iaspm2011proceedings
Situating popular musics
ISSN 2225-0301
What does jazz group assessment
offer the undergraduate music
environment?
Diana Blom
University of Western Sydney
John Encarnacao
University of Western Sydney
Abstract
With the growth of popular music studies in universities, research is focusing on assessment of popular music performance, particularly rock and jazz, and therefore
group music-making. This paper investigates a second-year undergraduate cohort
studying jazz performance, asked to choose criteria for self- and peer assessment,
and asks: what does jazz group assessment offer to thinking about tertiary assessment in general; and what does jazz group assessment offer to thinking on group
assessment? It finds the rehearsal process, recognition of soft skills, and student
participation in assessment criteria important, with popular music requiring the
questioning of default positions inherited from the assessment of classical music.
Keywords: assessment; jazz; tertiary music education; rehearsal; performance.
With the growth of popular music studies in the university environment, the literature is slowly turning its enquiring gaze to assessing popular music performance,
particularly rock and jazz, and group music-making becomes the predominant
theme. This paper aims to add to discussion on group assessment in popular music
Situating popular musics: IASPM 16th International Conference Proceedings, pp. 39-48
CC 3.0 2012 IASPM | International Association for the Study of Popular Music | ISSN: 2225-0301
http://www.iaspm.net/proceedings | DOI 10.5429/2225-0301.2011.06
40
IASPM 2011 proceedings
by raising two specific questions – what does jazz group assessment offer to thinking about tertiary assessment in general; and what does jazz group assessment offer to thinking on group assessment? In doing so, the paper builds on our previous
research findings to suggest that in the importance of the rehearsal process, recognition of soft skills, and student participation in assessment criteria, the impact of
popular music in the academy can contribute strongly to music education thinking
through the questioning of default positions inherited from the assessment of classical music.
Literature review
Literature on jazz performance and assessment in the tertiary environment raises several issues. Consideration of the individual, rather than the group, an approach inherited from solo classical music programs (Barratt and Moore 2005, p.
303), results in students “moving away from the natural group interactions, the
improvisatory flair, and the democratic contrapuntalism necessary for most fine
jazz performance”. After consultation with staff and students, Barratt and Moore
introduced new assessment criteria to ensure that group interaction is encouraged
and accessible, focusing on the performance event as the sole site of assessment
and noting a perceived division between jazz “in the institution” and “in the real
world” (ibid., pp. 304-305). Kerr and Knight (2010, pp. 304-306) report that the
Central Queensland Conservatorium of Music has attempted to bridge that divide
by taking their entire cohort of jazz undergraduates to Hamilton Island periodically
for concentrated periods of performance (perhaps a week at a time) in a variety of
resort venues. Their accent on real world experience, combined with the scrutiny
of assessment in a university, resulted in a concentration on parameters that may
easily be overlooked by in-house assessment – performance skills that relate to the
reading of an audience, encouraging an awareness of the performers’ own body
language and physical gestures. The experience also brought to the fore the importance of balance within a group, the overall volume of the group in relation to the
variety of environments experienced as performers (ibid., pp. 307-308), as well as
the consideration of appropriate repertoire for various contexts (ibid., p. 308).
Dealing with rock rather than jazz groups, but still under the broad umbrella of
popular musics, Pulman (2009, p. 121) emphasises the rehearsal process, concentrating exclusively on the relationships between people in a group, rather than their
technical or otherwise musical skills: “Band rehearsing […] is a highly collaborative
activity […]. Individuals’ contributions themselves will, in part, be communicated
through the interpersonal skills and attributes of each participant”.
Working in inadvertent parallel with these researchers, teaching and research
in the undergraduate music degree at the University of Western Sydney has long
pursued a strategy where both rehearsal process and performance outcome are
deemed significant. In our paper for the British Journal of Music Education, (Blom
and Encarnacao 2012) we have used the terms “hard” and “soft”. Drawing from
Coll and Zegwaard (2006, p. 31), hard skills comprise technical, analytical, and ap-
Blom & Encarnacao: What does jazz group assessment offer...?
41
preciative skills that we feel can be comfortably mapped onto musical technique,
preparation and interpretation. Soft skills refer to personal, interpersonal and organisational skills – the ways in which an individual works with others and facilitates collaboration. We suggest that hard and soft skills exist on a continuum – for
example, incorporating the ideas and playing of collaborators draws from both skill
sets. We would classify as soft skills those that Beale (cited in Barratt and Moore
2005, p. 305) identifies as important to jazz, “interactive skills such as the musical
expression of ’fellow feeling’, respect for each band member’s musical ‘space’, and
the ability to respond spontaneously and sensitively to other musicians’ ideas”.
Jazz, with its improvisatory basis, offers distinct ways of thinking about performing. Seddon (2005, p. 52) observes six different modes of communication within
two main categories, verbal and non-verbal. Each contains three distinct modes of
communication: instruction, cooperation and collaboration. In verbal instruction,
“musicians are told what and when to play in pre-composed sections (the heads)”,
while in non-verbal instruction, “musicians learn [the] pre-composed part by ear
or read from music notation”. Through verbal cooperation, “musicians discuss and
plan the organization of the piece prior to performance in order to achieve a cohesive performance”, and through non-verbal cooperation, “musicians achieve
sympathetic attunement and exchange stocks of musical knowledge, producing
cohesive performance employing: body language, facial expression, eye contact,
musical cues and gesticulation”. In verbal collaboration, “musicians discuss and
evaluate their performance of the music in order to develop the content and/or style
of the piece” and through non-verbal collaboration, “musicians achieve empathetic
attunement, tak[ing] creative risks which can result in spontaneous musical utterances. When they do, this signals empathetic creativity” (ibid., p. 53). This accent
on empathy, and on the process that occurs between people during musical activity,
seems crucial to not only acknowledge, but to establish a place for in the assessment of popular music activities in the undergraduate sector. Through our focus on
peer assessment and student-chosen criteria, we have come to the conclusion that
these aspects are of great importance to student musicians.
Methodology
The case study that underpins this paper is the experience of a second-year undergraduate cohort studying jazz performance at the University of Western Sydney, who were asked to choose criteria for self- and peer assessment. The thirteen
participants (three females, ten males) playing in three groups (JazzOne, JazzTwo,
JazzThree) were studying in a three-year music program where performance is not
taught on a one-to-one basis but adopts a “broader class-based approach” (Blom
2008, p. 101). Students playing in jazz, rock and classical groups were asked to
choose three criteria with which to peer- and self-assess their own and their group’s
rehearsal process and three criteria with which peers from other groups could evaluate their final performance. This was part of a written task for a semester of group
performance. Performance staff designed two more criteria for each part of the
42
IASPM 2011 proceedings
task making a total of five criteria for assessment of each group’s rehearsal process
and five for each group’s performance outcome. The staff-chosen rehearsal process
criteria were soft skills of participation and preparation; and for the performance
outcome the hard skill musical quality (that is: technique; pitch accuracy/attention
to tuning; groove/rhythmic accuracy and precision; timbre; balance) plus presentation (presence, confidence, communication and staging/stagecraft), a combination
of hard and soft skills. Students were also asked to explain the meaning of all criteria. Their assessment of self and peers was not included in the final mark for the
unit but was designed as an exercise in the understanding of group music-making
and assessment. Criteria given in the unit outline plus lectures on peer assessment,
stagecraft, group dynamics and concert production were designed to introduce students to a range of terms and possible issues.
Analysis
A coding table compiled to show what students feel is important when peer assessing tertiary rock groups in rehearsal and performance (Blom and Encarnacao 2012,
pp. 32-33) provided a model for the analysis of jazz participants’ responses. The
jazz responses came from three areas: criteria chosen by student jazz groups, individual jazz participants’ explanations of these criteria, and student explanations of
criteria given by staff. The coding table lists assessment issues in rehearsal and performance, and categorizes them according to Birkett’s (cited in Coll and Zegwaard
2006) taxonomy of “soft” and “hard” skills.
Findings
Technical and analytical skills are underrepresented as we chose to exclude responses of students that duplicated descriptions of criteria given by staff. And where
repeated wording occurred amongst students within a group we concluded that
students were copying from, or repeating each other. These remarks have not been
counted twice. Given these disclaimers, there is a strong argument for the significance of the issues that appeared three times or more from such a relatively small
sample of students (thirteen; see Table 1). These are:
Performance
• Attitude/energy/spirit (3; Soft-personal)
• Issues around group identity and unity (5; Soft-interpersonal)
• Communication within the group (4; Soft-interpersonal)
• Communication/connection with audience (3; Hard-Soft-appreciative)
• Group’s stage presence and persona (3; Hard-Soft-appreciative)
Rehearsal
• Sharing, contributing and cooperating (6; Soft-interpersonal)
• Individuals rehearsing in their own time (5; Soft-personal)
43
Blom & Encarnacao: What does jazz group assessment offer...?
• Group unity and communication (4; Soft-interpersonal)
• Being sensitive and respectful (4; Soft-interpersonal)
• Attitude and positivity (3; Soft-personal)
• Interpretation of musical material (3: Hard-technical)
• Enthusiasm and excitement (3; Soft-personal)
Table 1: What students feel is important when peer assessing undergraduate jazz performance
and rehearsal.
Performance issues
Hard/Soft
Rehearsal process
Hard/Soft
(no. of comments
1)
(no. of comments if
more than 1)
if more than
Begin and end together/
playing together (2)
H - appreciative
Individual
interpretation/ability
and improvement
during solos (3)
H - analytical
Playing when meant to
be
H - appreciative
Technical
appropriateness
H - analytical
Using body movements
H - appreciative
Overall skill with
playing jazz
H - analytical
Not making mistakes
H - appreciative
Expression and
nuance
H - technical
Don’t overshadow others
(2)
H - appreciative
Tuning
H - technical
Giving space musically
H - appreciative
Technical fluidity/
level of musical
difficulty (2)
H - technical
Follow instructions
H - appreciative
Engagement within
others’ solos
H - appreciative
Different styles of music
incorporated
H - appreciative
To show a variety of
musical genres
H - appreciative
44
IASPM 2011 proceedings
Performance issues
Hard/Soft
Rehearsal process
Hard/Soft
Playing in role/research
into specific instrument
H - appreciative
Attention to details
of sound
H -appreciative
Change aspects of a
piece/how individual
develops piece (2)
H - appreciative
Awareness of others
(musical)
H-S appreciative
Distinction of solo parts/
solo performance (2)
H - appreciative
Openness to new
approaches
S-H -interpersonal
Fluidity of arrangement
H - appreciative
Honesty
S - interpersonal
In tune (2)
H - technical
Being sensitive/
respectful (4)
S - interpersonal
In time/sticking
accurately to specific
rhythm (2)
H - technical
Sharing dominant
role
S - interpersonal
Instrumentation used
H - analytical
Giving of ideas
and feedback/
contributing to
rehearsal/contr. to
group discussion (6)
S - interpersonal
Overall quality of sound
H - analytical
Being united
as a band/
communicating as
a unit, not tension
between musicians
(4)
S - interpersonal
Being approachable/
ability to listen to
others
S - interpersonal
H-S
Look like you’re playing
as a band/group persona/ Appreciative?
group’s stage presence
(3)
45
Blom & Encarnacao: What does jazz group assessment offer...?
Performance issues
Hard/Soft
Rehearsal process
Hard/Soft
Communication
with audience/how
enthusiasm translates
/connecting with
audience (3)
H-S
Appreciative?
Being prepared
to attend extra
rehearsals
S - personal
Creativity
H-S - personal
Commitment to
repertoire
S - personal
Time management
S - personal
Helping each other
set up
S - personal
Confidence
S - personal
Responding to tutor
direction
S - personal
Looking like they’re
involved
S - personal
Remembering
sheet music and
instruments
S - personal
Preparation (general) (2)
S - personal
Attitude/application/
conducting
themselves in a
positive manner (not
acting like a jerk) (3)
S - personal
Attitude/Enthusiasm/
involved in spirit of the
music (3)
S - personal
Attendance (2)
S - personal
Help each other set up
S - personal
Organisation (2)
S - personal
Effort
S - personal
Persona
S - personal
Preparation (of piece)
S - personal
Mental preparation/
always being in the
mood (2)
S - personal
46
IASPM 2011 proceedings
Performance issues
Hard/Soft
Rehearsal process
Hard/Soft
Individual unified
with group/corporate
consistency/contribution
to group identity (5)
S - interpersonal
Private rehearsal/
in own time/outside
of class/individual
work/remembering
song structures (5)
S - personal
Communication within
group, including visual/
connecting within group
(4)
S - interpersonal
Setting up/setting
up in a swift, timely
manner
S - personal
No stuffing around/not
wasting time (2)
S - interpersonal
Punctuality (2)
S - personal
Being silent (once
sound-checked)
S - interpersonal
Energy produced
and conveyed
in performance/
enthusiasm,
excitement and
energy (3)
S - personal
Exchange ideas
S - interpersonal
Communication through
audio cues
S - interpersonal
The criteria themselves, students’ descriptions of them, plus students’ descriptions
of the four mandatory staff criteria, often revealed multiple meanings within a group
for a one-word criterion. Students did not seem to have the vocabulary to talk about
the improvisation process itself. For example, “proficiency and distinction of solo
parts” (M1 JazzTwo) was one description of the criteria “improvisation”. Interpretation for JazzThree was about “the individual’s own distinct way of understanding
the piece and delivering it in a unique way which is different to the original” (M2
JazzThree). Group distinction (JazzThree criteria) was described from the different
viewpoints of the individual and the group but encompassing the same meaning.
From the individual’s perspective it was “how the [individual] player contributes to
the group’s identity” (M4 JazzThree) while for the other two members of this group
it is about “how we work as a band” (M3 JazzThree) “…and not about seven individual solo performers being assessed” (M1 Jazz Three).
Blom & Encarnacao: What does jazz group assessment offer...?
47
In rehearsal, whether the criterion was “team player” or “commitment”, the descriptions focused on when to, and when not to, solo and the related but not identical aspect of the sharing of responsibility within a group. Descriptions of the criterion “performance standard” were all about jazz style, and the creativity of each
player (JazzOne).
Proficiency was all about “fluidity” (M3 JazzTwo) of technique and jazz style,
hard issues, but also touched on “attitude applied throughout pieces/group work”
(F2 JazzTwo), a hard/soft combination. The criteria improvisation and solo performance focused on “ability and improvement during solos plus the engagement
within other’s solos” (F2 JazzTwo) and included “expression of own individual interpretation [and] level of musical difficulty of solo” (M3 JazzTwo). Passion is about
“energy produced and conveyed in the performance” (M1 JazzThree), a soft skill,
and involvement “in the spirit of the music” (M4 JazzThree), a soft/hard skill.
Conclusion
What does jazz group assessment offer the undergraduate music environment? It
offers:
1.Ways of thinking about and undertaking group music assessment (beyond solo
classical assessment) because it is largely a group activity;
2.Ways of thinking about assessing different styles and music approaches, for example improvisation;
3.Understanding there are different stages of accomplishment, some of which may
not be achievable during undergraduate study (Seddon 2005);
4.The need to teach students vocabulary with which to clearly articulate issues
they encounter during rehearsal/performance, and for assessment discussion.
What does jazz group assessment offer to the thinking about undergraduate music
assessment in general? It reveals:
1.The importance of understanding what students feel is important in their rehearsal process and performance;
2.The role of energy and passion within a group (soft skill which results in a better
hard skill group outcome);
3.The issues of balance and overshadowing which are also relevant to chamber
music playing in a classical environment, a soft and hard skill combination;
4.The different thinking and activity required when playing what Stephen Davies
(2001) describes as a “thin” scored work, that is, a chart, as opposed to a “thick”
score which is fully notated. This involves arranging, improvisation, instrument
choices;
5.The importance of assessing jazz students as a group, rather than just as individuals, because group dynamics encourage spontaneity (Barrett and Moore 2005) and
allow passion to emerge, something our students value.
48
IASPM 2011 proceedings
What does jazz group assessment offer to thinking on group assessment? It focuses
attention on:
1.The importance of soft skills which can overshadow hard skills if the group is not
functioning well;
2.Students need to practice individually to be able to contribute to the group music-making and social dynamic;
3.The need to equip students with terms to describe accurately what they are trying to do, whether these are describing aspects of improvisation or technical proficiency;
4.The understanding that groups achieve different levels. While some remain focused on soft skills because of poor group dynamics, other groups with no people
problems move into more detailed musical issues, hard skills (Blom and Encarnacao
2012, p. 41), and some, (perhaps not during undergraduate study) will move into
“empathetic attunement, making empathetic creativity possible” (Seddon 2005, p.
58).
References
Barrett, Elisabeth and Moore, Hilary. 2005. “Research group assessment: Jazz in the
conservatoire”. British Journal of Music Education, Vol. 22, No. 3, pp. 299-314.
Blom, Diana. 2008. “Teaching class-based music performance at tertiary level: Focusing
theory on practice”. In Bennett, Dawn and Hannan, Michael (eds.), Inside outside
downside up: Conservatoire training and musicians’ work, Black Swan Press, Perth,
pp. 101-109.
Blom, Diana and Encarnacao, John. 2012. “Student-chosen criteria for peer assessment
of tertiary rock groups in rehearsal and performance: What’s important?”. British
Journal of Music Education, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 25-43.
Davies, Stephen. 2001. Musical works and performances: A philosophical exploration.
Clarendon Press, Oxford.
Kerr, Derrin and Knight, Bruce Allen. 2010. “Exploring an industry-based jazz education
performance training programme”. International Journal of Music Education, Vol. 28,
No. 4, pp. 301-312.
Pulman, Mark. 2009. “Seeing yourself as others see you: Developing personal attributes
in the group rehearsal”. British Journal of Musical Education, Vol. 26, No. 2, pp. 117135.
Seddon, Frederick A. 2005. “Modes of communication during jazz improvisation”. British
Journal of Music Education, Vol. 22, No. 1, pp. 47-61.