GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
MUSIC
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2013
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
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. This will be available at:
http://www.wjec.co.uk/index.php?nav=51
Unit
Page
MU1
1
MU2
3
MU3
9
MU4
18
MU5
19
MU6
22
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MUSIC
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU1 Performing
Principal Examiner: Eric Phillips
Once again this year, 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 producing a live performance.
In most cases the administration and timetabling of the examinations was excellent with many
centres providing running orders. Most centres had downloaded the MU1 forms as required but
in some instances these had been completed by the candidates themselves. Please doublecheck these for accuracy as it can cause confusion during the assessment process if they are
incorrectly completed.
Links with the AS Areas of Study are still an issue for some centres at MU1. I should like to take
this opportunity to remind teachers that the AS Areas of Study are Orchestral Music, Vocal
Music, Chamber Music, Jazz, Rock and Pop, Musical Theatre and Songs of Wales. Simply
stating Western Classical Tradition is not acceptable.
Examination rooms were, on the whole, fit for purpose with good quality pianos which had been
recently tuned. A few centres use electronic keyboards for accompaniment. In most cases,
electronic equipment had been set up and sound-checked in advance allowing the examination
to proceed without any unnecessary hold-ups. Please double-check backing tracks on CD –
there were some instances of “skipping”.
In cases where the standard of the repertoire is known, it would be helpful if this information was
included on the candidate’s form. However, examiners do refer to GME lists and care should be
taken to ensure that the correct grade for each piece is entered on the MU1 form.
Most candidates were able to provide copies of their music for the examiners and in the majority
of cases these were correctly labelled with the candidate’s name and number. Please continue
to check that the music provided accurately reflects the performance being given, especially
when down-loading, often at short notice, tab from the internet! Please clearly mark any repeats
or cuts on tab copies. Also, please double-check that the edge of the music has not been cut off
on the photocopy given to the examiner. It should be noted that it is very difficult to award marks
for accuracy for candidates who fail to provide a copy of the score, or some lead sheet to which
the examiner can refer. Singers must ensure that the vocal line has been added to lead sheets
which give lyrics and chords in order to achieve the top marks for accuracy.
There were many excellent performers at MU1 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 mark due to the 2.7 or 2.4 multiplier. In some instances, more care is needed
in choosing ensemble repertoire in order to ensure that the individual parts are at the required
standard. 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 – best practice at some centres involves regular performances in class with
assessment by peers, according to the criteria. Standards of accompaniment were very good on
the whole. Some centres now bring in professional pianists to accompany the recitals.
1
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Some examiners have commented on the need for more careful choice of repertoire for
ensembles especially regarding the doubling of parts and the over-abundance of unison.
Please note that the specification states that “the candidate’s part must not be doubled in
any part of the ensemble.”
Some candidates continue to offer performances on a less proficient second instrument or
voice and invariably achieve lower marks.
Performers need to pay attention to performance directions on the music. Some drummers
are not aware of the need for contrast and some singers lack projection and indeed
communication due to over-reliance on their music.
There are still some instances of kit drummers relying on click tracks when performing with a
backing track. These are intended for rehearsal purposes and should not be used in the
recitals as they detract from the overall quality of the performance and it is difficult for
examiners to award marks under the ‘performance’ criteria.
Finally, as we all become used to the new method of assessing performing at GCSE, it is
worth remembering that these regulations do not apply to the AS and A level performing
examination. Centres should not record these recitals and there is no discussion or
moderation of the assessment between the centre and the visiting examiner.
On the whole, the feedback from the examining team was very positive and I am very
grateful to all those involved in this year’s examination.
2
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MUSIC
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU2 Composing
Principal Examiner:
Janice Richards
Following the practice of previous years, this report is based on feedback from the members of
the examining team for composition. Once again, I have attempted to be as specific as possible
in my summation of their observations, and trust that all comments will be of use to teachers and
future candidates. I make no apology for the fact that some of the comments and advice are the
same as that offered previously!
The team were unanimous in their praise for the highest ranked compositions, and
complimented centres and talented pupils for the tremendous effort witnessed in the best
portfolios which included creative material, well structured and imaginatively developed to
produce substantial outcomes - fully deserving of recognition at the highest level. Inevitably the
standard is varied, with weaker submissions suffering from the usual problems of repetition and
lack of imaginative development. We applaud centres where candidates have been steered
towards achieving their maximum potential by the setting of tasks appropriate both to their
compositional ability, and the requirements of the specification and assessment criteria. This is
best practice: when candidates choose not to observe these considerations, marks are lost –
and this is often when the assessment of the examiner differs from that awarded by the centre.
Many of the weaker pieces were mechanical and rather formulaic; much of the material was
repetitive and limited.
To assist with understanding of the assessment procedures please consider the following points
which have been identified by the examining team and apply to both MU2 and MU5.

Candidates must demonstrate an understanding of balance, form and structure. It is,
therefore, advisable that they stipulate the actual structure of their composition, and do
not attempt any through composed or meandering format, certainly not without
explanation. There were many examples again this year of ‘random repeats’ inserted for
no further purpose it seemed than to extend the outcome; furthermore, it was noted that
some perfectly good compositions were sometimes brought down by the inclusion of a
weak and unnecessary section, which added nothing of value.

One main area of concern is the lack of thematic organic development, often substituted
with basic repetition. Thematic content is sometimes weak, or lacking in
recognisable identity; this offers little scope for creative manipulation of the original
material. Candidates are therefore well advised to spend valuable time on shaping their
initial thematic material, identifying motifs and patterns which may then be developed
more substantially, using a range of techniques and devices which will comfortably
satisfy the top band of assessment criteria.

The best pieces show a real understanding of writing for the instrument(s) or voice(s)
used. Some candidates need to try to be more practical and sensitive in this respect, e.g.
a trumpet may commonly play above high G but that doesn’t mean that writing 16
consecutive bars in this range is good trumpet writing! Careful attention should be paid to
what and how the musical material is given to voices and instruments – including wordsetting, which is often no more than satisfactory in quality. Keyboard left-hand parts
commonly consist of closed triads without much attempt to vary the content.
3
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.

Many pieces were lacking in textural variety. Candidates are often content with a
basic contrast between a thick or thin texture for variation, but consideration must be
given to this element in terms of its meaning as outlined in the specification, i.e.
monophonic, homophonic and polyphonic textures. Contrapuntal work as opposed to
the predictable addition of layers will earn candidates more credit. At both MU2 and
MU5 it was felt that there was an over-reliance on homophonic texture.

The most common shortcoming (even in some of the best compositions) was in
terms of the harmonic content. At times, root position chords dominated, and
sometimes only primary chords were used with, in several pieces, individual
instrumental/vocal parts not corresponding to the prevailing harmonies. In western
classical compositions, there also tended to be a lack of awareness as regards
cadential points which led to weaknesses in the shaping of the basic thematic
material. Key change was also very limited or awkward in some.

All considerations of planning and musical choices must relate and conform to the
stylistic characteristics of the piece itself and the chosen genre – and candidates
must remember that at both MU2 and MU5 there are additional qualities relating to
style other than mere consistency which are required for marks in the top box.

Some candidates adhered too closely to the work chosen as a stimulus to the
composition process. Over- reliance on original material could lead to accusations of
plagiarism, especially when direct quotations from existing masterworks are clearly
identifiable. One example was that of a choral work based on Haydn’s Nelson Mass,
and the other an instrumental piece with a clear quotation of a theme from a Dvorak
symphony (without any reference to this in the candidate log). Great composers have
not been averse to “borrowing” other musicians’ material, but have made them their
own by the transformation and enhancement of the original material. All AS and A
level candidates should bear this in mind.
Administration (MU2 and MU5)
In many centres, administrative procedures were correctly adhered to, with teachers
following the suggested guidelines. On the whole, presentation of the portfolios was
impressive, with excellent use of ICT (mainly Sibelius) to create professional scores and
recordings. Most examiners noted a significant improvement in all procedures (which was
very welcome), and in some schools, practice was exemplary. Issues - where they did arise generally involved insufficient information presented on the examination documentation,
relating to missing signatures, names and candidates’ numbers and marks; missing or poor
quality recordings and scores/lead sheets, incorrect examination forms, or incorrect addition
of marks - and so on.
Many of the candidate logs were informative and extremely useful; others were less impressive
and too brief, lacking explanation and giving little insight into the process of composition. A few
candidates did not attempt to complete the log at all - please remind students that this is a
requirement of the specification. They are well advised to detail initial thoughts, stimuli, the
intended structure of the piece, the developmental process, advice received, use of specific
technology, and details of the recording process. Should they choose to present this information as
a word document, then they must download the appropriate forms from the WJEC website. Finally,
teachers are respectfully reminded that digital signatures of authentication are not acceptable from
either candidates or teachers.
4
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Mostly the scores were extremely professional, with the vast majority completed using
Sibelius software. Unsuccessful outcomes were considered when only a few bars, or indeed
too many bars, were presented on a single page and proved time-consuming or awkward to
follow. There were a few untidy scores (hand-written) which were not straightforward to
decipher. In the minority - but worth mentioning - were serial pieces without explanation of
the tones rows, etc; candidates must include such information. Screenshots (usually from
Garage Band or Cubase) are not particularly helpful without giving the additional supporting
harmonic/melodic information; in addition, a small number of candidates persist in providing
either lyrics or chords for songs, but not both, which is what is required when a score is
unavailable. Some indication of the melodic line is certainly advisable, and the harmonic
content and recording process must be accurately described and explained, making
absolutely clear the part played by the candidate throughout the process. Only the work of
the candidate is assessed.
Thankfully, most recordings were submitted on a master CD which held the entire sample
from the centre, complete with a correct track list. A few centres still prefer to record their
work on mini disk, and there was the very rare occurrence of discovering a cassette! The
quality of most of the recordings was very professional, though examiners did report that
some live recordings were less than satisfactory, and there were also examples where some
tracks were inaudible (or seemingly muted); they all suggest checking the balance of parts. It
is often unclear as to how a live recording has been made in the absence of a score; it is
important that the logs explain exactly how the performers knew what to play (e.g. there
were some sophisticated solos in a jazz composition which appeared to have been
improvised by the performers from the given chord structure, rather than being actually
'composed' by the candidate). Some centres were fortunate to have been involved in quite
exciting composition projects, but there were occasions when the performance, as given by
professional musicians, was different than the score, as the musicians improvised on the
original work of the candidate. This practice was acknowledged in the candidate logs, but it
is not in the nature of this examination. Most centres produced useful track listings, though
some listed pieces in the wrong order which caused initial confusion and wasted time.
Some candidates identified commissions at MU2. They are only necessary for MU5, where
many did not identify them correctly – if at all. It was clear in some instances that
‘conventional’ and ‘contemporary’ style were used incorrectly and inappropriately. All
centres must comply with this requirement and ensure that candidates state their chosen
commissions as set out in the guidelines.
[For reference, I would like to repeat the following information which was included in last
year’s report.
It is agreed that best practice involves good quality recordings, with all pieces scored (or with
detailed lead sheets), with the moderation sample presented on one CD, with a correct
track list. There is no requirement for each track to be announced by the teacher. Sufficient
explanation and detail should be included on the candidate logs, all signed and
authenticated correctly. All compositions and assessment sheets should be clearly labeled
with the titles of the compositions in place. Multiple pages for individual compositions should
be stapled or clipped together. Please note that centres should not send the MU2
coursework and the MU5 examined portfolios in the same packaging, (or record the
compositions on the same CD), as the MU2 moderated work is returned to centres, whereas
the MU5 examination material is retained by WJEC.
5
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MU2 Composing
The impression from moderators was that standards were generally satisfactory, and though
there were examples of outstanding quality portfolios, they were rather thin on the ground.
The exceptional work was inspirational and imaginative, demonstrating an excellent
understanding of structure and with a sound grasp of texture, timbre and harmony. Weaker
folios lost credit mainly because of harmonic limitations, and the material lacked imagination
in terms of texture, often demonstrating no more than a reasonable understanding of
structure. A few compositions were under the minimum time. This obviously had an effect on
development of ideas and the general quality of the composition (structure and texture).
Composition 1 (WCT ‘style’ piece)
Most candidates kept to the brief and provided compositions which adhered to the WCT, and
some examiners felt that the realisation was better this year as candidates wrote
compositions in defined structures, having mentioned Classical works that had inspired
them. There were also pieces written as a result of composition workshops given by a
professional string quartet (mainly in North Wales, Welsh medium centres) and some of the
outcomes here were also rather impressive.
It is really encouraging that schools are now positively teaching the characteristics of the
WCT, with many using the AS set works as stimuli – this is commendable practice. Some
candidates admitted that this in-depth study and additional listening supported their
understanding and musicianship, as there were rules to follow. Most candidates (but
certainly not all) showed a good grasp of basic harmonic processes, and some displayed an
excellent control, with subtle, well-handled modulations, thoughtful progressions and
successful cadential work. Lower range pieces relied too heavily on the primary chords in
root position, and their control of harmony tended to be even less successful when they
attempted to move away from this. At times the chosen chords and melody were not a
convincing fit. Spacing and balance of chords was sometimes an issue, particularly where
candidates were writing L.H. piano triads low down in the bass clef.
A number of candidates attempted sonata form, which in many cases was a bit too
ambitious and not always fully understood. There were also some examples of throughcomposed pieces (not the best idea to satisfy the assessment criteria). In many of these
pieces, candidates used a series of unrelated themes/melodies/patterns and musical ideas
were not developed fully. Direct repeats were added purely to fulfil the minimum time
requirement.
Some centres adopted a regimented approach where all candidates followed the same
restricted patterns of work. Where this occurred, the pieces tended either to either be an
air/theme and variations, or a ground bass. This decision led to predictable and over
sectionalised compositions, where the music modulated to the dominant or relative minor
with uncompromising regularity. One centre chose to set a class task of ‘Theme and
Variation’ compositions based on an existing theme, with the result that all the works
sounded very similar. Working in this way often led to uninspiring and predictable efforts,
where every candidate followed the same pattern, producing turgid results, if technically
accurate. Encouraging the candidates to compose their own themes would give the pieces
greater originality and scope for more creative development. The treatment of a ground bass
is notoriously difficult to achieve without the piece sounding repetitive, and is best left to the
experts! It does have a clear formal structure, which clearly appeals to teacher and student
alike, but it requires a great deal of imagination and no mean musical skill in order to
produce a work of quality. If anything, it tends to stifle originality.
6
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
There were still examples of rock songs and 20th century pieces - and even a Caribbean
inspired work - submitted as WCT, which held no real connection in terms of style or
structure. Some candidates attempted to justify their link, mostly unsuccessfully. One
candidate had created a fairly successful piece for the first composition, but randomly
inserted a drum beat on kit, which added nothing to the piece and, on the contrary, rather
detracted from it. Of further concern were those candidates who acknowledged that they
had been inspired by contemporary pieces or composers, which is a worrying trend. At least
there were fewer examples this year of candidates presenting two rock compositions.
Composition 2 (Free composition)
The free compositions were often inspired by candidates’ strengths and interests and there
were some excellent results achieved here. Control of texture and harmony tended to be
more convincing, with interesting chord progressions attempted. Many candidates managed
to create an individual sense of style and there were creative and imaginative pieces
submitted that were very enjoyable to listen to. A wide range of musical styles was evident,
but some centres were again over prescriptive in their approach tending to stifle imagination.
Unfortunately, a substantial number of these pieces are being written without keeping the
marking criteria in mind. Many candidates choose to present programmatic or illustrative
pieces mostly labelled as ‘film music’ without any explanation or reference to a specific film,
scenes from a film, or associated programme or subject of any kind. This often produced an
aimless result, reflecting a lack of formal structure. Background notes in candidates’ logs
were often deemed insufficient in this respect. As regards the musical content, a number
failed to show any real attempt to develop their initial melodic ideas. Some candidates relied
on the building up of layers using repeated chords and patterns, as opposed to employing
any melodic or rhythmic manipulation. Whilst these compositions often sounded extremely
effective and were interesting in their use of texture and instrumental colour, they were often
unable to access the higher marks for use of harmony as the choice of chords was so
narrow and repetitive.
Some good examples of serial music were encountered, but there was a tendency to adopt
a mathematical approach, and many of the pieces lacked imagination in the treatment of the
musical material.
There were excellent examples of rock and pop songs, which demonstrated real flair for the
style and a solid control of all of the elements. A number of outstanding vocal performances
added to the success of these songs, some of which were extremely professional. The less
successful songs were those where structure was less carefully considered (e.g. no middle 8
or instrumental), there was little variety in accompaniment or texture, and no attempt to
change key. It is important to remember when writing in this genre, however, that much of
today’s pop music relies on repetition - both melodic and harmonic - and a typical outcome
does not comfortably satisfy top box accreditation for the purpose of the AS exam.
Centre assessments
Moderators fully value the comments made by teachers in support of their assessments.
Unfortunately, these were at times rather brief, and had not been completed with reference
to the assessment criteria; as specified previously, centres’ comments are most helpful when
the strengths of the composition are highlighted according to the assessment criteria, and
attempt has been made to justify the centre marking and moderation procedures, also
detailing any assistance that has been given. There were a few instances where centres did
not offer any comment in support of the marks awarded.
7
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Once again this year, the judgements from certain centres were accurately placed, and in a
few cases the work deserved a little more credit. Without exception, however, moderators
felt that portfolios were, for the most part, too generously assessed with top band
accreditation having been appointed to (in some cases), mediocre pieces. It is perfectly
understandable that teachers are keen to reward industrious and conscientious students;
however, our concern is with the quality and content of the portfolios as measured against
the assessment criteria as presented in the specification. It was not easy at times to match
these two considerations.
8
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MUSIC
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU3 Appraising
Principal Examiner:
Huw Thomas
There was a slight improvement in the occurrence of “persistent faults” listed in last year’s
report (and outlined at the various CPD meetings),or at least some of them, but there were
still needless marks lost by some candidates in the following areas:

Location: This was probably the area in which most marks were lost unnecessarily
this year, and by the broadest range of candidates. At MU3 (Part 1), the necessity to
provide bar numbers is clearly included in the questions where necessary, yet,
frequently, candidates seem to forget to locate answers. The statement made by one
candidate in his/her answer to the extract from the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto - 1st
subject material used in violins - without bar numbers, includes insufficient
information for a mark to be awarded. There were many more such comments of this
nature in the Ravel and Shostakovich components of the MU6 exam, too. (See below
for more precise details.) In the case of more able candidates, it often seemed more
than likely that they knew precisely where their (potentially) correct answers were
located and that supplying them had just slipped their mind – a frustrating situation
for examiners. The cause of such omissions in candidates of high caliber could well
be that they attempt to pack their answers with a surfeit of information. If a question
is worth 3 marks (with an allocation of 4 lines), there is no need to rush to supply 5 or
6 answers that often spill over into the margin or even, in some instances, a separate
sheet/booklet. One candidate who scored a very impressive 36/40 in the MU3 (Part
1) exam lost two marks merely for failing to provide the necessary bar numbers in an
answer – which the candidate undoubtedly knew. Perhaps it is worth noting here
that, if a candidate needs to write answers on an additional sheet or booklet, a note
of this should be made in the examination paper itself so that examiners are aware
that this is the case. Supplementary answers on a separate sheet supplied by one
MU6 candidate in the set works exam almost went unnoticed simply because they
were placed after the essay and without any indication that there were any extra
answers given that were not on the question paper itself. The answers on the
additional sheet were worth a further 8 marks to the candidate!
9
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.

Terminology: Some candidates are still unsure of the commonly used terms to
denote texture – primarily “homophonic” and “monophonic” (“unison”). Answers such
as the following:
o
o
o
playing mostly in unison (harmonising)
strong minor chords in unison
play in harmony with each other in unison
illustrate the confusion some candidates experience as far as homophonic and
unison are concerned, with the latter mistakenly taken to mean “together”. As in last
year’s exam, a small number of candidates (some very good) used “imitate” as
meaning to “play along with/play the same notes as”. A few still consider “Tierce de
Picardie” to be a type of cadence, while “sequence” seemed occasionally to be used
merely to mean any “group of notes”. “Countermelody” was again occasionally used
as if it pertained to a “doubling” of the melodic line; “counter harmony” was a
newcomer this year, its supposed meaning not apparent from the context.
“Melismatic” was occasionally used when referring to instrumental writing. “Extreme
parameters of pitch” and “melody-dominated homophony” appear frequently to be
answers that some candidates resort to when they are at a loss for anything else to
say!

Surplus answers: There was an overall improvement here, but there were still
examples of two or more answers being supplied when only one was required.
Candidates should be made aware that, in such cases, only the first answer given
can be marked and that two correct answers given under 1. cannot receive an
additional mark in place of a wrong answer under 2.
As in previous years, a number of papers by obviously very good candidates showed
evidence of a slight imbalance of marks, particularly at MU3, with the students concerned
achieving high marks in three of the questions but scoring a (very) disappointing mark in the
remaining, fourth question. This was particularly so in the MU3 (Part 1) set works paper,
with a number of candidates getting nearly top marks in the two Group B questions but
scoring only 1-3 marks in (especially) the questions on the Bach Brandenburg Concerto and
the Mendelssohn Violin Concerto.
MU3: Part One
As in previous years, there was little change in the percentage of those opting for the various
set works, with Orchestral Music (List A) (82%) and Rock, Pop and Jazz (List B) (55%) being
the favourite options. Only approximately 7% opted for Chamber Music and Welsh Songs.
Area of Study 1: Orchestral Music
Question 1: Bach, Brandenburg Concerto No 2, Movement 1
As was the case last year, the answers for this set work were rather disappointing, especially
given the quite “general” nature of some of the questions.
(a)
A good many had this correct, though a very small number of candidates seemed
unsure as to what was required here. Some answered the second part of the
question in terms of intervals – e.g., “minor 2nd”.
(b)
Again, this posed no problem for the majority of candidates
10
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(c)
This question did cause problems – even for some good candidates! Not being
aware that “tasto” means “key”, but being aware of the meaning of “solo”, led some to
guess answers that were to do with a perceived soloistic nature of the harpsichord.
More than one decided to go for “play tastefully”! Those who answered incorrectly in
(ii) were often those who considered the # as referring to a 7th rather than a 3rd.
“Augmented chord” was an another example of an answer that was occasionally
encountered.
(d)
Disappointingly, some could not identify “double stopping”. It was not unusual to find
examples where all three answers were either all correct or all wrong. A small
number were unable to provide any answers at all.
(e)
This was the least accurately answered question, with a good many giving “bar 1” as
the answer. Again, some appeared unwilling to make even a (calculated) guess.
Question 2: Mendelssohn, Violin Concerto in E minor, Movement 1
(a), (b), and even (c), were typical fare as far as set works exams are concerned. Indeed,
many candidates had no problems in gaining full marks in all three sections.
(a)
Most candidates had no problems here, though “E minor” occasionally appeared.
Those who were unsuccessful in this question rarely fared well in the remaining
parts.
(b)
Again, this was mostly well done. “Perfect” was the most popular wrong answer.
(c)
Unfortunately, some candidates lost marks by not providing bar numbers for their
answers. As mentioned earlier, this continues to be a problem in general, despite it
continually being featured annually in this report. Answers such as solo violin playing
triplets, very virtuosic writing do not address the question. Neither did other answers
such as many syncopated notes or large contrast in the use of dynamics. Some, too,
mentioned the use of different string techniques like pizzicato, arco and double
stopping. It is important that candidates ensure that they try to discriminate between
thematic material and accompaniment. A small number confused 1st and 2nd subject
material.
(d)
Several candidates mentioned the dominant preparation in these bars. Many could
identify a dominant or diminished 7th in the passage, though some considered them
to be chromatic chords. A small number answered in terms of tonality rather than
harmony – e.g., key of B at 449. There were some cases, too, where features such
as texture and ornamentation were given with no mention of harmony whatever. In
(c) and (d) diminished scale was occasionally found instead of chromatic scale.
Area of Study 2: Vocal Music
Question 1: Handel, Zadok the Priest
(a)
This caused no problems in the vast majority of cases.
(b)
A good many candidates did not attempt to give an account of the structure of the
chorus, concentrating instead merely on the tonal/harmonic elements. Comments on
both were required to gain all three marks; many seemed not to realise that both
parts of the question were linked.
11
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(c)
As usual, locating a suspension proved difficult for most candidates.
(d)
Virtually everyone identified the arpeggios in the violins, and most recognised the
oboes’ repeated quavers. Comments on the trumpet parts were less successful on
the whole. Here, and elsewhere in the exam, there were candidates who wrongly
perceived any repeated (or sustained) notes as “pedals”.
(e)
Melisma and dotted rhythms were the most popular answers, though several other
pertinent answers were given. Several candidates considered the choral writing in
“God save the King” to be contrapuntal. Throughout, some referred to the “piano
part”.
Question 2: Schubert, Die Schöne Müllerin: Der Neugierige
(a)
A good number had full marks here, though some included answers on harmony
rather than/as well as tonality.
(b)
This posed no problem for the vast majority of candidates.
(c)
Again, there were some very good answers here, with the better candidates being
able to identify three features with little problem.
(d)
As usual, the nature of this type of question posed problems for many. A small
number of very good candidates misidentified the song’s final “arpeggio 6/4” as a
“cadential 6/4”, while the chromatic appoggiatura proved elusive to most. More
disappointingly, only the better candidates could identify a diminished 7th.
(e)
This was very well answered on the whole.
Area of Study 3: Chamber Music
Question 1: Beethoven, String Quartet, Op.18, No.6, Movement 1
(a)
There were very few problems here.
(b)
Many merely mentioned the viola’s repeated bass note in the opening bars of the
extract, which is merely the root of one tonic chord – see the comments in (d) of the
Handel extract above.
(c)
It was not unusual to find answers that mentioned accompanimental figures rather
than the melodic material.
(d)
Most recognised that both sections begin and end in Bb. The better candidates
understood the relative importance given to the dominant and were able to identify
other tonicisations in the recapitulation. Weaker candidates, on the other hand, cited
incorrect tonicisations in the latter section.
(e)
The majority of candidates were correct here.
(f)
Most candidates could identify at least one difference.
12
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 2: Brahms, Clarinet Sonata in E flat, Op.120, 3rd movement
This proved to be the most difficult of all questions on the paper – no doubt because of the
complicated nature of the music. This is probably the reason why centres are not tempted to
swap to this from the Orchestral Music option – which has its own inherent difficulties despite the Corelli Trio Sonata appearing to be a far less daunting composition for study.
(a)
Only a small number could not identify the coda.
(b)
“Perfect” was a quite common answer here.
(c)
Those who focused on the question (which specified “melodic material”) usually had
no problems here. Unfortunately, some candidates wrote on other aspects of the
music. Others failed to relate their answers to previous material.
(d)
On the whole, the answers here were disappointing. Some successfully identified a
diminished 7th (of which there was a good selection in the extract), but far fewer the
augmented 6th chord.
(e)
Bar numbers were essential here. Some candidates failed to give them and lost
marks accordingly. Some provided bar numbers for some answers but not for others.
Area of Study 4: Musical Theatre
Question 1: Loesser, Guys and Dolls; Runyonland
(a)
Most commented on the episodic nature of the extract. One candidate recognised the
five sections but considered the form ABA without offering any explanatory
comments.
(b)
Again, most candidates were able to give at least one relevant comment. Some were
confused by the chords, however, and as to whether the music was diatonic or
chromatic. (Alternative interpretations of the harmonic basis of this passage were
accepted.)
(c)
This was less successfully answered on the whole. Several candidates (of varying
standard) identified a dominant-tonic chord progression that did not coincide with a
phrase ending.
(d)
Although there were some good answers in evidence, this question was not done
well by most, with a small number opting to give information on the use of
instruments, despite being asked not to do so.
(e)
The vast majority correctly named the instrument as a clarinet; a few answered the
“difference in sound” question in terms of the instrument’s interval of transposition.
Oboe, piccolo and saxophone were among the incorrect answers offered.
Question 2: Bernstein, West Side Story, Tonight (Quintet)
(a)
Mostly correct, though a small number thought that “ensemble” in this context
referred to instruments.
(b)
There were some good answers here. Merely stating “ostinato”, however, was
incorrect, since this alone did not address the rhythmical/metrical aspect of the
question.
13
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(c)
(i), (iii) and (iv) elicited good responses overall; (ii), however, was less successfully
answered.
(d)
Only the best candidates were successful here.
(e)
Mostly correct.
Area of Study 5: Jazz, Rock and Pop
Question 1: Queen, Bohemian Rhapsody
(a)
As in the Schubert song, most found the appoggiatura difficult to identify. More were
able to identify a dominant 7th, though a disappointingly small number was successful
identifying parallel chords.
(b)
There was a wide variety of answers here. Some had the key correct but the
cadence wrong (usually perfect rather than plagal); those who failed to recognise the
key usually had the cadence wrong, too.
(c)
A wide range of answers was accepted here, with very few failing to gain the mark.
(d)
Most answers were successful, though several candidates mentioned the vocal a
capella opening even though “use of instruments” was specified in the question. A
small number of candidates’ answers seemed to suggest that the piano part in the
song was the same as the “piano part” on the score, with its constant doubling of the
vocal line.
(e)
Many knew the meaning of “rhapsody” and could link this term with the song.
However, more than a few gave answers such as “madness”, “confusion”,
“nightmare”, “momentous journey” or “reflects a story”; this was invariably followed by
equally fanciful connections to the song. One candidate considered a rhapsody to be
“a form of rapping”, with another being convinced that “this is where the word “rap”
comes from”!
Question 2: The Beatles, Yesterday
(a)
(i) Answers were mostly correct here. (ii) Those who managed to identify a phrase
ending (the vast majority) usually scored marks on at least one of the other
questions. A very small number gave bar numbers outside the first verse.
(b)
There were very few wrong answers here.
(c)
Again well answered on the whole, with more being able to identify a similarity than a
difference.
(d)
It was pleasing to see many good answers here, particularly as the pedal in question
did not appear on the score.
(e)
Very few incorrect answers here.
14
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Area of Study 6: Welsh Songs
Question 1: Dilys Elwyn Edwards, Mae Hiraeth yn y Mor
(a)
Most recognised the song’s through-composed element and/or the sonnet structure,
with many receiving full marks.
(b)
Again this was well answered.
(c)
The opening key was well known, as were the other keys and modes.
(d)
The phrase lengths were well done, and most candidates gained a mark here.
(e)
This was not so well answered. Some candidates left it out completely, while other
provided mixed answers.
Question 2: Caryl Parry Jones, Y Nos yng Nghaer Arianrhod
(a)
The key was known by the majority.
(b)
Not all candidates gained the full three marks here. Many omitted to mention the A
minor chord and the chromatic nature of the music.
(c)
The majority answered this correctly.
(d)
This was well answered on the whole, although some failed to include information on
the vocal melody, preferring instead to mention the harmony and chorus parts.
(e)
This was well done, with most candidates gaining two of the three marks; the better
ones gained full marks.
MU3: Part Two
Compared with last year, there was a considerable improvement in the standard achieved by
candidates in this exam, particularly in Q4. Q3, by design, remains the most challenging of
all four questions, while the presence of more multiple-choice-type questions in Q1 makes
this the most amenable on the paper.
Question 1: With darkness deep (Theodora) (Handel)
(a)
It is pleasing to report that “modal” appeared vey infrequently as an answer this year.
There were some examples of “major” to be found, but the majority recognised the
minor tonality.
(b)
“A capella” was sometimes given for texture – even by some of the better candidates
– instead of “monophonic”. Some gave both terms, and it depended on which was
written first as to whether a mark could be awarded or not.
(c)
The presence of the 3rd of the tonic chord in the vocal part no doubt led some
candidates to give “imperfect” as an answer for the cadence.
(d)
There were very few incorrect answers here, with “trill”, “turn” and “mordent” all being
in evidence.
15
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(e)
(i) Again, this was answered well by most. In (ii), both opera and oratorio were
acceptable as answers, since the work is an oratorio that is sometime performed as
an opera.
(f)
The organ was sometimes mistakenly identified as a harpsichord, celesta, accordion
and synthesiser. Some did not read the question carefully enough, coming up with
viola, cello or double bass.
(g)
All three eras appeared as answers, but most correctly identified the Baroque.
(h)
“Melismatic”, “sequences”, “dotted rhythms” and “scalic” were all frequent (and
correct) answers. The circle of 5ths progression and the contrapuntal nature of the
string writing were less often mentioned.
Question 2: Carnival Overture (Dvorak)
(a)
A small number did not attempt this question. All four answers were found, but the
majority of candidates opted correctly for “diminished 7th”.
(b)
In a question of this sort, where candidates are asked to comment on musical
features, there is no limit set on the number of answers that can be given, and marks
are not deducted if some of the answers given are slightly beside the point. This is
not the case, however, when contradictory answers are given. Occurrences of such
instances are quite rare, but, unfortunately, an example appeared here with the
(otherwise very perceptive) candidate who wrote: diminution occurs and their notes
have a longer value.
(c)
There were very few incorrect answers here.
(d)
The same was true here. One candidate’s answer of 3/3 was hopefully a slip of the
pen!
(e)
Nearly all the answers in the mark scheme were found, with “muted strings”
appearing only very occasionally.
(f)
Most gave “(solo) violin” here; the cor anglais was mistaken for an oboe or bassoon
by some.
(g)
There were very many correct answers here. More fanciful answers included
maracas, sleigh bells, timpani and egg shaker. This was the question where a
candidate who scored 39/40 in this paper lost his only mark! Most of those who failed
to recognise the instrument still managed to pick up the mark in the second part of
the question.
Question 3: Ghost Trio (Beethoven)
(a)
The vast majority of answers were correct here, though, occasionally, the violin was
mistaken for a viola. Only a very small number confused viola and cello.
(b)
Most candidates managed to get both marks for comments on the piano’s material;
fewer candidates, however, seemed able to identify two features of the string parts,
with many only spotting that they were in 8ves.
16
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(c)
A small number lost a mark here for using “strings” when either “violin” or “cello” was
required, due to the differentiated nature of the material.
(d)
Most answers were correct, with the “beginning and ending in minor” option being the
most common of those that were incorrect.
(e)
There was quite a wide range of answers in evidence here. “Concerto” occurred quite
frequently, with “trio sonata” and “sonata” not far behind. Other answers that were
further from the mark included “string duet”, “ballet”, “Mass” and “Requiem”!
Question 4: Concerto in B flat, Op.IV, No.1 (Vivaldi)
(a)
There were very few incorrect answers here.
(b)
The second or third note in bar 10 caused problems for many. The knock-on effect
usually lasted into the next bar, but even when this was the case, many candidates
heard the sequence in bar 12 and managed to get back on track for the first three
notes of that bar.
(c)
Most incorrect answers here wrongly identified the chord as being in second
inversion.
(d)
Most recognised the perfect cadence, and that the key tonicised was minor, though
G minor was often given. Perhaps many assumed that a modulation to a minor key
would most likely involve the relative minor. (There was an almost identical situation
in the MU6, Part 1 exam, in which the same mistake was frequently made.)
(e)
Only a small number of candidates had difficulty in securing marks here, probably
partly because the melodic line invited a more limited choice of chords. There were,
however, still examples of candidates who had given the correct tonic key in (a) yet
were unable to work out which notes belonged to which triads in that key. The Bb-F
on the third beat of bar 6, for example, was sometimes given as IV or I.
Unfortunately, despite comments in previous examiner reports, there were still
candidates who lost marks because they failed to distinguish between, for example, ii
(a minor chord) and II (a major chord). A small number answered in terms of Arabic
rather than roman numerals (e.g., 2 rather than ii – or was it meant to denote II? –
and herein lies the problem with this (unmusical) method of nomenclature.)
17
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MUSIC
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU4 Performing
Principal Examiner:
Eric Phillips
Many of the points raised in the MU1 report pertain to this unit also.
As with MU1, those taking the MU4B option had some difficulty with the link to the second
area of study. This link could either be with a composition or a link to one of the AS Areas of
Study, i.e. Orchestral Music, Vocal Music, Chamber Music, Jazz, Rock and Pop, Musical
Theatre and Songs of Wales. As in MU1, simply stating Western Classical Tradition is not
acceptable.
Centres are reminded that the MU4 is a recital and that the pieces should run without
interruption. There may be a requirement to re-tune, and this is permitted and sometimes
advisable during the recital. Some candidates should ensure that they tune their instruments
carefully before commencing their performance.
As in previous years, it is vital that centres and candidates pay more attention to the timing
of recitals. In some instances this is because candidates fall short of the minimum time
requirement as stated in the specification. This is especially true with regard to the longer
MU4B recital. Candidates will be penalised if they do not fulfil the minimum time
requirement as outlined in the specification.
Finally, as stated in previous reports it should be clear to all that it is not acceptable for
candidates to perform the same repertoire at MU1 and at MU4.
18
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MUSIC
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU5 Composing
Principal Examiner:
Janice Richards
The general points made in MU2 pertain to much of the MU5 Unit also.
The pieces at MU5 were very varied and enjoyable to listen to, though standards were
predictably variable. Some candidates demonstrate a real flair for composing and there were
many imaginative and idiomatic compositions in a wide variety of styles. The better
candidates produced musically mature compositions, which were a pleasure to mark;
however there seemed to be fewer outstanding compositions this year. Examiners reiterate
that the weakest aspect was again application of harmony – limited chordal content, often
basic and even triadic, lack of convincing progressions, and only simple modulation to the
dominant or relative minor, or completely unrelated modulations. Structurally and
developmentally, repetition was rife (as were repeat marks). Some centres, on the other
hand, can be rightly proud of their candidates’ efforts, as excellent and well stylised
compositions were presented which displayed clear processes, mature creativity, a focused
awareness of balance, form and structure and a solid grasp of appropriate harmonic
procedures.
Composition 1(WCT piece)
Many of the observations from examiners at MU2 are also relevant here. Once again, I
compliment some centres on the first class outcomes achieved by their students, which
reflects so well on the teaching; indeed, there were some exceptional compositions, and
many others too, which portrayed musical understanding, thoughtful developmental
processes and creative, mature manipulation of ideas. Though writing was generally more
advanced at this level, it was not always the case - particularly in terms of harmony and
texture.
One matter of real concern is the amount of candidates quoting 20th century musical
influences as stimuli for their western classical compositions; the outcome was inevitably
modern, with very tenuous links, if any, made to the WCT. Marks are not just lost in the
stylistic sense; as these pieces were so closely influenced by modern musical conventions
and ideas, they rarely conformed to the other characteristic features of structure, harmony,
texture as required by the specification. These compositions were not considered to be a
good reflection of the WCT and unfortunately marks were lost in this respect. This is not
advisable practice for the candidates and is best avoided. I refer back to the suggestion from
the previous examiner’s reports i.e., “In order to encourage improved stylistic understanding
of the WCT, teachers should use examples pre-20th century, utilizing compositions from the
Western Classical Tradition”.
19
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Composition 2 (20th / 21st century)
The 20th/21st century stimulus successfully offered the platform for candidates to follow their own
interests and work within specialist genres, presenting the opportunity to demonstrate
understanding of the new A Level Area of Study. Pieces here demonstrated tremendously
diverse styles, genres and influences, all of which made for interesting appreciation. Candidates
were reliant on following the principles of their chosen style to achieve the best results, but
again, sometimes overlooked the need to follow the requirements of the assessment criteria.
Undoubtedly, there were some excellent responses, presenting highly inventive and imaginative
material in a modern musical language, with examples of serialist, impressionist, minimalist - and
modern pieces using folk-like material - as well as jazz and pop/rock. Most pieces were
instrumental, though there were also some very good vocal compositions.
Most pieces were written in a tonal idiom, although certain candidates appeared to use the fact
that their piece was 20th/21st century inspired as an excuse for their harmony 'not working'! Other
candidates seemed less at home when given more 'freedom' in terms of structure, as
compositions often 'rambled' a little; some were overlong and lacked focus.
Rock and pop songs were popular as 20/21st century compositions. As mentioned
previously in MU2, there were a few instances where the candidates had recorded their
work but had failed to provide any chords with the lyrics, suggesting that the requirements
in the specification had not been overlooked or misinterpreted. Some of these
compositions showed a clear affinity with the style, but the use of 12 bar blues
progressions and repeated sequences of chords in such pieces led to clear harmonic
limitations, as they were restricted, and often remained in one key throughout.
Development of material was often lacking in these pieces also. One portfolio consisted of
two jazz style compositions which were excellent in terms of stylistic awareness and
structure, but they were too similar, and the portfolio was not sufficiently contrasting, as
required. Another particular issue of the live and really enjoyable idiomatic jazz/rock pieces
- so professionally recorded – is the fact that the solo sections are sometimes not notated.
For future reference, please note that whilst musical development can be fairly accurately
assessed when the candidate is playing, other solos performed by group members are not
taken into account (unless they have been notated by the candidate) as the musicians
performing the solos are creating the end product. Under examination conditions, credit
cannot be given for improvisations by other musicians.
At times candidates used the commission of ‘music for a screen play’ for their compositions, but
too often failed to provide any insight into the plot or story line – even omitting a title; the best of
these pieces were superb and effectively written, though many were repetitive and relied on
motivic layering for textural variety. This was also true of some impressionist pieces in which the
essence of the genre was not always absorbed as the composition emerged as an exercise in
manipulating the whole tone or pentatonic scale formation without consideration of the stimulus.
Whereas in the past impressionistic compositions yielded works of true quality, this year
presented fewer successful attempts in this genre. They seemed to manifest an air of
predictability and a lack of imagination. Nevertheless, there were some strong and very exciting
submissions citing composers such as Debussy and Poulenc as musical influences.
Some of the examining team expressed concerns about a number of compositions linked with
serialism and minimalism. It is suspected that the former is sometimes regarded as an easy
option, but apart from the odd gem, the results were weak in that genre and did not reflect good
understanding of the style; success in this aspect demands a great deal of care and refinement
and is not easily achieved by just working from grids. Some candidates annotated their serial
compositions, identifying the various versions of the tone row. This was particularly useful and
helpful in the analytical process by the examiner. As regards the latter (and this point has been
mentioned previously), candidates must keep the assessment criteria in mind if they choose to
utilise minimalist practices for the purpose of this exam. To register a high mark in the
development and possibly harmony categories may mean moving away from purely minimalist
techniques. Many of the compositions written in this vein tended to lack sufficient imagination in
the manipulation of musical cells.
20
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MU5B
There were fewer candidates at MU5B than MU5A, but some examiners reported that they
had witnessed strong submissions, demonstrating individualistic ideas and imaginative flair
from obviously very keen and talented young composers. Conversely, other examiners felt
that the work of the MU5B candidates was far weaker this year, as their compositions lacked
variety, creativity and originality - sometimes blatantly so; one MU5B candidate submitted 3
pop songs with no contrast of style. Certainly, there were some excellent rock musicians
who chose this option, but they struggled slightly with the WCT composition.
21
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
MUSIC
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2013
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU6 Appraising
Principal Examiner:
Huw Thomas
MU6: Part 1 (Aural Perception)
Examination data suggests that candidates found Question 2 the most accessible, with the
other three questions roughly equal in difficulty. A small number of candidates seemed
unaware that this was an exam on 20th century music, with composers such as Mozart and
Salieri getting a mention. One candidate’s notes written at the side of one of the questions not Baroque/Classical – strongly suggests that this is the case.
Question 1: Nacht (Pierrot Lunaire) (Schoenberg)
Many candidates lost marks in (b) and (c) by making general assumptions about the stylistic
traits commonly associated with the Expressionist style. Somewhat unusually, for example,
the melodic lines in much of the piece are quite conjunct – mostly the result of the systematic
use of the movement’s opening 3-note motif (made up of intervals no larger than a 3rd) and
frequent chromatic scales (which were heard by some).
(a)
Clarinet, bassoon and oboe were all frequently given for bass clarinet, which was
recognised only by the better candidates. Many perceptive answers were given for
the instrumental effects, though answers such as “slurring”, “extreme dynamic range”
and “extreme parameters of pitch” were among those that were incorrect. A small
number gave two correct answers for the first effect and an incorrect answer for the
second, so only getting one mark.
(b)
Most were able to give “sprechstimme/sprechgesang” (or an approximation), as well
as a feature commonly associated with this vocal style.
(c)
Those who listened to the music without making assumptions scored well. In last
year’s report, in connection with jazz extract, candidates were advised to steer clear
of answers such as “expressive”, “rubato”, “with emotion” “legato” and “vibrato”.
Despite this, similar answers were given here by some – e.g., emotive, especially in
the vocal part. One candidate provided six answers here, two of which were correct,
but, unfortunately, they were not the first in each “category”.
(d)
Very many had both a suitable composer and style. As mentioned earlier, the likes of
Salieri, Brahms and Rachmaninov were not on the list of possibilities!
22
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Question 2: Rodeo (Copland)
(a)
Many recognised the 8ve/unison statement of the tune, along with its folk-like nature.
“Staccato” was another popular (and acceptable) answer. Fewer commented on the
wide range between the piccolo, oboe and bassoon.
(b)
The canon was obvious to most, but a good number heard fanfares here, as well as
scotch snap rhythms.
(c)
Perhaps hedging her bets, one candidate packed her answers with
conflicting/contradictory comments here, citing pentatonic scales ... modality ...
chromaticism ... bitonality as all being in evidence. If an extract/passage does include
a variety of musical features (as in Q3 of this paper), it is a good idea for candidates
to attempt to give a rough location for their answers (as some did in Q3) – e.g.,
“pentatonic at first”, “bitonal near the end” etc. “Pizzicato harmonies” also made an
appearance.
(d)
The vast majority could recognise a suitable instrument here, though a few missed
the “tuned” part of the question.
(e)
There were many answers that gave both the composer and style correctly. One or
two thought it was from the classical era, while the candidate who had given Salieri in
Q1 considered this to have been written by Mozart!
Question 3: Khamma (Debussy)
(a)
Some candidates attempted to answer this question on the instrumental writing/use
of orchestra without mentioning a single instrument, merely writing, for instance,
“sustained chords creating atmosphere” or “legato melodies”. Some resorted to
extra-musical answers, such as “creates shimmering light effect”.
(b)
Answers such as “trumpets add dramatic effect” were also found here. There were
many acceptable answers, a good number of which were in evidence in the papers.
More than a few mistakenly identified the woodwind scales as glissandi.
(c)
Some candidates mentioned pentatonic scales here. While the melodic line did
(almost) belong to this scale, the question called for comment on the
harmony/tonality – which was not based on the pentatonic scale. As mentioned
above, the best candidates gave an indication of location when two correct, but
seemingly contradictory, answers were given – especially in the answers to Section
3.
(d)
Most answers fell within the acceptable time-scale. A few candidates answered in
terms of a decade rather than a specific year – e.g., 1900s, 1910s. These were
accepted, but, because 1935 was the upper limit, 1930s could not be awarded a
mark.
Question 4: Romance (Sibelius)
(a)
In view of the fact that the melody was give in its entirety here and that the tune
cadenced on the tonic note, there were many disappointing answers in this question.
Most recognised the perfect cadence (though a good many did not), but once again,
because the tonic key was F major, many assumed that the minor key tonicised was
likely to be the relative minor. The melodic line at this point clearly precluded this
possibility.
23
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(b)
As with most answers to cadences throughout both the MU3&6 exams, this was
rather “hit and miss”. Perhaps the falling perfect 5th in the violin part led many to
assume it was a perfect cadence.
(c)
Many had full marks for this, but some answers were again disappointing.
(d)
Many heard the repetition of the opening bars in bars 9-10. Some, however, could
not bring themselves to believe that it could be that easy and tried to find slight
variations in the repetition of the melodic phrase – even, in one or two instances,
writing it an 8ve lower. A few seemed to hear the repetition, but were just unable to
copy it out correctly. One candidate heard it but wrote it out a bar early, leaving a
blank bar at the end!
(e)
This was very poorly done on the whole. Most candidates opted for chords with the
same name as a note in the melodic line, with Cm and D(m) being the most popular
answers. As usual, a good many chose chords in which the notes in the tune did not
feature. One or two candidates gave Fmaj7 rather than F7 for the first chord. A
couple tried to answer in terms of roman numerals, despite the question stipulating
chord names. Recognition of a diminished 7th chord was also disappointing.
MU6: Part 2 (Appraising – Set Works)
The following sentences are printed exactly as in last year’s report:
Marks were lost this year as a result of candidates not sticking to the question. When, for
instance, information on harmony/tonality was required, some included answers that related
to other musical elements such as texture, use of instruments etc. A good many candidates,
too, threw marks away by failing to provide locations for their answers. This was specifically
requested in some questions, though, in the context of musical analysis, locations should be
given as a matter of course.
These comments are equally pertinent this year, and, in the context of answers that were
unrelated to the question asked, perhaps even more relevant – particularly in the Ravel
concerto. An answer such as themes appear all over the place will not gain marks. It was
disappointing when answers to a previous/later question appear out of place elsewhere on
the paper – e.g., the mention of a “tonic chord” as an answer to “use of the orchestra/soloist”
in (a)(ii) of the Ravel set work, which, had it been given, would have gained a mark in (i)!
There were examples, too, of musical terms being only partly understood, such as the
candidate who wrote “B tonality” rather than “bitonality”, the latter being correct, but the
former incorrect, in the question concerned.
Ravel: Piano Concerto in G
Extract 1
(i)
Some failed to read the question carefully enough, writing on the structure of bars 144, or even the whole of the exposition! Some did not seem to understand what
“structure” meant – e.g., the structure is thick at the start. A small number gave a
“mini-analysis” of these bars, failing to provide details on their structure. Others
merely gave “1st movement”, “exposition” or “sonata form” and gained no marks at
all. In the harmony/tonality section, one candidate left nothing to chance, including
“diatonic”, “12-tone note row”, “whole tone scale”, “primary triads” and “pentatonic
notes” all in the same answer.
24
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(ii)
Many picked up some marks here, though the instruction “discuss” was largely
ignored. Some marks were needlessly lost, too, by failing to locate answers.
(iii)
Answers pertaining to melody were sometimes found under “harmony” and vice
versa. “Piano writing” appeared not to be fully understood by some, who merely
commented on the melodic material used.
Extract 2
(i)
The two sections were clearly identified by most candidates, although some wrote
“cadenza” instead of “transition”.
(ii)
Some answered off the point here, while, yet again, bar numbers were often omitted.
Most mentioned the change to triple metre, some the relative note lengths in both
statements of the melodic material concerned.
(iii)
There was at least one example of a (very good) candidate who, seemingly unaware
that the clarinet was a transposing instrument, considered that this instrument was
playing in a different key to the rest of the orchestra, so causing “tonal ambiguity”.
(iv)
Many gained full marks here.
(v)
This was also well answered by most.
(vi)
Again, many scored well here, even if they did not manage all 5 marks.
(c)
Several candidates who had achieved high marks in the first two extracts came down
quite badly in this question. It appeared that few candidates really understood how
this section actually “works”, with many seeming to miss the wood for the trees. More
than a small number of candidates managed to write a copious amount of material in
all three sections but still failed to gain any marks at all, such was the general or
irrelevant nature of their answers. Lack of location was, as usual, a frustrating and
needless cause for valuable marks being lost by many.
Even if full marks were not always achieved, those who knew the set work had no
real difficulty picking up marks in the “Thematic material” section. Two candidates’
answers can serve to illustrate those that did not. From the first came ‘sparse string
accompaniment .... detached crotchet chords ... harmonies in harp,’ and from the
second, fast ... disjunct melody ...triplets in bassoon ... reduced scoring ... trills in
strings ... divisi chords ... drop in texture ... just piano playing a mini cadenza. As in
(a) (iii), several had problems with finding pertinent answers under “Piano writing”,
with many merely being able to mention its toccata-like or mechanical nature. It was
disappointing how many omitted to comment on the parallel 8ves in both hands
towards the end of the extract. Answers often focused on the actual musical material
given to the piano rather than the piano writing itself, or else, offered answers of a
general sort – e.g., offers an ascending, ferocious drive, with the orchestra simply
returning to remind of previous themes. Other answers, such as virtuosic, piano
spans 4 octaves, just did not address the question. Neither did the candidate whose
answers focused entirely on dynamics! Many referred here to the changes in clef, but
failed to relate these changes to underlying musical reasons.
25
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Only the best candidates scored well in the section on “Harmony/tonality, too. Some
merely mentioned changes of key signature, which unfortunately did not tell the whole
story. It was good to see answers that gave evidence of a candidate’s real understanding
of the underlying tonal plan in the extract; such answers mentioned both the series of
major tonalities moving by ascending minor 3rds and the series of circle of 5ths bass
motions that governed the following bars. The bitonal flavour of these bars were mentioned
by some, and the occasional bluesy minor 3rds by the majority. Several, however, found
evidence of what they considered to be yet more “false relations”. These, however, were
merely dissonances caused by chord notes and the dissonant F# pedal note.
[See later for comments on the essay question.]
Shostakovich: String Quartet No.8
Extract 1
(i)
Most picked up at least one mark here. One candidate did not read the question carefully
enough, writing: It is very contrasting ... in an unrelated key.
(ii)
This was often well done. Most managed to get the mark for the “Function of passage”
section, too.
(iii)
Tchaikovsky’s 6th Symphony was given by many, thus making it impossible to gain the
mark for the second part of the question. Those who had “Danse Macabre” correct
invariably knew the composer and could mention at least one similarity.
(iv)
Most managed to mention the correct key and the false relation. Rather less frequently,
attention was drawn to the static harmony. Only the very best could add further
information. Some gave answers outside the extract, with a few going as far as the end
of the second A section in bar 115 – or even the whole of the movement.
(v)
Some wrote on matters other than structure here, merely commenting on the melodic
material, “oom-cha-cha rhythms” or the music’s dance-like nature. As in (iv), more than
one described the structure of bar 20 to the end of the movement, and the penny seems
not to have dropped when they found themselves doing exactly the same thing (in more
detail) in (c)!
Extract 2
(i)
On the whole the “Melodic material” section was well answered, with many candidates
achieving at least three marks. Some, however, wrote answers that were beside the
point – e.g., staccato chords are the secret police banging on Shostakovich’s door. On
the other hand, “Harmony/tonality” caused problems for many, with some commenting
on the use of the DSCH motif rather than the harmonic content or tonality. Or else (even
good) candidates resorted to more general comments such as play emphatic chords on
the first beat of some bars. Some vague statements were made, too, such as “minor
tonality”, “dissonance”, “neighbour note” etc., often without location.
(ii)
A common comment was merely that the cello played “in the treble clef”. As mentioned
in previous reports and at CPD meetings, references to clefs in themselves are not
sufficient to gain the mark. Candidates merely had to mention the part was very high in
the cello’s range. Although the tenor clef would be the natural choice, had this melody
been a whole octave lower (and, therefore, in a much more comfortable range for the
instrument), a composer could have well notated the cello melody by using the treble
clef. It is the actual pitch of the melody in each case that is crucial, not the choice of clef
used to notate it. Several candidates mistakenly called attention to the diminished 4th as
the “devil’s interval”, rather than the augmented 4th (diminished 5th), an interval that is not
contained within the DSCH motif.
26
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
(iii)
Both the parallel 4ths/5ths were frequently mentioned, as well as the ascending and
descending chromatic motion. Some were even able to relate accompaniment and
melody.
(c)
(i)
This was generally very well answered. (Alternative views were
covered by the mark scheme). However, some lost marks by omitting
to give some information on the movement’s overall tonal plan,
instead giving a general analysis of the music.
(ii)
Again, some candidates neglected to mention bar/figure numbers in
places – e.g., the comment this time much louder than before failed to
gain marks because, although in this instance information on
dynamics were pertinent, there are comparatively both softer and
louder passages in this section. Some answers were both vague and
lacked locations – e.g., the melodies and accompaniment have altered
slightly in places. Indeed, there were not too many examples of full
marks here, simply because many gave information on the themes
employed and other structural elements.
[See later for comments on the essay question.]
Mathias : This Worlde’s Joie
Only two candidates opted for the Mathias set work this year. The analysis answers were
good overall, but the essays invariably let the students down. Lack of detail and depth of
study were failings here, together with the usual omission of comment on representative
works, especially from the 20th and 21st centuries. Both essays were also extremely short.
Essays
The essays connected with all three set works were once again disappointing overall. Many
candidates appeared to be hampered by trying to reproduce what were likely to be prepared
essays that they were unable to make fit the question. In some instances, it seemed that
such prepared essays provided insufficient detail to accommodate the topic concerned. A
small number made no attempt to address the question, merely presenting an account of the
development of the genre. Many, too, continue to write about works that have no real
relevance to the “associated topic”. In the Ravel option, for example, the whole of the first
page of an essay by a very good candidate concerned itself with the concertos of Corelli, the
concertos for 4 violins by Vivaldi, Bach’s D minor Double Concerto and the same
composer’s 5th Brandenburg Concerto, with the second page beginning with a reference to
Handel’s 12 Concerti Grossi, Op.6! None of these references had any relevance whatsoever
to the development of the solo concerto. Other candidates mentioned works such as Berg’s
Chamber Concerto and Webern’s Concerto, Op.24 (which is for 9 solo instruments.) In the
Shostakovich option, too, there were a number of similar examples of prepared essays that
outlined the general development of the genre without fully addressing the extent to which
later developments reflected earlier traditions and conventions. In one 3-page essay (by an
otherwise good candidate), the question’s quotation was mentioned only in the final
paragraph – almost as an afterthought. Essays on the string quartet were naturally less likely
to contain references to anomalous works, though some did appear, notably, as it did last
year, the inclusion by a small number of candidates of Penderecki’s “Threnody to the Victims
of Hiroshima”, which they obviously considered a string quartet, despite its scoring for 52
solo string instruments. Stravinsky’s “Petrushka”, Beethoven’s 5th Symphony and Bartok’s
Concerto for Orchestra made numerous appearances once again.
27
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Occasionally, “bold” (and inaccurate) statements were made without further explanation –
e.g., Ideas from all five of Beethoven’s Piano Concertos can be heard in 20th century writing.
Inaccuracies occurred in some essays in the Shostakovich option, too – e.g., Stravinsky’s
Three Pieces for String Quartet drew inspiration from Schoenberg and included frequent key
changes, which was in turn passed down to his student Weberg.
Some candidates identified rather contentious links between the various eras – e.g.,
characteristics from the baroque period which were used later in the 20th century (in Ravel’s
concerto) such as trills and in the classical period in Mozart’s concertos. One candidate
considered it of great import that a continued sense of tradition in the development of the
string quartet was the fact that it had retained its scoring for four string instruments even in
the 20th century!
Lack of information on 20th/21st century works is still a major failing with the majority of
candidates – particularly works from later in the 20th century - and there are a few candidates
(sometimes in the same centre) who persist in making the set work studied (almost
invariably the Ravel concerto) the entire focus of the essay, totally disregarding any other
developments in the genre – and later concertos. Many candidate, too, continue to mention
works (particularly 20th century concertos) without providing any information on the music –
or else merely very basic details. For instance, Walton’s Viola Concerto includes several
solo sections featuring the soloist with statements of the main thematic material is a
comment in which “Walton’s Viola Concerto” could be removed and replaced by any other
20th century concerto. (No further information was given on this work by the candidate in this
instance.)
On the other hand, it is pleasing to note, in the Ravel option, a small number of outstanding
essays which demonstrated a clear understanding of the question and which referred
intelligently to the ways in which Ravel's concerto was stable and unproblematic, or
otherwise. These candidates demonstrated an excellent understanding of historical depth
and breadth, and could effectively relate characteristics of Ravel's work to the appropriate
periods/composers. In the Shostakovich option, too, there were examples of essays that
were well written and which contained a logical discussion of the String Quartet throughout
the different eras, with pertinent reference to works by composers such as George Crumb,
Brian Ferneyhough, Elliot Carter, Stockhausen and Penderecki. These were mature and
confident essays showing an obvious understanding of the set work and its relevance to the
main characteristics in other eras.
Extended Study
Only one candidate opted for this component (Shostakovich), with the overall standard of the
essay being disappointing, with little evidence of individual research. The essay seemed to
bear little relevance to the question set, and, as in the essays above, more depth when
discussing individual works was necessary
GCE Music Examiner’s Report (Summer 2013)/HL.
28
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: [email protected]
website: www.wjec.co.uk
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.