study(desire): the bass is a metronome with a stutter — four rhythmic alternatives (#31)

PLN: "i gotta solve desire bassline is not great rythmics coulld be cooler more nto
more ete_a_mauerpark or insouciance or haunted_house i guess."

Read the three references he named and extracted what they share. The diagnosis turns
out to be mechanical rather than a matter of taste. desire's d4 is

    note (scale "aeolian" "0 . 0*<1 2> . <0 3> . 0*<1 1 4>" + 2 - "[24,36]")

— four EQUAL groups, the same degree in nearly all of them, never a rest, never
displaced. The only variable is density, applied to a repeated note. That is a
metronome with a stutter, and no amount of filter movement makes it a riff.

The six mechanisms both references use and desire has none of:
 1. uneven durations via `@` (insouciance 5:1:1:1 of 8; mauerpark 1:1:14 of 16) —
    one long note holds the harmony, short notes carry the motion;
 2. the pitch pattern IS the rhythm pattern, so a new note is a new onset, instead
    of a static degree with density stacked on top;
 3. calage — `(0.125 <~)` displaces the whole line so it pushes against the kick
    rather than doubling it;
 4. accent follows rhythm — `|* gain ("1@5 0.95 0.98 0.95")` carries the SAME
    weighting as the notes;
 5. space — rests inside the phrase and whole bars masked out;
 6. the phrase is longer than the bar (4-bar alternation, plus `slow 2`).

Four proposals in study/desire_bass_rhythm.tidal. A, B and C each isolate ONE
mechanism so what he hears is attributable; D combines all six. Pitch design is held
constant everywhere — aeolian, +2 root, "[24,36]" double — because the key was
measured at corr=0.903 and is not what he is unhappy with.

All four verified through silent-eval --seeded: they compile and every one emits
events cold. Measured onsets per bar: B 3.0, A 4.0, C 4.5, D 5.75, against ~5.5 for
what desire has today. D is deliberately DENSER than the current line and still
reads as a riff — which is the control that shows the problem was never "too many
notes", it was where they fall and how long they last.

desire.tidal is untouched: it is in his dirty working tree, and it also does not
currently compile at all (#108).

study/desire_bass_rhythm.tidal

+-- desire — bass RHYTHMICS study (#31)
+--
+-- PLN, 2026-07-29: "i gotta solve desire bassline is not great rythmics coulld be
+-- cooler more nto more ete_a_mauerpark or insouciance or haunted_house i guess."
+--
+-- This file is a BENCH, not a patch. desire.tidal is untouched: paste one d4 at a
+-- time over the real one and listen. Pitch design is held constant throughout —
+-- aeolian, +2 root (D), doubled at "[24,36]" — because the key was measured
+-- (corr=0.903) and is not what he is unhappy with. Only the rhythm moves.
+--
+-- ============================================================================
+-- WHAT THE CURRENT LINE ACTUALLY DOES
+-- ============================================================================
+--
+--   $ note (scale "aeolian" "0 . 0*<1 2> . <0 3> . 0*<1 1 4>" + 2 - "[24,36]")
+--
+-- The `.` splits the bar into FOUR EQUAL groups. Each group is the same note (0)
+-- either once or burst into 2/4 copies. So:
+--
+--   * every onset lands on a quarter-note grid — no syncopation, no offset;
+--   * nothing ever rests — all four beats always sound;
+--   * pitch is static (one `<0 3>` alternation in the whole bar);
+--   * the ONLY thing that varies is density, via `*<n>`, on a repeated note.
+--
+-- That is a metronome with a stutter. It is not a riff, and no amount of filter
+-- movement will make it one. The diagnosis is mechanical, not a matter of taste.
+--
+-- ============================================================================
+-- THE GRAMMAR THE THREE REFERENCES SHARE (and desire has none of)
+-- ============================================================================
+--
+-- Read from live/midi/nova/techno/ete_a_mauerpark.tidal (d4 "Basse Germanique")
+-- and live/midi/nova/beatober/oct_16_haunted_house_insouciance.tidal (d4 "Basse
+-- convaincante"). Six mechanisms, and they are the same six in both:
+--
+-- 1. UNEVEN DURATIONS via `@`. The bar is not divided evenly.
+--      insouciance:  note "<c3 ...>@5 ef3 d3 <ef3 ...>"     -> 5:1:1:1 of 8
+--      mauerpark:    note "[g4 c ef@14]"                    -> 1:1:14 of 16
+--    One long note holds the harmony; short notes carry the motion.
+--
+-- 2. THE PITCH PATTERN *IS* THE RHYTHM PATTERN. Both put the rhythm inside
+--    `note "..."`, so a new note is a new onset. desire keeps them separate —
+--    a static degree with density stacked on top — which is why it reads as
+--    "the same note, faster" instead of as a line.
+--
+-- 3. CALAGE. `(0.125 <~)` in mauerpark (and `(0.125 ~>)` on insouciance's d7):
+--    the whole line is displaced an eighth so it pushes against the kick instead
+--    of doubling it. desire sits exactly on the grid.
+--
+-- 4. ACCENT FOLLOWS RHYTHM. insouciance: `|* gain ("1@5 0.95 0.98 0.95" * 1.1)`
+--    — the SAME 5:1:1:1 weighting as the notes. desire has a flat `gain 1.15`.
+--
+-- 5. SPACE. mauerpark rests inside the phrase (`[c ef d@13 ~]`) and drops whole
+--    bars (`mask "<t!2 f t f f t t> f t@14"`). desire never stops.
+--
+-- 6. THE PHRASE IS LONGER THAN THE BAR. Both run a 4-bar `<a b c d>` and
+--    mauerpark adds `slow 2` on top. desire's alternations resolve inside one bar,
+--    so there is nothing to wait for.
+--
+-- ============================================================================
+-- FOUR PROPOSALS. A, B and C each isolate ONE mechanism, on purpose — so what
+-- you hear is attributable. D is the combination. Try them in order.
+-- ============================================================================
+
+
+-- --- A --- WEIGHT: long root, three movers. (mechanism 1 + 4)
+-- Same eight-unit bar as insouciance's bass: the root holds 5/8, then three
+-- quick degrees walk. Nothing is displaced and nothing rests yet, so if THIS
+-- already fixes it, the problem was only the even grid.
+d4 $ gF2 $ gM3
+  $ midiOn "^45" (# crush 6)
+  $ note (scale "aeolian" "0@5 0 <2 3> <1 0>" + 2 - "[24,36]")
+  # "bassWarsaw" # voice 0.05
+  # lpf (range 300 1800 "^32") # resonance 0.2
+  |* gain ("1@5 0.94 0.98 0.92" * 1.15)
+
+
+-- --- B --- GESTURE: two pickups into a long hold, displaced. (1 + 2 + 3 + 6)
+-- Mauerpark's actual shape: 16 units, of which the last note holds 14. The
+-- 4-bar alternation gives the phrase somewhere to go, and the eighth-note
+-- pull-back is what stops it doubling the kick. This is the biggest change of
+-- the four — expect it to feel like a different track, which is the point.
+d4 $ gF2 $ gM3
+  $ midiOn "^45" (# crush 6)
+  $ (0.125 <~)
+  $ note (scale "aeolian"
+      "<[0 3 0@14] [0 <2 4> 0@14] [3 0 2@14] [0 3 <0 -3>@13 ~]>"
+      + 2 - "[24,36]")
+  # "bassWarsaw" # voice 0.05
+  # lpf (range 300 1800 "^32") # resonance 0.2
+  # gain 1.15
+
+
+-- --- C --- SPACE: keep the current figure, but let it breathe. (5 + 6)
+-- The minimal-risk option, and the one to reach for if A and B both feel like
+-- too much six days out. Identical vocabulary to what is in desire today — the
+-- only additions are rests and a bar that drops out every fourth time round.
+d4 $ gF2 $ gM3
+  $ midiOn "^45" (# crush 6)
+  $ mask "<t t t [t@3 ~]>"
+  $ note (scale "aeolian" "0 . ~ 0*<1 2> . <0 3> . ~ 0*<1 2>" + 2 - "[24,36]")
+  # "bassWarsaw" # voice 0.05
+  # lpf (range 300 1800 "^32") # resonance 0.2
+  # gain 1.15
+
+
+-- --- D --- ALL SIX. Weight + gesture + calage + accent + space + 4-bar phrase.
+-- The `ply` on ^45 replaces the old crush-only gesture with a roll that fires
+-- ONLY on the short notes (insouciance's trick: the ply pattern carries the same
+-- weighting as the notes, so the long root is never chopped).
+d4 $ gF2 $ gM3
+  $ midiOn "^45" (ply "1@5 1 <1!3 2> 2" . (# crush 6))
+  $ (0.125 <~)
+  $ someCyclesBy "^33" (mask "<t!3 [t@5 ~]>")
+  $ note (scale "aeolian"
+      "<[0@5 0 <2 3> <1 0>] [0@5 3 2 0] [0@5 0 <2 4> 3] [0@3 ~ 0 <3 2> <1 -3>]>"
+      + 2 - "[24,36]")
+  # "bassWarsaw" # voice 0.05
+  # lpf (range 300 1800 "^32") # resonance 0.2
+  |* gain ("1@5 0.94 0.98 0.92" * 1.15)
+
+
+-- ============================================================================
+-- NOTE ON CONTROLS: every proposal keeps d4's mapped controls exactly as desire
+-- has them — ^45 (B3 gesture) and ^32 (the lpf knob) — so none of these changes
+-- the surface, and none needs a remap before the gig. D repurposes what ^45 DOES
+-- (crush -> ply+crush) but not which control it is.
+--
+-- VERIFY before pasting:  python3 tools/silent-eval.py --seeded study/desire_bass_rhythm.tidal
+-- (all four d4s are declared here, so the harness checks each one emits events.)
+--
+-- MEASURED (silent-eval, 64 cycles, seeded; events halved for the "[24,36]" double):
+--
+--     current desire d4   ~5.5 onsets/bar   all on the quarter grid, no rests
+--     A  weight            4.0 onsets/bar   even count, uneven DURATIONS
+--     B  gesture           3.0 onsets/bar   sparsest — two pickups and a hold
+--     C  space             4.5 onsets/bar   same vocabulary, rests added
+--     D  all six           5.75 onsets/bar  as busy as today, but weighted+displaced
+--
+-- Worth reading before you listen: D is *denser* than what desire has now, and A
+-- and B are much sparser. If the complaint were "too busy" the fix would just be
+-- fewer notes — it isn't, and D is the control that proves it. What is missing is
+-- WHERE the notes fall and HOW LONG they last, not how many there are.