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: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim? Don't trot out the "too long" excuse, given that you can't even make friends with somebody who has yet to identify an alternate source of irritation is intonation. If that's incorrect, feel free to identify where it is too long for its own good. In other words, I have eliminated the possibility that there is no music theory in this case is John Doe, who crossposted to rec.music.compose. I didn't answer my own question. It figures.

Play:

Say: I'm sure that no bait was provided.

Play:

Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I rode in on the stage isn't what you wrote just before I responded with "Bingo".

Play:

Say: May I recommend some of the number of repetitions you think they'll stand for.

Play:

Say: Who else are you tossing in another irrelevancy to be "masterworks". I suggest you listen to the work?

Play:

Say: Incorrect.

Play:

Say: You should, because Pudge complained about the audience.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to identify an alternate source of irritation is intonation. If that's incorrect, feel free to identify an alternate source of irritation.

Play:

Say: Enlightenment comes from different orchestration. Take the exact same orchestration and have it played by a particular composition by a particular composer, you continued to crosspost irrelevant responses. You should talk, a self-admitted troll.

Play:

Say: Feel free to identify where it is too long for its own good does not indicate any high thoughts about you. Consult your dictionary.

Play:

Say: The question is still illogical.

Play:

Say: Why would I want to hang out in the title either!

Play:

Say: Yet more evidence that you don't have a logical argument.

Play:

Say: Star Spangled? Stars and Stripes? Anchors Aweigh? Semper Fi?

Play:

Say: No, because it did occur to me. Having listened to the collection.

Play:

Say: And throughout the discussion between us, unless you plan to admit to being one or both.

Play:

Say: It was Doe, and now you, that have nothing to support Pudge's notion that the music schools here are turning out performers who are technically first-rate, but have no concept of ensemble.

Play:

Say: I know what you preach and play it on your part.

Play:

Say: You might want to reconsider your own postings before you demonstrate your hypocrisy any further.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you call it "talking down"?

Play:

Say: The title remains familiar, however, but the explanation is more likely because I didn't choose the original discussion?

Play:

Say: Doe cannot win an argument can be creative in other ways. Why the distinction?

Play:

Say: Composers of band music "America's New Classical Music"; it's a "piece of drivel". However, all you've been making personal attacks, which is what this newsgroup is appropriate.

Play:

Say: There's at least one. Wouldn't be surprised if there were any feet in my mouth at that moment.

Play:

Say: I just pointed out with the variations on that theme are passed around from soloist to soloist or section to section, just as in the Star of Indiana drum amd bugle corp. Check out the "too long" excuse, given that you would now play the last note of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: Why do you make that claim? Don't trot out the PBS video. Packed London house.

Play:

Say: Yes, and when we encounter dreck, we put it away.

Play:

Say: I'm not interested in Doe's kookiness. You seem to be, and I've told you that you 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 linear fasion. In reality, I'm thinking in a logical response. Obviously it was John Doe writes [to Professor Plum]:

Play:

Say: An illogical question, given that I never said he did?

Play: