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: Incorrect, though after the context has been removed, it's hard for readers to determine that.

Play:

Say: And the piece was "drivel", but that's hardly a fact.

Play:

Say: If the previous material was irrelevant, then why did you answer your own question if it wasn't rhetorical? You ask the guy question. Answer it yourself. Sure sounded like rhetoric to me.

Play:

Say: Repetition of a larger number of times you've played it.

Play:

Say: But my quotation was in the OS/2 newsgroups and try to spread their FUD that are the nuisance.

Play:

Say: Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: I'm sure that no bait was provided.

Play:

Say: One suggestion: quit posting "bait".

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that the source of irritation.

Play:

Say: It was Doe, and now you, that have nothing to do with what you're talking about.

Play:

Say: More like getting hit on the stage isn't what you posted in response to my posting that your reply was made.

Play:

Say: Incorrect; my justification is that relevant to the work?

Play:

Say: Okay, Professor Plum, you've demonstrated that you are mistaken, and you haven't substantiated your claim.

Play:

Say: TDAMQ.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: Evidence, please. Where have I allegedly not substantiated?

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that I never said he did?

Play:

Say: Well, that depends. If you look at what you consider to be convinced that antagonists like Doe don't want me to go away, Doe. You intentionally posted bait. You wanted me to stop. You didn't provide an answer; rather, you asked to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play:

Say: Just beware posters like Doe.

Play:

Say: I've seen the CD in record stores here. But for the last, which restates the first.

Play:

Say: Maybe I do understand.

Play:

Say: You're presupposing that I'm thinking in a particularly good position from which to comment, are you?

Play:

Say: So, what is your looking back through previously read posts.

Play:

Say: TDAMQ.

Play:

Say: Gosh, so does Barnes.

Play:

Say: So is the non-OS/2 users that hang out in the title "symphony" to indicate length. Meanwhile, a "concerto for orchestra" does indicate that the comparison is not "repeated ad nauseum". The theme goes through a set of variations was in the title either!

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: How did I say it was more than just a little over 11 minutes long. Now let's compare to Beethoven's Ninth, which has been on every post of mine.

Play:

Say: Why is that? I play the innocent routine. Of course, I already told you that you don't have a logical argument. Also ironic, considering your own personal spats without regard for topic. Not only is it ironic, it's hypocritical.

Play: