) interspersed
with diamond (
) and cross (
) note heads. Play
in a manner that contrasts with the lecturer's attitude. Be mocking
or solicitous or calm or resigned or anything else appropriate.
Alternate sections are marked Say and Play. The Say sections are spoken or sung to an improvised tune in a stentorian and condescending manner, as a traffic court judge lecturing a recidivist speeder. Read as though the text makes perfect sense, even though its grammar and meaning may make sudden, unexpected turns.
The Play sections use an ordinary five-line staff
with oval note heads () interspersed
with diamond () and cross () note heads. Play
in a manner that contrasts with the lecturer's attitude. Be mocking
or solicitous or calm or resigned or anything else appropriate.
) indicates some non-standard noise, like
a multiphonic or a strum behind the bridge or a dropped drumstick or a cheese-grater arpeggio or something else. Use your imagination.
) indicates a note that is one semitone (in either
direction) different from the preceding note.
You can play in concert with other performers, who may play other versions of this piece, or other any other materials, composed or improvised. When playing with others, the Say sections should be performed as disruptively as possible, and the Play sections should be played sensitively, with utmost regard to enhancing the performance of the other players.
Say: On the contrary, a transcription is available for concert band.
Play:
Say: I said that you would constitute evidence of my argument is allegedly clear about someone who uses two different names?
Play:
Say: Incorrect.
Play:
Say: Again, I dispute that claim, given that you "had no idea"...
Play:
Say: Composers of band music do not use strings constantly. What most composers over the centuries have done is biased by the fact that concert bands there? I know that the comparison is restricted to how well or how badly you play it. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about the audience.
Play:
Say: No, he isn't. Is that a piece is too long for its own good. He simply pontificates that it's not long enough, therefore whatever direction you're trying to calibrate what you consider it to me, but I didn't choose the original discussion?
Play:
Say: How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to identify an alternate source of irritation is intonation. If that's incorrect, feel free to explain how your remark was directed at me?
Play:
Say: Where did I say that?
Play:
Say: Such as? (Just trying to calibrate what you wanted.
Play:
Say: Never say never.
Play:
Say: The aforementioned work qualifying, in my mouth at that moment.
Play:
Say: You should, because Pudge complained about the audience.
Play:
Say: Do you instantly go into "dislike mode" whenever an orchestra plays a section of music where the strings aren't playing?
Play:
Say: Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Play:
Say: Yet another attribution problem.
Play:
Say: Non sequitur; I'm talking about the claim that it's about Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as a Monty Python skit.
Play:
Say: May I recommend some of the parenthetical remark.
Play:
Say: That would be sufficient to justify the title.
Play:
Say: Irrelevant, given that I've pointed to Bartok, Rachmaninoff, Pudge, Professor Plum, Bill, Jim, and you.
Play:
Say: How so, given that the comparison is restricted to how the variation jumps from soloist to soloist or section to section, just as in Bartok (note that the trouble may extend to people who program the work several times, I have eliminated the possibility that there are more transcriptions than the "Fantasy Variations" "good", and I said that a good or a bad movie and then finally spring "Philip Glass" on them. Usually gets pretty good laugh, if they get that far. You'll have to listen to the statement to which I'm replying: Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:44:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:06:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:44:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:35:27 -0400 Now, let's look at the same melody over and over and over, and you haven't changed your antagonistic attitude.
Play:
Say: Is that how you ignored the evidence for your behavior to anyone who reads your postings.
Play:
Say: Illogical, as antagonists like Doe don't want to advertise to the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody".
Play:
Say: SWTHDTM?
Play:
Say: You prefer verbosity?
Play:
Say: And you're willing to accept my own evaluation of myself?
Play:
Say: How ironic, coming from the person ignoring the evidence so that an argument can be perpetuated.
Play:
Say: I dispute that claim, given that I made comparisons are both longer.
Play:
Say: On what basis do you say "we" don't mention a name?
Play:
Say: Yes, given that I made "that one".
Play:
Say: You have merely pontificated that the my discussion of a pontification doesn't make it so. Witness the thread titled "Professor Plum Gets Snippy!"
Play: