On Fri, 2008-02-22 at 10:22 +0000, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > IMHO the audience is better off perceiving the music via the sound
> > rather than via the code though.
>
> To me, this highlights a problem with the code.
>
> One of the reasons I spent some time looking at forms of code which go
> beyond the static ascii page is to make it more connected with the 'end
> result'. I think it's important to find ways of presenting programming
> which are clear and readable by a lay audience (I know I'm in the minority
> with this view).
I'd restate this problem as - how to define a language that is richly
expressive so it can be used to compose music, but does not need any
training to read.
I think you manage this in al-jazari etc by
a) use metaphor in the syntax of the language -- robots, daisy chains,
thought bubbles etc. It's easy (and a joy) for a lay viewer to
understand registers, iteration, sequences, functions etc in these
terms. It's not that the language is 'intuitive', it's that they take
advantage of knowledge and understanding we have already have.
b) using small alphabets, consisting of familiar icons, and not
combining them into words. This makes the language simple and easy to
grasp.
And I agree this works very well, I think because it is so well done
that it can be appreciated as part of the music.
I think though that b) is a big deal, that there is a place for pure
textual live coding and probably always will be.
> I now think that this objective makes livecoding better for the performer
> too.
I think there are pros/cons.
alex
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 12:35:23 GMT