>On Tue, 2004-05-18 at 22:38, geoffcox wrote:
>> Maybe the relationship between the score and the music could be expanded.
>> Adorno thought the score more important than the music played (in 'On the
>> Fetish Character in Music and the Regression of Listening'). How does the
>> relationship between the code and the execution of that code play out?
the idea of a fetish is very much connected to the idea of having a
total control over an isolated entity. I wonder if the separation of
score and music played has in itself a certain fetishism. Most
composers hear the music when they write it and many musicians see
the score when they improvise.
A certain fetishism is perhaps the eurocentristic concepts behind the
ideas connected to tonality and in this respect the notation system
has its role for sure. Also regarding the role of musician and
composer (maybe not dissimilar to those of theoretican and
practician) I would consider this.
>On one hand, sourcecode exists as a set of instructions, and running
>code exists as the sourcecode being processed. When the sourcecode is
>being processed within a stable operating system, the results can be
>pre-determined. Every time you run the code, you get the same results.
>
>When live coding, when you describe an instruction, it is carried out
>immediately. In linguistic terms, this suggests the language of the
>live programmer is performative. In general life, if you say that the
>cat is blue, you don't make it so. When live coding, by declaring that
>$cat = "blue";, then $cat == "blue"; immediately becomes true.
this reminds me of the discussion that was going on in parisian
surrealist circles about film. For Luis Buñuel, for example, the art
of film was the perfect way of showing the dream logic of the real
world. So what you say about assignment could lead to a view towards
programming that shows this activity as an artform connected to the
unconcious. I suggest cadavre exquis circles in code, as well as
écriture automatique des programme..
>But then, perhaps this is an illusion, because I have power over a
>certain scope. I might tell myself that cats are blue and believe it.
>I might tell my computer the same thing, it has no reason to doubt me, I
>am its true master. But if I try to tell someone elses computer that
>cats are blue, I would fail - I probably don't have enough authority
>over that computer to make it so.
>
>But then (again), any performative use of language is a matter of power
>within a scope. A king can say "my shoes must be here," but that will
>only become true if a loyal subject is within earshot. A jury may say
>"You are guilty" in a court of law, but they lose that power once they
>leave.
yes the idea of a certain environment that represents a certain
causality which is somehow arbitrary but consistent in itself is very
much related to programming. I always wonder how to make this
causality appear and be percievable in a good way.
>So, to read code is to execute it. Saying one is more important than
>the other is to draw a false separation. And unread code is less useful
>than code that has been read.
>
>> You
>> could describe this quite closely in relation to the live element. (although
>> clearly this applies to the conventional score and not the more experimental
>> type - such as in Cage's work).
>
>I'm not sure if there is such a difference as far as we're concerned.
>Experimental scores of this era seem very similar to computer programs.
>> This seems to relate to composition too.
>> Some aspects are predetermined and some are improvised or at least
>> interpreted. There is a slippage between the score and the individual
>> interpretation of that score. There's a reductive tendency to see the use of
>> computers as deterministic - but the live component tries to undermine this
>> view. Live programming tries to reintroduce these interpretative,
>> improvisational and unpredictable elements.
There is an interesting aspect in this: people think live activity is
not deterministic. So the causes and effects of what happens in music
is very important to how the music is percieved. Generally a very
common question confronting an artwork has become less 'what should
it express?' than 'is this happening by chance or on purpose?'. But
this is bound to lead to a much broader discussion.
>... to performance, yes. These three elements that you mention seem
>essential to music performance, and live programming allows them to be
>brought to the fore.
>
>> Maybe the craft aspect is important in this. Not all musicians take the
>> extreme view that they should make the instruments they play but they
>> certainly build a close and intimate relationship to them. There is also the
>> link of the tool to the user and the task performed. Florian Cramer explains
>> in the case of the typewriter this is important as it breaks down the false
>> distinction between the writing and the tool with which the writing is
>> produced, and in terms of the computer between code and data. I think there
>> is something in this logic that relates to the production of music, in that
>> the relationship of the code and the data or the score and the music are
>> brought closer together - perhaps more than with conventional music where
>> the distinction is emphasised (as with the Adorno comment).
>>
>> Does that follow?
>
>Yes, I think so.
well somehow I'd like to go one step further - what's left of data
when there is a program?
Going into the details of how data is treated in computer language
would be revealing probably.
>> But then, paraphrasing the famous Eno quote on generative music is that
>> people will not listen to music the same way twice. Again by keeping laptop
>> music live this is either emphasised or the statement is made too obvious to
>> be useful.
>
>I think the latter. To say that the same piece of music is ever heard
>twice is to belittle the role of the listener who listens differently
>with each play.
--
.
Received on Fri May 21 2004 - 18:14:21 BST