Hi Kassen
you wrote:
> I think your paper covers a lot of very interesting ground but agree it
> could use some tweaks. One thing that stood out to me is your explanation of
> how you arrived at the idea of using competition to engage the audience. You
> go from describing the Barcelona event (in a way I would agree with Nick is
> exaggeratedly one-sided and perhaps too partial for a paper) to concluding
> the issue with leaving audience members was a lack of understanding of the
> code.
>
> While this may have been a important factor and could indeed be a
> important factor in all livecoding events we don't know this to be true.
> Many other factors could have affected this, such as a breakup in the
> overall flow of the performance as Ge recompiled ChucK.... etc.
>
> I'm not saying you aren't right; I wasn't there but I do think this
> conclusion merits more attention
> and care as it seems quite fundamental to the structure of your paper and
> indeed to the whole question below it.
going into the Barcelona event into too much detail is beyond the scope of
what I am trying to say in the paper. I could have written an entire paper
on only that (and in fact it looks like Nick has) and that's not my goal.
All I wanted to say is that it was that performance which inspired me to
develop a different angle on live coding performance practice. I'm afraid
that by opening my paper with a description of that event people are putting
too much weight on my observations, and therby thinking that I am boldly
criticizing the performance. That is not at all my intent! Obviously I am
going to have to try to tone down what I write so that my point comes across
better.
Your note on this Jazz drummer and his influence on other performers was
> quite interesting but I think this supports the suggestion I made earlier
> about duets at least as much as your own stance on competition so perhaps
> including a note in that vein would be relevant.
not exactly sure what you mean here, which suggestion do you refer to?
Stylistically I'm not too sure about the relative emphasis on analogies and
> examples like the snails. Those are interesting for sure but I might elect
> to keep it more focussed myself. That would be up to you, of course. I
> almost feel bad about criticising writing style here when the topic itself
> could be partially be seen as a celebration of writing style... but you
> asked for feedback.
these kinds of references are meant to keep the tone of the paper light,
with the goal of making it more interesting for a wider audience. These
kinds of things are always dangerous, I know, so I am grateful for the
feedback.
You covered a lot more then this and I read it only once so far, I think
> it's interesting enough to return to later if you'd like me to. It's a good
> topic and I think you are making some strong points but it could use some
> care.
>
> I hope this was of some use to you, I intended this criticism as trying to
> be helpful, not as competing. Apologies for that. ;¬)
no apologies necessary! this kind of discourse is stimulating and fun!
Marcel
Received on Mon Feb 25 2008 - 09:48:34 GMT