GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
MUSIC
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2014
© 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.
Unit
Page
MU1
1
MU2
3
MU3
12
MU4
22
MU5
23
MU6
26
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Music
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU1: Performing
Principal Examiner:
Eric W 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 performing live.
Administration
In most cases the administration and timetabling of the examinations was excellent with many
centres providing running orders. Longer sessions at colleges and at consortia are becoming
the norm. In such cases, please build into your timetables comfort breaks for the examiners.
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.
Most centres had downloaded the Mu1/Mu4 forms as required and in some instances these
had been completed by the candidates themselves. Please double-check these for accuracy.
In cases where the standard of the repertoire is known, it would be helpful if this information
was included on the candidate’s form
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.
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.
Performances
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.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
In some instances, more care is needed in choosing ensemble repertoire in order to ensure that
the individual parts are at the required standard. 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”. 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.
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. In most cases, electronic equipment had been set up and
sound-checked in advance allowing the examination to proceed without any unnecessary holdups. Please double-check backing tracks on CD; there were some instances of “skipping”
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.
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. Singers also need to give greater
consideration to the fact that they must not hide behind their music. If the music or lyrics are
needed, it would be preferable for them to be placed on a stand, slightly to the side of the
performer.
We are now accustomed to the new method of assessing performing at GCSE, but 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.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
Music
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU2: Composing
Principal Examiner:
Janice Richards
This report is based on feedback received from the ten members of the examining team. My
intention is to provide teachers with an overview, along with suggestions of best practice which
I trust will be of value to all those responsible for guiding students in their completion of the
MU2 coursework and the MU5 examination submission.
Administration (MU2 and MU5)
Many centres follow all administrative procedures accurately, which is tremendously helpful.
(For further clarification and specific details on exact requirements, please refer to the current
specification and previous guidelines).
The following points initially link to the ‘best practice’ advice which has been included in
previous examiner’s reports.
1)
“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”.
A recurring comment from the team this year was that while the clarity and production of
the majority of recordings was really professional and of high quality, a number were too
quiet and in some cases, with tracks that were almost inaudible (or seemingly muted).
All centres should check the balance of parts and sound levels before submitting the
work. Thankfully, most recordings were submitted on a master CD which held the entire
sample from the centre, complete with a correct track list. Individual CDs for each
candidate are perfectly acceptable, although individual CDs for each composition are
not advisable; also, please avoid putting both compositions onto one track. Some CDs
were missing from the original submission, but always sent promptly when requested.
There are only a few centres still preferring to record the work on mini disk, this does
cause a few problems, as not all moderators own this type of equipment, however, it is
permitted in the specification. Speeds of some recordings were also sometimes
inappropriate; had the pieces been performed live they would require virtuoso
performers to realize the work!
Most centres produced the required track listings, though some listed pieces in the
wrong order which caused initial confusion and wasted time.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
2)
“There is no requirement for each track to be announced by the teacher”.
Some centres continue to record the titles, candidate names, examination numbers and
even details of the instrumentation of the pieces on additional tracks: please note, a
track list is far more convenient for the moderator. All such details must be included on
the scores, lead sheets and candidate logs; this information, accompanied by a track list
is perfectly acceptable, and actually easier to refer to during the moderation process.
3)
“Sufficient explanation and detail should be included on the candidate logs, all signed
and authenticated correctly”.
The best logs were extremely detailed, interesting and informative. Some contained
thorough analyses of the compositions, which is not required if the score is included;
most candidates presented a reasonable amount of detail but a few were very brief, with
a notable lack of useful information – and in some cases, a lack of understanding. At
times the information was contradictory (e.g. one candidate had stated that the
composition was in a Baroque style and used Baroque techniques, but the piece was an
archetypical ‘Classical’ outcome with obvious Mozartian influence; also, there were a
number of instances where candidates had identified features of the music incorrectly,
thus illustrating a lack of basic musical understanding).
Where a score has not been included, a lead sheet must be submitted in its place and in
addition to the candidate log; if the composition is a song, then the lyrics and chords
should be presented, along with a clear structural outline, details of the recording
process and how this was undertaken, and so on. However, too many candidates still
present insufficient musical information on their lead sheets; at times, it is unclear what
part exactly has been played by the candidate! The moderator needs to appreciate fully
the compositional process: what is the stimulus of the piece, how the candidate has
responded to the stimulus and planned the compositions, what the overall structure is,
what the compositional devices and textures will be, how the piece reflects the selected
genre, how the teacher’s advice further affected decision making, and how the final
refinements were made. In addition to the above requirements, candidates are also well
advised to detail the use of specific technology and the recording process (though it is
not necessary to describe the capabilities of any particular program, only what features
have been employed to create the outcome).
A few candidates did not attempt to complete the log at all. Please remind students that
this is a requirement of the specification. Should they choose to present this information
as a word document, then they must download the appropriate forms from the WJEC
website.
As regards correct authentication, the work from the majority of centres included all the
necessary documentation and signatures, though there were omissions. An easy
oversight, I appreciate, especially with larger classes, but extremely time-consuming for
the examiner to chase up, even though centres are extremely obliging and reply
promptly with the missing information. Once again, teachers are respectfully reminded
that digital signatures of authentication are not acceptable from either candidates or
teachers.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
4)
“All compositions and assessment sheets should be clearly labelled with the titles of the
compositions in place.”
Though many are fastidious in this procedure, we would be most appreciative if all CDs,
and all pages of the composition and logs were clearly labelled with the school and
candidate name and examination numbers. Please note: there is an allocated place on
the mark sheets for the titles of both the compositions. On a number of occasions this
year, the marks and teacher comments seemed to be at odds with the information as
given in the logs; clarification of titles on the mark sheet would be extremely helpful in
these situations.
5)
“Multiple pages for individual compositions should be stapled or clipped together.”
The presentation of most work is exemplary. Some teachers submit one foolscap folder,
with individual submissions clipped together (i.e. scores and logs), along with an
administrative folder containing the CD(s) and track list; others use individual foolscap
folders for each candidate. The difficulty arises when there are significant amounts of
separate sheets, not clipped or held together, and not all clearly labelled with the
candidate details. Perhaps reducing the staff size on Sibelius would improve some hefty
print-outs (…especially those with a penchant for presenting one bar per page!) Often,
the bottom half of a page is left blank rather than utilized by adjusting the print.
6)
“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 the Board.”
A number of moderators this year reported receiving all the units in the same parcel;
please be mindful of this requirement. On occasion, the work was difficult to access due
to over-zealous packaging held together by copious amounts of sticky tape!
This year, the following issues were also noted.

Most centres sent all materials as requested by the due date – but not all. There
were instances where problems had arisen and work was received way after the
deadline (following an explanatory call to the WJEC); in a few cases, portfolios
were sent by instalment, while more than one centre sent their submission(s)
over a week late, with no explanation.

Other administrative errors identified this year included incorrect addition of
marks, missing examination details, MU2 forms being used instead of MU5
forms, and out-of-date assessment forms used (the current forms are available
on-line).

Moderators fully value the comments made by teachers in support of their
assessments. Unfortunately, these were at times rather brief, and at times had
not been completed with reference to the marking guidelines; 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 marking and moderation procedures, detailing any
assistance that has been given. There were instances where no comments were
offered in support of the marks awarded, others wrote in the comment box
allocated for the moderators’ comments, and some moderators faced
unintelligible comments where the writing was difficult to decipher.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5

All moderators found portfolios which did not satisfy the recommended timerequirements for the various units covered. A number of pieces at both MU2 and
MU5 were far too long, exceeding five minutes in length (some extending to 16
minutes) – and the message was that quantity was not always a measure of
quality! Some of these extended works were obviously very successful, but more
often than not were overlong for the amount of thematic material presented; such
pieces often lacked a sense of unity and focus. Conversely, some compositions
were very short, some less than two minutes; such pieces were too short to
demonstrate any significant development of ideas. It may be appropriate here to
comment on the use of repeat marks, seemingly for no purpose other than to
extend the time outcome. There were numerous examples where repeat marks
were not a characteristic feature of the selected structure, and had been added
in the most random of positions: as far as examination work is concerned, this is
of no value whatsoever.

This year, some candidates submitted three shorter pieces (at times, these were
completely unrelated movements, other times part of a suite). This is not
advisable practice and is not considered an appropriate task, as candidates are
unable to demonstrate imaginative and substantial development of the initial
material. Please check the specification carefully and adhere to the
recommended guidelines.

Most of the scores received were of an extremely high standard, with the vast
majority completed using Sibelius software. Some were rather awkward to
follow, and there were a few untidy scripts (mainly hand-written) which were not
straightforward to decipher. It would be of tremendous assistance if the
instrumentation could be clearly indicated on all scores, and though no marks
are deducted for the lack of performance directions, it is clearly a more musical
outcome when markings of speed, expression and technique have been
considered. There were a number of instances this year where examiners noted
that scores were incomplete, with the final page, or other pages missing.

Where lead sheets are included in the absence of a score, it was acknowledged
that the standard is hugely variable: some are extremely informative and
substantial, others less far less so, often comprising no more than a sequence of
chords without any further explanation. Screenshots (usually from Garage Band
or Cubase) are not helpful without the additional supporting instrumental,
harmonic, and 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
advisable, and also the harmonic content, and use of compositional devices and
developments. Details of the recording process must also be accurately
explained, making absolutely clear the part played by the candidate throughout
the process (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. Only the work of the candidate
is assessed.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6

It was felt that appropriate tasks had been set for candidates in most centres,
though worryingly there were exceptions, where candidates had been given little
chance of achieving high marks in certain respects; for example, when an
accurate reflection of the style automatically ruled out the ability to cover all
aspects of the assessment criteria (this included some hymn tunes – and
ragtime pieces - that demonstrated very good grasp of harmony, but included
little variety of texture or development). ‘Class tasks’ had been used in some
centres (theme and variations being a popular choice), but these generally did
not suit all of the candidates in the cohort, and also produced similar outcomes.
Some candidates had been given the chance to compose for professional
ensembles, which led to some fantastic results.

Candidates should be reminded that they must not use profanity in their lyrics.
Though these are (mostly) 'bleeped out' on the recordings and not always
included on the lyrics sheet, it is not suitable for examination purposes. I am
concerned to report that this happened on more than one occasion.

Once again this year, it was felt that some candidates adhered too closely to the
work chosen as a stimulus for the composition process. This has been referred
to briefly in the past in respect of arrangements of folk songs: however, an overreliance on original material could lead to accusations of plagiarism, especially
when direct quotations from existing masterworks are clearly identifiable. 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 candidates should bear this in mind. They should
furthermore at least acknowledge the source of their “borrowings”.

Some candidates mentioned that they had resurrected their GCSE compositions
and refined them for AS and one candidate said that the MU2 composition had
been ‘re-worked’ for MU5. It is generally agreed that this is not in the nature of
the examination, particularly as credit has already been awarded for ideas if they
have been presented at AS level. I would advise a fresh approach; new course,
new ambition, new compositions!
MU2 Composing
Overall standards were good, with examples of outstanding quality portfolios – some truly
excellent outcomes, with some amazing live performances that were absolutely fantastic! The
exceptional work was inspirational and imaginative, and demonstrated an excellent
understanding of structure with a sound grasp of texture, timbre and harmony. However, some
felt that the general standard of musicianship was mainly mediocre, with weaker folios losing
credit mainly because of harmonic limitations, lack of imaginative textural control, and often
demonstrating no more than a reasonable understanding of structure. As already indicated
previously in this report, a few compositions were under the minimum time which obviously had
an effect on the development of ideas and the general quality of the composition in terms of
both structure and texture. In terms of designated instrumentation it is appropriate at this level
to require specificity - especially as marks are allocated for ‘appropriate use of voices,
instruments and/or synthesized sounds’; the indication, therefore, that a track is intended for
‘strings’ or ‘brass’ or, indeed, ‘voices’ without any further clarification is deemed insufficient at
this level.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
Composition 1 (WCT ‘style’ piece)
The WCT realisation was better this year. More candidates wrote compositions in defined
structures, mentioning relevant Classical works that had inspired them to write works in similar
style. It reflects particularly well on the teaching when this is the case; some excellent tuition
has clearly been given which has resulted in compositions of real worth, showing a strong
overall awareness of style with thoughtful presentation of musical ideas. Generally, there was a
fairly good understanding of the harmonic, textural and structural conventions of the Western
Classical Tradition, and there were some excellent string quartets, solo sonatas (mostly piano)
and even concerto movements. Although there were very few actual 'pastiche' compositions, it
was clear that the 'Classical' period was the most influential, with a sizeable number attempting
to include Baroque characteristics in their work. There were some extremely good 'miniatures'
in a Romantic style, including a Strauss inspired waltz.
Many candidates successfully controlled varied harmonic progressions, cadences and
modulations, and suspensions and circles of fifths featured in some of the more interesting
pieces. In less effective outcomes, the harmonic rhythm was more predictable (one chord per
bar) and some pieces were a little formulaic and over-reliant on primary chords. Perhaps the
main shortcoming continues to be that of lack of understanding as to the appropriate harmonic
procedures of this tradition, where the working is often unclear in terms of cadence points and
cadential progressions, with random use of inversions – or indeed, no inverted chords at all –
and with an over-dependence on basic triadic work. Of particular concern, were accompanying
chords that did not support the melodic content; this is quite commonly seen, but results in
lower marks. Some candidates seemed unclear as to what key they were working in, and were
unable to demonstrate effective control of modulations.
The use of harmonic language did fairly regularly stray towards a 20th century style, with 'jazzy'
chords and some dissonant/chromatic writing that was not carefully controlled. In many cases,
this was due to a lack of care/understanding of the application of harmonic procedures rather
than a conscious desire to write in a dissonant style! Use of rhythm was also rather 20C
inspired in some cases, with frequent changes of time signature and a proliferation of
syncopated rhythms blurring the WCT 'feel'.
The majority of candidates had made a fairly good effort to create an interesting variety of
textures. There was some excellent 2/3/4 part writing and some well-handled fugal and
contrapuntal lines. The weaker pieces did not attempt to vary their initial 'melody in the R.H.,
chords in the L.H.' texture (in piano pieces, for example), and occasionally the melody line was
obscured by a rather 'cluttered' texture. Some of the melodic writing lacked a sense of shape
and balance and remained reliant on chord patterning throughout. The best compositions had
a musical, well-shaped (albeit simple) melodic line with balanced phrases, which offered scope
for further development and expansion.
Most pieces made a good use of conventional forms, with Ternary and Rondo form being
popular. There were some excellent examples of pieces in Sonata Form, but it was ambitious
for others; not all candidates choosing this option understood the conventional use of keys in
the exposition/development. Some candidates' work consisted entirely of a series of 8 bar
patterns and there was much basic repetition, with a dependence on additional layering for
interest. The use of repeat marks (as previously mentioned), was often rather superfluous;
candidates would be well advised to vary and develop material rather than repeating entire
sections without any change or variety. Theme and Variation compositions were not always
successfully attempted; in one centre, for example, all candidates composed a set of variations
to an original theme, to varying degrees of success. In other cases, the initial thematic material
was insubstantial and lacking in melodic shape and it was, therefore, difficult to build a
convincing set of variations which showed the necessary degree of variety and development.
The various sections or variations were sometimes rather short, thus weakening the overall
structure and feeling of unity; furthermore, they lacked individual character and creativity as
similar ideas had been employed in the class submission.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
There were examples of some fantastic instrumental writing (with idiomatic flute and violin
material in particular) but overall, candidates must give careful consideration to the
ranges/capabilities of their chosen instruments to ensure the instrumental (or vocal) writing is
appropriate. Moderators also saw examples of unpianistic and unplayable piano writing, high
brass playing, no breathing place for wind instruments and in one case, pizzicato flute and oboe
parts! Almost all candidates in one centre used the piccolo in its highest register throughout
their pieces, which (sounding another octave higher again) dominated the texture completely
rather than enhancing it.
While the strongest compositions portrayed evidence of thorough research into the musical
conventions of the WCT, as has been mentioned in the administrative notes, a number of
candidates continue to identify 20th and 21st century composers as their stimulus: Debussy,
Ravel, Satie and the inevitable Einaudi were commonly mentioned, and more contemporary
composers, including Eric Whitacre and Paul Lovatt Cooper, some Welsh 1970s pop groups,
film music, as well as pieces from ‘Les Miserables’; the music from ‘Game of Thrones’ and ‘Lord
of the Rings’ was stated on one occasion, ‘Battle of the Bands’ on another – and even ‘ a radio
one anthem’ was identified. This is not advisable.
Composition 2 (Free composition)
The free compositions included some creative, imaginative and mature works, some of which
were exceptional. Overall the standard was again considered to be good, with only a few very
weak pieces. Some moderators felt that candidates scored more highly in the free
compositions, but others noted that many candidates maintained a similar standard to that as
found in the first composition.
It was felt that some centres were over prescriptive in their approach, tending to stifle individual
creativity; in addition a lack of contrast was noted in some portfolios where both compositions
were in rondo form, or were for the same instrumentation or style, and following similar patterns
of working. These pieces are best inspired by candidates’ strengths and interests, and while it
is understandable that candidates would prefer to compose within in idioms with which they are
most comfortable, they need to remember the requirement as clearly stipulated in the
specification: “Candidates are required to submit two contrasting compositions.”
It was evident that many had 'played to their strengths', composing in styles and for instruments
with which they were familiar, resulting in successful pieces in jazz/rock/pop styles, along with
Latin, folk, ‘show’ pieces, minimalism and a range of other genres, including impressionism,
and film music. There were some effective examples of serialism (best practice here included
the note row and clear account of the compositional process); and some candidates chose to
include Blues pieces, though these rarely achieve top band criteria as they are so dependent
on predictable patterns and harmonic procedures - the outcome is rarely individually shaped.
Some pop songs were superb, and it was also pleasing to acknowledge some first class results
in terms of the ’show’ song, the strongest of which were performed by candidates with backing
tracks created themselves (usually on Sibelius).
Naturally, talented candidates thrived – less effective outcomes lacked a sense of direction and
were generally repetitive with overambitious orchestration leading to some unfocussed,
rambling results.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
Candidates did not always give careful consideration to structure and when this was the case,
they were unable to access top box marks in that area. Although opening ideas were often
strong, less thought was given in many cases to their manipulation and the conclusion.
Contemporary songs were often limited by sticking rigidly to a 'verse-chorus-verse-chorus'
structure, without including a middle 8, bridge or instrumental. Many pieces were again rather
short, lacking sufficient development of ideas and variety in the accompaniment. As indicated
last year, candidates would be well advised to remember 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. The advice is to be individual and not too
loyal to the chosen style if it does not fit all the assessment criteria – get creative!
In the free pieces, it is fair to say that for much of the time, the selection and deployment of
voices, instrumental and/or synthesized sounds show sensitivity; at its best, the colourful
realization of material ranging from impressionist pieces, film and in pop/rock styles is generally
impressive, and demonstrated mature and thoughtful musical understanding. The main advice
suggested by moderators yet again, was for candidates to carefully research the capabilities of
the instruments for which they write, as the digitally generated recordings cope with almost
anything, and some material was not appropriately placed. Particularly good practice was noted
with rock instruments/synth sounds, and many candidates were in a position to perform and
sing the compositions themselves, which is to be commended. It also ensures improved wordsetting and stylistic fluency in the delivery.
Composing for film, often scored for orchestra, showed creativity in relation to controlling
varying timbral effects but there was rarely evidence of the more complex textural control as
regards the manipulation of thematic content beyond that of basic imitation.
Harmonic practice was limited in some compositions with candidates presenting repetitive and
simple chord progressions devoid of modulation. These were often appropriate to the style but
lacked 'ambition'; however, some candidates actively attempted further harmonic exploration to
incorporate a range of interesting chords and this was encouraging to note.
Centre assessments
Overall, there was evidence of a wide range of abilities. I cannot stress enough - some of the
'top end' pieces were absolutely fantastic, and were fully deserving of full marks. Predictably,
the majority of pieces were less substantial, and fell in the 'middle range' of marks, with work
that hinted at 'top box' accreditation but fell a little short in some areas (notably development,
harmony and texture). There were a small number of candidates whose work was extremely
rudimentary and they did not reach the basic standard required for AS level composing.
Moderators reported that a very large proportion of centres awarded very high and often full
marks. In many cases (though certainly not all), these estimations were considerably too
generous. I must emphasize that there is no secret agenda here: for compositions to score in
the top band, the requirements of the assessment criteria must be achieved, realized and
clearly evident in the work i.e. substantial outcomes, excellent structural understanding, welldeveloped ideas using a range of techniques, highly idiomatic working, imaginative and creative
textural work, and effective harmonic control. As already mentioned earlier in this report, the
teacher comments did not always reference to the assessment criteria and as such, did not
always accurately reflect the quality (or lack of) in the candidates’ work. This usually led to the
marks being over-inflated and there was often a disparity between the assessment of the
centres and that of the moderator when this was the case. Agreeing with marks became more
of a difficulty when candidates decide to submit non-WCT compositions for Piece 1. It is not
appropriate to submit works in a light 'modern' (or even rock) popular style and call it
WCT. Some did not attempt to emulate the style at all, and yet scored quite highly from the
centre, which is not appropriate. Another consideration is with the 'copy and paste' approach to
short musical phrases, which prevent pieces from developing fully. Moderators noted
especially quite extensive rhythmic repetition of, for example, a one-bar phrase in a
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
piece written in a classical style. As stated previously in this report, the continuing use of exact
repetition is a bit of a problem; certainly it is necessary if candidates are working in a minimalist,
pop or film style, but it must be used creatively and inventively. There was too much evidence
of ‘lazy’ repetition in many of the compositions, and this cost some candidates marks. I would
advise that tasks must be appropriately chosen to enable candidates to access to the full range
of marks; yet again this year, there was a piece for drum kit which contained some effective
ideas (though it clearly is unable to portray thematic development on any level) and had been
awarded 8/10 for harmony by the centre.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Music
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU3: Appraising
Principal Examiner:
Huw Thomas
The routine faults/weaknesses associated with these examinations were in evidence again this
year, to varying degrees. However, there was a slight improvement in the use of musical
terminology, but there are still a number of candidates who needlessly lose marks in this area.
Misused terms included:
unison – used as if meaning “homophonic” time and again at both MU3 and MU6;
imitation – used as if meaning “plays along with”;
countermelody – as meaning either “playing the same melody/part” (perhaps in 8ves), or in
the sense of “stating another melody in imitation” (e.g., the opening of Q1 at MU6 (Part 1) –
Vlns and VC/DB);
sequence – this was used with a wide variety of meanings. It is a relative newcomer but is
moving rapidly up the charts.
Many also seem unaware of the various gradations of contrapuntal writing, ranging from simple
imitation to the more thoroughgoing “fugal” and “canonic”. A good number tend to regard mere
echo effects or dialogue as being imitation – this came up very often in the Shostakovich
Quartet option at MU6.
Pleasingly, there has been a continued improvement in supplying locations when required –
mostly, but not exclusively, in the set works questions. [See comments on the MU3 Part 2 and
MU6 Part 1 papers below.] It is still a problem for some, however, and can be the downfall of
even the best candidates at times.
There appeared to be several instances of candidates misreading questions this year, at both
MU3 and MU6. For instance, there were a number of questions on the use of the
orchestra/orchestral material in the Ravel option this year. In every occurrence of such
questions, numerous candidates (of all standards) supplied answers pertaining to the piano
part. In the Shostakovich option, it seemed very much as though some candidates had misread
bars “1-125” for bars “1-25” in one of the questions. And in the “Killer Queen” extract at MU3,
more than a few candidates gave an account of the structure of the whole song rather than of
just the extract.
Surplus answers are still a problem, too, and seem to affect candidates of all standards. There
were a number of examples where, in a question in which only three (numbered) answers were
required, some candidates gave four, five or even more, sometimes numbered as 4, 5, etc., or,
perhaps more often, as “multiple” responses within one numbered answer. A correct answer in
1, two correct answers in 2 and one incorrect answer in 3 (as happened more than once)
merely receives two marks, not three, since only the first answer is marked in 2. And if the first
answer given in 2 was wrong and the second one given was right, the overall mark would be
one.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
Three types of questions caused persistent problems for students:
1.
Anything to do with harmony/tonality, whether at MU3 or MU6. Sadly, the overall
knowledge/comprehension of harmonic principles is now a real weakness with very
many candidates, with a small number seeming unaware of the difference between the
two. Comments on harmony/tonality sometimes include answers such as “homophonic”,
“arpeggios” etc.
2.
Questions (mostly in MU3 Part 1) in which candidates are required to give an example
of a particular musical “feature” in a selected passage in a set work. There is one such
question in each pairing of set works in every Area of Study. Often, such questions
include aspects of harmony, though not exclusively so. A very small number do not even
attempt them.
3.
Candidates (at both MU3 and MU6) still appear to be unsure of how to answer
questions that require comparison of two passages (usually) from the same movement.
It was hoped that the new box format in this year’s exam (a teacher suggestion) would
help focus candidates’ attention on what such questions demanded. However, it does
not appear to have made an appreciable difference as yet; perhaps it will improve with
practice. Some candidates are still in the habit of entering non-related information in
corresponding left- and right-hand boxes.
MU3
Part One
Area of Study 1 – Orchestral Music
Question 1: Beethoven – 5th Symphony, Movement 1
(a)
There were usually no problems here, with both “recapitulation” and “coda” being
acceptable answers. “Sonata form” was occasionally given, however.
(b)
Most could name the correct (tonic) key here, but there were a small number of other
keys in evidence. Somewhat surprisingly, even some very good candidates had difficulty
here, often giving G minor as the key.
(c)
Marks lost here tended to be the result of candidates ignoring the word “features” in the
question. Many merely gave information as to which themes were being played – e.g.,
Second subject material used or call and response. A few lost marks for not providing
the requested bar numbers, while others provided bar numbers outside those stipulated
in the question. A small number of candidates appeared to use the term “diminution”
incorrectly, seemingly to mean “in shortened form/curtailed”. There were also a few
examples of confused answers, such as Violins play scalic arpeggios.
(d)
Some merely gave diminished 7th without providing a suitable “root” note as requested
(four were admissible), though a pleasing number had this right. Diminished 7th of C
minor was not an acceptable answer, though the candidate who wrote diminished 7th of
V in C minor deservedly gained the mark, since the root note (and its function) was
implied in his answer. [This was one of the few instances where a candidate showed he
was completely familiar with the concept of tonicisation and the workings of functional
harmony!]
(e)
Most correctly identified “antiphony”, but “imitation” was also found more than once.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
(f)
Several referred to the cello part (483) as a pedal, despite the harmony merely
consisting of a single tonic chord. Others deemed the bassoon’s use of the tenor clef
worthy of mention. More than one considered the clarinet’s skeletal version of the 1st
subject a “countermelody”, while many more candidates referred to the orchestra
playing in “unison” at the end (rather than using the correct “tutti”). The meanings of
these two terms is usually (as in this instance) very different.
