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.
>
Received on Sat Aug 10 2013 - 17:38:26 BST