>> I understand your skepticism, but I like to believe and sincerely
>> hope that reading and understanding the code CAN truly enhance the
>> musical experience (you do too, I am sure) - at least in the same way
>> of watching/appreciating performances of traditional musical
>> instruments.
>
> I don't think that's a fair comparison - you can't read or understand a
> traditional musical instrument.
You can understand a lot of things about a traditional musical
instrument
being played, most relevant to our comparison:
- you see/hear how gestures of the performers translate to sound
(there are exceptions - such as pipe organs)
- you often have a sense when the instrument sounds bad, or
poorly played
- If you are a experienced player in the instrument, you are more
capable of appreciating virtuosic playing
what kind of understanding are you referring to?
>> Pair this with concurrency, and it allows you to follow parallel
>> flows
>
> I don't think it's possible for my brain to do that!
If you can read code through control flow, then it's possible to
understand
at least one flow, if the language/system lends itself to that.
Parallel flow is
harder, but if you can parse a band into component parallel members,
then
maybe it's possible and interesting to do so with code.
>> One of our goals is to make code a live instrument by conveying
>> the intent of the musician to the audience, and to give the audience
>> an opportunity to appreciate the process of realizing that intent.
>
> The code does not relay the musician's intent any more or less than the
> music does. With a little difficulty, I might be able to read and
> understand what your code does, but I can only guess the intention
> behind writing it that way.
Perhaps the better word is "gesture", though intention is crucial, but
more on the level of "what sound/music gesture am I trying to make".
>> It is this lack of perceivable intent that really make most computer
>> music utterly meaningless in live performance.
>
> Where is the perceivable intent in someone playing the trumpet?
As far as performance is concerned, it's the difference between hearing
Miles Davis live - and hearing Miles Davis live but with Miles playing
from inside an opaque box onstage. I want to see the performer interact
with the instrument. Computers are unique because it is both the
instrument and a performer. To see this interaction, seeing the code
helps. Furthermore, there should be the opportunity for the code to
be understood (for experienced members of the audience) in order
to enhance (intellectually, musically, gesturally) the appreciation.
>> We don't know if the performer succeeds in his/her gestures at any
>> level because we don't know what those gestures are.
>> The ability to understand and appreciate code is central because
>> code is our gesture. I believe we must try to get this part right.
>
> Ah, "gesture" is a better word than "intent," I think I understand and
> sympathise with your position better now. However, if code is your
> gesture, then aren't you only making sounds to help people understand
> the source code behind it?
because the end goal is to make meaningful and virtuosic sound/music,
not to sonify code (though that can be a neat recursive live coding -
on-the-fly programming of sonification of the live code itself).
Ge!
Received on Fri Oct 22 2004 - 19:48:59 BST