> Dave Griffiths wrote:
>
>> I think Mondrian has a lot of potential, it uses a more traditional and
>> probably more competent version of the code I'm using for livecoding
>> audio
>> (and now visuals) in scheme.
>
> But you have the growing thing going, right?
in the l system sense yes, rules can contain references to themselves and
each other, so depending on the number of generations you set, things can
get complex.
I used to have a genetic interface to generate or mutate these rules, but
I've stopped using that which forces me to manually play/code it more,
which is a lot more effort, but feels better for the moment.
>> The thing is, I've never been sure if this counts as livecoding or not,
>> as
>> its more of a macro expansion system. You can write formal rules which
>> use
>> string replacement to do arithmetic (see Douglas Hofstadter's "Godel,
>> Escher, Bach") but it's probably not turing complete.
>
> Right... Maybe I'm not a livecoder after all :-)
>
>> I don't really care too much though, it makes good basslines :)
>
> And moreover, being a jazzpianist with classical training (even studied
> counterpoint for 2 years) I really like the way you can work with motivs
> building them into themes, sequencing (that is repeating the same melody
> from another scale degree) etc.. I find it a very musical way of working.
absolutely, I don't have a musical background at all
(painter->animator->programmer) - and I find that this way of working
allows me to create music in a way I understand.
also something that was pointed out to me recently after a gig was that
it, (and livecoding in a wider sense) allows you to make sweeping changes
very quickly - the whole thing is very malleable.
of course this means it's easy to ruin everything with just as few
keypresses, which I also do often :)
cheers,
dave
Received on Tue Apr 25 2006 - 11:49:27 BST