There are so many conventions if they work, they work - and almost certainly you'll find something historic that sort of justifies it. I often do music that just evolves and while similar, doesn't have repeated sections at or, or if it does, it might just be a little riff or repeated melody that pops back time after time. I've been arranging a piece of old Mozart. It's long, but is just a load of little shorter sections joined together. There are similar little themes, but played very differently - so it's not got the structure that is typical of that period in music. If you tell the story, then verses and chorus are irrelevant. Music has rules, and one is that you can break a rule if you do it well. Do it badly and the rule bites.
However - your piece does have verses and a chorus - the chorus being where the multiple voices come in for the first time. The snag in categorisation is because it's a rather repetitive composition. One chord stretches tolerance a little, especially as nothing really happens, and there really isn't a story is there? the little repeated wanna tell a story is fine. The only problem with this kind of music is it's a circular journey, there's no real end - it just stops.
In the second song - there are implied chords in there but what spoilt it for me was the rhythm of the vocal - it wasn't in time and sounded like it was recorded without the backing and just slapped on top. There was a line about the metronome - and ironically that might have helped you with the performance - it was all over the place timing wise which was a shame as the treated vocal sounded better than in the first recording.
