More-current examples of explicit audio-visual co-generation
http://www.ryojiikeda.com/
although clearly I've led us off-topic, no?
On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 4:12 PM, Al Matthews <prolepsis_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Yes it does precede, in Alex's work (thanks Alex!) and in prior
> (not-always-live, and-or not-always typewritten) arenas such as for
> example http://www.vasulka.org/Kitchen/PDF_ExpandedCinema/book.pdf ,
> but it's still an interesting conversation here and now. Appreciations
> to Dave and the subthread about less minimal approaches, which are
> many and rich.
>
> Even in quiet, only-musical settings, I'm pro-code here, and I see
> projection as an interesting formal cue.
>
> Perhaps importantly, it also places musical livecoding squarely in the
> domain of process-conscious work.
>
> I do wonder, since I find myself doing livecode performance with
> non-livecoders, if it's simply an ensemble or performance decision
> like any other. Or does the manifesto, aforementioned, 'encourage' it?
>
> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Jeffrey Brown <jeffbrown.the_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>> The idea appears to precede me: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/tidal-vis
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 11:49 AM, Jeffrey Brown <jeffbrown.the_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. 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.
>>>
>>> It is excellent that the livecoding community make their code available,
>>> because it lets knowledge snowball. But making the code available does not
>>> require making it the visual focus of a presentation.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Dec 5, 2014 at 2:44 AM, Julian Rohrhuber <
>>> julian.rohrhuber_at_musikundmedien.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 04.12.2014, at 13:04, bitrituals <hellodanhett_at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > I'm still torn on this. The openness and expressiveness of
>>>> shared/projected code is the element that drew me into seeking out
>>>> livecoded performance, and subsequently performing myself. However I still
>>>> feel like in some instances I'm not enhancing anything by exposing the code
>>>> to the audience, although I suppose it's a little different for someone
>>>> working just on the visual side.
>>>> >
>>>> > In some contexts it might even be a negative thing: if I'm livecoding
>>>> visuals at a chiptune night for example, the audience aren't expecting a
>>>> mash of code constantly overlaid on top of visuals, and would potentially
>>>> assume there's something wrong! I was asked "why" with regard to the
>>>> exposed code quite a few times at SuperByte recently, which was quite
>>>> interesting I thought.
>>>>
>>>> Part of the problem might be the one-dimensional stage structure. If you
>>>> have several projections in a room, you don't have to overlay code and its
>>>> result.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Read the whole topic here: livecode:
>>>> http://lurk.org/r/topic/4s86Rr9ZbfM72QlK2skEWF
>>>>
>>>> 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/1Fz1tKXtH6dqUP3oSYrA4E
>>
>> 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/6776EuGABpUw8oV23WjECt
To leave livecode, email livecode_at_group.lurk.org with the following email subject: unsubscribe
Received on Fri Dec 05 2014 - 21:23:56 GMT