On Tue, 2004-02-24 at 10:57, Julian Rohrhuber wrote:
> I would suggest it is not all about music (as probably music is not
> all about music either)
> My personal interest is to get away from the idea of production - so
> if music as a product then I'd even say it is not about music.
But of course that's a big 'if', the word music is applied to many
things. For example can have paintings which contain musical forms
(such as those by Paul Klee and M. K. Ciurlionis). For me that's the
kind of music is what is interesting to explore. So live programming
can be about this kind of music, but only as one option to explore.
I do think it's also interesting to think about music as a product, to
sometimes try to make a 'track' that people can listen to over and over,
and get to know as something that is unchanging but that still sounds
different every time. But performance isn't about such a product and so
perhaps that shouldn't concern us here.
Maybe we should call ourselves TOPLaP, and not include the 'audio' bit
in the explanation. We could use 'art' or 'artistic' there, but these
words can be problematic.
> I use live-coding mostly for film sound, so there is no 'performance' as
> such. But when playing for an audience or with an audience, I would
> try to show the code. I was a bit unhappy about our last performance
> at betalounge in Hamburg - they showed fingers typing as a maximum -
> why should this be so very interesting? But again this is my personal view.
Agreed. It's like when an expert guitarist is playing and they focus
the camera on the right hand plucking away, when all the cool stuff is
being done by the left hand. In this case the interest isn't in the
fact that the fingers are typing away, but in what they are typing. You
generally can't see what is being typed by watching the keyboard, you
have to watch the screen.
Frederick's problems were particularly annoying, they kept projecting
the MAX objects instead of the output of them.
> generally I would say that live coding doesn't even have to be specifically
> interesting or in the center of attention.
Agreed!
> For me it is another way to think
> about language and computers, and another way to interfere with sound - it
> is good if it is visible what's going on, but not for sake of showing off,
> but for being able to understand it and to have conversation about it
> and with it.
Yes! Beautifully put.
alex
_______________________________________________
livecode mailing list
livecode_at_toplap.org
http://toplap.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/livecode
Received on Sat Feb 28 2004 - 12:12:49 GMT