Download A-level Music Examiner report Unit 04 - Music in Context June

A-LEVEL
MUSIC
MUSC4 Music in Context
Report on the Examination
2270
June 2016
Version: 1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk
Copyright © 2016 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved.
AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this
booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any
material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL MUSIC – 2270 – June 2016
General
The ‘Music in Context’ examination for 2016 produced responses from students which were
broadly similar in range to those for the previous year and included some very impressive all-round
performances at the higher end of the spectrum of marks.
One general observation which should be made here is that the legibility of students’ handwriting
was very variable. In some cases, several words, or even whole phrases were extremely difficult or
impossible to decipher, which obviously might have proven detrimental to the student’s ability to
convey their ideas! School/colleges are reminded that it is possible to apply for access
arrangements in the case of students who have recognised problems with writing by hand. In
connection with this, it is advisable that students use a pencil (and eraser) for the dictation question
in Section A.
The available marks were distributed as follows:
• Section A: 40% - listening tests, based on recorded excerpts of unfamiliar music
• Section B: 30% - an essay on a set work (either Elgar’s Symphony no.1 or
Shostakovich’s Symphony no.5), chosen from a list of two on each work
• Section C: 30% - an essay on a specified Area of Study (English Choral Music in the 20th
Century, Chamber Music from Mendelssohn to Debussy, or Four Decades of Jazz and
Blues), chosen from a list of two on each Area
Section A
The excerpts chosen for this section are not related to the works studied for Sections B or C but
are instead selected in order to test students’ knowledge and understanding of musical features
listed on page 19 of the current specification, which can be viewed at
http://www.aqa.org.uk/subjects/music/as-and-a-level/music-2270.
Question 1
Two contrasting pieces of vocal music were selected; Andy William’s interpretation of Moon River
by Henry Mancini (1 verse) and the whole of the anthem If Ye Love Me by Thomas Tallis,
performed by The Tallis Scholars. The great majority of students correctly identified the time
signature of the first excerpt and the types of texture used in the first two lines of the second
excerpt (though the answers “canonic” and “fugal” could not be allowed for the more freely imitative
second line). Questions about intervals, melodic range, harmony and modulation were less
consistently well tackled. In particular, there were some surprising difficulties with Question 1(d)
which asked for the melodic shape used for the words ‘after the same’ in Moon River. Several
students were unable to pick ‘rising arpeggio’ from a multiple-choice list of basic shapes. This type
of question may be regarded as a precursor to melodic dictation exercises and is worth practicing
using well-known song melodies with students who find dictation challenging.
Question 2
The question on the opening of Wagner’s Tannhäuser Overture also produced a wide spectrum of
marks. Most students were able to identify correctly at least one of the two instruments sharing the
opening melody and one of the two harmonic features of the accompaniment. There were some
rather unlikely guesses regarding the key to which the section modulated at the end, showing a
weak grasp of theory. Of the two multiple choice questions relating to the middle section of the
3 of 7
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL MUSIC – 2270 – June 2016
excerpt, nearly all students were able to recognise that ‘the music is mostly in minor keys, turning
major at the end’ for Q.2(e), but Q.2(d) relating to melody was very variably answered. This
question required students to be able to distinguish between a rising 5th or octave and between
falling chromatic or diatonic steps; like Q.1(d), this is a matter of pattern-recognition, related to
melodic dictation. Most students managed in Q.2(f) to gain at least 2 marks for perceptive
comments about the violin counter-melody in the final section.
Question 3
The theme from Brahms’ Haydn Variations was the vehicle for a test of melodic dictation and
harmonic and rhythmic recognition. Q.3(a) was probably the most poorly answered question within
Section A; the slight chromaticism and use of the bass clef seemed to confuse some students.
Despite the very moderate tempo, simple rhythm and clear texture, several students did not even
have the notes progressing in the right direction. As mentioned above, presentation is very
important here; students must be able to write clearly and unambiguously on the stave provided.
Q.3(b)-3(e) were tackled with mixed success, location of the dominant pedal for 3(c) being
relatively secure and identification of iib/c minor 1st inversion for 3(d) being relatively insecure. In
Q.3(f), students needed to read the question carefully and make sure that they referred to bars 110. Most managed to do so successfully and gain 2 marks; indeed, for some students, these were
the only 2 marks gained in Question 3.
Question 4
Messiaen’s vivid Quartet for the End of Time produced some pleasingly full responses. There
was much to say and there were multiple ways of saying it, so many students were able to gain full
or almost full marks. However, there are some important points of advice to pass on regarding
answering this type of question.
•
•
•
The rubric specifically described ‘a long, quiet section in a slow tempo, followed by a
shorter, louder section in a faster tempo’. This meant that students were not going to gain
credit for mentioning dynamics or tempo in their answers; in any case, the question asked
for ‘features of rhythm, melody, harmony and texture’.
The instrumentation of piano, clarinet, violin and cello was specifically listed in the rubric; it
was therefore puzzling to read answers which referred to instruments that were not there.
School/colleges are strongly advised to check that the audio equipment they use for the
examination is of sufficiently high fidelity.
Students should be encouraged, when answering this more open-ended type of question,
to write in complete phrases or sentences. A one-word answer, unrelated to a specific
instrument or unqualified by a place in a sequence of events may not be clear enough
evidence of accurate listening.
Section B
As has become a familiar pattern, a large majority of students chose Shostakovich’s Symphony
no.5 over Elgar’s Symphony no.1.
Q.5 (on Elgar’s approach to melody, harmony and tonality in the third movement) was less popular
than Q.6 (on Elgar’s orchestration), though there was no appreciable overall difference in quality
between the answers in general. There were some very good answers to Q.5, showing a sound
grasp of the distinctive features of Elgar’s style; the weaker answers tended to show insecurity in
4 of 7
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL MUSIC – 2270 – June 2016
dealing with the sophisticated nature of Elgar’s handling of harmony and tonality. Q.6 produced
fewer outstanding answers, but was managed competently by the majority. A common problem
with weaker answers was the tendency to digress into discussion of issues other than
orchestration, particularly the nature and use of the motto theme.
The Shostakovich answers were more evenly split between Q.7 (on treatment of themes in the 1st
movement’s development) and Q.8 (on the ‘personal/original’ and ‘traditional’ elements in the
work). In general, Q.7 was well done; the opportunity to write about the treatment of themes in the
development gets right to the heart of one of the most gripping parts of the work and many
students responded enthusiastically. The best answers managed to combine a detailed description
of thematic transformation with a sound overview of the dynamic processes of the passage as a
whole. Weaker answers tended to get too bogged down in description of the original themes or
merely list a catalogue of events. In answering Q.8, many students were unable to resist the
temptation to indulge in over-lengthy, simplistic and factually dubious speculation about the extramusical symbolism of specific passages. There is unquestionably a place for considering the
relationship between musical material and the composer’s life and times, but not at the expense of
detailed analysis of the former. A frequently recurring problem with these answers was a lack of
real knowledge and understanding of the symphonic tradition within or against which Shostakovich
wrote his 5th Symphony.
Section C
More than half of the candidature opted for Area of Study 3c ‘Four Decades of Jazz and Blues’; of
the remainder, the majority chose Area of Study 3a ‘English Choral Music in the Twentieth
Century’. Although less popular than the other two, Area of Study 3b ‘Chamber Music from
Mendelssohn to Debussy’ elicited the best essays.
These special focus topics should allow teachers and students to form their own programme of
study that balances breadth and depth. It is important to have both a detailed knowledge of a few
significant works and musicians and a sound understanding of the overall historical and stylistic
context. The best answers showed evidence of this combination.
