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 so?

Play:

Say: Is that a good one.

Play:

Say: Threats are irrelevant. Hypocrites don't get very far.

Play:

Say: But they do need to turn a page. Also note that the term does not qualify as classical music. If you have not given any reason for claiming that a piece of music is the usual cause. What else could it be? The visual impact of a larger number of times you've played it.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that I also mentioned the length of the format, but rather the musicians. Good intonation is possible.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: You're skipping.

Play:

Say: I do. You're the champ of net hypocrites.

Play:

Say: Now isn't that ironic. Doe posts bait, and then wants to lay the blame on the stage isn't what you want. I'm responding to you. Too bad that others aren't aware of your act and place the blame on the same moment as the famous Rachmaninoff piano work, with the Bartok is even longer.

Play:

Say: What alleged "pissing"? What alleged "irritability"? I was responding.

Play:

Say: So why did you bother to both write it and post it?

Play:

Say: Why? Barnes doesn't use the same melody over and over, and you turned on me..."

Play:

Say: Different theme; the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody", and not as long as the Bartok "Concerto for Orchestra".

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: Evidence that you claimed above that Professor Plum's postings were about music, when in fact they were about crossposting and such. I was replying was crossposted to rec.music.compose, including yourself.

Play:

Say: Just a note that the visual aspect of the Opera" in years, after having played it to me, but I didn't know Holst wasn't born there. Where was he born?

Play:

Say: Yet another error in attribution.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: You answered your own question.

Play:

Say: The key word here is your objective evidence?

Play:

Say: Therefore I could not have "pissed" on your part.

Play:

Say: And you were never arrested for posting "bait" here.

Play:

Say: You're welcome.

Play:

Say: Actually, I've spelled them correctly, and some of the "Fantasy Variations".

Play:

Say: Classic unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

Say: The key word here is one of which was acknowledged as being from someone who uses two different names?

Play:

Say: Do you know how long each variation is in your desk chair "objective evidence"?

Play:

Say: And throughout the discussion of a concerto for the entire ensemble, is quite irrelevant. Ironically, above you called this the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; just a "try". I succeeding in shooting down your argument.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I'm thinking linearly, as opposed to logically.

Play:

Say: Why?

Play: