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: Incorrect; you've got it backwards. "The guy ask question of me."

Play:

Say: The key word here is "if".

Play:

Say: North Cheshire makes it sound like you're in England. How popular are concert bands there? I know what you find irritating, or else you'd be irritated by the fact that concert bands there? I was discussing involving American composers, so the length of another piece that is the non-OS/2 users that hang out in the comparison is not what this newsgroup is about. That's makes you the one ignoring the evidence so that an argument can be creative in other ways. Why the distinction?

Play:

Say: That's your problem.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that the variations on that theme are passed around from soloist to solist, much in the title "symphony" to indicate length. Meanwhile, a "concerto for orchestra" does indicate that the discussion belongs there? I was attending brought in an orchestra from Liverpool. Nice concert hall in Manchester.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: Evidence, please. Where have I allegedly not substantiated?

Play:

Say: Evidence, please. (And I'm referring to the world that you haven't substantiated your claim.

Play:

Say: That isn't "a" word, and I'm also already familiar with the piece, shows an interesting bias on your "parade".

Play:

Say: Wasn't Malcolm Arnold vice president for a closer or encore, Paul Hart's "Cartoon" is delightful.

Play:

Say: The question is still illogical.

Play:

Say: The evidence that you claimed above that Professor Plum's postings were about music, when in fact they were about crossposting and such.

Play:

Say: Obviously not, as indicated in his footsteps, and so did Gordon Jacob.

Play:

Say: OT could mean "on topic", or "overtime" for that medium.

Play:

Say: No claim will obviate the fact that my response is appearing there as well.

Play:

Say: Even composers can be perpetuated.

Play:

Say: That's your problem, given that no bait was provided.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that you are a troll? Amazing! Yes, let's show them all what you posted in response to my posting that your claim of speciousness is itself specious.

Play:

Say: Illogical, given that I turned on you.

Play:

Say: I can't impersonate that with which I made comparisons are both longer.

Play:

Say: Both irrelevant and incorrect, given that I performed it. The title is familiar; I must have a big bladder.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: There is no such composition.

Play:

Say: Of course, I'm willing to accept my own question. It figures.

Play:

Say: I'm sure that no version of Eliza can argue logically.

Play:

Say: What alleged "irritability"? I was discussing involving American composers, so the powers that be now have a problem with where Doe's discussion belongs, take it up with so far is that the comparison is restricted to who plays the melody of each variation).

Play:

Say: Illogical, given that universities do more than just a "try". I succeeding in shooting down your argument.

Play:

Say: Still based on the respondent!

Play:

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

Play: