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
There’s a video out there somewhere where Portishead show their streaming revenue. I think it’s about $3,000 a year. Split between 3 people…
So why does ayone agree to have their content on streaming if it pays nothing?
Isn't it how most people are listening to music now?
I get about $100 a year from streaming and I’m an absolute nobody. I know streaming revenue sucks but I do sometimes wonder if some of these people are doing better than they let on. I mean it’s all relative; there was more money to be made through other mechanisms in days of yore but that’s long past.
Yes it is, but it the streaming companies wouldn't have anything to stream if artists didn't agree to let them use their content.
Artists need the distibution network but the network also needs content to stream.
Ted Gioia has been documenting for about 5 years (with the industry’s numbers) that the streaming business has basically been in a death spiral since day 1…Spotify, for example, is a money-losing venture kept afloat by credit. This being the case, streaming companies have an incentive to not pay artists well.
If the site formerly known as Twitter weren’t so flaky, I’d post a link to a couple of threads there where he walked through the figures..it was kind of shocking to see them…basically streaming services compete to be affordable to subscribers…which has meant charging less than the cost of providing the service…apparently in the hope that the service will become dominant and be able to eventually raise their rates high enough to turn a profit…and artists are the providers against whom they have the greatest leverage. (I.e. the companies providing the storage and streaming infrastructure have to be paid).
Im surprised they’re not making enough money as a platform from advertising.
My takeaway from the articles that I have read (and it is not terribly different from what I see in AB forum with people's notions about the money devs earn) is that ad revenues are probably not what you think or the cost of running these businesses is more than we realize.
Here is an article that I found that gibes with what I read in the Gioia thread
https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/spotify-technology-nyse:spot:-doomed-to-keep-losing-money#
Thanks for the article. I wonder if the other music services are in the same straits. Apple and Amazon can probably eat the costs.
Maybe eventually the labels are going to offer their catalogues for streaming music n their own services, similar to how major movie studios eventually did.
There are probably articles out there that provide financial analysis.
Keep in mind that Apple and Amazon have other businesses and may not need to turn a profit on streaming -- if streaming is part of a brand loyalty/retention mechanism. It might be a loss-leader sort of deal.
Whichever way it goes, there seems to be a consensus that artists are going to feel the squeeze.
It's probably similar to vanity publishing in the writing industry, seeing your name in print or on Kindle, but making nothing from it. I'm not interested in making money from music anymore. It's just a hobby these days, but years ago used to make a fair bit through gigs, which is how most musicians do these days, but my problem then was I'd put a fair sum back behind the bar!
Artists on labels probably have little say unless the artist is very powerful -- their contracts give the labels they are signed to a lot of choice about distribution. For the most part, artists have little clout and have historically been only marginally successful at getting a fair shake.
Where are you streaming? Did you join BMI or some other organization that’s collecting on your behalf? A friend joined BMI to put out EDM soundscapes and he’s getting checks once in a while.
Spotify has always been one of the worst at paying artists. That’s been true for a long time. I didn’t know they have gone to a “weighted system,” as Mary described it.
I use CDBaby for digital distribution and they get it out to every streaming provider out there. The streaming money gets paid through them. Apple Music is most successful for me and seem to pay the most. I'm on BMI but have never received anything directly through them. Most of my streaming revenue (ha, if you can call it that) is due to plays in overseas markets. A couple of my tracks seem to be on a playlist for a cafe in Morocco. I mean, the money is crap but it is fun to look at the metrics and see all the different places around the world where the music gets streamed (and Shazam'd).