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
Suits me fine. We've had a good run and a few laughs along the way. Nobody lasts forever. The cockroaches are welcome to Drambo.
I don't know what to believe anymore!
Hehe, I'm going to start using that at work just to piss people off.
I think people in “the industry” will see a threat on the horizon. But like free music downloads it will eventually settle. I guess the day to be worried is when AI wins the Grammys voted for by AI!
Maybe AI could come up with a way of running the world so that no one is starving or living in poverty. Humans haven’t managed this ever - nor are they likely to.
So which would be better?
Yah, maybe our own individual mortality (and penchant for creating leaders) has been our undoing. Having a general impartial intelligence not threatened by it's own mortality and constantly playing fuck-over games may be helpful.
@robosardine : that’s easy for AI.
Human to AI: “End all human hunger and poverty.”
AI: exterminates all humanity.
AI: “Mission Accomplished.”
So... from your comments, I might infer that this awful AI composition is better than the typical top ten entries composed by humans. Well, ok.
I'm not sure you understood my post.
Understood. I prefer to do as much of the work as I can when it comes to production, but I have no problem using well made tools others have lovingly crafted to make me sound better in my process of creation.
Yeah, that obviously works for you, but I’m going to refer back to @dendy’s comment, which is the one I was replying to and agreed with:
Learning what produces the end result I’m after, a result one that I’m not, via a trial and error process, is all part of the fun, and can also result in unexpected discoveries.
We’ll have to see what this new fangled AI brings to the table for creatives, but so far - in regards personal creative pursuit wise - I’ve yet to be impressed.
Just to add a little more color to my comment…
The tools I’m referring to include software synthesizers I’d never be able to afford in real life, virtual guitars I’d be hard pressed to find the time to learn how to play like a master and more than occasionally sampled instruments which fill in for me having to hire an entire orchestra to achieve the sounds I imagine before I commit them to a recorded performance. What we all do when we make music is stand on the shoulders of centuries of development before us anyway.
I wouldn't be either given the social media noise that has risen to the top.
Kind of joking, but referring specifically to this part of your comment: "...(I'm referring to the 2nd track) of a song that has an interesting arrangement, with some interesting chord changes and more melodic interest than can be found in much of popular music these days."
Nothing wrong with that, that's not really AI anyway. The AI stuff I'm not interested in are the automated composition, mixing, production and whatnot tools.
I guess that's where we're different. Again, learning how to play guitar, for me, was fun, pleasure. I've no desire to play like a master. Everything I play sounds like a Poundshop Hillage reject, but that's the whole point. It's my playing, my lines, my music. Why would I want to generate guitar lines from an AI app? If I'm using AI tools to create the music I put out, people are no longer listening to my music, they're listening to an artificially generated clone. Would that AI solo sound more masterful than my Hillage reject guitar solos? Probably. But I'm not interested in 'masterful', I'm interested in 'real'.
Play like a master? It's like punk never 'appened!!
But some of us also make things that are new, and different. Things that future musicians can be inspired by. Or reject. Although now of course we're simply creating ideas for AI bots to scrape and poop out as their own.
To be honest I'm sick to the back teeth with all this AI stuff already. We've already almost finished destroying the planet, and now the big corporations are attempting to wipe out human creativity too.
I'm so glad I'm old, and got to be young when everything wasn't based around bloody data on a screen. More morphine, please nurse.
I always enjoy your responses.
I hear yah. I feel like I have been drafted... at 48, wtf I wanted to coast into morphine, err retirement.
Hear, hear. What sort of bugs me about AI (and the commercialization of creativity in general of which AI is really just an extension or will be) is that there seems to be this widely held assumption of what is good and if we could just devote enough machines to codifying all this (or coding to machine all this), everything would be just dandy all around and why the hell would you want anything different anyway, because if you do you're just a sucker.
I see. Well, when i mentioned popular music i wasn't specifically referring to the Top Ten. It was more in reference to the popular genres on the creation side. When I've heard the low-hanging-fruit argument raised more recently, it has been in reference to specific genres such as Trap and the kinds of Lo-Fi Hip-Hop that are light enough to not disturb a study session.
It's these genres, that having been reduced down to their simplest and formularised essence that people are assuming will be consumed by AI. And that's true. But having heard this example, i think the reach will ultimately end up a lot wider.
Either way, this example, neither in its current form nor through various iterations, is gonna be making waves. Certainly not comparable as a finished track to anything in the Top Ten. But as i said, the song hints at the possibility of 'writing' from a much wider palette than I think many suspected, and yes...perhaps wider than certain artists in the Top Ten would be able to entertain.
As for it being awful? Well yeah, it's a helluva mess. But if the trajectory follows a similar course as Midjourney (Someone posted a time-stamped progression example, recently, then it might not take too long before it's at least cohesive. And from there? Well...
I fully expect in just a few short years one will be able to 'employ' the services of any number of "A.I." assistants in the music production process. Need a drummer? Hire a virtual Steve Gadd and he'll lay down the perfect track for your soft rock hit. Need three backup singers? You'll hire some virtual singers with the chops to back you up, no problem... even if you start changing your lyrics or performance on the fly. Need an producer to pull your tracks together and give it the polish you need? You'll hire a virtual Quincy Jones or Bob Clearmountain or Butch Vig which will identify your tracks, organize them, mix and present you with 8 different mix options suitable for review, mastering and distribution. You'll have the best "team" in the world to work with you, even if you're a so-so musician. Things will only continue to go in this direction.
I definitely see this but would change 'hire' to 'use a free open source model'.
(talks about how open source out paces closed source)
IMO, it takes some real mind bending to go from "AI may become better at creating music than humans" to "improved AI will destroy human creativity."
Assume AI does become better than any human at creating beautiful music. (Yes, I know people dispute whether that will happen or not. But just for the moment assume it does.) How does that "destroy human creativity"? Humans will still be able to create just as they were before.
Yes, in our little thought experiment machines will be creating better stuff. But, I'm sorry to break it to you: Right now there is always someone producing better stuff than you are. Are these other people destroying your creativity?
Why, exactly, is it going to make a big difference for you if, in addition to there being many people who are better than you, there are many people and also many machines that are better at creating music than you? Does it make sense to think either of these (i.e., 1. people who are better or 2. AI who are better) are "destroying your creativity"?
oh snap! That is a good way to put it. I guess a lot of people are motivated by the delusion they may one day be the best hehe. Silly monkeys.
I have a real problem with statements like "Assume AI does become better than any human at creating beautiful music. " How is this verdict of acclamation being arrived at? The market? It's like someone (or maybe a program) is assuming that we all agree on what is "really" beautiful music, good art, and so on. And we clearly don't.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of a thought experiment? Clearly we all don't agree. I'm asking you, for the moment, to assume that we all do agree that AI has become better than humans at, e.g., creating music. Does your ability to imagine not extend that far?
Can you tell me where this quote came from?
No, because my imagination contains multitudes. It’s people with limited imaginations who envision uniform standards.
Thought experiments are great. Not everyone wants to play sadly. i was just reminiscing the other day about past co-workers / ceos etc who seemed incapable. They see it as a waste of time. Decisiveness! assuredness! (Insert other obsolete modes of being).
i think the whole point of a thought experiment is to promote considering multitudes.