>Hello,
>
>i'm relatively new to the concept of livecoding, but as a
>programmer/musician who has always been concerned with performance
>issues, i'm inevitably drawn to the idea and i'm very glad there is a
>burgeoning scene (well done everyone etc).
>
>my problem is this - i'm in love with the idea of being able to
>explore musical ideas live, through text alone (not sure why, but the
>words purity, hardcore and post-digital spring to mind). however, i
>simply cannot justify it, when the music i want to make is essentially
>based around signal processing, and this is so much easier to
>understand and edit in a graphical environment (pd for instance)
>rather than text. it seems completely counter-intuitive to patch
>modules together any other way. but i dont want to do this live,
>because a pd patch is fugly compared to a simple console and reams of
>text.
>
>am i wrong? i hope so. i want to invest some time learning the
>techniques and languages you guys are exploring at the moment, but i
>just need a little more convincing to drag me away from pd..
I have good news for you: yes, you are wrong, text is much easier..
Wires and boxes are essentially nothing else than words: But a word
can express a reference to something in one thing (well if you don't
count each letter), whereas a wire has two (beginning and an end,
even worse, a direction and also crosses other wires that it does not
have to do anything with.). Multichannel expansion looks pretty, but
barely readable.
When you want to write systems that modify graphs, wires are really a
bit difficult (or, actually, I'd really like to see how a system
looks like that expresses the rebuilding of wires and boxes with the
help of wires and boxes).
It is hard to send wires and boxes via email and also I find it nice
that I can use the same program for writing articles that I use for
programming.
Generally, I think it is actually more intuitive to have a written
base language that is human readable.
--
.
Received on Thu Sep 07 2006 - 18:36:41 BST