Fundamental Question (Score 1)

Actually, it's not only music a mathematician could have written, it's also an interpretation only a mathematician could reach. In contrast to what this guy calls perfect lack of repetition the music doesn't lack all repetition. It merely lacks a very distinct property. As I understand it, the special thing about that piece is that not any two subsequent notes differ in the same amount of frequency. Analogous the rhythm. So first of all are trivial and obvious patterns of repetition left: e.g. you will find many times two notes where the second is higher than the first. Or you will find passages, where the tones are de- or ascending, maybe even tied with a similarly shaped rhythm (think of relatively fast or slow sequences). And then there are also properties of sound, which cannot be expressed in formal languages as in modern musical theory. In fact, I would argue that there kinds of music in the world, whose point cannot be expressed by classical formal musical theory. The takeaway or the crucial perspective should be here, that your listening to music is always an act of construction. You will read sense or pattern or intention or whatever you want into music, depending on your socialization, your mood or your capabilities. People will tend to simplify more complex phenomena by means of more general concepts (high following high instead of the actual and precise note pitch and so on). So this interference of mathematics is not so provocative after all. If you can't find a point in this music - fine. But that does not depend on a single and not even most prominent mathematical property.