On 01/04/2008, evan.raskob [lists] <lists_at_lowfrequency.org> wrote:
It's an interesting point, and certainly worth looking into. I think this
> touches on the language of performance, a subject which has a long and
> interesting history (but which I am definitely not qualified to discuss at
> length). For example, I enjoy operas, but have no idea what people are
> saying most of the time. Same for French hip hop, or Russian alt-rock, but
> that doesn't mean I can't appreciate it.
>
Sure... and I'd add that from time to time I can't make out a word of
(US)English hip hop which doesn't prevent me from enjoying it at all.
The language you code in is important, whether its FLOSS or not is a side
> point.
>
Of course... but this is a article on speciffically FLOSS and Livecoding.
Code projection inherently makes it open (towards the audience) so I think
this makes sense as a topic and I think this line of thought fits that. If
there were a closed-source system that would suit my needs better I'd
switch, of course... and in fact I have at times briefly live-patched on a
Nord Modular without feeling the expressiveness got compromised by the
closed nature (though there the building blocks are more likely to be known
to the audience).
Personally, I wouldn't mix FLOSS with livecoding discussions, because they
> feel like completely different subjects. Would you discuss with Picasso how
> much he paid for his brush? Or Da Vinci? Doubtful, because its besides the
> point of their work.
>
I wouldn't, no. I now regret talking about a fictional expensive compiler. I
picked that example because it's so simple and clear. However, if I'd meet
Picasso and he would turn out to jealously guard what brushes he used I
would start wondering "where the art was". When meeting fellow artists I
very rarely ask about the price of anything (unless I want them to build me
something) but I will ask questions about their process and I talk quite
freely about my own in return. I always find it a bit of a shame if people
secretly hoard the equivalent of a brush, for one thing because it makes it
harder to determine the actual gestures made by the artist.
>From an anthropological or documentary or personal standpoint, however, I
> can understand, but I always wind up livecoding in MaxMSPJitter and it
> certainly didn't cost me $10K and it's widely available, so why not?
>
Please understand I was focussing here on one very specific aspect of
communication and from a highly specific angle. I have in the past gotten a
lot of enjoyment out of seeing people livecode in MAX/MSP (though not Jitter
so far) and if you read it back I hinted at that in my mail. I wasn't at all
criticising you or other MAX users, please do send a mail if you ever
perform in the West of the Netherlands. "Why not?" indeed! I don't think
there is the slightest conflict in our positions here.
If we'd really want to get into the details here we could compare the
documentation to MAX (which I heard is more clear then the one for PD) and
discuss how that could affect the "open-ness" of the performance. I don't
know either well enough to comment there.
I hope this makes it clear I was solely commenting on the accessibility of
the tool (and it's structure) in how it could affect the communication of
thought in performance. Admittedly this is quite abstract but then again so
are many of the issues around Livecoding and FLOSS so I send it anyway. No
offence was intended at all.
Yours,
kas.
Received on Tue Apr 01 2008 - 17:43:10 BST