MSM315110 - Music - Assessment Report 2013 · Music Course Code: MSM315110 2013 Assessment Report...

Music Course Code: MSM315110

2013 Assessment Report

of 25

PERFORMANCE: This year, a panel of examiners travelled the State to examine performance candidates. The exams were conducted not just on a weekday, but also on the weekend and at night -‐ feedback was very positive from teachers, candidates and examiners alike. Overall candidates performed well and were organised with ‘pink forms’ and music. It was a very tight examining schedule and all candidates (including teachers and accompanists) should be congratulated on their promptness to exams, which enabled the examining process to run smoothly. There were 61 candidates examined in the South, 38 in the North/Northwest. OBSERVATIONS: a) The most glaring issue was candidates not knowing how to tune with their accompanist. All

candidates need to be taught how to tune to the piano (or other instruments in the ensemble) and be given strategies for identifying whether they are sharp or flat. It is accepted practice to re-‐tune before the commencement of the next piece. A number of pieces were compromised due to poor tuning.

b) There was an issue with bass players only playing the accompaniment bass part from rock songs

(or concert band music) for their entire programme. Candidates must include a solo bass chart in their programme. There will be an addition to the TQA guidelines for 2014 stating that they must perform one fully charted bass solo (see sample attached). This is so the candidate can show technique, reading ability, phrasing and dynamics/expression.

Where backing tracks are used, particularly in the rock/metal genre, they must be edited. These charts are very repetitive and the candidate runs the risk of failing due to lack of rigor.

c) Guitarists and bass players need to shape the music they play. All candidates need to understand

and perform musical phrasing, dynamics and melodic lines. Some guitar candidates were so caught up in playing the chords that there was no melodic phrasing and the piece lost its musicality.

d) Drummers need to perform with dynamics and expression throughout their entire programme.

Musicality needs to be evident. It was very pleasing to see all candidates perform one fully charted snare drum solo.

e) Drum candidates must make sure their performance programme contains enough rigor. Due to

the repetitive nature of drum music, this can be easily overlooked.


Tasmanian Qualifications Authority of 25

f) Contemporary singers are still not presenting a piece that is sung as per the written score. Often, examiners had to guess which pieces they were singing because; a) nothing was indicated on the programme sheet, and b) when the entire programme was sung, no piece was strictly accurate. Candidates run the risk of losing marks because the examiners cannot adequately assess accuracy (criteria 7). It is the chief examiner’s recommendation that all contemporary singers mark on the programme sheet which piece will be sung as per the written score. Only one piece is required to be marked.

I would like to congratulate candidates for their performance programme being the right length of time. There were, however two performances this year where the programme time was short. It was pleasing that all candidates seemed prepared for the exam experience and presented their performance programme in a mature manner.

Theory and Musicianship: (Solutions page attached to this report) Section A dealt with Criteria 6 (aural skills) whilst Section B and C fulfilled the requirement for Criteria 5 (application of music elements). The conversion table of results is as follows (105 theory papers):

Question 1 This question was generally well answered. The common mistake was candidates not understanding ‘call and response’. Question 2 Excerpt 1 was the best answered. In excerpt 3, many mixed 12/8 (correct answer) with 6/8. Excerpt 2 was the worst answered with candidates not identifying a simple duple meter. In all three excerpts, the tonality proved to cause the most concern. It seemed that candidates were listening to the rhythm (fast upbeat rhythm in excerpt 2) rather than the tonality.

Results Criteria 5 Results Criteria 6 A (39 – 49) – 80%

30 students 29%

A (25.5 -‐ 32) – 80%

26 students 25%

B (31.5 –38.5) – 65%

21 students 20%

B (20.5 – 25) – 65%

43 students 41%

C (24.5 – 31) – 50%

30 students 29%

C (16 – 20) – 50%

29 students 28%

T (0 – 24)

24 students 23%

T (0 – 15.5)

