probably it is the illusion that makes the images so attractive and comparable with film or music. or it is the fact that you percieve something without to know how it is generated. you just interprete the fascinating effects - dynamic, contrast, form, size etc.

ok, whenever i wanna click onto something, safari tells me: link wasn't found. other than that, i like the first version much better. the second approach just reminds me of water.

the lightness and the many details of approach2 is what attracts me. the black background of nr.1 makes the images some kind of heavy. nr.2 two is much fresher. would really like to see approach one with a lighter background...

For me it's hard to say. I think approach one has more possibilities for differt kind of media, especially for live events and movies, etc. On the other hand I like very much the water images, because they're very soft and kind of erotic.

In terms of music, I think both of them could stand for differt kind of emotions differ from the kind of music.

the "water-stuff" is too "arty" and spiritual. it is misleading a bit. too important for itself. the "light-theme" is more powerful, more abstract and neutral, and a better basis for future applications and variations. colour as a key-paramter. – film is light. not water. music is not light but light could be a interesting visualization for music.
the choice is clear for me. keep on going guys... regards from stuttgart.

I see a lot more possibilities to work with lightning. Especially in moving pictures the possibility to change the time of apperance, brightness and color very fast makes approach no.1 my favorit one.