Juri Seo - Thoughts on v
Welcome to the depths of Mike’s brain about Juri Seo’s vibraphone solo v. Giddy up!
Admission of Guilt
Sometimes I feel like a bad percussionist. Aren’t percussionists the people who have blind, enthusiastic support for the creation of music with nothing more than a blade of grass and some sheep’s wool (for instance)? We pride ourselves on being able to approach each piece fresh, without being tied to some kind of deeply-rooted tradition. New notation? We’ll tackle it. New concept? We’re on it. New instrument? We’re the people for that.
I berate myself for being a bad percussionist because I sometimes feel, for pieces not composed directly for me, a default skepticism toward newer pieces in our repertoire. I have a reverence and appreciation of the classics — those pieces that have withstood the test of time and proven as milestones along our path. Additionally, since time is such a valuable resource, I only want to dedicate my remaining time to learning pieces that are going to give a tremendous impact on my development as a performer and pedagogue. That being said, I do carve out time during some weekends and most summers to do repertoire audits, where I play through repertoire that I didn’t previously know with the intention of becoming familiar with more of what is available. So I’m not all bad…
I have had a split interest in both marimba solos and vibraphone solos throughout my professional life. I feel the crowning achievement (up to the time of this writing) in marimba composition occurred with Jacob Druckman’s Reflections on the Nature of Water, and for vibraphone, Solo de Vibraphone by Philippe Manoury. Among the brilliant moments of compositional craft prevalent in these two works, there is one glaring point of intersection: neither of these pieces could be transcribed for other instruments. Both composers identified unique aspects of the respective instrument: the attack and decay of a marimba bar and the capabilities of resonance in the vibraphone, to name the structural pillars.
In 2022 I was grappling with my occasional skepticism toward newer pieces and decided to remedy my guilt by creating two recitals: one for the older classics and one that featured “new classics” that mirrored the older works. Manoury’s vibraphone solo was among the first pieces I wanted to program for the “older classics” program, but I could not think of a single newer work that focused on the resonance of the vibraphone in the same way while maintaining the high level of compositional craft.
Luckily I came across Juri Seo’s v for solo vibraphone, composed in 2015. This drew me in because the piece mirrored the Manoury solo in terms of resonance, but I didn’t realize that it also was among the most skillfully crafted pieces I had approached, and gave me (the performer) an enormous amount of interpretive possibility. It felt like an older, wiser piece that was living in the 21st century. In addition, it nodded to the great composers and techniques of the past (Schumann, Beethoven, along with canon, 12-tone technique) that satisfied my deep interest in the “classics”.
Maybe my reluctance to fully engage with every new piece wasn’t just default for every new piece, but instead a desire for quality of craft. Of course, quality means something different to every performer, and there is a place for every style of music. But for me, it was helpful to realize that I’m not a new-music Scrooge, but instead a performer who wishes to support pieces in which I believe fully. Humbug.
How to Use This Tome
When I set out to write the document below, I thought it would be a handful of pages and mostly gloss over the nitty-gritty percussion-specific talk. Upon deeper reflection and hours of writing, this writing became a bit more comprehensive of my own experience, and hopefully a resource that would directly improve the practicing and performance of this piece in the future; so I included the nitty and gritty.
I feel that the document below could be helpful to a performer, even if they are not directly working on this piece, by framing their thoughts about how to generally prepare music on a deeper level.
If you are currently working on v, then get your score ready! Below are a few ways you could use this document:
Read it all the way through with the score and, if you agree, mark down ideas as I present them
Read just the intro part to get to know the piece, and bookmark this page for when you’re working on the piece
Keep it as a reference next to the music on the stand and, as you practice a section or movement, reference that part of the document
Skip around and pick up little tidbits that help you with your current practicing or thinking life
Why am I writing this?
Celebrate a great piece and composer
Percussionists are lucky that, even in our relative nascency, we have a wealth of repertoire from which to draw. However, I have seen that the majority of our current repertoire has not been crafted with the skill and attention to detail of the great masterworks for piano or other instruments. When a composer with Seo’s level of craft writes for our instrument, I want to celebrate her and her work.
Give context to my performance
I recorded this piece with the amazing FourTen Media (video above) and wanted to give context to that recording, for those interested, either professionals or students.
Make music thoughtful (again)
One of my all-time musical idols was Canadian pianist Glenn Gould. Yes, he was an eccentric character, but regardless of your opinions on his interpretations, no one can deny that he was deeply thoughtful about the music. Where did that characteristic go in performance? Are we just too distracted to think deeply (a nod to Cal Newport)?
Nuts & bolts
Composed: 2015
Commissioned by: Matthew Geiger, who premiered the work in 2016
link for information (including program note): https://www.juriseomusic.com/music#/vibraphone/
link to purchase score: https://www.juriseomusic.com/store/v
General Thoughts
Resonance
Sidebar for the performer: Percussionists rarely have to think about the end of a note. Orchestral players usually are on the hook for this the most: cymbals, bass drum, triangle, tam-tam, timpani are the most common instruments that require end-of-note care. Most of the vibraphone repertoire relies heavily on the pedal to take care of any and all ringing notes. By mallet dampening, we are able to finely shade the tail of a note, working closely with the natural resonance. Should the note be dampened abruptly and rhythmically or slowly and tapered? It definitely depends on the context, and I outline this below.
The vibraphone’s resonance is on full display throughout this piece, and it is clear that Seo was thinking about the manipulation of resonance while composing the piece. Notice the many times when a cluster of notes creates a “beating” of conflicting overtones, leading to a rhythmic resolution through mallet dampening. This “beating” becomes both the color and the momentum of the phrase. Different collections of notes will create different patterns of beating, and these clusters, however short, give tension and release in the way that Bach would do the same with a dominant harmony expressed over a tonic pedal.
Frequently in the piece, notes are played that sustain through a measure, while shorter, mallet-dampened notes punctuate the phrase simultaneously. The articulation of the punctuated notes should be considered contextually. If the short note is functioning melodically, for instance, then a similar articulation between the sustained and punctuated notes will keep the melody cohesive. If the punctuation note is coloristic, it should be considered a different voice and have a different articulation. Most of the articulation differences can be realized through a loose-wrapped mallet and speed control of the mallet.
Opening chords
Each movement begins seemingly from the same place, E-minor for mvts. 1-3 and the dyad E/B for mvts. 4-5. This is not unlike Bill Murray’s life in Groundhog Day, where no matter what happens throughout the movement, we’ll always start the next movement back in E-minor. (“Ok campers, rise and shine!”)
As a performer, I have to wonder, “How do I play this?”. The first three movements have the exact same chord written at the same dynamic. Are these three chords supposed to sound the same? If I excerpted each of these three and played them back to back to back, would a nuanced listener tell a difference? For the recording, I thought about recording the chord once and then copying/pasting it to the other movements for unity. That seems clean but completely inorganic. For me, these chords have to be different, no matter how slight the difference, because they represent the future of the movement — not a chord in a vacuum. This difference is created by default with my chosen mallet switches between the movements, but also a change of approach is vital.
Pacing of movements
Though each movement is wonderfully balanced in its form, the movements are quite short, with the longest movement clocking in at just over 2 minutes (by the composer’s clock - my performances take longer). With these Webern-esque durations, one of the most difficult challenges for the performer is making the five movements feel like a cohesive piece.
The easiest way to form a connection is to not have any visual breaks between the movements (i.e. moving). I felt strongly that each movement deserved its own mallets, which required my body to, unfortunately, move.
At the composer’s suggestion, I chose to perform the movements quasi-attacca. My solution to connect these quasi-attacca movements was to do the mallet changes while the resonance from the previous movement was still ringing. Though not the perfect solution, since the sound of the movement was still concluding as I was moving, it allowed the movements to be performed quasi-attacca, and feel like they had an arc. Of course, the pace and elegance of the movement were of critical importance to maintaining the audience’s attention.
Pedaling
Like the piano, the pedal is the soul of the vibraphone. As much as we respect the vibraphone pedal for all of its Friedman-trained glory, feathering the resonance and blending phrases were not a part of those monumental etudes.
That being said, I did knowingly neglect the marking at the beginning of the 5th movement, “l.v. all notes unless marked otherwise”. Of course, I respect the composer’s wishes and I did make this attempt in my practice sessions, but my personal taste required more clarity than a blanket pedal was willing to offer. I additionally felt like the addition of “ninja pedaling” can give a rhythmic energy to the rhythmic canon.
The only spot in the piece that I chose to use no pedal at all was in the Petite Play movement, with the staccato markings at mm. 152,192, and the corresponding phrase at the end of the piece at m. 261. I like the playfulness this offers but also helps draw the audience’s attention to the formal device being brought back at the end.
Mallets
Mvt. 1 - Christos Rafalides
Mvt. 2 - Resta Jay Orange
Mvt. 3 - Old Dave Friedman DF16
Mvt. 4 - same as Mvt. 3 (attacca)
Mvt. 5 - Left hand: ABC something | Right hand: Resta Jay Orange
Piece overview by movement
Movement 1: Prologue
Character
Immediately the performer can recognize the two battling characters here: a slow-poke, reflective grandparent battling with a fleeting, scampering child. The performer’s challenge is to always stay one step ahead of the change, and practice those quick-twitch muscles for the shutter-speed transitions into the Allegros. (P.S. I believe all the Allegros should be the same tempo as the original Allegro ma non troppo in m. 2.) Color changes and physical movement changes can go a long way in communicating these characters.
If the performer has played any of Mark Applebaum’s music, it feels similar to me. Characters switch on a dime and require a tremendous amount of prep work to make those changes complete and immediate.
Etude:
Repeat the first Largo for a few minutes to try to get a warm, full, Barry White voice. Then chain together the Largos into a full Largo piece. See if you achieved unity in your Largo Piece.
Do the same with the Allegros, but make the mallets float on the bar. Some weight can occur at the beginning of each phrase marking, of course, but the middle notes of a phrase are gliding on the tops of the bars.
Play the warmest, gooey-est Largo (don’t move on until you execute your ideal)
Stop
Mentally prepare for the fleeting Allegro (even if it’s slower than show speed)
Play your favorite scampering Allegro (don’t move on until you execute your favorite)
Keep repeating steps 3-6 until the transition becomes more natural. Eventually, remove the Stop (step 4)
Rhythm
The detailed rhythmic difference between 4’s, 5’s, and 6’s should be considered more than you’re considering it. The 6 should be quicker than the 5 (🤯) and the occasional sixteenth note should feel held. Reminder that these rhythmic changes aren’t accel.s or rit.s. Overall, I think of the 5s as flowing, the 6s as clipped, and the sixteenths as backside groovy-funky.
That being stated, this is not some DCI rhythmic exercise, the rhythms should have breath and life, and above all, character!
Individual Measure Thoughts
m. 1 - for this and all Largo dampening I want the sustained chord to have more articulation than the eighth note. Think about a still-life in a camera’s viewfinder, then a quick blur of that image, back to focus. Note that in my reference, it doesn’t *snap* back in focus, there’s a quick, but rounded transition to the refocusing. I consider the same roundness to my dampening, rounding out the end of the dampened note.
m. 2 - these light fleeting gestures are somewhat idiomatic, but the “quick draw” is the toughest part. I had to go back to Method of Movement to practice this, but would encourage practicing this passage from a dead stop. Chances are the rhythm is not as even as you would like. If you think you’re playing it well, listen closely to the speed of the first two notes vs. the rest of the rhythm. No accel..
m. 3 - For me, the dampened C eighth note in this measure (and correspondingly in mvt. 3, see below) is the cornerstone of this piece. I might be overreacting about this, but it seems overwhelmingly powerful to me. I want to make a non-dramatic physical gesture that can visually unite this note with its companion, upon its return. An attentive audience member will grasp this, even if subconsciously.
m. 4 - on the third beat I see a sixteenth note with an accent. I feel a general tendency from performers to play this without pedal. It should have length! A quick burst of pedal with a quick stroke will be the key here.
m. 20 - rhythm matters. Only one sixteenth note rest, please! The anacrusis brings with it momentum that can only be achieved if we set up a rhythmic framework and deliver on that syncopation.
Additionally, the chord needs to be played fully and balanced so that the high Bb is still somewhat prominently sustaining when entering in m. 22 (without cutting m. 21 short).
m. 22 - this Bb should be a smoky ninja, sneaking in under the resonance. I emphasize this by reducing the articulation and playing softer than piano in live settings.
m. 27 - speaking of playing fudged dynamics - that high D# at the end of the measure needs to last a long time. Give it a good, full strike, in the mp range, to let it last until the end of the movement.
Movement 2: Duple Dance
The title refers to the structure of the movement (binary form) not, as my confused past self thought, the meter. The title of Duple and the opening measure of Triple (3/4) sure was perplexing for a minute. After my myopic naiveté subsided, I could get to the music.
Style
The initial groovy, nuanced style of this piece gives way to an ungrounded, harmonically nebulous fragmentation about halfway through. You really have to play many characters throughout this piece, and none of them are easy. Perhaps the toughest is the groovy material at m. 40 (piú mosso), fragmenting around m. 63 and returning at m. 108. Playing in any popular style is difficult because nuance and perfection are required to pull it off. The notes have to be clear, but not uniform; the pedaling needs to be present but not overpowering…you get my drift. The result is quite rewarding, however!
To emphasize this understated groove approach, Juri mentioned to me, about my own performance, that the dynamics in mm. 38 and 52 (though perhaps she meant m. 53 f) should come down to mf. She continued, “in fact, playing the whole movement softly (with subtle fluctuations) could be interesting.” I chose, after some experimentation, to play with more dynamic contour in my recording, but regardless, I think that a fluid stroll through this movement, even with significant dynamic fluctuation, is a wonderful approach overall.
Glisses
Stravinsky - Petrouchka
These are notated in the same method that Stravinsky wrote in Petrouchka (among others). At first glance, it does seem confusing because the notes are individually printed on the page, but she also wrote the word “gliss.” above the notes. Do I use a mallet swipe or do I make an attempt at the Salome-ian single-stroke approach?
After days of attempts, I found that I could not achieve enough shape, volume, or body with the mallet swipe technique, not to mention it was tearing up my mallets! In m. 66 I couldn’t realize a true crescendo, let alone a dynamic level that was strong enough to support the drama and structural impact of the section. I decided upon the risky single-stroke method.
After working on this method for quite a while, I contacted the composer, and her intention was a “nonchalant and non-virtuosic” feeling to these runs. 😳 Uh oh. Could I still achieve a nonchalant lightness to the runs while still striking every individual note? In the end, I attempted just that. I’m not sure if I fully achieved it, but for your own practice, I would attempt a fleeting, “thrown”, light approach to these glisses, regardless of your chosen sticking.
Individual Measures
mm. 30-31 - A direct reminder of the first movement. I want to play these contrasting ideas in the same method I approached the Allegro and the Largo of mvt. 1. This approach snaps into a new direction in m. 38 with groovy syncopation and short articulations, which perfectly sets the stage for the main material at m. 40.
m. 31 - though this entire measure is under one pedal, I still want the high G-A-Bb to be the prominent voice here, even in pp. You may want to experiment with some sneaky pedaling in the middle of this measure. The ascending three-note motive is an echo of the three highest notes (the melody?) in m. 30. I count the B-natural on the top of the first chord to be a melodic note for that measure. Alternatively, the mm. 36-37 pair also requires emphasis on those high notes, even though the melodic direction in m. 37 is descending.
P.S. In m. 38 those three-note motives that I discuss in m. 30-31 and 36-37 become vertical “blips”, in closed and open voicing. Cool!
m. 40 - this section is in brilliant three-voice counterpoint, and it would be a fantastic practice strategy to practice each of these voices separately with the goal of being able to hear them individually while you are practicing the full composite. Eventually, the high G pedal is added (m. 46) which requires stability in the voicing of your right hand.
Due to the stepwise ascending/descending bass and parallel motion of the low and high parts, I feel a strong connection between this section and “Blackbird” by Paul McCartney (which was inspired by Bach’s Bouree in E-minor from BWV 996). Though the tempo is quite brisk and the voicing is treacherously hard, I want to maintain the feeling of “Blackbird” throughout this section.
m. 51 - I get the feeling of playing boogie-woogie here. Hemiola right hand and stepwise, grounded bass. Keep the left-hand “pizz.” notes round, light and driving to make this style swing.
m. 63 - an attentive audience member will hear the connection here with the first movement. Though it is different from the first movement, it is possible for a memorized performance to confuse or conflate m. 63 with m. 22. Deliberate, thoughtful practice can categorize these two passages away from each other.
m. 67 - The chord here should be the most assertive and alarming part of the piece. The ramped-up activity, suspenseful pause (release the pedal!) in m. 66, and the full dissonant chord reminds me of this moment in George Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue. Do you hear it too?
The frenetic build-up and requisite chord is, what I believe, explodes the “Blackbird” section into a more fragmented, spiraling, searching section of the piece, from m. 72 onward.
m. 80 - though the subdivisions are constantly changing and the rhythmic and harmonic fabric appears ungrounded, some elements of stasis must prevail to give the changing elements more impact. Measure 80 starts the Adagio section and the accel. is not printed to begin until m. 81. It is critical that the first two beats of m. 80 are precisely in tempo, and only start to speed up on the downbeat of m. 81. Hold the phrase!
m. 85 - this avalanche of notes is structured on the roughly stepwise movement of the top voice and pulled down by the lowest voice once it arrives in m. 86. I try to keep this relatively in time. Resist the urge to see sixteenth-note 4’s, 5’s, 6’s next to each other and simply assume it’s a written-out accel.
m. 91 - we somehow find our bearings on the low A, hammering out the subdivisions we have seen in the piece so far. I found this was wildly difficult to maintain consistency when playing these rhythms on a single vibe bar. Find your beating spots on your specific vibraphone that have the same timbre. Alternatively, aim for the same spot, and keep your hammers HIGH (get the mallet out of the playing spot after striking) to maintain the same sound.
Amazingly, throughout this entire passage (mm. 85-107) there is one significant note that has been missed - the low G! Does the technique of clearing a voice for re-entry sound familiar? The G returns in style in m. 107, just like J.S. Bach would do if he wrote a Blackbird/Gershwin-inspired, groovy-nonchalant Duple Dance.
m. 116 - pedaling here is tricky. It felt like the low notes needed some pedal to warm the sound, even though they are written as sixteenth notes. My goal in adding the pedal was also to increase the conversational aspect of the G & F#. Due to the last measure (F# ringing and G stopped) and the fact that the piece is basically in G, I tried to build tension by keeping the G short and letting the low F# ring out until the next bass note. See my video at 3:44 for a more comprehensive explanation. This means that in m. 120, the F# is ringing under the chords in mm. 120-123, which might unbalance them if we’re not careful, but it wouldn’t change their quality, since the F# one octave up is on the bottom of the sustaining chord.
The sustaining low G is the transition point to the next moment. Since the next movement is much more reflective, I usually start my psychological transition right as I play that last low G in m. 125, and by the time I’ve changed mallets, I can be “in the zone” of Movement 3 while the low note is still audible.
Movement 3: Abwesenheit
It’s not difficult to hear the motivic similarities between Beethoven op. 81a, mvt. II and Seo’s mvt. III. the double-neighbor enclosure of m. 126 mirrors Beethoven’s, though different keys and rhythms are at play. What a beautiful motive for “absence”! One central, binding note, followed by two notes drifting apart on either side. Are the two notes leaving each other voluntarily?
While Seo’s movement doesn’t get as active as Beethoven’s and feels more narrative (Beethoven’s being more clearly structural), the aching feeling of absence, or loss, can help guide the performer to a performing environment to inhabit during the piece.
This is the only movement without a definitive metronome marking, and I decided on quarter=54 as my guide.
Dampening
This movement features mallet dampening much more prominently. How does one dampen these rhythmic eighth notes? On one side, the rhythms are syncopated, so I want to be faithful to the rhythmic intention of the measure. On the other, the motives are lyrical, and I want to maintain a lyrical interpretation. I chose to have a teardrop shape to the note while trying to realize the eighth note duration. This meant that I needed to place the mallet silently, and very lightly, on the resonating bar almost immediately before applying graduated pressure. I needed to keep the weight of the mallet from dropping into the bar all at once since that would make the note too short for the teardrop shape. This requires a bit of practice and a lot of control, but it is not impossible and will be critical to the success of this movement.
Warning: artsy talk below!
A visualization that helps me stay in the moment: I envision these notes as snowflakes falling into a glassy pond on a winter morning. The snowflakes land on the lake, cause just a small ripple in the water, melt, and become part of the lake before another snowflake lands. The end of the note is not a choke, but a quick “melting” of the resonance.
Individual Measures
m. 126 - this Beethoven motive was actually hinted at in the first movement, m. 1 — remember the opening two chords? — but now the dampened second eighth note is enharmonically respelled and just a single note. Perhaps this second eighth note losing its partner note is a musical joke on “absence”.
m. 134 - the “snowflake” notes become longer here - they are not just eighth notes anymore. It is important to let these notes resonate longer, communicate the durations, and let the harmonic “beating” between the conflicting notes propel the phrase. The end of this phrase is the first time we have true absence - the removal of all sounding notes - and are left with silence.
m. 144-146
these two measures, for me, are the ones I look forward to the most while performing this piece. The silence at m. 141 frames the m. 142 phrase and prepares the listener for what is to come (“pause for effect”). I believe Seo would agree with me about the significance of mm. 144-146 because she elongates the phrase, adding the indication “somewhat slower”, and changes the texture to only one dampened note; a new note, C. But that’s not any C, that is the C. Remember back to m. 3, the only tenutoed note in the whole piece so far? Here it is again, once again with the tenuto, and a mallet-dampened note that remembers earlier and simpler times. This a reminder that we have always been looking back, whether in the second movement looking back to the juxtaposed Allegro and Largo measures, or in this movement nodding back to Beethoven, memory plays a critical role in our perception of “absence”. How can something be absent that was never there? 🤯
Sorry for waxing romantic here, but I truly believe that this note is the cornerstone of the piece and bears an Atlas-like responsibility. I strive to play this note with a uniqueness of gesture and sound that can only be attributed to this note and its partner in m. 3.
I don’t completely have an understanding of the enharmonic spellings for the notes in this movement (Juri help me!), but I do notice that the majority of notes are sharps, with the exception of mm. 144-146, being entirely flats. Another symbol of uniqueness!
If the individuality of these two measures needed any more emphasis, notice the ends of the previous phrases compared with mm. 144-146. The first line ends with a cluster that unveils a triad (probably sounding F-minor to the audience, but written F, G#, C). The second line sounds again a cluster and systematically removes all of them, leaving a silent preparation for the next phrase. Measures 144-146 activate a wider range of pitches (the widest range of the movement thus far), in a more diatonic mode, allowing all of them to ring through and create a pad upon which we play and dampen the C in m. 146. Additionally, after these measures, the approach completely changes.
m. 147 - now the chords and the “snowflakes” are distant, two distinct voices that were polarized by the previous phrase. This polarization sets up the distinct “play” of the two voices in Movement IV. The chromatic melody of the “snowflakes” of the earlier phrases has given way to a whole-tone melody that descends to the end of the movement.
m. 151 - Seo indicates to mute when the resonance of the vibraphone is less than 10% of the audible sound. I love this idea in theory, but no perfect vibraphone exists where this chord will be perfectly balanced all the way to 0%. The bars will decay at different rates. I try to listen to the chord as I played it in that room, on that vibe, on that day, etc., and make my judgment call. If the triad starts to become unbalanced, politely mute the resonance and go right on, attacca, into Movement IV.
Movement 4: Petite Play
Character
Though Seo has wonderfully, if not simply, emphasized the “play” between the naturals and accidentals, I choose to augment the playfulness with my interpretive choices: crescendi that are thwarted by abrupt pedals, dynamically-voiced dialogue between the hands, and an overall light touch that seems to always have flow.
Voice-leading: I would not call either the right or left hand of this movement “melodic”, they are glorified bass lines co-existing, if taken at face value. You’ve heard of a “song without words”? I think of this as an “accompaniment without melody”. One of the main reasons I hear these lines as accompaniments is the interval between the oscillating notes. Traditionally melodies are stepwise at their most basic, which is why m. 169-173 sounds much more melodic than the previous passages. As one is learning this piece, I would encourage the performer to approach and hear the two notes of each hand as separate voices, as in Bach’s cello music, for example. Extracting two distinct voices from each line will bring attention to the melodic voice-leading within each part. Being conscious of this interaction can bring a critical third interpretive dimension to this movement.
Individual Measures
m. 152 -
Tempo - play the printed tempo: After the initial stages of working through this movement slowly with a metronome, I moved on to a period of non-metronome practice, which is normal for me. Be careful with this approach! This allowed organic growth in my interpretation and allowed the tempo to get much faster than the printed dotted quarter=48. Though I believe this movement works at faster tempi, I would encourage the performer to keep the playfulness mischievous and not rambunctious (i.e. play the printed tempo).
No G: Another case for the profundity and significance of the third movement (which I cataloged above): after the third movement, and the resurrection of the C, the opening chord, which has remained constant for three movements, is now just a skeleton, E & B, and will never return in its original form.
Articulation: We have seen staccati previously in the piece, but I believe these staccati that begin Movement IV require a lighter approach. Incredible care needs to be taken when playing vibraphone without any pedal engaged, and it is something I almost never do myself. In this passage, I am playing with a very light pedal foot, probably 5-10% pedal, but coupled with a stroke that is quick off the bar. This approach returns in m. 192-193 and again at the end of the last movement, mm. 261-262.
m. 154 - the right hand enters and the pedal initiates the play. I use a blooming crescendo for each two-measure phrase, and an abrupt pedal to create a flirting game between the two voices. Like two manatees playing in the water, it’s not fast, but there is still personality and character.
m. 169 - the left-hand starts to have movement that could be melodic, so I want to encourage that melody. I found it difficult to not include the right hand in that melody, but really the lower mallet of the left hand is the hauptstimme here.
m. 185 - this right-hand note’s rhythmic placement set off my “spidey sense music alarm” because it plays together with the left hand! The rhythmic interplay between right and left hands thus far has been entirely hocketed, but here they are aligned. It happens again at m. 192 and brings an almost discomforting unity. At first, I was wondering if it was an error, perhaps the duration of the rest was printed incorrectly, but instead, I saw it as a kind of Darwinian anomaly that brings about systemic change and eventually leads to the tranquil end of the movement with two resonant, and vertically-aligned parts. A special emphasis on this vertical alignment will help to secure its strangeness in the listener’s ear.
m. 197 - We end a half-step lower than we started, this time right hand has the final word, which has been playing, with the exception of mm. 176-177, in flats. Did the top voice win? Did they come to an agreement about coexisting? Make up a story for this movement and the character will be much simpler to express!
Movement 5: Da Capo al Coda Dodecaphonia
Title
When I was first learning this movement, I didn’t ask too many questions about the title. I understood, individually, both “Da Capo al Coda” and “Dodecafonia”, but I didn’t ask more probing questions about the title until much later in my process.
First, “Dodecafonia” — any half-attentive music undergrad will recall that this references the 12-tone technique first described by Arnold Schoenberg. The opening motive in m. 206 is a harmonic expression of all twelve semitones. It repeats in the left hand in m. 208 and continues through a variety of rhythmic and transposition variations. Though it is originally presented as harmonic dyads, one can assume from passages like m. 236 that the prime form of the linear row is alternating low/high: E, B, C#, G#, F#, A#, F, C, D, A, Eb, G.
Fun connections: the title of the piece is v, there are five (Roman numeral “V”) movements, and the theme that permeates every measure of the fifth movement has a majority of harmonic fifths.
We have seen “D.C. al Coda”s since we were young musicians, and always had to pause for a moment to remember “Which one is a D.C. and which one is a D.S.?…” 🤔 So the big question here should be, “Where do we go back to the capo, and where is the coda to which we skip?” I think the performer asking that question is going to be barking up the wrong tree. There is no labyrinthian road map to follow here, but instead, I believe the title has two clever loopholes: first is that the opening measure is a strong reference to the first measure of the piece (and the opening measure of the third movement, by proxy), so it’s kind of like going back to the top of the piece, Groundhog Day style. The E/B dyad moves to an agogic emphasis on the F#/A#. Though up an octave, in a wildly different dynamic range, and with a drastically more excited character, the foundation is still the same as movement 1.
Second is that I believe the literal translation of “Da Capo al Coda” (“from head to tail”, or “from beginning to end”) is the intended meaning of this phrase. Instead of skipping around on the page, this movement presents the motive from the beginning of the movement (m. 206-207) without breaking until the coda (m. 259). That 12-tone motive works itself to an augmented and subdued version of the opening measures and exists under the more prominent material, acting as a quasi cantus firmus. “From the beginning to the coda” of the movement, this “dodecaphonic” passage is present. See what I did there? 😉
Note about mallet choice
from the composer: btw I wrote the “expanded” version first and wrote the reduction for the performer, though I wasn’t sure until the end whether the reduction was helpful.
I utilize harder mallets for my right hand and softer mallets for my left hand (i.e. harder mallets for top line of expanded score). This allows me to bring out a stark difference in sound between the two canonic parts more clearly. If the composer goes to the trouble of writing out an expanded score in the music, I’m going to take the division of voices seriously. Also Sam Solomon does it, and I want to do everything Sam Solomon does.
Though for me it requires a few mallet gymnastics (reference my video for exact choreography of mallets), I found it possible to keep the voices separated by mallet through m. 235. I felt that after m. 235 I was not able to come up with a reasonable sticking for the separation of the cantus firmus motive and the more florid higher part. After m. 235 I used four of the same mallets, which required me to create the timbral differences myself, instead of relying more on the mallets.
Since I was going to be using touch to distinguish voices at the end of the piece, I needed to choose my mallet wisely and decided on a mallet that has a hard core, to support the dynamic and range in mm. 247-251, and also have a wrapping that isn’t too tight so I can feather the lower notes as softer dynamics.
Note about the compositional process
I think of this movement as the grand finale and like the end of a sitcom in the 90s — all of your favorite characters come back for a curtain call. I won’t be able to outline every little connection I found here. However, with that frame of mind, take a look around the movement and see if you can find Easter eggs that connect back to previous movements. It is also possible that some of the references back to previous movements were actually foreshadowing of the main event in this final movement.
Individual Measures
m. 206 - we begin an octave higher than the previous movements, which brings with it a brilliance fitting of a finale. I found it interesting that Seo would use E as the grounding pitch for a vibraphone solo, since the vibraphone is kind of in the key of F — meaning it has more F’s than E’s, including that lush low F (when played with care). More on that soon.
Pedaling: it is written in not-so-uncertain terms at the beginning of the score: “l.v. all notes unless marked otherwise”. I blatantly violate this edict by the second measure, and I feel bad about it. There is something about vibraphone notes bleeding together incessantly that doesn’t…ahem…resonate well with my ears or playing style. I love the full richness that the bars have to offer, but like a room of puppies, they need a little corralling or they’ll go everywhere. The other major place where this is asked is in Ben Wahlund’s Hard Boiled…solo, and I eventually pedaled that section also. I would encourage the performer to follow the instruction, but for me, the desire for a cleaner approach to the harmony and energy-infused rhythms guided me toward a more luxurious use of the pedal throughout this opening section.
m. 212 -
thus begins our rhythmic variations of the theme. Since the earlier movements utilized such uniquely intriguing rhythmic ideas, what a wonderfully fitting way to develop this 12-tone theme! In addition to the triplets, notice in the expanded score that the top part is featuring bell-tone augmentation of the theme. Bring these out with open, full strokes.
What is the dynamic direction of this motive? I feel it is leading to the thirds. I aim to have a small crescendo at the beginning of the motive, then a small decrescendo in m. 207, with punctuation on the Eb/G at the end of that measure.
m. 208 - like a good mid-20th-century Bach interpreter, I bring new entrances of the theme out slightly louder than the previous entrance. That means m. 208 starts strong and on beat 3 the right hand will be played just slightly louder than the left hand.
m. 210 - these sixteenth-note anticipations are so cool. Definitely keep this in time, but also give a unique stroke to these notes so that they sound like anticipations.
m. 212 - keep these subdivisions separate from one another - never blurred. Crisp sixteenth notes, full and equal triplets, and marked eighths.
m. 213 - use this measure to think triplets so you can get an even subdivision in mm. 214-215.
m. 215 - this is a spot where I was able to do a mallet swap within my hands (just re-ordering the mallets) to make for an easier time with sticking later passages.
m. 217 -
fun fact: the left hand skipped a step! In the left hand, we hear the theme repeating up a whole tone each iteration: m. 211 starts on D as the highest note of the dyad, m. 215 on E, m. 216 on F# and m. 217 on…Bb! To continue the system, the high note would be G# (or Ab), but in the service of momentum and form to complete this large build, we had to sacrifice the G# iteration.
beat 3 - I believe the high A is supposed to be tied through with the lower C# and F here, as is shown in the expanded score below. The F is doubled by both voices, and you have a sticking choice here — three notes and two pair of mallets — which to use? My choice was to play the outside notes (C# and A) with the softer mallet and the inside F with the harder mallet. In order to stay consistent with my choice to realize the top line with a harder mallet, I wanted to change the timbre of the F, even though at this point, both lines are approximately equal dynamically. I am aware that the low C# (Db in the expanded score) is also part of the top line and should, in theory, be played by the harder mallet, and the F should be played by both a soft and hard mallet, but in this fleeting moment, with the configuration of sticks I have in my hand, I was relegated to only realizing one of these voices.
m. 218 - The triplet variations combine with the earlier dotted eighth/sixteenth rhythms to develop into the snappy sixteenth-note triplet idea that will be present for the next few measures. I really want to keep this rhythm extra snappy, and I give you full permission to make these snaps expressive. I think a small variation in the speed of the rhythm can assist in punctuating these iterative phrases. You can also use the dynamic direction of these two notes to help make your phrase. Is the phrase building toward the penultimate note or the ultimate note?
m. 219 - if you are also choosing two sets of mallets for this opening section, a reminder that beat 4 is with the softer mallets.
from the composer: there’s another hidden structure in mov. V. There’s the tempo canon (rh slows down, lh speeds up) and rh and lh cross in 219; then the r.h. switches to retrograde row.
m. 220 - as wonderful as these variations on the inversion are, I had a tough time with mallet dampening as is printed in the expanded score. I wanted to be able to mallet dampen the two shorter notes while letting the theme ring through. Once the tempo started to increase, I was not able to execute the dampening that quickly at that dynamic level with those harder mallets without disrupting the flow of the passage. I chose tempo and character over the duration of these notes. It was a frustrating consolation, but I guess that’s our life as percussionists: making those tough choices.
m. 224 - the high dyad on the second sixteenth of beat 4 (and consequently the downbeat of m. 225) is approached by leap, which makes it unnecessarily difficult to play both notes of the dyad with the two hard mallets. At that dynamic, for the funky phrasing that I want to achieve, I found that playing the dyads with my right hand (lower note is the softer mallet, higher note is the harder mallet) I was still able to realize the clarity I desired without too much compromise.
m. 226 - I use the half-note rest to switch my mallets back to 2+2 (two soft in left hand, two hard in right hand)
m. 227 - after looking at m. 228, I realized the notes to play in this measure could be confusing. Yes, by strict 12-tone rules, the notes need to be A-natural/E-natural. However, after a couple of back-and-forths with Seo, we both decided that Ab/Eb (as printed) has a nice dramatic impact when it changes to A/E in m. 228. Personally, I could be convinced, in a convincing performance, of either, but the Seo-approved notes are Ab/Eb, and are the ones I recorded in my video.
m. 228 - we lose our “cheat sheet” expanded score at this point, but Seo clearly articulates the two voices with note stems. Just don’t forget about the polyphony!
m. 229 - “Do I have to count through this?” Yes, but also consider the resonance of your instrument in your space.
m. 235 - a reminder that this is where I changed to a uniform mallet for the remainder of the piece. See more about mallets in the section above for this movement.
m. 236 - there’s something so satisfying about Manoury’s Solo de Vibraphone when the Chopin-Ballade-esque coda begins. The linear representation of the opening chords kick off that virtuosic flourish toward the end. Bringing the opening back, at pitch, in a new texture signifies we’re rounding third base and thrills me as much as a performer as it does an audience member. Seo’s m. 236 measure does exactly that. No strict performance advice, but, in case you didn’t catch it, it’s there and it’s spectacular.
m. 241
This is probably the trickiest technical spot in the whole piece, and completely relies on your ability for the “quick draw”. You either have to play a few leapy notes in a row with your right hand or quickly shift your left hand down to catch the B/F# on beat 2 after playing the first two notes of the quintuplet. Not to mention that those lower notes need to be a warmer timbre.
My recommendation is to play the first two notes of the quintuplet with the left hand (1, 2 sticking) and shift down to the B/F#. That quick motion can be learned and improved, whereas trying to play at least four notes with your right hand in a row, while supporting a crescendo in the higher range of the instrument probably won’t be achieved in the time you have to learn the piece.
Practice tip: Break down the left hand alone, get the mallets in place with large muscle groups and just drop the mallets: two notes, move, drop; two notes, move, drop. Slowly add in the right hand — You’ll get it!
m. 242 - these full chords remind me of the chords directly after the golden section of movement 2. Open hand, let the bars ring! I shape these with the melodic contour of the highest voice: the middle chord of m. 242 is the loudest in this measure.
m. 244 - this is all printed at forte but I give myself way more space than that to make the big push up to the climax of the movement. After the held chord in m. 243 into m. 244, I will take the dynamic way back, maybe even mp+ to maximize the impact of mm. 248 and 250-258.
m. 246-247 - there are a lot of tricky sticking choices to be made in this passage, but I want to bring back the three-note ascending motive from movement 2 that occurs in the top voice (C-D-E) and finally extends all the way up to the F in m. 250, breaking free from the second movement’s motive. The chords in m. 251 seem to be in support of this motive breaking free, and eventually making way for the reminiscent daydream coda.
m. 250 - a note about F’s below
m. 253 - as per my lengthy defense of the note F below, keep the high F ringing throughout. This means you’ll play the G/Bb/D/F chord in m. 252 and then only dampen G/Bb/D on the downbeat of m. 253.
m. 259 - this Largo espressivo feels like the beginning of the third movement, even if briefly. Immediately recalling the sound and character of the third movement is critical here, though I felt like a mallet change would break the momentum that you have spent an entire movement building. This is why mallet choice and speed control of your stroke are so important.
m. 261 - an obvious nod to the fourth movement, same metronome marking, same staccati as well. Now the hands cross, so a tricky sticking is required to make the choreography as subtle as the music is. This is still contrapuntal music, so try to keep the voices at slightly different dynamic levels, regardless of sticking.
Some Notes on Notes
Low F
Seo uses the lowest F on the vibraphone sparingly and surgically, to signify very important moments in the piece. Movement 2, after the groovy, giocoso section falls apart and starts to fragment, the fragment picks up orbit and spirals down the keyboard (mm. 85-91), but before it reaches the point of most intensity in the piece thus far, m. 93 or m. 96 depending on your interpretation, we bottom out on the downbeat of m. 90 on this very significant low F, which also happens to be the golden section of the movement.
The second usage of the lowest F in this piece is that magical turning point in movement 3, m. 144. I could write forever about these two measures — just amazing. I don’t feel the need to write more about it here, but if you missed it above, click here.
The most confusing usage is at the end of movement 4, m. 201. It seems like such a haphazard usage of a note that has come to signify so much in the piece — a flippant brushing of the note in a coda that just disappears. It doesn’t seem to have structural significance or motivic weight. Hmmm. However, the idea presented in mm. 196-205 is the foundation for the end of the entire piece (see mm. 263-end), and the final iterations of the low F occur as the ambidextrous interplay evaporates to conclude the work. So maybe it’s not so haphazard after all…
To be thorough, there is also a hidden iteration in m. 255, which is the final, brief low chord before the coda, a last gasp before the reminiscences begin.
High F
This note is used even less than the low F. The first time it is used is at the end of the piece, m. 250, and is the answer to my question above: why, when composing a piece for vibraphone, would one not write in F? Why would one actively choose a central pitch that handcuffs you? There are more F’s than any other pitch on the vibraphone, so why wouldn’t one give oneself the most ammunition possible? Well, here’s the answer. Seo’s technique is so strong that she does not need the central pitches of the piece to be the bookending notes of the instrument. She can use those F’s structurally to seemingly extend the range of the vibraphone to create a vibrant, expressive, yet grounded form. Can you feel that excitement when you think we’ve gotten to the extreme of the instrument, then it pushes one more half step? If you’re sensitive to it, it can be very powerful!
Waiting until the very end of the piece to use the high F brings the expressive narrative of the piece to a new height when she quotes the three-note motive of the second movement, pauses for an uncomfortably long amount of time on the chord in mm. 248-249, then out of nowhere surges up to break the ceiling and reach the pinnacle of the piece and the instrument simultaneously. Having the ability to go above your “tonic” note is the reason that this entire piece starts each movement on E and not F.
Cool thing:
I sent this long post to Juri Seo and she wrote back with this really awesome info:
Since we are nerding out about the extreme Fs, I was (perhaps unconsciously) thinking about this passage from Beethoven’s Abwesenheit movement, in which Beethoven tries to reach for the low E (beyond the range of his early 19c piano). Most pianists play the note; some don’t.
Conclusion
There is no way that you read this entire document. If you did, you deserve a prize. Regardless, I hope to deliver a few messages here:
This piece is not getting the performances it deserves. It is a well-crafted, thoughtful, inspiringly creative piece that is written wonderfully for our instrument. It deserves more performances and I hope those performances are prepared, thoughtful ones. I hope you have a chance to play this piece in your life and recommend it to your friends and students.
I hope the depth of this document shows younger musicians the level of commitment, thought, and detail that need to be addressed while preparing a piece for performance. Obviously, I cannot go into detail about every little thing I noticed or thought about in the preparation of this piece, which hopefully shows the amount of thought and analysis that went into my performance. Leaving yourself ample time to consider the small structure, shaping of phrases, voicing of chords, voice leading and polyphony, etc. as well as the larger structures and relationships at hand is vital to the success of your performance and the enjoyment you’ll receive from putting in the work on this piece.
I purposely did not make this into a YouTube video or series of videos because I want this document to be a resource that you work through slowly and consider slowly as you address the piece. Comparing my thoughts with your own, or your teacher’s, can assist in unearthing parts of the score you didn’t perceive previously, as well as grow your concept of the piece.
Thank you for reading this, even if you just skimmed parts. If you would like to discuss any part in more detail or feel like I messed up, please send me a note using the link below. Happy Practicing!