I think we also need to question the "dancefloor" assumption. Although I like a club as much as the next computer science professor, and appreciate the response from kids (and their parents) when I use the word "algorave", in the 10 years I've been attending live coded performances I have mostly been sitting in comfy chairs of a university concert hall rather than raving.
Most of the music I hear in those concert halls is from orchestras, choirs, chamber groups and instrumental soloists - with the occasional jazz band or electroacoustic piece. As a listener with broad tastes, I love it all, and appreciate the chance to be in the same space with virtuoso performers.
So this is what frames my appreciation of live coding - I see a code virtuoso who knows her instrument, I enjoy the sound, and I admire the skill with which it is produced. Any suggestion that the code is "distracting" from the performance is nonsense. It's like saying that we should turn the piano keyboard away from the audience because it's just distracting having all those black and white things flashing up and down when you don't understand what they do.
I've been an orchestral performer for many years, and the tacit understanding of performance practice is pretty universal. These instruments are complicated and hard to play. We're aware that the audience doesn't understand everything they see, but showing them how it is done is an essential part of the communicative and participatory context. It's rare for anyone in an audience to say "why don't you just put a CD on?", which seems to be the general attitude underlying the informal comment that kicked off this topic.
I'm sure others have interpreted the "show us your code" admonition in a far more sophisticated way than this, but to me it just seems like common sense. Am I missing something?
Alan
> On 14 Dec 2014, at 22:47, Amy Alexander <amy_at_plagiarist.org> wrote:
>
> Jeffrey Brown wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> "Few of the people on a dancefloor want to be reading text; they want a
> mood, a beat, and colors and flashing lights that speak the same message as
> the music. Ideally, I think, the same network of data and instructions
> that generates audio would generate visuals, so that changes in one domain
> would map naturally to the other."
>
> Yeah, the sticky debate on the desirability of audiovisual mapping has been
> going on since at least the 1940s, when experimental animators often
> animated to sound - either voluntarily or reluctantly because of contract.
> Live visualists and audiovisualists have been both doing and avoiding
> automated sound/image correlations since there were automated
> correlations. There's quite a bit of research been done on the history of
> audiovisual correlations (going back to 1800's panoramas, etc.) And some
> musical and visual instruments and performance have been designed
> specifically to address the digital performer/performance disconnect in
> meaningful ways - which is of course also what livecoding is about.
>
> The interesting thing about livecoding is it addresses it from the POV of
> mind->performance rather than body->performance. I have always felt the
> latter has an ableist bias, even as I've advocated the approach. So
> highlighting mind->performance would seem to have potential in that regard.
>
> Anyway, some links to 1930's automated audiovisual systems (non realtime).
> Len Lye's Colour Box: (The optical sound track was pre-laid on the film,
> and he scratched the emulsion to animate in synchronization):
> https://vimeo.com/71860799
>
> Oskar Fischinger's Ornament Sound Experiments:
> "Odd Designs on Film Turn Sound to Music."
>
> https://books.google.com/books?id=oygDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA36&lpg=PA36&dq=odd+designs+on+film+turn+to+music+popular+science&source=bl&ots=Z34Gzw0wcN&sig=PGqdpfjszlZH5nXs8y7LqkwlQPc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Pw-OVKmlOtPsoASxt4D4Bw&ved=0CC4Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q&f=false
>
> (A historical synopsis http://www.see-this-sound.at/works/296/asset/51 )
>
> And here's some real-time analog video synthesis from the 70's generated
> using audio synthesizers as input (you could take CV out of the analog
> synths and input to your video synth):
>
> https://vimeo.com/7517418
> (source material by woody vasulka)
>
> http://www.vdb.org/titles/illuminatin-sweeney
> (skip sweeney)
>
>
> Happy happy,
> -Amy
>
>
>
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2014 at 6:58 PM, Charlie Roberts <bigbadotis_at_gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Few of the people on a dancefloor want to be reading text; they want a
>>> mood, a beat, and colors and flashing lights that speak the same message
>> as
>>> the music
>>
>>
>> I've been doing some experiments with flashing lights, and also borrowing
>> from Thor's ixi lang work to reveal changes to state using the source code.
>>
>> https://vimeo.com/114404376
>>
>> Sorry if this is trite, but I think a lot depends on the audience and the
>> performer in any particular performance. If the audience is at an Algorave,
>> for example, it's probable that people on the floor want to be reading text
>> at least some of the time. And that's great! We should show it to them. On
>> the flip side, are there performers on the list who regularly live code at
>> "normal" dance events, where the audience has no idea that live coding is
>> even taking place? I think it's an interesting goal to pull off such a
>> performance (using live coding to keep people dancing who potentially don't
>> care about means of production), but only one of many interesting goals.
>>
>> - Charlie
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Dec 8, 2014 at 4:33 PM, Gavin Starks <gavin_at_dgen.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi all
>>>
>>> I love this discussion.
>>>
>>> To expand a bit on what I wrote in the FB post, with some extra emphasis:
>>>
>>> For me, seeing the code creates *the* essential *causal* visual reference
>>> that
>>> was missing from human-computer-based *performances*.
>>>
>>> We don't need to watch a saxophone player play to embrace their
>>> performance, but to know that we can if we want to seems fundamental to
>> the
>>> live, and personal, nature of it. We can watch them breathe.
>>>
>>> It was a continuous frustration of mine that "laptop with a person
>> sitting
>>> at it"-based music was effectively the same audience-experience as
>>> tape-based or computer-rendered music: the causal link was broken, yet in
>>> this case the ghostly faces of the performer indicated that "something
>>> might be happening" to which I was excluded (like the violinist playing
>>> behind a curtain). Tape-based music has its own aesthetic and context,
>> but
>>> this half-way house felt almost literally like a "ghost performance". I'd
>>> sooner the "performer" sat in the audience.
>>>
>>> Equally, when people have added a physical control element, it can often
>>> seem forced or trite, and overly dissonant with the sounds involved -
>>> instrument development is hard.
>>>
>>> The development of an editable visual language for use in live
>> performance
>>> is a remarkable thing in itself. Projecting it, to me, recreates the
>> magic
>>> of performance in computer-music: the causal link is re-established - it
>>> doesn't matter if the audience has no idea what the causality is, but it
>>> does matter that they can see it exists. It rematerialises the
>> disembodied.
>>>
>>> From that point other emotive, visual and sonic bonds can be formed. And
>>> then the ability to for me to link what I am hearing directly with the
>>> actual code feels *authentic *to the origins of not only the sounds, but
>>> how they are being played (I can see the typing, its speed, hesitations,
>>> lots of performative cues). It seems to me that these ideas of
>>> authenticity, causality and re-materialisation in computer-based
>>> performance are really fascinating areas to explore.
>>>
>>> Best
>>> Gavin
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
>>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/5dVXhIWtQFk6wSrEeGi3O4
>>>
>>> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following
>> email
>>> subject: unsubscribe
>>>
>>
>> --
>>
>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/4IxdKUFwwpCGZ52Sk3SkyO
>>
>> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email
>> subject: unsubscribe
>>
>
> --
>
> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
> http://lurk.org/r/topic/dZXGl42yH66abz1o8jQYD
>
> To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
--
Alan Blackwell
Reader in Interdisciplinary Design, University of Cambridge
Further details from www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/
--
Read the whole topic here: livecode:
http://lurk.org/r/topic/14U4b4oUiA8Xu30CYLaHRG
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Mon Dec 15 2014 - 08:00:59 GMT