First and foremost, I think it's a wonderful idea to include a series of variant handlings of the same trick. I've never seen anything like this in a magic magazine. Studying the development of the methods is a great way to bring home the old Al Baker (I think) dictum that most magicians stop thinking too soon.
So I applaud this bold move. More of this kind of out-of-the-box chance taking.
I would certainly have enjoyed it more had it been a different trick. I don't understand Kling Klang at all -- it doesn't seem to make any sense or reflect any external reality that can be incorporated into a presentation that means anything.
I realize that some magicians just don't care about their magic having any meaning, and I'm not here to tell them they're wrong. But I think that a trick should be at least amenable to this kind of presentation, whether you choose to use it or not. I can't see any way to present Kling Klang as anything other than a meaningless puzzle.
I also wish it were a trick with more variety in its methods. The 16 variations add up to, ultimately, very little variety.
My biggest wish, though, is that you would repeat this idea but instead, present 16 different presentations of the same trick. After all, your presentation has a much bigger effect on the audience's reaction than does your method, and most magic performances are much more lacking in presentation than they are in method.
I realize that these suggestions may not be practical -- after all, you didn't really choose Kling Klang, it was in a sense chosen for you by its presence in Stephen Minch's new book. But you did ask for HONEST opinions. I can't be more honest than that.
Still I don't want these criticisms to overshadow my enjoyment of the article and my respect for your decision to be bold.
P.S. Does anybody make a Stodare egg with a hinged flap that can click in place over the hole, so you can show it on all sides, toss it in the air, etc.?