On Thu, 2008-04-03 at 16:00 +0200, Marcel Wierckx wrote:
> ah, but it's a matter of trust that the something that happened is a
> result of some kind of effort on the part of the performer. So yes,
> it's about the potential that you're being lied to and that there's
> simply no way to tell for sure. Not that I think that laptop
> performers do this intentionally, but simply the fact that the
> potential for deceit is there I feel is problematic for laptop
> performance
I still disagree -- if I can't see a performance the question of whether
'it' could be authentic or not simply can't be asked, as I can't see
what 'it' is, or what it is supposed to be.
I agree though that it's good to know that you are getting what you
demand from your performers. But I find that for a performance to
really grab my attention and take me somewhere interesting I have to be
led into it by seeing some human movement making the music.
Take Andrew Sorensen's "study in keith" (or any of his other videos). I
trust him not to 'cheat', but the music is a whole lot more exciting and
engaging when I can see him typing in the code... And I really don't
know lisp, so all I am enjoying is seeing the rhythm of his typing and
the growth of the code.
> (Cascone describes this much more elegantly than I ever
> could).
Please paste in any particular passages you feel relevant...
> >> Today, one goes to a live performance more for the
> >> event than for the music.
> >
> > When has that ever not been so?
>
> when recorded music was not widely available. I'm not denying that
> the event aspect of music performance was important, but the balance
> has shifted since the advent of commercially available recordings.
I think almost the opposite -- that recordings have led us to believe
that music somehow exists outside of a cultural event. Music events are
complex social rituals of which sound making is only a part. Remember a
music event you really enjoyed. How many aspects of this event were
transmitted to you via sound pressure waves? If you took away all the
others, would have have enjoyed it at all?
> I think there surely is a relationship between the two, that one can
> reinforce the other. Although with live coding I prefer to emphasize
> the act of cerebral effort than human movement.
But cerebral effort is human movement in conceptual space, and the point
of live coding is to codify that. My point is that projections allow
this encoded human movement to be glimpsed by others, or at least the
moulding of its representation.
alex
Received on Thu Apr 03 2008 - 14:48:27 BST