Adilbek and Jiho were primarily working on Hydra, and Jannah and Clara were working on Tidal code. There were a lot of improvisation sessions where we just met up and improvised whatever we wanted to do on the spot, and we felt ourselves getting more comfortable each time we did it. We also thought of how we could have an arc with a build-up, climax, and slow fade out for both visuals and our audio, and we ended up experimenting a lot with tweaking each other’s lines and building off of what the previous person wrote on Flok, etc. Overall, our sessions were sometimes unpredictable but also rewarding when there were unexpected moments of harmonization during our improv!
let p5 = new P5()
s0.init({src: p5.canvas})
src(s0).out()
let x = 0;
let y = 5;
let gridSize = 1000;
let r = 255;
p5.hide();
p5.strokeWeight(1);
p5.stroke(0);
p5.noFill();
p5.frameRate(20);
p5.draw = ()=>{
p5.background(20);
for ( x = 0; x < p5.width; x += (gridSize*(0.7+cc[0]/2))){
for ( y = 0; y < p5.height; y += (gridSize*(0.7+cc[0]/2))){
p5.fill(p5.map(255,0,127,0,255));
let rand = p5.random(-5,5);
p5.rect(x,y,gridSize+rand,gridSize+rand);
}
}
}
src(o0)
.invert(()=>ccActual[1])
.modulateScale(osc(20,[0.1,0.6]))
.mask(shape(30,()=>cc[0]*1.5).scale(1,window.innerHeight/window.innerWidth,1))
.modulatePixelate(noise(20,10),400)
.mult(solid(1,()=>ccActual[1],()=>ccActual[1],1))
.out(o1)
render(o1)
Tidal Code
d1 $ slow 2 $ s "superhammond*8" # note (scale "lydian" ("[a3*2] ~ a3 a3 c4 [e4 g4]")) # gain 1.2 # lpf 1000
d2
$ fast 1
$ chop 64
$ "moog(5,8)"
# gain 1.2
# up "-1"
#legato 4
#crush (slow 2(range 1.2 1.8 sine))
d3
$ fast 1
$ chop 32
$ "moog(5,8)"
# speed "3 2"
# gain 0.8
# up 4
#legato 4
d4 $ fast 0.5 $ chop 32 $ "ade:6" #speed "4 3" #room 1
p "ccMaskSize" $ ccv "127 30 60 5" # ccn "0" # s "midi"
p "ccColor" $ ccv "<1 0>" # ccn "1" # s "midi"
d5 $ slow 2 $ s "blip:8(3,8)" # gain 1.2 # up "<-1 1>"
d6 $ slow 2 $ jux rev $ s "hh*8 sn*4" # crush 8 # gain 0.8 # legato 1
Ruiqi Liu:
In this performance, I am in charge of the visual. I sticked to my preferred minimalistic and geometrical style. I wrote the basic shape using for loop using p5 instances, and then added effects using hydra on top of that. I also tried with lines, circles, ellipse, and squares, and found out that grids look best.
Rebecca & Mike: We had three main iterations on our tidal script when experimenting with long samples from different genres as we wanted to play with the chop and striate functions. In the early iterations of in-group jams, we developed our drum circle from acid and ambient samples respectively as these two genres have a strong contrast. The acid samples feature a strong energy and a psychedelic feeling, while the ambient samples create a peaceful and calm atmosphere of the audio. These practices helped us open up our mind and had a better idea of how to arrange patterns according to the various textures from and potential emotions brought by the samples. In the final version, we decided to use built-in samples and synth, and utilize effects like legato, and chop to create our own sounds instead of directly using ambient samples. We also wanted to include a transition and an ending to make our project more complete, so we added a strong crush effect to let the synth sound raw and distorted, while adding a strong color transition for the pattern. For the ending, we gradually minimized the pattern and the audio at the same time, and eventually kept the ambient synth on going.
This reading gave me a clearer view of how “liveness” in music can mean very different things depending on the context. It contrasts Deadmau5’s highly pre-planned, spectacle-driven performances with Derek Bailey’s real-time, improvisational approach, and uses that contrast to explore where live coding fits in. What stood out to me is how live coding challenges the idea that laptops are just playback tools. Instead, the laptop becomes a responsive, expressive instrument—one that demands constant decision-making and invites unpredictability.
Reading this made me reflect on how easy it is to overlook the creative labor involved in electronic music when it’s not visibly tied to physical gesture. It also helped me think more deeply about how we define instruments and performance itself. Even when something is happening behind a screen, it can still carry the same energy, tension, and risk as traditional live music—and sometimes even more, because it blurs the line between composing and performing in the moment.
In a way, it reminded me of watching speedrunners code live in video game modding streams—they’re typing fast, problem-solving on the fly, and the audience watches the screen just like a performance. There’s a similar tension between planning and improvisation, and both have that excitement of “anything could go wrong or right.”
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.
Parkinson and Bell’s article does a great job framing live coding within a spectrum of liveness, with Deadmau5 on one end, focused on spectacle and precision, and Derek Bailey on the other, showcasing spontaneous and real-time improvisation. I found it really interesting how live coding pulls from both these phenomena but carves out its own identity by treating the laptop as an instrument rather than just a playback device.
What resonated with me most was the idea of visibility and transparency, and how projecting the code live makes the compositional process part of the performance. It’s such a contrast to Deadmau5’s polished, pre-sequenced sets. Live coding feels more vulnerable and dynamic, where the performer navigates unpredictability in real time, almost like letting the laptop “speak.”I also liked the comparison to Bailey’s idea of the “instrumental impulse”, and that deep, expressive interaction with the tool. It reminded me that live coding isn’t just about technical skill, but about exploring and responding to the moment. In the end, the piece made me rethink what “live” performance really means, and how it’s not just about physical gestures, but about decision-making, presence, and risk.
I entertain the idea of live coding being the musical instrument itself, as in you treat codes as the musical tools that generate sound waves, similar to how actual musical instruments do. Compared to Deadmau5’s controlled playback, Derek Bailey emphasizes spontaneity and improvisation. This might be daunting to people who have a habit of practicing really well before they perform, but that doesn’t mean it has to be restricted. Although showing codes on the screen can be thought of as revealing what you are working on in secret to the public, the public never knows live coding performers’ next move regardless. Deadmau5’s focus on spectacle doesn’t have to be applied to all kinds of live-coding performances in general. The spectacle itself can be improvised as well, with how the performers structure their performances, tell the music they want to tell, and convey the message.
This reading gave me a new way to think about what it means for music to be “live.” I never thought much about how different musicians use laptops in performance. The comparison between Deadmau5 and Derek Bailey is really interesting. Deadmau5’s shows are big, flashy, and mostly pre-recorded, while Bailey’s performances are improvised and unpredictable. Live coding seems to sit in the middle. It uses computers, but in a way that’s more like playing an instrument in real time.
I liked how the authors talked about the audience being able to see the code on the screen. It is a cool way of showing that something real is happening, even if it’s not physical like playing guitar. It also made me think about how we value “work” in music, sometimes we want to see someone sweating on stage to believe they are doing something real. Overall, I found this piece a bit long and academic, but the core idea of rethinking what counts as live performance is really stuck with me.