Notes from the Marking Centre 2001 - 2010

Form Stronger responses Clearly defined structure, with logical transitions between sections; skilful handling of transitions and links A considered approach to the overall structure, with a clear sense of development and evolution A strong structural understanding; manipulated ideas with great skill, giving the piece a forward momentum Took full advantage of the time limit

Weaker responses A lack of structural cohesiveness, often through the use of too few or too many ideas; a lack of structural balance due to too few or too many ideas Limited skills in linking sections; had difficulties linking musical ideas, causing a lack of structural coherence Structurally poor compositions lacking in fluency Difficulties in linking musical ideas causing structural weakness Abrupt or contrived transitions; linked musical ideas in incongruous and often disjointed ways Did not fit into the time limit successfully - often leading to abrupt/inappropriate endings

Texture / Timbre / Dynamics Stronger responses Subtle and sophisticated understanding of music's expressive elements An accomplished exploration of texture, while maintaining clarity Were clear and focused, and used tonal colours and textural variety with maturity and sensitivity Reflected consideration of expressive detail and interpretive nuance; candidates were able to clearly represent their intentions on the score Development of a distinctive sound world through the exploration of colour, texture and register An understanding of instrumental timbres and idiomatic melodic and motivic shaping Included terms/markings which were essential to the realisation of the work Texturally interesting both horizontally and vertically

Weaker responses A lack or loss of focus, whether that be linear, textural or motivic Did not use the performing media effectively, with poor choice of range, register, and understanding of instrumental capabilities

Cluttered textures and unnecessarily complex rhythms with very little aural effect; cluttered due to lack of understanding of how to use texture and tone colour within the ensemble Incorporated effects and extended techniques gratuitously with no obvious relevance to the compositional idea A basic understanding of the capabilities of the instruments for which they were writing

Accompaniment / Harmony Stronger responses A confidence in the use of silence and musical breath Consistent stylistic integrity whilst providing contrast through varied use of concepts Appropriate progression and/or development of material without dislocated change or overly static ideas The capacity to develop and extend melodic and harmonic ideas over the duration of the composition Sophisticated harmonic language and melodic contours within the chosen style

Weaker responses A lack of clear harmonic framework in their compositions Made moor harmonic choices which often led to either static or awkward harmonies Were confused harmonically, or mixed harmonic styles in a short piece. Other works considered horizontal lines to the detriment of the vertical effect Were written for large ensembles, thus not effectively showing an understanding of harmonic voicing and textural clarity

Melody / Theme / Thematic Development Stronger responses A confidence in the use of silence and musical breath Expert handling of the development of material Developed material through thoughtful consideration of climax and resolution Used a few well chosen ideas with accomplishment Consistent stylistic integrity whilst providing contrast through varied use of concepts

Weaker responses Compositional ideas which were contrived and/or arbitrarily sequenced Repetition was often used in favour of development and consequently the ideas were overused and over extended; A weakness in developing ideas, often resorting to excessive repetition; relied on repetition rather than development of material; relied heavily on repetitive figures without using substantial development; demonstrated an over-reliance on exact repetition as a compositional tool Used fragments of ideas that were over-used and under-developed; tried to combine too many unrelated ideas within the two-minute framework, using fragments of ideas that were repeated, over-used and/or under-developed

Used too many different ideas; combined too many ideas within the two-minute framework; made superficial use of too many ideas within one piece; too many divergent ideas without links and development Did not sustain the development of musical ideas; demonstrated little development of material Used musical clichs from the chosen style Composed melodic lines that were static and/or fragmentary Simple melodic ideas that tended to meander in contour, range, and phrasing; tended to meander without forward direction; focused on a single idea without development or failed to maintain interest Disjointed, awkward melodic lines which failed to complement accompanying parts Developed a clear intent to develop ideas but the technique and craft was not sufficient

Other considerations Stronger responses Detailed scores with appropriate performance directions A strong familiarity with the chosen instrumentation and genre Provided unity and contrast through the varied use of concepts while maintaining stylistic integrity Demonstrated that a wide range of repertoire had been studied, reflected in compositional techniques and idiomatic writing

Weaker responses A lack of cohesion within the two minute framework, or a fragmented approach due to multimovement compositions An over-reliance on programmatic works that emphasise the stimulus to the detriment of manipulating the concepts in a meaningful way Established some sense of personal style but were unable to sustain it in a unified manner throughout the work A lack of clear manipulation of the concepts of music in their compositions A lack of understanding of the style or genre in which they were composing