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?
> > 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.
alex
Received on Wed Jan 10 2007 - 18:33:22 GMT