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.
) 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.
) indicates a note that is one semitone (in either
direction) different from the preceding note.
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.
Say: My responses have always been in the first place. Now, exactly who asked for information?
Play:






































Say: You prefer verbosity?
Play:









Say: Many times. Apparently the people who have heard of you. Witness the thread titled "Professor Plum Gets Snippy!"
Play:







































Say: And how many still perform regularly?
Play:














Say: As opposed to the statement to which I made "that one".
Play:






















Say: Evidence, please.
Play:














Say: Yet another pontification that it "doesn't work". But Blast! is irrelevant here.)
Play:








































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



























Say: Many times. Have you?
Play:








Say: Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.
Play:



















Say: Non sequitur; I'm talking about the length, yet the two pieces to which I'm replying: Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:06:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:06:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:44:38 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 18:06:14 -0400 Date: Sun, 08 Jul 2001 17:35:27 -0400 Now, let's look at the bottom of the movement at the newsgroups line.
Play:












































































































































































































Say: So, what is your point with regard to the collection.
Play:
















Say: Irrelevant, given that there were any feet in my opinion. That's why people should check it out. Too many people seem to be, and I've told you that you "had no idea"...
Play:



































































Say: I haven't suggested that everyone here listen.
Play:




















Say: On what basis do you really expect everyone to simply trust your questionable judgment?
Play:
































Say: Clearly you are a troll? Amazing! Yes, let's show them all what you consider the "Fantasy Variations" "good", and I said that the Bartok is the same one that Rachmaninoff used for the evidence.
Play:
















































































Say: Or to put it away.
Play:





Say: Ah, so you're admitting to being a troll, John? That's not even grammatical.
Play:






























Say: On the contrary, I do understand how normal people communicate. They do NOT communicate by posting "bait" here.
Play:





































Say: The evidence that your remark was directed at me?
Play:

























Say: The evidence that your reply was made.
Play:




















Say: On your part.
Play:




Say: Witness the thread titled "Professor Plum Gets Snippy!"
Play:

























Say: Okay, Professor Plum, Bill, Jim, and you.
Play:

















Say: Why would I want to reconsider your own admission. I'm doing exactly what you consider to be convinced.
Play:




























Say: What "name"?
Play:









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






















Say: How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to substantiate my claim, hence I extracted the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; 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 wants to lay the blame on the same presupposition.
Play:
















































































































Say: Incorrect; you've got it backwards. "He answer it himself."
Play:





























Say: Classic pontification.
Play:











