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
AI should be able to create unique samples soon, if the regulations allow it.
What if I just sample one note? And use it as the basis for a sampled instrument?
I've taken to sampling from my own original compositions as well as un-copyright-able sources. Not that I think I'm ever gonna be in a position where I'm forced to pay millions in fines, as my material is dragged through the courts
If the sample can be stripped-back enough to be noticeable as taken from copyrighted material, I don't see why it would be treated any differently than any other un-declared sample.
The authorities will only take one finger for that kind of theft.
People get sued for compensation, not for the fun of someone filing a lawsuit. If you used samples in a song that made millions of dollars, then you should worry about it. If you’re no one famous, the risk of a lawsuit is almost zero.
Isn’t it also the copyright strikes and takedowns basically targeting anyone and everyone that is concerning?
Most of that post was tongue-in-cheek. And just to clarify, I'm not avoiding sampling copyrighted material out of fear of lawsuits. The intention to sample my own music is a personal challenge to make music i feel worth sampling.
The risk is probably more being deplatformed by your distribution channel than being sued.
There's a spectrum. Don't sample anything owned by Disney, which is almost everything.
I’ll give them one finger…
Hard to stop open source that runs locally.
It’s a good challenge to repurpose your own material in a new and novel way. I like going back into old works and completely rethinking them, from arrangement to mix.
AI rehashing the source data of humans, I guarantee in the future that tech will be able to copyright strike AI creations and the humans who use it.
AGI could create its own music without human source material but we ain't there yet. It's possible humans just aren't smart or spiritually evolved enough to ever create AGI ... time will tell.
Offers new perspectives, indeed. It's also a great way to learn which stuff tends to work well when chopped, pitched, stretched etc. which should hopefully make writing to-purpose a lot easier.
I got a takedown from yt for using a PD video clip. There is no fighting back in that situation. Your video is zapped, and you did not even steal anything (much less make a penny of profit from it). It is demoralizing and bad for culture. The development of jazz would have been impossible in this environment. How much loss to humanity from art cultures that will never develop because of the copyright police?
You mean like every rompler available?
I suppose. Like if I say, recorded bits of a Soundgarden song from YouTube, imported into Koala, sliced up one strum/note from a guitar riff, then used that sample to compose an original melody. Technically, it’s Kim Thayil’s guitar TONE, but my melody.
So I guess the question is: do mere TIMBRES constitute some sort of infringement?
I don't know what you mean by "PD video clip", but YouTube is a privately owned platform and they have agreements with the record labels, which include takedown requests being honored.
That’s copyright infringement of the recorded works and would need clearance legally.
PD == public domain. Someone else had already used my PD clip, and apparently the algorithm's rule is that whoever claims it first owns it. It's a dysfunctional culture that demonizes recycling and development. The copyright trolls are bad enough; then we also have the "cultural appropriation" geniuses who want to police art forms on the basis of skin color. Don't even get me started on the record business!
If you copy a guitar tone that is not copyright infringement.
Aha. Well, that's not how copyright law works. Once a work is in the public domain, it's no one's property. It's basically abandoned. It cannot be 're-copyrighted'. If someone creates a NEW piece of work incorporating some element of the public domain material, that could be copyrighted.
I’m not so confident in my response because I’m not an expert but I’m not sure. If it’s in a sampler and you hit the original note or even different pitches you are technically sampling the original recording, no?
No. A copyright violation would include copying distinct passages from a song (like the hook/chorus) or duplicating parts of the arrangement with minimal differences. You could write, record and sell a song called "We Are The World" if it was a parody, for example. Or you could copy the sound and feel of a particular song or artist if what you made was an original work.
Not sure if this is what you mean but there are lots of examples of copying the sound and feel of a song and still getting sued for copyright infringement. Like Red Hot Chili Peppers/Tom Petty. Marvin Gaye/Robin Thicke. Etc.
No, they get sued for copying a chord progression or for lifting whole sections out of someone else's work. The copied chord progression is the weakest legal argument in my opinion. There are only so many available notes and only so many of constructing a song. Some 'accidental' copying is inevitable.
But you can’t use an actual sample from the artist’s actual recording in your new composition, someone owns the rights to that
Oh yeah not saying I agree with it, just saying that it does happen. Copying the chords/copying the sound are pretty similar unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re getting at. Still sucks that you can get sued for that and actually lose.
That's correct. That's a violation of their copyright. One would be using their property without authorization. That's why the bigger artists who do sample have their lawyers get clearances on all sampling before they release anything.
So then the bits of the Soundgarden song @db909 was theoretically slicing up in Koala would count as that.