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 Store

Loopy Pro is your all-in-one musical toolkit. Try it for free today.

Yep, America, Land Of The Free

2

Comments

  • edited July 2022

    Today, my ex-girlfriend (and mother) teached my son, the muslim phrase for "If God wants it" (She is following the muslim path after 35 years of christianity) and she is going to show him a mosque, because he's curios. She told him that the mosque in Mekka and a church are both "The house of God". Then my son said: "God doesn't live in a church, he lives on a cloud in the sky!"
    That made my heart melt <3 <3
    Actually, he was right. No matter what kind of holy place you went, God is there for everyone. So he múst live on a cloud, to look down to everyone...

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @Grandbear said:
    This ruling being specific for "taxpayer funded establishments" means that it was already legal for establishments without taxpayer funding?

    Establishments/organizations that take government funding (taxpayer funding) are often not allowed to discriminate in ways that privately funded establishments/organizations are allowed to.

    Got it, thanks for explaining; I wasn't aware that private establishments were allowed to discriminate in these ways to begin with

  • edited July 2022

    Apropos…

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/15/opinions/tennessee-adoption-struggle-religious-freedom-graves-fitzsimmons-siddiqi/index.html

    To paraphrase… “we would rather keep an orphan an orphan than give them to a Jew, a Muslim, or a gay person.”

    Government funded or not, the child continues to suffer. Go ahead and justify it, it’s not a good look.

  • edited July 2022

    @JoyceRoadStudios said:
    Apropos…

    https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2022/02/15/opinions/tennessee-adoption-struggle-religious-freedom-graves-fitzsimmons-siddiqi/index.html

    To paraphrase… “we would rather keep an orphan an orphan than give them to a Jew, a Muslim, or a gay person.”

    Government funded or not, the child continues to suffer. Go ahead and justify it, it’s not a good look.

    Agreed, and seems well sourced to me.

  • @LinearLineman I am sorry that I was ignorant to the issues raised. I'm definitely learning each day. Sent you a PM to explain a bit more. Peace mate.

  • @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    The correct response to “the majority discriminates against minorities” is not “it’s ok: minorities discriminate, too.”

    That isn’t what happened. Read the original story.

    I was responding to your words and BianaNeve's . The two of you agreed that it is ok for Christian organizations to discriminate against Jews and Muslims because their organizations probably discriminate to. Here are @BiancaNeve's words that you agreed with --- and to which I was referring -- "A Christian run charity only provides its services to other christians I’m sure Jewish charities favour other Jews and Muslim charities look after Muslims."

    My comment is about what the two of you said and not the article that was posted (though that case even as presented in the article you posted is concerning to those many of us that believe in the separation of Church and State -- but that is irrelevant to the comment you replied to).

    So discriminating in favour of people is discriminating against other people - glad that clears affirmative action for me.

  • @BiancaNeve said:

    @espiegel123 said:

    @NeuM said:

    @espiegel123 said:
    The correct response to “the majority discriminates against minorities” is not “it’s ok: minorities discriminate, too.”

    That isn’t what happened. Read the original story.

    I was responding to your words and BianaNeve's . The two of you agreed that it is ok for Christian organizations to discriminate against Jews and Muslims because their organizations probably discriminate to. Here are @BiancaNeve's words that you agreed with --- and to which I was referring -- "A Christian run charity only provides its services to other christians I’m sure Jewish charities favour other Jews and Muslim charities look after Muslims."

    My comment is about what the two of you said and not the article that was posted (though that case even as presented in the article you posted is concerning to those many of us that believe in the separation of Church and State -- but that is irrelevant to the comment you replied to).

    So discriminating in favour of people is discriminating against other people - glad that clears affirmative action for me.

    That is not an accurate characterization of what I said.

  • @Identor said:
    Today, my ex-girlfriend (and mother) teached my son, the muslim phrase for "If God wants it" (She is following the muslim path after 35 years of christianity) and she is going to show him a mosque, because he's curios. She told him that the mosque in Mekka and a church are both "The house of God". Then my son said: "God doesn't live in a church, he lives on a cloud in the sky!"
    That made my heart melt <3 <3
    Actually, he was right. No matter what kind of holy place you went, God is there for everyone. So he múst live on a cloud, to look down to everyone...

