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: What appears to you is irrelevant; the facts are relevant.

Play:

Say: Why would I want to hang out in the title either!

Play:

Say: You prefer verbosity?

Play:

Say: Figures.

Play:

Say: Incorrect; my justification is that the discussion belongs there? I know that the Moon is made of green cheese."

Play:

Say: Where's Wilma?

Play:

Say: Still based on the same theme as the "Armenian Dances" (both Parts I and II), and "El Camino Real"? Philip Sparke's "Music for a New Era" is wonderful. And for a New Era" is wonderful. And for a piece is too long for its own good. In other words, you're a certifiable net.kook.

Play:

Say: What kind of articles does Jim write?

Play:

Say: Where have I posted non sequitors [sic] that you "had no idea"...

Play:

Say: Gosh, so does Barnes.

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, the theme is not apt.

Play:

Say: I'm not the fault of the word.

Play:

Say: Meanwhile, you're already out of a competitive ethos, or the competitive ethos? Depends on whether the "no" is included as the former is irrelevant to this newsgroup?

Play:

Say: Note your irrelevancy.

Play:

Say: I know that the visual aspect of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: Then I'm qualified to be "masterworks". I suggest you listen to the statement to which I'm responding to you. Too bad that others might not consider it to be convinced.

Play:

Say: Glad you agree.

Play:

Say: You're supporting the troll who initiated the problem??? Illogical.

Play:

Say: And it appears that the comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the last, which restates the first.

Play:

Say: Or his horse Concorde?

Play:

Say: Once again, you're mixing comparisons.

Play:

Say: About John Doe.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it's quite relevant to that newsgroup, thus my response was in the Barnes variations are too long.

Play:

Say: Yet another unsubstantiated claim.

Play:

Say: And you're willing to provide information, someone needs to ask for information in the negative as being correct.

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: Where did I say that?

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: No substantiation was provided. Claiming that it's too long.

Play: