The tension between “liveness” and “showmanship” is at the heart of Parkinson and Bell’s exploration of the laptop as a musical instrument. The authors provide a framework for evaluating what actually constitutes a live performance by comparing Deadmau5’s “playback” philosophy and Derek Bailey’s “instant composition” idea. My experience in NIME classes suggests that there is often a desperate scramble to justify the laptop’s presence on stage by layering it with external sensors, elaborate costumes, and “performative” gestures that frequently have a tenuous relationship with the actual sound generation. This creates a “narrative flow” that feels artificial – a costume draped over a simple sensor to distract the audience from the fact that the performer is just interacting with a computer. Live coding, however, suggests that this physical theater is unnecessary. By following the TOPLAP manifesto to “show us your screens”, the live coder moves the visible intricacy from the performer’s body to the performer’s mind, rendered in real-time as logic and syntax.

This shift toward the laptop as a minimum medium aligns with Bailey’s concept of the “instrumental impulse”. Live coding embraces the computer’s inherent, unadulterated affordances: the keyboard, the mouse, and the code. Parkinson and Bell argue that the “natural resources” of the laptop are not found in how it can be made to mimic a guitar’s physicality, but in its capacity for algorithmic complexity and generative uncertainty. In this light, the laptop is a like sophisticated adding machine that becomes an instrument through the elegance of the code written in the moment. The “liveness” is found in the risk of the syntax error and the transparency of the thought process, rather than the sweat of a choreographed movement.

Ultimately, this reading suggests that live coding offers a more honest path for electronic music than the “spectacle” of EDM or the “gestural narrative” of some NIME practices. If, as Francisco Lopez suggests, electronic music doesn’t inherently need the “concert hall tradition” of physical gesture, then live coding creates a new kind of stage presence that is purely functional. It replaces the performer-as-figurehead with the performer-as-architect. This raises a critical question for our practice: if we strip away the costumes and the sensors to focus on the “minimum medium” of the screen, does the audience’s lack of “code literacy” turn our logic back into a mere visual spectacle? If the audience cannot read the “instrument” we are playing, are we simply trading one type of misunderstood narrative for another?