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 knew someone would say that. As if AI isn't coded/tweaked/operated./evaluated by people, and as if using drum machines does not often result in a vibe of a diminished human touch.
I'm not saying the concerns raised here are wrong -I share many of them. But none of the naysayers here are going to prevent it anymore than the old timers were able to prevent the rise of Disco.
If we survived that, we can probably survive anything AI might throw at us.
Hahaha, I spit up coffee
Are you Luddites going to plan a protest at Apple headquarters for releasing those session musicians and drummers? (I bet some of you use them, lol). You could burn your ipads in a fire, change the world. Let me know I'd like to film it.
I'm not talking about preventing anything. I just think AI isn't that amazing and I have yet to see any evidence that it can, for instance, create music that sounds remotely good. I'm not telling Henry Ford that his car sucks, I'm telling Leonardo DaVinci that I don't want to fly his airplane.
DaVinci is an interesting case. He had people under him that prepped canvases, mixed paints, copied… basically he had a human powered version of Photoshop!
Because a track made with a drum machine in Gadget with ur finger with synthesized drum sounds in 4/4 that runs:
Kick Snare Kick Snare Kick Snare Kick Snare
is always going to sound more human than
Kick Snare Kick Snare Kick Snare Kick Snare
generated in some artificial manner.
The Gadget track created by fingers of flesh is always oozing with more creativity -can't you hear it?
Now lets add the hats to make it even more human
hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat hat.
There are lots of generative apps much praised around here. Piano Motifs for example. Folk actually think those apps are good (I did too until you Luddites awakened me from my dogmatic slumbers). You should rush over to all those threads and tell everybody how horrible sounding all algorithmically generated music really is. Session Drummer indeed. What was Apple thinking? That their artificial drummer could sound more human than the original Disco Duck? Is outrage. See you Luddites later in all those threads.
Modern theories about mind and brain include the possibility that our brains (potentially even our bodies) function with some kind of quantum effects. That theory hasn't been proven or disproven as far as I know, but it's an interesting idea.
On the other hand, I also think creativity can be analyzed and learned and even be induced by altering brain chemistry. I've never had to resort to mind-altering substances to be creative, but I think it will become more possible to do this by "non-creative" people in the future.
Same as capitalism then…
I’m regards to my statement, you’re not thinking about it enough, with no scarcity of resources or energy there’ll be no choice but for everything to have whatever they need, and no need for leaders when the decisions are made by the machines. Ultimately the only thing that will need to be decided is where things happen and how fast… maybe communism is the wrong word especially as it triggers many people, but lack of scarcity suggests some sort of equanimity…
I too would like to believe Aaron Bastani. I don't think so though. I think that as an English teacher my job is on the chopping block. The only thing I can do is aim to provide a more personal one on one type of teaching, at the moment I am a better conversationalist than chat gpt. But for beginners and elementary students it's gonna be over so soon.
The positive is the ai slop will take over the smooth brained YouTube slop first I guess. And I hope that people my kids age will reject it for being fake
But this is why it’s the only realistic outcome in the long term, otherwise we either close up shop and forget the human journey, or settle into a world far too stratified not to end in terrible revolution… if the bots really are going to helping us solve all these problems (energy, resources, labour) all we’re going to have to do is make up our minds how to best use our time, rather than simply struggle to survive. It probably is only a hope as there’s far too many greedy onions out there, and a tide of temporarily embarrassed pre millionaires to back them up. I guess we’ll have to see, I’m seeing similar patterns in commercial art at the moment and while it doesn’t affect me directly, the market is shifting in terms of a larger pool of available talent out there…
I hope that you are right and the sheer magnitude of this revolution leads to an era of personal fulfilment and leisure time.
I think the possibility of the robber barons and the wannabe robber barons making us all technological serfs in a weird proto matrix style scenario is more likely or at least it's what will happen first. Maybe a revolution is in the cards to get us to the promised land.
I'm ready to forfeit my technology and live in the woods. As long as I can take koala sampler with me
@Krupa "temporarily embarrassed pre-millionaires" 🤣👍🔥
Depending how it goes, maybe learning the guitar or something might be useful if the computers become too unruly😅
What's that awesome quote about using drum machines and synths? Something like this:
"Synthesizers and drum machines aren't real instruments? Well, is a piano real? You didn't make the strings yourself. What about a violin - did you carve the wood? What about a flute - did you mine the metal? At what point does it become ‘real’?"
Ha, there are a number of things I would never have predicted! Trump as president, Brexit, COVID, me loving Elden Ring...
The main things I don't think I would have predicted, though, are the sheer amount of disinformation we now have to deal with on a daily basis online, and the enshittification of the internet.
As for AI, I would neither have predicted how far it would have come in such a short period of time, nor how far it would still have to go given that rise.
While I'm definitely worried about how AI is coming to be used in business and creative industries, I do like a bunch of things about it:
Logic Pro's AI mastering (when I use it, it's not replacing a job for a mastering engineer at present as I wouldn't be paying for this service at my current level of engagament/success. Maybe in the future I will decide this has changed, and so will actively choose to pay an engineer instead).
Logic Pro using AI for stem splitting - genuinely useful!
Recording and transcribing Zoom calls - this is like magic.
Google Translate in real-time from live images on your phone's camera.
Using machine learning to read some details off invoices and receipts (although this is still imperfect), to speed up entering such info on accounting software more quickly.
General photo editing tools, like getting rid of photobombers!
Can't remember a fact about movies or TV, who an actor is, etc? ChatGPT can usually work this out based on surprisingly vague prompts.
I'm sure there are more examples. And if Apple ever sorts out Apple Intelligence in terms of productivity stuff that has multiple steps involved (like was shown off in their keynote last year), I'd be happy with that.
If that is entertained as a component of a real argument though (pun intended) it collapses on itself; the conclusion is hidden in the premise that what we did not make is not real.[1] Sun, moon, stars, oceans, mothers and fathers and so on could not be real by that standard.
The better tactic if one wishes to argue for unreality is to shift the burden o proof, as in prove to me that you are not a brain in a vat with wires feeding your imagination, or a prompt in a simulation. "What is real said the Rabbit" (Lewis Carroll). The best philosophical attempts at positive rebuttals of reality were probably Zeno's arguments against the reality of space, time, motion, and plurality (Zeno was a metaphysical Monist arguing only The One really existed) like Achilles and the Tortoise which Aristotle attempted to deconstruct.
[1] Cf. further Star Trek Logical Thinking #3 - Petitio Principii (Circular Reasoning)
I think you’re reaching with your drum machine comparison. It only really works if the user only uses beats that the machine generates itself and doesn’t program in their own. Quantized beats may indeed be lifeless compared to a real drummer (depending on one’s opinion, not mine as it happens) but that’s a still pertinent criticism isn’t it, not an opinion which is consigned to history’s dustbin as being ridiculous?
I’m sure no one here is blind to the fact that they use technology themselves to make their creative process quicker than it otherwise might have been. That doesn’t mean you can’t criticize other technologies though.
The suggestion that AI is just another technology, no different from previous technological innovations - the computer, film, sound recording, photography, the printing press etc. - just another tool, just another progression, is to be naive about its scope and potential (as I’ve said before, i hope I’m wrong about that). And anyway, plenty of previous technological innovations have proved to be things which we’d, at the very least debatably, be better off without.
Just because it’s inevitable now doesn’t mean there’s no point in voicing concerns about it, does it? By starting the thread, weren’t you asking for opinions on this subject?
No one here has suggested that there is a realistic chance of putting the genie back in the bottle now but just because it’s happening, we don’t have to take an ‘everything is for the best in this best of all possible worlds’ approach to something we consider has numerous potential dangers and downsides.
Yes, technology, including synths and drum machines did indeed lead to plenty of job losses among professional musicians. And yes, the threat posed by AI is (if, if, if it continues to develop at the speed it has in recent years) on a whole other level compared to drum machines etc.
Pre-1970s, the music industry relied heavily on live musicians for studio work and for live performance. When my parents were young, you didn't go out to see a DJ, you went out to see a whole band. Even in small villages, there was regular work for bands. Go back a generation or two before that and people were going out to dance to big bands or even entire orchestras. Drummers and string sections, especially, were badly hit by trends towards electronic dance music over the last 50-odd years.
Were there upsides too? Yes. But that's not really the point here. The point is that technology can and does often lead to
the same 'work' being done by fewer hands, and music tech is no exception.
Well, like I said repeatedly, I personally share many of the typical clear headed concerns about AI that are expressed these days and have voiced such concerns myself. What I do not share is the view that every manner of expressing that concern or arguing against AI is not silly.
If you want to analyze something someone said make sure they said it first.
Well, I don't know, Robin, it depends on what you think the drum machine comparison was arguing against. I don't think a drum beat produced in Gadget with a simple pattern of Kick Snare Kick Snare Kick Snare + Hat Hat Hat Hat Hat Hat, or much of what was produced in the agonizing years of Disco actually sounds more human than an identical pattern if produced by AI. If folk here assure me they can hear some qualitative difference in something produced by a human finger on a glass screen I have a hard time believing it, or that some folk are not more than a little hypocritical if buying or using every algorithmic driven generative app that comes out like Piano Motif or Logic Session Drummer while railing about how AI doesn't sound human.
I raised the examples from the days of yon when people were losing their minds about the advent of drum machines, sampling, and MIDI because they offered up the same arguments that some are using in this thread as critiques of AI without realizing that if they were consistent and the critique holds they should consider equally whether they should rail against things like synthesized drums, sampling, backing tracks, and apps like Piano Motifs, Logic Session Drummer and etc. that they use or why they do not. I didn't raise it to say there are not particularities about the rise of AI the human race has not faced hitherto.
I don't think simply saying AI lacks human touch we know and love works as well as some seem to assume at the end of the day since AI is coded/tweaked/operated./evaluated by humans in the first place, or as if using drum machines with a finger on a glass screen does not often result in a vibe of a diminished human touch that no honest ear can likely tell oozes human creativity in the way the same exact pattern produced by AI could never hope to do. You are totally right to say the argument can be made that quantized beats sound more lifeless (less so using humanize functions), though with the caveat you don't share that sentiment (neither do I) but to make a similar argument against AI as proof it does not sound human without using that argument to the same degree toward quantized beats made on a TS909 in a Hip Hop hit is logically inconsistent and seems hypocritical or at least strained if one produces beats on a similar device, I think.
And again, I'm not saying the concerns raised here are wrong -I share many of them. But one thing I find as questionable as find the advent of AI is fallacious, strained, possibly hypocritical or hallucinatory argumentation, which humans are still also just at good at producing as machines. Consider the paradox that some of the worst flaws of AI may turn out to exist precisely because AI is a creative endeavor produced by human beings.
Yup; I totally agree.
Yeah, I underestimated the use-cases for crypto: criminality, evading sanctions, and gambling.
I absolutely stand by my belief that crypto is not the future. It took Bernie Madoff decades to fall, Bitcoin will also fall, probably by eventually being banned/made illegal. There is no good case to be made for Bitcoin or crypto, it's all scams, crime, and gambling. the sooner it's nuked into orbit, the better.
The risk of crypto becoming more mainstream is enormous. Unregulated financial instruments are never good news, you would think we might have learned that lesson by now. The Silvebank/Silicon Valley crisis was a warning shot, the next one will be worse.
+++
(..and it takes some severe energy to work at all.. like some AI's do as well.)
Everybody posting funny and informative comments to social media via internet and home computer consumes lots of energy too. And running your air conditioner and automobile, buying products produced by industry, flying jets to the World Economic Forum to discuss how to implement Degrowth, lighting fires to cook your food, using water heaters and refrigerators and building more missiles and other devices to explode in Ukraine and elsewhere will will consume more energy than reining in or prohibiting AI. But it's an energy sucker to be sure. Unfortunately my guess is that AI cannot be stopped not because people will not protest it but because governments and industries need it so badly to spy on everybody better and governments do not tend to really value what the people want when they claim to. My other guess is everybody will be happy owning nothing and eating bugs before prohibition of AI will happen, but having to eat bugs and own nothing seems more likely to spark a Revolution of the Angry Masses than the advent of AI folk want to use to compose their beats, retrieve information, and vacuum their houses with. A key problem for communism and totalitarianism, as Frank Zappa observed, is that people like to own stuff. That's why communists are always having to kill so many of them and send others to work camps and deconstruct law and order and everything else to establish planetary Utopia. "Every thing that exists deserves to perish” (originally from Goethe’s Faust, on the lips of Mephistopheles and frequently quoted by Marx, e.g. in “The Eighteenth Brumaire”). More rubble is produced by Revolution than Utopia, and with rubble folk have to build lots of the same stuff again that was destroyed consuming even more energy.
Isn't great then that we have the all wisdom ninja that can kick us about (no matter the opinion it seems). It must be fucking awesome to be you Urban.
It truly is,
Though as to the rest, if you will look back I agree with others rather often here, especially when I think their remarks are grounded in sound reasoning. Most of the folk here seem pretty smart including most folk I have ever disagreed with on some matter. Maybe I could be more like you when I grow up though. I can only dream.
I am kind of amazed talking to graphics (cough/art) people in the games industry and when I use music industry/tech metaphors they just stare at me blankly and have no idea what I am talking about. I keep telling them that what happened between the 80s to the early 2000s in music is what is happening now with visuals but over a much much smaller span of time. They just scrunch their face and say something stupid like "But there wasn't Ai music then...". Sigh
. > @AudioGus said:
It's the paradox of this age we're in Gus. More and more info, fewer and fewer well informed people.