On Thu, 2004-10-21 at 23:24, alex wrote:
> Ge:
> > >What is our stance on combining non-livecode
> > >software with state-approved systems during performance?
>
> Interesting question!
woah there - we're in danger of that "you should livecode the OS"
insanity again :]
> > Maybe we should put out a licence (lcl) that disallows linking to any
> > non live coding system..
>
> Heh, I agree. It's easy, and perhaps useful to make idealistic
> statements like "If software isn't written live, or interacted with,
> then it is not a performance." While I these statements are useful for
> discussion and self-reflection, I don't think they should bind anyone.
I dearly hope you're all joking :)
> To be honest I am sceptical about whether reading and understanding the
> code that a livecoder is making could really enhance the musical
> experience. The interactions between musical processes are more
> interesting than the musical processes themselves (the whole being
> greater than the sum) but you can only read one thing at a time [1]. So
> perhaps it's better not to read one subroutine at a time, and to instead
> listen to all of them at once.
Live "stepping through a debugger" might be more descriptive - I'm not
entirely kidding - I think program flow should be made obvious to the
audience too, this is why I like the idea of machine code instructions,
or even simpler building blocks where the action is more apparent:
http://www.logiblocs.com/logi-orange.htm :)
I guess I don't see live coding as being about typing or languages, but
essentially about demonstrating a beautiful process that also
sounds/looks{/smells?} good as a side effect.
Maybe I'm a crazy heretic.
Hope you're ok though, alex!
dave
Received on Thu Oct 21 2004 - 22:48:49 BST