On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 16:33 +0000, Peter Worth wrote:
> Hi, I only occasionally check threads on this list so i may have
> missed a lot of discussion, but the thing that really strikes me is
> that everyone still appears to be constantly comparing livecoding to
> playing acoustic instruments - is this really necessary? the
> implication is that livecoders are worried their practice is inferior
> in some way.
I've livecoded with people playing conventional instruments a number of
times. Sometimes I feel inferior, sometimes not, but never superior so
perhaps the balance is against me.
The best collaboration so far was a headphone performance with Ade and I
livecoding with a singer - Lottie Child. I'd say the three of us had a
comparable expressive range and rate of change. It was totally
improvised, no practise at all but we really enjoyed it. I was using
Perl and did a lot of from scratch coding, come to think of it I'm not
sure if I used any pre-prepared scripts, I think probably a couple.
Sadly the recording of it didn't work, although there happened to be a
french tv crew there, so you can catch a few seconds of us somewhere in
here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/group/9511/video/xufoo_les-dorkbot-punky-nerds
> > The algorithm is the music!
>
> this is interesting. i agree, but feel as though i shouldnt, because
> i'm primarily interested in aesthetics and therefore only concerned
> with hearing the results (too much code and not enough mp3s shared in
> livecoding land in my opinion...)
The code (with revision control) is a recording as much as an mp3 --
just much better compressed! :) I agree though that hearing the results
is important - an unsonified algorithm can't be music.
I think livecoding necessitates a lot of reflection and thought about
how you make music, and that this is why there's a lot of discussion. I
think the ultimate result of the discussion though is more music.
alex
Received on Wed Jan 10 2007 - 23:20:32 GMT