>
> 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
Received on Sat Dec 13 2014 - 02:58:56 GMT