I’ve been watching this thread and very nearly replied yesterday with one of my usual snarky comments about how much Bloom rocks as a concept and sucks as an implemented module. Figured I’d best spare you that one. 
re: the fine line between interesting and boring in generative - I too have found that exploration in itself interesting. I have a good family of pattern generators (and modules near to that general function) and occasionally find gold but more often find something from which I want to extract its generated pattern and then add/remove/adjust certain things to get to gold.
Most of these modules have sweet spots so narrow, and in some cases poorly mapped, such that, using Bloom as an example, you can arrive at something nearly like gold, think to turn a knob ever so slightly to perhaps find gold, and end up somewhere terrible without the ability to get back to where you were. Or just let it evolve and quickly go from gold to junk, again with no reasonable way back. Or, using Tuesday as an example, the sweet spots may be less narrow, which is appreciated, but the knob turns more often go from good to differently good or to more variably good (with some aspects having improved but others worsened) rather than from good to gold.
Bringing me, in part, to O_C, specifically the fork with TB-3PO. This fork in particular interests me because the seed is displayed on screen. If ever you hear gold, or even near gold, you can write down the seed or take a quick photo with your phone. Here in NerdSEQ, with whatever abilities it gains in this general area, it might not be convenient to save but at least one can easily clone the current pattern for safety.
I wonder if NerdSEQ might be best and most simply served by a couple of separate features which could be used together when wanted: The ability to generate pattern content, perhaps in a marked range, rather like Vector’s pattern generation. And the ability to permanently mutate aspects of a given row, via FX.
It might in practice fall somewhere between Vector’s overall capabilities and those of more dedicated pattern generators, but with the NerdSEQ flare of FX.
re: the fine line between interesting and boring in generative - I too have found that exploration in itself interesting. I have a good family of pattern generators (and modules near to that general function) and occasionally find gold but more often find something from which I want to extract its generated pattern and then add/remove/adjust certain things to get to gold.
Most of these modules have sweet spots so narrow, and in some cases poorly mapped, such that, using Bloom as an example, you can arrive at something nearly like gold, think to turn a knob ever so slightly to perhaps find gold, and end up somewhere terrible without the ability to get back to where you were. Or just let it evolve and quickly go from gold to junk, again with no reasonable way back. Or, using Tuesday as an example, the sweet spots may be less narrow, which is appreciated, but the knob turns more often go from good to differently good or to more variably good (with some aspects having improved but others worsened) rather than from good to gold.
Bringing me, in part, to O_C, specifically the fork with TB-3PO. This fork in particular interests me because the seed is displayed on screen. If ever you hear gold, or even near gold, you can write down the seed or take a quick photo with your phone. Here in NerdSEQ, with whatever abilities it gains in this general area, it might not be convenient to save but at least one can easily clone the current pattern for safety.
I wonder if NerdSEQ might be best and most simply served by a couple of separate features which could be used together when wanted: The ability to generate pattern content, perhaps in a marked range, rather like Vector’s pattern generation. And the ability to permanently mutate aspects of a given row, via FX.
It might in practice fall somewhere between Vector’s overall capabilities and those of more dedicated pattern generators, but with the NerdSEQ flare of FX.