On Tue, 2006-09-05 at 18:45 +0200, Till Bovermann wrote:
> I do view livecoding as symbiotic between man and machine, but I do
> not agree on your immediate feedback argument. When doing livecoding
> (also with practicing it) there is still a big gap between thinking
> of the thing you might want to do, converting it into valid code,
> write it down and finally send it to the interpreter. You do not get
> _direct_ feedback...
Hm, I'm not sure if I see any gap. I'm thinking of the thing I want to
do in terms of a language, so it's impossible for me to have an idea
that is not valid within that language. So in the case of livecoding
there is no gap between thinking about what I want to do and the code.
I'm thinking it in code, both in terms of the structure of the code and
the equivalent sound structure it maps to.
Typing the code into the computer is a parallel process, and of course
what is realised may not mirror what I imagined for some reason,
undermining my earlier ideas and forcing me into some other direction.
(Like bum notes, syntax errors can be avoided with practice and so are
irrelevant to this discussion)
> What you get for this lack is perhaps a more
> abstract access to your idea: you do not have to care for every
> single sound...
As Pressing suggests, guitarists and trombonist improvisers have the
same abstract access to their idea, and do not care for every single
sound either. I encourage you to read the article.
alex
Received on Tue Sep 05 2006 - 18:12:17 BST