On 22/02/2008, Andrew Sorensen <andrew_at_moso.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>
> What expressive power are you talking about if the end-result doesn't
> matter? Why produce music/visuals at all if you don't care what it
> looks/sounds like? You might as well live code - a random number
> generator!
I didn't say that. I was talking especially about the situation of
competitive livecoding.
Say you code a beautiful set that lasts 5 minutes and record this. Next
month I might program this (degenerate case);
------------------------------
SndBuf buf => dac;
"andrew-set.wav" => buf.read;
5::minute => now;
//I'm off for a smoke.
//see you later
------------------------------
Exact same end-result (sound-wise) but not more interesting then just
opening VLC. Frankly I don't think typing that would be *my* performance,
it'd be yours and, this would yield no insights at all, etc.... yet the
resulting sound would be good.
What I meant was that "the performance" is more then the end result (or at
least the end result is more then just the generated sound or visuals), I
think it also involves a choice of what tool(s) to use and particularly
*how* you use them. As I see it Livecoding is about open-ness in this
process as well as the end results.
I talked about this because of Marcel's competitions which have rules about
loading files (so everything has to be written on the spot, (which I like as
a perspective) but those rules don't take into account that different
systems consider different things to be a part of the language itself nor
for open-source systems being changeable themselves, making the whole rule
moot, in a way.
I hope the clarifies what I meant. If it reassures you; I like end-results
as well and download and listen to nearly all audio recordings posted to the
list.
Yours,
Kas.
Received on Fri Feb 22 2008 - 00:20:56 GMT