Self-aggrandizment has always seemed undignified, empty and to be honest, difficult for me.  It demonstrates to my way of thinking, a recklessness and insensitivity bordering on adolescent. It could be argued that it's a munition essential to the creation of a Barnum Effect and endemic to the discipline of marketing. I value and advance a certain  kind of irrefutability through self-evidence. Still, people remain curious as to how someone has arrived at where they are. 

My considered  opinion is that all that I've done for forty years is for the most part, uniform, predictable and has conformed to system paradigms. Additionally, music and the experience thereof, tends to operate with a certain degree of “illegitimacy" compared to academic and business circles. Much of its institutions are “street” and known mostly to select groups. Outside of super-stardom, references are at best obscure and at least irrelevant. 

Further, the majority of the material in which I've been engaged has been accessible and mainstream. While many of the fundamentals of this music have been quite useful to my musicianship, they mainly serve as a baseline set of rules.

I wonder if a page like this is even still necessary. I began at a time when there was no online world and the music industry (such as it could be repeatedly understood) was still operating under it's early gestative systems of it's post-Beatle development. We all know what changed that. I predicted in early 1994, that it was going to be very difficult for the next musical paradigm-shift to manifest because to my way of thinking, every pocket genre had already been exploited. The standards had entropically reached what I felt was their most chip-level parameters. But, I was only thinking in musical terms. I could never have seen that the next shift was going to be technological. It was the “next step in our evolution.” And, it was going to direct art in all manner of broad-sweeping and scattered directions. At last, I was going to be able to say what I needed to say and have some chance of that being evaluated, and maybe even considered valid. 

For me, production is no other-worldly and totally “Amadeus” reflex-action. 

There seem to be two separate streams. Both are instrumental. A flashy, literary or journalistic description might say they are: Pocket storms of Isometric studies in counterpoint or overlapping washes of sound.

The first, has its impetus in some strains of kosmiche musik – which is clearly evidenced in the repeating figures of which it's constituted. 
It’s designed, for cues and sync-points in film. 
Short, repeating figures are positioned over each other to create chordal and rhythmic “perturbances.” The ear identifies at seemingly unpredictable points,  dissonances and displaced rhythms which approximate multidimensional textures. Minimal effects are used here as the emphasis is on note clarity. 
Other sounds include long, “washes” of sound which spell chords in an impressionistic way. The composition is still linear in that there are structural forms that are familiar. Much like the first stream, voice-leading still occurs in ways that are conventional. The information (notes) are treated with effects to resemble water-colors or pastels.