The Score That Doesn't Match the Recording
A composition candidate submits a 6-minute work for string quartet plus fixed electronics. The submitted score is a clean Sibelius engraving. The submitted recording was made with sampled instruments and a DAW, and it differs from the score in three ways: (1) bars 45-60 have an added sustained bass note not in the score; (2) the tempo in the score is crotchet = 72 but the recording sits at about 84; (3) the electronics part is notated in the score as a single staff labelled 'tape' with no detail. The candidate says the recording is 'just a mock-up' and the score is 'the real piece'. The syllabus requires a score and/or recording that accurately represent the work.
1. Identify the problems and advise the candidate on how to make score and recording consistent before submission.
Read the worked answer
The core problem is that neither artefact, taken alone, is a complete and accurate representation of the work, and taken together they contradict each other. A marker comparing them will find three discrepancies, each of which undermines a different criterion.
Discrepancy 1 - added bass note (bars 45-60). This is a substantive compositional difference, not a rendering artefact. Either the note belongs in the piece (in which case the score is wrong and must be updated) or it was an improvisation in the DAW (in which case it should be removed from the recording or notated as an ossia). Silence on this point invites the marker to assume carelessness.
Discrepancy 2 - tempo 72 vs 84. A 17% tempo difference changes character, not just speed. The candidate must decide which tempo is the piece and make both artefacts agree. If 84 is preferred, the score's metronome mark is simply wrong.
Discrepancy 3 - the 'tape' staff. A single undetailed staff does not represent a fixed-media part. At minimum the score needs a cue sheet or a separate electronics chart specifying events, timings and levels; otherwise the electronics are unreproducible and effectively undocumented.
Advice: Choose one authoritative version, then regenerate the other from it. Update the score to match the intended recording (or re-render the recording to match the score), and add an electronics chart. 'It's just a mock-up' is not a defence, because the syllabus asks the artefacts to represent the work - a mock-up that differs from the score represents a different work.
2. The candidate argues that a live recording would be 'less accurate' than the sampled mock-up because the players would make mistakes. Assess this argument.
Read the worked answer
The argument confuses accuracy to the score with accuracy as representation of the work, and it deserves a careful answer rather than a dismissal.
Where the candidate is right: A sampled mock-up can render exactly the notes, dynamics and tempo requested, with no intonation or ensemble errors. As a demonstration of what the composer intended, it can be clearer than a shaky first read-through. If the syllabus permits mock-ups, a clean mock-up is legitimate evidence.
Where the argument fails:
- A live performance reveals whether the piece works - whether the phrasing is playable, whether the balance is realistic, whether the notation communicates. A mock-up that flatters an unplayable passage is less informative, not more.
- 'Accuracy' in the syllabus sense means the artefacts faithfully represent the composition, not that the performance is error-free. A live recording with a blemish still represents the piece; a mock-up that contradicts the score does not.
- The candidate's own mock-up already diverges from the score in three ways, so the claim of superior accuracy is not supported by the evidence.
Conclusion: The candidate may submit a mock-up if permitted, but must first make it agree with the score. If a live recording is feasible, it is preferable as evidence of the work's viability, and any errors can be addressed in the portfolio commentary rather than hidden.