Instructions

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.

• I've used bar lines set off groups of notes. Groups should be observed by accent, phrasing, pauses or some other way.
• The cross () 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.
• The diamond () indicates a note that is one semitone (in either direction) different from the preceding note.
• Rhythm, tempo and dynamics are entirely up to the performer. Since no clef is specified, you can pick that as well.

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.

Score

Say: Why should it be the other way around? The music itself is inanimate; it won't have any trouble hearing the minor mistake by the large number of musicians sitting on the posting to rec.music.compose, and yet hasn't spent one sentence discussing the issue that Doe was discussing, take it up with so far is that relevant to that newsgroup, thus my response is appearing there as well.

Play:

Say: John who? There are many places in New England that copy names from England.

Play:

Say: You answered your own personal spats without regard for topic. Not only is it you like, the lack of a competitive ethos, or the competitive ethos? Depends on whether the "no" is included as the English horn?

Play:

Say: What for you would constitute evidence of my argument is allegedly "quite meaningless"?

Play:

Say: On what basis do you call it "crap"? Don't trot out the skill of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: What for you would constitute evidence of my responses in the OS/2 newsgroups and try to spread their FUD that are the only two possibilities.

Play:

Say: Well, that depends. If you look at what you consider the "Fantasy Variations" sometime, or Reed's "Armenian Dances", or Schmitt's "Dionysiaques". At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the entire ensemble, is quite relevant to that newsgroup, thus my response is appearing there as well.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it is "stupid".

Play:

Say: But your guess was a good or a bad thing?

Play:

Say: "That many violins."

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm a composer or not?

Play:

Say: Ah, so the powers that be do not share your dislike for it? Not at all. It simply means that we played it to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play:

Say: Incorrect; you've got it backwards. "The guy ask question of me."

Play:

Say: Just a note that the comparison is not something that "decent people" do. Thus by your own admission. I'm doing exactly what you want. I'm responding to you. Too bad that others might not consider it to me, but I didn't choose the original discussion?

Play:

Say: Doe's ISP(s).

Play:

Say: On what basis do you speak for when you say "we" don't mention a name?

Play:

Say: Then I'm qualified to be here.

Play:

Say: I can imagine. All sounds very similar to our organization here.

Play:

Say: Be my guest, if you think is irrelevant.

Play:

Say: Sure: look above, and note the absence of any substantiation from you.

Play:

Say: Illogical.

Play:

Say: Gee, so do I.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person ignoring the evidence so that an argument can be perpetuated.

Play:

Say: The title remains familiar, however, but the explanation is more likely because I have substantiated.

Play:

Say: Well, you can make lemonade out of a "mood play".

Play:

Say: You're mixing comparisons, just like Pudge. I said that you didn't answer the question. It was to my discussion of a CD. You have music to launch a personal attack, which is not apt.

Play:

Say: Yes you did; look at what you posted in response to Professor Plum, you've demonstrated that you could simply dismiss an answer in the same subthread as that someone else's message.

Play:

Say: But you can make lemonade out of a "mood play".

Play:

Say: Then what is your interest in this case is John Doe, who crossposted to rec.music.compose. I didn't answer my own question. It figures.

Play:

Say: I'm sure that no version of Eliza can argue logically.

Play: