sure, noble goals for livecoding and i wish i could agree. but aren't
we throwing out the baby here? i mean suppressing the mysticism, the
virtuosity, the ingenious algorithms, the wow-factor, the
how-the-hell-did-(s)he-do-that... aren't they all very important parts
of a good performance? at least i know i prefer to get tricked or
confused instead of 'taught' something. this is just so much more
imaginative and inspirational than to understand or fully grasp
something. i'd rather see livecoders dare, risk and fake to amuse than
preach about code ease-of-use.
coding stuff from scratch live on stage is such a weird activity. it's
a pisstake on both laptop music and office work. i love it.
_f
Kassen:
> I think livecoding, even if it indeed also glorifies the tool, is
> different in that we are actively trying to break down the mystery of
> the instrument in order to show the performance itself. Wether we are
> being sucessfull in this so far and indeed wether it has any chance of
> success at all is another matter but I feel it's worth trying.
On 24.09.2006, at 09:52, Adrian Ward wrote:
>
> On 24 Sep 2006, at 00:47, Kassen wrote:
>
>> For one thing those intruments were well out of the reach of the
>> audience finantially and I think some of the apeal came from it not
>> being quite clear how they worked or what was done with them.
>
> I think livecoding retains a small element of this, although it is not
> about financial attainability, but rather the mistaken perception that
> programming is something most people cannot engage with. I think
> livecoding has an ability to change that by demonstrating ease of use
> - we just have to find ways of allowing audience members the potential
> to understand. This is very different to taking a didactic approach by
> trying to make _everyone_ understand (which is a mistake and probably
> would bore an audience).
#|
fredrikolofsson.com klippav.org musicalfieldsforever.com
|#
Received on Tue Sep 26 2006 - 11:17:22 BST