Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Cambridge International A Level

Music 9483
For examination from 2020
© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2021 v1
Cambridge Assessment International Education is part of Cambridge University Press & Assessment.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment is a department of the University of Cambridge.
Cambridge University Press & Assessment retains the copyright on all its publications. Registered centres
are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use. However, we cannot give
permission to centres to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use
within a centre.
Contents

Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 4
Research report (1) .............................................................................................................. 5
Research report (2) .............................................................................................................. 9
Common mistakes ............................................................................................................. 14
Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Introduction
The main aim of this booklet is to exemplify standards for those teaching Cambridge International A Level
Music 9483 Component 3 Extended Performance to show high level candidate reports and how they relate
to the subjects’ curriculum and assessment objectives.
In this booklet candidates’ work is derived from the November 2020 examination series. Due to copyright
permissions, we have removed the recording details, which were given by the candidates in their
submissions.
This document provided illustrative examples of candidate work with examiner commentary. These help
teachers to assess the standard required to achieve marks beyond the guidance of the mark scheme.

Please note: In this booklet, we have used Segoe print font to illustrate the candidate work, but this
font is not a requirement of the reflective statement when it is submitted.
The information about assessment objectives has been given below:

Assessment objectives

The syllabus and other teaching and learning materials are available on the School Support Hub
www.cambridgeinternational.org/support

4
 Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Research report (1)

Example candidate response

Contemporary United Kingdom (UK) Jazz

The UK jazz scene at the current time is seeing a resurgence in popularity, as happens every

so often around the world with various styles of music. This new style of jazz coming out of

the UK is commonly referred to a Nu Jazz or a more contemporary take on Fusion Jazz. This

new movement of jazz is led by many well-known artists such as Theon Cross and Tom Misch,

but one of the most prominent artists is Nubya Garcia. Many of these artists work

collaboratively together, for example Theon Cross performs frequently with Nubya Garcia and

an album was released in 2018 titled ‘We Out Here’ that had appearances from most of the

biggest names in this uprising movement of jazz. Recently Nubya Garcia and Joe Armon-

Jones released an album together called ‘Source’ which featured many different styles from

around the world. This is why I chose to add the title track of this album to my performance

set. The remaining songs in my performance set were also popular songs written by

prominent artists in the UK, these being Tom Misch [‘Lift Off’] and Ruby Rushton

[‘Triceratops’].

‘Source’

Due to the song Source only recently being released there are limited live performances of the

piece, I therefore will be comparing the live performance as a part of NPR Tiny Desk and the

studio recording of the piece.

When analysing the two performances of these pieces I came across many differences between

the two ranging from changes in the groove to added embellishments throughout the melody

lines and solos. The first notable difference I came across was a slight change in the underlying

groove of the piece. This is mainly due to the keyboard player changing what beats he put

emphasis on. In the original studio recording we see Armon-Jones putting most of the

emphasis on the backbeat of the groove and allowing a delay to fill in on the main beats, this

5
Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Example candidate response, continued

was one of the driving factors that gave this groove its unique sound 1.However, in the live

recording of the piece Armon-Jones leads into the groove playing on each of the beats rather

than just the off beats. This creates a more interesting groove as it creates contrast against

the drummer who is still only putting emphasis on the off beats 2.In addition to creating more

variance and contrast within the groove it is also adding another layer of texture to the piece.

Another difference found between these two performances can be found in the improvised

solo done by the saxophonist, Nubya Garcia. The solo played by Garcia in the studio recording

of Source varies in many ways when compared to the live version. The main variance is the

overall playing style that Garcia plays. In the studio version Garcia takes quite a rhythmic

approach when constructing her solo 3.This is in contrast to the overall texture of the piece as

she plays against the drums in most of these rhythmic sections. This is very different to the

way she plays her solo in the live version however. During her solo in live version her playing

style has developed to a more melodic style focusing more on the development of melodic

phrases over the development of her rhythmic feel throughout the solo 4.This helps create large

climaxing moments throughout her pieces attracting the listener.

Analysis of Source

Source was originally written for an extended jazz combo comprising of tenor saxophone,

keyboard, bass, drums, and two vocalists. Vocalists were added into this group to add

harmonic contrast in the pre-chorus and therefore come in every so often to add another

layer of harmony when building tension within the solos 5.

The main groove of the song is focused around a classic reggae groove comprised of the

keyboard playing on the backbeat and the drums creating flow through the lines turning it

into a smooth groove that follows the entirety of the piece. The way this groove differs from

other music in this style is within the main melody. In the melody of the piece Garcia focuses

more on the development of rhythmic ideas throughout the melody this is rather than the

more typical melodic approach. This is very common in Garcia’s other music also. Overall her

rhythmic playing style allows for the texture of her pieces to become quite complex which can

be seen in the later parts of Source at the various points of climax within the piece 6.

1 [0:42] Garcia, Nubya. “Source” SOURCE, Nubya Garcia, 2020, Track 3

2 [0:05] Garcia, Nubya. “Source” Nubya Garcia: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert, 2020, YouTube
3 [5:10] Garcia, Nubya. “Source” SOURCE, Nubya Garcia, 2020, Track 3
4 [5:15] Garcia, Nubya. “Source” Nubya Garcia: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert, 2020, YouTube
5 [9:50] Garcia, Nubya. “Source” SOURCE, Nubya Garcia, 2020, Track 3
6 [5:33] Garcia, Nubya. “Source” SOURCE, Nubya Garcia, 2020, Track 3
6
 Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Example candidate response, continued

Though Source is relatively a long song lasting over twelve minutes it follows a simple AB

form. The A section swaps between showcasing the melody of the song and the two

improvised solo sections. The basic form runs as follows: the piece opens with the drums with

the gradual introduction of both the keys and bass, this is what makes up the main groove of

the song. The melody is then introduced on the saxophone making the A section which then

runs into a slightly altered chord progression that make up the B section. Following this are

the two improvised solos by the saxophone and the keyboard which play over the repeated A

and B sections before finally retuning back to the main melody which slowly fades out to end

the piece.

After analysing the piece and finding out exactly how it is constructed, I began to think about

how I would play it. In the end I kept the main sections of the song the same as the original

only changing two things. Firstly the removal of the vocalists, due to no vocalists being

available when recording the piece and because I wanted to keep the texture quite simple to

allow for the focus to be put more on the saxophone. The second difference that was made

between the original and my performance was the removal of the keys solo. This was because

with this solo it made the song too long to reasonably fit in my set, and I think that it was

overall beneficial to remove this solo to again allow more focus to be put on my saxophone

performance.

This report has detailed the ways in which Nubya Garcia has constructed her song Source in

two different performances and after analysis how it has affected the ways in which I have

chosen to perform it.

References

Studio Recording

Garcia, Nubya. “Source” SOURCE, Nubya Garcia, 2020, Track 3

Live at NPR Tiny Desk

Garcia, Nubya. “Source” Nubya Garcia: Tiny Desk (Home) Concert, 2020, You Tube

7
Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Examiner comments and how the candidate could have improved

• This report is detailed, coherent and reflective. Its length, 1126 words, is within the limits set out in the
syllabus.
• The report begins by explaining the chosen focus together with its associated artists and sets out the
repertoire selected for the candidate’s saxophone performance which was accompanied by a small
combo of keyboard, bass guitar and drums.

• The candidate chooses to compare live and studio performances of “Source” by Nubya Garcia, the
original artist of this contemporary song.
• A wide range of musical features are compared including use of accompaniment, beat, build-up of the
groove, texture, styles of saxophone solo, tension, rhythmic complexity.

• Perceptive points are made which reflect detailed listening and independent thinking.
• Carefully selected audio extracts demonstrate the points of comparison. These are precisely referenced
and each was of sufficient length to illustrate the relevant features of the music. [Full details of the
recordings used were provided by the candidate].
• There is appropriate analysis of the song. The candidate reflects well on how the recordings impacted on
their own performance in terms of ensemble set-up and song structure, but could have included more
about decisions made regarding influences on the content of their saxophone solo improvisations.
• The candidate has demonstrated detailed understanding of contemporary UK Jazz and, although there
are no ‘academic sources’ listed in the bibliography, these would not necessarily be expected for such
recent repertoire in this genre.

