GCSE MUSIC Composing Music Report on the Examination June Version: 1.0

Transcription

1 GCSE MUSIC Composing Music Report on the Examination 4270 June 2014 Version: 1.0

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2014 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

3 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION GCSE MUSIC 4270 JUNE Composing Music Assessment Students are required to compose in response to two or more of the five Areas of Study and where they had complied with this, and the selected AoS were appropriate to the music presented, teachers tended to be more accurate with the assessment. The most accurate assessments often came from schools or colleges where the teacher responsible for assessment had completed page 4 of the Candidate Record Form (CRF) with diligence and attention to detail focusing clearly on the assessment criteria and linking it to evidence in the work presented. However, in a large number of cases assessments tended to over-value the quality of the work. This was particularly evident in examples where work had been assessed in the upper two mark bands but where there was limited or no development of the initial musical ideas and / or the music lacked a secure sense of idiomatic writing. This was often the case in computer-sequenced compositions that relied very heavily on excessive repetition of sequenced loops. Whilst in many cases these pieces demonstrated a degree of success they often lacked the necessary imagination to justify the marks awarded. Many teacher comments were much clearer than in previous years, but not all were enlightening. Some teachers simply quoted the bullet points for the relevant mark band for the mark awarded with no reference to the work. Some teachers had only written information for the mark justification, and again, some had written virtually nothing at all, and then added a mark at the bottom of the sheet with a very brief comment. An increasing cause for concern is that there seemed to be an increase in the fact that some teachers were picking out the positives in the music without balancing this with some of the negative aspects that occurred, and then awarding a mark on that basis, consequently over-valuing the quality of the work. Another area of concern in relation to assessment was evident in work that contained a degree of incoherence in the writing in relation to the selected areas of study. Common examples included compositions that had been produced using score writing programmes such as Sibelius where students demonstrated limited understanding of harmonic / melodic progression. Similarly, in sequenced compositions that were produced from Garageband, Cubase etc lack of quantize often led to a degree of rhythmic incoherence in the recording and / or the scored material. In many cases these compositions had been assessed in the upper three mark bands when they should have been assessed in the band (limitations in the handling of musical ideas) or the 10-6 band (incoherence in the handling of musical ideas). It was pleasing to note that this year there were fewer students who had not indicated their Areas of Study on the CRF but there were some cases where the information had to be requested. There were also a large number of cases and students were unable to adequately explain on the CRF how they had utilised their selected Areas of Study in their work. Since this is essential to the assessment process it would be prudent for teachers to explain the importance of detail here and encourage their students to demonstrate their understanding. 3 of 6

4 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION LEVEL AND SUBJECT CODE SERIES As in previous years, some students (and some teachers) did not explain exactly how computer software was used. Here again, clarification was needed from the schools or colleges concerned. Others however were very detailed in their explanations of use of software, and there were some excellent examples of imaginative composition work created using computer software such as GarageBand and Logic. Some schools and colleges did not explain what had taken place in performing the music for the CD. For many this was not a problem as it was very obvious from the score what the student intentions were, and some compositions were totally produced by the student, in some instances live, and in others using different areas of music technology. Problems arose in relation to making an accurate assessment when things were unclear, and the scores were not specific. Songs with just lyrics and chords performed by people other than the student being assessed sometimes had little or no explanation as to how the melody of the song had been arrived at, or how the strumming pattern for the guitar (or piano chords), or drum part had been decided. In these instances further clarification was needed. Effective compositional tasks / topics There were some outstanding compositions this year in a very wide variety of styles and genres indicating that the standard of composition and the teaching of composition continues to develop. Common examples were: songs in a variety of styles often including vocal harmony and counterpoint in many cases all multi-tracked by the student pieces for large ensembles such as orchestra, jazz orchestra, brass band and wind ensembles very effective and idiomatically written piano pieces pieces with a world music influence. There were some very effective pieces with a south eastern Asian influence this year pieces for smaller chamber ensemble rock and pop pieces idiomatically composed and realised. In almost all of the above cases is was clearly evident that the students had taken responsibility for their own briefs, often composing in a style with which they were familiar. In many cases their instrumental choices were based around their own performing skills and as a result there were some excellent live performances of the compositions. In the vast majority of cases this personalised approach led to success. In particular, there were some excellent songs this year, but there were also some that were less successful. The most successful ones came mostly from students that played the role of singer / song-writer and were often responsible for all aspects of the composition and recording. Most of the unsuccessful ones were Sibelius produced scores not realised live, but with the vocal line just played back by the software. In many of these, there was a lack of focus in the melodic lines, and some of the word setting was uncomfortable and in others simply did not work. 4 of 6

5 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION LEVEL AND SUBJECT CODE SERIES Less successful compositional tasks / topics Less successful submissions tended to come from schools or colleges where all the students had been given the same generic brief regardless of the individual skills, talents and interests of the students. In most of these cases the work tended to be formulaic, for example blues pieces that followed the basic 12 bar, three chord structure but lacked a true blues style, or ternary form pieces that all modulated at the same point, to the same key, shared common rhythmic and harmonic structures and were for the same instrumental groupings. In many of these cases it became evident that there had been a considerable amount of teacher assistance beyond that which would normally be acceptable in the controlled assessment. In some cases it was not easy to determine exactly what was the work of the student so that a fair and accurate assessment could be made. Some common examples of these types of tasks were: dance pieces written in ternary form waltz pieces for piano with little variation in the left hand figures theme and variations based on given popular melodies popular songs in the same structure, key and instrumental grouping often realised through Sibelius 12 bar blues pieces (most often in the key of C) minimalist pieces that rarely managed to utilise minimalist techniques other than repetition. It is recommended that teachers continue to explore ways of enabling students to select their own briefs and wherever possible, avoid set tasks in favour of a broad personalised approach. There were a small number of cases this year where inappropriate submissions had been made. These were mostly in relation to rap type pieces where the subject content contained inappropriate and in some cases offensive, racist, sexist and misogynistic material often using unacceptable language. Schools or colleges are reminded that the material submitted should not be likely to cause offence to any groups or individuals. Musical scores There were some excellent scores, some conventional (usually Sibelius produced), and others such as lead sheets with well written commentaries. There were also some very poor scores, with poorly written commentaries and tabs with no further information. Some students merely submitted screen-shots of a Cubase / Garageband arrange page with a brief explanation of the process, whereas others supplied incredibly detailed information. In a small number of cases some students still failed to produce any sort of score at all often accompanied by a lack of information on the CRF. In these cases moderation became very difficult. A score is an essential part of the submission and can be created in any format that is appropriate to the genre of music presented. There are examples of good scores in a variety of styles on the GCSE music pages of the AQA website and in the past teacher standardising material. 5 of 6

6 REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION LEVEL AND SUBJECT CODE SERIES Administration The majority of schools and colleges had taken great care to ensure that every aspect of the submission was completed to an extremely high standard. However, there were also a number of examples of submissions that caused problems and delayed moderation. Some reminders: CRFs should be checked to ensure they are complete with all student / teacher signatures and dates. Recordings must be submitted in either audio CD or standard play mini-disc format. DVDs should not be used. CD recordings should be checked to ensure they have been finished properly and that they will play in a standard CD player. Recordings should not be sent on Data discs as MP3 recordings. This method of submission shold be avoided because not all MP3 recordings are accessible depending on computer hardware/software. If there are fewer than 20 students at a school or college all the work should be sent. Where there are more than 20 candidates the Centre Mark Form should be sent by the submission date so that the sample can be requested. The work (or marks), where appropriate, should be with the moderator by the deadline of 7 May. A Centre Declaration Sheet should be included. Scores should be included. Where a single CD recording is submitted for the whole cohort a track list and track numbers should be included on the CRFs. Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 6 of 6