Popular Music Performance Characteristics

The performance of popular music has a number of characteristics which must be taken into account by teachers:

1. Popular music performance is widespread and most of the students entering an HE institution will have had many experiences of such performances and formed clear ideas about what constitutes a good performance.
2. It is musically diverse. The sheer diversity of possible performance experiences which sit quite comfortably under the heading of popular music performance is an important factor and must also be addressed. A punk group, a technology-based dance group and a cool jazz group would aspire to present a number of separate performance elements which would relate directly to their particular style of music.
3. Non-musical elements can play an important role.
4. 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.
5. It is subject to change over time. Because popular music is a thriving cultural phenomenon, the balance of elements which would characterise a performance thirty years ago, or even ten years ago, may be inappropriate to contemporary practice. (For a fuller exploration of these issues, see the section dealing with comparisons between popular music and Western European classical music.)

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 music performance (in the 'real world') and the educationally-driven assessment of a popular music performance (as part of an academic course).

Assessment of popular music performance in an HE institution 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 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 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 organised 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 recognise their cultural references?)
• harmonic patterns
• melodic patterns and sensibilities
• timbral 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 covers 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 instrument(s) individually and collectively
• if movement is featured, is it consistent/engaging/ appropriate?

2. 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.

Elements Appropriate For Assessment

1. Instrumental/Vocal Technique. This involves a number of distinct considerations:

• level of physical control
• difficulty of material
• range of technical demands (is the musician drawing on a variety of specific technically demanding elements?)
• relationship of technique and expression (e.g. a consistent and even tone may not be appropriate)
• relationship between sound and image (e.g. do technical efforts impair visual impact?)

2. Ensemble Playing

• tuning and timing
• balance (volume)
• aesthetic balance (e.g. is the musical role taken by the assessee appropriate/convincing in relation to the rest of the ensemble?)
• image (e.g. is there a visual dimension which supports the idea of ensemble playing?)

3. The Programme

• variety (this is really quite a big issue: variety of expression, variety of tempi/rhythmic feel, technical demands, etc.)
• sense of progression/change/growth within the programme
• convincing/satisfying as a whole
• of an appropriate duration

3.Communication

• interaction with audience (who are they playing for?)
• relationship with audience, both as individuals and as an ensemble
• visual communication (do they use visual elements - image, movement - to communicate?)
• relationship between communication, material and technique (do these elements support (work together/in sympathy) or undermine (create conflicting/contradictory messages) the overall impact of the performance)

Clearly, all the above elements may be present in any ensemble-based musical performance to a lesser or greater extent. The five issues highlighted at the beginning of this section - ubiquity, musical diversity, importance of non-musical elements, team production, and what might be termed 'aesthetic flux' - make the assessment of popular music performance even more complex. In the face of such complexity, it would seem appropriate to involve students in assessment procedures as much as possible. Peer group assessment is particularly suitable and often highly successful in this area. It also has an added education function in encouraging students to understand and address the many diverse elements involved in musical performance outlined above. Similarly, one might envisage an assessment process involving some level of student choice about which of the above elements are to be assessed in any given performance. Here, students would choose those assessment criteria which they felt reflect the most important characteristics of their performance. Such a procedure has the advantage of encouraging students to clearly articulate their aims. However, whichever assessment procedure is implemented, assessors should ensure that they have addressed the following basic questions:

1. What is the function of the assessment?
2. Is it appropriate?
3. Is it fair?
4. Is it feasible?
5. Is it based on convincing educational premises?
6. Is it clear and well articulated?

Finally, assessors should be clear that any system of assessment is open to refinement or change. The design of an assessment process is but the first stage, and its implementation may well reveal difficulties or deficiencies. Clearly, if these are not addressed students and teachers will be ignoring a valuable and important educational opportunity.