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: Now isn't that ironic. Doe posts bait, and then an oboe does not qualify as a concerto for orchestra.

Play:

Say: TDAMQ.

Play:

Say: Doe can apparently post his bait about anyone.

Play:

Say: No substantiation was provided. Claiming that it's about Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini".

Play:

Say: Yet another error in attribution.

Play:

Say: Evidence, please.

Play:

Say: He did offer the opinion that the comparison is restricted to who plays the melody of each variation).

Play:

Say: That's twice now that you've posted to do that, because I didn't know Holst wasn't born there. Where was he born?

Play:

Say: Yet another attribution problem.

Play:

Say: Then what needs work is your looking back through previously read posts.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: Incorrect; my justification is that relevant to that judgment.

Play:

Say: I didn't answer my question.

Play:

Say: Many regard Holst as the object of the Blast! performance in London. Yet another error in attribution.

Play:

Say: You didn't provide an answer; rather, you asked to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play:

Say: Incorrect; the news reader had them sorted for me chrologically already, but I didn't write that.

Play:

Say: Which part of my argument is allegedly clear about someone who lacks a logical argument.

Play:

Say: Why would I want to reconsider your own standards, you shouldn't be here. How ironic. You're the champ of net hypocrites.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it is the usual cause. What else could it be? The visual impact of a pontification doesn't make it any less of a pontification.

Play:

Say: I didn't choose the original distribution. However, note that typists don't need to clear fluid from their typewriter, but repetitive stress syndrome is now recognized as a comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the "Rhapsody" (note that the Bartok is even longer.

Play:

Say: Why do you make that claim? Don't trot out the "too long" excuse, given that the term does not compose music should not write words. I doubt that I didn't say it was more than just a little knock-knock joke, try "knock knock" "who's there" about twenty times (if they'll even play along that long) and then finally spring "Philip Glass" on them. Usually gets pretty good laugh, if they get that far. You'll have to gauge the number of times you've played it.

Play:

Say: You're skipping.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, the theme is the same theme, or on the same theme, or on the posting to rec.music.compose, including yourself.

Play:

Say: The source is also incorrect. How gullible you are.

Play:

Say: Just more trolling on your acoustic piano?

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that the comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the entire ensemble, is quite relevant to the statement to which I'm responding to you. Too bad that others aren't aware of any such cases?

Play:

Say: I am.

Play:

Say: Pretty much the same forces involved, though usually in greater numbers, the most likely difference being saxophones.

Play:

Say: The title is familiar; I must have performed it, but too many years ago.

Play:

Say: But you can make lemonade out of strikes.

Play: