Meditative Live Coding and Musicological Hindrances Matthew Tift Lullabot me@matthewtift.com ABSTRACT In certain situations, music live coding obtains a meditative quality. Meditative live coding can offer beneﬁts beyond the sounds produced, but not in all performances. This paper explores live coding as a method to cultivate mindfulness. It argues that three conventional ideas about musical practice exert a strong regulative force in live coding performance: the notion of the “musical work,” the idea of music as a “thing,” and the conviction that music requires interpretation. Drawing on the work of music scholars such as Lydia Goehr, Carolyn Abbate, and Christopher Small, and deploying a pragmatic approach inﬂuenced by William James, this study offers an historically-informed theory of live coding that highlights its usefulness in cultivating an awareness of the present moment. 1 Causing Problems with Live Coding It makes for a good one-liner to say that “live coders are much more interested in causing problems than solving them” (McLean 2017). More than just humorous, this statement differentiates live coding from other kinds of coding, especially the unit tested and peer reviewed kind. As the number of people who are paid to write code continues to grow, even in free software communities that were once comprised entirely of hobbyists (Buytaert and Tift 2016), we imagine live coding as an oasis detached from the stress of fulﬁlling software acceptance criteria. Therefore to say that live coding “causes problems” is also to remind that live coding offers a more pleasurable alternative to writing code for money. In fact, live coding offers a wide variety of beneﬁts. Rather than cause problems, live coding can ameliorate them. Employing algorithms, visuals, a nearly limitless supply of sounds, pitches, timbres, tempos, etc., live coding creates opportunities unavailable to other artistic practices. Participants view live coding as an activity that does the opposite of causing harm – it entertains, ediﬁes, and educates. The live coding event can be a place of contemplation, a sonic escape from the stress of everyday life. Others have already noted that live coding can have a strong “meditative ethos” (McLean 2014; Hall 2007). Certain varieties of live coding are described as “meditative sonic studies” (Collins et al. 2003, 323) and in some cases live coders actually perform on meditation cushions (Smallwood et al. 2008, 10). Whether we are dancing at an algorave, sitting in a concert hall, or learning in a classroom, all varieties of live coding can be meditative. We decide how and when to enter the ﬂow of the present moment. Unfortunately, external factors can negatively affect our capacity to experience live coding as meditation. Everyday things, such as a cold room, a barking dog, or the number of likes a live coding video receives affect our experience. In our so-called “attention economy” where “attention merchants” compete for our attention and treat it as a commodity (see Wu 2016), marketers can commercialize a live coding event, making our experience feel less like an escape. Even otherwise beneﬁcial activities – such as using live coding as art activism, music education, music therapy, a tool to teach kids to code, or as a kind of Gebrauchsmusik (“useful” music) intended to enlighten other people – can alter the “meditative ethos.” Perhaps the most powerful hindrances come from within. With music live coding, like any musical practice, we sometimes experience a nagging feeling that the sounds we produce must meet or exceed a vague concept of “good,” even when we practice live coding in private. We might view a practice as too mechanical, unimaginative, or somehow not “authentic.” But while society may impose numerous restrictions – unwritten rules – on some composers, performers, listeners, producers, and others involved in the production of other categories of music, we typically understand live coding as exempt from