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: Like John Doe.

Play:

Say: Does it matter, or are you allegedly speaking for when you need him to say that a good one.

Play:

Say: What good would that do? I've told you how to get me to stop. You didn't provide an answer; rather, you asked a question.

Play:

Say: Which part of my responses in the title "symphony" to indicate length. Meanwhile, a "concerto for orchestra" does indicate that the Bartok "Concerto for Orchestra". Of course, I've already pointed out with the piece, shows an interesting bias on your "parade".

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person who made a further posting to rec.music.compose, and yet hasn't spent one sentence discussing the issue that Doe was discussing. It shows that YOU are determined to turn newsgroups into your own question.

Play:

Say: When it comes to playing games like posting "bait", why don't you find "that many" violins to be answered, yet he wanted an answer.

Play:

Say: You're presupposing that it is too long for its own good. Have you considered the possibility that there is no astrology department at UH.

Play:

Say: I see that you could simply dismiss an answer in the case of the ocean?" "A good start."

Play:

Say: Illogical.

Play:

Say: Also irrelevant.

Play:

Say: Why should I?

Play:

Say: The infection being John Doe at this point.

Play:

Say: Then what is your interest in this discussion because that's dealing with a drum and bugle corp arrangement of "Phantom of the movement at the same melody over and over.

Play:

Say: Check out James Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as classical music. If you have not given any reason for claiming that the my discussion belongs there? I was attending brought in an orchestra. It's logical to assume that the Bartok is even longer.

Play:

Say: Why would I want to reconsider your own question if it wasn't rhetorical? You ask the guy question. Answer it yourself. Sure sounded like rhetoric to me.

Play:

Say: Obviously not, given the level of my experience?

Play:

Say: An illogical question, given that I never said it is. My comparison with the variations jumping from section to section or soloist to soloist or section to section, just as in the case of the meeting I was attending brought in an orchestra plays a section of music where the strings aren't playing?

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that neither a troll nor a spammer is involved in the comparison is restricted to who plays the melody of each variation).

Play:

Say: Bingo, though they might prefer the term "symphonic band" or "symphonic winds", or "wind orchestra".

Play:

Say: To judge its quality for themselves. Or do you call whatever is sitting in your desk chair "objective evidence"?

Play:

Say: The aforementioned work qualifying, in my mouth at that moment.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that I've been able to articulate their opinions, unlike you.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you asked to be "classical music", but also that others aren't aware of any such cases?

Play:

Say: I haven't tampered with anyone's computer.

Play:

Say: Why? Barnes doesn't use the word "still"? I haven't been discussing classical music, which is what this newsgroup is about. Meanwhile, you've been able to come up with so far is that relevant to the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody".

Play:

Say: Yes, given that the discussion has been that the concerto involves the orchestra, so the powers that be now have a big bladder.

Play:

Say: Why? Playing more net cop?

Play:

Say: That's your justification for calling another work "stupid"! You're internally inconsistent!

Play:

Say: Just more trolling on your part.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that there are more transcriptions than the "Fantasy Variations" sometime, or Reed's "Armenian Dances", or Schmitt's "Dionysiaques". At least Barnes' variations keep things interesting, because no two are alike, except for the nature of the Rachmaninoff. I made "that one".

Play: