The Troll Variations
for a soloist
by
Tom Duff
Reload for a new version!

Instructions

This piece is for a soloist playing any instrument.

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.

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: On what basis do you make that claim? Have you considered the possibility that it "doesn't work". But Blast! is irrelevant here.)

Play:






Say: And throughout the discussion between us, unless you plan to admit to being a troll, John? That's not something that "decent people" do. Thus by your own standards, you shouldn't be here. Classic hypocrisy.

Play:






Say: Once again, you're mixing comparisons.

Play:


Say: You're erroneously presupposing that I never claimed that Rach's is the best of them. The issue here is your looking back through previously read posts.

Play:






Say: It has not been 3 days since others have crossposted to rec.music.compose, including yourself.

Play:




Say: You're supporting the troll who initiated the problem??? Illogical.

Play:


Say: What alleged "cards"?

Play:


Say: Evidence, please.

Play:


Say: Non sequitur; I'm talking about the "Symphonic Overture" or "Visions Macabre"?

Play:




Say: Then what needs work is your power of deductive reasoning.

Play:


Say: It's hard to figure out people like Doe.

Play:


Say: On what basis do you call twelve accordions at the base of the word.

Play:




Say: What alleged "irritability"? I was responding.

Play:


Say: Different theme; the Rachmaninoff "Rhapsody".

Play:




Say: Irrelevant, given that I turned on you.

Play:


Say: Do you instantly go into "dislike mode" whenever an orchestra plays a section of music where the strings aren't playing?

Play:




Say: Irrelevant, given that no bait was provided.

Play:


Say: Balderdash. You're forgetting that I turned on me... why did you claim that it's too long.

Play:




Say: On the contrary, the length of the Rachmaninoff. I made it clear that *I* do consider it "too long".

Play:




Say: Feel free to explain how your remark was directed at me?

Play:


Say: You're presupposing that I'm a composer of classical music" thread.

Play:




Say: I suggest you listen to the theme), and I asked you for evidence of my experience?

Play:




Say: TDAMQ.

Play:


Say: Irrelevant, given that the discussion is occurring.

Play:


Say: How ironic, coming from the person who has yet to substantiate my claim, hence I extracted the relevant evidence. No studying necessary; just a "try". I succeeding in shooting down your argument.

Play:






Say: Non sequitur, given your reference to Graham Chapman.

Play:


Say: Do you instantly go into "dislike mode" whenever an orchestra plays a section of music is the "right" length. However, as I said, hasn't been posting "far more relevant" responses in it.

Play:






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

Play:




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

Play:


Say: You might want to be "masterworks". I suggest that you would run away without answering the question.

Play: