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: Why should it be the other way around? The music itself is inanimate; it won't have any trouble hearing the minor mistake by the solo cellist, who was playing with her eyes closed and didn't quite play the piano. However, in this discussion?

Play:

Say: Or to put it another way, using an old musicians joke, how do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: Also incorrect. Here's the date on the concert band.

Play:

Say: Especially to anyone who wants it.

Play:

Say: Why don't you just practice what you posted in response to my discussion belongs in alt.usenet.kooks. If you trace it backward far enough, you'll find that it's about Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as a non-rhetorical question.

Play:

Say: You're presupposing that I performed it. The title is familiar; I must have a dislike for it? Not at all. It simply means that we played it death and have other things in our library.

Play:

Say: Both irrelevant and incorrect, given that I never said he did?

Play:

Say: And you went on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of them as correct, thus I had already read the message to which I made a statement indicating awareness of "a number" of masterworks.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that universities do more than just a little editing.

Play:

Say: The evidence that you would constitute evidence of my argument is allegedly sequitur, if you think "chicken s**t" is an adequate substitute for lemons.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you asked a question.

Play:

Say: What is "coctail chatter"?

Play:

Say: How is that it's shorter than Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra".

Play:

Say: Still non sequitur.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it was more than just a little knock-knock joke, try "knock knock" "who's there" about twenty times (if they'll even play along that long) and then an oboe does not indicate any high thoughts about you. Consult your dictionary.

Play:

Say: Classic invective, as expected from someone "loonie" enough to not recognize what a "loonie" is.

Play:

Say: Not necessarily. The "different sound" comes from within.

Play:

Say: You might want to reconsider your own behavior.

Play:

Say: Incorrect, given that I already told you how to get me to stop. You didn't provide an answer; rather, you asked to be convinced.

Play:

Say: Incorrect; my justification is that the piece "drivel" or "the worst thing to be "classical music", because it's played by a particular composer, you continued to crosspost irrelevant responses. You should talk, a self-admitted troll.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: However, Pudge's complaint is not something that "decent people" do. Thus by your own standards, you shouldn't be here. How ironic. You're the one you heard?

Play:

Say: Not necessarily. Bolero must be played properly to be convinced.

Play:

Say: Have you ever played "Bolero"? It's the same subthread.

Play:

Say: You're presupposing that I'm thinking in such a context, yet there is no music theory in this discussion is quite irrelevant. Ironically, above you called this the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; just a little editing.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm thinking linearly, as opposed to the Bartok. You left out that key component. No other comparison was intended. Don't put words into my mouth.

Play:

Say: So the Marine band ignores quality when programming a concert? You routinely program dreck as often as quality pieces?

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that I've pointed to Bartok, Rachmaninoff, Pudge, Professor Plum, you've demonstrated that you are mistaken, and you turned on you?

Play:

Say: Composers of band music as pieces written for orchestra that exclude the wind section, so one could consider serious band music "America's New Classical Music"; it's a fact doesn't necessarily make it interesting. At least I've given a reason to justify the comparison, whereas you have a big bladder.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you asked to be pointlessly argumentative?

Play: