The more I listen to your music, the more it appears to be in a minimalist tradition. In the minimalist style, which is heavily influential in techno, the song begins with a theme, and then the theme is slowly transformed and added to do or sculpted down until it is completely different. In some minimalist songs, such as Philip Glasses's Metamorphosis 2, the theme builds on itself until the climax, when it begins to fall into its original form. This is also done is AFX's song Analogue Bubblebath.
I thoroughly enjoyed this song, and while I intuitively want to praise it for having counterpoint, I have to admit that I don't really have a technical appreciation of what counterpoint is. All I can say is that qualitatively the melodies work well together. I have to say that I don't really appreciate the noise near the end though. Creating disharmony is essential to the structure of a song, at least to my understanding, but there is a difference between controlled disharmony and noise. I think the song might have been a little bit stronger if the noise had been a bit more carefully designed and a little bit less "noisy".
On a slightly off topic note, I've always wondered why the fugue has fallen out of popularity in modern music. Does it require a concentration that one cannot give when in casual listening? Does it take too much time to appreciate (say, more than the three minutes that a music video has to win over its listener). Is it that the modern audience listens to less music and is less willing to take a risk?
> the song begins with a theme, and then the theme is slowly transformed and added to do or sculpted down until it is completely different
This is basically the only way I know how to write a song, which is a good reason why you hear it so often. The reason for this is basically because, 5 years ago, I said to myself "I'm going to master melody first, and then song structure." And then I figured out that no one has ever mastered melody. (Except maybe Sigur Ros, but I'm getting off topic!)
> I have to admit that I don't really have a technical appreciation of what counterpoint is
That's ok, neither do I.
> I have to say that I don't really appreciate the noise near the end though.
Neither do I actually! (I realized this about 2 minutes after I submitted) Conceptually though, I like the concept of blowing up a song, then pulling it all back together.
> On a slightly off topic note, I've always wondered why the fugue has fallen out of popularity in modern music.
I think all the points you gave are very valid. I like fugues, but they demand intense concentration, and they are incredibly difficult to write (I tried!). They are not really something I can put on in the background while programming or something. I think that music these days has sort of taken a backseat to other tasks, which is a big shift from how it used to be. You could probably write a paper on that topic actually... (This is how college has gotten me thinking)
> Is it that the modern audience listens to less music and is less willing to take a risk?
Maybe. I mean a few good bands these days are 'risky', but what does that really mean? That they throw a bit of distortion on the drums, or they have an awkward voice, or they use a violin? It would be cool to see a totally risky band throwing in elements of fugue, or classical music, but unfortunately rare. (Interesting to note: the band "maudlin of the well" actually has a semi fugue on the second song of their most recent album, but it stops before it actually gets full on, which is kind of a shame. Still, it's pretty cool.)
around 2;10 sounded more like noise than music and it gets boring fast
well, noise is music, but fair enough