GCSE Music 42704 Composing Music Report on the Examination 4270 June 2015 Version: v1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2015 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.
42704: Composing Music Areas of study: In this controlled assessment unit, the teacher assessment of the composition is made in relation to two or more areas of study selected by the student. It is pleasing to report that this year there were very few students who had not indicated their selected areas of study on the Candidate Record Form (CRF) and that as a result, the vast majority of teacher assessments were valid. Moderators did however report many instances where the students had given little or no information on the CRF as to how they had utilized the areas of study in their composition. This should be viewed as an important aspect of the submission as it enables the student to demonstrate their understanding in relation to their work and the selected areas of study. Moderators also reported that by far the vast majority of students had selected two areas of study when in many cases, more might have been appropriate, especially in some of the more musically complex submissions. Unfortunately there were some cases where students had selected inappropriate areas of study. The most common of these was where they had selected texture and melody but there was little or no melodic content, for example in pieces that were written for guitar where the must consisted entirely of chordal movement and therefore a single texture throughout. Teachers are reminded that whilst they are unable to help in the compositional aspects of the work once the controlled assessment has started, they can offer guidance as to the most appropriate choice of Areas of Study based on the musical content of the work. Accuracy of assessment: There was a general sense that the accuracy of teacher assessments had improved this year with many more submission samples remaining within tolerance. Where centre marks were outside tolerance the vast majority had been leniently assessed, some by a considerable margin. A much smaller number had been assessed with a degree of severity that under-valued their students work. Many centres moderated were consistent even if lenient in their marking. This was often because of incorrect placing within a mark band (i.e. placed at top, but the work did not address most of the descriptors) or placed one mark band too high. This happened most often where centres had awarded full marks to their most able student and scaled the rest of the students appropriately in relation to that mark awarded. Unfortunately, this meant that if the award of the full mark was not justified, subsequent marks awarded were also frequently incorrect. Teachers were most often accurate in their marking where they had used the Assessment Criteria in conjunction with the Subject Content pages in the specification and then completed page 4 of the CRF in some detail. This involves not only quoting from the assessment criteia but also linking evidence in the work to support this. For those teachers unfamiliar with this process, there is a help document that can be accessed through the Teacher Online Standardising (TOLS) that explains the process carefully. In a great many cases teachers had often missed the opportunity to work in this way and CRFs gave little, and in some cases no information regarding the assessment process other than the award of a mark. Marking at the lower end was, generally, accurate (especially in the basic and rudimentary bands) and a large number of centres marked all of their students correctly here. There is however still 3 of 6
some confusion between the 25 21 and 30 26 mark bands. Some centres need to distinguish more carefully between the descriptors contained within each of these bands. Some often referred to descriptors in the 25-21 band yet awarded marks in the 30-26 band. Many centres often pointed out all the strengths of each composition, but failed to take into account any of the weaknesses when making their award. In particular, there seemed to be a misinterpretation of the word satisfying with a some of centres using the term to describe compositions which were over-repetitive and lacked development. They seemed to apply the term to fit a composition that they liked, and then 'over-assessed' the final product due to lack of focus in the application of the assessment criteria. Effective compositional tasks / topics: As in previous years it was very evident that when students had been taught how to use compositional techniques and then applied these to music in genres with which they had an affinity, the outcomes were mostly successful, at least effective and very often outstanding. Perhaps not surprisingly given current popular music trends, song-writing appears to continue to rise in popularity and there were some superb submissions in a wide variety of styles that were highly original and engaging to listen to. Many of these had also been given titles that were imaginative and reflected the nature of the music presented. In many of the most successful submissions it was evident that the composer was often also the performer, sometimes in a live situation, most often through recording a song for guitar / voice, or as a manipulator of technology using a midi keyboard and performing their work through sequencing software. The importance of the integration of the three disciplines of listening, performing and composing music cannot be overstated in the development of an all round musician. Successful and imaginative work reported by moderators this year included: Idiomatically written songs in a variety of styles often with substantial backings for a number of instruments/sound sources and including additional vocal parts. The best of these were varied in structure including bridge passages, modulation and often multi-tracked with the student performing all the parts. Submissions written for a single instrument, mostly piano this year. Once again there were some good submissions for small and large Jazz ensembles. Some interesting film music including those written as trailers where a large amount of varied musical detail could be included in a relatively short space of time. Less successful tasks / topics: Once again moderators reported a significant number of submission that were generic in nature and were based on set tasks given to a whole group. These type of set topics were mostly genre based and often did not allow students to be able to demonstrate their skills effectively. The outcomes were often severely affected by this and it is something to be avoided if at all possible. Some typical examples were: 4 of 6
Minimalist compositions, some of which were quite well worked, but many unfortunately were simply repetitive riff - based pieces rather than employing minimalist techniques as developed by Reich and others. Some of these centres seemed to believe that 'minimalist' means repeating the same music throughout but unfortunately, many of these pieces became tedious. Many examples similar to previous years; blues pieces in C that had little sense of style, waltzes, often in the same key with the same structure and instrumentation. Electronic dance pieces using loops that were overly long and repetitive. There were also a number of submissions of work that had not been given as set tasks but the outcomes had been restricted by the use of ICT software. These generally fell into two groups: Sibelius composed songs where the vocal part was realised through Sibelius and often lacked melodic character. In many of these cases there were examples of aspects of the vocal writing that simply did not work but could have been rectified had the student attempted to sing their material. Moderators reported a large number of these and commented that it was a pity that students did not feel able to sing their own work, or at least enlist someone else to do so. Students need to be careful when using Sibelius to ensure that the step input method of composition does not impact on their understanding of harmonic progression and melodic shape and construction. There were a number of examples where sense of tonality was limited or lacking to the extent that some of the music lacked coherence and as such, could not rise above the 10-6 mark band. The second group concerned the use of sequencing software such as Cubase, Garageband or Logic where compositions tended to rely too heavily on constant repetition. Some of these were extremely long. In some examples, the loops created by the students were themselves quite interesting but lack of contrast often meant that the music failed to sustain interest. Whilst many of these submissions were coherent, the constant repetition and lack of development meant that many demonstrated some limitations in the handling of musical ideas and as a result, could not rise above the 15 11 mark band. Sadly, there were a few instances of some students using plagiarised material this year. Many students will be aware that it is common in the popular music industry for artists to sample other musicians but teachers are reminded that all students should be aware that the material they present in their composition should be their own original work. If they decide to use some aspect of someone elses music, for example, a sample or a theme that can be used for variation, they must declare it on the CRF. Administration Once again 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 submissions that caused problems and delayed the moderation process. The following serves as a reminder of what teachers and students can do to ensure a satisfactory submission: CRFs should be checked to ensure they are complete with all student / teacher signatures and dates. Recordings must be submitted on audio CD. 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. 5 of 6
Recordings should not be sent on data discs as MP3 recordings. This method of submission should be avoided because not all MP3 recordings are accessible depending on computer hardware/software. Each student should submit a musical score with their recording. This does not have to be a staff notated score if other methods are more appropriate to the genre of their music. Examples of alternative musical scores can be accessed in the music section of the AQA website. If there are fewer than 20 students at a school or college all the work should be sent. Where there are more than 20 students 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. A score should be included for each student. Where a single CD recording is submitted for the whole cohort a track list should be provided and track numbers should be written in the appropriate box on the CRFs. Please try to avoid sending bulky folders. It is not necessary to include binders or use presentation documents. A CRF for each student with the relevant score inside is perfectly adequate and facilitates moderation more easily. 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