Detailed Discussion of Score Behavior

This section should be treated as score-first rather than code-first. The earlier sections explain how the system is built. Here the focus should shift to what the generated or encoded scores actually do.

For Modus Operandi, the main points are movement shape, modal identity, and the relation between a clear melodic line and slow intervallic support. For Jazz Rhythmic Patterns, the main points are rhythmic identity, reuse, comparison across notated examples, and the choice to show those examples in a chart-like jazz hits notation rather than a more abstract rhythmic staff. For the quartets, the main points are density, register, pitch organization, instrumentation, and the contrast between No. 1 and No. 2. For the bird-based pieces, the main points are how source material survives translation. bird_im_migration should be read as a reduction from analysis data into short playable fragments, while bird_im_migration_ensemble should be read as a chamber work that keeps those fragments audible while surrounding them with piano and percussion layers that are not strictly spectral.

The two quartets deserve the closest reading. No. 1 should be discussed as the first stable proof-of-concept score. No. 2 should be discussed as an evolving branch whose main musical changes are concentrated in piano behavior. This includes chord generation, spacing, occupancy, and the gradual shift away from purely single-line keyboard writing. The two bird pieces also invite direct comparison. The first is relatively strict about its source material, and the second is more willing to treat the same source as motivic material inside a larger ensemble design.

In the final paper, this section should rely more on score figures than on code. Small code references are still fine when they explain a specific musical behavior, but the primary evidence here should be the engraved scores and, if useful, short notated examples.