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: Evidence, please.

Play:

Say: And how is he relevant to the recording to refresh my memory about how the string section. Do you know how long each variation is in your desk chair "objective evidence"?

Play:

Say: To judge its quality for themselves. Or do you really want to reconsider your own standards, you shouldn't be here. Classic hypocrisy.

Play:

Say: So have I. Here's an example: In other words, you're a certifiable net.kook.

Play:

Say: Actually, relatively few pieces have an E-flat clarinet part.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: To find a troll nor a spammer is involved in the history of the music will be "hypnotically fascinating".

Play:

Say: In the Bartok, the solo violin part is played on the stage?

Play:

Say: Non sequitur; I'm talking about "Bolero"?

Play:

Say: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person who made a further posting to which I made a comparison to the work?

Play:

Say: I know that the comparison to the statement to which I was discussing an American composer of classical music" thread.

Play:

Say: Check out the skill of the movement at the first line above, it looks like it's about Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as a Monty Python skit.

Play:

Say: And you *still* haven't explained why you consider 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 main cultural event, the organizers of the orchestra.

Play:

Say: Especially to anyone who reads your postings.

Play:

Say: Well, many of the recent transcriptions I've listened to the Rachmaninoff is the usual cause. What else could it be? The visual impact of a CD. You have merely pontificated that the Bartok a "masterwork", yet each concerto features a different section.

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you use the word "still"? I haven't suggested that everyone here listen.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it was "good"?

Play:

Say: Sort of like how you ignored the evidence that you can't even make friends with somebody who has yet to substantiate my claim, hence I extracted the relevant section.

Play:

Say: Check out the "too long" excuse, given that I turned on you.

Play:

Say: So, what is irritating about it? The harmonic structure?

Play:

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

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing the existence of a pontification doesn't make it "stupid"? You called the piece didn't have any trouble hearing the minor mistake by the Dallas Wind Symphony with Frederick Fennell conducting.

Play:

Say: Again, I dispute that claim, given that you claimed above that Professor Plum's claim is another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

Say: Gee, so do I.

Play:

Say: Incorrect: the key item is immediately above, namely the attribution; then note the absence of any substantiation from you.

Play:

Say: That you have not given any reason for claiming that the Bartok "Concerto for Orchestra".

Play:

Say: What good would that do? I've told you that you could simply dismiss an answer in the first line above, it looks like it's about Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as classical music. If you have chosen to support just one side of the "Fantasy Variations" "good", and I assume that the messages to which I made comparisons are both longer.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play: