GCE AS EXAMINERS' REPORTS

Transcription

1 GCE AS EXAMINERS' REPORTS MUSIC AS SUMMER 2017

2 Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at: Online Results Analysis WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer at the centre. Annual Statistical Report The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC. Component Page Component 1 1 Component 2 3 Component 3 10

3 EDUQAS GCE AS MUSIC Summer 2017 COMPONENT 1 PERFORMING A warm welcome was given to all examiners and the majority of candidates performed to their highest personal standards and seemed to enjoy the experience of performing live. In most cases, the administration and timetabling of the examinations was excellent with many centres providing running orders. In the case of longer sessions at colleges and where there are consortium arrangements between centres, please continue to build into your timetables comfort breaks for the examiners. Allowing 12 minutes for Component 1 seems ideal in most cases. Looking forward to the A level examination next year, I would recommend allowing 15 minutes for A level Option A and 12 minutes for A level Option B. Most centres had downloaded the correct forms as required but, in some instances, these had been completed by the candidates themselves. Please double-check these for accuracy. In addition, forms need to be completed neatly and legibly. In some instances, examination numbers were missing from the forms when they were given to examiners. Please ensure that Links with an Area of Study have also been completed. At AS level the links should be made with the Western Classical Tradition (Baroque, Classical or Romantic but not 20 th or 21 st Century music,) Rock and Pop, Musical Theatre and Jazz. Examination rooms were, on the whole, fit for purpose with good quality pianos which had been recently tuned. Some centres choose to use electronic keyboards. In cases where the standard of the repertoire is known, it would be helpful if this information was given on the form. Most candidates provided copies of their music for the examiners. Please ensure these are correctly labelled with the candidate's name and number. Please ensure that the music provided accurately reflects the performance being given, especially when downloading tab from the internet. In order to achieve the top marks for accuracy, singers must ensure that the vocal line has been added to lead sheets which give lyrics and chords. Please clearly mark any repeats, cuts or any other modifications on the copies. In addition, ensure that the edge of the music has not been cut off on the photocopy. There were many excellent performers but some candidates need to give more careful consideration to their choice of programme as some are over-ambitious. Conversely, the occasional candidate performed a lower standard piece amongst more difficult repertoire which resulted in a lower overall mark. In some instances, more care is needed in choosing ensemble repertoire in order to ensure that the individual parts are significant and of the required standard. These parts must not be doubled by any other performer. Candidates also need to be aware of the technical challenge afforded by their own compositions in this regard. Teachers and candidates should familiarise themselves with the assessment criteria. 1

4 Standards of accompaniment were very good on the whole. Some centres now bring in professional accompanists. Performers need to ensure that they pay attention to the performance directions on the music. Some drummers and guitarists are not aware of the need for contrast, especially of dynamics. Some singers lack projection and communication due to over-reliance on their music. If the music or lyrics are needed, it would be preferable for them to be placed on a stand, slightly to the side of the performer. In most instances, electronic equipment had been set up and sound-checked in advance allowing the examination to proceed without hold-ups. More careful timing of recitals is necessary in some instances in order to ensure that candidates do not fall short of the minimum requirement and face a penalty as stated in the specification. It should be noted that long piano introductions (e.g. orchestral expositions in concerti,) will not be included when calculating the time of a recital. On the whole, the feedback from the examining team was very positive and I am very grateful to all those involved, including the team based in the office in Cardiff. 2

5 EDUQAS GCE AS MUSIC Summer 2017 COMPONENT 2 COMPOSING This report is a general overview based on the feedback received from the members of the examining team which I hope will be of value to all those responsible for guiding future candidates in their completion of Music coursework. Administration In the vast majority of cases the new submission process was very straightforward, though there were a number of late additions after the official deadline. It was felt by all concerned that the new on-line system was a real improvement: almost all centres adhered to the correct completion of administration, and had uploaded the correct documents, clearly labelled with well-presented scores, which were usually exported as a pdf from Sibelius or another notation software. Some examiners noted incorrect brief numbers in that the number given on their initial form did not match that described and noted in the candidate log. It seemed that briefs 2 and 3 were constantly interchangeable as details on the logs did not always match the online administration details. One centre incorrectly uploaded the old MU2 forms. Only one centre submitted their work on paper with a CD for each candidate. Errors or missing files were dealt with quickly and efficiently. For future reference, please check that log sheets are signed by pupil and teacher before uploading and crucially, ensure that complete recordings have been uploaded and labelled in full. There were a number of occasions where a score had only partially uploaded (or was missing), the recordings for a candidate s work were incomplete (or missing), a few Sibelius files which could not be accessed by the examiner, and some duplicated uploads for a few candidates. Files must be in the approved formats. Candidate Logs Without exception, examiners noted that these varied considerably in content and quality - from being extremely brief with little information regarding the composition process, to overly detailed, containing analytical details (not required with a score), with many continuing to describe the piece rather than the process. There were examples of mixed and occasionally muddled information which did not show understanding. Future candidates would be well advised to check all details that they present in their logs. There were some examples of hand-written logs which were difficult to read after the uploading and one centre submitted photographs of the logs which were quite small; when expanded the images pixellated, making it quite difficult to read. The documentation is far clearer when the required information has been typed onto the form available for download on the WJEC website; this allows more content to be written when necessary, as the box will expand accordingly. The majority of the accompanying explanatory information demonstrated a strong connection to the brief when candidates were able to articulate how they had realised their aims in a compositional context. Weaker logs were considered to be insufficient and lacking in the necessary explanation, intention and reasoning. 3

6 It is always important and interesting to read which pieces have inspired candidates, though a few candidates listed composers from the 20 th /21 st century as inspiration for their WCT pieces; this was considered inappropriate. Examiners often expressed the opinion that certain candidates misunderstood the purpose of the composition log; writing very brief comments which described little, at times including a detailed analysis of the music and often not referring to the brief. What is required is a description of the process of composing. The most helpful responses told the examiner what the candidate was aiming to do, their inspiration, and how the journey was navigated midpoint and at the end of the process; the log is the place for the student to explain how the brief has been fulfilled, clarify the musical response to the brief, explain their musical choices why they will use particular features or elements, what they have decided to use at each stage of the process, and how the ideas will be used. Details of teacher advice and suggestions for targets are also useful to know. Crucially important is any necessary information about music composed by others which has been used as a model also, details of the way music technology was used to create the music. Centres should be aware that collaborations mean that the examiner can only award to marks to what they know is the candidate s own contribution therefore, this also must to be made very clear in the brief. On occasion, the writing was not coherent in terms of the students explanation of what they had done (proof reading of logs would certainly be beneficial). From some logs, particularly for the free compositions, it was pleasing to really get a sense of the candidates musical passions and interests. It was felt that some titles chosen for pieces were not appropriate for the purposes of examination, and others were apparently completely irrelevant to the musical content. Scores / Leadsheets Most candidates took every advantage of technology to produce scores, and the use of ICT was of a very high standard in the main. This is a necessity and therefore commendable practice, reflecting well on the professional approach now found in centres. Candidates from one centre decorated their scores in different colours, circling every accent, and illustrating crescendi, slurs and so on; there is no requirement for this. Some scores (e.g. those created in Logic ) were not as clear. Screenshots provided with sufficient annotation and explanation seemed to be in the minority; please remind all future candidates that additional and detailed musical explanation is required when no score has been submitted, and precise details on the application of technology is required (please refer to the specification and Teachers Guidance for details). Perhaps some notation /screenshots of the individual tracks could be presented, and students could explore any available editing windows which may offer more insight into the piece s construction. Recordings Many compositions were realized via computer. This is perfectly acceptable and easier on the ear when the instrumental MIDI sounds are created using up-to-date software. It is always a pleasure to listen to live recordings of a composition, and some centres had produced professional recordings using extremely talented performers. It is excellent practice as the students are able to establish suitability of part writing for voices and / or instruments. On occasion, such superb performance standards did give a false impression of the pieces being better than they actually were, as the actual content sometimes lacked development of ideas. It is so important to bear the assessment criteria in mind! There were also some amazing live school orchestra and big band performances, and it was clear from the candidates handling of the ensembles that they had a very good knowledge and first-hand experience of the ensembles for which they were writing. Conversely, there were also examples of live recordings which did not enhance the pieces; in such circumstances it may be advisable to submit the digital realisation in support of the coursework. There were examples of all students in a centre writing for the same instruments (possibly as these were available to make the live recording); please remember 4

7 that a restricted choice such as this may not always play to the individual candidates strengths. A small minority of candidates sung their songs live with the accompaniment they had created, and this sometimes indicated inferior recording equipment; on other occasions, singers who performed their work against a backing track created on computer did not manage to achieve an outcome that was always well balanced. It is always worth listening back to the exported audio file to ensure the balance of parts is acceptable. Timings Examiners reported that the folios comfortably satisfied the time requirements, with no need for penalties. However, there were often some quite large discrepancies between the timings as stated on the logs and the actual timings of the pieces (which perhaps could be checked in future coursework as the timing is such an important consideration). If anything, reports included comments that suggested that some of the free compositions were overly long, with content that did not justify the extended length. General observations Overall, there was a range of ability in evidence, with many pieces falling in the mid to upper range. Most candidates explored a contrasting style and instrumentation for their free piece; generally candidates demonstrated a sound appreciation of the style they wished to achieve, though further research and wider listening would have helped in many cases. The general opinion was that most work contained features that could reach the third and fourth bands of assessment criteria, even if not consistently, and there was evidence of impressive work that was an absolute delight to listen to. Unfortunately a few examiners felt that other work submitted was disappointing. The following (varied) points are observations made by examiners that I feel are worth noting here for the benefit of both teachers and future candidates: Long and rambling structures caused much work to lose marks; often, pieces started with initial ideas that showed potential, but did not develop effectively due to lack of a clear structure, planned focus and direction. Overly-long pieces were often self-penalising in musical quality as they meandered without clear purpose or musical climax. Sometimes the endings of pieces were weak. Sonata form was at times expertly handled when chosen for use in the free composition; for others, it proved too much of a challenge, and examiners felt a simpler structure would have resulted in a more successful outcome and candidates perhaps could have displayed a more secure understanding of musical structure in the pieces. For example, some candidates offered what was described as theme and variation pieces in the log; however, the musical sections appeared to just be a series of different themes linked to different ideas and / or characters. Although the musical content was often good, the structure was incorrectly realised. Candidates should think about the function of particular instruments in an ensemble, taking into consideration the ranges and capabilities of the instruments/voices. The best work effectively married the ideas to the selected resources; less able students would be better advised, perhaps, to write for a smaller number of parts. Special instrumental techniques were often added (especially pizzicato) - but only too often, insufficient thought was given to its placing or purpose. In most cases, instrumental parts were idiomatic and demonstrated a secure understanding of the resources, with many outcomes being realistic for live performance. There were some excellent examples of writing for piano, resulting in some brilliant solo pieces, but more often than not, piano parts were a little simplistic and basic (and often unidiomatic), indicating that candidates may not be secure in writing for this instrument. There 5

8 were some fine examples of students writing for their own instruments or instrumental family brass in particular - which allowed them to produce work with a real sense of understanding and flair. Occasionally there were lines for performers which clearly lay outside range, which would have been impossible to play live (one candidate composed for the cello entirely in the treble clef). In contrast, one student indicated within their supporting document, that they were going to challenge themselves by writing for unfamiliar instruments (perhaps not the best idea ever conceived!). Often - though not always - compositions written for a smaller, more manageable number of instruments resulted in a better outcome. Writing for voices was not always successfully achieved, and in particular vocal ranges and word-setting not always comfortably placed. Correct attention to such details will bring dividends in terms of assessment. In the WCT composition, initial ideas were sometimes described as banal which did not help the student to create an effective outcome. Strong thematic material is usually the mark of a good composition in this style, and concentration on this in the initial planning of a piece will bring improved standards, particularly in development of the material. In terms of harmony, content was generally acceptable, with evidence of good substance. Candidates who wrote in the minor did not always present their musical ideas with complete understanding - additional supportive preliminary work on this topic would have been of benefit to many. More generally, harmonic rhythm was often a predictable one chord per bar; more interest in this respect, both in harmonic rhythm, types of chords and modulation - of the standard as suggested in the specification would add to the quality and effect. Use of chromatic harmonies such as diminished 7ths, augmented 6 th chords and the use of the cadential 6/4 were rarely incorporated. Some evidence of this nature would provide appropriate substance at this advanced level. Texturally, much work was homophonic, and when imitation was used it was usually at the octave - here also, useful preliminary work in counterpoint with candidates considering the effect of imitation at the fourth and fifth would be appropriate, particularly for developmental purposes. Candidates should also be aware that excessive layering and overlapping parts sometimes stops a melody from being heard properly (especially, for example, in an ensemble texture). Dynamics were practically always an afterthought (as described in the logs) rather than being an integral part of the composition. Tempo was often just the default setting on Sibelius greater thought would help to give compositions more distinctive character. WCT Compositions Response to the set briefs: The new system of the four set briefs set for the WCT was well received on the whole, and apart from one or two instances, candidates selected from the correct list, though some candidates were vague in the interpretation of their selected brief. It was apparent that some centres had possibly selected the same brief for all their students which resulted in a class task approach. At times it was felt that this rather narrowed individual creativity amongst submissions. 6

9 Brief 1: Wedding Song. There were only a handful of these compositions, some of which captured the style and maintained an appropriate response. Few managed to construct a substantial composition. Melodic writing was quite well handled, but the accompaniment often tended to be a little limited, relying on a limited range of chords, or remaining undeveloped. Songs were often strophic with similar material in each verse; an occasional attempt to word paint enhanced some songs. Harmony was usually suitable, if unexciting. Some songs contained elements of a pop style which was not appropriate. Brief 2: Trio for Concert Hall. These were mainly instrumental and were a popular choice amongst candidates. In some centres this seemed to have been approached as a set class task, with all candidates writing for the same instrumental combination. At times it was felt that this hindered personal invention and response. The challenge of writing for a trio caused some problems when candidates wrote for three instruments but not in a trio texture (whether Baroque, Classical or Romantic). In some trios written, a piano/harp was included as the third instrument, and the material given to the instrument made the result more of a duet with accompaniment. Some found it a real challenge to control and manipulate suitable 3 part harmony ; the chord placing was often weak, two parts were occasionally in unison and the 3 rd part sounding the 5 th of the chord. Brief 3: Chamber concert piece, with devices. This was another popular choice - there were some really good wind quartets and quintets, string quartets and brass ensembles submitted. There was often a very good attempt to use two or even more of the named devices, which really appeared to help the candidates to develop and extend their melodic ideas. Examiners noted that a main fault here lay in the prominence of the chosen devices. Some candidates did not mention any devices in their logs, and others mentioned devices that didn t prominently feature in the composition! The most common selections were sequence and imitation, but a few bars of each was not considered to be sufficiently prominent in the outcome. Occasionally, the candidates concentrated solely on the devices and failed to create balanced, well-shaped melodies; some lacked a sense of musicality overall, others relied a little too heavily on copy and paste (e.g. in the return of an A section). Misunderstanding occurred when pedal was interpreted as a long bass-note often underlying static harmony, (therefore not in the manner of pedals in classical-romantic harmony), and sequence was interpreted as a chord sequence. Brief 4: Prelude for Romeo and Juliet. Some interesting responses here, including descriptive compositions as the brief played nicely into the hands of the film soundtrack fans! There were also examples which took a Baroque, Classical and Romantic take on the brief, and all were effective. Less successful were compositions which failed to portray any real sense of style, situation or mood. Many candidates used the idea of the Leitmotif, with various motifs for characters and events while others created purely background music with no attempt to tell the story, as such, but also achieved very successful results. Some harmonic work and styling was too modern, and did not successfully reflect the language, techniques and conventions of the Baroque, Classical and Romantic eras. 7

10 Standards. a) Western Classical Tradition. The majority of compositions were true reflections of the WCT; few did not succeed in this respect. Often, pieces started with clear intentions and lost their way in the development and use of a variety of compositional techniques, as new ideas were generated as opposed to looking back at the initial elements of the piece and manipulating the established material in a new way. Too often repetition was used as a means to generate length, with some students using direct repeats; while this is obviously stylistic in the sense of some 18 th century trios, it did not allow for marks to be given in the development category. Whilst it is good to see that candidates had been inspired by certain pieces and composers, a small minority of candidates were too reliant on pastiche and the clear borrowing of ideas from other sources. For examination purposes, candidates must emulate and reflect the Western Classical Style while being creative with their own ideas. Some almost gave direct quotes e.g. one piece was inspired by the Rodrigo Guitar concerto, but the initial melodic material clearly owed much to the actual Rodrigo piece. A few veered away from a Western Classical Style in their first composition, with some obvious 20 th /21 st Century inspiration in some cases and actually stated the modern inspirations in their logs! As has already been suggested in this report, this is not advisable when the outcome is reliant on effectively capturing the musical style of the Western Classical Tradition. Candidates stating that they intended to be original and explorative in their interpretation of giving the WCT a new twist did not convince. Inclusion of such techniques as jazzy rhythms, frequent changes of metre / time signature were misplaced and not appropriate. Overall, though some suggestions have already been made (see previous notes), control of harmony was considered to be good, including the manipulation of cadences and modulation. There was generally a pleasing awareness of key structure and many candidates also attempted to use circles of fifths in their pieces and explore a range of keys in their development sections (though there was often a tendency to change key signature on the score every few bars when the music was moving through different keys). Some examiners were particularly impressed at the attempt made by some candidates to develop their ideas, and for many this was considered to be a real strength. Even when the initial ideas were not particularly strong or well-shaped, pieces were often improved by considered attempts to extend and develop the material using a range of techniques and devices. Attempt was made by the strongest candidates to portray a variety of textural procedures as appropriate to the WCT, which also had an impact on candidates accessing the higher band of assessment. b) Free Compositions Most candidates correctly highlighted a suitable brief, occasion and audience for their second composition. Greater freedom of choice was observed here as these pieces generally reflected the candidates musical interests, which is most encouraging. There were examples of string quartets and quintets, brass pieces, piano solos (lots were Einaudiinspired yet again), film music, jazz ensembles, rock, funk, pop and indie. The more unusual compositions included a guitar and percussion piece, a harp duet, and a progressive neosoul work. It was encouraging to listen to a few live performances, though examiners noted that in this respect, there seemed to be less this year in the free pieces. Many of the more modern pieces sounded really effective, but were unable to access the higher bands of assessment as they lacked sufficient development in both thematic material and texture, and were too repetitive and simplistic harmonically; a number of film scores also lacked clarity in terms of organisation and development of musical ideas, presenting meandering melodic content that lacked focus and direction. 8

11 Some pop songs had no words or lead sheets, no backing instruments, and in one instance, just a vocal melodic line. It was rather disappointing to hear that one of the rock-influenced songs included offensive language almost in every verse or chorus this is not regarded as acceptable examination practice. So, rather a varied picture: a selection of the examiners stated that the free compositions presented in their allocation received a higher mark than the WCT brief, and it was clear that for some students their innate musical language was far more secure than some of the concepts required and being assessed within the WCT brief. The most effective pieces demonstrated excellent textural control and variety, with thoughtful development of ideas, strong progressions of harmony and distinctive, well-shaped and characterful melodic content. Other examiners found the free compositions to be less successful in their allocation, commenting that the results were short, repetitive, and lacking in any real attempt to develop the initial melodic, rhythmic or harmonic material. The pieces that were written using serial techniques were, in the main, less successful. To be able to create a row and all its 144 permutations is not that difficult and neither is it to apply all of the rows correctly in a variety of aggregates and forms across a piece and thereby satisfy the criteria of successfully following the brief : however, to do it with control, real musicality, understanding of the genre and conviction is! Too often the pieces had all the correct hallmarks of early serial works; dissonance, extremes of register, complex irrational rhythms, wide varieties of dynamic marking, but unfortunately the end result was often not a satisfying reflection of the style lacking interest and musical conviction in terms of texture, content and effect. Most examiners felt that many candidates would have been better off picking a musical language with which they were more familiar, producing a result that represented less of an academic exercise. 9

12 EDUQAS GCE AS MUSIC Summer 2017 COMPONENT 3 APPRAISING Candidates and centres are to be congratulated on the successful preparation that has clearly taken place for this examination. It is always challenging getting to grips with a new specification, but there was clear evidence that the content and overall ethos of this component had been taken on board. Hopefully the feedback given in this report will help inform teachers and candidates of ways in which they can build further on their achievements for next year s A level component 3 examination, as well as guiding teachers of future AS canidates. To this end, there will be detailed feedback on each question. Where questions ask for two features or points to be given, learners need to be aware that it is the first two answers written that are marked, regardless of whether these or subsequent answers are right or wrong. It is thus not in candidates interest to give more answers than the number asked for. In general, candidates need to be aiming for more detailed answers, with the detail focusing on the particular aspect called for in the question. Many answers were too generalised. Where the question asks for answers to be supported by bar number references or other means of identification, candidates do need to do this. There were quite a few instances this year, where accurate points were made, but because they were not identified with precise locations, could not receive credit. Candidates should aim to use the correct technical terminology and vocabulary in support of the points they make wherever possible. Pedal note was often used incorrectly to refer to any held or repeated note. Section 1 Area of Study B: Rock and Pop Question 1 a) This was generally well answered, though not all comments were directed to the lead vocal part. By features, it should be noted that this does not mean performance techniques. Despite the question warning against mentioning studio effects in this question, some did, unfortunately. b) Candidates should guard against stating too obvious features (e.g. that the instrumental link was for instruments rather than voices) but aim for specific details such as features of orchestration, harmony, tonality, dynamics etc. c) Questions on harmony and tonality require comments about the types of chords and keys used. This did not always happen, with aspects other than harmony and tonality being discussed. The question asked for points to be related to the structure or text, and answers that did not do this failed to score as highly. 10

13 d) There were answers which listed instruments used, but the question asked for comments on their role ie how they were used. Merely naming instruments limited the marks awarded. e) This was generally well answered though candidates need to distinguish between studio effects and instrumental effects. f) The year of composition within a ten-year span was accepted. Question 2 a) This was well answered. bi) bii) Answers were not always precise enough; specific features about the riff e.g. number of notes, which pitches and the intervals between them were needed. Again, precise locations in relation to the verse, chorus e.g., were needed. c) This question on bpm was surprisingly poorly answered. d) Some answers successfully focussed on specific technical descriptions of texture such as monophonic, a cappella, homophonic, linking these descriptions to precise locations in the bridge section. Sadly, sometimes textural terminology was wrongly used. The question did call for a discussion of texture and/or sonority. Precise instruments and their use needed to be discussed if sonority was going to be credited. e) The style of music was mostly correctly identified and where it was, usually three features of the style were also correctly identified. f) The year of composition was accurately identified in the majority of cases. Question3 There were some detailed, focused answers which referenced two songs from the 1960s and two from the 1970s as the question asked. However, quite a few responses failed to fulfil this requirement either by only referencing one song from each decade, or attaching songs to the wrong decade. The question asked for a discussion of structure and in some cases, there were few or no references to structure, answers consisting of general descriptions of songs instead. This was reflected in the mark they were awarded. Candidates need to consider the organisation of essay responses so that the particular aspects asked for in the question are clearly addressed in the answer. This could be done via separate paragraphs. Area of Study C: Music Theatre Question 4 a) This was well answered. 4/4, 2/4 or 2/2 was credited. b) This was not so well answered, though quite a lot heard the correct number of voices four. c) Despite the question focusing answers on melodic writing, there were instances of general description here which did not concentrate on the melody. 11

14 d) This question was disappointingly answered. Candidates did not always show a clear grasp of what harmony meant. There were some clear examples of melodic sequence, use of tonic subdominant and dominant chords, and imperfect cadences at ends of lines which learners failed to comment on. e) Specific features of rhythm (e.g. dotted rhythms, triplets, contrasts of particular note lengths) needed to be mentioned. Answers were sometimes too general. f) Where the terminology for texture was understood, answers were convincing, but there were quite a few instances where it was apparent that the term texture was not securely grasped. e) Some correct answers here. f) And quite a lot of correct answers here. Question 5 a) This question was not very well answered. Learners seemed to find the differentiation of major, minor, pentatonic and chromatic challenging. b) This was well answered with 4/4 or 2/4 being accepted. c) Tonality was an area that caused some challenges and this question was not particularly well answered. In addition, unfortunately in some cases, even though accurate facts about tonality were included, these were not corroborated with line number references as instructed in the question and therefore could not be credited. d) This question was well answered. e) There were some good answers about vocal writing, though again, the direction to support points with precise references was not always observed. Answers also tended to lack focus on the vocal writing at times, discussing aspects of instrumentation instead. f) Many convincing answers here, with candidates homing in on precise use of instruments successfully. It was not sufficient to name the instruments without discussing how they were used to create excitement and drama. g) There were many correct answers for both the composer and the year of composition. Question 6 There seems to have been a misunderstanding of what was meant by the structure of musical theatre songs by some learners. In some cases, answers referred aspects of musicals in general rather than discussing ways in which individual numbers used structure. The question was inviting comments about the use of such structures as 32 bar song form, verse/chorus, strophic or through composed numbers. There was also the opportunity for comments to be made about the way lyrics, plot, dance or dialogue had influenced the structure of individual songs or songs being used as part of a larger scene. Sadly, many answers did not focus on these aspects but consisted of a generalised account of musicals, sometimes not referring to structure at all. Conversely, where the point of the question had 12

15 been grasped, there were some well-focused responses in which a clear engagement with structural details of individual numbers was present and justly rewarded. It is important to quote relevant musicals as directed by the question. Not all candidates wrote about an early and a later work. Area of Study D: Jazz Question 7 a) In some cases, answers referred to more than just the introduction as stipulated in the question. Learners are encouraged to make full use of the structural table provided at the start of the jazz questions to be sure of referring to the correct number of bars. Answers were not always precise and detailed enough. Features about the music itself such as using one note only, dotted rhythms or based on the dominant note were the sorts of answers required, rather than descriptions of dynamics or how instruments were played. b) This was fairly well answered. c) Mostly accurate answers here. d) Some answers failed to score the mark for identifying the solo instrument as they did not specify what type of saxophone was being played. It was not sufficient to state saxophone only. In general more detail was needed about how the accompanying instruments played, such as stating which beats individual instruments played on, or describing the rhythmic patterns used in the accompaniment. e) The above was true for this question too. Marks were lost by answers being rather vague. Candidates needed to identify which instruments of the drum kit were used in different parts of the solo. Similarly, precise points about the nature of the accompaniment figures used were needed. Not many answers showed an awareness of the muted trumpets and tenor sax playing a skeleton version of the melody from the head. Stab chords and stop time were correctly mentioned though. f) The style was identified correctly in the majority of cases. Question 8 a) There were few answers that correctly identified this as a septet. Many thought it was a sextet. b) This question was well answered on the whole, though marks were lost by the type of saxophone used not being included. c) Specific features about the music itself needed to be identified, not descriptions of playing techniques. d) As with other questions asking for descriptions of how particular instruments or sections are used, precise detail was needed. This could have included naming which instruments played on what beats or identifying accompanying styles (e.g. comping, bombs or walking bass). e) The style and its representative features were mostly successfully identified for this extract. 13

16 Question 9 As with the comparable questions in areas of study b and c, answers did not always focus on how structures were used. Instead, more general answers about overall features of jazz numbers were included. The question called for discussion of the different types of structures used in jazz e.g. 12 bar blues, 32 bar song form etc. with their constituent subdivisions (head, solos etc.) and how these were changed/developed according to the style of jazz. In some cases, this was achieved successfully with learners showing secure understanding and knowledge of specific jazz numbers. There was a lack of appropriate technical terminology present at times. In most cases, contrasting styles were discussed. Section 2 Area of Study A: The Western Classical Tradition Question 10 a) Mostly correct answers here. b) A few answers did not correctly identify the bassoon. c) Quite a few wrong answers here showing a lack of security with some technical terms. d) Many correctly identified the intervals. e) The perfect cadence was mostly accurately identified. f) Identification of chords proved challenging. Whilst many correctly described the first chord as A major, quite a few did not clarify that the 7 th was a minor 7 th i.e., that the chord was A7, or a dominant 7 th on A and not A major 7 which did not gain credit. The diminished 7 th was less frequently identified. g) The keys were mostly accurately identified in these questions. h) Many answers correctly identified one feature typical of a Minuet and Trio (3/4 time signature) but few added a correct second feature (reduced instrumentation, repeated section, modulation). Question 11 Out of the whole paper, this was probably the least well answered question. a) Most identified the key correctly as A minor with a few stating C major. b) There were not many answers that were completely accurate, though most scored at least one mark here. Some fell into the trap of writing their answer in 4/4 instead of 2/4. c) The pitch dictation was not well answered with a few exceptions. This question proved very challenging. Answers did not show an awareness of harmonic context. Ledger lines seemed to present difficulty too. d) This was quite well answered. e) Some answers lost credit here because they did not include a beat number reference as requested. 14

17 f) The key was rarely identified correctly; recognition of the type of cadence was more successful. Question 12 There were some very full, detailed answers to this comparison question. Some chose to divide the page vertically, making points about relevant areas in clear, self-contained paragraphs. This focused the answer successfully. Others chose to write in essay form. Whilst there were very good answers produced through this approach, it sometimes resulted in rather generalised narrative. There was sometimes a tendency to include pre-learned factual information that did not apply specifically to the extracts heard (e.g. terraced dynamics ). Some answers were rather brief. On the whole though, this was a wellanswered question with perceptive, accurate comments about the music heard. Question 13 Haydn Symphony No 104 London. The majority of the candidates answered this question. a) The key of the opening was accurately answered in the main, though a few chose D major, perhaps misreading the direction that pointed candidates to the start of the symphony. The date of composition was usually correctly identified, though very few knew that the notes of horns in D sounded a minor 7 th lower. b) There was some confusion apparent in this question over technical terminology regarding texture. The monophonic (or unison/octave) opening was erroneously referred to as homophonic or tutti on a number of occasions. Again, answers sometimes lacked validity due to not being identified with bar numbers as requested at the start of this question. c) The section was correctly identified in the majority of answers. d) A surprising number of answers failed to identify this theme as the second subject (or S2a), erroneously referring to it as the first subject. The confusion, of course, comes from the fact that the movement is monothematic. However, many candidates did not seem to understand that the theme s function (and tonality) at this point is that of a second subject not first subject. e) This comparison question was well answered overall with many accurately noting differences of key, instrumentation and length, or similarities of melodic material and texture. f) There were some very good answers to this question, showing a sound grasp of tonality changes, and supporting these observations with precise bar references. However, they were rather few and far between. Many mentioned relevant keys, but failed to support them with bar locations thus limiting their credit. Sadly, some answers did not refer to tonality at all, or referred to bars that did not form part of the development section. 15

18 Question 14 Mendelssohn Symphony No 4 Italian Very few candidates answered this question. a) The key was usually correctly identified as was the year of composition. The interval of transposition for the trumpets in D was mostly correctly identified. b) Sonority seemed not to be well understood as answers here did not often discuss instruments and their use. c) The section was accurately named in the majority of cases, though not so the theme. d) This comparison question was quite well answered. e) Discussing tonality seemed to prove challenging. There were some accurate, detailed answers with the most successful being supported by precise bar references, but in some cases, there were few references to tonality with inaccurate or no bar number references. Eduqas AS Music Report Summer 2017/ED 16

19 WJEC 245 Western Avenue Cardiff CF5 2YX Tel No Fax website: