I've found the recent discussion really interesting. On one side it's
difficult to disagree with Thor's point of view which draws strong
distinction between improvised livecoding and (for example) improvised
guitar playing. Fingers are only used transiently in livecoding,
whereas with the guitar the whole body is used.
On the other side I think the difference beyond that can be
overstated... That we should be able 'tune out' and achieve 'flow'
despite being hunched up gazing into a laptop screen, the same way as we
might with a pencil and paper. While potentially obstructive to this
state, I think we've largely agreed that syntax errors are not an
insurmountable problem.
The other problem though is difficulty. When sitting in front of an
empty editor with a turing complete language parser waiting for our
instructions, it might be difficult to decide what to do. Particularly
if we want to respond to something another player is doing right now.
To get around that problem I think we need to realise that livecoding
need not involve solving difficult problems. Instead, at any moment we
should have a number of options of ways to change an algorithm that
could take just a few seconds to apply.
What of any worth could be done in a few seconds? We could change the
class of sound we're using, for example change from a triangle to a
square wave or from a cymbal sample to a tb303 sample. We could change
an effect we're applying such as the reverb depth or modulation. Or we
could apply some pre-defined process that changes some other aspect of
the algorithm over time.
In preparation for a performance we extend the language we're using by
adding libraries and perhaps even syntax such as infix operators to
provide ourselves with such familiar choices during a performance.
The key here I think is in recognising that *a livecoding performance is
not necessarily profoundly creative*. That is, although we will
undoubtedly produce a unique performance we are unlikely to find novel
ways of performing while we're doing so. Instead we will be exploring
our style of performance and perhaps combining the style of other
performers, producing a hybrid performance.
In short I think perhaps livecoding will result in a more successful
improvised performance if we focus on performing with combining existing
ideas rather than creatively trying to produce a whole new idea during a
performance.
So back to the subject of this email, I see two modes of livecoding
performance - one where livecoders work within their language and
another where they work harder and try to expand it. The latter isn't
always desirable.
Must dash but hope this email makes some sense...
alex
Received on Sun Sep 10 2006 - 11:39:56 BST