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.
Question for the younger crowd here (25 and below) What is your opinion of older recordings/sound?
Just curious as I know a producer in his late 50s, maybe even 60's by now who has worked with the likes of the Eagles, Madonna, John lennon who mentioned to me that newer recordings sound too bright to his ears due to digital and over compressed. In fact many older engineers have commented on the Loudness wars where in an effort to get their songs noticed on the radio, they try to make them as loud as possible (even though they themselves dont like it). But then a younger producer I know who's 18 loves it LOUD! He always pushes the levels. He loves a lot of newer EDM/hip hop ala dubstep and digs the loud bass and huge drops.
I'm in mid 30s so am somewhere inbetween. I can appreciate the Beach Boys Pet Sounds/Beatles recordings while also feeling the newer Skrillex/trap sounds. But even I can feel the difference between how a punk band/metal band/electronic band from the 70s/80s differ from one recorded in this century.
So for you youngsters, do you think anything recorded to tape just sucks/sounds old? If you do like a particular old song's recording, pls share the specific song as well.
Thnx in advance
Comments
.
I'm 27 but I'll still answer! For me it depends on the songs. For something like dubstep. I like it loud and aggressive. To achieve some of those synth/bass sounds and make them listenable relative to the drums or to achieve that robotic grating sound, you need to compress the hell out of them. In doing that, I feel like the track stays in one plane of sound. It's very superficial, there's no depth, no dynamics. I approach listening to dubstep, like knife party , similar to the way I approach an action movie. I want mindless fun, there's no need for depth. Listening to an indie song by modest mouse, theres a story; there's meaning. There's more dynamics in sound. Not compressed to the point that you can't hear a gentle hi hat. There I am able to appreciate an old school method of recording . Breathes life to a track.
My quote of the day. Good stuff.
I'm 25 and a newbie to all of this but honestly I like a mixture of old and new. I like some due step but not hardcore, rock, country, oldies (Like 60's-80's...my wife is a huge Elvis fan), contemporary Christian. Little bit of errything!
@Nocebo and JMSexton - Thanks for your answers guys!
I fall way out of the demographic that you've targeted in this thread. The average age of regular posters on this site is something like 40+. Correct me guys. There is a thread here about the age of posters and it makes very interesting reading and also accounts for the knowledge and civility shared on this forum.
Anyway, every generation thinks their music is the best. That sums it all up. Subjectivity will regn supreme in this particular kind of discussion. Personally, I find that a lot of the newer music sounds very harsh only because the producers of such genres don't have the knowledge of achieving the best sonic output. Nothing to do with the music just the recording of it as it is mostly made in bedroom studios. I love music so anything goes but I love a little bit of depth and I stay away from one trick ponies. Still, as long as we all understand that music is a language then everything is cool.
I've been thinking about this a bit. I'm 27 so I'm almost 25 :P. I think a lot of production these days is "brighter" and far less natural, but it often reflects the instrumentation and arrangements of the era. More so in pop music and popular electronic stuff, where beats are prominent, big, and loud.
I don't think old recordings suck at all. On the contrary, I think contemporary rock production is often bland and boring. Immediately I think of Frank Zappa, Gentle Giant, Yes - all those awesome prog rock bands. These days rock is so often all about high gain and in-your-face tones. Not universally, of course, but often.
In other instances I think modern production can be great. IDM stuff like Autechre and Squarepusher do it well. Heavy metal can sound fantastic using modern approaches to production. I think it all depends on context. I'm generally not a fan of pushing loudness in any situation. It's ok to go a little louder sometimes, but to overdo it is usually not cool.
There's a band down here in Melbourne, Australia called The Cactus Channel. They are a young soul/funk band known for recording directly to analogue tape and attempting to replicate the vibe of the best soul and funk groups. But there's something about it that sounds so modern. I mean it sounds great, but not the same, and yeah it sounds louder to me. That's not to say it's worse, just different.
Hopefully that all made sense somehow!
Cooool! I never woulda guess anyone would drop Gentle Giant's name in this forum. Long time fan here. Makes me want to check out The Cactus Channel and the others you mentioned too. Thanks for that @TCM. I'm 53, so I don't fall into the target demographics either. Like @TCM implied, there are a number of groups out there who don't really fall into the "modern" model. Not to say that's better or worse, but to me, it indicates that music is flourishing...people are just trying anything to achieve the sound they want.
I had kind of forgotten about Gentle Giant actually, and when I was writing that post I somehow had this tune in my head and couldn't place it. Then I realised it was a Gentle Giant song. Don't know where it came from. Makes me want to revisit them too though :P
I'm going on the Cruise to the Edge cruise in Apr. (got tickets before I knew I was about to be laid off) and Three Friends (all from Gentle Giant, I believe) will be there in addition to several others that I'm stoke to see. Gentle Giant was always among the most experimental bands I've ever heard. From their timing, key modulations, syncopations, instruments, etc., they were amazing.
http://cruisetotheedge.com
Three Friends are brilliant. It has been my priviledge to hang out on a number of occasions with several of the boys from Gentle Giant and they are truly lovely people. You're going to have a great time.
Being early 30s, in terms of sound from a mixing/mastering standpoint, older stuff is seriously showing its age to me at this point. This past year it's really starting to get to me. I hate that "classic rock" has dominated most radio in the Midwest because I know of tons of shit that has been made between then and now which has effected culture and can't fathom how anyone can listen to these stations play songs the listener has literally heard a thousand times or more, buffeted with garbage advertisement sounds and music. If that is your daily diet of music, then you poison your brain with this mix of advertainment, all with a quintuple helping of broadcast reverb thrown on top. The reason for this condition is that Baby Boomers have the most available cash, and their worldview is the one primarily catered to, at least in the US, especially the Midwest.
But it isn't just that, older mixes truly show the lack of precision they had compared to today's which can be louder because of the precision available, and I don't think that is a bad thing.
When I hear someone complain about a modern mix, it is usually more down to the musical content than the actual sound, and the fact they prefer yesterday's pop over today's pop music. Unfortunately, they usually believe that "pop" is all that matters, and the arguments revolve selfishly around the fact that they believe their opinion on the subject matters at all to anyone other than themselves.
For me specifically, older reverbs and the techniques used to weave them into a recording sound so dated to me. I really can't listen to Dark Side of the Moon or a lot of Led Zeppeling stuff anymore because of that.
Luckily nearly all my favorite old jazz albums still sound great in comparison to modern recordings.
Frankie Says..... new producers "don't have the knowledge of achieving the best sonic output". I think the crux of the original post is about what is the "best sonic output". If you (subjectively) use the sound of 60s-80s studio recordings as the standard, then of course newer stuff will fall short. If you use the new sound as the standard then the old stuff will sound "noisy, colored and too warm". Perfect Sound Forever is an excellent book that looks at this situation.
MrNezumi - this is always a round robin kind of discussion and in the end it all comes down to personal taste. Zappa or Holdsworth? Satriani or Benson? No winners here. If I like a song or album, I just buy it irrespective of whether it is a modern or vintage sound. The academic stuff doesn't really matter to me as music is a personal thing.
My point about sonic output is that today's "producers" do what they think is cool as opposed to knowing how to get an awesome sound. To me, this is because the art of mastering music is a specialised thing and the in depth stuff involved in mastering and hence getting that "perfect" sound is not always available to the bedroom musician. Example, you can master on the iPad but you know it is not the same as mastering at Abbey Studios. Put an iPad musician in Abbey Studios and I'm sure the sonic output would be different or even phenomenal? But would that be a better sound? Like I said every generation thinks what they do musically is the best so in that sense there is no best sonic output. I know audiophiles will disagree.
Michael Stearns is wonderful. So softly to listen to
And Michel Chion - i was amazed of his "Requiem" album, in terms of quality, too
p.s
i'm 22
Oh cool, now we have a discussion happening. Let me apologize to all the senior citizens here haha as I didnt mean to leave you out (myself included). I was just about to post a new thread "For you older guys, what do you think of the sounds of newer music" when I realized that maybe not many would even know of new artists whereas the likelihood of a younger guy knowing the Beatles/Elvis or Jimmy Hendrix would be more likely.
@Simon - Just saw your earlier post on neil young. So I take it he prefers to record at 48 bits/96 khz?
Also, since there is a lot more music available nowadays (thanks to technology like audiobus, ios and the internet), many ppl will hear a lot more music from different sources, especially independent music, whereas in the past, it would've been from a record label with a select few producers/mixers, so production quality will be a lot more varied. So the perceived notion of what is right and wrong from a recording standpoint will also be more varied.
Lastly, the kick is much more prevalent in most styles of music nowadays than in the past, especially due to drum machines. Correct me if im wrong here guys but prior to the bee gees staying alive, or disco, was there another song that had a thumping 4 to the floor kick? And then obviously with hip hop, it's oftentimes the most important element next to the vocals.
@qmishery - thnx! Just saw your post after i hit post. will check out now
Wow! Just listened to both recordings. You set it up nicely. One moment I'm on ecstacy, enjoying the ocean and sunshine then the next moment, a seriously bad acid trip. Well done!
@FrankieJay - My comment had nothing to do with "Zappa or Holdsworth" or any other artist or even style of music. I agree that that is totally subjective. Perhaps I am wrong, but I thought the original question was aimed more at things like whether analog is better than digital and should things be compressed/limited to death. Which is equally as subjective as comparing two guitarists or artists. What is "awesome sound"? What is "perfect sound"? You have your criteria and the young producer fails to match it because his idea of cool doesn't match yours. And, likely, your productions fail in his opinion because they don't meet his criteria for being "cool". By the end of their career the Beatles were unhappy that they had to record in Abbey Road. They felt it was a subpar studio. The reason it is often held as a golden standard is that the Beatles recorded there, not because it was the perfect studio.
Or maybe the fact that the new sound sells and the old one doesn't.
Or maybe the fact that the new sound sells and the old one doesn't.
.
@MrNezumi - I threw in the names of those artists just to point out how subjective these discussions are. Artists, musicians or styles of music and their inherent coolness is all about perception and what one prefers. Some people love dub step and others love metal. Do rock bands have a more superior sound to drum and bass artists? Cue an infinite discussion.
Everyone has an opinion and I am just sharing mine. As a musician who records in the digital realm, I still think that some digital recordings sound like an industrial hoover and some sound really awesome
Some analogue recordings are the dog's bollocks whilst others sound just lifeless. Some swear by analogue and for some of us it is digital by default.
Do I prefer analogue over digital? No. Would I utilise both analogue and digital in my recordings if I had the privilege? Absolutely.
@FrankieJay - Perhaps we agree more than disagree and it is just the internet getting in the way. If you are interested in this type of stuff I will again recommend reading Perfect Sound Forever: An Aural History Of Recorded Music by Greg Milner. It is an excellent history of how music has been recorded (Edison cylinders and other early machines on up to the digital realm).
@AQ808 Your statement that radio in the midwest is dominated by classic rock rather than newer music would suggest that it's the old sound that sells and the newer one doesn't.
So is Audiobus going to support Pono? Does Audiobus support Neil Young?
@paulb Well, the old sound sells matresses, sketchy legal services and fiber supplements. But not records, which is what I think he was referring to.
No, old music sells ads, new music sells cds, records, and downloads.
http://www.billboard.com/charts/billboard-200
Ha, excellent syrupcore! Exactly.
The most hilarious thing is the weekend warrior classic rock cover bands wondering why no young adults go to their shows. Don't those young adults listen to the same 70's RAWK and Used Car Dealer diarrhea of sound effects all week too?
Give it 30 years, your music will sell false teeth and incontinance pads too.
Interesting discussion
I'm 35. Being a child of the 80s and teen of the 90s, I don't "prefer" loud/compressed over soft/dynamic (probably the opposite) but I definitely sense a lack of 'brightness' in Beatles / Stones era music, which makes it sound old-timey to my ears. I love some of those songs, but would probably prefer to listen to a slightly 'brighter' version of them.