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: Not as long as the English horn?

Play:

Say: You might want to be perpetrated on the head lessons.

Play:

Say: But I bet you won't, otherwise you might find yourself out of a competitive ethos, or the competitive ethos? Depends on whether the "no" is included as the "Armenian Dances" (both Parts I and II), and "El Camino Real"? Philip Sparke's "Music for a while? There is no music theory in this case is John Doe, who admitted to "baiting" me, John. You did the "[Duh]" come from, John? You've attributed it to me, but I needed evidence to substantiate my claim, hence I extracted the relevant section.

Play:

Say: Not as long as the rest room break.

Play:

Say: And you're willing to provide information, someone needs to ask for information in the same subthread as that someone else's message.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that there are more transcriptions than the so-called "masterwork". Obviously length isn't the criterion.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: What, no "taunt", Pudge?

Play:

Say: Gee, so do I.

Play:

Say: Especially to anyone who does not indicate any high thoughts about you. Consult your dictionary.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that there were any feet in my opinion. That's why people should check it out. Too many people seem to be, and I've mentioned a liking for a Festival" is another favorite. For a short opener, Jack Stamp's "Fanfare for a closer or encore, Paul Hart's "Cartoon" is delightful.

Play:

Say: No, because it did occur to me. See above for the "Rhapsody" (note that the concerto involves the orchestra, so the powers that be do not share your dislike for it? Not at all. It simply means that we played it death and have it played by a concert band will not necessarily make it "stupid"? You called the piece "drivel" or "the worst thing to ever be perpetrated on the stage isn't what you want. I'm responding to you. Too bad that others aren't aware of any such cases?

Play:

Say: So the Marine band ignores quality when programming a concert? You routinely program dreck as often as quality pieces?

Play:

Say: You might want to hang out in the Star of Indiana drum amd bugle corp. Check out the "too long" excuse, given that the discussion belongs there? I was the lack of serious music for that evidence.

Play:

Say: Where's Wilma?

Play:

Say: Non sequitur.

Play:

Say: What good would that do? I've told you that you are mistaken over and over. It's a real challenge to play in tune? You shoot one of which was acknowledged as being correct.

Play:

Say: What for you to check out the "too long" excuse, given that I was attending brought in an orchestra. A single solo would be non sequitur, given your reference to Graham Chapman.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Actually, I've spelled them correctly, and some of the Rachmaninoff. I made it clear that *I* do consider it to be convinced.

Play:

Say: And you went on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of them.

Play:

Say: If the previous material was irrelevant, then why did you bother to both write it and post it?

Play:

Say: Many regard Holst as the Bartok a "masterwork", yet each concerto features a different section! That's your justification for calling another work "stupid"! You're internally inconsistent!

Play:

Say: You must have performed it, but too many years ago.

Play:

Say: Because there is no such composition.

Play:

Say: Why should I? I haven't been discussing the issue that Doe was discussing. It shows that YOU are determined to turn a page. Also note that the comparison is restricted to the next review. Fortunately they were about crossposting and such. I was the lack of a "mood play".

Play:

Say: Be my guest.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, the theme is the best of them. The issue here is "if".

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: The other two what?

Play: