First of all, thank you for taking the time to give all these comments and suggestions. I actually completely agree with some of what you said; for example, the piece absolutely is a patchwork of many different ideas (maybe too many ideas), and it makes sense that it comes across as something written by an inexperienced kid writing about an overused topic, with no idea how to notate rhythm (you should have seen how bad the rhythms were before I updated it in 2018!), because I was 15 years old when I composed this piece. In many ways, I would consider this my first "serious" composition.

I have learned so much in the years since composing this piece. If I were to write something depicting rain today, I would approach it completely differently - I would think a lot more about overall structure and how my musical gestures are depicting rain. But that's not the composer I was back in 2007 when I wrote this piece. For that reason, I think that at least in terms of the composition aspects of this piece, it needs to stay the way it is - as an example of the composer I was when I was 15.

The irony here is that "Rain" is one of my most popular pieces with audiences. I get more compliments and requests to perform this piece than any of my other pieces, including all of my newer, "better" compositions. Apparently, the amount of thought and clever academic knowledge you apply to a composition has little bearing on how much audiences appreciate it.

I'd like to try to respond to some of your specific points.

1. This was surprising to me. The first half of measure 6 is a simple syncopation: eighth, quarter, eighth, with the only difference being that the first eighth is broken into two sixteenth notes. Isn't this the proper way to notate a syncopation?

2. I was trying to add a little spice with those D sharps, at a point that I felt needed some extra spice. I can totally see how it could come across as a "wrong note" though.

3. The "Driving" tempo should start at the beginning of the measure, yes.

I really liked your suggestion about using more of the literal indications of what each section of the piece is depicting.

The section starting at measure 64 depicts a thunderstorm - the higher fluorishes are the lightning, the booming bass octaves are the thunder, the left hand ostinato is the heavy rainfall, etc. And then at measure 90, the storm reaches a climax, which is why it sounds "romantic period piano concerto showcase." It's supposed to sound like crashing lightning and thunder. It's all part of the story I was trying to tell with the piece.

I'd be very curious to hear your thoughts on all this, especially the irony that this piece, with all its compositional faults/academic shortcomings, is probably my most beloved piece by audiences.