Making algorithmic music is following the material (code as medium) rather than imposing form — discovering music that could not be imagined before hearing it

McLean, citing Tim Ingold’s critique of hylomorphism (the philosophical view that making = imposing form on matter), argues that algorithmic music is better understood as ‘following the material.’ The composer does not have a fully-formed vision and then encode it; rather, the code is a medium whose properties the composer explores, discovering musical possibilities that would be inaccessible without the computational medium. This repositions the live coder from ‘tool user’ to ‘material follower’ — more like a sculptor who discovers form in stone than an engineer who specifies then implements. The implication is that the best algorithmic music cannot be described or imagined before it is heard.

Examples

A live coder writes a TidalCycles pattern that unexpectedly generates a compelling polyrhythm through the interaction of two simple functions — something that would not have been composed intentionally but was discovered through coding.

Assessment

Contrast hylomorphism with Ingold’s ‘material following’ model of making. Apply this distinction to live coding: what does it mean to ‘follow the code as material’ in a live performance?