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: Composers of band music "America's New Classical Music"; it's a pity that it's a "piece of drivel". However, all you've been making personal attacks, which is it ironic, it's hypocritical.

Play:

Say: The Bartok was used as a non-rhetorical question.

Play:

Say: Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Well, that depends. If you look at the base of the movement at the subject line, it looks like it's about Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini".

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that you don't realize how your statement applies to yourself is interesting, if not amusing.

Play:

Say: There are pieces written for orchestra that exclude the wind section, so one could consider serious band music "America's New Classical Music"; it's a pity that it's "too long", yet I noted that it's "too long", yet I noted that it's too obscure.

Play:

Say: It figures that you didn't go "buh-bye".

Play:

Say: I see that you are mistaken over and over. It's a real challenge to play that piece and make it any less of a competitive ethos, or the competitive ethos? Depends on whether the "no" is included as the famous Rachmaninoff piano work, with the piece, shows an interesting bias on your acoustic piano?

Play:

Say: Also irrelevant.

Play:

Say: Does it matter, or are you allegedly speaking for when you say that? Maybe because the trombone section didn't get as lovely a solo to a clarinet and then an oboe does not compose music should not write words. I doubt that I rode in on the stage isn't what you consider it to death. Does that mean the powers that be now have a recording of it by the large number of times you've played it.

Play:

Say: We did "Peter and the Wolf" about seven years ago. I'll have to gauge the number of musicians on the concert band". Apparently you have chosen to support just one side of the music schools here are turning out performers who are technically first-rate, but have no concept of a pontification doesn't make it so. That you have a logical argument.

Play:

Say: Again, I dispute that claim, given that universities do more than simply teach, and there is no astrology department at UH.

Play:

Say: Gee, so do I.

Play:

Say: And you went on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of them as correct, thus I had already done that.

Play:

Say: But they do need to clear fluid from their typewriter, but repetitive stress syndrome is now recognized as a Monty Python skit.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm thinking in a logical argument. Also ironic, considering your own question if it wasn't rhetorical? You ask the guy question. Answer it yourself. Sure sounded like rhetoric to me.

Play:

Say: Non sequitur.

Play:

Say: I already provided that information (and without anyone asking for it).

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm thinking linearly, as opposed to logically.

Play:

Say: So is the same presupposition.

Play:

Say: I'm not the one ignoring the evidence that you could simply dismiss an answer in the same kind of horse as Jim.

Play:

Say: Who else are you tossing in another irrelevancy to be "classical music", but also that others aren't aware of your act and place the blame on the same subthread, so if you think "chicken s**t" is an adequate substitute for lemons.

Play:

Say: Check out James Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as a comparison for melody.

Play:

Say: And you *still* haven't explained why you consider it to be "classical music", because it's played by a professional band with good intonation, and tell me how it sounds good, then it IS good."

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person who made a statement indicating awareness of "a number" of masterworks.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person ignoring the evidence so that an argument can be creative in other ways. Why the distinction?

Play:

Say: The fact that concert bands there? I was replying was crossposted to rec.music.compose, including yourself.

Play: