if you/everyone finds it difficult to complete a formal paper on this, how about making a collage of the discussion. someone could edit some of the postings together.your comments below are really useful I think to some of my naive statements. geoff
-----Original Message-----
From: alex [mailto:
alex_at_state51.co.uk]
Sent: Thu 20/05/2004 23:45
To: livecode_at_slab.org
Cc:
Subject: Re: [livecode] ramble
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?
I don't know Adorno's argument, but...
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.
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.
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.
... 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.
> 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.
alex
Received on Fri May 21 2004 - 06:40:10 BST