Thinking about it - my whole POV in this thread is based on the assumption
that we want people to understand. If we are just using livecoding as a better
way to make music - which is perfectly valid IMHO, then it's not important -
but then why project screens?
I think in a way though that the transparency of a performance is more
interesting for the audience, and likely to grab their attention. It's scary
somehow too, and therefore exciting.
Feedback from the Arhus gig indicated this too.
On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 11:41:37 +0100, Dave Griffiths wrote
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2004 10:37:30 +0100, alex wrote
> > On Wed, 2004-10-27 at 16:50, Dave Griffiths wrote:
> > > You're informed by the process then, not the code itself.
> > > The code is a tool to shape the process - not an end unto itself to hang
> > > on the wall.
> >
> > I agree that the code is a tool to shape the process, but it's also true
> > that the process is a tool to shape the code. I don't like to separate
> > the code and the process, the code is the process in written form.
>
> Exactly my point I think - so surely steps to make the mechanics of the
> process obvious are needed to truely understand whats going on if
> you don't understand the programming language. That's our most
> challenging task I reckon. People aren't ever going to take the time
> to try to read code and understand it during a live code performance
> (unless they are sober, and already programmers) however, a dynamic
> process that doesn't look obscure and geek chic is much more
> appealing. We're hiding our processes behind our programming
> languages otherwise, and just saying - look at us, you can't
> understand, but we're immensely clever!
>
> > > I think it's by displaying a process as it's happening that's going to
> > > make non programmer audiences understand live coding, not handing out
> > > reference manuals in a nightclub so they can follow the code :)
> >
> > I agree with that. But I'd also say that they might also understand
> > it just by hearing the process work without visualisations.
>
> The word visualisation is a bad one - the process could well be
> audible - but I think we need to work a lot harder at this than just
> triggering notes and setting parameters using a text editor.
>
> dave
Received on Thu Oct 28 2004 - 12:11:08 BST