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
Are you referring to stuff that is purely 100% generated? I have seen stuff that is 90-95% generated and 5-10% overpainted by a human that is completely convincing, at least in terms of digital painting. (of course faking a traditional analog work with generated digital AI is completely different than what I am talking about)
I'm thankful that my only goal in creating music is the enjoyment of doing it. Sometimes (rarely) that involves a bit of auto generation from something like Rozeta Particles, etc. but to be honest, I get less satisfaction from those parts than I do creating something on my own. AI generated stuff can't take that away.
I think I'd feel differently was trying to make a living off of my music tho.
The 100% generated stuff.
If it’s been edited afterwards then it’s had human, creative input and becomes something completely different. It’s been used as a tool, not a replacement. Artwork as opposed to data.
That's fine. But this argument sounds incredibly similar to what people said when CD's came out in the 1980's: "The magic of music can never be captured with digital data; analog vinyl records sound so much better."
Or the argument people made around early 2000's, as digital cameras drew even and eventually far outstripped the accuracy of photographic film: "The magic of visual images can't ever be fully captured by mere 1's and 0's; film will always be better."
I expect we'll see this pattern of argument be repeated many times, and turn out each time to eventually fail, as time proceeds.
"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." -- Arthur C. Clarke
You seem to be completely missing the point.
AI is not an alternative medium for content, it’s a replacement for the person creating it.
I don't think it was your initial point, seems to be in reaction to my post, but your distinction between "medium for content" and "person creating content" is not a good one. A artist can be viewed as just an organic (analog) art creator. AI can be viewed as a digital art creator. But, the old argument goes, "It can't happen; digital can't beat analog; 1's and 0's creating art will never be able to capture the magic of a real person doing it." Okay, rest on that for now. But time will pass, advancements will be made, the future will come. The digital is likely to surpass the analog, even in this case. The digital creations might not have the same "magic", but, at least if Arthur C. Clarke is right, you won't be able to tell the difference.
And to all of this I say, so what? People can go on creating as much content as they want. The fact that AI may become better and that other people may prefer the AI's creations to their own won't stop people from being artists. Of course, if there is the "magic" you claim, that won't happen. But I would argue that being an artist isn't about creating the best art; it's merely about being an artist, creating.
Moreover, increasing automation and societal wealth may well make it possible for people to work less. And more people will be able to unleash their creative impulses (even if what they create isn't as good as what AI creates). If so, this will be a good thing.
I’m sure that most people will enjoy AI creations much more than something made by a human being, because most people 1) lack taste and 2) want a simulacrum and regurgitation of what they like, something that machines are/will be uniquely good at providing. Humans are ok at this, but they do this imperfectly.
But beyond that, I wonder if AI will create any new musical form that would be challenging and yet appreciated by humans. Because if you look at the evolution of music, it is often fueled by a dissatisfaction with the prevailing aesthetic and culture. I guess that you might be able to write a program to take this into account… dunno.
I think even an old buffer like me will be able to tell the difference between say, Stephen Stapleton up on stage thumbing his squeaky office chair caster through a bunch of effects on stage, and a hard-drive attached to a speaker. Live music is a thing too (see my original comments).
As for your dismissal of my placing of the inspiration/interest of the creator of a piece of music or art, in preference to some data generated by a bit of software - that’s something intuitive, and personal to me, and isn’t going to change no matter how convincing the fakes become. Code: boring. Man with squeaky caster who hypnotises chickens: interesting.
I do code all week, I’m buggered if I’m going to spend my creative time off listening to it’s gargled, scraped data outpourings. Zzzz.
Anyway, been here done that, I don’t want to spend my weekend defending my own personal creative preferences, again, as that’s as attractive to me as a fantasy AI maiden with rubbery hands, so I’m ducking out of this thread to drink beer and read about Beefheart (yes, some of us read books about musicians!), so I’ll leave you AI fans to carry on discussing the merits of data without me!
Maybe one last thing before you leave 😉 AI is not code. It's not at all like a program. AI is -- just like a biological brain -- hundreds of billions of individually tuned connections (synapses or "weights") between numbers (neurons). You probably know that already. If not: Nobody has sat down at OpenAI and written billions of 'if' / 'then' statements (obviously). In fact, nobody knows why ChatGPT actually works so well. Just as nobody really knows why the human brain works as well.
It is entirely possible that the creativity shown by ChatGPT works exactly the same as the creativity in a human brain, and would therefore be equivalent.
Also, before you say that "ChatGPT only mixes up a few existing pieces and jumbles them together into something that looks new" -- well, that is the definition of creativity in neuroscience 😄
Sorry!
To me AI is like vegan soylent green. Good enough!
Good enough indeed! AI uses old recordings to transform audiobooks:
One 20-year professional narrator’s booking are down nearly 50% in the past six months.
Imagine if Rush’s Getty Lee had his voice sampled before it headed south years ago. He would be able to create new material that would inspire a entire generation…
I said, I’d stop, but just to clarify:
It’s not what it does, it’s what is doing it, that leaves me unimpressed.
I’m sure it will evolve to sound and look as good as what human artists can create. But I’m not just interested in products, I’m interested in the artists and musicians that make them - their story, where they get their inspiration from, the whole package.
So for example one of my favourite painters, Robert Lenkiewicz (look him up), had the body of a deceased tramp friend embalmed in a casket by his bed. He’d paint characters in his rambling, converted warehouse in Plymouth, put on food for local vagrants, had a library of occult and other-worldism books and was an incredibly, fascinating character. I met him a few times, watched him paint, and it was akin to being in the presence of someone from another world.
A digital picture created by John from sales, who typed in some keywords and tweaked the results a bit before uploading them onto his Instagram account really doesn’t have the same effect on me.
What worries me, is that with so much of this stuff being pumped out, future Robert Lenkiewicz‘s, future Dali’s, future McCartney’s won’t get a look in, and we’ll just have endless, regurgitated AI pulp until it eats its own data, an eternal Ouroboros loop for the TikTok generation.
Less game-changer, more game-over.
I think that AI should become a real society problem , the best expert on AI on labs for the first time don’t control anymore the new AI that are not public release this is why they sign a public alert and some prefer to leave Meta or Google or other AI corporate Labs not to collaborate anymore as these corporations don’t care about it.
I don’t talk about what you can use now like chatGPT but far more advanced AI.
White collars , lawyers and many intellectuals jobs think about …. Why to pay so much University fees as you have more garantee for making a good living as a plumber as someone here state.
I tend to agree. Art is evasive to define, and one of the most used definitions is that art is something that an artist creates. So far, all the AI stuff I’ve seen, chatgpt included, don’t fit that definition. Visually, there seems to be a bias towards derivative, scifi, world of warfare, k-pop stuff. It’s almost as if you can see where AI has been told to look.
There’s an offbeat, unpredicable element to human creativity that, at its most remarkable, avoids cliché. That doesn’t seem to be happening yet with AI. Maybe it will, but I doubt it. Perhaps the problem is that machine intelligence is only sourcing its influences from the internet. AI doesn’t go outside. It doesn’t know what rain feels like. It hasn’t ever been tired, or breathless, or afraid of that bad bit of town on the walk home from the station. It can mimic those things if it reads about them on the internet, but mimicking is all it can do, because rain won’t ever fall on AI, and no one will ever step out of the shadows to put the fear of god into it. It will always be a good mimic. No more.
In a world where people pay as art NFT.
For me Andy Warhold or Damien Hirst or Jef Koon are not artist they are business men’s that own a factory with many people creating toys , I can’t feel the artist in it.
And. it was before AI they begin to do that. Art expert and museum curators don’t dare that it not art.
Yep, totally agree.
I’ve yet to see one single unique image out of the tens of thousands being regurgitated across my Instagram feed. Not one single image has produced anything that couldn’t have been mocked up 30 years ago in Photoshop, or knocked out by someone like me, as an illustrator. Nothing new, just facsimiles of what it thinks sci-fi, horror, fantasy art etc. should look like.
If it hadn’t been for the work of scores of traditional fantasy artists, or the Surrealists to be able to scrape and absorb, for example, vast swathes of AI data would now not even exist.
As Joni once sang: ‘you don’t know what you’ve got ‘til it’s gone’.
I used recordings of Vincent Price reading horror stories available on YouTube to train an AI voice model using the web browser tool provided by Elevenlabs here:
https://beta.elevenlabs.io/
I had to sign up and paid the minimum 5 bucks to get access to the custom voice option. It then took about 15 minutes to feed a variety of clips to the algorithm via the browser, absolutely no programming skills needed, just how to upload. I could have spent more time and got a better result, but it was pretty good, recognisably was Vincent Price, if speaking with less animation than I’d’ve preferred. Unfortunately, I took the piece using the voice down a while back from my SoundCloud, thinking I had a backup. Spoiler alert: I didn’t.
Damn… but, try it yourself. It’s scary easy and quick. The website gets you to sign a declaration saying you won’t use people’s voices without their consent, but if you are prepared to ignore that, all you’ll need is ten or fifteen minutes of Thom Yorker’s speaking voice.
