On Wed, 2007-01-10 at 14:54 +0000, Nick Collins wrote:
> I'm sure we'd all agree that there are many different types of practice
> activity, and whilst some (as Dave suggests) could come about through daily
> programming work, others might be particular to certain live coding
> contexts and benefit from practice dedicated to that context. Personal
> style is of course a valuable thing, which you would hope in any
> self-critical and interested codiscian, would be developed in innumerable
> ways over time.
Yes agreed. But there is code particular to a performance, and code
particular to a style. I do not think we should waste our time typing
code particular to a musical style each performance, but instead make
that style part of our language/libraries.
So where we find ourselves repeating ourselves from one practise session
to another, we should give that repetition a name and put it in a
library, or make it an operator or construct or whatever.
> On another tack, the issues of the starting point will always come up, and
> do seem analogous to any standard musical improvisation- there are continua
> of frameworks, plenty of interesting styles, and particular choices might
> mean particular practice procedures- and the well rounded musician/live
> coder will want to be ready for a number of different contexts,
> particularly where collaborative performances with unfamiliar musicians and
> unknown audiences might be taking place.
Yes, good point. I do find though that if starting points are too well
formed, it's difficult to develop them further, so I end up just
tweaking parameters.
> Practice is not independent of the system you prepare for, and the system
> libraries (even prepared outside of live coding, but just as support to the
> intended live coding context) are iteratively informed by the live coding
> experience.
Well put -- I think this iteration is an extremely creative one.
alex
Received on Wed Jan 10 2007 - 15:23:27 GMT