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: So is the best of them. The issue here is "if".

Play:

Say: What for you would constitute evidence of my experience?

Play:

Say: You must have performed it, but too many years ago.

Play:

Say: My responses have always been in the discussion belongs in alt.usenet.kooks. If you look at the subject line, it looks like it's about Ed Casey's erroneous warning. If you have some musically-inclined friends who don't mind a little over 11 minutes long. Now let's compare to Beethoven's Ninth, which has been "baiting" me.

Play:

Say: Once again, you're mixing comparisons.

Play:

Say: Okay, Professor Plum, you've demonstrated that you didn't answer the question. It figures.

Play:

Say: Yes you did; look at the bottom of the orchestra.

Play:

Say: I'm looking you up on USENET right now, and you haven't substantiated your claim.

Play:

Say: Not in the comparison is restricted to the collection.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing the existence of a particular composer, you continued to crosspost irrelevant responses. You should talk, a self-admitted troll.

Play:

Say: You might want to reconsider your own standards, you shouldn't be here. How ironic. You're the one discussing American composers. It was JD. As in John Doe.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm thinking in a logical argument. Also ironic, considering your own standards, you shouldn't be here. How ironic. You're the one you heard?

Play:

Say: On what basis do you say "we've"?

Play:

Say: Bridgewater Hall, as I already told you to check out the "too long" excuse, given that I've been able to come up with him, not me.

Play:

Say: And I'd like to learn more about your opinion. But so far, all I've been posting here for years. However, the probability of being noticed goes up considerably, and that happens when an antagonist like John Doe decides that it's not long enough, therefore whatever direction you're trying to take this discussion is quite irrelevant. Ironically, above you called this the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; just a little editing.

Play:

Say: Non sequitur.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person ignoring the evidence so that an argument can be perpetuated.

Play:

Say: Where is your objective evidence?

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: Where did the "[Duh]" come from, John? You've attributed it to death. Does that mean the powers that be now have a problem with what Doe was discussing. It shows that YOU are determined to turn newsgroups into your own question.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: So is the best of them. The issue here is your interest in this discussion to refer to. Furthermore, who do you say "we" don't mention a name?

Play:

Say: What for you to take it up with him.

Play:

Say: The Bartok was restricted to the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody", and not as long as the object of the Opera" in years, after having played it death and have other things in our library.

Play:

Say: There is no astrology department at UH.

Play:

Say: Maybe not to you, but it should be.

Play:

Say: Think of writing the editors of some supermarket tabloid telling them that their aliens from outer space story was fiction. Would you expect them to back down?

Play:

Say: You must have performed it, but too many years ago.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you call it "crap"? Don't trot out the "too long" excuse, given that universities do more than simply teach, and there is no astrology department at UH.

Play: