I strongly disagree but the funny thing, that's what I *expected* to find when I got ready for the first spin. Aside from a few moments, though, I actually feel almost the exact opposite: orchestra use is smartly understated, often subtle yet very well-developed -- definitely not "monophonic" and I wouldn't call it novice-level writing by any stretch.

I'll come back with a bit more of a breakdown later on how I hear it.

One thing I'd suggest: I think we sometimes have a tendency as music listeners to say, "X is involved -- why didn't 'they' use X more?" -- similar to the "lean into your strengths" argument you're making.

But why not take a piece on its own merits wholly, esp. when dealing with artists we particularly respect? In other words, we either like it or we don't, we find it interesting or we don't, we think it's great or we don't, or sophisticated or not --- but accept as a basic premise that it is whole in itself, not lacking because it is not something else, or because it did not use all of its parts in the way we expect it to.

In this case, we respond to the piece as we do but why reach to say -- "they should have used Sanders in such and such a way"? Clearly they had a vision here -- we can take it and appreciate it or dismiss it as is without playing armchair producer in our listening and critique.

-thebigfunk

~ i could still snort you under the table ~