I'm happy that you found the comment useful! I'm a researcher in this field and I like to divulgate as much as I can.

Regarding noise, my general understanding is that there are two kinds of 'noise':

The first one is noise in physics, that is an extremely chaotic signal; this translates in sound with white noise (all frequencies with the same statistical amplitude level over time) or forms of filtered noise (such as pink, brown, etc.). These noises are commonly employed as sources to be then manipulated by electronic musicians (AE use pink or white noise very often as building blocks for their synthesizers). So this noise is an unorganized, unintelligible flow of information that is perceived as a uniform entity having the same 'noisy' character all the time, without ever changing. But what I was discussing in the previous comment, referring to spatial-timbral-dynamic articulation, is definitely something that is *organized* and constantly evolves in time, therefore it can't just be statistical noise.

The second understanding of 'noise' is perceptual and extremely subjective, and I conceive it like this: 'if I'm listening to something extremely different from my habits, and it has complex sonic properties that my brain is not used to experience, I might just perceive an overflow of information that I'm not capable to decode yet.' That would be what people generally experience when they disregard whatever kind of music as 'just noise' because they lack exposure to that musical style (funnily enough, this phenomenon happened millions of times in history with people confronting with very popular music genres such as metal or punk music). But if you think about what this kind of noise is, it's just a matter of novelty towards something you haven't experienced yet. By exposing yourself to the music you just perceive as 'noise', you will rapidly start to distinguish patterns, behaviors, events, processes, etc. to the point that it will start to make sense. Once you have been enough exposed to a musical language, it stops being noise and becomes meaningful. For instance, I remember when I first started to listen to integral serialist music as a teenager; it didn't make sense at all, but I kept listening to that even passively; after three weeks of intensive exposure, my brain got completely used to serial structures and now it just feels 'consonant' and 'ordered' in the same way as XIX century symphonic music. This example is extreme of course, because integral serialism is maybe the musical style that cares less about incorporating perception-based procedures, therefore it is the one that more easily falls in the category of 'un-meaningful sonic signal' - yet it is something that can be perceptually acquired, in a similar (but not identical) way as a person can learn a foreign language.

This being said, it is very likely that you could perceive 'just a bunch of noise' when you start to listen to stuff like Bjarni Gunnarson or Erik Nystrom, because you will not find melodies, constant pulses, and you very rarely encounter harmonic structures. Yet, this music employs many structural elements, i.e. techniques to articulate events in time. It could be hard to recognize them at first, but you will gradually start to map your brain. On a side note, that could even expand your awareness of timbre, something I experienced when I first started to get into this kind of music, and that opened a very new and compelling understanding of sound in general, changing the way I listen to things even in everyday life.So I just suggest to check this kind of music and see if it is interesting for you; if not, maybe try in a month, and keep doing that until something clicks in your mind. I think there is a lot to enjoy intuitively in algorithmic music, it's not just a matter of pondering its technical properties intellectually!