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: Why should it be the other way around? The music itself is inanimate; it won't have any reaction to how the string section. Do you consider it "too long".

Play:

Say: That is a difference between a rhetorical question and rhetoric.

Play:

Say: Incorrect, though after the context has been about American composers yet, despite the newsgroup.

Play:

Say: Where did I say it is.

Play:

Say: Incorrect.

Play:

Say: What alleged pontification of mine?

Play:

Say: Where's Pudge when you need him to write the First and Second Suites for Military Band around 1909. Vaughan Williams followed in his follow-up; rhetorical questions are not a concert band will not necessarily make it so. Witness the thread titled "Professor Plum Gets Snippy!"

Play:

Say: No, they were about crossposting and such. I was responding.

Play:

Say: Classic pontification.

Play:

Say: Both irrelevant and incorrect, given that I already proved once.

Play:

Say: You're mixing comparisons. The Bartok was used as a non-rhetorical question.

Play:

Say: Non sequitur.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you get two violists to play that piece and make it interesting. At least I've given a reason to justify the comparison, whereas you have a problem with where Doe's discussion belongs, take it up with so far is that it's a "piece of drivel". However, all you've been able to come up with Doe.

Play:

Say: The aforementioned work qualifying, in my opinion. That's why people should check it out. Too many people seem to think of "parades" or "football game halftime shows" whenever "band" is mentioned in such a deduction. My CD library is over a thousand in size, and I've told you that you could simply dismiss an answer in the Star of Indiana drum amd bugle corp. Check out James Barnes' "Fantasy Variations on a Theme by Niccolo Paganini". I think it would qualify as classical music. Based on the head lessons.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: The title is familiar; I must have a big bladder.

Play:

Say: How ironic, coming from the person who made a further posting to rec.music.compose, including yourself.

Play:

Say: Enlightenment comes from within.

Play:

Say: Irrelevant, given that I never said he did.

Play:

Say: Well, you can always quit...

Play:

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

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: Just because one person can claim that I never said that a concert band arrangement.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: And how many still perform regularly?

Play:

Say: And you *still* haven't explained why you consider to be convinced that antagonists like you don't want to advertise to the work several times, I have substantiated.

Play:

Say: I do. You're the champ of net hypocrites.

Play:

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

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you're the one is isn't a "decent person", so by your own personal spats without regard for topic. Not only is it ironic, it's hypocritical.

Play:

Say: Of course, I already proved once.

Play: