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
AI could be a force for good, but in our very imperfect world, if AI lives up to its potential (that is just an if, thank God), the downsides will outweigh the benefits. The main dangers are:
Massive unemployment. No previous tech innovation had the potential to replace humans in thinking and creative tasks so quickly. Artists, musicians, doctors, programmers, teachers and thousands of other professions are suddenly at risk of widespread job losses.
Misinformation. The flooding of the internet with misinformation will create a society where nobody knows what to believe or who to trust. We're already half way there due to social media and even much of the corporate-owned mainstream media. The less informed and less educated members of such a society are ripe for manipulation, and will often act against their own best interests.
Concentration of power. Companies like OpenAI, Palantir and Meta incentivize benefits for their shareholders. They don't give a f*ck about the common good and yet they already have more power than some governments. Goodbye democracy, hello oligarchy. Again, we're already part way there, but things will worsen.
Then there are all the existential risks of 'misaligned' AI running wild. Even if we don't get 'evil' AI overlords, we might simply get very powerful but incompetent ones capable of unintentionally causing huge problems. See the Paperclip Maximizer analogy.
History has made it clear that we humans are great at inventing tech but are not good at using tech wisely. More and more people already regret the invention of the smartphone. The damage AI causes to society will be much worse. I think we need to act accordingly and do what we can to thwart the AI revolution. The genie is out of the bottle, yes, but there's still time to prevent the very worst case scenarios. Ps: remember that in the Aladdin story, the genie does get put back in the bottle
Btw, about a dozen of my illustrations are in the LAOIN 5B dataset. That is one dozen out of five billion captioned images that are the foundation of many AI models. Do I feel they stole from me? Eh, not really. I posted those images online. Anyone could look at them and use them in transformative ways. Once, pre AI I saw a punk band use an image without asking for a flyer online. They threw some filters on it and modified it but I was flattered. Did I think they stole from me? Eh not really. But if they sold a thousand shirts I would have said those fuckers stole from me!!
I think this point of view is favoring a sort of technical legalism and overlooking the core issue. Our IP laws not having foreseen the technology doesn’t strike me as a defense against whether this should be considered theft.
All of the technologies…by admission of the people that created them…cannot generate high quality output without the use of high quality inputs that the companies openly admit they cannot afford to pay for. If the only way your technology can work is to use work you didn’t pay for , there is an ethical void there.
It is especially troubling that the main driver of the technology is to reduce the number of people that get paid to the work that the technology needed. Not to mention that it inherently will lead to reduced creativity since LLMs don’t innovate. They are limited by the data they train on.
Totally agree. I think we only have a couple minor discrepancies, one potentially being semantics of the word 'theft'. To me ownership is a legal concept as is theft. Neither exist unless there is a framework of laws that support it and people who support and agree with those laws. That is why I will say it is unethical, dangerous, callous, terrible, short sighted, anti-human, sneaky, underhanded etc. This could all be improved by implementing laws that make it illegal. Laws that make it actually theft when it happens. A potential solution is to make it theft and currently it is not theft.
Also, I am not overlooking the core issue at all and in fact doing the opposite by constantly giving reference to the core issue. If people want it to actually be considered theft and not just FEEL LIKE theft then there is a lot of legal work to do. Ownership outside of laws is a far too ephemeral illusion in this brutal world. No one owns anything unless there are people around who acknowledge that ownership. Imagine describing airspace to someone two thousand years ago. They would see no importance in it. Now we are talking about regulating inputs of a process, not outputs. That is a very different thing in the US system and many wont get it.
As I said before, I am soft on sampling and don't consider it creatively to be theft. But when it comes to copyright, sure. But I would not have invented copyright had it not existed, simply from a creative perspective. But yes, ownership for sake of livelihood and stability, makes sense. It had to be enforced for me to stop sampling whatever the hell I wanted in the 90s because I felt what I did with those samples was valid. I would not be so ballsy now because society and lawyers got involved and made it more or less a no no, unless it just be fun in the moment throw-away.
Anyway, long story short. I support those who want the legal system revised so my soft titted brain accepts it as theft. But out of the box, babe in the woods, eh I am skeptical of this whole 'ownership' thing in general.
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/07/meta-pirated-and-seeded-porn-for-years-to-train-ai-lawsuit-says/
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/meta-defends-its-vast-book-torrenting-were-just-a-leech-no-proof-of-seeding/
I totally agree with you. It could be amazing, but it's going to be a horror show.
This is the problem, and anyone who ignores it when discussing the merits and demerits of AI needs to become better informed about the nature of the world we live in.
I gotta say, it's crazy to see AI pushing boundaries like this. For me, mobile production is still about human style + fast ideas. AI is just another tool in the bag. I'm curious on what everyone else thinks about blending AI with iOS workflows?
Why? Because it's a tool. I can make claims on how the tool is made, but anyone is capable of using Python, or the mass libraries of LLMs and create something useful. What a time to be alive.
Just a general AI comment / opinion:
Being a hobbyist, I simply dont find the conversation around AI to be anything more than just a passing interest to myself. While I enjoy watching many perspectives on the subject, I really do not tuink it will have much of an impact on my enjoyment of music.
Since my youthful days, i've always had to search out the music I enjoy while 'the powers that be' try to convince me to listen to whatever shite they are promoting at the time. I have always found that the most commercial music just does not align with my tastes. I do not believe that much has changed beyond businesses improved ability to push their wares on the masses. There has always been music I avoid and always will be. There will always be great music made, its just requires new ways to find it. It is no harder to find than it was back when I was young imo. The internet brought new ways beyond the press, record shops and word of mouth of old, yet there is so much more to trawl through to find the cream - the cream definetly does not always rise to the surface!
As for making music, I use tools that assist me to achieve that which is in my head and sometimes beyond my skills to make. The issue for myself would be if AI takes away the journey and after a few promts takes the user to a result. The results may get better with time, but they are still taking away the journey and as a hobbyist, its that journey of creating music I love. Without a fun journey mak8ng music, I may as well just listen to other peoples music.
I still spend hours noodling around playing synth sounds or making drum beats or throwing fx at a sound until something new appears - long may that remain.
Both of those things are already happening. But the scale and rate of change over the next few years is going to be overwhelming.
The industrial revolution replaced muscle - physical workers replaced by mechanisation. Most of us on here, are doing jobs that didn't even exist a few decades ago, and those jobs - jobs that rely on intelligence, and creativity - are going to be replaced too.
My job, and my wife's job will go. So what will we do for an income? Manual labour's out, we're too old and knackered and there's little available anyway. Supermarket checkout? Those have mostly been replaced by self-service tills. Delivery drivers? That'd work, but once the wave of unemployment catches up with everyone else, who's going to have the money to buy all the stuff that drivers deliver?
Big, big shake-ups coming very, very soon.
That's how they must have felt in the Bronze Age - 'wow, these new knives are incredible, they cut meat so much quicker than our old stone tools! Look at all these mammoth burgers I have stored in my...hang on...who's that geezer coming towards me, holding a kni...'
+1.
When the terrorists and criminals start to use Ai the "stealing music" issue will seem like small potatoes...
Oh they already are. Voice clones imitating individuals exist and have been used to scam people off their life savings.
Some people are awful, and that has always been a problem. Technology makes a lot of things easier, both good, and bad.
These thoughts resonate. At this stage I’m not going to rule out a role for AI in my music but if it has a role it’s going to be on my terms. It’s going to be an application that helps me as a human realize my idiosyncratic music journey. Like @Fruitbat1919, applications like the one RB talked about are of zero interest to me. We’ve been collaborating with computers for a long time in electronically produced music, now we’re just going to another level.
I’ve been using a lot of auto-generated tools over the last few years . I’m a massive fan of a random button - on synths and sequencers, and they’re a great way to get things going.
But it’s starting to feel a bit stale. I’m feeling more like I’m editing, rather than playing.
So the idea of getting a Push controller, with its MPE playing surface and proper knobs, and rebuilding my hardware synth collection feels like a step towards being more involved in the actual creation of my musical output, rather than just moving someone else’s clips around.
So I’ll be going in the opposite direction and ignoring the new fancy AI tools. Heck, I’ve even got a new acoustic guitar on my wish list!
Yes I definetly look forward to the next level tools of AI for some things - I love arranging music, and even mixing to some degree. Mastering however is just not my thing and when they create AI that asks me a few questions and then masters my music without costing a fortune, then I'm in. It probably already exists, but im still waiting to buy my mic and add vocals to my tracks first lol.....infact.....fist things first, I want an Osmose lol
While I get what you mean, there are some things I definitely prefer to have help on. I play most things in my tracks now, but hammering a key repetively for certain basslines when I want them to be that way is just not fun. I did it on a track recently when I wanted it to feel more 'live', but most of the time I prefer to use sequencers and edit midi.
I have started programming my own drums now as opposed to editing and adding to Logic drummer beats, but I will never be able to play the drums properly as I just will never have enough rhythm lol
Same with my keyboard skills. Yes, im learning (slowly), but I have no issues about using some technology to get whats in my head onto that track. Wished I could play everything, but its just not realistic at my age to think my shakiy hands are ever going to play all the music I want to make. I suppose we all have our ideals of what feels right to us as individuals and thats the way it should be.
As for musicians and producers that make a living from music, I dont really have an opinion on that as I don't walk inmtheir shoes lol
The thing is, generally speaking - I would prefer to listen to music you and others make - with it's nuances and 'imperfections' intact, rather than a heavily quantised, perfectly polished piece of 'music'. You put that drumbeat there. You recorded that note, not a sequencer.
I think that's always been an issue for me with electronic music in particular, some of it can seem emotionless, sterile even. Music produced by lines of code.
I tend to ignore quantisation options - even for drums, as it can quite often sound wrong. It's right, but too tight. Too mechanical. I like the wobblyness. A bit of drift. I know, I'm weird!
Yep agree for the most part. I tend to like some things tight as it gives perspective to the bits that arent. The imperfections in balance with the robotic lol. I do think a lot of music has that 'jamming band' vibe missing now that the vast majority of music is made by one person. I think thats the one thing modernity has made worse, the lack of in person social interactions that made even synth music more alive.
Stealing is very punk…
Oh snap, hadn't thought of that. Well, punks gonna punk I suppose!
Yeah but we also need to Rage Against the Machine so it cancels out.
Your health companion bot will strangle you in your sleep while playing AI generated music of your preferred genre.
The Future! The Future!
The idea that AI being trained on others works is theft is pretty reductive given that every musician and composer ever is an organic llm. You hear things and you write things and the relationship between the two is often least understood by the person doing them, and all for the better. It’s just more overt with ai. The idea of banning it is absolutist and pretty blinkered. I think it’s rooted in something else. I really like what I do and that feeling has remained identical with ai. And I’m happier to see it on a shelf than the majority of generic board of songwriter written production units
The relationship between yourself and sound is something I believe in so I’m just presenting a necessary critique rather than my firm position mainly as I find all the moral objections suspect and not exactly coming from fonts of originality in culture or an era of great musical invention. Thank god ai is itself something new.
Except that what we are calling “AI” is 100% reliant on high-quality data sets (their creators admit as much and even plead that they need to be given unpaid or heavily discounted access in order to be economically viable). They also do nothing more than sophisticated regurgitation of the data based on weighting of the tokenized data). Good human artists do more than simply rehash what they have heard.
There is no evidence at all for your last sentence. I happen to agree but it’s a shaky statement. Things reappear in ways, shapes, proportions, and contexts that render them unrecognisable. I used to worry about this a lot. We only catch a very tiny amount of things that are plagiarised, or accidentally taken. It all just gets very blurry and I think the argument could be made for some sort of law of energy conservation being at work in terms of what goes in and out.
This is the argument that keeps going on:
Ai is not intelligent/alive it’s just complex learning
Vs
So are we
A vast amount of music nowadays is written by people, or groups, who think it’s normal or ok to reuse chord sequences or even melodies from classic songs. It’s a field. It appalls me. We have possibly the majority of music being made by producers who can’t play an instrument or write a song stringing together samples of others music because they can legally - and this is now considered normal. The bar of creativity and originality has never been lower. Many people here and many apps use generative stuff for creating sequences; I find it genuinely bizarre that this motivates people but that’s just me. Ai is the natural progression and punishment for that. I find it comparatively honest.
My personal belief is that you have a relationship as a human to sound whether that’s via an instrument or not and you explore that in the same way as others. The problem is it becomes very difficult to isolate that from your experiences of others similar explorations. And that’s assuming the artistic integrity required to make the effort.
I also believe that lots of people can and will come up with the same thing because it’s euphonic to humans. If none of them had heard the others they all wrote it. Everyone’s on their own timeline. It’s just that being great at something elevates you above that. Ai hasn’t managed that yet but I welcome it when it does.
If all humans did was simply rehash, then music would never progress or evolve, but it obviously has...
Read technical analyses of how LLMs work. There isn’t anything controversial about what I said. That is just how LLM’s work. We also know that is not how all human creativity works.
Sorry, just passing through. Both sides have valid points. But we’re at an impasse.
I’d say follow where your basis lies. There’s little value in proving one is better. Heck, the entire field of AI is changing everyday. A lot of training and data collection has significantly improved from when it began at an astronomical rate, where a lot of past practices are now an afterthought.
What I am discussing isn't a question of "better". It is the question of technologies that are 100% reliant on using people's work without their permission. (I've left out the ensuing issues of the enormous consumption of resources that have a huge cost or the fact that these companies want to make a profit from other people's work without having compensated them...or the fact that the goal of these companies is to allow them to eliminate the jobs of the people whose work they relied on to be able to generate the output).