We have experienced firsthand that much of live coding consists of playing around with parameters and reacting to the results that emerge from such adjustments. It is then interesting to think about the context behind the available parameters—parameters that are actively chosen by the authors of the system. Hydra and TidalCycles sport the capabilities and features they do because their creators made the active decision to sculpt the systems in that particular way. Hence the resulting space nor the actors (live coders) that perform within it are neutral—as described in the excerpt, “A live coding language is an environment in which live coders express themselves, and it is never neutral.” The contours of the chosen space are sculpted with intention, and the live coder molds what is available with further personal intent.

I also took interest in the discussion regarding the ephemeral nature of live coding near the end of the excerpt. Describing live coding as “an example of oral culture,” the authors write that “The transience of the code they [live coders] write is an essential aspect of being in the moment.” Live coding is highly dependent on the immediate spatiotemporal context of each moment and the wider setting of the performance itself. It is the process of spontaneity and recursive interaction that is most important. As such, notation in live coding is a means to enable the continuation of this process, to take the next step (as opposed to defining and achieving a certain outcome).