• This report demonstrates just enough evidence for it to be placed within Level 5 of the assessment
criteria.
Total mark awarded = 17 out of 20

8
 Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Research report (2)

Example candidate response – high (2)

For my A2 Music Component 03, I performed two pieces linking to my theme of the

Romantic pieces for solo piano. Firstly, ‘The Skylark’ a transcription of the Romance by Glinka

for piano, transcribed by Balakirev. During Glinka’s stay in the countryside, he composed

twelve songs under the collective title of ‘Farewell to St. Petersburg’ which many critics believe

to be Glinka dealing with the problems in his private life. ‘The Skylark’ is a transcription of

No. 10 from ‘A Farewell to St. Petersburg’ having one main theme which is built upon and

developed with romantic conventions putting itself as part of the early Romantic era.

The second piece in my programme is Chopin’s Ballade no.1 in G minor op. 23. Chopin is a

Polish composer during the Romantic era as well and wrote primarily for solo piano. From a

young age, he was considered a child prodigy writing ‘Polonaise in G minor’ which was

ordered to be scored by the Russian grand duke Constantine at the meek age of seven. Chopin

began writing Ballade no.1 in 1831 during his eight-month stay in Vienna and completed it

in 1835 after his move to Paris where he dedicated it to Baron Nathaniel von Stockhausen,

the Hanoverian ambassador of France at the time. Robert Schumann comments that this

piece was his favourite so far and Chopin agreed saying, “I am happy to hear this since I too

like it most and hold it dearest.”

Choosing to compare two performances of Chopin’s Ballade in G minor, both Seong-Jin Cho

and Vladimir Horowitz have unique interpretations of the piece. The piece beings with heavy

largo introduction marked pesante quite literally meaning ‘heavy and ponderous’. We

immediately hear the difference in interpretations of both performers: Cho decides to use

more rubato connecting every note starting with a softer tone [track 1] compared to

Horowitz who begins in a more aggressive manner accenting each note [track 2]. As

mentioned before, this unusual opening built on a Neapolitan chord creating ambiguity with

the absence of the home key G minor. Cho states in an interview with Deutsche Grammophon

that the beginning creates a “lonely feeling” with Andreas Klein commenting that bar three

offers a question, “what am I doing here?” and bares four-six give a dissonant answer on an

unresolved chord finally leading to G minor in bar seven with the dominant note in the bass

[track 3]. Favouring Cho’s interpretation, I tried to recreate a similar tone but without pedal.

When using pedal, I found the line to either become too muddled or lose a sense of fluidity

only using it in the last two bars of the passage introducing the key G minor as the first main

motif is introduced moving into the moderato section.

9
Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Example candidate response, continued

With this first main motif, many people such as Rubinstein and Cho say that it is tempting to

treat this moderato section as a waltz. However, it is important to note that the piece is

written in 6/4 rather than 3/4 implying the incessant flow of the melody [track 4]. This

languidly rising arpeggio, decorated with an upper neighbour note “sings on, sings on” as said

by Rubinstein. In his masterclass, ‘Rubinstein Teaches the Ballade in G minor’ in 1978, he

states the long melody must be continued and similarly Cho say its “growing, emotion is

growing”. Understanding how the dispersed crotchets should be played was challenging. The

crotchets serve as a support, not the melody, replicating such a feeling from the two’s

performance was a challenge in this section. Horowitz’s performance is generally faster taking

less time in drawing out the harmonic changes compared to Cho. But, most notably

Horowitz’s emphasis on the lines in the bass is the most contrasting to Cho such as bars 24-

25, Cho tends to blend the left-hand with the right [track 5] whilst Horowitz pulls it out

[track 6] highlighting the development of the dispersed crotchets into a moving line like a

cello. Here, although Horowitz’s interpretation of the tempo and lack of rubato felt far more

fluent compared to Cho’s which was beautiful but lacking in energy, his accented bass line

intruded on the dissonant beauty which I wanted to preserve, thus at bar 26-27 I adapted

Cho’s interpretation blending the two lines. Approaching bar 44, Horowitz here uses very

little pedal [track 7] compared to Cho [track 8] and once again pulls out the bass line more

with the following arpeggios after the expressive dissonance [track 9] leading into a

contrasting, innocent melody. For Cho and Horowitz, the accelerando is interpreted in

different places: for Cho, it is in bar 40 [track 10], and for Horowitz, it is in bar 44 [track

11]. Once again, Horowitz’s interpretation made more sense to me, but in the following

sempre piu mosso I used Cho’s approach with the pedalling creating a fuller timbre
highlighting the forthcoming augmented triad in bar 48 [track 12].

In bar 68 we are introduced to the second motif a much more delicate melody which must be

played “cleanly” as said by Cho. Here, both performers have a relatively similar interpretation

only with Cho choosing to take this entire section at a slower tempo than Horowitz. They both

lean into the innocent melody of the right-hand colouring the fragile triplets [track 13]

finally moving on to the end of the melody. Rubinstein reinforces this saying that it must be

played like the end of something emphasising the dynamic piano. Trying to grasp the

appropriate colouring and feel of the left-hand blending with the right was difficult and

required a lot of time playing each hand separately.

10
 Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Example candidate response, continued

The first motif returns for a short time before moving into one of the two most technically

challenging sections developing the second motif into a ‘noble’ melody as said by Rubinstein.

Horowitz takes this section slower than Cho, emphasising the harmony changes with the first

octave of each bar in the left-hand [track 14]. Cho does the same, but the left-hand never

overpowers the right [track 15], unlike Horowitz. The interpretation retains the previous

innocence that this motif had, yet sounds more powerful. Trying to replicate Cho’s tone and

colouring in the rapid octaves of the right-hand was challenging. Aiding this was the rubato

which he incorporates into the melody, by incorporating the rubato, I was able to make the

line more fluent and meaningful. After this is a quick succession of scalic phrases leading to a

light dance.

Unexpectedly, Horowitz does not highlight the left-hand line almost making it inaudible

[track 16]. Cho once again blends the two lines appropriately emphasising certain notes to

outline the melody [track 17]. The challenge here was the left-hand jumps, being able to play

the notes suggesting the harmony but not playing them too aggressively. The piece

immediately moves on to a far more vigorous scalic transition with an abundance of

chromaticism and rising sequences in bars 146-148 and 150-153 [track 18], which then

suddenly shift to F# minor descending in semitones to Eb major where the second motif is

now played in its original key. We then move back to G minor reiterating the first motif

becoming more and more agitated where the climactic section of the piece is finally reached,

Presto con fuoco.

A torrent of emotions floods out reintroducing the Neapolitan harmony where Cho

wonderfully describes it as the “real climax…the very end” changing “inner emotion to outer

emotion”. The piece cries out in pain and fury. One of the best visual images depicting this is a

scene from “Your lie in April” [A Japanese manga/anime series about a young pianist] as the

main protagonist loses the love of his life as he performs this piece. As he reaches this section

of the ballade, the visual imagery of her death and his pain are portrayed vividly. The piece

becomes an external medium for which the myriad emotions he experiences can be expressed.

Horowitz’s interpretation once again brings out the left-hand harmony [track 19]. He

maintains one tempo with rare occasions of rubato [track 20], unlike Cho who uses far more

[track 21]. The performance of Horowitz felt rushed near the end [track 22] whereas Cho

gives the piece space to breathe taking time in the succession of furious scales and thunderous

ending chords rooted in G minor [track 23]. Preferring Cho’s interpretation, I tried to use

11
Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Example candidate response, continued

similar rubato; however, I found it difficult in playing the rapid series of notes with the same

accuracy at the speed at which Cho and Horowitz played, in the end having to sacrifice some

speed for greater accuracy.

Chopin’s Ballade no.1 in G minor proved to be a fairly difficult piece both musically and

technically, the two great performances of the piece by Horowitz and Cho aided in my

understanding musically of the piece exposing me to two contrasting interpretations of the

piece. My performance and own interpretation were catalysed by the two, fascinated by the

vast differences in their performances of the Chopin Ballade no. 1.

Bibliography:

https://www.kennedy-center.org/artists/g/ga-gn/mikhail-glinka/

Retrieved: 12/03/2020

https://www.mosconsv.ru/museum/english/glinka.html

Retrieved: 12/03/2020

https://tonic-chord.com/chopin-ballade-no-1-in-g-minor-op-23-analysis/ (August 2018)

Retrieved: 09/05/2020

Encyclopaedia Britannica. Plantinga, Leon; Hedley, Arthur (March 27, 2020). “Frédéric

Chopin”

https://www.britannica.com/biography/Frederic-Chopin

New York and London: Routledge pp.xxviii. Smalliek, William; Tronchimczyk, Maja (2015).

“Frederic Chopin: A Research and Information Guide (2nd ed.)”.

Orga, Ates (1978). Chopin pp.64.

Tran. Anh L. “Chopin: Work List – Illustrations. Quotes. Dedications”.

Retrieved: 21/05/2020

Deutsche Grammophon – Cho. Seong-Jin. Chopin Ballade no. 1. Interview and performance

(2017)

Rubinstein, Arthur. Piano Masterclass – Chopin Ballade No. 1 (1979)

Klein, Andreas. “The Narrative of Chopin’s Ballade No. 1” (2015)

12
 Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Examiner comments and how the candidate could have improved

• This is a fully detailed, coherent and reflective report. Its length, 1479 words, is within the limits set out in
the syllabus.
• The report is set in context by brief discussion of the chosen focus and the performance programme.

• Selecting the Chopin Ballade for detailed investigation, the candidate has chosen to compare
performances by contrasting, established performers.
• The clear and concise analysis of the music is integrated with discussion of the two interpretations.
• There is thorough exploration of a wide range of appropriate musical features including mood, pedalling,
tempo, rubato, balance, fluidity of line, use of space, approaches to the ending.

• Detailed perceptive examples of comparison, demonstrating meticulous attention to detail in terms of

listening, are given from the two performances. These are exemplified by carefully selected audio
extracts. [Each of the 23 extracts was correctly referenced and full details of the recordings used were
provided by the candidate.]
• The candidate reflects well on how the recordings impacted on their own interpretative choices and also
expresses independent thinking in this regard.

• There is ample evidence of detailed research from a number of appropriate academic sources, with a
range of references which illustrate points made. Influences and sources are clearly documented.

• This report meets all aspects of the assessment criteria and was awarded full marks.
Total mark awarded = 20 out of 20

13
Example Candidate Responses – Component 3

Common mistakes
We have listed some common mistakes made by candidates in their research report task, which resulted in
scoring fewer marks:
• A number of candidates compared two performances of all the pieces in their performance programme.
Attempting to cover so much material often resulted in the report lacking the depth of investigation
necessary to access the higher mark bands. Only one of the pieces should be selected. Similarly, where
a candidate’s performance programme consists of one extended work, such as a sonata in several
movements, it is wholly appropriate for two performances of just one of the movements to be compared.

• Some candidates presented theoretical, bar by bar analysis of the chosen piece without reference to the
expressive musical content in the context of performing and interpretation. References should, of course,
be made to the structure of the piece, but candidates should keep in mind that the emphasis of the report
should be on performance and interpretation of the music, not simply on the content of the composition
itself.
• Some performances selected for comparison were of unconvincing quality. Comparisons of such
performances tended to be about the mistakes made by the performers rather than about the musical
interpretation of the piece. While candidates will obviously wish to select contrasting performances for
comparison, these should be of a quality suitable for discussion of interpretation. Careful selection of
appropriate performers is an important part of the initial preparation.

• A number of candidates described the way each chosen performer interpreted the music without
evaluating the performance or reflecting on how this might impact on their own performance. Personal
reflection and independent thinking should be an integral part of the report rather than a brief
afterthought.
• Some candidates wrote at length about the technical difficulties that they encountered with their chosen
repertoire and about how they practised to overcome these. Such discussion is not required, nor
assessed, in this task. The emphasis should be on the musical interpretations of the performers they
have listened to and how these interpretations have impacted on their own performance.

• Some submissions consisted largely of accounts of what happened during the examination performance,
somewhat in the manner of a concert review. The research report should reflect detailed pre-
performance investigation which informs and influences the performance, rather than be a post-
performance review.
• A number of candidates included audio extracts from their chosen performances, but did not link these to
the text of their report. Other candidates submitted complete audio performances or merely provided
website links. Audio extracts should be chosen to support specific written comments and should be
clearly referenced. They should be submitted on USB or CD and tracks should be carefully labelled.

• Some reports lacked a bibliography and discography. As with (g) above, such documentation is a
requirement and its content is taken into account when assessing the report.

14
Cambridge Assessment International Education
The Triangle Building, Shaftsbury Road, Cambridge, CB2 8EA, United Kingdom
t: +44 1223 553554
e: [email protected] www.cambridgeinternational.org

© Cambridge University Press & Assessment 2021 v1