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
I bet someone using these new tools will create a song or album that charts at some point in the very near future.
@magnusovi makes a valid point. AI, trained on the ‘well made tune’ may well compete with, and surpass, the vast bulk of conventionally trained musicians using familiar formal structures to make their music quite soon now.
When however, AI can deliberately make the kind of random, non music noises I do, to a degree of coherence sufficiently organised to be actually interesting to me or a third party, I’ll be… impressed. Not to say surprised, since I don’t even know what I’m doing, so I’m not sure how you get a training set out of that.
It may be that outsider ‘artists’ and non expert players will be the last human creators to be replaced…
Maybe the day of the awful amateur is at hand!
Thinking by extension that in a future ‘war against the machines’ scenario, the human military forces will purposefully be led by ‘insane’ shamanic figures or neuro diverse tacticians, who can’t help but initiate literally incalculable, random, senseless and therefore unstoppable acts of violence upon the machines through their different ways of thinking, and thereby defeat the cool rationality of opponents trained only on what makes sense. I call it the Colonel Kurtz strategy:
Haha. Well, it all depends on what you give these systems for it to 'learn' from. If you give it nothing but Ligetti, Glass or Laurie Anderson, it'll extrapolate from those influences. If you give it Bach, it'll work with that.
What you all actually refer to is non-linear extrapolated creativity, uniqueness in essence, but does that really exist?
In a way, maybe this argument is built on a premise that « art » is only about the result, and not the journey. To my mind, any art is as much about the artist, and the artist’s process, as it is about the finished artefact. Think of how we enjoy learning about our favourite musicians; their opinions, their lives, their way of working, their excesses. Take away all that knowledge, all that interest, and replace it with a machine, and you remove context. You remove an essential part of our interaction with music.
A.I. will do well for a while in music, because it’s novelty, and we love novelty. But we love human interaction more.
@purpan2 : hmm. Not convinced by that argument. Sure, in some of my favourite artists - Leonard Cohen, late Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, Nick Cave, Laurie Anderson, Kate Bush, Bjork… the personality is inseparable from the work. But of the private lives or individual aims of the Dark Ambient artists I most like - Atrium Carceri, Allseits, Northaunt… I know absolutely nothing. I don’t even know who are in these bands, or if they are bands, or solo artists. Doesn’t matter one jot.
If you believe what has been coming out of the OpenAI CEO firing and confusion, they claim to have already achieved AGI (artificial general intelligence), something which would suggest creativity and an ability to act independently. These "traits" would lend credence to the suggestion that such a system would be able to use reason and judgement to formulate new rationales and opinions, which might presumably also include creative works such as music composition.
I don't think this first part is accurate. Q* is a milestone on the way to developing AGI but it's not general enough in itself to qualify as AGI, no?
I think Svetlovska made a valid point just now, but for those who do like some personality behind their music, AI will definitely be able to play convincing roles and, if required, make us fall in love or idolise them, just like in the movie Her.i do think tho that there will probably be a significant number of ppl who like to 'keep it real' and will shun AI celebs (to the extent they'll actually be able to know, lol
I suppose it depends on the definition of AGI.
On Wikipedia they have this:
Bingo, spirit of the journey.
This path could lead to humanity just a consumer. Yes chickens do vote for Christmas, they consume and get fat.
We rely on the expertise of others for most things right now, today. Whether it is provided by an automated/"A.I." system or by another person, the end result will be the same for the customer.
We do rely on the expertise of others, so when the innovators of A.I. advise extreme caution, it would be extremely advisable we take note, wouldn’t you agree. We talk here just about it’s implications within creative art, but that remember this remains just a niche usage of A.I.
Q*, from all the info we currently have, is emphatically not general enough to qualify as AGI. It is a step in that direction. It is not accurate to say that OpenAI claim to have already achieved AGI, nobody is making that claim. That Wikipedia article also doesn't say anything to support the idea that this qualifies as AGI, it definitely doesn't qualify as AGI by any definition of the phrase.
Open A.I's definition is "highly autonomous systems that outperform humans at most economically valuable work” which I think is a reasonable practical definition.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atrium_Carceri
Wikipedia is your friend 😉
I think ambient music is an easier target for AI than pop music and other genres because the music is not the center of focus, and its artists are more anonymous. It is not required that these artists have paid their dues, or that they be of a certain generation (more on that below), or even perform live.
Re. AGI being nigh upon us, I've heard this prediction before, going back to when I was a grad student at the MIT AI Lab. I think Rodney Brooks' view of the AGI timeline is more realistic: https://spectrum.ieee.org/gpt-4-calm-down
Regarding what makes music popular, isn't it true that each generation creates its own music and culture? Motivated by the need to separate themselves from the generation before.
I predict that if one generation uses AI to differentiate themselves from their parents, then the next generation will have nothing to do with it.
They didn't make the AGI claim in public. That's why there were the inside rumors coming out explaining the reasons for the CEO's firing. Even Elon Musk (who was a defrauded donor of $50-100 million to the formerly non-profit OpenAI organization) has publicly raised the issue.
https://www.reuters.com/technology/sam-altmans-ouster-openai-was-precipitated-by-letter-board-about-ai-breakthrough-2023-11-22/
https://techcrunch.com/2023/05/17/elon-musk-used-to-say-he-put-100m-in-openai-but-now-its-50m-here-are-the-receipts/?guccounter=1
Suno.ai is capable of creating pop music today, with a fake lead singer, backing vocals, the whole works. It's not "A.I", it's a machine learning algorithm. It's maybe 6-12 months away from being completely indistinguishable from the real thing. On the other hand, rumors had been leaking out of OpenAI about a breakthrough they had made in mathematics, which suggested AGI had been achieved or they were on the verge of achieving it. Suno and OpenAI are doing different things, however if AGI has genuinely been achieved (or is about to be) in one field (mathematics), then the likelihood of that breakthrough affecting all other areas will soon follow. Mathematics is core to analyzing and understanding all other fields, including the arts. Things are going to get really weird, really fast.
No, it hasn’t. There is no true meaning. There is an original meaning and even that falls apart when examined. Or else pretty much every word you’re currently using is incorrect. The main mode of transition in language is from literal to figurative.
Life disregards what is redundant and what is redundant changes. And creates. This is also what will happen with Ai. If Ai is able to do our work, we’ll make new work.
Only in America 👀. Everywhere else it’s through common usage and facility x time x euphony. Also evolution and misuse are at odd in that formulation.
"Cat" doesn't mean "dog". Words have meanings. Whether those terms reverse in 100 years isn't the issue.
The etymology of words isn’t as black and white or discrete as that. Meanings when and where? Words don’t grow out of nowhere.
There is a big difference between a word being used incorrectly and entering language as an operation of cumulative ham-brainedness and the meaning of a word evolving and being refined through mass usage over centuries and the changing context of the world in a way that feels consistent with the rules under whcih it came into being. The latter is almost all language. Language is a glacier.
The difference is really simple. The word doesn’t matter at all. It’s the sense for language behind it.
Words have meanings is a phrase I’ve used myself in another context. Political nonsense I think. The definition of ‘racism’ now includes a sense that is by its original definition extremely racist and so the word has become its own antonym. But there you, congrats sociology.
The concept is most important.
How does the original usage derived from Latin fall apart when examined? It seems pretty clear cut to me, and without any significant contention from literary academia that I can see.
I think Rick Beato is eavesdropping on this forum to come up with topics...
I hope not. There’s a reason they call it “artificial”.
The thing that’s going to be interesting with Ai is that the notion of music being mathematical is kind of one eyed. It’s 100 percent mathematical in analysis. And 0 percent mathematical in its nature. In the same way that numbers can explain reality but are the one thing that doesn’t exist in it. So I think it will be very easy to emulate most modern, generic music (or other things) but actual art, as in expression rather than emulation or synthesis will be really really interesting.
I actually think that the moment Ai is able to do that you can no longer call it Ai. And I don’t mean anything hazy through poor examination, I mean something far more sophisticated than examination is able to grasp from its inherent distance.
Music is 100% mathematical. From tempo, to structure, to the notes themselves. Everything human beings have created can be analyzed, quantified and simulated.
Because words very very often - but not always - originate in a kind of hazy collective way. Firstly it’s often lost to history, and most etymology is just about finding the earliest written uses rather than the earliest use. And then you have the matter of whether a word is created or discivered and by whom. The way those derivations come together is so organic in comparison to the quite precise retrospective way we look back at it in analysis. What if it’s appropriated and immediately put to use ina way that is far more elegant than the initial use? What if the initial use doesn’t even exist and sprung up in a fuzzy location in time? Perhaps that was its ‘true’ sense. Words are a qualitative medium for meaning, not a mathematical reference so there’s a lot of ambiguity in that respect.
I think that when a word arises out of a historical circumstance like an artefact filling a small hole in language created by its expanding medium, there’s a naturalness to it that gives it substance. But then that is based on its relation to the context which is changing. So for me, the concept and that relation is what is important. Not the changing but the things that are unchanging
This is objectively incorrect. The analysis of music is 100% mathematical and that is from where your point of view stems.
Write a song. Now record it. It’s different. There are inflections that are far too sophisticated and multifarious for annotation and they’re not just complex and as yet unregistered. Observation is inherently obstructive to understanding them. It’s like digital vs analogue or particles and waves. It’s a sophisticated approximation.
The most important part of recording a song is forgetting every single part that can be understood referentially. That’s all just ways of touching on something you can’t communicate. That’s what elevates things.
When I was younger I made a lot of mistakes recording. To simplify it: I would worry, through insecurity and misunderstanding really, about the notes, the tempo, everything being in the right place. But when I did this in recording I would end up with something which other people would like but to me seemed dead. All the bones and skin and organs are hooked up as they should be but there’s no life or magic like there was in my original crappy old phone recording when I first got it. Thee are all these weird inflections that don’t lend themselves to musical description or mathematical or anything. It’s not just about well, my delivery was a bit different here or there.
I would end up having to write really weird shit down among the chord sequences like ‘sing it thinking of ———‘ ‘this bit goes all wobbly’ ‘the guitar breaks up into a flock of birds’ etc. And hide my notes so I didn’t get locked up. But trying to describe those things in a more musical way just doesn’t work because it wasn’t music I was playing when at my most musical.
It would always end up sounding like a simulation. So the only way to get it is to create it and forget attempting to simulate it. Of course, later someone can analyse it but that is analysis. An d quantifying where somethimg ended up isn’t that thing.