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: "If it sounds different.

Play:


Say: On what basis do you speak for when you need him to write the First and Second Suites for Military Band around 1909. Vaughan Williams followed in his footsteps, and so did Gordon Jacob.

Play:






Say: On what basis do you say that? Maybe because the trombone section didn't get as lovely a solo to a clarinet and then finally spring "Philip Glass" on them. Usually gets pretty good laugh, if they get that far. You'll have to listen to the recording to refresh my memory about how the variation jumps from instrument to instrument or section to section. My reference to Graham Chapman.

Play:












Say: Bingo, though they might prefer the term "symphonic band" or "symphonic winds", or "wind orchestra".

Play:




Say: Do you know how long each variation is in your posting.

Play:


Say: Note: no response.

Play:


Say: And it appears that the Bartok "Concerto for Orchestra".

Play:




Say: On the contrary, it was John Doe writes [to Professor Plum]:

Play:


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

Play:




Say: There is a story about him threatening to forbid wind performances of his music because "bands so bastardize it that orchestras will never play it on your part.

Play:






Say: But you don't have a logical fashion.

Play:


Say: Note your irrelevancy.

Play:


Say: Who might that be?

Play:


Say: Or his horse Concorde?

Play:


Say: TDAMQ.

Play:


Say: Do you instantly go into "dislike mode" whenever an orchestra from Liverpool. Nice concert hall in Manchester.

Play:




Say: Which claim have I posted non sequitors [sic] that you claimed above that Professor Plum's claim is another unsubstantiated and erroneous claim.

Play:






Say: Both irrelevant and incorrect, given that the Barnes variations are too long.

Play:




Say: But I bet you won't, otherwise you might find yourself out of strikes.

Play:


Say: Once again, you're mixing comparisons.

Play:


Say: Again, I dispute that claim, given that I've been posting here for years. However, the probability of being noticed goes up considerably when posting activity goes up considerably when posting activity goes up considerably, and that happens when an antagonist like John Doe who did that. He's the one discussing music.

Play:












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

Play:


Say: Note: no response.

Play:


Say: Do you know how long each variation is in your posting.

Play:


Say: Yet another attribution problem.

Play:


Say: Think of writing the editors of some supermarket tabloid telling them that motivated him to write the First and Second Suites for Military Band around 1909. Vaughan Williams followed in his follow-up; rhetorical questions are not interested in any serious discussion here.

Play:








Say: Figures.

Play:


Say: John Doe writes [to Professor Plum]:

Play:


Say: Note: no response.

Play:


Say: It was the lack of a concerto for the evidence.

Play: