Part 1 Linking to the topics covered in the lecture series, students should compose a portfolio of composition(s) with a total duration of 10 minutes that explore ideas and techniques around experimental music and sound. The musical work can be presented as recorded work, installation, performance, written score, or any other means that can be justified through the context of the music.
Part 2 Students will support compositions through referencing and contextualizing their work amongst notable composers across the historic development of their chosen field. This should be presented through an accompanying 750 word critical report that details the techniques used, the intentions of the composer, which work has influenced the composition(s).
ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE ● By submitting your assignment through Canvas you are confirming that: o I declare that the work I am submitting is my own work, and that contributions from other sources are fully acknowledged. o I declare that I have read ACM’s Academic Integrity Policy. o I declare that I am aware of the Academic Skills services available via ACM Library.
● Students are required to keep a spare copy of all work submitted, in case of accidental loss of the original/s ● One copy of the work must be submitted.
● All document files should be named using the Course Code, the assignment name, submission date, o e.g. MIP-999 Assignment 1 Part A – 12022018 or, o ACM-S123 Assignment 5 – 150921
● All additional materials accompanying the work must be clearly marked with the Course Code, the assignment name and submissions date
● All submissions must be fully functional.
● All sources used must be referenced as per ACM referencing guidelines. Where work has not been fully referenced, the work will be subject to ACM’s Academic Integrity Policy.
● Written work over or under 5% of the specified word count will be penalized as per ACM’s Assessment Policy.
● Work submitted after the due date will be capped at 40%.
● Title pages, table of contents, footnotes, bibliography, end notes and appendices are not included in the overall word count.
● Pages should be kept in order and numbered.
LEARNING OUTCOMES ASSESSMENT CRITERIA WEIGHTING
LO1 Analyse the historical development of experimental music.
Work is well referenced and contextualized
10%
LO2 Conceptualize new musical works that respond and build upon the tradition of innovative composers, producers and audiophiles.
Create supporting documentation that conceptualizes experimental techniques and explains how an original musical work build upon defined experimental methods 10%
LO3 Contextualize experimental techniques and assess their impact on modern compositional and production styles.
Present a critical analysis of the work of notable experimental composers and producers within historic context and their impact on modern composition.10%
LO4 Present a critical analysis of the work of notable experimental composers and producers. LO5 Create original music/sound that demonstrates a clear link to an experimental movement and its associated techniques.
Create music/sound that takes influence from well known experimental techniques and then develop these while creating a unique composition 70%
ASSESSMENT POLICIES:
● By submitting your assignment through Canvas you are confirming that: o I declare that the work I am submitting is my own work, and that contributions from other sources are fully acknowledged. o I declare that I have read ACM’s Academic Integrity Policy. o I declare that I am aware of the Academic Skills services available via ACM Library.
● Students are required to keep a copy of all work submitted within their Google Drive, in case of accidental loss of the original/s.
● One copy of the work must be submitted via Canvas before the due date.
● All document files should be named appropriately using the Course Code, Assignment Name and Submission Date, for example: o MIP-999 Assignment 1 Part A – 12022018 or, o ACM-S123 Assignment 5 – 150921
● All additional materials accompanying the work must be clearly marked with the Course Code, the assignment name and submission date.
● All submissions must be fully functional, including accessibility for all ACM Staff to Google Drive links. See ‘How To’ videos on Canvas for step by step guides on how to correctly share your files via Google Drive.
● All sources used must be referenced as per ACM referencing guidelines. Where work has not been fully referenced, the work will be subject to ACM’s Academic Integrity Policy.
● Written work over or under 10% of the specified word count will be penalized.
● Level 5 and Level 6 work submitted after the due date will be subject to penalty and capped at 40%.
● Title page, table of contents, footnotes, bibliography, end notes and appendices are not included in the overall word count.
● Pages should be kept in order and numbered.
● Submission timestamps are taken from the point that the upload is complete and not the point that you click the submit button.
MIDDLE SEX UNIVERSITY: GENERIC DEGREE MARKING RUBRIC.
Class 20 Point Scale % GUIDE DESCRIPTORS
Class 1 1 2 3 4
95 -100 87 – 94 79 – 86 70 – 78
Excellent. Wholly successful work in almost every respect. In all modules this is reserved for work that is memorable for its excellence. Grade 1 work is outstanding (virtually faultless). Class 2 Div.1 5 6 7 8
69 66 – 68 63 – 65 60 – 62
Very good standard. An adventurous approach that the student can support with strong technique and/or appropriate subject knowledge. Performance work reveals only occasional minor errors. The performer and composer demonstrate a reasonably mature level of comprehension on appropriate stylistic interpretation. Composition shows a skilled and imaginative approach and is contextualized intelligently and successfully within the brief. Written work is presented to a fairly high standard and all argument and discourse within written work reveal reasonably comprehensive background reading, and intelligent thought leading to illuminating work. Written examination reveals no significant gaps in key knowledge requirements.
Class 2 Div. 2 9 10 11 12
59 56 – 58 53 – 55 50 – 52
Reasonably good standard. Imaginative response with a good grasp of the crucial aspects involved. Occasional errors of judgement. Practical work is executed to a more than satisfactory standard with a good level of technical proficiency. Errors, though present, are fairly infrequent and minor, and the performer demonstrates some sensitivity to the appropriate performance aspects of a given piece. Written and project work is generally solid and reveals an intelligent and perceptive approach. There are no serious omissions, and reasonably effective use of language enhances the work. Written examination reveals occasional gaps in key knowledge requirements, but a sound understanding of most main principles.
Class 3 (Pass)
Acceptable standard. Appropriate response to assignment with a fair grasp of the crucial aspects involved. Some errors of judgement. Performance demonstrates a workmanlike approach achieving a “safe” but not necessarily inspired result. Inaccuracies and mistakes are present but the performer recovers from these with minimal disruption to the performance piece. The performer or composer may not necessarily demonstrate a mature awareness or sensitivity to the requirements of the style of the piece. Written and project work follows most details listed on the brief, and omissions – although present – are not serious. Presentation and use of English are of an acceptable standard. Answers are coherent and informative, with some omissions of the central material. Written examination reveals gaps in the knowledge requirements, but a satisfactory understanding of most key principles. Grade 16 (40%) work is only just worthy of a pass – and contains a few serious flaws.
Fail (Compensated)
17 35-39 Not quite of satisfactory standard. Terms of the brief are partly fulfilled but shortcomings are sufficiently serious to prevent the pass mark from being reached. In practical work errors and miscalculations are exposed with a fair degree of frequency. The errors mentioned in the next lowest category (Grade 18) are still in evidence but occur with less frequency, but are still significant enough to prevent the attainment of a pass grade. Written work demonstrates a partially successful attempt to fulfill the brief with several omissions. Written work may be poorly presented with inaccurate or inappropriate use of English and/or illogical essay structure. Written examination reveals significant gaps in key knowledge requirements.
Fail (Compensated)
18 30-34 Inadequate response to brief. Many errors and weaknesses. Practical work highlights one or more of the following: serious technical deficiency, serious and fundamental lack of understanding of solo/ensemble performance responsibilities. Composition and project work highlights one or more of the following: inappropriate response to brief, incomplete work, lack of appropriate preparation, poor presentation and/or use of English, essay structure illogical. Written examination highlights a serious lack of appropriate knowledge requirements.
Fail 19 1–29 Completely inadequate response to assignment. Does not fulfill brief. Work highlights serious technical deficiencies. Practical work is inadequate and full of mistakes and inaccuracies. Serious and fundamental misunderstandings of the music or project aims are revealed. Appropriate preparation is entirely lacking. Use of English is very poor. Essay structure wholly illogical. Brief may have been ignored or almost wholly misunderstood.
Fail 20 0 Incomplete or no work submitted.
