The drawings are more sophisticated than the generated music. For example-- there's a musical progression in the 2nd movement of Mozart's clarinet concerto whe

The drawings are more sophisticated than the generated music. For example-- there's a musical progression in the 2nd movement of Mozart's clarinet concerto where he has a fairly well-trod major key sequence constructed of a rising fourth in the bass that gets sequenced up in steps until hitting a very obvious cadence. Totally humdrum stuff. In fact you can hear many composers during Mozart's time and after using this progression. However, Mozart adds a trick-- at the end of each iteration he inserts a descending fifth bass pattern for a minor key that prepares the next step of the sequence. These two sequences progress in lock-step to the cadence, as if there were two completely independent progressions that are interleaved. Think the melody of "Baby, it's cold outside" but with harmony. The drawing for such a musical game is much more basic than what's shown in the examples. But the musical upshot-- e.g., what you hear as a listener-- is in a completely different universe of sophistication than the musical examples given. Yet the history of music is absolutely brimming with examples like the one from Mozart that I gave, from composers of all stripes. I think the process outlined here is too low-level to generate any kind of musical pattern of interest.