Edit: your stuff is beautiful btw. Less than an arpegiator, I think it's closer to 1/f or fractal iteration. I've spent the last few days working out a simila

Edit: your stuff is beautiful btw. Less than an arpegiator, I think it's closer to 1/f or fractal iteration. I've spent the last few days working out a similar hypothesis using a "fractal sequencer" module for my eurorack rig. (https://www.qubitelectronix.com/shop/bloom https://www.qubitelectronix.com/shop/bloom) Essential idea is it takes your sequence of notes, creates a bunch of branches that are essentially folds, and then iterates through them. The track linked is two sequences iterating the 1st 3rd 6th 8th of a scale across two different oscillators creating a kind of bleep-bloopy counterpoint in the background, and then adding a manual three note lead with some drum breaks and drops to tie it together. I wanted to see how different fractal randomness sounded from intentional complexity. (https://soundcloud.com/n-gram-music/beatrice https://soundcloud.com/n-gram-music/beatrice) It's still sounds random'ish because it plods, where a real composer would add intention, emphasis, and ornamentation, but it's still within the domain of clearly musical. I'd say it's based on minimalism and Arvo Part's tintinabuli method, but I think one should be an actual serious musician before making lofty claims like that. (I am not) However, this idea of whether there is a big difference between 1/f fractal complexity in a consonant set of notes, and actual human intent is interesting. I suspect Bach (and before him, Vivaldi) had an underlying system that was based on fractal iterations of each theme, which is what sent me down this (rather nutty) path, but the journey continues to amuse.