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.
Originality And Music Production / Sound design and Context
These are my personal thoughts about how I want to make music. I am not advocating anyone else should do this. Still, I am interested in how other people are thinking about the subject and believe a discussion will help some to choose what path is right for them.
A year ago, when I began being able to produce finished tracks thanks to iOS tools (desktop never appealed to me for several reasons), I was not even able to conceive of the type of envelope I would put my musical letters into. I have listened to broadcast and produced music just like everyone else. And I have become habituated to a certain type of vivid, super-realistic
presentation of music using the sophisticated tools recording engineers have used for
decades, just like everyone else! So, when I began recording my own stuff I started to listen to music in a different way and the processing of instruments and vocals became even more pronounced to my ears. In a kind of knee jerk fashion I, too, wanted my music to sound like this and began (without much success) to try to learn how to emulate that sonic milieu everyone accepts as the "real thing".
But things have changed in my mind. I guess it began when I started experimenting with MicSwap Pro in order to recreate the feeling of jazz records of the forties. I had some success
overlaying an environmental veneer onto my dry track. I realized that this 40s "context" was something I loved, but that it involved more than just the music. It involved my associations with that music as I studied jazz in the 70s and listened to old Charlie Parker, Billie Holiday, Lester Young, etc., recordings. Certainly today's teenagers would have no such context and no reason to particularly like a degraded sound.. though turntables are making a comeback ( I guess afficiendos think just for the opposite reasons). I realize that some genres, like EDM, require this sonic superpower to thrill and enliven the dancers, but for other types of music it is not part of the definition.
After much listening to today's recordings I ultimately felt a personal dissatisfaction with them.
There is a sameness (for me) which diminishes the content to my ears. Like a cake with too much icing. That was a small epiphany. Since then I have given up the idea of getting "good enough" to recreate the sound we all have been habituated to. Rather, I will search for the best way to encapsulate my music in order to enhance the content, not to a more vivid representation of something that is, in its naked form, "not good enough" sonically, but rather a more naturalistic approach that aims for clarity without breast augmentation. I realize it will sound a bit dull in comparison to highly compressed, saturated and otherwise processed signals, but at least when listener's say "hmmm, that production sucks" they also might say "it could be Mike Levy".
Your thoughts?
Comments
A good mix, fundamentally, is simply one you can hear all the parts.
And the easiest way to ensure that, is if you parts arent masking each other. So the most important part of a good mix is a good arrangement. With a good arrangement, you dont NEED many mixing tools at all.
Quite amazing to think that all the power of the early digital recorders, aside from an audio interface, is on this phone I’m typing on.
As to superrealistic production, nice terminology for it by the way, I think there is an organizational psychology that got us there.
The first time I was in a recording studio, it was working with an 8 track reel to reel. We played live and overdubbed the vocals. That was when digital recording was new, but basic. That album, I still think it holds up, production wise.
But you know what happend, we all soon could afford computer systems that could adequately do most of the things that studio did.
And we started to not need to record live. We werent paying by the hour, we had way more effects processing power than we knew what to do with. Even in the pro studios, budget permitting, with the computer aids of easy copy and paste, people started recording track by track, just get one good take of a verse, chorus, copy, paste, done.
This caused other bad behavior imho. Lack of thinking about frequency content of arrangement elements in context. “Fix it in the mix”itis.
I would estimate that 90% of guitar players I see live have too much bass sound coming from their rigs. In a rock context, it is quite standard to high pass the crap out of guitars.
Getting crazy with what you could do, not what you should do. Songs with 30+ tracks. Which you may be able to hear well on my pristine listening situation (hey im writing this all as a guilty party too) but never clearly on most people's devices/setups.
And as already implied, recording most things direct or close mic’d. Things sound superrealistic because they sound like the group played in some strangely algorithmic room (simple reverb effect) and like you had 20 ears positioned in different spots in that room.
Then of course, the Loudness Wars exacerbating it all. If you aren’t familiar, google that especially anything Bob Katz has written about it.
So way have bloated arrangement, recorded in an acoustically bizarre way, and everyone trying to make them all louder in ways not previously possible without noticeable distortion. Thats what I think of with a superrealistic modern recording.
I personally try for a compromise between super realistic and realistic in my own stuff. I record a lot of parts in a live treated room, through real amps. Often on three tracks- close and far mic’d and a direct in. Three reverb bus setup, near left, near right, far.^
Intentional degradation, I love some of that. I have some old tape players. One 1990s one 70s, lots of hardware to play with. I dont usually put on a whole mix, but it is fun for this and that. For subtle, I pretty much always run a master through a subtle reel to reel emulator. Nice thing is, i can get all the transient softening and saturation I like, and turn the noise off.
^Of course I realize this may be genre dependent, there are genres meant to be played in conjunction with the reverb of the club.
Good post. My thoughts:
As I have gotten older, I realize that certain eras have distinctive production styles and some bygone styles that I once felt sounded “old-fashioned”, now seem really vital to me. Some of these styles predate my birth (40’s, 50’s, very early 60’s), so it’s not just me feeling nostalgic for my youth. There is, for example, a certain sonic signature to Coltrane’s “A Love Supreme” and recordings of that era (in many genres), that I find exciting. There are many contemporary recordings that, for me, lack that kind of excitement, almost as if everything is a little too tied up, too “perfect”. It may be just too much craft and polishing which makes it all very listenable at first, but then leaves little to explore and decode on subsequent listens. I’m often amazed by what I hear, but then end up hating it soon thereafter.
I also take great comfort in the music from my own lifetime that does feel less nailed down, a bit weird and imperfect. Probably why I got into the Velvets, Stooges and early punk rock - music that deliberately swam against the tide of perfection. Honestly, there’s still plenty of adventurous stuff being produced today that goes against the prevailing production ethos. But you do have to dig for it - something that I’m not always willing to do these days. That said, I’m trying to put as much imperfection in my own work as possible and still have it hold together. Surprisingly, not always easy - the tools are almost too smooth.
The brain makes up what it thinks is missing. If you can’t quite make out a part that’s buried in the mix, your brain will fill in the gaps, often inaccurately. This keeps the listener engaged by making them subconsciously participate in what they’re listening to. It’s like a subliminal tap on the shoulder to make sure you’re paying attention. Also, anything too clinically correct and clean gets boring pretty quickly. Slight imperfections are interesting at a subconscious level, since the brain is hardwired to spot changes and ignore unvarying input.
Great response @Multicellular. I did not invent superreal, but experienced it representing Japanese superreal commercial artists in another life. I tried to post some pics but the files were too large. You probably are familiar, but if not, google Masao Saito images.
Your history explained wonderfully how it all happened,
@ALB, you described perfectly my experience.
@TheOriginalPaulB, ah, my subconscious, great explanation of what goes on in the imperfect world. Thanks,
There are many point of views to this topic. Definitely in modern music are sound design and production quality requirements/standards very high compared "oldschool" (translate this term in any way you want;), for me it's anything older than 20 years)
Especially in electronic dance music, sometimes production "quality" is 80% of success. And it's very hard to achieve it, there is lot of knowledge behind... Often those tracks are musically (in terms of harmonic progress, composition) very primitive, but very deeply complex in terms of sound design.
But there is very crucial question. What is your motivation and what is your goal ?
If your goal is official release on some official label, then you definitely need work hard to match their production quality level. It's really hard work, often very uncreative process - it's more work . I know what i'm talking about, i released some stuff officialy.
BUT. If your goal is to stay independent, just express own musical ideas - and out it free for listeners who are often mzsicmakers too, If you "just" want to have fun during composing - then some "production quality standards" is something which you can completely ignore
But there is another but - there is huge amount of knowledge behind sound design anf production tricks - if you are trying to match some production quality standards - you learn a lot during this process - and you can then utilise thus knowledge easy when you are working on your tracks even without ambition to go close to some standards.
To say it simple way - To break rules and experiment, you first need know and understand those rules :-)
@dendy. Not always, but that is another discussion. And, yes, for me I have no desire to conquer any worlds but my own. But I do want to create something that works for me on many levels and I am learning. If others like it, great, if not, no problem. Others who want a profession should definitely heed your advice.
Listening to the Orb album Orbus Terrarum back in the day it was always such a different experience in different situations / rooms etc. Listening to it play from the other room while laying in the tub I could pick out totaly different elements. The mix had a bunch of masking and given the experimental component parts (and I imagine equipment of the time) It was likely a pretty challenging mix. It was absolutely engaging to me to try and pear in these murky textures and pull out what the heck was going on. The subsequent albums went more for production gold and my interest fell off. Happened with a few acts from the early/mid 90s where the addictive quality of the early albums was lost for me when it got too clinical and there was less mystery to chew on.
Orbus Terrarum is amazing, I remember being impressed by the way the tracks evolved, rather than just looped as with Orbital type electronic stuff.
Agree, they went a bit over produced afterwards, and lost a bit of magic in the process. I’d recommend the ‘Cow’ album from a year or two back though, there’s some magic in that one.
While I appreciate the clarity, and fullness of sound I get from doing desktop stuff, my iPad tracks just seem more interesting to my ears.
I think a bit like with abstract art, sometimes it’s good to let your brain make connections and invent what you think is there, rather than have every sound crystal clear and over defined. Maybe that’s why I find over produced music less engaging. I don’t like being told what to hear.
so wish I saw them live in this phase...
Haven't seen that vid, I'll have to take a look.
Saw them a couple of years before at Glastonbury in 1993, that was pretty bonkers. We were stood by a tower of speakers in the middle of the field which they seemed to be using for special sound fx, so every now and agin it'd blast out the sound of a WW2 dive-bombing Spitfire and make us jump, or a herd of sheep. The whole crew were there - even Steve Hillage adding a bit of glissando guitar.
Your statement sort of misses the point. I actually don’t think that modern production standards are very high compared to past eras. They are simply different. Some, myself included, would actually argue that current production standards are inferior. Your statement assumes a sort of agreed upon standard, where actually none exists.
@AudioGus, thanks for posting Orb. Of course, per my multigapped musical knowledge, I am unfamiliar with the group, but not with the concept. Is it too much of a stretch to say that this presaged Laurie Anderson? Laurie just brought up the vocal and made the narrative more important. Her recordings were not overproduced IMO. In fact they had their own special sound. At that time maybe it was easier to have a uniquely “owned” sound. Today it seems like not only the sound is compressed, but the genres are compressed as well.
As an example, I listened to the music of Gonzalo Rubalcaba for the first time. A very talented player with seemingly total grasp of music and how it works in several genres, but mainly jazz and Latin jazz. He was using a quintet, trumpet, alto bass and drums. All I can say is that the music was totally slick, IMO. Slick can mean “nothing to hold onto”. It seemed like there was musical “food” to be consumed, but it was totally without nutritional value ( for me). The players, incredibly facile, served up years old dishes of melodic recipes, offering nothing new personally (feeling and expression) or evolutionary. Jazz is not a dish best served cold, IMO. What has kept jazz alive for a hundred years is pushing the envelope. I know there are jazz players out there meeting this need, so I am not in fear for the continuation of jazz, but what the public considers jazz today is far from what it was when millions of folks had it on their record players in the forties. One big difference between then and now is that in the way back you could actually dance to jazz! What a concept! And maybe the evolution of jazz did itself a disservice by separating itself from the basic human need to jump up and join the party. Jazz became a listener’s province, and in so doing, ultimately relegated itself to the jazz club, festival, and concert hall, with its tapping feet and nodding heads.
Well, that was kind of revolutionary in the beginning. Hip, radical. But it paved the way for jazz to drink, entertain, converse and seduce by. I can’t help but think that economics comes into play when Gonzalo plays a crowd. Too far out and he may lose his audience. It’s complex and I sympathize, but the result is the same for me,. Processed jazz with no bones, and when recorded it becomes twice processed. MacBurger in a styrofoam box. A little, too harsh but, the millennial whoop notwithstanding, this has been the fate of much music for mass consumption IMO. Still, there are so damned many of us on the planet (and that includes jazzers) that there is plenty of food for all. Junk food junkies and lacto-ovo-oil free vegans. Me, I guess I never got beyond a band I never heard of.
I trust you've seen this drawing haha never gets old to me
@Max23, I have to disagree with your disparagement of plain ole Apple earbuds. I actually prefer them to my Roland RH200 HP which is kind of muddy and bassy for me. Maybe the Roland's just suck. I tried Mackie MP220 IEMS which I liked except piano sounds were baaad. The Apples' seem to reveal quite a bit of detail.... seem to.
@LinearLineman : FYI, Laurie Anderson pre-dates The Orb by quite a bit.
@espiegel123.... hmmmph, you are so right. Too many decades to sort thru these days. Anyway, in my alternative facts world that's the way it happened.
have recently been quite impressed by the KZ ZSN in ear monitors in terms of both fidelity & bass, for something of that size, can be had for around a tenner if you shop around
i too was there, somewhere in that field
attended a lot of the Brixton all nighter's in the early 90's, with System 7, Orbital, Loop Guru, Drum Club, etc, etc. 9 hours of madness for less than £20 ! the Orbus Terrarum & Pomme Fritz releases were their experimental high point & sonically the most interesting for my ears, still a good listen
sound production wise, i've long felt that there was a high water mark at the end of the 70's into the early 80's just before analog was usurped by digital. e.g. Zappa's 'Joe's Garage' & Roxy Music's 'Avalon' LP's never cease to amaze with their warmth, depth & crystal clear clarity