marking criteria December 2008
update 26–Nov–08: change “pass (40+ grade)” to “3rd (45-49)”.
Here’s my take on our marking criteria for the forthcoming performance. Please leave comments.
- 40% continuous assessment
- 60% exam/performance
Of this, I’ll deal only with the latter in this article. This exam/performance breaks down as follows:
- 70% tactics and interaction
- of which 10% (10/70) is specifically dealing with volume/dynamics
- 30% stage craft
some hypothetical examples
1st (70+ grade)
- tactics and interaction: the performer…
- deploys a variety of strategies,
- imaginatively selected (generally avoids obvious responses),
- each creating a complex group sound, and
- dynamically tests/interacts with the group.
- stage craft: the performer…
- exudes confidence and
- there are few, if any, moments of uncertainty.
- volume/dynamics: the performer…
- demonstrates the full dynamic spectrum of their instrument, but
- is mindful of the capabilities of the others (though not hampered by them).
2.1 (60+)
- tactics and interaction:
- a few strategies,
- generally avoids obvious responses,
- contributing intelligently to a group sound, but
- often does not drive the group.
- stage craft:
- mostly confident, but
- there are moments of uncertainty.
- volume/dynamics:
- mindful of the capabilities of the other, and
- partially explores the dynamic range.
You get the idea, so I’ll skip down to…
3rd (45-49) pass (40+ grade)
- tactics and interaction:
- one consistent strategy, which is
- obvious, and
- follows the group rather than driving it.
- stage craft:
- appears largely uncertain or apologetic.
- volume/dynamics: the performer…
- does not drown anyone out, but
- plays mp/mf all the time.
fail (40- grade)
- tactics and interaction:
- …strategy… er, what am I doing here?
- where’s the rest of the group?
- stage craft:
- really does not belong on stage.
- volume/dynamics: the performer…
- drowns people out and/or plays at one dynamic level consistently…
seems that these criteria would fit our class better than the 2006 ones, so the adjustments are most welcome. i’m glad that a preference has been given to the strategy/interaction aspect rather than stage presence one. for one reason because we barely touched the issue in class (and in that class we were missing Owen who would definitely have had lots of input), but also because i’m generally more interested in the musical side of a performance, and regard theatrics as a bonus. Looks like what’s sought here is confidence on stage, and i think that’s fair enough.. i wouldn’t like to have to do something theatrical just for the sake of it, but if the situation requires it and some idea comes up i might come up with something.. but generally speaking i thought the ‘rehearsals’ we have done during last class basically sucked..
blackmudorchestra
November 25, 2008 at 8:19 pm
Thanks for the comment, Andrea. Some questions to chew over:
we barely touched the issue [of stage presence] in class
You’ve brought up ‘active listening’—a mechanism by which audience creates meaning based on partial, complex or contradictory stimuli. Is the underlying mechanism by which this (the perception of magic) occurs stage craft?
also because i’m generally more interested in the musical side of a performance, and regard theatrics as a bonus.
Can we talk about the ‘musical side’ in the absence of theatrics?
i wouldn’t like to have to do something theatrical just for the sake of it
For the sake of who/what?
but if the situation requires it
Who/what requires it?
some idea comes up i might come up with something
Same ol’ question: does the music (or theater) just happen, or do you make it happen?
but generally speaking i thought the ‘rehearsals’ we have done during last class basically sucked.
Isn’t ‘it sucked’ sometimes a better place to start then ‘that was great’? At least we have something to fix (and improve) rather than reveling in lazy dogmas of good or bad.
See you tomorrow.
han
November 25, 2008 at 9:35 pm