Hi Kassen,
This is a great point to discuss, which I'll probably join in with
after sleep. This is just a note to say I applied your edit to the
wiki page. Hope you don't mind but I think edit-while-discuss is
better than discuss-then-edit, to keep impetus on fixing up the page
as well as fitting in with our general approach to life.
alex
On 25 March 2010 23:33, Kassen <signal.automatique_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Alex;
>
>>
>> There's plenty more to add, please be bold with your edits.
>>
>
> I'd still like to re-open debate on this sentence;
>>
>> Live coding is particularly prevalent in computer music, explored as a
>> more rigorous alternative to laptop musicians who, live coders often feel,
>> lack the charisma and pizzazz of musicians performing live.
>
> I know I was already very critical of it before the current version but I
> feel this is a important sentence (perhaps the core of the meaning of our
> little organisation) and I'd like to have another look at it. I'd propose;
>
> Live coding is particularly prevalent in computer music, explored as a more
> rigorous elaboration on laptop musicianship which often, live coders feel,
> lacks the charisma and pizzazz of musicians performing live.
>
> I moved one word and shuffled some tenses and forms around a bit to fit.
> I'm not entirely happy with my proposal either and I'm not sure to what
> degree that would still be supported by the citation. I think it's clear
> that we are not objecting to "digital DJ-ing", in fact one of the most
> widely published articles on the subject claims that's exactly what we are
> doing ( http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2006/07/71248 ). What
> we are doing, IMHO is objecting to the lack of transparency in most
> performances of computer music. I'd go as far as claiming that more
> transparency there will lead to a greater intensity of the experience, to
> both the audience and the performer, but that is very much "original
> research".
> I'm replying here, as opposed to on the wikipedia talk page, because I'm not
> even sure there is agreement on this list on this subject. I don't even feel
> there needs to be agreement but I would like to face the question. Why do we
> do this at all? I will be frank and admit I only started because the idea
> seemed very far-fetched, a challenge, with some dramatic appeal. Not as
> a criticism of other laptop-based performers. Most laptop-based performers
> bore me to tears but then again; so do most guitarists.
> Is there a quantifiable commonality of perspectives here at all?
> I'm not that interested in arguing a single sentence on Wikipedia, there is
> quite enough of that already,but this -to me- seems to hint at a more
> general issue.
--
http://yaxu.org/
Received on Thu Mar 25 2010 - 23:47:03 GMT