Area of Study 3a English Choral Music in the Twentieth Century
Answers were approximately evenly split between Q.9 (on the wide range of musical styles and
cultures influencing composers of the genre) and Q.10 (on the contribution to the genre of the
composer the student considered the most important).
Q.9 seemed not to be very well done; a significant problem shown by weaker students was the
lack of real understanding of the context of Twentieth Century music in general, with its openness
to influences from popular music of the day, folk traditions from round the world, ancient music and
its own immediate past as well as new methods and techniques (such as serialism, indeterminacy,
minimalism). For example, many students wrote about the Sanctu from the War Requiem, but
without reference to Britten’s interest in gamelan; others chose Tavener’s The Lamb, without
clearly explaining the simple serial processes it uses. A difficulty at the other end of the spectrum
was to write about so many different influences that a rather diffuse and superficial impression was
given.
Q.10 produced much better answers in general. Popular subjects included Britten, Walton,
Tavener and Rutter. The best answers used detailed analysis of multiple pieces or several
contrasted sections from one large scale work (eg Belshazzar’s Feast or War Requiem) and at
5 of 7
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL MUSIC – 2270 – June 2016
least acknowledged that their composer wrote much other music as well! Weaker answers tended
to focus exclusively on one short piece without really justifying their choice.
Area of Study 3b Chamber Music from Mendelssohn to Debussy
Answers were equally divided between Q.11 (on the defining features of the best chamber music)
and Q.12 (on the contrast in approaches to texture and writing for instruments of two composers).
Both of these questions produced some very good answers, with Q.11 just ahead in terms of
excellent answers.
Popular works for discussion included Mendelssohn’s String Quartet no.2 in a minor and ‘Piano
Trio no.1’ in d minor, Brahms’ Piano Quintet in F minor and Debussy’s String Quartet.
The best answers to Q.11 were those that moved beyond the limitation of writing about just one
piece and were able to compare aspects of the work of several composers. The best answers to
Q.12 managed to balance discussion of instrumental techniques with a proper analysis of the roles
of individual instruments within particular textures. Weaker answers tended to be simply descriptive
of who plays what, where.
Area of Study 3c Four Decades of Jazz and Blues
This was by far the most popular of the Areas of Study and within it Q.14 (comparing the work of
two contrasting jazz artists) was overwhelmingly the favourite over Q.13 (classical composers who
successfully captured the spirit of jazz). Indeed, over half this year’s whole A2 cohort tackled Q.14.
Q.13 was, in general, not well done. A common failing was superficiality in analysis of jazz-derived
musical features. Popular pieces for discussion included Debussy’s Golliwog’s Cakewalk,
Milhaud’s ‘La Creation du Monde’, Gershwin’s Rhapsody in Blue and Ravel’s Piano Concerto in
G. These were all good choices, but some answers attempted to discuss all of them and thus left
no room for depth of detail. Some students unfortunately misunderstood the question entirely and
wrote about jazz musicians.
Q.14 asked students to compare the work of two contrasting jazz musicians. The best answers
actually did this; the weakest simply discussed one and then another. Many students clearly
wanted to write an essay discussing two contrasting jazz styles and thus wrote in a rather
generalised fashion rather than focussing on specific artists; many other students clearly only knew
one piece by each of their chosen artists and thus produced rather limited responses.
The most popular artists were Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Charlie Parker and Benny
Goodman. Others who featured included Dizzy Gillespie, Glenn Miller, Jelly Roll Morton and Scott
Joplin. However, the latter is really not a strong choice in this context, since the majority of his
output pre-dates 1910, he was a composer rather than a performing jazz musician and he left no
recorded legacy. Another awkward choice in this context was the Original Dixieland Jazz Band.
The best answers in this section demonstrated a real enthusiasm for the music, backed up with
sound knowledge and the ability to analyse musical structure and techniques.
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades
Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics
page of the AQA Website.
Converting Marks into UMS marks
6 of 7
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION – A-LEVEL MUSIC – 2270 – June 2016
Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below.
UMS conversion calculator
7 of 7