Thanks again for your feedback, Dan and Rob. As I alluded to earlier, this is a piece I’ve been playing, on and off, from memory for several years, and so I have very particular tactile/emotive ideas about how it is/should be played, which is a primary source of my perhaps overly particular prose. Since there isn’t a ton happening note-wise in it, I see those nuances as key to what makes it what it is. But I suppose that some of those subtleties are so subtle and in my head that even if the performer didn’t do them “just so” the actual result for the listener wouldn’t be that different. And there’s certainly something to be said for “letting the piece go” to an extent and leaving it to the performer’s artistry. With that said, just a couple responses/follow-ups to your points:
–When you mentioned that a pianist can’t decresc on a long held note, are you referring to, for example, mm. 1-2? Do you see that the top notes in each hand do change (i.e., not all the notes are tied)? Does that affect your opinion there? And, in fairness, I do believe Beethoven has been known to have crescendi on held piano notes, for what it’s worth!
–what do you mean when you say you “reset” text and dynamics? And when you did that, did that fix issues such as the collision of the decresc. and the notes in m. 6, or did you do something else to accomplish that?
–I generally do attach dynamics to the top staff, but in measures 9-10 I attached to bottom because I only want the crescendo to occur in the bottom/bass notes. However, since that’s the only thing “happening” at this point, I guess it doesn’t matter either way.
–Never knew you could attach anything as a “suffix” to dynamic marks! I’ve been basically doing all manner of added text by hitting shift-x, and then manipulating the size, style and placement of the text in various ways.
–Indeed, the “growl” is meant to be a cluster of all pitches from B1 down. The asterisk was connected to a footnote I wrote explaining that which, as always seems to be the case, got pushed off/disappeared somehow. I think the best way to show this would be to have a solid black block(?) rather than actual noteheads, but this was the closest I could come up with.
–for m. 16, all notes in the upper staff are to be played by RH. I struggled with the rhythm quite a bit trying to find how to express exactly what I typically do there, but the results were insanely complicated and still didn’t sound quite right. And although if someone played the rhythm as written perfectly in time, with no rubato, it would not sound right, the rhythm on the page, along with some way of showing the push/pull of the tempo (hence the accel – molto rites.) seems to be the best solution. And the last note of the tuplet is meant to go more or less directly into the next note without slowing down – it creates sort of a “spliced” effect of a flash of sound and then a very abrupt shift to a calm, gentle chord.