised by the variety of music in this list (The Allman Brothers, Genesis, ELP, Gratefull Dead, Nine Inch Nails, Here Comes The Sun by the Beatles,...).

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_musical_works_in_unusual_time_signatures

    The use of tuples as I described for the Black Page also long preceded Zappa.

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tuplet

    Interestingly iOS apps like the built in midi file player of bs-16i or the nifty miditrails app support playing and showing complex time signature and tempo changes. That is likely the easy part. Entering those types of things into a sequencer is definitely going to be more difficult to do elegantly and you made a great case for your design approach :smile: . I hope some sequencer on iOS will provide this some day.

    Here is an iPad screen record of miditrails playing bs-16i. The midifile is Pedro's Dowry which I created 20 years ago. Started the project on Amiga Bars and Pipes and finished it on Cakewalk when it became clear I needed a sequencer that supported multiple time signatures, complex tuplets, and ramping of tempo. The miditrails view shows midi in action quite well in this case. Unfortunately the time signature and tempo changes are cut off by the Apple slide over window.

    Sorry to derail this thread...

    No problem. Always happy to be inspired with unexpected insights. Sometimes these kind of things can be easily accomplished without changing the overall UI paradigm. In which case I'm usually more than happy to enable it :)

    The great thing about this forum is the direct access to real developers like you @brambos. I myself am a software developer and really do understand the difficulties in elegant UI design. Sometimes the most elegant solutions are in the end easy :smile: . I work on developing performance analysis tools for exa-scale computing with hundreds of thousands of cores and now gpu's programmed with multiple levels of parallelism (mpi,openmp,gpu,fpga) used to distribute work (large science codes). I can see an analogy with modern programming concepts (parallelism, object oriented coding, etc) with music in the context of time signature, tuples, tempo and notation schemes like standard music notation and midi representation of notation. Enjoyed this conversation and reading you contributions on all things iOS. Cheers.

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    @Fruitbat1919 said:
    Even though I’m the kind of tester that nags for features, I can appreciate @brambos having this ease of use / minimalist approach.

    To be honest, I would like lots of AU bits and pieces. By this, I mean lots of little specific and fast (read easy) AU midi or even audio apps to populated a shell host. I like the mix and match to the occasion approach it caters well to - modular before modular became such large and expensive multi use units.

    I appreciate this approach too.

  • bleepbleep

    @j_liljedahl said:

    @bleep said:
    Cool. Is it possible to add multiple Odessa instances in the same AUM channel (vertically), for less AUM sideways scrolling, or does an AU midi effect always have to be in the input slot of AUM?

    This is on my TODO list, some kind of non-audio node slots in AUM for these MIDI-only plugins. Exactly how it will look and work is not decided yet..

    Sounds good. With Odessa´s small memory footprint and easy midi CC setup we will want to use 4 XYs and 3 LFO instances for every audio channel in use, so this could soon become an urgent feature request :smiley:

    The non-audio channel strip would be good to have in mind also when considering that other thread regarding channel preset saving. One could have some favourite combinations that could easily be merged into any session. Also, that idea regarding bookmarks and faster scrolling - the non-audio channels would be good candidates here, too. How about grouping together channels for non-audio, sends, melody, drums, and having bookmark buttons that quickly take you to these sections? Or something else, I trust your excellent decisions when designing functional UI!

  • CracklePotCracklePot

    @brambos @Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredr Reading your discourse has made my day. So much good information with opposing views and a minimum of poo flinging. It was such a good, interesting read.

    @brambos I have been watching a lot of videos on your whole suite of apps, trying to figure out which one I want to get first. There is something about the quality of your apps that really shines through in the demo videos. They all seem to have been crafted with great diligence and care. I may just have to get them all in one go.

  • brambosbrambos

    @CracklePot said:
    @brambos I have been watching a lot of videos on your whole suite of apps, trying to figure out which one I want to get first. There is something about the quality of your apps that really shines through in the demo videos. They all seem to have been crafted with great diligence and care. I may just have to get them all in one go.

    Well, good news then that no choosing will be needed: all the plugins come in a single package B)

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User]

    Brambos any idea how much? Just making sure we got enough iTunes credits :o

    @brambos said:

    @CracklePot said:
    @brambos I have been watching a lot of videos on your whole suite of apps, trying to figure out which one I want to get first. There is something about the quality of your apps that really shines through in the demo videos. They all seem to have been crafted with great diligence and care. I may just have to get them all in one go.

    Well, good news then that no choosing will be needed: all the plugins come in a single package B)

  • echooperaechoopera

    Release the kraken already <3

  • Wrlds2ndBstGeoshredrWrlds2ndBstGeoshredr

    Brainstorming on using polyrhythmic, polymetric tuplets to humanize a sequence: How about a "Climax!" button? You select two or four bars of your track where you want to climax. You push the Climax! button and it composes a rapid, complex, intense lick that sounds like what a saxophonist would play at the peak of his solo when he's blowing his brains out.

    What would be behind a Climax! button?

    1) The pitch collection. Default would be the song's scale, with some added chromatic passing notes to smooth out the runs. Advanced users can specify their own scale and degree of chromaticism.

    2) Number of notes per bar. Default would be 15-25 for medium tempo, more for slower tempos, less for faster. Advanced users could specify their own number.

    3) Melodic contour. Default would randomly select a melodic fragment from the song, add some chromatic passing notes between the scale tones. Advanced users could seed the climax algorithm with their own melodic fragment ala Fugue Machine. The algorithm would use this fragment to compose micro runs that collectively make up the climax melody.

    4) Rhythmic complexity. Default could be a rhythm randomly drawn from the Zappa Black Page transcription referenced above. The Climax algorithm matches notes to the rhythm and spits it out as midi. Advanced users could choose from other pre-programmed complex rhythm compositions drawn from the Indian classical tabla repertoire, John Coltrane transcriptions, other Zappa pieces, etc.

Sign In or Register to comment.