Hello Firstly, I’d like to say that I think it’s a brilliant piece and I’ve really enjoyed it. I’m just as drawn to modern languages as I am to the classical ones. As for the notation you’ve suggested, I think it’s fine as it is. In this context, as long as it’s clear, whether or not there are enharmonic alterations is a secondary consideration. I’m not sure what your intention was with this piece – whether it was to draw closer to the style of expression of that Second Viennese School, or rather to use a highly chromatic language in your own way. I say this because, although the absence of stable tonal centres is evident, the way this quintet is written departs from the typical characteristics of expressionism. Things that I believe are not characteristic (and I’m not saying this is either better or worse): the use of ‘homophony’, of several parallel lines—some doubled, others at different intervals. Expressionism, when it employs chamber ensembles, is essentially contrapuntal and pointillistic. There are sections that have that effect to a greater extent. Composing within this system is by no means easy. Many people think you simply take a twelve-tone row or whatever and start placing notes, inverted rows, retrograde rows and so on… But no. The tricky bit is mastering the language to the point where you know exactly what you’re doing, primarily to control the moments of tension and release. Furthermore, cadences – not understood in terms of the functional tonal system – are also important.