The areas of the programme which proved difficult for candidates There is still confusion over musical cultures. Some good musical links were found, but often the description of the pieces chosen was general rather than using specific examples. Illustrations to show points were distinctly lacking in many musical investigations The link which is required was often either not given or was not distinctly musical – that is, to do with musical elements. This meant that, for example, several musical investigations had links such as “both pieces have American influence”, “both are musical theatre pieces‟, “both have female singers‟. The levels of knowledge, understanding and skill demonstrated Formats and presentation worked well in most cases – websites, magazine articles and radio scripts being the most popular, and often the most concise and communicative media used. PowerPoint was not always effective, with too much detail on slides. Those that included the speaker's notes underneath were the best here. There were some very poor musical investigations this year which contained little or no musical information, or, if there was musical description, little or no comparison. Candidates who received high marks demonstrated awareness of the different musical systems of each culture, using concise terminology. They demonstrated sensitivity to the contextual differences, some excellent analytical skills and organisation, and flair and communication. Candidates who received low marks gave the impression of preparing their papers in haste and with research based solely on Internet sources. Others at this lower end of the achievement scale gave too general a description of the musical cultures without relating them to examples. Some chosen examples were rather too long for any effective, focused analysis or there were, occasionally, contrived links between two examples from two musical cultures, which were quite hard to compare in any satisfactory way. Some candidates went over the word limit, (2,000 words). Sources were often not referenced, with a general lack of citation/footnotes/endnotes - although generally the scripts were well annotated with a bibliography. The strengths and weaknesses of candidates in the treatment of individual questions Criterion A (Choice of Musical Examples and Cultures): There was often hardly a musical link between the pieces and, from time to time, pieces came from the same musical culture. Even if the cultures/examples worked, some did not, in the paper, fulfil their potential and did not enable a sustained investigation. Sometimes a musical link would be stated on the cover sheet, but then ignored entirely in the script. Good links were always to do with an aspect of the musical elements of the pieces, for example, use of chromaticism, ostinato, scalic use, motivic development, and so on. Some comparative musical cultures which worked well included: Caribbean and Russian classical, American modern and Indigenous Ecuador, and so on. Criterion B (Analysis and Comparison of Musical Features): This area was sometimes weak, with superficial analyses. On many occasions the task of analysing the piece was left to the reader, (for example, “hear this example…as you could hear, the harmony is quite complex…”). There was sometimes no comparison at all - rather a presentation of two descriptions, one after the other. Sometimes differences were described, but no real similarities, and sometimes these were forced and not convincing. Criterion C (Technical Language): Use of technical terminology was more satisfactory than other areas. However, this was in part due to the fact that often candidates were quoting secondary sources. Criterion D (Organization and Presentation): In the case of Power Point presentations this aspect of the writing was often well organized, (but see previous section above). Magazine articles were more common this year and in general worked quite well. Some of the radio “talk shows” were quite disorganized although others worked well as a serious medium. Scenes from play, poetry, and childrens' books are not what is meant by a media format. Citation was often ignored in the poorer submissions. Criterion E (Overall Impression): The candidates often seemed to be locked into the following format: characteristics of piece (or culture) 1 characteristics of piece (or culture) 2 conclusion all secondary sources no musical examples no citations
Component grade boundaries
The areas of the programme which proved difficult for candidates
There is still confusion over musical cultures.
Some good musical links were found, but often the description of the pieces chosen was general rather than using specific examples. Illustrations to show points were distinctly lacking in many musical investigations
The link which is required was often either not given or was not distinctly musical – that is, to do with musical elements. This meant that, for example, several musical investigations had links such as “both pieces have American influence”, “both are musical theatre pieces‟, “both have female singers‟.
The levels of knowledge, understanding and skill demonstrated
Formats and presentation worked well in most cases – websites, magazine articles and radio scripts being the most popular, and often the most concise and communicative media used. PowerPoint was not always effective, with too much detail on slides. Those that included the speaker's notes underneath were the best here.
There were some very poor musical investigations this year which contained little or no musical information, or, if there was musical description, little or no comparison.
Candidates who received high marks demonstrated awareness of the different musical systems of each culture, using concise terminology. They demonstrated sensitivity to the contextual differences, some excellent analytical skills and organisation, and flair and communication.
Candidates who received low marks gave the impression of preparing their papers in haste and with research based solely on Internet sources. Others at this lower end of the achievement scale gave too general a description of the musical cultures without relating them to examples.
Some chosen examples were rather too long for any effective, focused analysis or there were, occasionally, contrived links between two examples from two musical cultures, which were quite hard to compare in any satisfactory way.
Some candidates went over the word limit, (2,000 words).
Sources were often not referenced, with a general lack of citation/footnotes/endnotes - although generally the scripts were well annotated with a bibliography.
The strengths and weaknesses of candidates in the treatment of individual questions
Criterion A (Choice of Musical Examples and Cultures): There was often hardly a musical link between the pieces and, from time to time, pieces came from the same musical culture. Even if the cultures/examples worked, some did not, in the paper, fulfil their potential and did not enable a sustained investigation. Sometimes a musical link would be stated on the cover sheet, but then ignored entirely in the script. Good links were always to do with an aspect of the musical elements of the pieces, for example, use of chromaticism, ostinato, scalic use, motivic development, and so on. Some comparative musical cultures which worked well included: Caribbean and Russian classical, American modern and Indigenous Ecuador, and so on.
Criterion B (Analysis and Comparison of Musical Features): This area was sometimes weak, with superficial analyses. On many occasions the task of analysing the piece was left to the reader, (for example, “hear this example…as you could hear, the harmony is quite complex…”). There was sometimes no comparison at all - rather a presentation of two descriptions, one after the other. Sometimes differences were described, but no real similarities, and sometimes these were forced and not convincing.
Criterion C (Technical Language): Use of technical terminology was more satisfactory than other areas. However, this was in part due to the fact that often candidates were quoting secondary sources.
Criterion D (Organization and Presentation): In the case of Power Point presentations this aspect of the writing was often well organized, (but see previous section above). Magazine articles were more common this year and in general worked quite well. Some of the radio “talk shows” were quite disorganized although others worked well as a serious medium.
Scenes from play, poetry, and childrens' books are not what is meant by a media format. Citation was often ignored in the poorer submissions.
Criterion E (Overall Impression): The candidates often seemed to be locked into the following format:
characteristics of piece (or culture) 1
characteristics of piece (or culture) 2
conclusion
all secondary sources
no musical examples
no citations