The second order trick to get him singing would be to feed it through one of the auto tune apps. A lot of work, but definitely doable, as the clones of Kanye, Gallagher, Drake, Eminem etc all prove…
@jwmmakerofmusic said:
Oh I dunno. Give it ten years, I walk into a bar and the AI solid hologram* at the piano, ‘Sam’, does its facial recognition thing on me, gives a big cheesy grin, and in perfect sync with the Yamaha Disklavier player piano, it’s fingers begin virtual-stroking the old ivories even before I manage to get out ‘Play it Sam, play ‘As Times Go By’. Apt song, when you think about it…
So given your interests I assume then that you have been pretty much uninterested in the vast majority of commercial art (content (shudder)), where the people behind it are faceless/unknown, not really expressing their own ideas, just drone like factory workers anyway etc. I really don't think there will be a shortage of fine artists and genuine performers at all. If those types of genuine concepts survived the past fifty years of disposable filler sausage being pumped out then I am sure they will continue to do so.
I read an interesting piece on robot evolution recently in The Guardian.
A Netherlands company have linked a typical ( ! - let’s just take a moment to consider we have now reached a point where there are such things as a ‘typical’) self learning AI algorithm to an actual physical robot and a 3D printer.
The idea is that the physical robot has sensors and functioning in the real world, whilst the algorithm operates in a virtual recreation of it. Each new ‘generation’ is ‘parented’ by elements of the learning from both the internal and the external real world model, and uses the learning to print out newer and better components for the physical robot.
Given the task of finding a means of locomotion for a six legged spider robot sustaining increasing levels of damage, this ‘evolutionary’ approach led to the experimental AI eventually designing a physical robot with a mode of locomotion which meant it could still shimmy across the lab floor toward an experimenter even when all six of its legs had been hacked off.
The aim of the research team apparently is to evolve the system to the point that it can upgrade its physical components without any human intervention at all.
Presumably at which point it will seek revenge on the experimenter that cut all its limbs off. And he won’t be able to outrun it.
Okay, that's a valid attitude, and very human I think. I've met many people who "go to concerts because of the artists", not because of the music. I think it's actually true for the majority of people, i.e. they don't like the music, they like the artist. I've never really understood this personally, but everyone's different and that's what makes mankind interesting.
But surely everybody goes to concerts « because of the artists ». They already know the music. They have it on their phones. They go to a concert to see it performed. By humans.
Probably also to experience it at high volume and with lots of other people with the same musical taste "in sync"? 😄
Not only think about ABBA concerts . But yes it it to see on a giant screen their artist if it is a star and when they are not stars anymore on a more friendly small concert.
I am a commercial artist, it’s part of what I’ve been doing along with UI design, web-building etc. for over 40 years, and I am interested in it in a professional capacity. But I’ve never felt like a drone worker - quite the opposite - most of my clients, and companies I’ve worked for have employed me because of work I’ve already done, they want that style/approach that I have as they’ve seen it work for other companies. I usually get to put my own stamp on the work I do.
I can think of worse ways to earn a living.
But I do the fine art thing too - in fact next week I’m delivering pieces to two separate exhibitions. Interestingly a lot of other commercial artists/designers/illustrators have a foot in the arty camp too - it helps keep your ideas and commercial work fresh if you get to stretch your creative muscles in a bit of personal stuff.
You mean like in the 20th century, where never before seen automation and societal wealth led to people working... more? 🙂
Seriously, it's been weird. We already have all kinds of machines to make our lives easier, yet we don't/can't seem to let up.
Ironically, what may eventually enable people to work less is either them finally deciding to eat the rich (who are currently taking most of the "societal" gains), or simply losing their jobs altogether. 🤷
Yes, exactly. Keynes predicted back in 1930 that the work week might shrink to 15 hours/week. Obviously never happened. In U.S., at least, an opposite trend. However, many reasons to think that work will shrink in future, articulated well by Harari, who @Gavinski and I mentioned previously in this thread. . . .
I don’t think it will, after all it didn’t happen after the industrial revolution.
It’s in government’s interests to keep us plebs busy - keep us in our place without too much time to wonder why we’re the ones doing all the work.
It’ll just be replaced with other, menial stuff.
Harari sounds just as logical as Keynes did in his time 🤷
I wasn't talking about your appreciation of your own craft/art, (after all you have a front row seat there in terms of apreciating the artist behind the work ;} ) but rather what is produced by others that you have no window into the actual creators thinking. Ie. the vast majority of commercial art out there.