> Yes, these are most interesting and perhaps also slightly harder to
> communicate. I think it is an interesting discussion still to what
> degree text remains the center of programming, even when for some reason
> (I'm not sure yet why actually) spatial approaches are considered more
> intuitive for sound. After all, we are all writing and talking all the
> time, even typing sms in nightclubs.
Maybe because writing,talking,texting are all very culturally located
and therefore more specific in vocabulary, dialect and language. I would
imagine this sort of communication requires a more complex set of rules
in terms of the construction of 'sentences' etc.
Music (specifically non-verbal) is less culturally bound to the exact
local phraseology of a language(ie its not french, spanish). So in a
sense it is a more transferrable and "primal" construction, which often
seems better thought of in spatial representation terms.
We probably use our chosen language(code,scores,sequencers) in
describing music in order to bring its construction and definition
closer to our own 'local' dialect? Thus allowing us better control and
understanding of production and consumption as it relates to us.
ramble ramble..
Tom Betts
----------------------
www.nullpointer.co.uk
www.odessadesign.co.uk
----------------------
Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>> Hi guys,
>>
>> Looks cool Thor, but (and im sure this has been answered before)
>> i'm still not sure why building sequences with characters is much
>> different from toggling lights on a stepgrid (real or virtual).
>
> Maybe this: even just toggling characters is different from clicking
> emulations of electrical buttons, because our culture of writing and
> printing frames it differently, eventhough the effect may be the same.
> The power of machines we are all very well aware of, but the analogous
> potency of text is outside of attention. Perhaps live coding is a public
> sonification of that unconcious potency.
>
>> That said your demonstration was remarkably easy to interpret (even
>> for non coders) due to its visual similarity with standard step
>> sequencers, which is great in the whole 'transpareny' approach.
>>
>> Again, Im sure this has been answered, but there must be certain
>> convolutions or functions that are handled more natively and naturally
>> by text based langauges (iteration? polymorphism?, inheritance?) and
>> therefore more relevent in livecoding than sequencing, which to me
>> seems mainly a spatial issue (and therefore more graphical?)
>
> Yes, these are most interesting and perhaps also slightly harder to
> communicate. I think it is an interesting discussion still to what
> degree text remains the center of programming, even when for some reason
> (I'm not sure yet why actually) spatial approaches are considered more
> intuitive for sound. After all, we are all writing and talking all the
> time, even typing sms in nightclubs.
>
>
>>
>> Just my ruminations.
>>
>>
>> Tom Betts
>> ----------------------
>> www.nullpointer.co.uk
>> www.odessadesign.co.uk
>> ----------------------
>>
>>
>> Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
>>>> Hi all,
>>>>
>>>> I uploaded a video that shows what ixi lang is about:
>>>>
>>>> http://www.vimeo.com/6895068
>>>>
>>>> Basically about creating high level constraints in order to
>>>> ease mental computation : ) and set a style to break.
>>>>
>>>> Thor
>>>
>>> nice one - the active text modifications is a good development.
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database:
>>> 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.409 / Virus Database: 270.14.3/2415 - Release Date: 10/05/09 06:19:00
>
Received on Mon Oct 05 2009 - 09:49:05 BST