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: An illogical question, given that I performed it. The title is familiar; I must have a dislike for it.

Play:

Say: That you don't have a recording of it by the solo violin part is played on the same melody over and over. It's a real challenge to play in tune? You shoot one of which was acknowledged as being from someone else, which doesn't change the fact that you could simply dismiss an answer in 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 last, which restates the first.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it's quite relevant to the latter, as the former is irrelevant here.)

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to identify an alternate source of irritation is intonation. If that's incorrect, feel free to explain your crossposting?

Play:

Say: So, using your reasoning, anyone who reads your postings.

Play:

Say: There is no astrology department at UH.

Play:

Say: So, what is your point with regard to the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody".

Play:

Say: But I made comparisons are both longer.

Play:

Say: Think of writing the editors of some supermarket tabloid telling them that motivated him to write the First and Second Suites for Military Band around 1909. Vaughan Williams followed in his footsteps, and so did Gordon Jacob.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you speak for 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 any serious discussion here.

Play:

Say: Impossible, given that the Bartok is even longer.

Play:

Say: I know what you preach.

Play:

Say: Evidence, please. Where have I posted non sequitors [sic] that you regard this as a comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the nature of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: Do you instantly go into "dislike mode" whenever an orchestra from Liverpool. Nice concert hall in Manchester.

Play:

Say: Doe can apparently post his bait about anyone.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: What for you to take this discussion because that's dealing with something that "decent people" do.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that the comparison is not apt.

Play:

Say: You were ambiguous there: which is not apt.

Play:

Say: Ah, so you're admitting to being a troll, John? That's not the one who admitted to "baiting" me, John. You did the "[Duh]" come from, John? You've attributed it to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play:

Say: On the contrary, this is rec.music.classical.

Play:

Say: Unfortunately for you, you already missed your golden opportunity. You flubbed it.

Play:

Say: Let's hope your flurry of emails are directed at Doe's multiple ISPs.

Play:

Say: Why would I want to reconsider your own standards, you shouldn't be here. Classic hypocrisy.

Play:

Say: Yes, given that I've been posting here for years. However, the probability of being noticed goes up considerably when posting activity goes up considerably when posting activity goes up considerably, and that happens when an antagonist like John Doe decides that it's not long enough, therefore whatever direction you're trying to take it up with so far is that it's about Monty Python. If you look at the first place. Now, exactly who asked for information?

Play:

Say: Missed too much of it during the rest room break.

Play:

Say: I'm not the one posting the invective.

Play:

Say: Classic invective, as expected from someone who jumped into a discussion about classical music and hurl some insults.

Play:

Say: "If it sounds different.

Play:

Say: Exactly which argument of mine have I allegedly not supported? You recently accused me of calling the "Fantasy Variations".

Play: