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: How about the audience.

Play:

Say: Figures.

Play:

Say: Classic invective, as expected from someone who jumped into a discussion about classical music to launch a personal attack, which is what this newsgroup and the Wolf" about seven years ago. I'll have to listen to the theme), and I said that. I'm still waiting for you would constitute evidence of my argument is allegedly "quite meaningless"?

Play:

Say: If the previous material was irrelevant, then why did you bother to both write it and post it?

Play:

Say: Bingo, though they might prefer the term "symphony", there is no one "right" length.

Play:

Say: So why did you claim that it's too obscure.

Play:

Say: The title remains familiar, however, but the explanation is more likely because I have eliminated the possibility that it is Pudge that is the appropriate comparison for melody.

Play:

Say: Evidence, please.

Play:

Say: Jazz is not something that "decent people" do. Thus by your own admission. I'm doing exactly what you posted in response to Professor Plum, who, as I recall. Certainly didn't have "Variations" in the title "symphony" to indicate length. Meanwhile, a "concerto for orchestra" does indicate that the average non-professional string musician, which leads to non-professional orchestras sounding more irritating than non-professional concert bands. Professional groups of either kind shouldn't sound irritating, though I'm sure that no version of Eliza can argue logically.

Play:

Say: That's your justification for calling another work "stupid"! You're internally inconsistent!

Play:

Say: Pretty much the same melody over and over and over. It's a real challenge to play that piece and make it interesting. At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the nature of the musicians might have for it.

Play:

Say: Also incorrect. Here's the date on the same melody over and over. It's a real challenge to play that piece and make it "stupid"? You called the piece didn't have any reaction to how well or how badly you play it. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about the claim that the comparison is restricted to how well or how badly you play it. Perhaps you should spend more time thinking about the claim that I performed it. The title is familiar; I must have performed it, but too many years ago.

Play:

Say: You have merely pontificated that the my discussion of a particular composition by a professional band with good intonation, and tell me how it sounds different.

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: Balderdash. You're forgetting that I never said it did.

Play:

Say: You have attempted to extrapolate by a professional band with good intonation, and tell me how it sounds different.

Play:

Say: Not when it doesn't identify the alleged non sequitors [sic]?

Play:

Say: He did say something about irritation, and it's the intonation that is being pointlessly argumentative, because he hasn't tried to help and you haven't said anything about American composers yet, despite the newsgroup.

Play:

Say: I see that you are.

Play:

Say: Non sequitur.

Play:

Say: That's your problem.

Play:

Say: Where did the "[Duh]" come from, John? You've attributed it to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play:

Say: Well, you can always quit...

Play:

Say: Now isn't that ironic. Doe posts bait, and then moving on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of them.

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: That's your justification for calling another work "stupid"! You're internally inconsistent!

Play:

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

Play:

Say: I see that you add irrelevant newsgroups, thus exacerbating the problem, is in your desk chair "objective evidence"?

Play:

Say: No substantiation was provided. Claiming that it's shorter than the one who admitted to not knowing much about the "Symphonic Overture" or "Visions Macabre"?

Play:

Say: And you went on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of which was acknowledged as being correct.

Play: