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
This is good:
lol that is funny.. that guy is complete jerk, he even doesn't understand that he is doing is complete shit... what a sad existence... this is exactly why i'm extremely skeptic to NFTs .. it's selling of hot air
Yeah this is the kind of gaming the market which is bad, but it's always happened in the stock and art markets. It doesn't change the fact that it's still good for creators. You can create editions of original digital NFT works and sell them, you just have to ignore all the artificial hyping and gaming by investors just like you do in the physical art markets.
Worthwhile interview with Beeple:
https://www.coindesk.com/videos/recent-videos/whats-next-for-beeple-after-dizzying-69m-nft-sale
A good critical article:
https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2021/03/11/nfts-crypto-grifters-try-to-scam-artists-again/
Beeple looks like nice guy... and when i think about this piece - there is huge amount of work behind it - just imagine 5000 images made during 13 years... it's really something.. i'm not sure if it is really overpriced that much.. dit's really hufe amount of work, learning, progress behind it so in some way he deserves that success ...
I've got nothing against Beeple or any other artist that got lucky, but essentially he just won the lottery - he didn't even really know about NFT until October. He worked hard for a decade, but this wasn't some masterplan, it was just a random thing that happened to him (and that's awesome for him).
But the crazy sale price is just pump-priming by a crypto whale, it's very scammy IMO.
So far... dabbling in NFTs hasn't cost me anything but a little time. I got in a couple years ago on a couple platforms who were letting you mint (create NFTs) without paying gas fees. Basically promotions for the new platform. There are still some of those popping up if you keep your eyes peeled.
Now, it's kinda pricey just to put one item up. I've also been playing with a few that let you sort of mint without fees. It's not actually on the blockchain until someone buys it. When someone buys, the fees have to be paid.
You have to have a crypto wallet to connect, but you can do this "gasless minting" on Mintable. You don't even need to have any currency in the crypto wallet. But, again... it's not actually on the blockchain until someone buys the NFT you've created. At which time the fees are paid at time of sale. https://mintable.app
And, there are new methods catching on that should drive the cost of "minting" way down to less than a dollar.
I'm participating and very hopeful... but I'm also somewhat skeptical. As long as it's not costing me any cash, and as long as I'm making a little for my time... I'm going to keep an eye on it and a toe in the water. I have not spent one cent on this yet. And, I don't think I would until it goes more mainstream and out of the volatile tech-bro speculative waters. I admit... it's entirely possibly this whole thing is a giant scam.
That said... I thought the same about bitcoin. And now I know people who bought their houses and have flush bank accounts as a result of getting in on bitcoin early. So... I think I'm at least not going to dismiss this one so quickly.
I don't agree with everything in this article, but here's a take that focusses on potential problems with NFTs:
https://mashable.com/article/nft-cryptocurrency-bad-environment-art/
Yeah I'm always skeptical
But I will definitely be trying this as an experiment since one of my outlets is video art.
But I am worried about endless fraud against struggling indie artists, with people trawling and raking websites and instagram for your work.
I'm worried about the same things. I've asked those "in the know" and I never get a good answer. Like, what happens if someone simply downloads one of the many arty pieces I've already shared widely... then mints it themselves? The answers I get are along the lines of "Well, that would be wrong." and "It just doesn't happen." and "That would hurt their reputation if it was ever discovered."
Never anything about how they basically robbed you and are claiming their work as their own without any consequences. I mean FFS people are "minting" other people's tweets without their permission already.
Do check out https://mintable.app though. You likely won't sell anything... but you can play around with the mechanics without spending any money or incurring any risk.
yes, this is far away biggest issue of NFTs.. unfortunately as i see most of critiques is concentrated just around that irrational illogic wasting / carbon footprint nonsense, which works like very good noise, unfortunaktelly pushing to backgrouut true issue - hardcore violating of creative ownership and artists rights... People are very easy to be distracted from real issues.
Here's another one to try. It's new and doesn't work off the currently pricey ETH (Ethereum) cryptocurrency. It works on $XTC (Tezos). It's based on the new "Proof of Stake" model that isn't an environmental concern. Versus the "Proof of Work" model that the ETH platforms on based on. The ETH platforms are migrating to the PoS model too though.
You have to have a Tezos crypto wallet (free) and I don't find the platform very intuitive, but it is actually on the blockchain and can cost pennies to mint. I only tried it out because some Tezos were passed out as promotion to get more artists on the platform. I can't endorse it's authenticity or anything. Nor can I explain anything that I just wrote as I don't yet completely understand it myself.
It's just another way to dabble if you don't want to spend money on this yet.
https://hicetnunc.xyz
I screwed up my first one because the minting transaction kept failing and by the time it took, my title and description weren't filled in. So, since it's now on the blockchain, but it unfortunately doesn't have its title, description or my name on it. It is however tied to my Tezos crypto wallet so if anyone bought it... I'd theoretically get paid.
https://hicetnunc.xyz/objkt/5000
To me it does shine a bit of a light on the fact that to most people this seems more about NFT fetishism than the actual art. So in that sense I think he is orange balloon animal level brilliant and his tweets should fetch at least 10,000 Unobtanium a piece. Can that be converted into Quatloos online?
Thanks, yeah will check out the options when I get the chance
I think AI recognition software will always improve which can help spot fraud too.
AI will soon also be able to make infinite streams of any brand of stunning digital art that makes human made efforts pale by comparison too... so... ...
Haha. In that case, artists should take advantage as long as they’re serving gravy on the gravy train.
This makes it even more of a work of emergent modern art. The post modern meta meme-ry of it all. Such brilliant.
Everything is “strange”, “risky”, a “scam” or “unworkable” until it’s not. LOL. After nearly ten years of being skeptical (but always interested) in cryptocoins and all things related I found myself suddenly agreeing with the model and jumped in. NFT’s represent the beginning of a new way of thinking for some people.
@dendy: you keep referring to concerns about blockchain’s carbon footprint as rubbish but haven’t seen anything you have posted that backs that up. The comparison that you posted compares total energy use not transactional use. Yes, the global banking system uses enormous amounts of energy...it also is involved in orders of magnitude more transactions than bitcoin and all other cryptocurrencies combined. To compare the energy use, you need to do comparisons on the basis of energy per transaction.
All the analyses I have seen, even from ardently pro-crypto folks, has been that if you scaled crypto up handle the magnitude of transactions of the global banking system that it would use far more energy...that is why they keep promising that at some future time there will be a breakthrough that will make it more efficient. But there is no evidence that such a breakthrough is imminent.
Someone disagreeing with you doesn’t make them guilty of confirmation bias. They might be..but you might also be experiencing confirmation bias. The thing about confirmation bias is that it leads a person to think they are correctly interpreting facts. Just because an article is published by what you call mainstream media doesn’t make it false.
Resorting to “it comes from mainstream media so it must be fault” isn’t a rigorous argument.
Some guy (professor or not) saying “the media’s claims about the carbon footprint are bogus” is not proof that claim is correct.
I just can’t get into it or relate to this stuff at all. I wish I didn't feel so old at ‘just’ 46 and all this actually felt like good news.
I’m not concerned about energy use per transaction or as a side-effect of crypto mining because we’re talking about computing here. Computing power increases as energy consumption reduces on average every 18 months (Moore’s Law).
It won’t be long before we have desktop computers with the computing power of a human brain (with an equivalent number of neural connections) in about 10–15 years and these computers will sip tiny amounts of power. In about 20-25 years a desktop computer will have the computing power of ALL human brains combined. In other words, it’s pointless to fixate on power consumption since energy consumption and computing efficiency continue to improve dramatically in a predictable way.
Haha. I’m older than you and I was very skeptical of all things crypto until I looked into it more deeply and started to ask fundamental questions about how value is determined, what is “money” and who benefits from the systems as we know (or we think we know) them.
@NeuM : Even if what you say were true, it still wouldn’t change the relative energy use of crypto.
Your concern or lack of it about carbon footprint doesn’t make the issue moot. My caring or not caring about it, doesn’t have any bearing on whether it has an impactful carbon footprint.
If it weren’t a real consideration, the crypto folks wouldn’t be talking about how a future version of blockchain will be less energy intensive.
Pretty much every defense I have seen of the energy consumption has involved sleight-of-hand where either the comparisons are made on total rather than transactional basis, or skirt the issue entirely by saying “in the future it will be different” or “sure we use a lot of energy, but it’s clean” (without rigorously backing up the claim or mentioning the problem of scalability).
Actually, Moore’s Law is starting to end. Even Charles Moore himself thinks within this decade. Here’s an interesting article I’ve not read all of yet (or ever will) but there’s an interesting section about halfway down about how it all changed when computing went mobile (which is apropos to this forum) https://www.nature.com/news/the-chips-are-down-for-moore-s-law-1.19338
I do get crypto currency but the idea of paying money to connect an image to a ‘wallet’ (or buy one that already is ? Etc?) ala NFT. Eh, I don’t get it. That kind of ownership just seems like how baby ducks can bond with a sock puppet.
There are existing and extant POS mainnets, for blockchains which never were POW by design. It is increasingly looking more feasible that the POW legacy mainnets will stay doing what they’re doing (ie, being a money) but will be left behind by the POS mainnets many of which are focused on a utility other than being valuable in money terms.
To be honest, they’re the interesting ones. At the moment it’s a bit confusing as the big buzz whenever you go to anything blockchain related is how much various cryptocurrencies are worth this minute, and everyone gets swept up by that kind of euphoria. Bitcoin can only ever be used as a money, Eth originally had the idea of contracts by design but still, it’s primarily more or less a way of paying for things.
There are vast amounts of ‘little’ cryptos which are viewed as rubbish by crypto investors (who concern themselves only, or mainly, with bitcoin) and they’re worth fractions of a penny per whatever coin they are. However, those are the interesting ones. Not all will win, some will dwindle, but some will probably end up being used in the background for this or that service or product, nobody will know overtly, it’ll just be the ‘plumbing’ used in that system for whatever it is designed for.
Tesos were mentioned above, and another one that interests me is Tomochain https://tomochain.com/ – these are mostly serious scientific ventures, and I think the ‘currency’ side of things is a bit of a distraction for them. Having said that, not all small coins are serious. Dogecoin was started as a bit of a joke, using the source code to bitcoin, and it sort of took off and has quite a bit of value now. Stupid, I know, but you know, early days. But as I say, the ‘non-money’ uses are the ones that interest me (and inherently, most of those will be POS or some other non-mining non-energy-intensive way of doing their thing).
I predict in the near or slightly less near future, BTC and ETH will continue doing what they’re doing, but will increasingly be bypassed by more efficient mainnets, some of which will become as strong as BTC or ETH. In future generations time, BTC will be an antique (still there, still valuable (all the more, as the scarcity will be defined by then)) but no new development will happen on those schemes – it’ll all be with the newer ones.
You’re right, there are a lot of people who are working on reducing energy use in crypto mining. For example, look into Hashgraph. They’ve essentially solved it and others will follow. This is another reason I am not concerned about crypto-related energy use. I understand the concept of being able to quantify a “carbon footprint”, but I think it’s ultimately irrelevant because it has led to ways to “game the system” like carbon trading / offsets, which solves nothing.
It would be inaccurate to say I have no concerns about pollution. Industrial chemicals leaking into water supplies is of far greater import in my opinion. Energy production and consumption are addressable via basic economics. Large-scale industrial pollution in countries which have little concern for the long term health effects of environmental pollutants on their people and environment must be more urgently addressed first, IMO.
Yes, I’m very unclear on what the connection is with NFTs to a work of art as things stand today. I think the reason a lot of NFT artwork (not all) is basic low-effort nonsense is that it’s a toe-in-the-water for everyone.
What if I minted a song? A new mix of one of my existing songs that has not been released yet?
What if I minted an ebook? An EPUB? Or even, each chapter as a separate NFT?
What happens in the future with me, the works, and what I can and can’t do with it? I think these unknowns are why nobody’s putting out anything too valuable or impressive, just casual exercises at best.
@espiegel123
Ok let's back to roots.
Bitcoin mining doesn't produce directly any CO2 or methane. It just uses electricity. So, i guess by "carbon footprint"
opponents are meaning carbon footprint of sources of that electricity. We should put away the fact that 70% of mining runs on renewable sources, mostly hydroelectricity (fact) or geogermal (fact). But let's say this is not important for my following question.
There is one very basic misunderstansing about how electricity is produced, distributed and used (which correct undertanding is game changer for this question)
Let me ask you one crucial question. Do you think - if in this moment all cryptomining on planet would be stopped, all that powerplants (atomic, hydro, solar, wind, coil, etc) starts to produce LESS electricity, because mining operationa stops "consume it", hence there will be less CO2 produced ?
This is how you think it works ?