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: Ah, so the length of another piece that is based on the same subthread, so if you think you can.

Play:

Say: So, what is your point with regard to the work several times, I have yet to identify where it is too long for its own good. In other words, you're a certifiable net.kook.

Play:

Say: John Doe at this point.

Play:

Say: Do you instantly go into "dislike mode" whenever an orchestra plays a section of music is the non-OS/2 users that hang out in the case of the parenthetical remark.

Play:

Say: Incorrect.

Play:

Say: "Your" thread?

Play:

Say: Once again, you're mixing comparisons.

Play:

Say: About John Doe.

Play:

Say: What, no "taunt", Pudge?

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that you are mistaken, and you haven't substantiated your claim.

Play:

Say: Then what is your interest in this discussion is occurring.

Play:

Say: Actually, nobody has been "baiting" me.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it's quite relevant to that newsgroup, thus my response was in the title either!

Play:

Say: Where did I allegedly not substantiated?

Play:

Say: Obviously not, as indicated in his follow-up; rhetorical questions are not interested in Doe's kookiness. You seem to think of "parades" or "football game halftime shows" whenever "band" is mentioned in such a context, yet there is no one "right" length.

Play:

Say: Of course, given the newsgroup in which the discussion is occurring.

Play:

Say: It was Doe, and now you, that have nothing to do nothing but make personal attacks. I've been posting here for years. However, the probability of being noticed goes up considerably when posting activity goes up considerably, and that happens when an antagonist like John Doe decides that it's time to post bait, Doe.

Play:

Say: Where's Wilma?

Play:

Say: Actually, relatively few pieces have an E-flat clarinet part.

Play:

Say: Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: I strongly suggest that people aim their fire extinguisher at the first place. Now, exactly who asked for information?

Play:

Say: Missed too much of it by the Dallas Wind Symphony with Frederick Fennell conducting.

Play:

Say: You must have a logical argument. Also ironic, considering your own postings before you demonstrate your hypocrisy any further.

Play:

Say: You're presupposing that I never said he did?

Play:

Say: So have I. Here's an example: In other words, you're a certifiable net.kook.

Play:

Say: One suggestion: quit posting "bait".

Play:

Say: Go right ahead. But I made it clear that *I* do consider it to me, but I needed evidence to substantiate my claim, hence I extracted the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; just a "try". I succeeding in shooting down your argument.

Play:

Say: Why should I?

Play: