I disagree for a few reasons - language is very good at describing complicated things, minimal music is great, and there's nothing at all stopping live coders from using rich sounds.
Then why don't live coders use rich sounds, or make complicated things?
As for 'minimal music' - most of it isn't really all that minimal, and it certainly can't be reduced to trivial algos.
And if your only option is to be minimal, maybe that's not so great.
Point is that only a tiny subset of the population has ever been interested in listening to music defined and created exclusively by writing code. Live coding caters very nicely to them.
No one else seems to be listening.
Over the same period, CGI has moved from basic wireframes to epic photorealism-with-AI. You can see this stuff in games and movies, and it's awesome.
Why aren't code musicians interested in pushing the boundaries of code music by aiming for something with similar complexity?
Here's a thing: after nearly sixty years of code music, exactly zero code music composers have troubled the public imagination.
Over the same period we've had literally hundreds of new electronic genres and styles, and even people who don't much like electronica can name at least a couple of people who make it.
We've also had game music coders writing complex AIs for arranging and generating music on the fly in game contexts.
But live coders don't seem interested in any of this, because typing.
>> "Then why don't live coders use rich sounds, or make complicated things?"
because there is no reason, because livecoding hasn't matured at the same rate as other production software. at the risk of painting a broad stroke, the people who care about livecoding don't really care about rich sounds.
do you recall how EDM sounded in the 90s and early 2000s compared to now? and they were using the same exact tools as they use today. but i'm pretty sure a lot of techno producers were literally limited to like 6 tracks or something. and the sounds they used were god awful. not because they preferred it, but because they were technically limited by these parameters.
but people still made music, people still danced, and the genre progressed along with it's tooling over the next 20 years.
the music is still evolving side by side with the software we build to produce it. livecoding is just another instrument that hasn't been exploited to it's fullest advantage (as a "live" coding or a production tool).
i've played in touring bands, and i produce electronic music for fun now. i've been a software engineer about my whole life. i would love more programming language options in my production. the same way tweaking a VST can result in more interesting melodies than you originally intended, programming languages can be a great tool to help explore audio in unique ways.
Live coders do use rich sounds (why wouldn't they?) and make complicated things (a value judgement, I guess).
Well e.g. Autechre, Aphex Twin, BT and Holly Herndon work with code, and I'd say are pretty influential.
Improv is generally non-commercial due to the lack of end product, but we're seeing algoraves with hundreds of people turning up and having fun. It's still developing but is promising and we've seen some nice successes. Maybe there are live coding performances/situations you haven't experienced yet..
Also I particularly enjoy collaboration with live musicians, that's where the various trade offs play off each other and become something else.
