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</wiki/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</wiki/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.
Received on Thu Mar 25 2010 - 23:33:52 GMT