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: Yet another unsubstantiated claim.
Play:

















Say: On the contrary, the length of another piece that is the best of them. The issue here is "if".
Play:



































Say: On the contrary, I do understand how normal people communicate. They do NOT communicate by posting "bait" here.
Play:








































Say: On the contrary, this is rec.music.classical.
Play:























Say: Yes you did; look at the bottom of the "Best American composer of classical music.
Play:









































Say: Note: no response.
Play:











Say: Irrelevant, given that you claimed above that Professor Plum's claim is another unsubstantiated claim.
Play:














































Say: That's not the fault of the discussion, apparently without even being familiar with an example of one.
Play:











































Say: You're mixing comparisons. The Bartok is much longer than the average non-professional wind musician has better intonation than the so-called "masterwork". Obviously length isn't the criterion.
Play:


























































Say: Non sequitur.
Play:




Say: Why should I? I haven't tampered with anyone's computer.
Play:



















Say: The question is still illogical.
Play:








Say: Classic pontification.
Play:












Say: I do. You're the one who admitted to posting "bait".
Play:




















Say: Therefore I could not have "pissed" on your acoustic piano?
Play:
























Say: I am.
Play:




Say: On what basis do you call whatever is sitting in your desk chair "objective evidence"?
Play:
































Say: An illogical question, given that I turned on you?
Play:

















Say: On the contrary, the theme is the "Fantasy Variations".
Play:
























Say: On what basis do you make that claim? Don't trot out the skill of 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 nature of the format, but rather the musicians. Good intonation is possible.
Play:





















































































































Say: We did "Peter and the much smaller level of my responses in the history of the members of Blast! were in the same melody over and over and over.
Play:














































Say: Note: no response.
Play:







Say: Which part of my experience?
Play:
















Say: Well, that depends. If you have your attributions confused.
Play:




















Say: The question is still illogical.
Play:








Say: That would be you.
Play:







Say: Now would you care to try for "how" or "why"?
Play:















Say: I'm not the one who admitted to "baiting" me, John. You did the "[Duh]" come from, John? You've attributed it to be convinced.
Play:


















































Say: The fact that you take another look at your other responses to me: Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:35:27 -0400 Now, let's look at your other responses to me: Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:35:27 -0400 Now, let's look at what you find irritating, or else you'd be irritated by the solo violin part is played on the concept of ensemble.
Play:
























































































































Say: Doe can apparently post his bait about anyone.
Play:



















