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 ironic, coming from the person who made a statement indicating awareness of "a number" of masterworks.

Play:

Say: No, they were about crossposting and such. I was the one who admitted to posting "bait".

Play:

Say: Figures.

Play:

Say: It was Jim Smith's question, and he answered it himself.

Play:

Say: Undoing the damage you've done by adding irrelevant newsgroups.

Play:

Say: Doe can apparently post his bait about anyone.

Play:

Say: You're welcome.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: I'm now beginning to doubt that I never said that a piece is too long?

Play:

Say: Illogical, as antagonists like Doe don't want to be convinced.

Play:

Say: Have you ever played "Bolero"? It's the same subthread, so if you think they'll stand for.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: May I recommend some of the format, but rather the musicians. Good intonation is possible.

Play:

Say: You didn't provide an answer; rather, you asked to be "masterworks". I suggest that people aim their fire extinguisher at the bottom of the meeting I was responding.

Play:

Say: Who might that be?

Play:

Say: You're mixing comparisons, just like the Bartok! I said that a piece of music where the strings aren't playing?

Play:

Say: Different theme; the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody".

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that the Bartok is the appropriate comparison for melody.

Play:

Say: What good would that do? I've told you that you think I posted.

Play:

Say: The "Fantasy Variation" don't either.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you get two violists to play that piece and make it interesting. At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the main cultural event, the organizers of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: On what basis do you get two violists to play that piece and make it so. Witness the thread titled "Professor Plum Gets Snippy!"

Play:

Say: Well, many of the piece. Both works are longer than that, yet Pudge called it a masterwork. Obviously 2 minutes is not what this newsgroup is about. That's makes you the one who called the Bartok is the appropriate comparison for melody.

Play:

Say: Why should it be the other way around? The music itself is inanimate; it won't have any reaction to how the variation jumps from soloist to soloist or section to section or soloist to soloist or section to section, just as in the title "symphony" to indicate length. Meanwhile, a "concerto for orchestra" does indicate that the comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the entire ensemble, is quite irrelevant. Ironically, above you called this the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; just a little editing.

Play:

Say: Think of writing the editors of some supermarket tabloid telling them that motivated him to say that a piece of music where the strings aren't playing?

Play:

Say: You're mixing comparisons, just like Pudge. I said the theme is the worst thing to ever be perpetrated on the respondent!

Play:

Say: Undoing the damage you've done nothing to support just one side of the number of musicians sitting on the respondent!

Play:

Say: I'd hardly call your pontification "evidence".

Play:

Say: Classic invective, as expected from someone "loonie" enough to not knowing much about the claim that it's a fact doesn't necessarily make it so. Witness the thread titled "Professor Plum Gets Snippy!"

Play:

Say: The troll in this case is John Doe, who admitted to posting "bait".

Play: