But don’t act like its somehow superior to other kinds of music.

I wasn't, you are putting words in my mouth, I am absolutely aware that good musicians change the timbre of the instrument they are playing to express themselves but those things are usually considered the details, the flourishes, or embellishments of performance, not the core focus of the performance. All you need to do is take a cursory glance at sheet music to understand how most western genres of music perceive the experience and performance of music.

The first people to master this type of music composition and performance were likely didgeridoo players, or maybe it was players of some instrument in Chinese culture that I am unaware of since Chinese history goes back so far... so yah it ain't new.

Do it, the amount of fun you can have with modern software synthesizers and fx is off the wall.

To say it is a rabbit hole with lots of different challenging learning curves is an understatement but at the same time these things are just super powerful toys and surfing through the presets and trying out random sounds alone is immediately fun, you don’t actually need to understand a damn lick of it to have a blast.

With wavetable synthesis or granular synthesis you can take audio samples of thunder and inject them into an audio engine where you can warp and play around with the sound of thunder in ways you can’t even begin to imagine!

With concatenative synthesis you can literally do what you are saying because concatenative synthesis takes one audio file (let’s say a 5 min recording of a thunderstorm), breaks it into chunks and then attempts to recreate a second audio file you give it (a recording of a lute player) by reconstructing the chunks from the first audio file into composite sounds that best approximate the second audio file. This is a much more niche thing but it is realllllllly fucking fun thing to mess around with.

very jazzy

Well I'm sure it could be corrected but since it's about jazz maybe we shouldn't venture into that