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.
The No. 1 Country Song in America Is AI-Generated.. looks like Gospel Charts.. too
Well, like the headline says.. So who is going to sing at the country concert?
https://www.newsweek.com/breaking-rust-ai-music-country-digital-sales-11022040
Comments
For more context:
Annoying that even Rick clickbaited it.
This article is simply not true and you can look at Billboard’s top charts yourself. It tops a single chart, Country Digital Song Sales, which is not a streaming metric. It is the easiest chart to manipulate because you can simply buy enough copies to chart, if you want the publicity.
I don’t even listen to country and even I knew that Morgan Wallen was going to be #1 in most categories.
https://www.billboard.com/charts/genre/country/
https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/music/news/breaking-rust-country-ai-singer-billboard-b2863883.html
‘Don’t believe the hype’ that’s my takeaway.
Despite the inaccuracies of the headline, Rick Beato raises a good point in that it's ridiculous that this "artist" has over 2 million monthly listeners on Spotify. That really sucks...
But yeah... we probably should stop giving it attention, as to his other point (even though he didn't listen to his own advice lol).
The bullshit will flow.
While he’s made great contributions to music theory education i personally find Rick’s ongoing laments about the music industry tedious. The old days are never coming back. In the meantime there’s so much interesting, creative music making going on that he doesn’t consider because it’s not part of the music “industry “. Take for example this forum and the many like it that are thriving, creative sites of music making. I personally don’t give a f**k about who’s selling the most units. Something that Rick seems to care passionately about.
I agree that at times Rick as been the old shouting at clouds but not in this case. He is setting the story straight on this over hyped story.
Rick Beato is in the music business and he regularly covers new and headline-making bands and trends. He must have as many detractors as he has supporters at this point, but he’s always doing something interesting.
blech.... 'industry' is such a gross word anyway. I like Rick in that I am often a fan of old cloud yellers. But yah times change and things that used to matter to culture and society simply don't anymore. I won't lament about music being largely irrelevant culturally to young people anymore, but charts? Charts and metrics? What the hell, this stuff is so pointless and means nothing to listeners. It's like no one really cares about movie box office numbers anymore but at one time it steered how people spent their weekend. The only people these metrics matter to are chicken shit executives who can't make a decision unless a spreadsheet tells them to. So for a music fan like Rick to put any stock in them just feels like he is in denial of the current state of music or just running on old industry cog momentum.
Guess you didn’t watch his video, because that’s not what he did. He explained that this “headline-making” AI band story was all nonsense.
I did watch it. Before it was even posted here. Yes, he did explain it was nonsense, because it was about digital purchases and not listens.
HOWEVER, the fact he even puts stock into listens is also nonsense as those are gamed too now and I do not think he realizes just how much they are. I worked in mobile games and was well exposed to all of the services that mess with this stuff.
My point remains that Rick continues to feel the need to even support the idea of SOME charts when they are all corrupted, all pointless and useless. Under it all he is trying to hang on to old metrics to quantify validity of musical output.
So yes, did watch it. Big fan.
Wow, so much hate for AI.. I think it’s a great tool..
Thanks..
@AudioGus crystalized my thoughts better than I did. Rick is a smart, thoughtful person who has the potential to contribute to interesting conversations about the role of music in society. But his narrow focus on the industry makes much of his commentary uninteresting to me. Meh to the video. I’m shocked, shocked that someone made AI music and is gaming the mass distribution and rating systems. Going back to faffing around with gear and software which may or may not constitute music making. 🤪
I'm OK with it also. I use a variety of resources for all kinds of things. Generative video, music, for analyzing lengthy documents, lawsuits, political analysis and so on. These things exist and people either learn to live with them or they risk being sent off to the "old man yells at clouds" bin.
Pretty much all generative-"AI" relies on theft of intellectual property and the driving impetus for the companies developing it is to be able to stop paying professionals. All the streaming services, for instance, would like to generate royalty free music to minimize the people they have to pay.
(Not to mention the environmental damage that comes with the amount of energy required...which the companies try to keep hidden.)
Exactly the reasons I stopped using generative "AI" to generate album covers.
I do feel it is shitty and slimy. But I do have a hard time calling it "theft" as that is more of a legal term which does not seem to apply very much yet. Plus whole genres of Amen break "inspired" (cough) music that I love has been made. But yah it stinks. I would rather support a human sample flipper than a Sith Lord cigar chomper behind a desk.
I use SDXL (open source local image generation model) on my home machine which was developed about two and a half years ago and apparently it took around 0.6 to 3.6 years of electricity for one average household to develop that model (depending on how it went). Super rough estimates say producing a GTA-scale game is roughly 900 to 2,300 years of electricity for one average household to make. To run SDXL for one hour on my home machine uses 0.36–0.40 kWh and to play one hour of GTA is ~0.5 kWh. Maybe 2.5 million people used SDXL over the past two years vs 400+ million who played GTA. So from an energy perspective I should feel far more guilty about working in games than using local AI image generation. But yah I can't stand supporting those behemoth AI companies as they are of course super wasteful and scummy. The open source ma and pa stuff seems to clock in pretty lean in the energy department though.
@AudioGus : All of the major graphics and text-based AI companies have admitted to scraping copyrighted information without permission. In fact, OpenAI has asked for permission to continue violating copyright law saying that its technology would not be feasible or affordable if they had to pay to access the information. So, theft isn't any sort of stretch. They have openly admitted to it in the past. My comments are about the large-scale "AI" companies which is what the vast majority of generative AI is done with.
It’s not a violation under current law. If courts or legislation change that, then the classification changes. But as of now, it isn’t established as illegal. (Aparently)
At least there has been crowdfunding campaigns in recent years aimed at compensating the surviving family members and estate of Coleman and connected creators. Yeah maybe too little too late, but still far classier of a move from the Amen crowd, who self-actualized, as opposed to the ones in recent AI litigation who were forced to pay in court.
I hate AI because it's being used by the technocrats and oligarchs to ultimately control us. If I knew the people training these models had good intentions I'd probably give it a shot.
It might sound OK for a listener whose tastes match the parameters provided by the tool, but it takes all the fun out of making music. The industry that grew around recorded music has reached the point where the artist is the least important person in the process.
Yeah, a stark difference from the times when artists were unnecessarily put high on a pedestal. It almost seems the scales are compensating hard to the other side out of retribution.
Very true - it really has swung from one extreme to the other.
Looks like Germany just weighed in...
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/nov/11/chatgpt-violated-copyright-laws-german-court-rules
@AudioGus : just because no one has brought a suit in the U.S. doesn’t mean that there wasn’t theft (all the big companies have admitted that they have done so). Laws are broken all the time without companies being charged … and few have the pockets to go up against multi-billion dollar industries. And some big industries (record and movie companies) figure that they have more to gain in the future from AI (by not having to pay people to make movies and records) than they would recover by helping artists protect their intellectual property.
@espiegel123
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/sep/05/anthropic-settlement-ai-book-lawsuit
I don’t agree with the German ruling but I do agree with this one, clear cut infringement.
Oh there was definitely large scale piracy that was admitted to. I would call THAT theft for sure. Hell, Meta admitted to downloading copyrighted content using freaking bit torrent. That is theft. This was not publicly accessible data freely posted by the copyright holders. Also, there have been suits in the US and there are many ongoing ones.
But what we were talking about (before the goal posts jumped up like Fantasia brooms) was training AI models on copyrighted data. That in and of itself is not classified as 'theft' in the US. If I take a hundred copyrighted images I download off the internet from a publicly accessible website and fine tune a stable diffusion model with those images that act in and of itself simply is not considered theft at this point in time. The US has fair use and the concept of transformative works which Germany apparently does not.
Again, I was talking about the simple act of training on copyrighted data. Downloading bit torrents of copyrighted material? Of course that is theft.
Yah. Big difference. At the same time I wouldn't say I don't agree as their laws are their laws and maybe this is the only ruling possible given their interpretation of their laws.