7 students 7%



Question 3 A great question which was very well answered. Question 4 Bars 2 and 4 (beats 3 and 4) were often wrong. Many candidates did not identify the tied notes. Question 5 The question was very well answered. It was great to see students identifying the melodic differences and marking them on the exam paper. Question 6 The arpeggiated notes in bar 5 were poorly answered while almost all candidates correctly picked the ascending notes in bar 2. Question 7 A very well answered question. Question 8 Most candidates correctly identified the errors. This question was well answered. Question 9 The largest mistake was candidates not putting in the bar line at the end of each example. Also candidates did not fully understand the 2/2 and 6/4 time signatures. Question 10 This was the most poorly answered question. Common errors include candidates not reading the key signature to work out the chord, not identifying the tonality of a chord, not using the melodic notes as chord notes (often answers were random chords) and not identifying the change of clef. Question 11 This question was poorly answered. It was apparent that note groupings were not understood.



Question 12 • The key identification was answered correctly 100% of the time; • Performance instructions were well answered; • Intervals were mostly well answered. Interval 1 (Dim 5th) was often answered as a Perf 5th; • Chords were generally identified correctly. Chord 2 (Dmaj7) was the worst answered; • Cadences were well answered; • Generally the compositional devices were well identified on the score and the device description

was well answered. Most candidates could easily pick four devices; • The trill was the best answered while hardly any candidate identified the turn correctly (one

student wrote that it was a ‘funny moustache’; • The key transposition to Eb alto saxophone was well answered. Question 13 The transposition portion of the question was only half answered correctly. The common mistake was not transposing up a tone -‐ this has a flow on effect to correctly writing the key signature. The clef, time signature, slur, dynamic marking and alignment were well done and almost everyone included them in their answer. Question 14 The biggest error was candidates not clearly labelling their devices. Many candidates did not transfer the key signature to each stave and there were a few candidates who did not add enough bars to their composition. The examiners also looked at whether the compositional techniques were used in context and complemented the melody. Composition There were 7 composition folios this year utilising the jazz, contemporary and aleatoric idioms. Scores included instrumental solos, duets/quartets, small ensembles and full jazz and concert band charts. All submissions were of a high standard and no ‘C’ or ‘t’ rating was given. Observations • Candidates need to avoid using repeats that have no discernable changes – for example, dynamic

or time changes. • The ‘C’ score must show the notes of pitches in the correct register. Part of the examination

process is to look at the harmonic spacing of notes. • If the composition is an arrangement, then the original notated version must be supplied.



• Candidates must be very accurate in terms of labeling a work as a composition or improvisation. If the piece is an improvisation, candidates need to indicate whether they are playing the improvisation on the recording.

• Candidates need to check the overall folio for use of modulations, articulations, breath marks,

pedal marks, phrase marks and dynamics. Expression and articulation are essential elements that candidates must understand when crafting a piece of meaningful music.

• Statements of intent needed editing and refining. There was too much ‘Airy Fairy’ talk that didn’t

mean anything or support the composition’s development. There were a few statements that contradicted and sometimes created an incorrect impression of the composition.

• Teachers need to check their student’s audio CD. This year there was one CD that didn’t work as

no data was on the CD at all.



NEGOTIATED STUDY There were no negotiated studies submitted this year.

Bass Solo Sample

TASMANIAN QUALIFICATIONS AUTHORITY

ASSESSMENT PANEL REPORT

MSM315110 Music

17% (15) 19% (17) 34% (30) 30% (27) 89

16% (14) 18% (16) 34% (30) 31% (27) 87

11 % 19 % 39 % 31 %

12 % 19 % 39 % 30 %

11 % 19 % 39 % 30 %

48% (43) 52% (46) 79% (70) 21% (19)

66% (57) 34% (30) 70% (61) 30% (26)

50% 50% 58% 42%

This year

Last year

Previous 5 years

EA HA CA SA Total

Previous 5 years (all examined subjects)

Last year (all examined subjects)

Award Distribution

Student Distribution (SA or better)

This year

Last year

Previous 5 years

Male Female Year 11 Year 12


Tasmanian Qualifications Authority Page 25 of 25

MSM315110 - Music - Assessment Report 2013 · Music Course Code: MSM315110 2013 Assessment Report...

Documents

Transcript of MSM315110 - Music - Assessment Report 2013 · Music Course Code: MSM315110 2013 Assessment Report...