Andrew et al, yes, all this seems a typical symptom in the process of
the appearance of new genres or styles. Live coding in itself is
perhaps not a style. What is significant about style is that from the
outside it looks narrow and determined by circumstances like local
culture, technology, ideology, language. From the inside it looks
manifold and every difference is significant. From the inside the
constraints of culture, technology and ideology are part of stylistic
affirmation, from the outside they are just provincial and
contingent. For the one, the system is a tool that serves an
anticipated purpose, for the other it is the universe in which
purpose takes place in the first place. What follows is that the
question of constraint is just as much in the ability to listen and
to understand as it is in production and performance.
Now on the other hand, within a system there are tricks and manners
of expression that get copied and turned around - The sc tweets are a
simple example for this. Such patterns of practice do not so easily
cross over to other systems, just like a joke can be hard to
translate. On this level, there is a very strong stylistic
convergence - not necessarily a sonic one, but maybe one that helps
to learn how to listen to a new style.
>I'm going to be a little controversial here and say that we tend to
>overplay the audiovisual-aesthetic (as opposed to a
>programming-aesthetic) influence that our programming languages have
>upon us.
>While I agree that certain environments have a particular "sound",
>my gut feeling is that the reason programming environments have a
>particular "sound or look" is more likely to be attributed to
>leading practitioners than to the programming language (I'm
>specifically talking about general purpose programming languages
>here).
>
>This is not to say that the environment doesn't have an influence -
>which of course it does. But audiovisual aesthetics and
>syntax/program-semantics are largely, though I agree not completely,
>separate concerns. Yes, programming languages encourage loops, but
>so does music. Looping over what musical/sonic parameters, over
>what duration, at what level of abstraction, and with what
>regularity?
>Most people do loops the same way as the guy before, not because the
>programming environment "encourages" loops, but because that's the
>sound they have in their head.
>
>The absolute classic example of this problem for me is Casey Reas
>and the "Processing aesthetic". Early on in processing's life every
>processing piece looked like Casey's work. And why not, Casey did
>some beautiful work. Over time, the work coming from the processing
>community has become much more diverse as other practitioners become
>recognised by the processing community - and subsequently have their
>work imitated. Some may argue that this is because the processing
>environment has evolved down different paths, but again my gut
>suspicion is that it's taken some time for people to find their own
>voice and escape Casey's influence. (The irony here being that
>Casey didn't use processing all that much as far as I'm aware :)
>
>Kassen mentioned Fluxus and Impromptu potentially being quite
>similar as they share a syntax. This is interesting, as I think it
>is a good example of what I'm talking about. Syntactically similar
>yes, but aesthetically the work from these two communities seems
>quite different. What do you think Dave?
>
>
>On 27/11/2009, at 8:55 AM, Juan Gabriel Alzate Romero wrote:
>
>>Hi Kassen,
>>
>>I've been following the thread with enthusiasm because I'm writing
>>my thesis exactly about this kind of problem.
>>
>>>
>>>I would therefore predict that SC and CK -based pieces would be
>>>more "loopy" than CSound ones. Images generated in Fluxus or
>>>Impromptu would likely tend to be more alike each other than like
>>>ones generated in Processing, I would predict as Impromptu and
>>>Fluxus are more alike syntactically.
>>
>>I think with the time the musician becomes influenced by the tool
>>he uses, as you describe it, the SC or Chuck generated music tends
>>to be loopy (musn't be) because the tool or language makes this
>>kinds of tasks easier. I've got the idea on a festival at the ZKM
>>after 3 days of electronic music from different german studios one
>>could blindly say: this one's with Max, this one's SC, this one
>>is... wow! Something different! And it was indeed
>>somethingdifferent or a mixture of systems that made the flavour of
>>this music somewhat different. I think the environment influences a
>>lot on the musical creativity. After months or years, one stops
>>about thinking in musical actions or repeats but instead one thinks
>>instantly in routines, tasks, triggers... whatever you want and one
>>could feel this aesthetic in the music.
>>I'm not saying all the music in Max sounds the same, or all the
>>music in SC, ChucK, Impromptu... etc shares the 'same' aesthetic,
>>that's up to the composer. But usually at the beginning one is
>>limited to the 'easy' things the environment gives you and
>>therefore one uses these more often.
>>
>>I haven't found much literature on this matter and I'm taking the
>>programming paradigms and syntax as a reference to compare it to
>>the musical results made in each system. If maybe someone has some
>>hints I would be very thankful.
>>
>>Finally, I think the environmet itself inspires the
>>musician/programmer to make such things... I compare it to a
>>painter having a model... using different techniques and materials,
>>but the face of the model would be the same or at least
>>recognizable (let's say Dali-Gala).
>>
>>Maybe I'm totally worng, but I would like to elaborate more on this
>>theory and write in my Thesis some questions for future research.
>>
>>Best,
>>Juan
--
.
Received on Fri Nov 27 2009 - 01:58:16 GMT