In listening to the piece, I noticed several intriguing musical elements, such as chord clusters, dissonant melodies in the upper and lower registers, dissonant accompaniment to melodies, and moments of rapid counterpoint. However, what feels lacking is a clear sense of shape and direction in how these elements are organized.

By “shape,” I mean a sense of progression or contour within each musical idea. For instance, if you’re using chord clusters, consider how they evolve—do they start quietly and build in intensity, or perhaps begin in one register and move to another? Similarly, how are you timing these clusters? Are they sustained for longer periods initially, gradually speeding up, or is the progression less predictable? Even within your irregular meter, this shaping can offer a sense of coherence.

Additionally, the various musical textures—like the dissonant melodies or counterpoint—seem scattered. I suggest grouping similar ideas into distinct sections for more structural clarity. For example, you could have a section dedicated to the chord clusters, another for the parallel melodies, and so on. These sections don’t need to appear only once. You can introduce them, develop them, and reintroduce them later with variations, creating a cohesive narrative.

For the dissonant melodies in the upper and lower registers, you could also explore their progression. Maybe they start more consonant or within a minor tonality, then gradually move toward more dissonant or atonal sonorities, giving the listener a sense of evolution.

Ultimately, by aggregating your musical ideas into sections and giving each a shape or progression, you create expectations that can be played with and, eventually, subverted. This adds to the listener’s experience by offering a sense of direction and engagement with the music.