    I actually thought. If the kingdom of heaven is within you. What if the universe ( where everything were engineered ) Is just a particle that moves around. It could go through your body etc. I often sit around just gazing. It would be a gift to view the particle obviously.

  • @CapnWillie said:
    To my knowledge ive only been granted the power to shut down bot threads or discussions where someone is being intentionally offensive or launching personal attacks.

    These are unfortunate, trying and painful times for everyone. Moreso for certain marginalized groups who are clearly under attack. So i understand why @Michael allows for wide ranging discussions on this forum.

    He just asks people keep it respectful and avoid attacking people. With that, I’m gone.✌🏽

    Gentleman

  • @CapnWillie said:
    To my knowledge ive only been granted the power to shut down bot threads or discussions where someone is being intentionally offensive or launching personal attacks.

    These are unfortunate, trying and painful times for everyone. Moreso for certain marginalized groups who are clearly under attack. So i understand why @Michael allows for wide ranging discussions on this forum.

    He just asks people keep it respectful and avoid attacking people. With that, I’m gone.✌🏽

    👍

  • edited July 2022

    I regret having posted about the adoption. It is clearly very sticky. What interests me about it is how regularly some folks will seize on a detail to reflect from the main point which is harder to dismiss. Example: Trump's suv lunge. So much easier to focus on that than the important stuff

    Once again, "No Jews Allowed" or
    is that democrat propaganda? Pls address that point instead of deflecting. Thanks so much.

  • More lies and misinformation being added to an already dishonest accounting of a legal dispute. Why? Why add lie after lie unless the lies are really the whole point?

    https://edition.cnn.com/politics/live-news/january-6-hearings-june-28/h_4f27ec7e42faefa388933c938ba274e0

    “Secret Service informs committee that agents are willing to testify and dispute the SUV incident“

  • I do my best to steer clear of religious and political discussions here. There are some good people here that I don't see eye to eye with on those particular subjects. People who I consider friends. People I respect. People whose music I really enjoy and admire. That being said, I don't believe any institution that receives government funding should be allowed to deny services to someone based on their religious beliefs.
    Before my wife and I met she gave birth to a little girl. With the father having abandoned her, my wife had a difficult choice to make. She chose to put her daughter up for adoption. Fortunately the couple that adopted her daughter were open to allowing my wife to remain in contact with her. We recently made a trip to see her graduate. It was the first time my wife had seen that young girl since she was a baby. The couple that adopted her daughter are very religious people (I am not) and lean very much in the opposite direction that I do politically. It does not matter. They have done a wonderful job raising a smart, talented young woman. And it was the happiest I've seen my wife in the entire time we have been together.

    Just because I don't agree with their worldview doesn't mean they can't be great parents. I just wish more people were willing to put aside their differences for the good of all.

  • ⤴️ The JTA web site link which appeared earlier in the thread states the following:

    “The couple will be allowed to adopt the girl within the next year if she is not reunified with her parents, according to the judges’ ruling. The couple plans to foster and potentially adopt another child.”

    Sounds like no one was harmed and the couple will still be adopting. Can anyone honestly identify where there is a problem here?

  • @MadeofWax said:

    I just wish more people were willing to put aside their differences for the good of all.

    Agreed.

  • @MadeofWax said:
    I do my best to steer clear of religious and political discussions here. There are some good people here that I don't see eye to eye with on those particular subjects. People who I consider friends. People I respect. People whose music I really enjoy and admire. That being said, I don't believe any institution that receives government funding should be allowed to deny services to someone based on their religious beliefs.
    Before my wife and I met she gave birth to a little girl. With the father having abandoned her, my wife had a difficult choice to make. She chose to put her daughter up for adoption. Fortunately the couple that adopted her daughter were open to allowing my wife to remain in contact with her. We recently made a trip to see her graduate. It was the first time my wife had seen that young girl since she was a baby. The couple that adopted her daughter are very religious people (I am not) and lean very much in the opposite direction that I do politically. It does not matter. They have done a wonderful job raising a smart, talented young woman. And it was the happiest I've seen my wife in the entire time we have been together.

    Just because I don't agree with their worldview doesn't mean they can't be great parents. I just wish more people were willing to put aside their differences for the good of all.

    Beautiful story, and I wholeheartedly agree mate. Spot on. ❤️

  • @Gravitas said:

    @MadeofWax said:

    I just wish more people were willing to put aside their differences for the good of all.

    Agreed.

    How, exactly, does one put aside differences such as six supreme court justices and those who support their ruling and 160,000,000 women's whose rights we're stripped away?

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • A thread about adoption has just been unironically spammed with disinformation about abortion. You just can’t make this stuff up, folks.

    There was never a constitutional right to abortion in the US. Even Ruth Bader Ginsberg acknowledged that the original ruling in Roe v Wade was poorly reasoned and poorly decided and she assumed it would eventually be overturned.

  • Would someone please just ban NeuM? He has ruined this place

  • @LinearLineman said:

    @Gravitas said:

    @MadeofWax said:

    I just wish more people were willing to put aside their differences for the good of all.

    Agreed.

    How, exactly, does one put aside differences such as six supreme court justices and those who support their ruling and 160,000,000 women's whose rights we're stripped away?

    In regards to the subject matter of six Supreme Court judges
    who were placed there by the U.S's prior administration?
    Rising nationalism, the Far Right and the rest?

    I have no answer.
    I've tried to answer this and more for most of my life.

    These people love to hate.
    What can I say?

    Children are getting killed and even killing themselves
    because of the proliferation of guns.
    So the logical answer is less guns or better still no guns.
    Yet the response is the reverse.
    "Let's have more guns."
    That doesn't make no sense.
    Those kinda moves encourages War and the rest of it.

    Roe vs Wade?

    I don't know the ins and outs but I certainly do know that this.
    A woman's body is her own.
    If I were to own a woman that reeks of slavery and I don't like slavery.
    It's backwards.

    I'm a different kinda of person really.

    My response would be to ignore the Supreme Court Justices in regards to Roe vs Wade.
    if I were the President, I'd say everyone hand in your guns.
    If you can't settle it with fisticuffs you can't have ice cream.
    If you own a woman then you're slaver and that is officially illegal
    in this day and age though it does persist, slavery that is.

    My from humble perspective the recent decisions
    made in regards to the subject matter are insane.

    That's all I can say at this point.

  • The user and all related content has been deleted.
  • edited July 2022

    @yowza said:
    Would someone please just ban NeuM? He has ruined this place

    So... welcome to the Soviet Union? Your silence is mandatory?

    If there are any complaints please feel free to forward them to the person who starts these incendiary political threads. I don't respond to that person anymore.

  • @NeuM said:

    @yowza said:
    Would someone please just ban NeuM? He has ruined this place

    So... welcome to the Soviet Union? Your silence is mandatory?

    I’d say for starters just stop being a dick who always has to get in the last word and who thinks he’s right about EVERYTHING. You’re not. You obviously have a very high opinion of yourself.

  • Stern parent voice Keep it civil, you kids. I will turn this car around.

    I’m absolutely not above reinstating the ban on political content

  • @Michael said:
    Stern parent voice Keep it civil, you kids. I will turn this car around.

    I’m absolutely not above reinstating the ban on political content

    Please do.

  • I may spend a little time when I have a spare second tweaking the forum code and creating a “social commentary” category which is completely hidden from the main page.

    Despite everything, I seem to still be somewhat of an idealist and conversation is still important to me, despite the evidence that it has absolutely no benefits. I feel like I want to allow it, if it can be achieved without raising the temperature in here. I don’t know — if we can get just two people from each side of that crazy country of yours talking to each other, it feels like an epic win to me. Surely just by the law of large numbers it has to happen eventually, even if it’s by accident.

  • @yowza said:
    Would someone please just ban NeuM? He has ruined this place

    In his defense, he is much nicer than robertreynolds.
    Now, that guy was a reactionary prick.

  • @LinearLineman said:
    How, exactly, does one put aside differences such as six supreme court justices and those who support their ruling and 160,000,000 women's whose rights we're stripped away?

    I wish people would put aside their differences. I know they often can't or won't. I don't have answers. I have opinions. And in the grand scheme of things I know my opinion doesn't really matter much. But ultimately I think it's important to try and find common ground with others.
    Denying a child a chance at a family because the prospective parents don't share your faith is wrong, full stop.
    I don't agree with the current makeup of the Supreme Court. I strongly disagree with their recent rulings. I intend to vote accordingly.
    I just wanted to provide some personal perspective.

This discussion has been closed.