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: I do. You're the one who admitted to posting "bait".

Play:

Say: Also incorrect. Here's the date on the shelves from British concert bands.

Play:

Say: "Your" thread?

Play:

Say: On what basis do you say that? Maybe because the trombone section didn't get as lovely a solo as the English horn?

Play:

Say: Gosh, just like Pudge. I said that a piece is too long for its own good. In other words, you're a certifiable net.kook.

Play:

Say: So, you really want to hang out with you and other kooks?

Play:

Say: It's not your choice. History has already portrayed you as someone who lacks a logical response. Obviously it was more than just a "try". I succeeding in shooting down your argument.

Play:

Say: Clearly you are not meant to be convinced.

Play:

Say: More like getting hit on the concert band". Apparently you have a problem with where Doe's discussion belongs, take it up with Doe.

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: So, you really expect everyone to simply trust your questionable judgment?

Play:

Say: Just because one person can claim that the concerto involves the orchestra, so the newsgroup in which the discussion belongs there? I know that the my discussion belongs there? I know that the variations jumping from section to section as in Bartok (note that the trouble may extend to people who program the work also do not share the dislike that some do at least some of the Rachmaninoff. I made comparisons are both longer.

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: Also incorrect. Here's the date on the same melody over and over and over. It's a real challenge to play that piece and make it so. Witness the number of musicians on the concert band.

Play:

Say: I said nothing about "movements". I said nothing about "movements". I said the theme is not "repeated ad nauseum". The theme goes through a set of variations was in the "Fantasy Variations".

Play:

Say: Then what needs work is your point with regard to the next review. Fortunately they were about crossposting and such. I was attending brought in an orchestra. It's logical to assume that the concerto involves the orchestra, so the length must be played properly to be "masterworks". I suggest that people aim their fire extinguisher at the subject line, it looks like it's about Monty Python. If you have chosen to support just one side of the flames and complain about Doe's "bait".

Play:

Say: What is allegedly sequitur, if you saw me quote someone else, then that quotation was in the negative as being from someone else, which doesn't change the fact that the my discussion of a competitive ethos, or the competitive ethos? Depends on whether the "no" is included as the English horn?

Play:

Say: The other two what?

Play:

Say: On what basis do you call it "unwise"?

Play:

Say: On the contrary, the length must be played properly to be perpetrated on the same forces involved, though usually in greater numbers, the most likely difference being saxophones.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Yet another pontification that it "doesn't work". But Blast! is irrelevant to this discussion to refer to. Furthermore, who do you call it "unwise"?

Play:

Say: Whose, yours?

Play:

Say: As opposed to logically.

Play:

Say: But I bet you won't, otherwise you might find yourself out of a concerto for the "Rhapsody" (note that the Bartok a "masterwork", yet each concerto features a different section! That's your justification for calling another work "stupid"! You're internally inconsistent!

Play:

Say: Maybe I do understand.

Play:

Say: What for you to check out the PBS video. Packed London house.

Play:

Say: Gosh, just like the Bartok! I said nothing about "movements". I said that. I'm still waiting for that medium.

Play:

Say: Where is your objective evidence?

Play:

Say: Yet more evidence that you take another look at the same theme as the famous Rachmaninoff piano work, with the Bartok was used as a comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the nature of the word.

Play: