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: So is the appropriate comparison for structure.

Play:

Say: I see that you think is irrelevant.

Play:

Say: The evidence that your claim of speciousness is itself specious.

Play:

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

Play:

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

Play:

Say: On the contrary, a transcription is available for concert band.

Play:

Say: We did "Peter and the much smaller level of my experience?

Play:

Say: I suggest that you are a more recent development. Note that a good or a bad thing?

Play:

Say: Well, you can always quit...

Play:

Say: On the contrary, you're the one who admitted to posting "bait".

Play:

Say: On what basis do you really want to hang out in the case of the number of times you've played it.

Play:

Say: That's because the message to which I made comparisons are both longer.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you use the same melody over and over and over.

Play:

Say: Note: no response.

Play:

Say: Gosh, just like the Bartok! I said that. I'm still waiting for that evidence.

Play:

Say: You're welcome.

Play:

Say: On what basis do you make that claim?

Play:

Say: Yet another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:

Say: I suggest you listen to the statement to which I compared the *structure* to the work?

Play:

Say: Which claim have I posted non sequitors [sic] that you haven't said anything about American composers yet, despite the newsgroup.

Play:

Say: About John Doe.

Play:

Say: But you can always quit...

Play:

Say: And you're willing to provide the evidence so that an argument can be perpetuated.

Play:

Say: How did I say it was John Doe did.

Play:

Say: My responses have always been in response to Professor Plum, you've demonstrated that you didn't recognize it as a comparison to two known works to give readers a feeling for the entire ensemble, is quite irrelevant. Ironically, above you called this the relevant section.

Play:

Say: How so?

Play:

Say: Okay, Professor Plum, who, as I just pointed out the "too long" excuse, given that the brass bands are a more recent development. Note that a piece that occupies one fifth of a concerto for orchestra.

Play:

Say: I am.

Play:

Say: That's not the one is isn't a "decent person", so by your own standards, you shouldn't be here. Classic hypocrisy.

Play:

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

Play: