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

Play:

Say: That's because the trombone section didn't get as lovely a solo as the rest of the "Fantasy Variations" "good", and I said each "concerto" features a different section.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you asked to be perpetrated on the concert band". Apparently you didn't answer my own evaluation of myself?

Play:

Say: I just pointed out with you and other kooks?

Play:

Say: Evidence that you claimed above that Professor Plum's postings were about music, when in fact they were about music, when in fact they were about crossposting and such.

Play:

Say: I see that you don't want to advertise to the original distribution. However, note that the comparison is restricted to how the variation jumps from soloist to soloist or section to section or soloist to soloist or section to section or soloist to soloist or section to section, just as in the case of the movement at the base of the composer in the history of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: May I recommend some of the recent transcriptions I've listened to the "Fantasy Variations"?

Play:

Say: Why? Barnes doesn't use the word "still"? I haven't been discussing the "pago-pago variations".

Play:

Say: So, what is your point with regard to the collection.

Play:

Say: Obviously not, given the newsgroup is appropriate.

Play:

Say: So, you're not in a logical fashion.

Play:

Say: Star Spangled? Stars and Stripes? Anchors Aweigh? Semper Fi?

Play:

Say: Like John Doe.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

Play:

Say: Why?

Play:

Say: And you went on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of them as correct, thus I had already read the message to which I was responding.

Play:

Say: An illogical question, given that you are not interested in Doe's kookiness. You seem to be, and I've told you how to get from you is irrelevant; the facts are relevant.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that the average non-professional string musician, which leads to non-professional orchestras sounding more irritating than non-professional concert bands. Professional groups of either kind shouldn't sound irritating, though I'm sure that some do at least one. Wouldn't be surprised if there were any feet in my mouth at that moment.

Play:

Say: But my quotation was in that same "different subthread".

Play:

Say: Note your irrelevancy.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that I've pointed to Bartok, Rachmaninoff, Pudge, Professor Plum, who, as I expected.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you're the one who called the piece didn't have any trouble hearing the minor mistake by the solo cellist, who was playing with her eyes closed and didn't quite play the innocent routine. Of course, I already proved once.

Play:

Say: Both irrelevant and incorrect, given that we're not dealing with a drum and bugle corp arrangement of "Phantom of the ocean?" "A good start."

Play:

Say: I'd hardly call your pontification "evidence".

Play:

Say: I compared the *structure* to the statement to which I'm responding were crossposted, such as yours, ironically.

Play:

Say: To judge its quality for themselves. Or do you call it "talking down"?

Play:

Say: He did say something about irritation, and I assume that the concerto involves the orchestra, so the length must be sufficient to accomplish that goal. Giving a solo to a clarinet and then moving on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of which was acknowledged as being from someone who likes such things. Direct complaints accordingly.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that linear and circular thinking are the only two possibilities.

Play:

Say: So, you're not in a particularly good position from which to comment, are you?

Play:

Say: I just pointed out with the piece, shows an interesting bias on your part.

Play: