I'll have a bit of a bash at these criticisms...
On Fri, 2004-07-02 at 09:35, Nick Collins wrote:
> Why don't you just use Fruity Loops to make music? Also, the musical output
> of your work could be done better as a record, preferably by people other
> than you who know what they're doing as musicians, rather than being
> programmers, you pretenders. Yes, the output is definitely not using
> anything that isn't available in commercial software.
No, the output can be better than is availible in commercial software -
the key word is "live". Livecoded music in a pure sense would be live
music in the way that a fruity loops setup would not be. I may be well
out of line in saying this, but a lot of electronic music seems to read
"live" as "I'll mix prewritten/recorded sections and tweak some
effects". Live code should develop (no pun intended ;) ) as the
audience/performer hears it (for the first time).
I think its a return to good old fashioned bashing and stumming of
(real) objects a la jazz/improv music. Livecoding should allow just that
bit more flexibility to do this with software.
> I've noticed that the gestural content of this typing is not like the
> haptic joy I get from my musical instrument. Therefore it must be worse as
> music. And your fetishism reminds me of early music practitioners who
> insist on period instruments. (by the way, in secret I'm an electronic
> music composer, ie, this is socratic irony, but I'd like a big round of
> applause as if I'm a pure unsullied musician of the romantic era).
I kind of agree, the aesthetic of watching someone programming argument
seems a little weak to me too ;) Must find a way of programming via
midi...
dave
Received on Sat Jul 10 2004 - 17:06:16 BST