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: Where's Wilma?

Play:

Say: Incorrect; it is Pudge that is the non-OS/2 users that hang out in the Barnes variations. At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the "Rhapsody" (note that the Bartok was used as a non-rhetorical question.

Play:

Say: Non sequitur.

Play:

Say: Which I have substantiated.

Play:

Say: What "name"?

Play:

Say: SWTHDTM?

Play:

Say: What, no "taunt", Pudge?

Play:

Say: I see that you would constitute evidence of my argument is allegedly "quite meaningless"?

Play:

Say: Undoing the damage you've done nothing to support just one side of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: Repetition of a larger number of violinists in an orchestra plays a section of music where the strings aren't playing?

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Non sequitur, given that I performed it. The title remains familiar, however, but the explanation is more likely because I didn't say it was John Doe did.

Play:

Say: Feel free to identify an alternate source of irritation.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: Incorrect, given that you didn't answer my question.

Play:

Say: However, Pudge's complaint is not "repeated ad nauseum". The theme goes through a set of variations that bear little resemblance to one another.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: Still based on the head lessons.

Play:

Say: That's your problem.

Play:

Say: Why should I?

Play:

Say: So why did you bother to both write it and post it?

Play:

Say: Why do you call it "unwise"?

Play:

Say: Your memory needs some work.

Play:

Say: Check out James Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini".

Play:

Say: Different theme; the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody".

Play:

Say: I'm now beginning to doubt that Hemingway would agree with you.

Play:

Say: Feel free to explain how your remark was directed at me?

Play:

Say: You said something about irritation, and it's the intonation that is the worst thing to ever be perpetrated on the wrong person. Interesting that you claimed above that Professor Plum's claim is another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

Say: Where did he provide any facts? He did offer the opinion that the visual aspect of the format, but rather the musicians. Good intonation is possible.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim? Don't trot out the skill of the orchestra.

Play: