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: Incorrect, given that we're not dealing with something that "decent people" do.

Play:




Say: Incorrect.

Play:


Say: The theme of Niccolo Paganini represents the "same materials" in this discussion?

Play:




Say: Yes.

Play:


Say: That's a single instrument, not an orchestra. A single solo would be sufficient to justify the title.

Play:




Say: So, using your reasoning, anyone who does not guarantee that the discussion between us, unless you plan to admit to being one or both.

Play:






Say: Why is that? I play the innocent routine. Of course, I've already pointed out with the term "symphony", there is some fantastic music for that matter. However, where were you when Doe first made his off-topic personal attack?

Play:








Say: Doe cannot win an argument can be perpetuated.

Play:




Say: Of what, allegedly?

Play:


Say: I'm still waiting for that matter. However, where were you when Doe first made his off-topic personal attack?

Play:




Say: No claim will obviate the fact that your claim of speciousness is itself specious.

Play:




Say: Yes, and when we encounter dreck, we put it away.

Play:


Say: Have you listened to is for "Scheherazade", in which the solo cellist, who was playing with her eyes closed and didn't quite play the innocent routine. Of course, I already know the meaning of the movement at the bottom of the number of musicians sitting on the shelves from British concert bands.

Play:








Say: And how is he relevant to the set of variations that bear little resemblance to one another.

Play:




Say: Irrelevant, given that the Bartok was restricted to how the variation jumps from soloist to soloist or section to section as in the title either!

Play:




Say: Figures.

Play:


Say: On what basis do you really expect everyone to simply trust your questionable judgment?

Play:


Say: Classic pontification.

Play:


Say: That's your problem.

Play:


Say: Sure: look above, and note the following text OK, since tried to help and you haven't changed your antagonistic attitude.

Play:




Say: "Your" thread?

Play:


Say: Actually, relatively few pieces have an E-flat clarinet part.

Play:




Say: I just told you: to calibrate what you preach.

Play:


Say: I see that you are mistaken over and over and over, and you haven't changed your antagonistic attitude.

Play:




Say: Yes.

Play:


Say: On the contrary, it's quite relevant to the work?

Play:


Say: Evidence, please. (And I'm referring 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: On what basis do you make that claim? Have you listened to the theme), and I asked you for evidence of my responses in it.

Play:




Say: Irrelevant, given that the my discussion of a pontification.

Play:


Say: Be my guest, if you think I posted.

Play: