The Ensemble That Counts the Candidate's Marks
A performance candidate is submitting an ensemble item: a string quartet movement in which she plays second violin. The quartet has rehearsed for ten weeks but two members are unreliable, and in the final rehearsal the ensemble is not together in the development section. The candidate's teacher suggests recording the quartet with two hired replacement players for the submission, arguing that the candidate's own part will be identical. The syllabus requires the candidate's own performance to be assessable and the submission to represent the candidate's work. The candidate is uneasy but wants the best mark.
1. Should the candidate record with hired players? Analyse the ethical and assessment issues.
Read the worked answer
This is an integrity question dressed as a logistics question, and the answer should be reasoned from what the submission is for.
The case for hiring: The candidate's own part would be identical; the weak links are other people's contributions, and it seems unfair that her mark suffers for their unreliability. Ensemble performance is partly a matter of individual contribution.
The case against, which is decisive:
- The submission must represent the candidate's work. An ensemble performance is a collaborative achievement. Replacing half the ensemble produces a recording that is not the work of the group being assessed, and if the marker does not know, the submission is misleading. If the marker does know, the recording no longer evidences the candidate's ensemble skills - only her ability to play alongside strangers.
- Ensemble skill is part of the criteria. Listening, balancing, leading and following, and recovering from instability are precisely what ensemble assessment rewards. A recording with hired professionals removes the evidence of those skills, including the candidate's ability to hold an unstable ensemble together.
- The candidate's unease is data. She has correctly identified that the proposal feels like misrepresentation. That instinct should be taken seriously, not overridden for marks.
Verdict: Do not substitute players for the assessed submission. The legitimate options are to rehearse the problem passage intensively, to re-record with the actual quartet and address the development section in the portfolio, or - if the syllabus permits - to change the ensemble item to one the group can deliver reliably.
2. If the quartet cannot fix the development section in time, what are the legitimate alternatives, and how should the candidate document them?
Read the worked answer
Legitimate alternatives, in order of preference:
- Targeted remediation. Isolate the development section and rehearse it slowly, then in context, with a fixed tempo and clear cues. Ten weeks of rehearsal with a known weak passage suggests the group has been running the movement rather than fixing it; a week of section work may resolve it.
- Re-record with the real quartet, multiple takes. A single take is not required. Choose the best complete take, not a spliced one, unless splicing is permitted - and if it is, document it.
- Change the item. If the syllabus allows, substitute an ensemble work the group can perform securely. A slightly less ambitious work performed well scores better than an ambitious one performed unstably.
- Change the assessment focus. If the syllabus permits an accompanied or smaller-ensemble item, the candidate may be able to submit a format where she has more control.
Documentation: Whatever is chosen, the portfolio should record honestly what happened: the instability, what was done about it, and what the candidate learned about ensemble leadership. A marker reading an honest account of a problem and its management will credit the reflection; a marker discovering an undisclosed substitution will not.
The judgement call: The candidate's mark should reflect her ensemble skills, including her response to an unreliable ensemble. That is assessable and legitimate. A polished recording made with different players is neither.