live coding. http://www.toplap.org part of the manefesto states: We acknowledge that: * It is not necessary for a lay audience to understand the code to appreciate it, much as it is not necessary to know how to play guitar in order to appreciate watching a guitar performance. cheers, dave

Personally I ended up making programming the way I make music, and therefore reduced the gap between the two, but I still spend hours writing the tools for writing this code, and the things the code drives, but this is just because I am stubborn and won't use much prewritten code (jack and liblo basically :) But to go back to your analogy, I think computer programming is a little different to woodwork, in that the machine can be seen as a medium or a tool. So for computer musicians who think about it in this way, learning to write code will make them better *computer* musicians. I think a nice compromise is PD (and I'm sure frank will agree ;) - as a way to program in a form that many artistic people are comfortable with. cheers, dave

Well, I am currently implementing a plugin architecture to Shelljam with which you can map as many MIDI events that C++ can generate to as many computer hardware events libgii can read... right along with a little XML storage for the pre-sets. Do you think such a thing could possibly get you off? :) Actually this is the type of coding I would like to delegate but right now there's nobody else around xept me :) Maybe someone would at least code a UI for me I'd already be happy... Carlo

Frank Barknecht wrote: Andrew Hodges is also makes music, which is worthy of attention in its own right, albeit not made with Linux, so this is slightly OT: http://www.synthmusic.co.uk/ :) cheers, tim hall /|\

haha! that 'live coding' idea gives me goose bumps. just like about 5 years ago when i first ran into the idea that you could modify software to do what you want to do. yeah. live coding sounds really fun. it's one of those ideas too, that you'd spend years working on just to syphen it down into something that looks as easy as tying your shoe.

Frank Barknecht wrote: Careful, Frank, there are a few of us here who do both. :) I respectfully disagree with your statement, though I agree with its intent. Playing any instrument requires years of physical engagement to form a playing technique. I'll certainly agree that using a computer also requires years of effort to master, but that mastery is not based on an analogous "playing technique". One of my favorite musicians (Paul Lansky) referred to the computer as "the first instrument of the mind", and he felt strongly that its pedagogy shouldn't be limited by previous models of instrumental skill and proficiency. The computer gives so-called non-musicians a real chance to work with music, but only the same kind of dedication to mastery of the medium will yield a skill commensurate with that of an instrumentalist. For some, that means learning more about music so they can be more expressive, for others the same end will be achieved by learning more about the computer (i.e. instrument). Btw, Dr Lansky also had things to say about using the received knowledge base from electronic and tape studios as a basis for a computer music pedagogy, again pointing out that those skill sets, though admirable and useful, were themselves unnecessarily limiting in their approach using the computer for composing music. Many people believe that the computer will confer "skillful results" in spite of the user's lack of any background in the techniques of music. In point of fact, some people do get such results, but they are often very focused people who have a good sense of what it is they wish to accomplish. Very little of any lasting value is produced by merely random means or automata. Aside: I love the story that Boulez "touched up" some of his total serialist pieces to make them sound better. It occurs to me that the computer isn't really the instrument, the software is. In other words, Frank plays Pd, not the computer. The program shapes the computer into an audio device, but it's Pd that does the processing/playing. The computer merely crunches the data for the program, i.e., it is not involved or engaged with it otherwise. Well, I'm rambling this morning. To finish: I really don't care how the music gets made, that's of no interest to me (unless I want to know more about the "how" of something like a mic placement or other recording technique). I just want to hear more music from people using Linux to make it. And no, the Linux part isn't important qua music, but it indicates to me personally that the Linux audio users community is musically healthy and productive. That is after all what so many (like Frank B) have dedicated ourselves to accomplishing. Best, dp

Hi Dave, I think I have to respectfully disagree with your disagreement :) this is something which is under debate, at least in some circles: http://www.informatics.sussex.ac.uk/events/ppig2005/papers/Blackwell.pdf I think distinctions here are a little silly though, as I've seen people dance to music that is created by writing code live, and they don't seem to care much whether it counts as music making or programming :) It's just (yet) another way to think about computers and music. I agree with everything else you are saying though :) cheers, dave

It's early days, I think the use of a computer as a (albeit more flexible) equivalent of a hardware device - with simulated knobs and switches etc, is only scratching the surface somehow. The interesting thing is that most of this thinking and exploration seems to be going on using free software. cheers, dave

Yeah, it's all simply how you look at things and all perspectives valid, as always... I do wonder though, there must be people live-coding robots that dance to acoustic music somewhere. Carlo

On Wed, 2006-02-22 at 21:01 +0100, Frank Barknecht wrote: that's what it's all about!! :) "non-deterministic probability-driven rock engine" every home should have one! cheers, dave