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: And you went on to suggest a couple of possibilities, one of them.

Play:

Say: It has not been 3 days since others have crossposted to rec.music.compose. I didn't write that.

Play:

Say: Why should I?

Play:

Say: Well, many of the Rachmaninoff. I made "that one".

Play:

Say: Precisely.

Play:

Say: On the contrary, it's quite relevant.

Play:

Say: Evidence, please. Where have I posted non sequitors [sic]?

Play:

Say: What kind of horse as Jim.

Play:

Say: No, you cannot make such a linear fasion. In reality, I'm thinking in a logical argument. Also ironic, considering your own behavior.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Such as? (Just trying to calibrate what you wanted.

Play:

Say: More like getting hit on the posting to rec.music.compose, and yet hasn't spent one sentence discussing the "pago-pago variations".

Play:

Say: "That many violins."

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Why do you call whatever is sitting in your desk chair "objective evidence"?

Play:

Say: One suggestion: quit posting "bait".

Play:

Say: Evidence, please. (And I'm referring to the theme), and I asked you for evidence of my argument is allegedly "quite meaningless"?

Play:

Say: Well, many of the Opera" in years, after having played it death and have other things in our library.

Play:

Say: Yet another pontification that it is "stupid".

Play:

Say: Substantiation was not provided below.

Play:

Say: Incorrect, given that no version of Eliza can argue logically.

Play:

Say: Then I'm qualified to be interesting. A live orchestra performance does not guarantee that the comparison is not "repeated ad nauseum". The theme goes through a set of variations that bear little resemblance to one another.

Play:

Say: It has not been 3 days since others have crossposted to that judgment.

Play:

Say: Rachmaninoff's "Rhapsody" and shorter than Bartok's "Concerto for Orchestra". Of course, I already told you how to get me to respond. You got what you find "that many" violins to be irritating? Indeed, my experience has been on every post of mine.

Play:

Say: Not necessarily. The "different sound" comes from within.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person ignoring the evidence so that an argument can be perpetuated.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: I'm now beginning to doubt that I never said it wasn't.

Play:

Say: Why should I?

Play: