>Yes I'm not into indeterminism either, there's generally something
more interesting to do than draw on pseudo-random numbers.
I think there is a misconception here, by indeterministic I meant using an
environment which is not fixed or predesigned by someone to do a specific
set of functions, i.e a digital instrument consisted by the implementation
of a sound synthesis technique (or a combination).
But using a programming language where you can do more than a specific
piece, and implement a plethora of functions, in a indeterministic way.
Maybe this touches upon the issue of the interface.
Best
K.
2013/8/10 alex <alex_at_lurk.org>
> Yes I'm not into indeterminism either, there's generally something
> more interesting to do than draw on pseudo-random numbers.
>
> I think of live coding as improvisation. I make sure things are live
> by writing some new functions in advance of a live coding performance,
> to create new space to explore. Otherwise it can just feel like going
> through pre-practised 'licks'.
>
> From the original post:
> > i myself use SC. i've spent a lot of time, though never near enough,
> poking around
> > the docs and listserv and built a collection of tools that i can invoke
> with very
> > abbreviated code. over time i've collected a little library of such
> tools and
> > accompanying code snippets, and when i sit down to make noise, i'm
> mostly sitting
> > in front of a page full of these snippets, "just" deciding which of them
> to execute
> > when, and the only code i write in situ, if any, is in the form of small
> routines, made
> > with copy and paste, that endlessly loop over a couple of these code
> snippets.
> > is that live coding?
>
> I wouldn't call it live coding. If you're not changing the code, by
> combining and abstracting things, then it's not programming.
>
> alex
>
> On 10 August 2013 18:37, David Barbour <dmbarbour_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > I hate the idea of requiring an "indeterminstic medium" for live coding.
> I
> > favor deterministic programming languages.
> >
> > I do like the idea of hacking the instrument, or interpreting some
> actions
> > outside of code. Leap seems like it might make a neat programmable
> > instrument.
> >
> > On Aug 10, 2013 9:00 AM, "Konstantinos Vasilakos"
> > <konstantinos.vasilakos_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >i use mostly found sounds -- some i'm not live coding? :)
> >>
> >> I think the question is: what are you using to interact with these
> sounds.
> >> If you are manipulating them through a pre-designed digital
> >> instrument/performing environment then you probably you wouldn't call
> it a
> >> live coding process.
> >> Live coding would be the act of interacting with the sounds through an
> >> indeterministic medium to process those.
> >>
> >> Personally I love doing both, starting with the instrument and hack the
> >> source code at some point. Then what it is ?
> >> I don't know, maybe a hybrid ?
> >>
> >> Whatever works !
> >>
> >> Best
> >> K.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> 2013/8/10 <alln4tural-list_at_gmx.net>
> >>>
> >>> At 08:07 10.08.2013 -0700, David Barbour wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> If it's your own sound, and if you didn't come up with it in
> advance...
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> i use mostly found sounds -- some i'm not live coding? :)
> >>>
> >>> i could imagine making the argument, and not entirely rhetorical, that
> a
> >>> turntablist who's mixing short passages from, say, 20 different LPs on
> the
> >>> spot is doing a kind of live coding; at least, i could easily envision
> (less
> >>> easily actually make) using my code snippets to control an array of
> twenty
> >>> turntables to the same general effect. I think that would
> uncontroversially
> >>> count as live coding; if you agree, but consider the turntablist not
> to be
> >>> live coding .. then live coding is equal to "computer aided
> improvisation"?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Best.
> >>
> >> K.
>
>
>
> --
> http://yaxu.org/
>
>
--
Best.
K.
Received on Sun Aug 11 2013 - 17:27:43 BST