On 8/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">M. Edward (Ed) Borasky</b> <<a href="mailto:znmeb@cesmail.net">znmeb@cesmail.net</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br>I haven't spent a lot of time with ChucK yet, so I don't have a lot of<br>ideas myself. Since ChucK is intended for music programming on the fly,<br>I'd expect the real "user base" to be working computational musicians
<br>that are jamming with ChucK, not dry "language theorists", etc. As I<br>understand it, ChucK programming is a performing art, and like the other<br>performing arts, the real feedback that matters is that between the
<br>performer and the audience.</blockquote><div><br>Well, yes, but I think it's *also* intended for algorithmic composition and it's also intended to enable many people to write their own studio-tools. I think the feedback between you and the materialisation of the idea you had this morning is also a very real feedback that matters a lot. In practice, for ChucK, I think anything that improves either of those two feedback loops will also improve the other.
<br> </div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">I haven't been through the documents recently, but coming from a<br>non-real-time performance background, my own impressions of ChucK
<br>probably don't mean much. But for "people like me" (studio musicians<br>rather than live performers), what I would want from ChucK would be<br>documentation, tools, and even some encouragement that would help me
<br>transition *out* of "studio mode" and into a live performance mode of<br>some kind.</blockquote><div><br>I don't think the divide between the studio and the stage is that large or absolute. In my own experience instruments that work well live are the same ones that keep a studio session flowing at a steady pace. Experience with Livecoding will help prototype ideas while they are fresh and the other way around.
<br><br><br>As for encouragement; live performance is fun. With good live performance gigs there will be people to share it with you, bad performances are still bad but they don't cost nearly as much time or energy as bad studio gigs. It's easier to use experience from live performances in the studio then the other way around. At least that's what I found.
<br><br>If that's not enough live performance is far more likely to get you free beers then studio performances are.<br><br>;¬)<br>Kas.<br></div></div>