I do live patching improv on an analog modular. It does have the sort
of "danger" element where often a patch grows in complexity until I'm
not sure what's going on and I can't predict what will happen (if
anything) when I turn a knob. It may quit making sound at some point
and I may have no way to get it going again aside form unplugging
everything and starting over.
That's rare, though. For the most part, I can be certain that it will
make sound, right away. Also it has a strongly physical component,
not just in plugging in cables, but especially in turning knobs. It
gives it a kind of organic quality and the live aspect gives it a
spontaneity. I think some of my best patches have been live ones.
This is a very different experience for me than writing code, but,
alas, I have very minimal experience of live coding so far, so I
suspect the serendipity might be very similar, but the way I would
think about how I was constructing things would probably be quite
different.
On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:03 PM, Julian Rohrhuber
<rohrhuber_at_uni-hamburg.de> wrote:
>
> On 17.02.2011, at 11:27, Kassen wrote:
>
>> Marije;
>>
>> Otherwise, I can see several tensions...
>> - how is typing up how Unit Generators interact different than patching cords
>> on an analog synth?
>>
>
> If you build a robot that patches the analog synth, whose movements can be programmed by patching, or by audio input, perhaps then patching the robot would be live coding?
>
>> It isn't, I feel that live patching of analogue synths is also livecoding, especially as analogue synths are essentially analogue computers and are Turing complete, given enough logic gate modules. In practice we aren't given enough logic gate modules but then again we aren't given enough GHz either so that's a moot point.
>>
>
> My claim for today is: turing completeness is not sufficient for live coding. Algorithmic equivalence is not transitive with respect to intervention. But it may be live coding for other reasons.
>
>> - how is changing parameters through a text interface different than using
>> knobs?
>
> it isn't. But you can rethink both a program and your own past actions using text very differently.
>
>
--
cheers,
Les
--
Charles Céleste Hutchins
http://www.berkeleynoise.com/celesteh/podcast/
2430 5th St Ste N
Berkeley, CA 94710
USA
9 Matilda House
St Katharine's Way
London
E1W 1LQ
United Kingdom
Received on Sun Feb 20 2011 - 01:54:33 GMT