Popular Music Performance

CAM CAP
College of Arts & Media Cooperative Assessment Project Music & Entertainment Industry Studies Department University of Colorado at Denver

Popular Music Performance The following section is adapted, in part, from Project POP (The Department of Music, The School of Media, Music and Performance at Salford, UK) and sponsored by The National Co-ordination Team (NCT) works on behalf of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland (DEL), to support and advise the Teaching Quality Enhancement Fund (TQEF) program. The performance of popular/commercial music has a number of characteristics which must be taken into account by teachers: ◊ Popular music performance is widespread and most of the students entering MEIS will have had many experiences of such performances and formed clear ideas about what constitutes a good performance. ◊ It is musically and culturally diverse. The sheer diversity of possible performance experiences which exist quite comfortably under the heading of popular/commercial music performance is an important factor and must also be addressed. A punk group, a technology-based dance ensemble, a singer-songwriter roundtable ensemble, a traditional jazz ensemble, and a worldbeat fusion jazz group would aspire to present a number of separate performance elements which would relate directly to their particular style of music. ◊ Non-musical elements can play an important role. ◊ It is produced by a team of people. It is rare to have solo performances in popular music. Even when they do occur the solo performer is likely to need to rely on the services of PA and lighting engineers. ◊ It is likely to change and evolve over time. Because popular/commercial music is a thriving cultural phenomenon, the balance of elements which would characterize a performance thirty years ago, or even ten years ago, may be inappropriate to contemporary practice. For these reasons, to assume that a single set of assessment criteria would address and reflect all these issues is perhaps naive. It is possible to sidestep these considerations by requiring all students to play in one style (jazz, for example). But this solution results in a greater separation between the institution and common contemporary practices in popular music performance. It also has the tendency to alienate many students who do not aspire to the particular style given as the paradigm by the institution, and produce some fairly narrow-skilled (and possibly narrow-minded) students, too. The further away from current practice, the less relevant and worthwhile the performance modules may appear to students. Of course, it is necessary to make the distinction between the experience-based evaluation of a popular/commercial music performance (i.e., real world’) and the educationally-driven assessment of a popular/commercial music performance (as part of an academic course, an ensemble, or applied lessons). Assessment of popular/commercial music performance in MEIS can have a number of separate functions (diagnostic, summative, etc.), and may also address such issues as assessment of articulation of intention, assessment of common skills (team work, communication skills, planning, etc.) and assessment of vocal and/or instrumental technique over and above that which may be required in order to perform in any specific, single performance. Presented below are a number of ideas on what might constitute the salient elements involved in the evaluation of popular/commercial music performance. ◊ What we hear Musicians will tend to hear and evaluate the sound before assessing visual elements. What to listen for: ◊ balance (are all sound sources appropriately audible?) ◊ cohesion (do they produce a convincing overall sound?) ◊ signs of rehearsal (does it sound like they have put in the necessary preparation to make this sound?) ◊ common intent (do they sound like they are working towards the same ends?) ◊ pacing (is there some sense of organized change and growth?) ◊ confidence (are they comfortable with what they are doing?) Related to these elements is a sense of style. Sound elements which should be familiar: ◊ rhythmic patterns and sensibilities (do we recognize their cultural references?) ◊ harmonic patterns ◊ melodic patterns and sensibilities ◊ timbrel signifiers and sensibilities ◊ expected instrumental roles ◊ is the choice and composition/arrangement of the music appropriate to their musical abilities? (this also concerns the band's ability to convince and perhaps raises the question of ‘authenticity’) Clearly these elements and the expectations that they suggest can be manipulated in novel (artistic) ways. If no such manipulation takes place then perhaps the band will be too derivative (a cover band?) and ultimately unsuccessful. ◊ What we see Even the most cerebral and purely musically focused performances can be supported with visual elements. Are they ever really optional? 1. Physical presence: what they wear and their physical attributes how they stand (also, in relation to the audience) where they stand in relation to each other and the audience their physical relationship with their voice and or instrument(s) individually and collectively if movement is featured, is it consistent/engaging/ appropriate? 2. Projec2. Projection/communication: is their relationship to the audience consistent and convincing? what techniques do they use to relate to their audience? is their audience appropriate? is the (band projected) space between them and the audience appropriate/comfortable is there any sense that dramatic elements are being drawn upon? 3. Other elements: appropriate lighting pyrotechnics and other visual effects (smoke, etc.) video screens (and their images) non-sound producing people involved in the presentation (dancers, 'characters', etc.) Obviously the aural and visual aspects are often related. For example, a guitarist may sound unsure of the part he/she is playing (sound) while looking towards the fingerboard to make sure he's/she's choosing the right frets (sight). Similarly, an unexpected sound from a musician may be justified through a visual cue: a scissors kick to herald in a new musical idea. The quality of sound, and hence the appreciation of the performance, is often supported by visual aspects. But when visual aspects predominate in a performance (i.e. where the sound plays a supporting role) then it would seem to suggest 'variety entertainment' rather than musical performance. ◊ Technical aspects Is a band entirely responsible for the sound? What the audience hears can be the result of the sound engineer. In normal performance circumstances the band usually plays on regardless of the sound. So how does one assess a performance dogged by faulty equipment: microphones, amplifiers, broken strings, or too much smoke from the smoke machine? ◊ Audiences Some audiences do not want to engage in interaction with the band: they do not dance; will not clap along as suggested by the vocalist; do not react as the band would like. A band that relies on this kind of interaction can appear unsuccessful, yet a different audience could produce a different result.		Topic		Home About the Project ◊ Summary ◊ Background ◊ Description Goals & Objectives ◊ Outcomes ◊ Measures Popular Music Performance Assessment Elements CAM Capstone Senior Student Portfolios ◊ MEIS ◊ T/F/VP ◊ VA CU System CAP Resources Contact





◊ UCD ◊ CAM ◊ MEIS ◊ ePort ◊ CAP ◊ CiTT ◊