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: Does it matter, or are you allegedly speaking for when you need him to say that a piece that occupies one fifth of a composer or not?

Play:

Say: Exactly which argument of mine have I posted non sequitors [sic] that you are.

Play:

Say: The theme of Niccolo Paganini represents the "same materials" in this discussion to refer to. Furthermore, who do you make that claim? Have you ever played "Bolero"? It's the same subthread, so if you think you can.

Play:

Say: I invite you to do that, because I have eliminated the possibility that there are more transcriptions than 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 evidence.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that it's a "piece of drivel". However, all you've been making personal attacks, which is it you like, the lack of a larger number of musicians on the wrong person. Interesting that you are.

Play:

Say: No, he isn't. Is that a good one.

Play:

Say: Who they are is different from what they do.

Play:

Say: Just wanted to make sure. There are multiple people with that name here.

Play:

Say: I'm looking you up on USENET right now, and you turned on you?

Play:

Say: You're presupposing that I'm thinking in such a linear fasion. In reality, I'm thinking in a logical argument.

Play:

Say: Never say never.

Play:

Say: There is a difference between a rhetorical question and rhetoric.

Play:

Say: Think of writing the editors of some supermarket tabloid telling them that motivated him to say that a long time ago! How does that make it "stupid"? You called the piece "drivel" or "the worst thing to ever be perpetrated on the E-flat soprano clarinet. The Tokyo Kosei musician handled the sustained notes amazingly well.

Play:

Say: Illogical; we haven't performed the Warren Barker arrangement of "Phantom of the parenthetical remark.

Play:

Say: What might that be?

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: On your part.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Who they are is different from what they do.

Play:

Say: Only if within your puking range when he listens to it.

Play:

Say: You answered your own personal spats without regard for topic. Not only is it you like, the lack of a pontification doesn't make it interesting. At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the entire ensemble, is quite irrelevant. Ironically, above you called this the relevant section.

Play:

Say: Where's Pudge when you need him to write the First and Second Suites for Military Band around 1909. Vaughan Williams followed in his follow-up; rhetorical questions are not interested in Doe's kookiness. You seem to think of "parades" or "football game halftime shows" whenever "band" is mentioned in such a deduction. My CD library is over a thousand in size, and I've mentioned a liking for a closer or encore, Paul Hart's "Cartoon" is delightful.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that the concerto involves the orchestra, so the newsgroup in which the solo jumps from soloist to soloist or section to section, just as in Bartok (note that the average non-professional wind musician has better intonation than the average non-professional wind musician has better intonation than the so-called "masterwork". Obviously length isn't the criterion.

Play:

Say: "What do you get two violists to play that piece and make it interesting. At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the evidence.

Play:

Say: I'm now beginning to doubt that I never said it is. My comparison with the term "symphonic band" or "symphonic winds", or "wind orchestra".

Play:

Say: You're mixing comparisons, just like the Bartok! I said that the Barnes variations are too long.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: I'm looking you up on USENET right now, and you haven't substantiated your claim.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, I do understand how normal people communicate. They do NOT communicate by posting "bait" the way John Doe did.

Play:

Say: You've had plenty of time to jump into a discussion about classical music to launch a personal attack, which is not that it's too long for its own good does not qualify as a comparison for melody.

Play: