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
problem with that is that one person's "realm of the infinite" is another's "infinite hellscape". The very idea of spirituality makes me nauseous, due to being raised in a cult. I am a materialist through and through.
There is no version of beauty that someone else cannot find ugliness in. Even that of the supposed god granted, natural sort. If someone looks into the grand canyon and finds it boring, or atrocious, can you convince them that it is beautiful? objectively so?
Fair enough. But for your Grand Canyon analogy i think I’d offer you a Snickers Bar cause I’d assume there was a low blood sugar deal going on 🤪
Nuthin’ is beautiful when yer hangry!
Also i love the quote,”you can lead a horse to water but you can’t make them drink…” we all know that water in a desert will objectively save your life regardless of how you might be feeling 🤔😉
Life and Death are Objective Facts.
What happens to us before we are born and when we die are up for discussion and open to interpretation.
That you can be Materially certain of.
These don’t work for me either, tho I feel there is a big distinction between religiosity and spirituality.
Aside from the bottom image (whose colors don’t do much for me) the other two evoke an unpleasant association. That’s subjective of course, but does it not collapse the idea of objectivity? Can there be beauty without association? Can a tabla rasa perceive beauty?
Subjectivity is relative. Objectivity is absolute.
Space is 3Dimensional. The Earth is spherical. Are these an Objective or Subjective statement?
There’s definitely some bat shit crazy stuff on the internet which rails against this ya know…but just because we Subjectively believe it to be fact, it does not make Objective certainty any less factual.
Feelings do not trump absolutes no matter how much we might want them to. The universe doesn’t work this way…unless you’ve deciphered what the McKenna Elves have revealed behind the curtain, and work out the revelation into a repeatable and teachable formula…maybe Tesla was on to something. But i digress…
But subjectivity is objective!
It sure the fuck is!
Anyone who has been able to see a Pacific Ocean sunset in late January would agree.
The universe is by far the greatest artist of all. Objectively pure and unencumbered by petty arguments and meandering discussions.
I remain unconvinced and you only complicate things by adding unprovable claims to the stew: There is no Moral Truth either. Show me there is.. I'll wait
- as far as I can tell, it only exists within religious texts. Morality, when looked at honestly and closely, is just as slippery as beauty. There is simply no objectivity with it. It is contingent on norms and culture, and of course history. Things that were morally obvious 100 years ago, are unthinkable today, merely because culture changes over time and fads come and go. I implore you to demonstrate morality that is scientifically based.
Now we come to this cartoonish piece you selected as having objective beauty. While I don't completely loathe Tchaikovsky, I do find his music to amount to sappy, romantic silliness that hasn't aged particularly well. It was good fodder for Loony Toons soundtracks, but if this is your go to for objective beauty, your whole argument does a huge face plant.
The whole argument just fell apart. back to the drawing board, I guess
well believe it or not, I am that anyone who has seen many a Pacific Ocean sunset in late January and would never choose to call it art. But this seems to be a difference of world view because I refuse the idea that it was created, but then I do not share your belief in a creator and find it to be a humancentric and cherry picked view of the universe (needless to say, that same creator would be responsible for all the landfills and death and destruction in the world as well, but I digress... this creation myth, well it's just an untenable notion as far as I can see, and only adds heaps of more insanity to the already ludicrous argument the OP is trying to have
Waddya gonna do? 🤷🏽♂️
Back to making some music. I’ll leave you ‘smart cats’ to the unriddling of thinking thru this discussion 🙋🏽♂️
“Knowing your own darkness is the best method for dealing with the darkness's of other people. One does not become enlightened by imagining figures of light, but by making the darkness conscious. The most terrifying thing is to accept oneself completely. Your visions will become clear only when you can look into your own heart. Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.”
I don’t think the op had nature in mind. I spoke of the beauty of nature as well. But to make it “art” a human (or, at least a mind) needs to be involved.
1. the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination, typically in a visual form such as painting or sculpture, producing works to be appreciated primarily for their beauty or emotional power.
"the art of the Renaissance"
Similar:
fine art
artwork
creative activity
2.
the various branches of creative activity, such as painting, music, literature, and dance.
"the visual arts" Oxford Language Dictionary
Either we’re talking about something specific or we’re not. … unless this is Lewis Carol
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less. ' Humpty Dumpty
When I was a teenager, and my school’s only self declared atheist, allowed out of the morning prayers with the Jewish, Sikh and Moslem kids, I used to go to the Christian Union lunchtime meetings, to try to argue the Christians out of their faith. I grew out of it. Mostly.
This all seems backward to me.
I see beauty as a thing that exists in the soul and comes to our consciousness through connection with things that we experience. The thing itself doesn’t have beauty. It has characteristics that resonate with our soul and connect us with our sense of beauty.
