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
Well, there’s one here, on what, for all it’s wonderfulness is still a pretty niche space on the old inter web, so maybe not quite as small as you think... (Especially given the apparent lack of cis female representation here which kicked off the whole discussion, no?)
Not to mention, oh, off the top of my head, Wendy Carlos. And LCD Soundsystem’s Gavin Rayna Russom. And Lisa Bella Donna. Genesis P. Orridge of Throbbing Gristle fame. Terra Thaemlitz aka D J Sprinkles. All variously self defining and/or of trans histories. In fact, you could even argue that non-heteronormative persons are over-represented in music in general, and electronic music in particular, in comparison with our incidence in the wider population. Punching above our weight, you might say.
Funny old world, etcetera...
It would be a small poll but this forum allows you to run one. Of course there is no guaranteed for accuracy so maybe no use for you? Still it would be fun and insightful.
You could start a new post and set a poll. This is an option when starting new posts.
Yes, although, the problem here is that it will only capture people willing to participate in the poll, which wouldn't really say the whole story about the overall Forum membership. There was one older poll here that I found https://forum.audiob.us/discussion/3234/more-polls/p1 which got 53 votes out of which 98.11% were male.
Indeed. Wish age was added to that poll. Good luck with your work 👍🙂
Would definitely love to hear your responses to the questionnaire @Svetlovska if you feel like participating (https://forms.gle/XTkWP4H5StbDhPh89). I'm interested in capturing the data from any mobile music maker who is not identifying as male even though this particular conference deals mostly with feminist issues.
There is also an assumption that the ‘serious’ musicians, i.e. those who spend the majority of their available time creating/performing music, would want to spend some of that time participating in a forum such as this. It may be more of a male thing to want to spend time away from their creative pursuit in order to talk about it instead.
@koshowko :
I’ll check it out, thanks for the link.
Yup, I use the word ‘trans’ (not transsexual) because it contains multitudes as a shorthand. You know, my particular preferred position/self definition on that old 4 dimensional space time gender/sex/sexuality continuum we all oscillate along at some (or several) x y z co-ordinates over a lifetime. I could give you the full version with footnotes, (‘trans-splaining’’?) but it’d take a while. Besides, by the time I did that, some other phrase would be the new, ahem, normal. And I’m old. I’ll stick with ‘trans’ thank you. But these non binary kids today - what are they like?
@Max23 : A side I like? I’ll go with ‘outside’
@Max23 : Hmm. Maybe so. Things change, don’t they? Out of curiosity I guess, I attended a ‘trans pride’ march in Brighton a couple of years ago. Aside from feeling like a million years old compared to everyone else there, I was struck by how at ease with themselves and each other all those young and confident-seeming trans men and women, and genderqueers appeared. That could just have been the immortality of youth we all had once, I suppose. It put me in mind then of how the gay pride marches I used to go on in London thirty years earlier had felt. For those out and proud LGBTQQVI etc people, maybe, role models and partners and all those other good things really do come easier. I do hope so.
As artists, the real issue in not gender, but genre. And it’s high time someone spoke up for the needs of the genrequeer community.
For too long the enemies of academic freedom tried to prevent students from using the classroom corresponding to the genre with which they identify. Thankfully, nowadays most progressive schools offer genre-neutral classrooms open to all transgenre and genre non-conforming students.
@Lady_App_titude :
Definitely genre queer here!
High time indeed. Go forth and cross-pollinate. That's the art I seem to gravitate towards.
I suspect it's the solution to most problems... learn to accept one another as we are and not as we might wish.
Men are often afraid women will laugh at them.
Women are often afraid men will kill them.
The Transgender are afraid of both.
That does tend to impact discourse and create social patterns of community.
But with Drambo...
“My whole life I have been a closet viola player trapped in a cello section.”
For what it's worth, it has inspired some excellent music.
Sorry. What has?
When people are marginalized in their world they tend to find opportunities that will
promote a meritocracy based upon an evaluation of their work and not their being.
That social pressure to be validated is what I am referring to in particular (I like your stuff) and in more general terms with respect to art and marginalized peoples.
Judging by the character of one's acts and not the surface of their appearance.
(Deleted)
Sorry. These ostensibly serious replies to my entirely tongue-in-cheek posts are throwing me off.
But, OK. Here’s to marginalia.
I like feedback that challenges me to think about how I might be coming across.
Text is an imperfect medium for communication but it beats hanging out in places where you can just hang out hoping for interactions.
You can show up here and just sling ideas... but there's still that meritocracy challenge to
make the world a bit better. Maybe there's an art to it. Something to think about.
Another female here
What I found was that it was a lot easier to find time to for singing as I could do it while doing house work, commuting, minding the baby etc... To practise an instrument or composing feels a lot more ‘selfish’ as I had to ignore the outside world and learn to say no to various requests for my time. And time just flies when I start something on the Ipad.
But seriously folks (if I must), and as serendipity would have it, I literally just switched from this thread to my Facebook feed only to discover a post from my friend Leslie Gaston-Bird, announcing the publication of her new book, which may be of some serious scholarly relevance for this thread:
https://www.routledge.com/Women-in-Audio/Gaston-Bird/p/book/9781138315990
+1
As a great singer once said to me.
'Just do the damn thing'
>
I appreciate you writing that you don’t have an issue with what you mention and making a lot of effort to be moderate and inquisitive about this as most posts on these things, race, gender, are extremely self entitled and aggressive making many unreasonable assumptions, so I personally respect your tone and hope the same is coming across in my reply, despite repudiating some of te gist of yours. I think it merits a considered and detailed response as thinking unequal representation is an issue, is itself te real issue, as it results in hugely biased measures being taken to address something that is not a problem.
There is no issue with gender inequality in terms of representation in any particular area, society has just become extremely irrational regarding this due to identity politics among the affluent middle classes, and a seeming inability and reluctance to make the differentiations between nuances in meaning that result in a moderate expectation and sophisticated understanding of society, In any free society you would always expect there to be unequal representation - a lot of modern leftists (this is not a political post, I have far more reason than most to dislike the right due to disability and te welfare system in the uk, but it is the left who are responsible here and there’s no simpler way to refer to them) do not understand the difference between representation and opportunity, which then forces them into this bizarre denial of differences between men and women as their worldview can’t cope with it being evident in every single aspect of society. Everything becomes assumption of prejudice.
I’ll give a very quick example of why I’m labouring that point, aside from the fact that astonishingly it is suppressed in modern western education and media - its only in the high sciences you will find it and even then heavily censored and without funding. In the uk, women’s education is heavily subsidised by men. I mean that in almost half of educational courses the male students fees are being used to pay for the women’s by at least 60-70 percent. In the sciences, say a physics degree, men pay 33k, women pay 14k, and non caucasian women pay 7 I think it was - this was as it was a few years ago and the bias in education has only worsened since. The justification came from studies into education showing that 80 percent of science students were male. The same studies showed that over 80 percent of humanities, language and English students are female - this part of the data did not result in any funding being guven to men: in short, there is a huge prejudice in our supposed system of equality. Despite many attempts to demonstrate sexism as the cause not a single shred of evidence was found. They (feminist lobby groups irrational and hugely agenda based lobbying of government) still forced men to pay for women’s education in science.
There is one reason for unequal representation where everyone is free to apply. Women do not like science as much as men in general. Women are also not as good at science as men in general. The same applies in reverse to te languages. It’s not a slight difference it’s extremely pronounced and it causes people who have invested their egos in a nonsensical worldview which cannot tell the difference between being equal and being identical to have enormous tantrums.
All studies have shown the same trend, it makes no sense whatsoever to blame institutional biases Etc when men are equally underrepresented in te languages - how could a system that apparently favours men in some completely intangible way, also rather oddly, disadvantage them in a way that mirrors female under representation...
Interestingly, to anyone more interested in science or biology or truth or nature or reality or philosophy than political siding and screaming, te trend is reversed in gay men and women. People sometimes object by citing individual unrepresentative examples, which is very peculiar. I am a man who studied and worked in English, I am by definition unrepresentative of my sex and my field. However, I don’t feel any kind of weird embittered irrational need to pretend that I’m not, I’m very comfortable beung that and I don’t feel like I identify more strongly as a man than as myself, so I don’t feel offended by the fact that men aren’t as interested in English than women. It’s a very strange inverted desire for conformity in people who protest this while claiming the opposite, when you trace its motivations.
Not only is there an unreasonable selection of equal respresebtation, it itself is an example of inequality as the same expectation is not applied in the many many areas where men fall far short of women. The gender wage gap mythology is a good example - the 10 percent has absolutely no association, despite enormous funding and research to find it, with any systemic sexism. It is also exaggerated and wildly misunderstood. While the guardian and the more extremist papers of the left were reporting about worst offenders Etc one Organisation was saying that the wage gap does not necessarily have anything to do with sexism - the independent research body that te guardian took its figures and built its outrage upon. In fact, all te research has shown the small wage gap to match exactly to differences in competitiveness between the sexes, expected earnings, pushing for raises and promotions, just as previously stated higher wage gaps were matched to differences in women’s choices of work and time taken off work. Importantly. The 10 percent difference does not mean that men earn ten percent more than women for the same jobs - it means That the wage inequality affects men only ten percent less than it does women. Te figure is an average of all the individual wage inequalities. Very very few jobs have men earning ten percent more than women- women earn 75% more than men as models for example. When you account for the huge variation in te figures here you see that 10 percent is meaningless as a wage difference figure. And if people are so concerned about a gender wage gap, why’d are they only bothered about a ten percent difference in who is affected by it rather than every single example of men being paid less than women for the same job as well as women being paid less than men.... There is also a large weight and height wage gap. Any difference between human beings results in a difference in a broad study, it is natural and irrational to expect otherwise, and sex is probably the greatest difference in living creatures besides species or age.
This is something of a tangent but It seemed a good thing to go into because this whole area is a minefield at the moment and any type of real open discussion Instantly devolves into this bit crushed series of soundbites and accusations. I wanted to demonstrate the type of warped views that are being created in this whole area.
In short, which is a bit rich after this reply, the desire for there to be equal amount of women in music or anything else is perfectly fine as a personal preference, but it is not a reasonable expectation, has no moral aspect, and becomes fascist when used to enforce social engineering. Particularly when the same concerns are not voiced in any area in which men are underrepresented - I have worked in literature most of my life where 85 percent of agents, teachers students and writers are female, there is a huge bias in the industry as a consequence of this. Personally, although I don’t like it, I don’t object to it as it is a natural consequence of women being more interested in and ‘better’ - shorthand - in this field than men. And there is more beauty in the truth of that than in any attempt to force some kind of identical parade of te sexes everywhere. Because when you do the latter you Rob the individual of their individuality, and of the possibility of being anomalous and an outlier within your race sex Etc and that is far more important than te Pastel shaded neutered false equality with which we are papering over reality.
I made this post as a response in partocular to the idea that we could or should do more to encourage women - why? The same isn’t done with men in the areas in which they are few and far between, and nor should it be. Why is an equal and identical number of men and women so often preferred as not only desirable but morally desirable and somehow fair. Personally, I think it’s boring as hell. I like te bumpiness of reality and nature. I like moving between different fields with different natural gender biases, I like natural biases they are fun and the texture of reality. And that’s without getting into how ugly I find the modern faux liberal bourgeois middle brow fawning over an excess of women or a minority in any area, posing as equality, or te redefinition And completely vacuous factory printing of the word diversity, to mean everyone beung the same as long as that same is neither white nor male. It’s a worldview defined by exclusion calling itself inclusive.
*hammered out on iPad sorry for typos
It’s always interesting to me to read these kinds of posts, and I genuinely do appreciate you trying to explain your point of view. I am in agreement with you that sometimes there is perhaps some over compensation by liberals, but I think the majority of us do it in the spirit of empathy and having a kind heart.
I’ll take the side that preaches love and tolerance every time, there may be some that manipulate the internet lunch mobs love for a “deserved beat down”, and often it is completely unwarranted, but better than to be a part of those who offer nothing to those less fortunate, yelling for them to pulll themselves up their bootstraps, while conveniently ignoring the fact that they had been born into families already wealthy, as though not losing all your wealth was some skill that only those at the top had.
In regards to your central point, I see two things that you are perhaps not considering:
White men have been making the rules since we started writing the rule book. Of course we have benefited from this, even if it’s not readily apparent to you now, I believe the metaphor would be something like- White men have been going up a steady incline that (much like the earth itself) becomes difficult to see whilst standing on it.
Suppose this has led us (white men) to a height of ten thousand km. What we have been seeing in the last several decades is essentially some sharp rises (in this case in the form of opportunity) that has perhaps brought them 4-5 k higher than they were. This may seem drastic when viewed from the perspective of a modern man who was already born high up on the mountain, and only notices the gains of others, but not our relative starting points.
The other reason conversations like this are important is because tech and other areas traditionally dominated by males are one of the only growing sectors in the job market.
Meanwhile, language centric jobs like teaching, journalism and secretarial work is diminishing rapidly.
Lastly, rather than relying on studies to debunk other studies, most of which are financed with an agenda in mind rather than empirical truth and knowledge, I recommend talking to some human females, and ask then to describe the most difficult part of their job, if they are even doing what they want to, and if not, ask them why not.
You only have to look back to the last decade to see how the absurd farce known as “gamergate” served to drive many of the women working in the video game industry to quit, and countless more girls to give up on even trying in the first place.
When your gender automatically makes the price of admission include constant harassment online, real life threats that are being acted on with more and more frequency, why would you even consider a job in that field?
To me the perfect example of inherent inequality in the technical/science fields is the fact that everyone remembers Watson and Crick, Rosalind Franklin is rarely mentioned outside of academia. Tasked with much of the actual work while the boys experimented with hallucinogens, her work was crucial in our ability to understand DNA, and RNA among other things.
What did she get for her efforts? Her name and the extent of her participation were diminished or completely ignored until recently, she was poorly compensated even by the standards of the day, and she got an aggressive form of cancer from all of her time spent working with x rays.
This sort of thing still happens today, and if it occurs any less, it is because of the efforts people have made to even the playing field. The focus on the wage gap misses the point that it is often the intangible bonuses that one gets from their work that make it worth while, and in the case I think correlation is often mistaken for causation;
It’s not that modern women have gotten so bold that they are now stilling our jobs and demanding equal pay. It’s the fact that by giving them something like a fair wage, women enabled themselves to be seen as equals, and if it seems like their voices are louder than ours, it’s only because we didn’t let them say anything for most of history.
Replying for future reference when I need a good example of tl;dr.
If I Had More Time, I Would Have Written a Shorter Letter