> On Mon, 2008-02-25 at 15:36 +0000, Dave Griffiths wrote:
>> But aren't you saying that people don't need to look at livecoders, or
>> what they are doing - that they should "stand behind the audience"? Or
>> have I got the wrong end of the stick?
>
> I am suggesting that livecoders (and computer musicians in general)
> should either
>
> a) somehow show some mechanics behind what they are doing, so that the
> audience can feel part of the performance, and open themselves up to the
> music
> b) arrange not to have a stage, so the audience doesn't focus on them
> but instead on each other, or themselves (dancing with eyes shut)
>
> I think a) works quite well with a seated audience, and b) works well
> with a standing/dancing audience. That is, a) is anti-social, and b) is
> social. Of course you can have something in between, like a pub where
> some people are chatting, some people are watching the performance and
> others are moving between.
So with b) it doesn't matter if the audience don't realise that they're
being "livecoded at" - we can go back to playing mp3's and ableton live?
:) I'm not saying that it definitively does matter, just that it feels
like it should to me.
One thing I've noticed makes a big difference to more crowded social
situations is to keep it short - people are quite happy watching
projections of arcane stuff for 10 minutes or less, as long as things
develop quickly then end, so they can carry on conversations/buy more beer
etc.
> And then you can have a livecoder making
> music without an audience at all, or recording it and making it
> available as mp3 downloads with no prescribed visual element at all...
I was particually thinking about live performance - but I wouldn't be able
to define the difference between recording or performace.
For these reasons I'm not sure of the value of recorded audio only
livecoding as an end result (despite having made some last week ;)
Recorded livecoding make more sense to me as code really.
cheers,
dave
Received on Mon Feb 25 2008 - 17:31:00 GMT