03-constructing.Rmd

# Constructing Algorave: An Analysis




In this chapter the steps of the analysis performed in order to empirically investigate the research question and the main results are presented. The chapter is divided in two main sections – followed by a conclusive one – each examining the aspects of the research question; namely the construction of an event system of Algorave, inquiring how this has been constructed _‘event after event’_, and the collective actor emerging from its formation within the first five years (2012-2017).
Thus, the first (Sect. 3.1) focuses on the _Algorave event system_ network, resulting from the active participation of the performers to the events constituting the phenomenon. In the second section (Sect. 3.2), on the other hand, a shift from the events to performers is proposed, analysing the collective formation emerging from their shared participation to the events. A conclusive section (Sect. 3.3) is provided in order to summarize the main results of the analysis.




## _The Algorave Event System_




In the previous chapter, I suggested that the events constituting Algorave should be intended as interconnected, hence forming what I referred to as a ‘system of events’, insofar these are not exclusively relating one another on the basis of common characteristics, but rather as representing the common effort of a collective formed by the individuals involved. In this sense, the first part of the question to probe is which are the mechanisms upon which these events connects, forming ‘event after event’ the collective pursuing Algorave action.
Thus, as first step for the analysis, I propose a reconstruction of this events system, relying on a projection of the network of events considering the common participation of – at least one of – the performers. A visualisation of the resulting network is provided in the figure that follows (Fig. 3.1).


 
![Fig. 3.1 – Algorave Events System Network - Single-mode projection, nodes = events, N=91, ties = having at least one performer in common (threshold = 1)](docs/fig31.png)



The first noticeable evidence emerging from the adoption of this global view of the initial five years of Algorave is that the events form a single component. This empirically reinforce, on one side, the argument previously made regarding the subsistence of a _system_, while suggesting, on the other, its characterization as structurally cohesive enough – e.g., in terms of fragmentation (F = 0) – to be intended and studied as a whole.
The main component resembles a traditional core-peripherical structure, where a subset of events, which are more densely connected among each other, positioned at the centre – or ‘core’ –  of the network is surrounded by other events, lying at the ‘periphery’ of the structure, which are sparsely, but still connected to it.
Nevertheless, at this distance, almost nothing can be said regarding how this came together, for which a step closer seems to be deemed necessary.
In this sense, one analytical possibility is to focus on the strength of the ties linking the events, hence considering the connections between the ones that share more than a single performer. From a technical perspective, this translates to a progressive increase of the minimum threshold of the common performers number by which a tie between events is considered as such.
Moreover, further insights may be provided by enriching the frame of analysis with the introduction of specific attributes. In particular, the geographical location – at country level – in which each of the events has been organised, insofar, as previously stated, physical distance and the belonging to a variety of social contexts may have represented possible barriers to the process of construction of Algorave. In the following pages, three networks resulting from this iterative process of threshold increasing, including country attribute, are presented in Fig. 3.2 (threshold ≥ 3), Fig. 3.3 (threshold ≥ 5), and Fig. 3.4 (threshold ≥ 7). Increasing the threshold of the minimum number of common performers among events significantly changes the structure of the network, providing at the same time a more detailed account of how these events are connected.

 
![Fig. 3.2 – Algorave Events System Network II – including attribute ‘Location (Country)’ - nodes = events, N=65, ties = common performers (threshold ≥ 3)](docs/fig32.png)

![Fig. 3.3 – Algorave Events System Network III – including attribute ‘Location (Country)’ - N=31 (threshold ≥ 5)](docs/fig33.png)


![Legend for ‘Location (Country)’ Attribute](docs/figleg.png)


![Fig. 3.4 – Algorave Events System Network IV– including attribute ‘Location (Country)’ - N=11 (threshold ≥ 7)](docs/fig34.png)

 

 

In the first of the graphs presented (Fig. 3.3), a dyad (A8; A9) and a triad (A68; A72; A73) separate from the main component, streamlined by the loss of some additional nodes (-26) during the process.^[Differently from previous account of collective action linking events on the basis of organizations in common (Diani, 2015: 118-150), where “[a]dopting a less stringent criterion, [...] obviously yielded a denser network, yet without affecting its basic structure” (Ibidem: 130, emphasis added).] While maintaining to some extent its main core-peripheral structure (in the right corner of the graph), interesting insights can be retrieved when looking at the appendix connected to it from the relation between event A64 and A84 (in the upper-left part of the figure). This appendix of the main component’s structure is formed by eight nodes (A47; A48; A49; A50; A54; A64; A65; A66), tied to each other in different ways but mostly associated by the same attribute value, suggesting an homophilic relation – almost perfect, if excluding A64. Indeed, all this subset of events have been organised in Japan, over a biennial span of time (A47; A48; A49; A50 in 2015, while the others the following year), except for A64 event, organised in Hong Kong.
Further evidence of the importance of geographical location is provided if considering also the dyad and triad, forming perfect homophilic simple structures, insofar the events composing these have been organised respectively in Canada (A8; A9) and Mexico (A68; A72; A73).
Less self-evident but still in line with this argument, also the central part of the main component presents a structure in which homophilic relations seems meaningful.
The first consideration to be made, in this sense, is the predominance of events organised in the United Kingdom: 38 over the 65 events included considering a threshold ≥ 3, maintaining the ratio over the entire sample of events (45 of the 91 total events). Thus, not only it could be argued that Algorave can be referred to as a mainly British phenomenon – not by chance England was where it emerged back in 2012 – for the number of events organised, but that the events organised in U.K. are densely connected among each other by the shared participation of performers, as also evidenced when the threshold is increased (Fig. 3.3), up to a minimum of seven actors in common (Fig. 3.4).
This particular aspect will be further discussed later in the chapter. For the time being, though, it is deemed important to dwell on the other events associated to the main component that have been organised outside U.K.
What emerges from looking at the geographical location of these events is that almost the totality of them were organised in European countries ^[Six are the European countries in which an event associated to the main component is organized, in frequency-based descending order: Germany (A5; A32; A53; A83; A89), Netherland (A16; A46), Slovenia (A11), Italy (A76), Belgium (A31), and Portugal (A21).] – with the exception of three nodes (A44; A77; A88), organised in Canada but not tied to the other two events, the previously mentioned dyad, sharing the same geographical location.
From this perspective, the structure of the events that have in common more than a single performer suggest the meaningfulness of the geographical context in which these are organised, as evidenced by the emergence of four significant parts of the network coinciding with four different continents (the Northern American dyad; the Central American triad; the European central component; and its East Asian appendix).
This _proximity_ characteristic of the network should be interpreted starting from the intuitive assumption according to which performing in events located in or closely to the country of origin is obviously easier than facing long – and costly – journeys around the world, and in this sense the geographic conformation of Europe represents a case in point, as evidenced by the central part of the main component. Nevertheless, to be satisfied with this initial consideration risks to underemphasise the significance of ties diverging from this proximity-centred interpretation. It is for this reason that, as next step, my proposal is to specifically focus on two nodes (A64 and A77) which represent the two exceptions in the discussion carried on so far.
Regarding their structural position, these two nodes diverge significantly. On its side, A77 is well connected to the main component through 13 relations with an equal number of nodes – with a total number of connections or, as in presence of an undirected network, a _degree centrality_ score of 15. On the other hand, despite its few connections (2), node A64  position is relevant, as it is placed between the central part of the main component and its appendix, assuming – in structural terms – a bridging role among these two parts of the component.
Even more interestingly, the events represented by these two nodes share a common characteristic: both are Algorave events organised in conjunction with an international academic conference – respectively, the 22nd International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA) in Hong Kong and the second International Conference on Live Coding (ICLC) both held in 2016.
The strong connection of Algorave, and more generally the live coding world, with the academic field, already emerging in the theoretical chapter, finds empirical evidence in this analysis. Through the organisation of an Algorave event concomitantly to a conference, a connection – in terms of common participants – is made, bridging otherwise sparse events, thus overcoming the physical distances. In principle, this may allow to introduce the specific understanding of the live coding practice proper to Algorave in new social contexts, while generating the opportunity for the specialized participants to interact – and thus to re-discuss and further shape the practice and its understanding, and possibly to later adopt it, adapting it to the context to which they belong, organising new events.
From the analysis of the data, though, this potential mechanism does not find empirical support, as if on one side the organisation of an Algorave event via international conference have often coincided with the first Algorave event in a country (e.g., Hong Kong, Portugal, and, if considered distinct from U.K., Scotland), thus expanding the geographical area covered by this globalized collective action, in all these cases given as examples no new Algorave events have been organised in the subsequent five years from the date of their organisation.^[Besides the already mentioned conferences, the other cited cases refer to the “International Conference on Computation, Communication, Aesthetics and X” (xCOAx) editions of 2014, organised in Portugal, and 2015, in Glasgow.] 
Further insights can be retrieved adopting a change of strategy in the inquiring process, including temporality in the analysis and searching for possible meaningful chain of events, or _sequences_ (Abbott, 1995; see also 1983). Two initial assumptions need to be made: following interactional field theories, all sequences are to be intended as interdependent in a complex network (White, 1970; Abbott, 1988), and secondly, regarding events _orderability_, “an event can affect only events beginning after” (Abbott, 2001: 176).
The aim shifts to the exploration of ‘patterns’ emerging from a ‘collection of sequences’ (Abbott, 1995), or in this case – considering Algorave construction process as a sequence on its own – _sub-sequences_, eventually interpreting their meaning for and within the process studied.
Dwelling further on the graph discussed so far (Fig. 3.2, p. 62), to adopt this perspective allows to better assess the connections that exists within the network, especially those constituting what has been previously referred to as ‘appendix’ of the main component, as well as the two simple structures – the dyad and the triad – detached from it.
Starting from these latter, it is observable as these elements are constituted by temporally consequent events; in the sense that, as in the first case, no events have been organised in the time span separating the two (A8→A9), and, as in the second, that while other three events have been organised between the first two nodes of the chain (A68→A72→A73), none of these were geographically located in the same place – or in proximity – of these.
By examining more deeply these two structures, considering also the contextual information retrieved regarding the events constituting these, it is possible to notice that these sub-sequences are meaningful in two different aspects.
In the case of the dyad, the first node – expressing the first Algorave event in North America, organised in Hamilton, Ontario (A8) – represents a complementary, if not preparatory event to a larger event which would take place the day after – the “Allcaps music festival” organised in the near city of Toronto (A9). In this sense, while the way of organising these two Algorave events differs, as the first is an event on its own while the second is an act during a larger music festival, it is still presumable a sort of connection between the two in terms of organisers.^[As one of the performers shared by these events is David Ogborn (a.k.a. d0kt0r0), recognized as a pioneer of the live coding Canadian local scene, as well as an important figure at international level.
Moreover, he is the ideator of the Cybernetic Orchestra, a project supported by the McMaster Univesity (see https://global.mcmaster.ca/activity/cybernetic-orchestra/  – last accessed 27/04/2022).]
In the triad case, the consequentiality trait of the sub-sequence emerges in a different way. The three nodes composing this structure refers to three events organised in Mexico City, one per month for a total period of three months, from July to September 2016. As mentioned before, these events can be intended as a sub-sequence if one considers their common geographical location. What additionally emerges from the contextual data retrieved is that this chain of events seems to be culturally framed as a whole insofar the first of the events (A68) is described as the “ first Algorave of the _‘Algoreven tour’_”.^[Personal translation from Spanish, original quote: “primer Algorave de la ‘Gira Algoreven’“. Source: https://en-us.fievent.com/e/algorave-en-laberinto-cultural-santa-maria-la-ribera-algoreven/3274276,last accessed 28/04/2022). An interesting aspect lies in the neologism ‘Algoreven’ coined with reference to the Chilango slang derivation for rave, ‘reven’, (http://www.platoon.org/report/algorave-mexico-2017,last accessed 28/04/2022) suggesting an effort to not only ‘import’ Algorave, but to adapt it to the local social context.] Despite the fact that no further evidence in this sense emerge from the textual data retrieved for the other two events (A72, A73), hence making it impossible to state with certainty that this is the case, this sub-sequence has the value of introducing a possible interpretive key to conceptually link some of the events in the Algorave system: the ‘tour’.
In the field of arts, tours are commonly understood as a series of events taking place in different locations, revolving around the repetition of a performance by a social actor, whether being an individual, as for instance a soloist musician,^[Bearing in mind what suggested by Becker (1982), at this point one should be wary of talking about single individual performances, insofar other actors in different roles (e.g., ‘roadie’ in musical tours) have to be considered as part of it.] or a group, as in the case of a theatre company or a musical band.
Despite the ‘experiences of touring’ has been argued to being often overlooked in the past music-related literature as a specific object of investigation (Nóvoa, 2012; as an exception see Ng, 2005), recent studies inverted this trend focusing their attention to this specific aspect of musical life (Peters, 2016; Ramella, 2018; Zendel, 2020; Verbuč, 2022: 203-228).
Of particular interest for the present discussion is the ethnographic work on “DIY touring practice” in the United States conducted by David Verbuč (2022: 203-228), in which he argues that through _music touring_ local scenes related to DIY have been able to connect, eventually constituting “translocal DIY communities” (Ibidem, 203). Specifically,

>“DIY networks and communities are established and maintained translocally. [I]nterpersonal relations […] constitute translocal DIY communities through the act of DIY touring: relations within music groups, music collaborations with other musicians, booking and trading shows with friends or friends-of-friends, crossing paths with other touring musicians, and interacting with audiences and organizers at shows. These interrelations also include visiting and meeting old friends, making new friends from the DIY community, and serendipitously seeing and meeting the same DIY participants at various DIY places around the country”
>(Verbuč 2022, 205).

All these relationships are thus said to constitute communities _through_ the act of touring, suggesting the important role of this experience not only for personal musicians’ lives, but also from a community-making perspective.
In view of this, back to the analysis, my argument is that touring represents a crucial element in order to understand how some of the events are connected, thus revealing how part of the Algorave events system has been constructed. To substantiate this statement, I suggest to first turn the attention on the East Asian appendix of the main component.
This part of the structure can be divided in two main sub-sequences (A47→A48→A49→A50; A64→A65→A66), interspersed by an event (A54) temporally bridging them.
The two chains acquire further meaningfulness when considering that they represent two distinct tours. The first is the “Japan Algorave Tour”, organised in Japan during the week from 3rd to 10th of October 2015. The second, organised between Hong Kong and Japan, is the “East Asia Algorave Tour”, which took place from the 20th to the 28th of May of the following year later.
From a network perspective, the ‘tour’ characterization of these sub-sequences is possible to be evinced considering the connections interrelating the events which constitute them. Indeed, abstracting the two resulting sub-structures – a sub-component of four nodes and a triad –  it is noticeable how these are perfectly dense, that is to say each of the node belonging to the sub-structure is reciprocally linked to all the other nodes composing it.
Nevertheless, bearing in mind the meaning of the ties connecting the events in the network, a peculiar characteristic of touring practice in Algorave seems to emerge. Once assessed that they have been framed as ‘tours’ by the organisers – as emerging by the textual data retrieved, insofar these events are sharing, in this case, more than three performers, it would be possible to refer to this touring practice as ‘collective touring’. Indeed, as argued before, musical tours are usually centred around a single performing actor – whether a soloist or a band – only occasionally accompanied by a support band or performer. From the results emerging, though, Algorave tours seems to represent a peculiar case in this sense, considering their collective aspect.
Further evidence on this aspect emerge if a step is made toward the main component’s centre of the event system. But earlier, in the attempt to have a clearer view of the entangled web of relationships constituting this part of the network, an additional increase of the minimum threshold is deemed necessary.
Figure 3.3 (p. 62) shows the network of events tied by the shared participation of a minimum of five performers (threshold ≥ 5). At this stage, the structure presents itself as fragmented in six different components constituted of a variable number of nodes – from a minimum of two to a maximum of eleven, in the sub-structure at the centre of the figure. Considering this threshold of shared performers, some of the argument previously made seems to be confirmed: as the relevance of geographical context, as well as the strength of the relations which connects the two Japanese tours above described.
For the present discussion, though, are of particular significance the sub-structures positioned in the upper-right part of the figure (Fig. 3.3, p. 62).
Within the first, a sub-sequence (A25→A26→A27) is present, tied through two connections to otherwise isolate event A76. This chain represents the central part of the _‘Algotour’_, organised in July 2014 around U.K., reaching six different cities just over a week.^[The tour stops have been London (03/07/2014 – event A23), Brighton (04/07 – event A24), Sheffield (06/07 – event A25), Leeds (07/07 – event A26), Manchester (08/07 – event A27), York (09/07 – event A28). See https://algorave.com/2014/07/14/algotour/ and https://algorave.com/2014/06/03/july-is-uk-algorave-season/  (last accessed 28/04/2022)]
Similarly, the triadic sub-sequence (A3→A4→A5) emerging from the second structure – also composed by three other events (A1; A6; A10) – despite not expressively representing a tour, can be interpreted as meaningful considering the cross-country relations present and the temporal contiguity linking the events, organised within one day of each other.
Two interesting aspects emerge from a more in-depth analysis of the ‘Algotour’. The first is that the initial event of the tour (A23) has been organised concurrently with an academic international conference, namely the New Interfaces for Musical Expression (NIME) conference 2014 in London. Therefore, going back to what was said earlier on the subject, while associating this tour to the previously described East Asian one,^[Sub-sequence of events (A64→A65→A66), the first of which coincides with the 2015 edition of the International Symposium on Electronic Art (ISEA) organised in Hong Kong.] if organising an Algorave event in concomitance with an international conference does not lead to the consequent organisation of other Algoraves, this social occasion seems to represent an opportunity for the organisation of other connected events – later framing it as ‘tours’ – in which collectively share the experience of Algorave.
However intuitive it possibly be, insofar as if usually existing barriers – e.g., costs and long distances – to travel around the world may be accepted and faced once in a while^[Especially if justified by work related reasons, as the international conference represent a part of the academic career, which, as previously mentioned, is common among live coders.] representing an opportunity to be seized, I would argue that the distinctive outcome characterizing Algorave that prevails is the already mentioned collective dimension of touring practice.
Moreover, as second interesting aspect emerging with this regard, the share among the performers of this ‘collective touring’ experience reflects on common participation to other successive events, not necessarily organised in the same country – as evidenced by the ties connecting A25 and A27 to A76, the first Algorave event organised in Italy.
To be clear, I am not suggesting the participation to collective touring as a factor of explanation of why certain events have been organised, which would be like saying that for instance the Algorave in Pisa would have never been possible to be organised without the previous organisation of the Algotour.
My point, instead, is that this specific collective experience, the ‘collective touring’, represent evidence of the emergence of a – transnational – community forming around the phenomenon of Algorave. In other words, by sharing this experience, the participant performers forge durable ties among each other, possibly reinforced in following occasions – as in the case above described – hence contributing to the formation of a collective.
Further evidence in this sense emerge from the analysis of the previously mentioned triadic sub-sequence (A3→A4→A5), referring to the initial phase of expansion, back in 2013, of the phenomenon. Despite, as said before, this sub-sequence does not represent a ‘tour’ framed as such, it is interesting to dwell on the fact that the same group of performers, formed by at least five individuals, is sharing the participation to these three events – forming a perfectly fulfilled triad.
Even more interesting insights emerge when examining in more detail the events and their relative position within the Algorave system macro-sequence of events.
In particular, event A5, the _‘live.code.fest’_ organised on April 20th 2013 in Karlsruhe, Germany, has been the first organised outside U.K.:
>“[t]he festival took place at the Karlsruhe University of Music from 19th to 21st of April 2013, organized by: the IMWI (Institute for Musicology and Music Informatics) and ComputerStudio, the local live coding band Benoît and the Mandelbrots and members of the live coding organization TOPLAP”^[Source : https://web.archive.org/web/20130906012749/http://imwi.hfm.eu/livecode/2013/ (last accessed, via Web Archive on 28/04/2022).]

Beside the emergence of further evidence regarding the strong tie – especially in its first period – between Algorave and the academic field, this textual excerpt retrieved from the presentation of the festival on the website of the Institute for Musicology and Music Informatics help us to frame the relational context in which this event has been organised.
The event taking place has been possible through the mediation of the band Benoît and the Mandelbrots, members of the live coding organisation TOPLAP, to which the majority of the Algorave pioneering figures in U.K. are also connected.
Previously in the present dissertation, it has been already argued how Algorave emerged from the live coding world pre-existing network of which TOPLAP represents the main component. Thanks to previously existing connections among these actors, the Algorave phenomenon had the possibility to expand its geographical boundaries. The same group of performers, after two Algorave shows in U.K., participate to an event in Germany, seizing this opportunity to express their specific understanding of the live coding practice in a socio-cultural context that is different but, at the same time, inclined towards its reception.
Hence, similarly to the constitution of DIY communities through the interpersonal relations occurring within the act of touring connecting local scenes as described by Verbuč (2022), a translocal connection between these two contexts have been assessed.
Moreover, focusing on the aftermaths of this connection for the Karlsruhe live coding scene, it is interesting to conclude noticing how in the following years other three Algorave events have been organised, sharing the promoting supra-individual actor – the Digitale Kunstfabrik e.V. – of which members of the local band Benoît and the Mandelbrots are part.
Focusing on the sub-sequences of Algorave events has brought to light interesting insights regarding how the repeated participation by performers favoured the expansion of the collective action, while providing a clearer descriptive frame to interpret its first five years. In the following section the issue of the formation of a collective actor will be specifically addressed.




## _The Algorave Performers Musicking Network_




Insofar the final aim of the present study is to investigate the mechanisms that favour the formation process of a collective actor around the phenomenon of Algorave, a shift of focus from the events toward the individuals _actively participating_ to these is deemed needed.
In order to do that, for this section the previous operation of single-mode projection of the main events-performers network is reversed, thus considering the network formed by performers, tied by the share participation to – at least – a single event. The visualization of the resulting musicking network is provided in figure 3.5 (Fig. 3.5, next page).
If on one hand the network presents a structure constituted by a single component similarly – of course^[As if each event of the network previously analysed shares at least a performer with another event, then each performing actor has at least a single event in common with another performer – insofar the considered networks of projections are based on the same initial relational data.] – to the events system one, the core-peripherical characterization of the first seems to be even more clear in comparison with the latter. Indeed, a core group constituted by performers densely connected, is surrounded by more or less populated clusters of performers, both connecting one another and with those belonging to the core.
Two significant examples of peripheral clusters emerges from the network. 

![Fig. 3.5 – Algorave performers network - N=276, ties = perform in an event together at least once](docs/fig35.png)


The first, in the centre-left part of the figure, is composed by a perfectly dense set of eight nodes (Andres Perez, Egg, Jordi Espuny, Ivan Paz, Lali Barriere, Linalab, Turbulente, and dAAx), tied to the core group through a broker-acting node (dAAx). The second – upper-left quadrant of the figure – is formed by four nodes (Armada de lindo, Turing Heat, Bunny Ruggz, frAncIs) which, besides being connected among each other, directly share at least an event with one – or multiple, as in the case of frAncIs – node(s) belonging to the central group.
Even if differently interacting with the core of the network, these two clusters share an important feature: both are expressions of _local communities_.
Starting from the first of the two exemplary clusters, it represents the live coding community of Barcelona, as it possible to evince looking closer at the events that connect the constituting nodes. Indeed, these two are the only Algorave events that has been organised in the Catalan region within the first five years of the phenomenon. The first Algorave in Barcelona has taken place on the 1st of December of 2013, while the second, around three years later (07/10/2016), refers to the first Algorave organised by the centre for art research and production Hangar, which would become a key node in the live coding world in the years to come.^[Besides the emergence as one of the main Algorave events organizers (7 more in the period 2017-2022), one could also consider their participation to projects in collaboration with other live coding world’s nodes, see in particular the European project ‘On-the-fly’ (https://onthefly.space/, last access 01/05/2022) promoted with the Creative Coding Utrecht (CCU), the already mentioned Center for Art and Media in Karlsruhe (ZKM), and the Slovenian Ljudmila Art and Science Laboratory.]
In the span of time here considered, though, these two rather temporally spaced out events are linked by the common participation of a specific performer, dAAx, providing them a continuity – and thus a connection. In this sense, one could refer to this performer as a ‘pioneer’ of the Algorave adoption in the Barcelona live coding scene.
If on one side his structural position proves its importance in bridging this local cluster with the rest of the network, more interesting insight emerges considering that this connection involves performers that are thus not exclusively locals – namely those positioned at the core. This important feature has to be bear in mind in the discourse to follow, as it provides a crucial characterization to the network as also based on translocal connections among performers.
In order to provide a clearer picture to examine the connections at the basis of the second cluster, in the following figure (Fig. 3.6, next page) is reported the network resulting from the operation of separation of the peripheral nodes from the core ones, including only the firsts of the two.  Moreover, an increase of the threshold referring to the minimum number of events (threshold ≥ 2) in common to be considered as a tie among performers is also operated, in order to account for the strength of the connections among them.^[This operation has not been performed as a first step in this part of the analysis in order to avoid the possibility to lose sight of the contexts in which only few events were organized, as in the just examined case of Barcelona.]
The structure of the second cluster taken as example is now more visible – even if, after the filtering operation, a node is lost (Armada de lindo, sharing the participation only to a single event). This cluster represents the Canadian local community, already discussed in the previous section. Similarly to the Barcelona community, also in this case a bridging-acting node (d0kt0r0) is emerging as crucial to connect this group to the rest of the network – in Fig. 3.6, only to its peripheral part.
Nevertheless, as evidenced by the number of connections mediated by this actor – and their greater strength – it is possible to argue not only that this local community is more connected to the rest of the network, but also that this node plays a crucial role in the Algorave action formation. Indeed, the role of this performer has been already introduced in the previous section^[See note 74.] and its importance is here substantiated from a structural perspective, while confirming the previous statement regarding the presence of translocal connections between performers.

![Fig. 3.6 – Algorave performers network’s peripheral nodes’ structure - N=266, ties = perform in an event together at least twice (threshold = 2), isolates excluded](docs/fig36.png)


Moreover, from this ‘zooming in’ operation toward the musicking network of Algorave performers at least other two clusters are distinctly emerging.
The first is the one representing the Mexican local community, in the central part of the figure, composed by seven nodes (yect; Reggaetron; MapSphere; EHO; {D1([6, 6].er)}; Tito Romero; and CNDSD) densely connected among each other. Examining this cluster is also notable that local communities may be connected to other parts of the network through more than a single node, which is to say that bridging-acting role can be embodied by more than a single individual performer.
The second sub-structure, in the upper-right part of the graph, composed by two different clusters bridged by a node (Moxus), represents instead the performers that shared the two tours that have been discussed in the previous section: the ‘Japan Algorave Tour’ and the ‘East Asia Algorave Tour’. In addition to these, to complete the set of events related to the two tours, one should also consider the triad Calum Gunn–Moxus–Akimasa Yamada and the cluster of four performers attending the first two Japanese stops of the 2016 East Asian tour, composed by Yen Tzu Chang, Tatsuo Unemi, Atshushi Tadokoro, and, again, Calum Gunn.
In particular, considering the position of this latter – a Scottish performer currently based in Berlin, it is important to notice its centrality within the peripheral structure examined, connecting these Eastern Asia clusters of performers to the set of actors closer to the core related to the UK-based community (Belisha Beacon; Anny; co￥ﾡpt; Rituals; Polinski; chez.io; Lil Data). Once again, translocal connections emerges when looking at the structure of the Algorave musicking network composed by the performers, in this particular case made possible by the participation of a performer to collective touring activity in another country.
Even further, specifically dwelling on the peripherical structure of the network appears to suggest the presence of a developing Algorave collective which is not exclusively based on the presence of few central figures, rather supported by the active involvement of several actors both at local and translocal level.
Nevertheless, a final step has to be made in order to complete the framework: namely, to eventually delve into the connections that form the core of the network.
Figure 3.7 (Fig. 3.7) shows the core part of the network of performers sharing their participation to Algorave events (threshold  ≥ 2). This network is thus formed by the performers who not only participated to the largest number of events, but who did this together, forging durable relationships in sharing their experience over time.
Ten are the main nodes identified as part of the performers’ network core: Alo Allik, Holger Ballweg, Joanne, hellocatfood, Yee-King, Norah Lorway, Renick Bell, Alexandra Cárdenas, Shelly Knotts, and Yaxu (a.k.a. Alex McLean).


![Fig. 3.7 – Algorave performers network’s core - N=10, ties = perform in an event together at least twice (threshold = 2)](docs/fig37.png)


A first crucial aspect characterizing the sub-set is that it is not characterized by male-exclusivity, as female performers represent the 40% of the nodes.
Four central figures in the Algorave action are female, and this is a significant fact, especially when considering female under-representation in other music scenes (as in the case analysed by Cohen, 1991), as well as in relation to the claim for diversity in line-ups presented in the organisational conventions examined in the first chapter. 
From a relational perspective, collaborations between the performers of this sub-set are an important aspect to be considered. Indeed, the strength of some of the ties connecting these nodes can be attributed to the joint experience at the events as a band – e.g., Algobabez, formed by Shelly Knotts and Joanne, or Canute, composed by Yaxu and Yee-King. Occasional collaboration not ascribable to this kind of supra-individual formation occurred in few circumstances – e.g., between Yaxu and hellocatfood, performing together in an audio-visual performance for the Club Fierce Algorave in Birmingham.
While among the performers are present, as expectable, the pioneers who participated to the first Algorave event in 2012 – Yee-king, Yaxu, as well as Norah Lorway^[Ricognizing herself as “an early pioneer of the Algorave field”, accessed through her involvement in SuperCollider software developing “world” (source:https://medium.com/@tmarasco125/in-conversation-norah-lorway-on-live-coding-and-algoraves-31e9258b74c0, last accessed 02/05/2022).] – the others gradually entered the scene.
An interest insight emerging is that many of the performers of this sub-set share their first Algorave event. Indeed, Alexandra Cárdenas,^[In particular, her first Algorave experience is narrated through a brief interview in an article appeared in U.K. magazine Wired (Cheshire, 2013) regarding this event. It is interesting to also note how quotations from this article have been often used over the years in the descriptions of several Algorave events that followed.] Shelly Knotts, Alo Allik – and possibly Holger Ballweg^[Insofar among the participants, in collaboration with Shelly Knotts figures the name “some Mandelbrots”, referring to the German live coding group Benoît and the Mandelbrots, of which Ballweg is a member. Nevertheless, no clear enough leads are present to confirm his partecipation to this event with Knotts but their frequent collaboration in the following years.] – all took part in the second Algorave (A6) organised at MS Stubnitz, an old merchant ship converted to music and art venue, during its last night (16/05/2013) docked in London before sailing toward a festival in France.
Others, like Joanne, hellocatfood, and Ballweg in his first soloist Algorave performance of which traces are present, share the same local context – Gateshed, U.K. – even if in two different occasions – the Gateshed Algorave organised in 2014 (A17) for the latter two, the other in the same city in 2015 for the first (A35).
A case in point is represented by Renick Bell. His personal Algorave experience began with the event (A7) organised in concomitance with the Musical Metacreation Weekend (MUME 2013) in Sydney.^[A “forum for the emerging community of people making software that autonomously generates music” (source: https://metacreation.net/mumewe2013/, last accessed 02/05/2022).] This event is the second taking place outside U.K., indeed the first outside Europe. Thanks to this occasion he had the opportunity to connect with some of the pioneers of the phenomenon, as Sick Lincoln (a.k.a. Nick Collins)^[Notably involved also in the main of the first two Canadian Algorave events, the Allcaps festival.] and Andrew Sorensen, sharing their early Algorave experiences overseas. As evidenced by his inclusion within the core group of performers, from that moment he started a fairly active Algorave career, being involved in the promotion of the several events – and collective tours – in his country of residence at the time: Japan.
A final consideration to be made, though, is that the almost totality of this sub-set of performers can be associated to the U.K. community – with the sole exceptions of Bell.
Already in the previous section it was noted that Algorave events in U.K. were densely connected among each other by the shared participation of a cohesive group of performers.
With this regard, it is now possible to identify those performers who most of all contributed to the Algorave action in the country with their active participation.
Nevertheless, it has to be bear in mind that the majority of the Algorave events in the period considered has been organised in U.K., possibly over-emphasising the just discussed role of the performers forming the core-group of the network.
In order to further inquire the emerging key role of these actors, as a conclusive step for the analysis, the same operations of single-mode projection and core-periphery measurement and filtering^[See note 83.] have been performed on a relational sub-dataset of events-performers excluding the events organised in this country. The resulting core-group structure visualization is provided in the following figure (Fig. 3.8, next page).
While from this sub-structure new core-nodes are emerging – one of all, the previously mentioned performer Calum Gunn – the most interesting result is the maintenance of their position by part of the just discussed set of nodes: Shelly Knotts, Yaxu, Norah Lorway, Alexandra Cárdenas, and, less remarkably considering his context of belonging, Renick Bell. The position held by these performers – especially the first four – represents evidence of the active participation and involvement to events organised around the world over the first five years of the phenomenon.
 
![Fig. 3.8 – Algorave performers network’s core excluding events taking place in U.K. - N=12, ties = perform in an event together at least twice (threshold ≥ 2)](docs/fig38.png)


By examining more closely the events under the ties that link them, it emerges that each of the participants has performed in at least five different countries (respectively in five, Norah Lorway; in seven Cárdenas; and in eight both Yaxu and Shelly Knotts). One particular event, the Earzoom festival organised in Ljubljana, Slovenia, in the October 2013 (A11), sees the shared participation of all these performers. Over the years, in other seven occasions at least two of them share their participation to an Algorave event.
Besides providing evidence of the key role acquisition in the Algorave collective action by these actors, the crucial aspect of this participation to events organised in countries different from U.K. is that most of the times these are the first in those specific contexts. In other words, at least one of these performers was present in the event introductive of the Algorave understanding and practice within several countries.
Under this particular aspect, I argue, lies a specific mechanism related to the expansion of the Algorave action. Indeed, further evidence is provided by considering the fact that in those contexts in which this happened, several Algorave events have followed in the successive years, involving new nodes, mostly locals, suggesting the formation of neighbourhood communities adopting the Algorave understanding of live coding and organisation. 
This is the case of Belgium, for instance, where Yaxu participated to the first Algorave event organised in Antwerp (A18, 2014), followed by four more events in the period considered. Or Barcelona, where Shelly Knotts performed to the first Algorave in the city back in 2013 (A14), in a socio-cultural context where, as already seen,^[See note 82.] Algorave flourished. Or the Netherlands, where all the three Algorave events organized in the period (A16, 2014; A46, 2015; A56, 2016) were attended by Yaxu – the first of which with Knotts, occasionally accompanied by other already mentioned important actors in the early development of the phenomenon, such as Yee-King.
Despite having reached this point of the present dissertation my standpoint should be enough clear; it is still important to reaffirm one last time that by suggesting the presence of this mechanism I am not arguing that the participation of one of the key actors identified to the first event in a country _caused_ the organisation of following events in that context. Rather, what I suggest on the basis of the data collected and analysed is that this emerging mechanism favoured the expansion of the Algorave collective, which is to say that thanks to it Algorave understandings of live coding practice and organisation have been possible to be spread in different socio-cultural contexts.




## _Collective tours, local adoption, and the long travel of the Algorave Evangelists_




In conclusion to the chapter a final section summarizing and commenting the main results emerged in the analysis is here presented.
In the discussion carried on so far Algorave has been described as a phenomenon constituted by a set of events, argued to be interconnected – an ‘event system’ – representing the outcome of the common effort of a collective formed by the individual actors involved.
In the first part of the analysis, this suggestion has been substantiated by empirical evidence, showing the cohesiveness of this system, favouring its interpretation as a whole.
This was reflected in the fact that a community composed by the performers actively participating to these events has emerged as a unity.
Possible barriers for the process of forming this collectivity, such as physical distance and diversity of socio-cultural backgrounds, seemed to have been overcome, as illustrated by the presence of translocal ties, linking performers as sharing their participation to events not exclusively organised in their context of belonging.
The identification of clusters of intense interactivity within distinct geographical areas, though, has proven _proximity_ as an aspect to be accounted for, confirming in this sense the fairly intuitive idea according to which the performance in places closely located to the one of departure would result as easier than facing long and expensive journeys around the world.
Nonetheless, exceptions to this view arose within the analysis. One of these is the participation to international academic conferences, in the circumstance of which an Algorave event was organized. The interpretation by which these social situations may have served as social occasions to foster Algorave collective action has been questioned.
If on one hand no specific mechanisms related to the long-term expansion of the action system has been proven – insofar no new Algorave events were organised in the same place of these events within the years that followed, on the other their importance as opportunities for the organisation of other connected events in the following days – e.g., tours – has been recognized. Moreover, considering the just described role and the frequency of this occurrence, this has also evidenced the strong connection between Algorave collective and the academic field.
Addressing the issue of Algorave events ‘orderability’ (Abbott, 2001), hence including temporality in the analysis, has been proven to be crucial to reconstruct the Algorave system formation process. Focusing on the emerging chains of consequent events framed as ‘tours’, above mentioned, made come forth distinct patterns of musicking interactivity across different localised social places over time.
In literature, the act of touring has been argued to forge and reinforce relationships by mean of which individuals belonging to different local communities connect, favouring the constitution of ‘translocal’ communities (Verbuč, 2022).
From the analysis performed, Algorave tours seems in line with this statement.  Nevertheless, one particular aspect characterising Algorave tours emerged: namely, its collective dimension, from which the suggested definition of _collective touring_. Indeed, differently from other known forms of touring – such as the most common related to music industry – the events saw the joint participation of temporary collectives, instead of single performers or bands. Thanks to this shared experience, it has been argued, the participants not only forge – or reinforce – relationships with those belonging to the contexts in which the tours stopped, but also establish durable ties among each other, that eventually contribute to the formation of a wider collectivity.
The Algorave performers musicking network has been at the centre of the second part of the analysis. From a structural perspective, the network resulting by the shared participation of performers to the same events presented a core-periphery conformation.
In particular, local communities emerged in the more peripheral areas, as densely connected sub-structures of Algorave-based interactivity. It has to be considered, though, that these communities may be existing a priori with regard to the collective action inquired, thus representing communities belonging to the wider ‘live coding world’ rather than specific Algorave local communities. One example in this sense is provided by the Canadian context, where a group involved in the live coding practice existed years before the first Algorave event in Ontario, as proved by the ‘Cybernetic Orchestra’ project (start date: January 2010) leaded by the key figure of David Ogborn.
Significantly, despite his recognized role – substantiated also by the results of the analysis – he does not belong to the group positioned at the core of the network. Other considerable figures in a similar position emerged within the analysis of the peripheral part of the network structure, hence characterising Algorave collective as not dependent on the presence of few central individuals, but rather to be supported also by a wide share of locally more active individuals assuming key role in the action. In this sense, the initial intuition of framing Algorave collective as characterised by a ‘polycephalous’ structure (see Gerlach, 1971) seems to be supported by the evidence emerging from the analysis.
Notwithstanding, positioned at the core of the network, a “carrier group” (Weber, 1968 [1921]) of performers is present, who not only participated to the largest number of events, but did this _together_, resulting crucial in the spreading of their view on the live coding practice and the consequent development of the collective formation process.
This group appears as fairly balanced in the distribution of male and female individuals composing it – respectively 6 and 4 over the total of 10, insofar not being characterised by male-exclusivity, in line with the intention expressed in their guidelines.
Despite the presence of female performers among the key figures of Algorave, though, caution in generalization is deemed needed, as these participation-based positions have not straightforwardly been achieved, insofar gender bias inherited to computer science and electronic dance music fields to which Algorave phenomenon is strictly tied have been argued to be far from being overcome (Armitage, 2018).
Some of the events connecting these performers seems to be meaningful, and may be even considered as turning points in the construction of the collective, as evidenced by the fact that results the occasions in which part of these actors shares their first Algorave experience (e.g., the second Algorave aboard the MS Stubnitz in London), or collectively sharing an experience in another country (e.g., the Earzoom festival in Ljubljana).
Within the discussion, it has been argued that Algorave would have been possible to be intended as a mainly British phenomenon, considering both the number of the events and how these are interconnected by the share participation of performers. Nevertheless, by specifically considering only the events that were organized outside U.K. an interesting mechanism of expansion has emerged. Indeed, the key figures belonging to the carrier group participated not only to local events but also creates translocal connections, particularly in the first years, participating to first events within countries where no Algorave events have already been organised. In this sense, the centrality of their role is also reflected in the taking on the role of _‘travelling evangelists’_ (Gerlach, 1971), “criss-crossing” the live coding world and the musical universe “as living links in the reticulate network” (Ibidem, 823) of the Algorave collective. In other words, they favours the obtainment of cohesion within the emerging collective, bonding the participants while introducing them to the Algorave understanding of the live coding practice and its way of organising.
This widen the space for interested people to interact, who, in the years that followed, organise themselves to practise Algorave; both sharing locally their experience, favouring the emergence of local communities of adoption, through the repeated organisation of events in the area, shaping this practice to adapt it to local contexts, and by mean of translocal initiatives – such as the collective tours – representing occasions to meet with representatives of different communities and, while confronting individual experiences, to recognize each other as part of the same action, framing it as a collective experience.
This results in the formation of a collectivity which, event after event, or better said connection after connection, eventually constructed the Algorave collective action.