We don ' t give advice on illegal activities . You ' re going to have to look elsewhere . <| sep |> That a great picture ! I ' m surprised the photographer didn ' t look at it and decide to charge you twice as much , it ' s just that good . <| sep |> this was pretty fun <| sep |> That ' s not new theory . It ' s just a new algorithm for creating music . I don ' t consider that theory . That ' s something separate . That ' s trying to program a method to create music , which is not what theory is . That ' s a thing people often conflate , imo . To me , if we look at normal language to make an analogy , Let ' s say music is like building engines . Music theory would be naming all the parts and fitting them all together in certain ways to make certain types of engines . Engines that work . We have named all of the components , and their sort of roles that they perform in the engine . That ' s theory . We have noticed that some parts can fit with other parts , and through learning that we have been able to even built sort of , odd contraptions that still sort of function , even though they are strange . We have also had people that purposefully ignore the workings of engines with these parts and make things that don ' t work at all , but they still call them engines . We have fit the components in every way they can fit , and we have fit them even where they don ' t fit . Now , that is not to say we have designed every engine that could be designed . It is also not to say we have designed every engine using every possible method . You could roll dice to choose how parts fit together , or create this algorithm or that one . The possibilities are endless there . But , at the end of the day , all of the things of music have already been named and discovered . All of the components , and how they work together , and how engines work , has been discovered . Any method you use to put it together will not uncover something else that ought to be named . No new components . It might yield a new sort of engine we ' ve never seen before , but of course that is possible . This particular example , I think will yield some weird monstruosity nobody will care about beyond the method used to create it though . There are still many fantastic engines that could be built , and fascinating ones that are very musically pleasing . But there will not be new components . Music theory is not how to build engines to me . That is the mistake people make . It is the name of the components , and how they fit together . How to build engines is something separate . It is art . People could develop algorithms for it , and systems like you linked to , but that is something different . That is creating a system that creates music . It is a method to build engines , but is nothing about the engines themselves . Theory is this is a belt , it does this This is a gear , it does this this is shaft , it does this It is not follow this set of axioms and you will have built an engine . or this is how we build engines . These things are very different . How to build engines , and what engines ought to be built , and how they should perform and all that is fully at the discretion of the artist , that ' s the art of it , and that still has tremendous room to grow . Even with systems like the one you presented , but I am less interested in those . That ' s not art to me , really . For me , the art of music is to deliberate create something because of what it is , because of how we perceive it . Some novelty method like that , to me is not really anything to do with music , or art . It ' s just a sonic representation of mathematics .