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.

Make the best out of every generation

13»

Comments

  • edited July 2023

    abf said:

    If, in 1938, I had been listening to something as exciting and rocking as Benny Goodman's famous live version of Louis Prima's "Sing Sing Sing", and then ten years later I turned on the radio and heard the popular songs of the day like "Maybelline" I would have thought everyone had lost their minds.

    If, in the 20th century, there was a Renaissance, it happened well before the 1960s.

    It's only opinion, a person keeps listening to and liking what they thought was good when they were young or else they keep an open mind and are rewarded with hearing beautiful, amazing new music all their life. It's just a choice we all make.

    JanKun said:

    I am not an expert in musicology but I do agree that using the word Renaissance is probably not the most accurate term even > though I understand the intention.

    Obviously "Renaissance" is just a metaphor here, the actual Renaissance referring to a revival of the ideas and achievements of classical antiquity following the "dark ages". One could use other terms like "classic" or "classical" era, or "golden age" or whatever. But the point was just to place things within the concept that there are certain periods of history where there is a great concentration of excellence, and others were, well not so much. Of course, one is influenced by the time in which one grows up (although personally, during the classic rock period I was listening to Charlie Parker, and J.S. Bach, and Stravinsky and Scott Joplin, and simultaneously discovering all sorts of earlier musical influences). Beyond my personal tastes and opinions, I believe that history will come to see the classic rock period (roughly 1965-1975) as something comparable to the Renaissance or Classical Greece, at least in terms of music. This is already evidenced by the persistence of classic rock radio stations which continue to play the same songs from 20-30 albums that came out within a period of 4-5 years. No one would have imagined back then that they would still be playing the same songs 50+ years later, because at that time one would have thought that things would just continue to evolve and even better material would emerge to replace it. But that didn't happened. As it happened, Let It Be, Bridge Over Troubled Water, Abraxas, Paranoid, LA Woman, Sticky Fingers, Tapestry, Lynyrd Skynyrd ,Aqualung, Who’s Next, Led Zeppelin IV, At Filmore East, Fragile, What’s Going On, Machine Head, Ziggy Stardust, Dark Side of the Moon (and dozens of other examples)… revolutionary albums that seemed to redefine the boundaries of the possible, the best work from the best artists in rock history, all happened at roughly the same time, a span of just a few years. Then we have a period where we've not seen ONE Jimi Hendrix or Dylan come along, not ONE Dark Side of the Moon, in like at least 25-30 years. Thus, I believe that genius seems to happen in spurts. Make the most of every generation, yes you can try, but ...

    Interestingly, the evolution of television roughly follows the same years as rock, but one could argue that it continued to evolve and it is currently better than ever, streaming era, Breaking Bad, etc..

  • edited July 2023

    @Lady_App_titude said:
    @abf said:

    If, in 1938, I had been listening to something as exciting and rocking as Benny Goodman's famous live version of Louis Prima's "Sing Sing Sing", and then ten years later I turned on the radio and heard the popular songs of the day like "Maybelline" I would have thought everyone had lost their minds.

    If, in the 20th century, there was a Renaissance, it happened well before the 1960s.

    It's only opinion, a person keeps listening to and liking what they thought was good when they were young or else they keep an open mind and are rewarded with hearing beautiful, amazing new music all their life. It's just a choice we all make.

    @JanKun said:

    I am not an expert in musicology but I do agree that using the word Renaissance is probably not the most accurate term even > though I understand the intention.

    Obviously "Renaissance" is just a metaphor here, the actual Renaissance referring to a revival of the ideas and achievements of classical antiquity following the "dark ages". One could use other terms like "classic" or "classical" era, or "golden age" or whatever. But the point was just to place things within the concept that there are certain periods of history where there is a great concentration of excellence, and others were, well not so much. Of course, one is influenced by the time in which one grows up (although personally, during the classic rock period I was listening to Charlie Parker, and J.S. Bach, and Stravinsky and Scott Joplin, and simultaneously discovering all sorts of earlier musical influences). Beyond my personal tastes and opinions, I believe that history will come to see the classic rock period (roughly 1965-1975) as something comparable to the Renaissance or Classical Greece, at least in terms of music. This is already evidenced by the persistence of classic rock radio stations which continue to play the same songs from 20-30 albums that came out within a period of 4-5 years. No one would have imagined back then that they would still be playing the same songs 50+ years later, because at that time one would have thought that things would just continue to evolve and even better material would emerge to replace it. But that didn't happened. As it happened, Let It Be, Bridge Over Troubled Water, Abraxas, Paranoid, LA Woman, Sticky Fingers, Tapestry, Lynyrd Skynyrd ,Aqualung, Who’s Next, Led Zeppelin IV, At Filmore East, Fragile, What’s Going On, Machine Head, Ziggy Stardust, Dark Side of the Moon (and dozens of other examples)… revolutionary albums that seemed to redefine the boundaries of the possible, the best work from the best artists in rock history, all happened at roughly the same time, a span of just a few years. Then we have a period where we've not seen ONE Jimi Hendrix or Dylan come along, not ONE Dark Side of the Moon, in like at least 25-30 years. Thus, I believe that genius seems to happen in spurts. Make the most of every generation, yes you can try, but ...

    Interestingly, the evolution of television roughly follows the same years as rock, but one could argue that it continued to evolve and it is currently better than ever, streaming era, Breaking Bad, etc..

    As someone who grew up by the delta of the Loire river in France, and visited most of the castles all along the Loire Valley as a kid, I am aware of the global cultural impact of La Renaissance...
    I agree with you that the 65-75 was a golden age for modern music with incredible dense output of mythical opuses that will be remembered centuries from now (given our species survives, another story...). no doubt about it.

    However i personally think that the beginning of the 20th is a far better candidate for a Renaissance comparison. Renaissance saw indeed the development of new cultural ideas inherited from the Greek Antiquity but I would say more importantly the second part saw the Scientific Revolution with the creation of important tools that helped us refine our understanding of the world and tools to transmit our knowledge. This then opened the door to the Age of Enlightenment...

    The beginning of the 20th in many aspects is similar to the second part of La Renaissance and the Age Of Enlightenment with science developments like Einstein's relativity or quantum physics. Explosion of cultural movements in literature, art, music, architecture. I agree that the 60s 70s were culturally rich but nowhere near the first half of the 20th century...

    That said, i believe an important technological revolution happened in the 60s that contributed to forge the world we're living in. And i believe this revolution also played a major role in the golden age of music of the 60s 70s: solid state technology. But, give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar, the ancestor of the solid state was invented at the very beginning of the 20th century ...
    I am losing the point, sorry.

    To be honest, reading your comment makes me feel sad and a bit upset because it seems you're giving up on younger generations without giving them a single chance. I personally think that WE (my generation, your generation and the generation before yours) are the one who failed to build a better world for the younger generations. So if you give up on them blaming on some kind of ambient mediocrity, as you seem to imply, please blame this on my generation, yours and the previous ones...

    As to the question whether the world needs another Bob Dylan or another Jimi Hendrix, if you had the chance to ask Dylan himself, i am pretty sure he would look at you straight in the eye, amused, and tell you, without being sarcastic (even if he would seem so), something like " there is only one me and that's enough for this world" . From the recent interview i saw of him, i even suspect he would use the past tense because he, himself, is now claiming that the Dylan of the golden era we all love is long gone...

    To conclude, i totally agree with you that the 65-75 was an incredible era that produced masterpieces at an incredible pace and i love most of the references you name dropped as much as you do. But there is one thing I can tell as well... For the last 25 years, there is not a single year that didn't produced at least 3-4 albums that i put on the same level as some of the great albums you mentioned. @richardyot mentioned a few of them. I wanted to make a list, but this post would be too long (it already is)...
    If you don't know where to look, i recommend checking a site like besteveralbums.com. it does a fairly good job at giving yearly rankings based on a large selection of charts. You can also cross check yearly rankings from famous music oriented magazine or music blog (I am not a big fan of pitchfork in general but am always checking their yearly ranking), i also really like the ranking from The Guardian, from which I discovered a lot of amazing music.

    For sure, you won't find as many masterpieces as you could find in a single year of the golden era you like so much, but if you'd take the time to listen with an open mind and heart to at least the top 50 of those yearly rankings, i am sure you'd find something that would catch your ears and you might fall in love with.
    So making the best out of every generation, yes, I am totally in and not ashamed to be.

  • The beginning of the 20th in many aspects is similar to the second part of La Renaissance and the Age Of Enlightenment with science developments like Einstein's relativity or quantum physics. Explosion of cultural movements in literature, art, music, architecture. I agree that the 60s 70s were culturally rich but nowhere near the first half of the 20th century...

    For sure, but again not trying to literally equate it with the Renaissance, just that it was a fertile time for music, specifically rock music.

  • @Lady_App_titude said:

    The beginning of the 20th in many aspects is similar to the second part of La Renaissance and the Age Of Enlightenment with science developments like Einstein's relativity or quantum physics. Explosion of cultural movements in literature, art, music, architecture. I agree that the 60s 70s were culturally rich but nowhere near the first half of the 20th century...

    For sure, but again not trying to literally equate it with the Renaissance, just that it was a fertile time for music, specifically rock music.

    La Roue tourne ! (Pardon my French😉)

  • @Gavinski said:

    @AudioGus said:

    @richardyot said:
    @JanKun I think it’s partly linked to the disappearance of mass media, the death of live television and magazines.

    Kids used to watch TV. Would the Beatles have become as big as they did in the US if millions of kids hadn’t seen them on The Ed Sullivan Show? Would David Bowie have become a megastar without that appearance on Top Of The Pops in 1972? Would Oasis have conquered the world without the NME coverage in 1994?

    No kid reads magazines or watches TV anymore. It’s much harder for artists to break through.

    One of the reasons for the thriving indie scene in the UK in the eighties was the fact that John Peel used to play obscure music on BBC radio. There’s no equivalent to that today.

    Yah the funnel is truly gone. Any pod of influence that exists now is much smaller. Also, just put me down for 'yup' after all your posts.

    Those important influences like John Peel also had negative effects. He didn't like Felt, for example, and lack of his patronage stymied their career.

    I've also enjoyed reading the comments about the bad aspects of the whole tribal thing among teenagers growing up in the 80s. Even things like the rivalry between Smiths fans and Cure heads. Frankly, although it was fun at the time, it all seems very foolish and childish in some ways, looking back.

    Yah most brands of cool do not age well.

  • Yeah Felt were always unlucky. Lawrence never became as famous or influential as the other artists on Creation. That's the drawback of tastemakers and gatekeepers, it relies on one person's taste.

    But to John Peel's credit he did actually spend hours every single day listening to the submissions that were sent his way, not many people have that level of dedication. And without him, would The Fall have ever sold any records?

  • edited July 2023

    Part of the problem is how much less recognition there is now of the exceptionally talented. Take a look at how often bland, derivative music and artists are labeled ‘genius’, ‘legendary’, ‘iconic’, etc. There was a time when each generation had a few artists who really stood out as original and innovative, but now just about anyone can be given one of those labels with few words of dissent.

    It’s a shame that there’s been such a flattening of perception of talent, as what talent there is around tends to get no more exposure than anyone else.

Sign In or Register to comment.