Question 2: Mendelssohn – Violin Concerto in E minor, Movement 1
Curiously, this question posed problems for a good number of candidates, including even the
very best. One candidate, for instance, who scored 10, 10 and 9 marks in the remaining
questions, only received 5 for this set work. (d) and (f) usually proved to be the stumbling block
in such cases, i.e., the questions that were based on harmony.
(a)
Most candidates had no problems here, though some answers were poorly or
ambiguously expressed.
(b)
Again, the word “features” in the question was disregarded at times. Occasionally
merely Theme 1 was given as an answer. Some attempted to answer in more general
terms, such as slurs, legato, expressive or rhythmic – as well as the confusing stepwise
conjunct style. Although bar numbers were not required for every conceivable response,
answers such as sequential or scalic without a suitable location could not be awarded
marks. Examples of the latter were few and far between. Unfortunately, a small number
lost marks for making exaggerated comments such as regular use of dotted rhythms or
all notes are outlining the tonic chord.
(c)
Occasionally, the two parts of the answer (original-altered version) were given as two
separate answers rather than one. Too many candidates commented on the melody
rather than the accompaniment, some seemingly unaware of what the word
“accompaniment” meant. (Here, and elsewhere, several candidates misidentified
instruments, mentioning cor anglais and tuba.)
(d)
Many merely gave the key (E minor) with no reference to the harmony. Even more
commented on the use of arpeggios (or broken chords) and/or the tonic and dominant
notes in the bass – neither of which address the question. (The tonic-dominant motion in
the bass, when mentioned by candidates, was usually incorrectly attributed to tonic and
dominant harmony/chords.) Based mainly around the tonic was not a sufficient answer,
and an answer such as tonic harmony is used in the first 25 bars with a series of V-I
progressions is typical of those answers that also could not be awarded marks simply
because they were inaccurate. Homophonic and scalic were examples of some of the
more fanciful answers encountered, as was chords in unison. Only the very best
candidates identified the tonicisation of A minor in these bars – “modulation”, though
surely an inappropriate term here, was, of course, accepted.
(e)
Disappointingly, there were a good number of incorrect answers here.
(f)
Answers outside the bars specified were again in evidence. It was only on rare
occasions that candidates gained both marks here. Some answers to “suspension”
appeared to be triggered by the presence of a tie in the music. At least one (otherwise
very good) candidate did not even attempt this question.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
14
Area of Study 2 – Vocal Music
Question 1: Handel – Zadok the Priest
Some candidates still persist in referring to the “piano” part here, though they were not
penalised for it – except in (d)!
(a)
This caused no problems for the majority of candidates. Those who lost marks usually
did so simply by commenting on features such as texture.
(b)
Both “homophonic” and “monophonic” were popular answers here (and correct as long
as appropriate bar numbers were given). Some mentioned pertinent harmonic features,
though a small number wrongly identified the cadence in bar 7 as “phrygian”.
(c)
A few students (as elsewhere on the paper) mentioned the tonic key here, indicating
that they were not fully aware of the real meaning and function of the concept of
tonicisation (or modulation). With a small number, the bar numbers given did not match
the tonicisation. Rather curiously, a very small number (and they were invariably able
candidates) cited the dominant of the tonicisation rather than the tonic itself – e.g., F#
major in bars 91-92 rather than B minor – so confusing the tonicising chord for the chord
actually tonicised.
(d)
This posed no problems for some, but troubled many others, who mostly failed to
address the question. One (good) candidate managed to write twelve lines without
mentioning a single instrument. String section is mostly bowed is another example of an
answer that simply did not say enough to gain the mark.
Question 2 – Schubert – Die Schöne Müllerin – Undeguld
(a)
There were very few problems here.
(b)
There were many pertinent answers given. Those that failed to gain marks were usually
too “inconsequential” – e.g., first inversion chord of B minor (72-3).
(c)
This posed no problem to the vast majority of candidates.
(d)
There were some very good answers in evidence here, with some candidates gaining all
three marks. Some gave two differences within the same box – a shame when they
were both correct and when the answer in the following box was incorrect. Occasionally
(as in other instances of this type of question on the paper), the answer given in the left
hand box did not match that given in the right hand box.
(e)
As with (f) of the Mendelssohn set work (Area of Study 1), this was by far the least
successfully answered question, with (as there) even the best candidates sometimes
failing to register a mark. It was omitted entirely by a small number of candidates.
Area of Study 3 – Chamber Music
Question 1 – Corelli – Trio Sonata in F (Giga)
(a)
Almost invariably correct.
(b)
This was often answered well, with a good number gaining both marks, though some
mistook the G minor tonicisation for G major. Disappointingly (especially given the
length and uncomplicated nature of the movement), some candidates were unable to
correctly name or locate either tonicisation.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
15
(c)
Supplying one difference was no problem for most, but fewer managed to get the
second mark. Some gave the same answer to both, merely expressing it in a slightly
different way. A few merely mentioned the change of clef in the cello.
(d)
This was less successfully answered in general. The main weakness was failing to
address the question. Some mentioned upward sequence, contrary motion, passing
notes etc., which described the music’s melodic characteristics rather than the writing
for the string instruments.
(e)
More candidates could identify an example of “stretto imitation” than “a perfect cadence
in the dominant”, so continuing the trend of many candidates’ difficulty with anything that
smacked of harmony or tonality.
Question 2 – Beethoven – String Quartet, Op.18, No.6, Movement 1
(a)
Incorrect answers were rare here.
(b)
On the whole, “use of instruments” was more successfully answered than “tonality”,
though a pleasing number of candidates gained full marks.
(c)
A good number scored full marks here, too, but, as with the similar type of question in
the other areas of study, some merely mentioned an (often) random individual chord
with location – e.g., dominant 7th – bar 553 – or, even less convincingly, Ab leading
note. The more successful candidates tended to mention three correct
tonicisations/modulations. Some answers failed to address the question – e.g., dotted
rhythms – or were merely confused – e.g., homophonic tonality.
(d)
Most could provide a suitable bar number, but candidates were not always as
successful giving an appropriate difference in the treatment of the musical material.
(e)
Most recognised “syncopation” as a device, but “melodic inversion” proved more
problematic. “Inverted pedal” was the favourite incorrect answer.
Area of Study 4 – Musical Theatre
Question 1 – Loesser – Guys and Dolls; Fugue for Tinhorns
(a)
The vamping accompaniment and the trumpet fanfare were the favourite answers here,
with many candidates gaining full marks.
(b)
Slightly incorrect use of terminology hampered some in this question. Sometimes bar
numbers were omitted from what appeared to be correct answers. Otherwise, many did
well here. Those who were less successful tended to mention the music in general,
rather than concentrating on the vocal melody.
(c)
The vast majority recognised the canonic nature of the music, but some had a little
difficulty explaining the structure, instead mentioning features of the melody, such as
anacrusis for each vocal entry, in some instances repeating answers already given in
(b). A few merely listed every vocal entry. Other answers went to the opposite extreme –
e.g., a new episode begins when a new melody is introduced.
(d)
Given the highly repetitive nature of the music and the limited harmonic content,
answers were generally disappointing here.
(e)
“Imperfect” and (less often) “plagal” were both in evidence, though most answered
correctly.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
16
Question 2 – Boublil/Schönberg – Les Misérables – On my own
(a)
There are still candidates who persist in using the piano LH/RH in their answers, though
this did not affect the marks in this instance. Some included more than one correct
answer in 1 (one candidate giving three correct answers). In such cases only one mark
can be given, even if the answer to 2 is wrong. It is important that centres make
candidates aware of this.
(b)
In line with the other harmony-based questions on the paper, this was not well
answered. “Homophonic” was a quite common answer – and incorrect, of course.
“Arpeggiated (patterns)” was another. “Sequences” and “semiquaver patterns” were also
popular wrong answers. Some, including the better candidates, considered bars 9-10 to
be a perfect cadence in A. Others merely identified “accidentals”.
(c)
Some candidates lost marks for failing to supply bar numbers. Others gave answers that
were not quite detailed enough – e.g., large contrast in pitches in both vocals and
accompaniment. A good number of candidates missed out on marks here, despite
writing copiously on all manner of features.
(d)
This was usually answered successfully. Sometimes, however, a suitable percussion
instrument was named, but the feature of interest was not correct – e.g., bass drum
playing a four-to-the-floor beat. A small number named an instrument of the wrong type,
such as “keyboard” (or even “heartbeat”).
(e)
This was usually better answered than its counterpart in “Guys and Dolls”. However,
candidates should note that IV-I is not acceptable as an answer.
Area of Study 5 – Jazz, Rock and Pop
Question 1 – Ellington – Black and Tan Fantasy
(a)
Many candidates’ answers focused almost entirely on extra-musical details. Some
mentioned the quotation from Chopin’s Funeral March without linking it to its relevance
to the question.
(b)
Most could identify the key. The most common mistake was to get the mode wrong,
almost certainly the result of candidates failing to read the question carefully, with the
word “extract” being overlooked.
(c)
Some gave “stride piano” as an answer, or else listed pianistic characteristics of that
style, rather than naming harmonic features. A few referred to “maj7” chords rather than
“7” chords. Use of blue notes occurred more than once, but did not quite have the same
musical connotation as “underlying blues progression”. Indeed, given the uncertainty
experienced by students in general in such harmony-based questions, it is difficult to
say whether this link to the blues was indeed the candidates’ intention. Other answers
were too vague or off the point – for instance, ascending 8ves or 8ves in the LH.
