Reading Parkinson and Bell’s paper really made me rethink what “live” performance means, especially in electronic music. I’ve been to various EDM shows and experimental gigs, and this paper put into words something I’ve often felt but never quite articulated: there’s a huge difference between watching someone press play in front of a light show versus seeing someone actually create music on the spot.

The comparison between Deadmau5 and Derek Bailey is sharp and effective. I’ve always thought of Deadmau5’s sets as more about the experience – the visuals, the atmosphere, the crowd – than the actual performance of music. He doesn’t hide that either. It’s planned, precise, and works because it’s predictable. Bailey, on the other hand, represents the total opposite: messy, unpredictable, and raw. I’d never heard of him before reading this, but the way the authors describe his improvisation made me want to check him out.

What stood out to me most was how live coding fits between these two extremes. I hadn’t thought of coding as a performance before, definitely not something that could be compared to playing an instrument like a guitar or a piano. But the way live coders type out music in real time, in front of an audience, felt weirdly intimate and vulnerable. It reminded me of watching someone freestyle rap or paint live, impressive not just for the end product but for how it’s made.

I appreciated how the authors didn’t try to argue one approach is better than the other. Instead, they unpacked different ways of being “live” and how audiences respond to effort, visibility, and spontaneity. As someone who’s always been interested in both music and technology, this paper gave me a whole new lens for thinking about performance and what we’re really looking for when we go to see someone play.