The extent that an artist can express the beauty in their soul into a “thing” in such a way that my observing it resonates with the beauty in my soul, is the measure of the artist’s success for me, and for others with similar tastes.
But to me the creation itself is just an object or other thing to be experienced. It doesn’t possess “beauty” it provokes, or perhaps stimulates or exposes those connections in me. But it isn’t objectively beautiful. It’s just molecules, reflections and absorptions of light, sound waves assembled together for some period of time in such a way that they can be observed.
I believe an argument could be made that there is an objective universal beauty. But if there is, I believe it’s has to be something we universally share in the soul. It could be the same in all of us, but what evokes a connection to it varies across cultures, individuals, personalities, and a million other variables.
So … can a work of art be objectively beautiful? I firmly believe not. To be so would require it to be able to connect with every person. Impossible. You could argue that the thing is objectively beautiful but certain people just don’t “get it”. But who then decides who just doesn’t get it? No human is qualified to make that decision objectively. So, to me, the fact that there is no piece of art universally recognized as beautiful, means that such a thing doesn’t and cannot exist.
How did you get all those photos of my ceilings?????
yeah, gets a bit tiresome. I grew out of the debates about religion for the most part just because it's like debating a flat earther.. you can't use reason to argue someone out of a position they didn't arrive at through reason. It becomes a fairly hopeless exercise.
That said, it's still gets me fired up when people drop religious pseudo spiritual stuff on me with the assumption that I'm down with it, ie telling me they're going to pray for me. In fact when people tell me that they're praying for me, it only tells me they don't really believe in the power of prayer.
@wim
You have provoked, or, perhaps stimulated or exposed agreement within me.
@echoopera Nice art. It look like it's made with AI.
Art is good to make but not always good to experience ^^=
I’m with Jodorowsky on this one, “the purpose of art is to heal”
Whats yourguyses quote?
Art is never finished, only abandoned.
― Leonardo da Vinci
The key here in my opinion is what “objective” means and how we apply it.
Taking the Prince example, Prince is “skilled” by both definitions, he’s undeniably and objectively skilled at playing and composition. Whereas he’d only qualify as “talented” by the second definition as talent is based on consensus and can be questioned.
If we are to apply “objective” in its most extreme form, as universal and unquestionable, the term itself would be objectively inapplicable. As Trump supporters will tell you, there’s alternative truths. Do not try to impose your view as universal. Don’t tell me the earth is round, that’s just the mainstream opinion, not the absolute truth. Prove it!.
So in order to use the term at all we need to make it a bit more flexible and relaxed, based on consensus.
Here’s where I drop in the “how do you like your toast?” meme…
If you ordered breakfast and they brought you toast 1 or 5 you’d be eligible and right to complaint. They’re objectively horrible because there’s a consensus strong enough. It’s not universal, sure, there’s an old lady in Croacia that likes the crunch. But we live in society and we need to stablish a threshold as to what is considered objective. If 99% of people dislike toast Nº1, then it’s objectively bad. Whereas toast 10 or 12 would be a subjective choice.
This applies to the world being round, vaccines, art, Prince being good and Reggeaton a piece of crap.
Nope. Consensus does not equal objectivity.
@palms
Isn’t racism wrong?
Isn’t what happened to the Jewish people and groups of minorities during the Holocaust wrong?
Why do you believe those things to be so?
It certainly isn’t based on consensus, or even cultural norms.
To say there is no moral truth has far reaching implications and consequences.
Bored now. Bye!
@tahiche: in English, objective’s meaning has nothing to do with consensus even though some people will try (mistakenly) to use consensus as an indication of the correctness of their position.
Something being objectively true means that it’s truth is independent of the observer.
For the beauty of a work of art to be inherent in the artwork and objectively true, it would mean that the work’s beauty is independent of any observer’s perception, opinion , point of view.
I think attempts to prove the objectivity of aesthetic laws have are often driven by a desire to turn human perception and values into something independent of the observer , to provide some external justification for our values.
Nice one. I’ve been lately wondering if there is a perfect balance of love and hate in the universe, and if so does that mean if I usurp more than my share of love that I am externalizing my hate, thus creating a moral debt? Or is there an asymmetrical supply of love and hate? Or is hate simply love reinterpreted and vice versa?
Op does not understand the meaning of the word objective. This clears up the confusion for me.
Bye now, and Good luck with whatever it is you’re after.
Why are 9 and 10 toastier than 7 and 8, and 13 and 14 toastier than 11 and 12?
Duplicate
I’m relieved that I’m not the only one bothered by this.
It would appear, objectively as an absolute fact beyond reproach of course, that these toast graph makers need to get their shit together.