Variations on "Deck the Halls" for Piano and Orchestra

 Put on your ugly Christmas sweaters and DANCE, cuz I've got a treat for you!  This is a piece that I started over a decade ago (the main theme, first variation and rondo were begun then) but have begun working on again since October 1st.  This is by far my longest piece thus far, clocking in at just over 15 minutes.  I tried to capture the joy and spirit of Christmas in these variations.  I aimed to vary the types of different textures and ideas and keys present, sometimes having the orchestra or sections play with and without piano.  There is some virtuosity and fireworks in the piano part which at times is a bit showy.  Structure wise, I tried to make each variation smoothly connect to the next and to visit many distant keys throughout (mostly by going through almost all keys actually through rapid cycling through the circle of fifths).  I also had quite a bit of trouble making the piano part and orchestra line up as for some reason, in Musescore (since I was using Musesounds for the orchestra and MS Basic soundfont for the Piano) the Piano eventually started falling behind the orchestra and I had to import separate files of just the Piano and just the Orchestra into Reaper where I could realign them if they started phasing.  I hope you enjoy the fruit of my labors this Christmas!  Any comments, critiques, or suggestions are welcome!  Here is the form of my piece with timestamps:

0:00 - Theme
0:38 - I
1:14 - II
1:39 - III
2:12 - IV - "Transcendental"
2:36 - V - "Stately"
3:03 - VI
3:32 - VII - "Sneaky"
3:56 - VIII - "Flourishes"
4:30 - IX
5:06 - X
5:37 - XI
5:55 - XII - "Romance"
6:26 - XIII - "Romance Decima"
6:58 - XIV - "Minuet"
7:22 - XV - "Minuet Decima"
7:45 - XVI
8:16 - XVII - "Siciliana"
8:55 - XVIII - "Siciliana + Silent Night"
9:30 - XIX - "Waltz"
10:07 - XX - "Scherzo"
10:49 - XXI - "March"
11:31 - XXII
11:53 - XXIII - "March + Jingle Bells"
12:31 - XXIV - Cadenza
13:14 - XXV - "Rondo"
14:42 - XXVI - "Lilt"

Edit:  I've reuploaded a new mp3 processed with @AngelCityOutlaw's suggestions to get rid of clipping.  Let me know if it sounds better now!

Damn I'm gonna lose, huh

1 hour ago, Thatguy v2.0 said:

Damn I'm gonna lose, huh

I wanna see you wearing that ugly Christmas sweater as your pfp LoL

This is a massive work, but it's very cohesive. I'm actually quite impressed at how you took such a short melody and created so many variations around it. Who knew Deck the Halls could actually be....so interesting to listen to? You had some fun rhythms and harmonies to help keep things fresh.

I know on Discord I told you I heard some hints of Beethoven. At around 4:40+, I think maybe those trills and some piano mannerisms reminded me a little of Beethoven's piano concerto 5. But despite that, this is a still a very original work.

Your midi output / recordings have improved tremendously too, which made this even more enjoyable to listen to! Ever since I roasted you in my dedicated video about your Etude, it seems like you've changed your methodology, yay! In terms of your audio, be careful of "tearing". It's definitely not as bad as Henry's recording in his latest Sonata which had tearing / distortion throughout his entire recording. However, since this is a midi rendering you have complete control over your highest db levels. Make sure your peaks never hit the red.

16 minutes ago, chopin said:

It's definitely not as bad as Henry's recording in his latest Sonata which had tearing / distortion throughout his entire recording.

No! I don't wanna act as the paradigm of a bad recording full of tears on YC! 🫣😭

2 hours ago, chopin said:

I know on Discord I told you I heard some hints of Beethoven. At around 4:40+, I think maybe those trills and some piano mannerisms reminded me a little of Beethoven's piano concerto 5. But despite that, this is a still a very original work.

Hey Mike - thanks!  I didn't realize I was channeling a bit of Beethoven.

2 hours ago, chopin said:

Your midi output / recordings have improved tremendously too, which made this even more enjoyable to listen to! Ever since I roasted you in my dedicated video about your Etude, it seems like you've changed your methodology, yay!

Haha - thank you!

2 hours ago, chopin said:

In terms of your audio, be careful of "tearing". It's definitely not as bad as Henry's recording in his latest Sonata which had tearing / distortion throughout his entire recording. However, since this is a midi rendering you have complete control over your highest db levels. Make sure your peaks never hit the red.

When I rendered the final version of the mp3 in Reaper, I put a limiter on the master track and there weren't any red lines in the recording that I could see nor any distortion that I could hear.  The only distortion that I heard was on my Chromebook speakers at around 3:56 during the "Flourishes" variations but I'm chalking that up to my speakers rather than the quality of the file itself.  I don't know how there could still be tearing if I used a limiter right?  I'm no expert on this matter though.

Thanks for listening and for your audiophile comments!  LoL
Peter

10 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

The only distortion that I heard was on my Chromebook speakers at around 3:56 during the "Flourishes" variations but I'm chalking that up to my speakers rather than the quality of the file itself.  I don't know how there could still be tearing if I used a limiter right?

That's probably what I heard then too. You can still get distortion even if using a limiter, but due to software or hardware reasons. For example, if your software has a limit of 30 for polyphony, go in there and set it to 128. If that isn't the issue, it could be a hardware problem such as low RAM. Not much can be done in that case, outside of an upgrade (and making sure you aren't doing anything on the computer during the recording process).

14 minutes ago, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

Thanks for listening and for your audiophile comments!  LoL

You got it! Comes in handy for my YouTube video sound production 🙂

This 15-minute rendition of Christmas Carol is worth a full orchestral performance. Bravo!

I am contributing some small pieces for Christmas. First, here is a groovy <Jingle Bells>. 

Hello @In Son Zeng,

Welcome to the forum! You can make a new post yourself with your piece, instead of posting it under another user's post!

Also you can post on our Christmas event held this year!

Thx for sharing and joining us!

Henry

What an impressive piece! (I can't believe you wrote 72 pages lol.)

I'm not a huge fan of variation form because it becomes very boring very quickly. Mixing the standard variations up with the 'character' ones is a great way to keep the interest.

The mixing in of Silent Night and Jingle Bells is very nicely pulled off!

There's a good level of detail (wrt articulation, dynamics etc.) in the score overall, but I maybe would have liked a little more at times, especially in the lower strings. Maybe this would become obvious if I were to study the score at length though - you've obviously put a lot of thought into it.

I thought the orchestration is fine, good, correct... but not as colourful and exciting as it could be? It would be nice for you to push the ranges more, experiment with different (unusual) combinations of instruments and even think about some (very subtle) less used techniques. (I'm not meaning anything crazy, but it could help elevate the colour and fun.) I'm also not entirely clear why your brass section only consists of horn and one bass trombone - at the very least a tastefully used tuba could help round out the sound in the louder sections.

Overall though, an ambitious piece extremely well written! Thanks so much for entering the challenge!

Well done! You really hold on to the listener; nothing boring here.  Great variations and wit.  I am not a pianist - so at these tempos would you need a very accomplished player?  Seems a bit difficult?

Mark

2 hours ago, MJFOBOE said:

Well done! You really hold on to the listener; nothing boring here.  Great variations and wit.  I am not a pianist - so at these tempos would you need a very accomplished player?  Seems a bit difficult?

Thank you!  Yes, it is quite difficult.  I certainly wouldn't be able to play it.  Thanks for listening and for dropping a comment!

Peter

Thoroughly enjoyed this one, man. Also really liking your use of musesounds here, I think you're doing it justice.

My only complaint is it sounds to me like you're clipping in spots.

If you go into the "JS" section of reaper's plugins, and select the "Master Limiter" plugin, and set the threshold to -0.1, that should solve it

Hey Peter,

Finally have time to enjoy your epic variation piece here!

I love your opening treatment of the theme as you make it light and bouncy with the pizz. and ignoring the piano left hand which is like falling snow! Var I is funny with piccolo plus glockenspiel and piano LH chromatic notes. Those loud strings are funny too! Var. II continues with the charm. 

And Yuck Var. III! You are definitely using the Beethovaian treatment here when you extract motives from the theme to develop it. Very nice treatment here with the modultation to Gb too. And that freaking Trascendental one is real transcendental when the quick notes of the piano reminds me of the Emperor Concerto. And the Stately one isn't stately at all by sneaking to F major! That's naughty!

The "RANDOM" pauses of var. VI is very funny too!! I don't have good taste though LoL. The sneaky one is so wonderful with those surprising and care-free modulations. The chooping of the theme in Var. IX is great. I love The N chord in X. The treatment of prolonging the chpord for a romantic one is very creative! Make sure you can play the Liszt-like piano part yourself in the Romance Decima one though haha!

I love the imitations in var. XVI. The Siciliana one doesn't seem too sicilianian to me but it's wonderful as always. The subsequent varisation are all great in different dance forms. The Jingle Bell one is great counterpoint when you sneak the melody under the main theme! That Cadenze again really reminds me of Beethoven's Emperor. So grand here. 

I think the Rondo one fits more as the Scherzo one instead of the previous Scherzo variation. I like here you include those magical modultations again and put the emphasis back to harmonic development instead of rhythmic development in the previous varitations! The ending is so good with Straviskian changing of meters and pushing one last climax!

I thouroughly enjoy this wonderful varitaion Peter, thx so much for sharing!

Btw,

On 12/7/2023 at 11:40 AM, Thatguy v2.0 said:

Damn I'm gonna lose, huh

After listening I am sure you will lose haha. Prepare that ugly Christmas sweater and dance for us. i can't wait for it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Henry

Hello Peter, 

I’ve been meaning to comment on your topics for a while(procrastination is really a personal crime:(). Thank you for this, It really is quite festive and brings about the holiday spirit well. I can clearly picture the snowflakes and glimpse the Christmas decorations, which feels wonderful because Christmas is my favorite season. The orchestration is, of course, very nutcracker inspired. My only real nitpick would be the Waltz theme introduced by the solo piano; I really wished you brought in the full melody more often. For more emotional contrast, you could try adding in a sad minor variation.

well done on this and I also liked your harvest moon variations. There were some great textures in that piece

On 12/6/2023 at 8:07 PM, PeterthePapercomPoser said:

I've reuploaded a new mp3 processed with @AngelCityOutlaw's suggestions to get rid of clipping.  Let me know if it sounds better now!

So I not only listened, but I examined it in Reaper as well.

There is one point where it slams the limiter a smidge too hard and goes over by .5 db, but it didn't make an audible pop and otherwise, the clipping has been eliminated.

It certainly sounds good as is, but there are a couple things you might want consider going forward:

• Definitely always make sure to have a limiter on the master to make sure you aren't clipping and it catches any peak that would go too loud.

• You have fixed the clipping problem, but you do have a trade off: The audio is now a bit "squashed" in places. As the compressor lowers the peak to prevent it from clipping, in those FF+ sections, the quieter instruments are also now made (relatively) louder and it upsets the dynamics a bit as there is no longer such a volume difference between quiet and loud.

In your piece it's only happening a bit, and it's not a glaring issue, but it would be if those super-loud sections went on for a significant period of time.

The crappy thing with digital audio is you can't record to it as loudly as you could with analogue, and consumers today are afraid of turning up their volume for some reason. That obviously poses problems in orchestral music, where strong dynamic range is a valued and necessary component of the piece.

The squashed audio problem could be eliminated by simply turning the entirety of the mix down a couple db or more, or maybe reducing the intensity of the limiter, but you'd have to turn it up more on your device as a consequence.

An amazing piece. Full of winter glitter probably thanks to those higher notes on the piano + (sounds like piccolo) sustaining some of the notes. The cadenza sounded positively Lisztian. Some very nice piano technique.

I just listened to it throughout. Easy to engage with. 

Here we go. From the theme only you know the sound will be above average. BTW, Peter, I think the score would be easier to follow if you also provided parts (some of them at least). Scrolling a single page after less than 10-15 seconds is unavoidable when there are so many instruments involved, but for a more close and in-depth analysis I would really have preferred to go part by part in some cases.

• I: Very spot-on chromatic color. You don't go too far from the original material (yet?). I like the approach that I think you're taking. (You did)
• II: This one is more intense, but not denser. Really nice job with this second variation. The dissonances are somehow not strong enough to provoke a feeling of tension, but to bring attention and carry some kind of "background flow".
• III: Here stuff begins to get really original. This var. feels so cheerful!
• IV: The fact that you make no random pauses (at least for now, up to variation VII) makes it easier to stay I believe (basically I agree with what Quinn said). Kinda difficult piano part!
• V: III, IV, V and VI get along very well in my opinion. The transition from one to another is almost not noticeable, specially in case of III, IV and V.
 • VI:   I like how the piccolo (and wooden winds up to some degree?) is kind of the leading voice. The Q&A structure works pretty nicely in this movement; another great job and one of my favourite variations.
• VII: here the music seems to be refusing to end, it feels like a great "connection" between VI and VIII. 
• VIII: really original, though I think this is the 3rd-4th movement with a certain pattern in common.
• IX: stuff gets really interesting here, less than in the next movement but I like how the various voices get entwined seamlessly.
• X: These harmonic twists here are great. Again, it feels like with each variation, an entirely new piece is arising by deviating slowly but steadily from the original material. This is my favourite variation.
• XI: This one felt a bit short to me (but it suddenly made sense). Yet another great variation nonetheless. 
• XII: Is it me or variations are getting shorter? I barely noticed differences between XII and XIII and it was too late when I realised I was in XIV. Your transitions vary from almost unnoticeable to pleasantly contrasting. This is clearly a piece in which you have put a lot of effort, and in all honesty I wouldn't have expected less!
• XII-XVI: I would say these form a subgroup inside your set: flutes and the piccolo keep dancing around the theme, deviating longer from the OG material, before coming back —more and more briefly— to the theme.
• XVII-XVIII: another smaller subgroup I'd say. The chromatic scales, this time on the violas (on XVII) & piano (XVIII), sound delicious and more subtle than in II.
• XIX-XX: The music flows faster than what I can process, making me go backwards a lot to fully listen the variation subset. This is great music to get up, many thanks for sharing it Peter.
• XXI-XXIII: Just another 💯 transition from the lightness of the prior subgroup (which is BTW heavier than the XVII-XVIII subgroup, and that one in time lighter than the XII-XVI which passed like a breeze... It seems that consciously or not, you kind of ordered these subgroups!)
• XXIV: noticeably longer than the rest (feels like more than one variation to me), which may even make sense if this was treated as a piano concerto(?). Not sure, but anyway, I liked how you implemented it and where. It felt like a deserved and well placed rest for the orchestra. XXV makes the comeback much more smooth! Piano still holds the main voice, but the orchestra keeps pushing more and more! I love it.
• XXVI: A daring one, I would say. Its development is so cool, the combo of measure indications works really good. Up to now, literally nothing made me doubt, I just followed the piece without a single thought of the kind "well this works but I would have preferred XYZ". It just didn't happen, it's so well constructed and well-thought that my brain didn't question it.

Until now, at the very end of this great work. I suppose this is intentional: imagine you were recording this set of variations and that you remember that the place where you're doing that is closing very very soon, and thus that the janitor is on his way to open the door and interrupt you "Hey Peter, we're closing". Preventing that, you cut half a page and accelerate stuff, but it's too late he's approaching the door so you end abruptly! This is kind of what I felt here. Not sure if this was the best or worst way to end this absolute impressive work: personally I did not like it and I left the theatre unsatisfied, wanting some more variations to listen to. I've been listening to this continuously like an hour and a half already, and this probably just increased my desire for a "proportional ending".

This is all subjective, though: one objective fact here is that this movement stroke me more than others because it was daring, and because I did not expect it to end like this. My perspective of such ending may change over time, but the fact it gave me a really powerful impression will stay: perhaps this was, after all, the best way to end the piece. It must not be a bad ending, nor a bad piece, if it leaves you asking for more!

Belated merry Christmas 🎄, Peter. I do hope you to stay around for many, many more years and bring us more of your HQ content.

Kind regards!!

Thanks @Omicronrg9 for your very detailed and thorough review!  Did you forget about variation XXV?  You go from XXIV straight to XXVI so I'm assuming your comments for XXVI to be meant for the Rondo variation?

16 hours ago, Omicronrg9 said:

• XXVI: A daring one, I would say. Its development is so cool, the combo of measure indications works really good. Up to now, literally nothing made me doubt, I just followed the piece without a single thought of the kind "well this works but I would have preferred XYZ". It just didn't happen, it's so well constructed and well-thought that my brain didn't question it.

I am glad you didn't find much in the piece to be objectionable, besides as you mentioned, the end of course.

16 hours ago, Omicronrg9 said:

Until now, at the very end of this great work. I suppose this is intentional: imagine you were recording this set of variations and that you remember that the place where you're doing that is closing very very soon, and thus that the janitor is on his way to open the door and interrupt you "Hey Peter, we're closing". Preventing that, you cut half a page and accelerate stuff, but it's too late he's approaching the door so you end abruptly! This is kind of what I felt here. Not sure if this was the best or worst way to end this absolute impressive work: personally I did not like it and I left the theatre unsatisfied, wanting some more variations to listen to. I've been listening to this continuously like an hour and a half already, and this probably just increased my desire for a "proportional ending".

I think I had previously written a 10 minute long set of variations for Wind Trio in Gb, in which I also ended the piece with a 5/8 "Lilt" variation that accelerated at the end.  I guess I just defaulted to the same approach in these variations since I liked how that worked before.  And I wanted to avoid writing an ending that dragged on and on with the typical triumphant alternations between tonic and dominant.  I wanted the whole piece and the ending especially to be succinct.  And, since the piece ends on a subdominant major 9th with a #11 I really liked how that chord sounded in context in terms of the quality of its finality.  I think, for me it was a better choice than ending on the tonic by preceding it with the aforementioned triumphant alternations between tonic and dominant which so many classical-styled works end with (which I don't like).  That's my reasoning behind that.

16 hours ago, Omicronrg9 said:

This is all subjective, though: one objective fact here is that this movement stroke me more than others because it was daring, and because I did not expect it to end like this. My perspective of such ending may change over time, but the fact it gave me a really powerful impression will stay: perhaps this was, after all, the best way to end the piece. It must not be a bad ending, nor a bad piece, if it leaves you asking for more!

Yes - exactly!  I wanted people to want to listen to it over and over again.  And I also modeled these variations on Ernst von Dohnanyi's Variations on a Nursery Rhyme for Piano and Orchestra and he does many things in that piece which I wanted to avoid.  There is a long and overblown introduction which I guess he added later as a kind of way of making the entrance of the piano playing the nursery rhyme ("Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star") more humorous, but I didn't like it, so I in my variations I just went straight into the theme played by piano without any kind of introduction.  I also felt he dragged the piece on too long by including a passacaglia, so I wanted to keep each individual variation in my piece brief also for that reason.

16 hours ago, Omicronrg9 said:

Belated merry Christmas 🎄, Peter. I do hope you to stay around for many, many more years and bring us more of your HQ content.

Thanks, Daniel!  And I too hope you have a Happy New Year and that you share more of your compositions and reviews with us!

Peter

I'll start off by just telling you my absolute favorite thing about this music of yours. This piece is just so... Peter. No matter what I have to say that's critical, a lot of it I've said before. I'm not the arbiter of musical correctness, I'm just some dude that is offering advice because I like your music and I like you. AND, I feel like you've considered that in your writing, and it shows for sure. But I love that you do things that you know I'm going to say could be different, but that's what makes this your music and not mine. There's no good or bad, this is clearly fantastic. There's nothing that you did "wrong", you just did it the way you want to do it. And, as the great Henry would say, I fxckingly love it. 

So with that out of the way, this is TRASH. 

Just kidding, of course. Like I said, this is wonderful, and obviously your most accomplished work. I feel like there's no debate in that, and you'd probably agree. You started this ten years ago, eh? No wonder your piece is better than mine 😛

Alright, all jokes aside (yes I know they're not funny, GOSH), I really did enjoy this. I'm pretty astounded by your attention to detail to the color of this. Despite having instrumentation that we would expect, you explore various ways to color the music that made it unmistakable for which holiday your music is about. Forget the obvious theme, this had Christmas written all over it. The charisma of your orchestral palette here was genuine and festive. 

You've also gotten leaps and bounds better at mixing your music. You've taken full advantage of the progress of musescore, and the meticulousness in the mix creates a full and grand sound. Kudos to you for taking the advice of ACO or anyone else that has anything to offer for production value; that humility will take your skills far. You don't have the old version up anymore, but from what I remember the levels you adjusted helped create a smooth listening experience. Nothing jumped out at me as being jarring or out of place, so your polishing did justice. 

My qualms are the usual, but to a lesser degree. With such an iconic and well known theme, I would've hoped for more variation in the pitches themselves. With this being 15 minutes long, there was lots of room to disguise the theme more, and to be fair, you did do that. At around 7:00, you lightened up the orchestra which was nice, and the waltz to the piano cadenza was a great treat. Maybe a bit more before the 7:00 mark I guess is my point. But then again, I don't really believe that, because you seemed like you had an undertone of form beneath the variations. I heard this more in sections, and my favorite part was the waltz moment. It was just fun!

It was like a traditional T and V, but you had continuity between some variations, and then bold cadenzas to end others. I really like that style, and I think it takes the T and V form to a more unique level that you can be creative with. Plus, it helps keep it seamless to the listener, rather than us counting the variations as they come. Your theme evolves throughout, and it had an organic quality to it. It never got stale or dull. Maybe a bit overwhelming at times with the busyness in spots, but nothing that I'd amend or change. This music rings you, and you should be immensely proud.

Well done there Peter, you sure are quite the comPoser.

On 12/8/2023 at 8:07 AM, aMusicComposer said:

 

I thought the orchestration is fine, good, correct... but not as colourful and exciting as it could be? It would be nice for you to push the ranges more, experiment with different (unusual) combinations of instruments and even think about some (very subtle) less used techniques. (I'm not meaning anything crazy, but it could help elevate the colour and fun.) I'm also not entirely clear why your brass section only consists of horn and one bass trombone - at the very least a tastefully used tuba could help round out the sound in the louder sections.

 

 

Agreed.  The opening I think would be more vast if that were in say flute and clarinet with marimba or xylo? But then again, this is really a concertino for piano. It's a great idea.  I am sad you forsaken brass.  I think it would add even more for this composition.  Since it would be for Christmas, the brass is going to be there, USE THEM!!

I didn't get the of "Scherzo" being jokingly at all.  It's gorgeous, but the Scherzo is a mislabel. I just also saw that @Henry Ng Tsz Kiu said the same thing about the Rondo that I'm about to say.   Your "Rondo" is more Scherzo in nature and for me,  "Lilt" is liltish 😃.  I know you picked the title but to me seems more Vivacissimo, Allegro Vivace in nature.   

Also, the last five minutes of the piece were some very very fine writing.  The stretch in some of the harmonic vocabulary was intriguing.  I would have love to hear more of that in some of the middle passages.  Some of the tradition resolutions could be possibly could be switched with other possibilities and still give a sense of repose. Overall, this was a massive undertaking and continue to take risks in your composition journeys. Two thumbs up!