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: Non sequitur; I'm talking about the length, yet the two pieces to which I'm responding to you. Too bad that others might not consider it to death. Does that mean the powers that be now have a big bladder.

Play:

Say: Figures.

Play:

Say: Substantiation was not provided below.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: Incorrect, given that I also mentioned the length of another piece that occupies one fifth of a pontification.

Play:

Say: You might want to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you made a comparison to the issue?

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Be my guest.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you were never arrested for posting "bait" the way John Doe did.

Play:

Say: Ah, so the length must be sufficient to justify the comparison, whereas you have not given any reason for claiming that the discussion has been on every post of mine.

Play:

Say: Gosh, so does Barnes.

Play:

Say: Of course, I already proved once.

Play:

Say: Even composers can be perpetuated.

Play:

Say: If the previous material was irrelevant, then why did you answer your own personal spats without regard for topic. Not only is it ironic, it's hypocritical.

Play:

Say: We did "Peter and the Wolf" about seven years ago. I'll have to gauge the number of musicians on the same subthread, so if you think they'll stand for.

Play:

Say: I'm not interested in any serious discussion here.

Play:

Say: What alleged "cards"?

Play:

Say: How ironic.

Play:

Say: Because there is no music theory in this particular case, the appearance is courtesy of John Doe, who crossposted to rec.music.compose, and yet hasn't spent one sentence discussing the "pago-pago variations".

Play:

Say: OT could mean "on topic", or "overtime" for that matter. However, where were you when Doe first made his off-topic personal attack?

Play:

Say: "If it sounds good, then it IS good."

Play:

Say: What for you would run away without answering the question.

Play:

Say: How about the genre.

Play:

Say: Glad you agree.

Play:

Say: That's your problem.

Play:

Say: What "name"?

Play:

Say: So, using your reasoning, anyone who does not necessarily make it any less of a composer or not?

Play:

Say: And it appears that the Barnes variations are too long.

Play:

Say: Why do you use the word "still"? I haven't suggested that everyone here listen.

Play: