Hey Henry! I remember when you originally posted this piece on this site, and at first, I couldn't get past the awful instrument sounds, but I knew there was something great hidden behind those ugly sounds. So, what I did was I opened the score and I opened musescore 3 and I copied it by hand (only got through movement 3). Doing this, as well as listening to the older versions and reading their descriptions, really helped me to understand the structure of the piece, and its philosophical journey. And the piece is really masterfully conceived, especially structurally. Now there were issues with it, in particular, being a tonal piece, it had some counterpoint issues, and the instrument parts weren't written the most idiomatically either, but these issues you addressed in this revision. And this revision has its improvements, but... I fear it comes from an idea that the original was somehow lacking or "not good enough." I'm going to be honest; I still very much prefer the original version. I listened to the revision a few times now, and some of it just kind of disappoints me. I felt like the modulation into the second theme being shortened wasn't a necessary change and now feels abrupt to me. I thought the dissonance at m. 344 was really interesting without feeling out of place, and that was removed. What really disappointed me was the change you made to the retransition; why remove the dominant pedal for the beginning of the retransition and what is with that awkward clarinet note on 384? IMO it completely ruins the great momentum it had before. I'm also pretty confused why you notated many of the grace notes like this? Was it to fight the playback? It just really looks weird, and you're not consistent with it either, as you sometimes DO use actual grace notes. That being said, there are definitely some things I like. For example, adding pizzicato accompaniment to the cello solo in the exposition's transition was a good move, and I LOVE the additional chromatic lines at the end of the second theme. It's also good that you kept breath in mind for the clarinet and bowing for the strings this time. And overall, the counterpoint was improved (think it could still be better though U.U). I really do love this piece of yours, more than your sextet even, and I think you should be happier with it overall. Some composers here have criticized this movement for having too many ideas, being too long, etc. but I really think that they're just approaching this piece wrong. The piece is a philosophical journey, from point A to point B, and all the steps that you take are necessary for it to be as effective as it is. This movement in particular is tragic--it introduces several ideas and breaks them down. The second theme is derailed, the beautiful climax in the middle is derailed, and the surprising return of the second theme is derailed and corrupted. It's really effective, and really powerful and moving. You're like Mahler but for chamber music lol. I hope you appreciate my praise lol. And understand my issues with the revision may just be my own bias from having studied and loved this piece for so long. Seeing as the middle 2 movements, while also AWESOME, were imo the least polished, I look forward to seeing how you revise those :)