Perhaps the overall thrust of the piece was lost or unapparent when I showed three as-yet disconnected interactional elements, without the unification that would make the overall experience legible to the initial viewing in crit. Many of the critiques identified that the completed piece would likely be more understandable once all of its elements are unified.
The categories in the DAIE sequence are almost more useful for me in reading their collation than perhaps the writer themselves. Simple sections such as Description make apparent if I had communicated the actual content fully, whereas the act of writing those uneditorialized observations might be less of an opportunity for their own syntheses.
Sometimes certain fields were left blank, as if those were sacrificially difficult to complete amidst the conversation and the time constraint.
Some of the comments questioned if the piece was more an instrument to create melodies or a tool for exploring a prewritten melody. I built it for both, though I think that the method of granular synth allows a prewritten melody to be played as an “instrument”, as if the spatial structure and arrangement of the available notes afford the same ability of create melodies, even though their spatial pattern isn’t chromatic.
I received some good feedback that the sort of discrete structure-per-note situation with pianos etc might easily apply to this piece with multiple separate volumes with the full continuous mapping of each granulator, but each volume being discrete.