(d)
The vast majority answered this correctly. Those who lost marks usually failed to name
the note concerned, merely giving a bar number. (A correct bar and beat number was
accepted.)
(e)
There were many good responses here, though some answered in a vague (and often
inaccurate) fashion – e.g., light percussion throughout piano solo or steady rhythm on
drum kit during trombone solo. Some heard a tambourine.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
17
Question 2 – Queen – Killer Queen
(a)
Pleasingly (and perhaps somewhat surprisingly) there were very few wrong answers
here!
(b)
A few candidates attempted to describe the structure of the entire song rather than just
the extract. They were not penalised for this, of course, as long as the answer included
the extract. Sadly, a few answers petered out just before it.
(c)
This was usually answered well. Only a small number chose to mention the panning
and/or studio effects applied to the voices.
(d)
Again (see remarks on similar questions in other set works), this was poorly answered.
More than a few supplied bar numbers that were outside those stipulated in the
question. In the case of “a short pedal”, it was not uncommon for candidates to give a
single, sustained chord lasting a mere half bar.
(e)
Many candidates (though not as many as expected) mentioned the guitar solo replacing
the vocals in the first verse. Only the better candidates seemed able to give a second
difference. A very small number merely filled in the left hand boxes, leaving the
corresponding right hand boxes empty. As was the case in the similar question in the
Schubert song, occasionally, differences given in adjacent boxes did not match up.
Area of Study 6 – Welsh Songs
Question 1 – Caryl Parry Jones – Pan Ddaw Yfory
(a)
This was mainly correct, though aeolian mode (not necessary to gain the mark) was not
mentioned by many candidates.
(b)
Disappointingly, many underlined “in harmony” rather than “in octaves”.
(c)
Answers here were also rather disappointing, with many missing the opportunity to
mention the similar E minor key, the changes in phrase lengths, and the similarity in
chords. Candidates should be made aware that in “comparison” questions such as this,
they can also give similarities as well as differences in their answers.
This was usually answered well.
(d)
(e)
By comparison, this was not so successfully answered. Indeed, some candidates
omitted it completely; others provided rather “mixed” answers.
Question 2 – Mervyn Burtch – Cysga di, fy mhlentyn tlws
(a)
This was well answered, apart from the very few candidates who wrote “strophic”.
(b)
The wide choice of possible answers meant that many candidates did well here, gaining
at least two if not all three marks.
(c)
The “harmony” section was not well answered on the whole. Some candidates give the
impression that they are unsure of what the term actually means, preferring to write on
anything but harmony. The “use of voices” fared slightly better, with many noting the
melody in the altos, and the use of the tenors.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
18
(d)
The fact that candidates appeared to be looking for differences rather than the
relationship between the two “passages” meant that this was not done well on the whole
either.
(e)
On the other hand, this was usually successfully answered, with most candidates
gaining the mark - despite a few describing the cadence as “perfect” rather than “plagal”.
Part Two
Question 1 – Trio Sonata No.1 in G - Gallo
(a)
Very few failed to recognise the major tonality. There was still an (albeit small) number
of candidates who went for “modal”.
(b)
Again, most answered correctly here.
(c)
And here.
(d)
There was more of a discrepancy in the answers in this question. A good number of
students (of all standards) considered the music to be contrapuntal; “fugal” appeared
more infrequently. Occasionally, a candidate omitted to answer this question, as if they
had not seen it. There appears to be one such question every year.
(e)
Most heard four performers, but three and five were also in evidence.
(f)
A pleasing number gained all three marks here; to score less than two marks was fairly
unusual. The most common mistake concerned the misidentification of ritornello form.
(g)
There were a good number of candidates who had scored full marks up to this point.
Identifying the extract as a movement from a trio sonata, however, proved their undoing.
“Concerto” was the preferred wrong answer, though quite an assortment of alternatives
was to be found, including “string quartet”; others involved the piano. Answers that were
further from the point included “oratorio” and “mass”. As in recent years, correct
identification of the type of work employed seemed to be very much centre-based.
Question 2 – Et incarnatus est (Mass in C minor) - Mozart
(a)
There were very few wrong answers here.
(b)
Again, this was answered well.
(c)
It was frustrating for examiners when seemingly correct answers could not be given
marks because candidates failed to give a location for their answers. “Conjunct” and
“disjunct” (or similar, e.g., “scalic” or “based on arpeggios”) were both possible answers,
but, naturally, only if a suitable line/word was given. Several heard the repeated motif on
“ex Maria” as sequential. As is often the case in vocal extracts, answers such as
“vibrato”, “rubato” or merely “legato” were found; so were “homophonic”, “diatonic” or
“clear melodic line”, none of which addressed the question. Rather unusually, “(use of)
warbling” turned up more than once.
(d)
Some candidates did not mention any (type of) instruments in their answers, merely
employing the vague “they” or “instruments”. Most made pertinent comments on the
woodwind writing; a very small number even heard the organ “continuo”. The nature of
the string parts was a problem for some, with several candidates referring to them
imitating the voice or sharing the vocal line – sometimes, since “imitating” is so
frequently misused, both these answers were quite possibly incorrect for the same
reason. The meaning of “countermelody” was misunderstood by some students here.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
19
(e)
The majority of answers were correct, but imperfect, plagal and (more rarely) interrupted
were all in evidence.
(f)
There was uncertainty here, too, with all three possible options being chosen – the
correct one least of all.
(g)
Mozart and Brahms were the favourites here.
Question 3 – Symphony No.2 (III) – Brahms
(a)
Cor anglais, clarinet and viola were the most common incorrect answers here.
(b)
Many gained full marks in this question. Those candidates that did not usually gave
answers such as “slow and stately”, “mf”, “legato”, “in a cantabile style” etc.
(c)
This posed few problems for the majority of candidates.
(d)
Many gained two “easy” marks for commenting on the opening major tonality, which
then turned to minor. Not as many gained the third mark for mentioning the return to the
tonic key, but other features were given. One candidate gained a mark for changes to
minor half way through, but lost another for not stating the obvious, i.e., that it started in
a major key! Other marks were lost needlessly, too – e.g., the candidate who wrote
diatonic harmonies; chromatic and dissonant. If only he/she had qualified the answers in
some way by attempting to roughly locate the changes mentioned. Some answers were
too general and would fit any extract from the “common practice period” – e.g., major
and minor chords are used.
(e)
There was a plethora of acceptable answers here, and very many candidates did well. A
small number of perceptive students even picked up on the brief reference to the
movement’s opening theme (with pizzicato accompaniment) in the woodwind in the
extract’s final bars.
Question 4 – Symphony No.2 in B flat (II) - Schubert
(a)
The number of correct answers to both parts was disappointingly low. Some considered
that the music remained in the tonic key; a small number that it had modulated to the
subdominant. “Imperfect” was quite a common answer as far as the cadence was
concerned. Occasionally, a slip of the pen resulted in B major rather than Bb major
being given as an answer.
(b)
There appeared to be more totally correct answers here this year – perhaps the repeats
helped – while many gained at least two marks.
(c)
This was not so successfully answered. Sometimes a single beat was given as the
length of the pedal.
(d)
Most failed to recognise the descending stepwise sequence in bars 9-12 and, hearing
the tonicisation of a minor chord, went automatically for the relative minor – as many did
in last year’s MU3 and MU6 exams. A small number managed to pick up on the
sequence but failed to think through the associated tonicisation, answering “F major”
rather than “F minor”.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
20
(e)
Last year’s problems with nomenclature were still in evidence, perhaps more so, and
marks were lost needlessly in some instances. Candidates need to be reminded that
they must distinguish between major and minor triads – e.g., ii (a minor (diatonic)
supertonic chord) and II (a major (chromatic, secondary dominant) chord). There were a
good number of instances of II (i.e., F-A§-C) being given instead of ii (i.e., F-Ab-C) for
the final chord in bar 3. The melody included an Ab so there was no room for alternative
F-based chords here. Where such alternatives did exist – e.g., vi or VI (i.e., V(7) of ii) for
the second chord in bar 3, both were acceptable. Whether a mark was given for the
following chord, of course, depended on the appropriateness of the chord progression.
So, in I-vi-I, all three “marks” were given, while in I-VI-I only two, since VI would have
necessitated a following ii to make “harmonic sense”. Some candidates choose to use
chord names (e.g., Cm, Eb etc.), which is acceptable. (This is why candidates who
answer in terms of roman numerals are required to distinguish between major and minor
forms). A small number of students exactly reproduced Schubert’s own chord
progression, complete with secondary dominant and inversions! This, too, is acceptable.
And again, as in previous years, a very small number of candidates answered in terms
of Arabic rather than roman numerals, e.g., 2 rather than ii or II. Such answers were
marked, but, since there was invariably no indication as to the major or minor nature of
the chords supplied (all figures were of an identical size), all chords had to be
considered by the examiner as major and were marked accordingly.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
21
Music
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU4: Performing
Principal Examiner:
Eric W Phillips
The MU4 exams are undertaken at the same time as the MU1 exams and the report for MU1
covers MU4 too. I would also like to congratulate centres and candidates on the many excellent
recitals that are produced at MU4, particularly MU4B. Candidates are generally thoroughly
prepared for a demanding recital, playing music in a variety of styles and genres.
In addition to that report I would like to make the following points:
More careful timing of recitals is necessary in some instances in order to ensure that
candidates do not fall short of the minimum time requirement as stated in the specification.
Candidates will be penalised for not fulfilling the time requirements.
Although the recital should run without interruption, more careful attention should be given to
tuning throughout the recital; the need to re-tune in the middle of the recital is often necessary,
particularly at MU4B.
Candidates and centres should remember that it is not acceptable to play the same repertoire
at MU4 as they played for MU1.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
22
Music
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU5: Composing
Principal Examiner:
Janice Richards
The general administrative points made in MU2 apply to much of the MU5 Unit also.
At this level, the most frequent additional observation from all examiners in terms of
administration was that many candidates were not correctly identifying and stating their chosen
commissions. This is a firm requirement and details are outlined in the specification (please
refer to page 28 if further clarification is needed). Even though the accompanying log is
intended for the candidates to complete (apart from the required staff signatures) sometimes
the stated commission was added by the teacher, and at times this was a complete mis-match
with the information as given by the candidate.
Some candidates were entered incorrectly on EMI, either as MU5A instead of MU5B, or viceversa.
Even at MU5, general class tasks were observed, but all examiners feel - at this level - that
candidates would benefit from being allowed to work to their own strengths and interests. Some
centres can be rightly proud of their candidates’ efforts, as excellent and well stylized
compositions were presented which displayed clear processes, mature creativity, a focused
awareness of balance, form and structure and a solid grasp of harmonic procedures.
Predictably, standards overall were variable. This year, however, there seemed to be a definite
difference in standard between the MU2 and the MU5 submissions, which has not always been
the case in the past. This was encouraging; it is important that increased ambition is evident
and realized, and that the bar is seen to be raised higher by candidates submitting their MU5
portfolios.
Composition 1 (WCT piece)
Yet again, I must compliment some centres on the first class outcomes achieved by their
students, which reflects so well on the teaching, both in terms of stylistic awareness and
knowledge of the appropriate musical language, and the refinement of work which has been
undertaken to produce exceptional results which demonstrate evidence of excellent musical
understanding.
Many of the observations made at MU2 are pertinent here also. Some candidates quoted 20th
century musical influences as stimuli for their first compositions, so again lost marks as the
resulting style was not a strong reflection of the WCT. One centre in particular submitted a lot of
minimalist and even serialist pieces for the first compositions: though these were generally well
controlled and showed understanding of these genres, they could not access marks for
‘appropriate ’musical conventions of the WCT, i.e. harmony, structure and the inability to
structure and organize material in terms of key with control and usage of typical harmonic
progressions, balance of the phrases, thematic development and so on.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
23
Responses were again rather predictable when obvious formulae had been used to assist
candidates in their realization and reflection of the WCT– this is a two edged sword, restricting
creativity for the most inventive, but enabling a more appropriate approach for others. It is
advised that such teaching methods be applied only where appropriate, so that all candidates
are able to realise their individual potential. Sonata form was again favoured and ambitiously
employed by many, achieving some excellent and substantial results; other attempts were not
handled so well. Such structures regularly contained exact repeats of the Exposition section,
but where there is sufficient, substantial work (as required) in the rest of the movement, these
repeats added nothing. Many pieces were generally well controlled and displayed good
understanding but lacked a spark of imagination. There was a pleasing understanding shown in
some ambitious work, including writing for string quartet, a violin concertino, solo piano pieces,
orchestral works, well-appointed movements in ritornello form and pieces for brass band. It was
clear where candidates had experiences of performing either as soloist or within a particular
type of ensemble.
The best candidates demonstrated an excellent grasp of harmonic procedures, successfully
negotiating a variety of modulations, cadences, suspensions, circles of 5ths and so on. Most
had a firm grasp of the appropriate harmonic language with good control shown, but some
candidates were less successful in their application of harmony, reliant on simple and repetitive
chord patterns. There were a number of pieces which 'veered' away from conventional harmony
towards a more contemporary harmonic language. In one case, there was a definite jazz
influence (which would have been more appropriate for the 20/21C composition.) One
candidate submitted a contemporary style song with guitar accompaniment which did not
appear to even attempt to allude to the Western Classical Tradition.
In terms of texture and development, candidates should aim to use a range of more complex
techniques demonstrating creative and effective control in order to ensure accreditation in the
top band of assessment criteria.
Composition 2 (20th / 21st C)
The 20th/21st century compositions were diverse. Many candidates demonstrated a mature
approach and the standard overall was high, with some excellent stylistic responses for each of
the major ‘isms’, though some of the writing was 'generic', making use of a range of 20/21C
techniques. Serialist pieces were often well conceived with an excellent use of texture and
timbre as a way of guiding the material; the writing was sometimes a little mathematical but
most candidates had taken care to create interesting lines within the texture, ensuring 'vertical'
and 'horizontal' interest. There was sometimes confusion between nationalism and
impressionism, with the former being more successfully realized; one centre submitted some
very creative neo-classical pieces, which demonstrated exciting use of rhythm and some very
creative chord choices, though structurally, the pieces were sometimes a little inconsistent, with
some sections being far more successful than others, and endings were not always carefully
handled. One examiner felt that whereas past impressionistic compositions yielded works of
true quality, this year presented fewer successful attempts in this particular genre: there was
attempted use of the whole-tone scale but fewer examples of other idiomatic features such as
parallel chords or extended harmonies. Minimalist pieces too often lacked the characteristic
features of polyrhythms and phasing; many included an idiomatic initial motif but this was often
simply repeated (in which case, minimalism seemed to have been interpreted as ‘not much
happening’!). Film scores were often successful: there was often a real attempt to create in
interest in the texture, though this was sometimes to the detriment of a shapely melodic line;
others were overly reliant on the effect of pedal notes, unvaried repetition of motifs and
uninteresting harmonies. Again, a number of pieces were limited by a lack of development and
an over-reliance on repeated patterns, and sometimes the exploration of ideas and ensembles
was not sufficiently thorough. One centre had encouraged their candidates to annotate their film
scores with information about the scene/plot throughout the piece, and this worked well and
was extremely helpful.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
24
There was some exceptionally creative and imaginative descriptive writing which made a
fantastic use of instrumental colour; furthermore, some of the song-writing at this level was
extremely sophisticated with examples of some phenomenal vocal performances -it was a
shame in some cases, that candidates had stated they were singers but did not perform their
own songs, instead relying on synthesized sounds.
Some candidates failed to make any recognizable connection to the 20th/21st century, in others
the connection was weak.
MU5B
The standard of work from MU5B candidates was broadly the same as MU5A. Some examiners
noted that there was much to commend, while others reported that the compositions seemed
weaker, lacking musical ingenuity and creativity. Insufficient contrast between the pieces was
noted on a number of occasions and some candidates offered very little in the way of
explanatory information in their logs. But this is not to detract from those candidates who relish
the opportunity to be inventive, and some of the best outcomes were absolutely outstanding.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
25
Music
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2014
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
MU6: Appraising
Principal Examiner:
Huw Thomas
Part 1 – Aural Perception
Question 1 – Concerto for Orchestra [1] - Hindemith
(a)
The majority recognised the general contrapuntal character of the music. Some,
however, seemed not to understand the exact nature and/or extent of the counterpoint,
answering either “canonic” or “fugal”. Very few opted for “homophonic”.
(b)
Most did well here, with some even assigning the terms “ripieno” and “concertino” to the
appropriate groups. Those who lost marks usually did so by concentrating on minutiae
rather than the “bigger picture” – e.g., mordent in violins, trill in oboe, fiddle-like playing
in violins, regular phrasing.
(c)
A good number had “ritornello” or “rondo” (or appropriate letters). “Sonata form” and
“theme and variations” were some of the incorrect answers given.
(d)
Full marks were quite common here, with the majority of candidates scoring at least two
marks. In such open-ended questions, however, in particular on harmony/tonality, there
appears to be a trend developing whereby a good number of candidates are supplying
multiple (in some cases almost every conceivable) answers, some of which are, of
necessity, contradictory. For instance, one candidate wrote nine answers here, including
diatonic, chromatic, atonal, bitonal, whole tone and modal! This was an extreme
example, to be sure, but there were many other candidates who tentatively supplied as
many as five such “alternative” answers in this question, as well as in similar questions
later in the paper. In such circumstances, examiners cannot simply accept those
answers that are correct and disregard those that are wrong. Where such contradictory
answers are given, the first is marked and the second ignored, no matter which is
correct. Naturally, if an extract does contain markedly different harmonic
styles/passages, both (conflicting) answers could be correct. If so, candidates should be
encouraged to qualify/locate their answers in some way – e.g., diatonic at start but very
chromatic near the end (becomes more chromatic later on). Here, and elsewhere on the
paper, “modal” was quite often given as an (inappropriate) answer – though, it has to be
said, usually as one of a number of alternative answers. Less successful responses
included over all playing is very up and down.
(e)
Occasionally Stravinsky was associated with the Nationalist movement, while a small
number gave a date rather than a school of composition. Expressionism was also found
on some occasions – usually (though not always – e.g., Tchaikovsky) with a “suitable”
composer.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
26
Question 2 – War Requiem (Dies Irae) - Britten
(a)
A few mentioned harmony/tonality here, while others seemed disadvantaged by their
inability to distinguish between the terms “dialogue”, “imitation”, “fugue” and “canon”.
“Imitation” and “homophonic” (though contradictory answers) were both acceptable in
this question, the orchestral introduction including aspects of dialogue/imitation for most
of its length, until the final homophonic phrase. Therefore, as mentioned above, some
sort of qualification as to location was needed for the brief homophonic/homorhythmic
moment.
(b)
More than one wrote on aspects other than harmony/tonality, with one candidate
mentioning dynamics, tempo, metre, instrumentation/texture and lyrics – all for Interlude
1! Features such as “ostinato”, “plucking of notes”, “sord” and “diminution” were also
found. Several gave parallel harmonies as an answer. This was no doubt triggered by
the piling up of melodic thirds into extended (static) chords (which was mentioned by
many candidates). The term “parallel harmony”, however, has a rather different
connotation, and it was a shame that some candidates were again undone by their lack
of precise musical terminology. Some were aware of the more dissonant nature of
Interlude 2, with a small number hearing the occasional instances of what could be
regarded as bitonal writing (sometimes described in slightly ambiguous terms by a few
candidates, but still credited with a mark). Very low range on brass instruments failed to
gain marks, however.
(c)
A pleasing number recognised the 7-beat bars.
(d)
It appeared very much that “unison” was frequently used (erroneously) as meaning
“homophonic” by a good number of candidates. Such marks lost because of use of
incorrect terminology – particularly when connected to such basic musical concepts soon add up and start to have a deleterious effect on a candidate’s total mark,
especially since they are frequently misused in Part 2, too. Not all responses addressed
the question; answers such as use of crescendos or written in Latin, for instance, had
very little to do with the nature of the choral material/writing.
Question 3 – Sinfonia Sacra: Vision III – Panufnik
(a)
(i)
Most gained the two available marks by giving information on the timpani. The
few that focused on other instruments usually fared badly, doing little more than
naming them, or merely adding irrelevant details such as snare – wires off. A few
seemed to consider the section more complicated than it was, such as the
candidate who detected “metric modulation”. Some candidates seemed unaware
of the term “roll” when applied to a percussion instrument, with the timpani’s roll
here being variously described as a “trill” or, less frequently, “tremolando”. (ii)
Occasionally, answers here were a little too general or simplistic – e.g., bass
drum adds intensity or snare drum used quickly.
(b)
Most candidates gained at least two of the three marks on offer here. The sequences,
scales, semiquaver movement and (later) more lyrical melody were the most popular
answers.
(c)
The more discerning candidates picked up on the occasional use of fluttertonguing,
muted trumpets and the fact that the lower brass doubled the strings’ lyrical melody.
Only a few candidates linked the concluding brass fanfares with the material of the
opening percussion section, though the fanfare-like nature of the passage and the
imitation were heard by slightly more. “Stab chords” was a favourite answer.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
27
Question 4 – Romance: The Gadfly – Shostakovich
It was not uncommon to find candidates who had scored high marks in the previous three
questions (in the case of one candidate a 9 and two 10s) to fall away quite drastically in this
question, achieving somewhere around half marks. Conversely, more than one candidate who
achieved full marks in Question 4 had half marks or less in all of the other three questions.
(a)
Perhaps surprisingly, full marks here were few and far between. Even some of the very
best students were perhaps distracted by the F sharp chromatic appoggiatura at this
cadence, drawing them to the conclusion that it was either a perfect cadence in G major
or an imperfect cadence in the tonic key,
(b)
A wide selection of keys was given here, both major and minor. Only a small number
recognised the correct tonicisation of A flat major.
(c)
Most spotted the rhythmic error in bar 15; slightly fewer the lack of a D sharp in bar 16,
even when they seemed aware that there was something wrong thereabouts. Some
thought the D might be flat rather than sharp. Circumstances were similar with the final
note in the same bar. A good number knew the B was wrong but it was replaced by a
variety of notes. Some, no doubt, were successful here because they recognised the
open string quality of the (correct) G. A small number attempted to correct only two
errors, while several thought the B flat in bar 15 was wrong. More than one candidate
considered the G at the start of bar 14 to be incorrect, even though it was outside the
question’s “delimiting” box.
(d)
The initial constant stepwise quaver movement allowed most to get almost the whole of
the first bar correct. Thereafter, however, once other intervals crept in, the pitch aspect
began to deteriorate – though a good many still managed to get the rhythms correct.
With some, the pitch only got back on track with the final open-string G.
(e)
Very much as in past years, many candidates seemed all at sea here, some suggesting
chords that did not correspond with the notes in the melody. Only the best managed to
recognise all three chords, with the E minor chord being the one most identified by
those who didn’t. Though the question asks for specific chord names here, some
candidates persist in answering in terms of roman numerals. This is not advisable. III
and vi were accepted as correct answers (in the tonic key of C). Some, however, might
have (perfectly logically in terms of a momentary tonicisation) considered the E(7)-Am
progression as V(7)-i in A minor. An answer of V(7)-I/i, however, would not have given
an examiner much of a clue as to what the candidate actually intended. And, had the
music already moved away from the tonic key, answering in terms of roman numerals
would have made the problem of deciphering the candidate’s intent even more
problematic.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
28
Part 2 – Appraising
Set Works
Ravel – Piano Concert in G
Extract 1
(i)
A significant number of candidates seemed not to appreciate the difference between the
chord of D sharp major and the key of D sharp major. Many recognised the tierce de
Picardie and perfect cadence; only a small number mentioned the modal influence here.
(ii)
Some identified cadences where there were none; others located the cadences
correctly but gave the wrong tonicisations, sometimes adding/omitting an all-important
accidental – e.g., in the case of one candidate, G sharp and D sharp major instead of D
and G major! (Surprisingly, these candidates were usually among the best.)
Disappointingly, a small number did not attempt this question.
(iii)
Many candidates (again, even the better ones) mentioned the piano here – and this with
one candidate after she had highlighted the word “orchestra” in the question. This was
to be a trend in later questions, too. Despite this, full marks were quite common here.
Some answers that could not receive marks were: Strings all play the same part but at
different pitches, play together and stop and Orchestra are playing very lyrically together
and not against each other.
(iv)
Because of the “open” nature of (iii), mentioning the piano did not matter so much, as
long as candidates went on to deal with orchestral matters later. Things were different
here. Again, many included unwanted information on the piano, but, because answers
were restricted to only three features, there was no opportunity of picking up marks later
if one did so. Answers that did not fully address the questions included: Orchestra play a
lot quicker and play more dissonant later on.
(v)
This caused more problems for candidates. “Chromatic-diatonic” and the different sense
of tonality were the favourite answers here. As with similar types of question at MU3,
some candidates’ answers did not correspond as far as the left- and right-hand boxes
were concerned.
(vi)
The use of false relation or sequence, and rhythmic aspects, were the most popular
answers here, though many failed to score full marks.
Extract 2
(i)
This was almost invariably correct – but, disappointingly, not entirely so.
(ii)
Responses were varied here, with only the best achieving full marks. A good many
identified a suitable cadence point, but failed to identify the correct cadence(s). A very
small number carelessly gave a key instead of a cadence.
(iii)
Candidates should realise that, in questions of this sort, it is not sufficient to name
random individual chords – unless there is a valid reason. The opening (tonic) chord in
this passage is a (rare) case in point because of its infrequent use throughout the
movement as a whole. And, of course, individual chords can serve as an example of a
particular harmonic feature of a passage – e.g., the location of an answer that identified
the general use of 7th/9th chords.
(iv)
Many marks were needlessly lost overall by candidates who mentioned the piano part
again! Regardless of this, the question was generally answered well and posed few
problems.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
29
(v)
Yet again there were many references to the piano part. Others neglected the
question’s “musical material” and concentrated on matters of orchestration – e.g.,
strings are muted. Some mentioned dynamics, in the case of at least one candidate,
wrong dynamics – most instruments are in ff.
(c)
(i)
This was answered well, with many gaining all four marks.
(ii)
As perhaps is natural in such questions, some candidates included some
extraneous or irrelevant detail. On the whole, though, the majority of candidates
managed this question well – as long as they remembered to maintain some sort
of connection between the piano’s musical material and the structure. This
question – and it was the same with all three set work options – demanded a
more panoramic approach. Some adopted a too analytical and “microscopic”
manner of answering, linking the musical material to motifs x, y and z from the
opening movement etc., so losing track of the question’s requirements.
[See later for comments on the essay question.]
Shostakovich – String Quartet No.8
Extract 1
(i)
Several answers were accepted here, and most gained the mark. There are still some
candidates, however, who are under the misapprehension that G sharp-C (or vice
versa) is a tritone.
(ii)
Too many answers merely stated that this was “Section A”, and then (though not
always) gave a little more information on the first few bars, so not addressing the
question. Some attempted to go into far too much detail and ended up giving incomplete
answers, perhaps misreading “bars 1-25” for the paper’s “bars 1-125”.
(iii)
Candidates mostly scored well here, but “inversion” was used loosely/incorrectly by
some, since they seemed to be describing the stepwise 3-2-1-7 version of the DSCH
motif. Many considered the brief echo-like statements of the motif in bars 62→ to be a
canon (or in imitation) – yet another example of the confusion that exists over some
quite basic (but important) musical terms. Answers such as The cello and viola’s
chromatic accompaniment is sometimes based on DSCH just did not give enough
information on the motif’s use to merit a mark.
(iv)
In (a) the majority could identify a suitable bar here. Even those few who failed to do so
still somehow managed to gain marks in (b)! (b) Most found it easier to identify a
similarity rather than a difference, but, overall, for the majority of candidates, this
question posed few problems.
(v)
Thematic material: Many candidates (the majority, even) seemed not to be aware of
what “thematic material” actually means, instead merely citing differences in
instrumentation – e.g., Viola has theme → Violin has theme. Full marks here were few
and far between. Harmony/tonality: This was answered rather more successfully, though
some candidates confused the relative dissonant levels of the two passages. A small
number also supplied a tonality for bars 76-107 that did not appear in the actual music.
Accompaniment: This posed the fewest problems of all, with answers pertaining to
syncopation, use of instruments and the relative frequency of the chordal interjections
being most often mentioned.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
30
Extract 2
(i)
Melodic material: As in (a)(v), many merely mentioned the instrument that played the
melody rather than the melodic material itself. Some considered the dynamics worthy of
mention, while others supplied information on the accompaniment. Harmony/tonality: It
was a pity when some gave what could have been correct answers but failed to locate
them. Some candidates did not restrict their answers to the bar numbers stipulated,
instead including information on the Piano Trio quotation. It was not often that a
candidate managed to get all four marks here, but the odd “easy” mark was lost. For
instance, while the majority mentioned the G sharp chords/key at the start and a good
number the Neapolitan/neighbour-note inflection a little later on, few commented on the
music’s return to G sharp minor still later.
(ii)
Most did well here. Some, however, equated dynamics with texture – e.g., The
dynamics are loud throughout providing a thicker texture. Others merely mentioned the
use of the tenor clef in the cello, rather than expressing this in terms of the resulting
texture/sonority.
(iii)
This just called on candidates to comment on the reversal of instrumental roles
compared with the previous question – which many managed to do successfully.
(iv)
Most recognised the C minor tonality/harmony at the opening of the passage. A good
number were aware of the C sharp diminished 7th chord, too, though a small number
were either careless in identifying the “root” (giving instead “C diminished 7th”) or not
being specific enough in naming it (“a diminished 7th”).The prominent F sharp was also
given by many. A few mentioned the possible link between the diminished 7th chord and
the (opening) key of the following movement – or the fact that it did not resolve within
the second movement itself. On the whole, answers were good here.
(c)
(i)
This was generally very well answered. Candidates should note, however, that a
“brief account” of the formal plan does not necessitate a “potted analysis” of the
entire movement. One very good candidate attempted this and scored only two
out of four marks because she neglected to adhere to the basic requirements of
the question. Not all candidates addressed the second part of the question,
failing to mention any unusual features. Those who did almost invariably gained
the mark.
(ii)
It was disappointing when an otherwise good candidate, having gained some
marks for references to the second movement, merely concluded his answer
with a curt Shostakovich alludes to other composers in movement one. It was
disappointing, too, considering the importance of Shostakovich’s use of
quotation/allusion in the 8th Quartet, to find some candidates either being unable
to locate examples at all, or locating them in the wrong bars – e.g., confusing the
DSCH motif with the First Symphony quotation. One candidate attributed the
derivation of both the First Symphony and Piano Trio material to another string
quartet. Indeed, at times, it was difficult not to suspect that some candidates had
not studied the first movement at all. A small number seemed to have missed the
question’s opening words – “other than the DSCH motif” – and occasionally
chose to base their answers only on that material. One good candidate did not
attempt the question at all!
[See later for comments on the essay question.]
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
31
Mathias – This Worlde’s Joie
Only two (small) centres opted for the Mathias set work this year, which makes any detailed
comment impossible. Suffice to say, similar failings to the other two set works were in evidence,
and, as usual, the essays invariably let the students down. Lack of detail and depth of study
were weaknesses here, together with the usual omission of comment on representative works,
especially from the 20th and 21st centuries.
Essays
It was so disappointing when the mark of a candidate who had attained a high standard in the
set works component was affected by a somewhat superficial (and usually prepared) essay that
failed to address the question – and which continued to replicate some of the “errors” prevalent
in previous years. In particular: (In the case of the solo concerto) referring unnecessarily to the
concerto grosso (though there was a definite improvement here this year), and, even more so
than in the string quartet option, almost completely neglecting representative works from the
20th/21st century. Too often, essays in centres are very similar and seem to indicate a lack of
individual research on the part of the candidate. Even when a candidate does introduce a
relevant late 20th/early 21st century work, the information supplied tends to be too sketchy. One
candidate, for instance, mentioned a fairly recent concerto (2005 – though no date was given),
which would have been an ideal work to have covered in just a little depth. However, the
candidate did not even state the work’s solo instrument (merely giving the work’s descriptive
title), and the only information supplied on the work at all was that it had a Baroque influence –
though its dissonant modern idiom is, in fact, infused with the spirit of jazz. Many candidates
were unable (or simply unwilling) to tailor their prepared material to the exact demands of the
essay question. Some made a gallant attempt – and were (in part) successful; others tried but
were less successful. More often, candidates just carried on regardless. Rather revealingly,
more than one candidate wrote their essay topic at the opening as (in the Shostakovich option)
“What do you consider to be the main developments in the string quartet from the classical era
to the present day?”, so omitting any reference to the question’s specific mention of
form/structure and relationship between the instruments. (There were similar examples in the
Ravel option). Some set out their proposed essay in an opening sentence/paragraph of their
own invention, often only indirectly related to that given on the exam paper – e.g., (on the string
quartet) Key features will be evaluated inclusive of melody, harmony, orchestration, mood and
structure.
With respect to information given, essays on both the Ravel and Shostakovich options continue
to be heavily weighted towards the Baroque, Classical and Romantic eras. Candidates have no
problem writing at some length on Haydn’s String Quartets (especially) or Mozart’s Piano
Concertos. Pertinent information on the 20th/21st century is not always in evidence, however –
or perhaps it is more correct to say that candidates find it more difficult to use their knowledge
of Romantic and 20th/21st century works in relation to the precise requirements of the essay
question. For instance, the information provided for the concertos of Brahms, Tchaikovsky and
Grieg or the string quartets of Schubert, Mendelssohn and Brahms usually focused on matters
other than those specified in the question. One candidate’s essay on the concerto dealt almost
entirely with the development of the piano as an instrument, while it was quite common for
essays on the string quartet to concentrate on playing techniques, autobiographical details etc.
The majority of essays in all three areas stopped chronologically early in the 20th century. Many
went no further than a Schoenberg string quartet or (usually piano) concerto, with details having
more to do with harmony and tonality than structure/relationship between soloist/orchestra –
e.g., (on Schoenberg’s Violin Concerto) Being a serialist composer, the concerto had a lot of
dissonance and demonstrated a lot of emotion and anxiety. No further information was given on
the work. Several candidates continue to have difficulty distinguishing between Schoenberg’s
two famous pupils. To one candidate they were merely one entity, their names “linguistically
blended”, Brangelina-like, to become “Weberg”; to another they were quite simply “Bern”!
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
32
Some essays were littered with errors and/or anachronisms – e.g., The piano was not even
invented during the Romantic ... Mainly string instruments were used. There were also some
exaggerated (or impossible) claims – e.g., Ravel was influenced by many 20th/21st century
works. The same candidate then went on to mention Gershwin’s Horn Concerto as well as his
Ebony Concerto. Another candidate claimed that Ravel’s Piano Concerto, because of its use of
solo orchestral instruments, was influenced by Bartok’s Concerto for Orchestra, despite the
latter having been composed some 12 years after the Ravel. Perhaps the most exaggerated
declaration, however, was that the improvisatory elements in the cadenzas in Mozart’s piano
concertos were influenced by jazz! Carnival of the Animals, Pulchinella and Petrushka were all
cited as piano concertos. Vivaldi’s Rite of Spring and Debussy’s Bolero were other dubious
references, while (the Margrave of) Brandenburg was elevated (or perhaps demoted!) to the
rank of the composer, rather than dedicatee, of the six famous Baroque masterpieces.
Extended Study
Four candidates opted for this component (both Ravel and Shostakovich components). Most of
the essays were of a slightly disappointing quality. The exception was one excellent essay on
Ravel (drawing heavily on material from the Cambridge Companion on this composer – an
excellent choice!), which admirably dealt with the demands of the essay question in language
that was suitably technical and grammatically correct. The essay called for reference to a
selection of works from a variety of genres, and this was what the candidate delivered – a
pleasure to mark.
GCE Music Report Summer 2014/ED
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
33
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.