Balancing a composition project against performance demands
A student is completing a Performance or Composition project worth 25%. He has composed a 4-minute work for string quartet and wants to add a fifth instrument (bass clarinet) in Week 6 of a 10-week block, arguing it will 'deepen the texture'. His draft score is 70% complete; the bass clarinet part would need to be written from scratch, rehearsed, and recorded. His ensemble has one rehearsal slot per fortnight and the bass clarinetist is available only in Weeks 8-9. He also has a solo performance assessment in the same fortnight. The project requires a recorded realisation plus a written statement of compositional intent.
1. Should the student add the bass clarinet? Justify using project-management and musical criteria.
Read the worked answer
The default answer is no, or only in a reduced form, because the addition creates a scheduling collision that threatens the assessment's core evidence (a recorded realisation).
Criteria to weigh:
- Time: Writing a new part from scratch in Weeks 6-7, with the player available only Weeks 8-9, leaves no slack for revision after hearing it.
- Rehearsal capacity: One slot per fortnight means at most two rehearsals with the new player, insufficient to settle balance and intonation.
- Competing demand: The solo assessment in the same fortnight competes for practice time and attention.
- Musical gain: 'Deeper texture' is a vague justification; the student must show what the bass clarinet adds that the existing quartet cannot.
A defensible compromise is to add the instrument only if the part can be drafted by Week 7 and the recording date is fixed. Otherwise the stronger choice is to finish the quartet, use the freed time to refine the realisation, and articulate the textural intent in the statement.
2. How should the student's written statement of compositional intent handle the decision either way?
Read the worked answer
The statement should explain the choice as a compositional decision, not an apology. If the bass clarinet is dropped, the statement can document the intended texture, why the quartet voicing achieves it, and what was tested and rejected. That demonstrates evaluative thinking, which is what the criterion rewards.
If the instrument is added, the statement must justify the added colour with specific musical reasoning (register, timbre blend, contrapuntal role) and acknowledge the rehearsal constraint honestly. In both cases the statement should connect intent to audible outcomes in the recording, so a marker can hear the claim. Vague phrases like 'richer sound' should be replaced with reference to specific passages, dynamics, and voicing. The statement is evidence of process, so it should read as a reasoned account, not a diary.