It's been tough going with the analysis so far because I don't really feel comfortable correcting or criticizing composers who are in my opinion above me musically. Possibly I will just mention the positives that I notice about the songs:)

Analysisis not meant to be a comparison between the capacities of the critic and those of the author. Every listener is entitled to his humble opinion, even concerning the masterpieces of the greatest composers. George Bernard Shaw was certainly a better critic, with finer judgement, than was Glenn Gould, probably one of the greatest pianists of all time. You will find in The Unknown Container, criticism about the choice of meter in one of Bach's greatest and most revered fugues. For the beginner, Analysis is meant to be a spontaneous, gut-feeling, appraisal of what one hears. The important thing is to send in the scores (technical and artistic). At first, comments and justifications are optional and need not necessarily be included. On receiving the Results Page, you will not only be able to compare your score with the average already tabulated, but also see our analysis, our comments, and our scores. This is the moment when your comments are the most appreciated, concerning fairness, clarity, and possible improvement in the work examined. Please send in your scores. It will always be time for comments later.

I find Analysis very helpful : 1) for the more advanced as a control and confirmation of proper analysis, 2) for the more beginner -like me- it is a very stimulating learning tool, full of valuable directives and advice. I hope you will continue with it for a long time and with all sorts of songs.

We have many more songs lined up. When they appear will depend on the interest which is manifested.

When are you going to post "Stardust"?

We hope to shortly. Have you sent in your scores for the existing 3 songs?

The whole process of Analysis seems both preposterous and pretentious. How can a music theory, even if it is generative, dare to judge the quality of a piece of music? What makes you think your theory is perfect? Before I give up on the whole thing, I'll try to be fair and ask you what you mean by "double" Quality Control and what it has to do with Analysis.

We understand your position and hope that defining double Quality Control will help to clarify things.

Let's look at an example. The buyer of a used car must bring it to a chosen garage to have it put in good condition in order to be granted insurance protection. The garage examines the car and recommends certain repairs thus offering Quality Control of the car to the insurance company. After the car is repaired, the owner drives the car to see if the changes are perceptible thus offering Quality Control of the garage. If he notices improvements (less noise, better pick-up, better maneuverability) the expense has been worthwhile, and he knows that the garage is a good one.

The same double Quality Control also applies here. When a piece of music is analyzed, the process offers Quality Control of the piece. After changes are made, one can compare the sound of the result with that of the original to see if the changes are perceptible and above all if they are advantageous, if they make the piece sound better, thus offering Quality Control of Analysis itself, of how efficient and fair it is. For a participant, like yourself, this comparison is a kind of "test-drive" of the Analysis "repairs".

All we can ask is that you give it a try with the 3 songs in the Showcase. In the meantime, please accept all our thanks for your interest. BTW we do not think of our work as being primarily a music theory but rather the scientific presentation of an observed natural phenomenon.