On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 18:24 +0000, alex wrote:
> On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 15:32 +0000, thor wrote:
> > I guess not. Writing is very much "about" language.
> > But when you speak different languages you're not aware of the
> > language you are speaking at a given time until you reach a
> > situation where you're lacking the word or become unsecure about
> > grammar.
> > So it seems to me that your analogue is saying that live-coding is
> > like writing a novel but playing an acoustic instrument is like speaking.
>
> Gosh. When I think about my experiences with livecoding in Perl then I
> think I am forced to agree.
>
> But when I think about some idealised language for livecoding, with
> syntax that doesn't get in the way of free thought, and with
> extensibility that allows clear encapsulation of musical style in the
> language, then I disagree.
>
> The question then is, is that idealised language possible? If the
> answer is 'maybe', do we have it already, and if not how can we make it?
I think it's something to strive for, and it's one of those things where
everyone's going to have a different ideal... This is why I like silly
little languages implemented in silly little languages, it breaks down
the notion that there is one way to do things.
> > > The algorithm is the music!
> >
> > Isn't it the description of the music? I'd say the ontology of music
> > is bound
> > to be as a sound primarily. But ouch, we're into difficult territory
> > here.
>
> I don't think that sound is music. Music is what we imagine in the
> first place and perceive in the second place, sound just allows us to
> connect the two. We imagine an algorithm, then write it down so it can
> be interpreted, turned into sound and then perceived by the author/s
> and/or audience.
you're getting very good at arguing this point, and I'm starting to
think you're on to something. sound as a medium for music
cheers,
dave
Received on Wed Jan 10 2007 - 19:33:10 GMT