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
But that's exactly what Robin Thicke admitted they did. Also, weed was involved.
Here, feel free to rip Pharrell off:
http://gawker.com/a-bunch-of-pharrell-songs-start-exactly-the-same-way-1579664356
Here's Nicki Minaj scanning SoundCloud to pinch ideas from musical nobodies:
http://www.tmz.com/2013/09/12/nicki-minjaj-starships-lawsuit-clive-tanaka/
And Kurt Cobain openly admitted that Smells Like Teen Spirit was derived from the Pixies (I'm pretty sure he even used the words ripped off). He went for that loud/quiet/loud "vibe".
There's a million other examples, but surely anyone can see what a dangerous precedent this judgement could create.
To make it more fun....here's a game to try to guess which is Zep's version of Stairway, and which is Spirit's...
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2014-05-15/the-stairway-to-heaven-game-did-led-zeppelin-steal-the-greatest-song-opening-in-rock-history
'But that's exactly what Robin Thicke admitted they did. Also, weed was involved'
Apparently not weed but Vicodin. Looks like a boasting type to me anyway. I'm fact later admitted he had very little to do with creating the song.
Thanks for finding the evidence for my second point @solador78
He should only be prosecuted for creating such a piece of crap. ;-)
I'm kidding. I don't like the song (you probably picked that up!), but I play it at weddings, bars, senior citizen communities, and anywhere else and it generally fills the dance floor, so they did something that appeals to people. I wish some of the other things we did had the same effect, but it is what it is.
And yes, dangerous precedent. I have many songs that clearly show their influences.
'He should only be prosecuted for creating such a piece of crap. ;-)'
I actually quite like it, well crafted pop tune. I also prefer it to Marvin's song musically speaking.
They probably should have started with a share the wealth approach and everyone would have been happy, along the lines of what Jay Z and Kanye West did with the Reddings.
Ha! I'm kidding around. Beyond the great groove, got to give it up is not my favorite Marvin Gaye song, it's definitely more just a fun jam session. Goes on pretty long, perhaps too long.
I don't begrudge anyone for making music that sells, I know I wish my music sold enough that there were people on the net saying it sucks!
I like some of robin thicke's earlier work, but blurred lines just isn't my thing. And I think "Happy" is a fantastic song, I like Pharrell's work generally. In fact, happy is one of my favorite songs to play live right now, new or old.
Not to worry @mrufino1 this forum (like any other) can get touchy at times. One can never be too careful
I is pretty much a cover album.
copyright on melodies is a joke anyway, bach is dead since 1750,
we are through with all combinations of notes by now, LOL
I haven't heard of Jake Holmes before @solador78. Interesting though.
Jay Z is once again sharing the wealth albeit reluctantly. This time with Swiss musician Bruno Spoerri. The Jay Z song is "Versus" from 2013. Jay Z agreed to pay Spoerri half the royalties from the song because he had not obtained permission to sample it. Spoerri usually would give permission via email as long as he was given credit. Jay Z did not do that and now must pay an estimated $7 million. I agree with comedian J.Anthony Brown who quipped that Jay Z should change his name to Lay Z:)
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/jay-z-pay-royalties-swiss-musician-article-1.2149307
Found this piece convincing on issue of covers, sampling, copying and artistic use:
http://pitchfork.com/features/oped/9613-plagiarize-this-a-reasonable-solution-to-musical-copyright-after-blurred-lines/
Speaks for itself I think in this mash up....
What that buffoon apparently doesn't realize is that such a standard would have to be applied to every single copyrighted medium in the U.S. Every single post on a forum would have to be qualified and "give credit" if it were similar to someone else's. Every book, every article in a magazine, every time you dare to speak on a YouTube video and post it.
As far as law goes, you can't separate music from other types of expression with special rules which only apply to it In regards to "attribution". Would this buffoon apply the same standard to every single other creative endeavor? Who knows, as they didn't have the foresight to include such an obvious detail.
With the continual leading of the reader, the writer offers no definitive take on just how he believes Blurred Lines copies, he just continually says that it is a complete copy (Command-C), that it has a creative debt,, etc… And then makes the bizarre claim that Gaye's work was "original". So, if the writer won't actually get into the details about how "Blurred Lines" "copied", then how in the world can they claim that Gaye's work was actually "original"?
He actually claims his ideal is socialist? Really? I would assume a socialist standard would recognize that there is no such thing as an "original idea" created in a vacuum and that to interact in society with any degree of personal freedom that we acknowledge that we are all going to be influenced by each other, and anything other than a carbon copy should be open and free for exploration.
It's actually a purely cynical capitalist approach that says that you have to pay tolls to every single person you were influenced by, and even those you weren't if their work is similar enough, before you can then proceed to create without fear.
Pitchfork click-bait and buffoonery at its finest.
It seems the original writer of this thread doesn't understand what a copyright is. Intellectual property? That's what it's all about. People who create stuff need to be rewarded for their creativity! That's why we have copyright laws. You cannot go and steal someone's original idea and pass it off as one of your own. That is criminal! If you do you could end up paying $5m dollars as PW found out.
When you analyse the melody of both songs, you will realise that PW uses the same melodic intervals as MG's and not only that PW uses the same changes and feel. PH did say he was vibing off a 70's feel akin to Marvin's song. He not only vibed off Got To Give It Up but he launched a lawsuit on the Gaye family to try and shut them up. FWIW, PW seems a talented guy but it remains to be seen whether he will be remembered as a great musician. Margin Gaye was not only a great singer but he was also a multi instrumentalist - played drums and piano.
Musicians of today think they can take someone's ideas and just use it just because they can. A Rude Awakening awaits such musicians. All PW had to do was pay royalties to enable him to have a real go at GTGIU but he tried to be clever and the law bit his ass. Maybe this case might serve as a warning to others that you cannot rip off other people's songs just like that. It also pays to know what COPYRIGHT means in the world of music.
Yeah, that is another clear-cut sampling case, which is not what this case is about. Of course there are no samples from Gaye's recording in Blurred Lines, so I think we need to be clear that these are two very different issues.
I have to say, keeping up on this issue in various publications, I have been absolutely baffled over the amount of people commenting who clearly have no clue what "sampling" is, and that it specifically means a slice of another recording.
It isn't slang for songs with the same chord structure or "sound", I refer you to the Axis of Awesome:
Absolute piffle, they're not even in the same musical scale. Got To Give it Up is in the blues scale, Blurred lines is not. There is no melodic plagiarism there, that's just about the one thing most people agree on.
Honestly mr Magoo, same beat I give you that but the song is different harmonically ( edit: and melodically). Most of reggae music works on the same groove so does a lot of Cuban music. This is a case of money F#%^*ing with people's brains.
http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1981-05421-001
No Sir, people who have shed loads of experience of heavy songwriting in several genres over the last 25 years are well qualified to express strong opinions on this matter, that's all.
It ain't rocket science either. Let's agree to disagree.
It's actually a purely cynical capitalist approach that says that you have to pay tolls to every single person you were influenced by, and even those you weren't if their work is similar enough, before you can then proceed to create without fear.
^^^ this
Sorry for pinching your words @AQ808 no plagiarism intended I think we simply agree. I think what grounded Thicke is the fact that he actually admitted toying with Gaye's tune in search for inspiration. Many producers do that, some (like myself) have got ears like a sponge and the process just happens.
This whole thing got me thinking how much Bruno Mars stuff sounds like Sting & the Police in Locked out of Heaven......then i watched this.....
Who knows, if Marvin was still alive we may have seen something similar (skip to 01:20)
This is the musicologist's analysis for the Marvin Gaye side:
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/custom/Documents/ESQ/musicologyblurred.pdf
It is astonishingly weak. It's not quite at the level that both pieces used notes, so they're the same piece, but it's really not that far off. Almost anyone can sue anyone else if you took this as the basis for copyright law. Fortunately this law suit set no precedent.
"Honestly mr Magoo, same beat I give you that "
Actually even the beat's not that similar once you start looking at it closely.