When One Player's Part Is Rewritten
A SACE Stage 2 ensemble of four includes a saxophonist who broke a finger and cannot play for six weeks. The summative performance is in eight weeks. The saxophonist's written part carries the main melodic line in two of three works. The group proposes three options: transpose the saxophone line to the clarinet, who is already busy; simplify the line so the saxophonist can play it with a splint; or add a fifth player, a guitarist from another class, to cover the melody. The teacher warns that the assessment must reflect each student's own contribution and that a ringer who is stronger than the group could distort the balance. The guitarist is available for only four of the remaining sixteen rehearsals. The group must choose and justify.
1. Evaluate the three options and recommend one, justifying it in terms of fair assessment of each member's contribution.
Read the worked answer
The recommendation should weigh fairness and feasibility, not just sound.
Option A, transpose to clarinet:
- Keeps the group at four assessed members and preserves the melody.
- But the clarinettist becomes overloaded, and their own part may suffer, which unfairly depresses one student's result.
- Feasible if the clarinet part is genuinely light in those passages; otherwise it shifts the problem.
Option B, simplify for the splinted saxophonist:
- Preserves the assessed player's participation and keeps the group intact.
- Simplification is legitimate if it stays musically coherent; the assessment judges what is performed, not the original score.
- Risk: the melody thins, so the group must rebalance accompanying parts to compensate.
Option C, add the guitarist:
- Available for only four of sixteen rehearsals, so integration is unlikely.
- A stronger outside player can dominate the texture and make the assessed members' contributions harder to hear, which is a fairness problem.
- A non-assessed player also complicates how the ensemble's cohesion is judged.
Recommendation: Option B, with a small amount of Option A where the clarinet has rests. This keeps all four assessed players audible and fairly judged.
2. The group chooses Option B. Explain what the teacher must document about the modification and how it should affect the final judgement.
Read the worked answer
Documentation should make the modification transparent and verifiable.
What to document:
- The injury, its date, and the expected recovery window, so the reason for change is clear.
- The original saxophone line and the simplified version, side by side.
- The date the modification was adopted and the ensemble's rationale.
- Which player covers any material removed from the saxophone part.
Effect on judgement:
- The saxophonist is judged on the part actually performed, not penalised for the injury.
- The simplification must not be treated as a reduction in ambition; the criteria concern ensemble outcomes.
- If the simplification leaves a gap in the texture, that is a balance issue the whole group shares, not solely the saxophonist's fault.
- The comment should note the modification so a moderator understands why the performed version differs from the score.
3. In the final performance the simplified melody is secure but the texture sounds thin in the second work. Explain how the teacher should weigh this and what evidence supports the judgement.
Read the worked answer
Thin texture is a real ensemble outcome, but its cause and persistence determine its weight.
Weighing it:
- The thinning stems from a documented, justified modification, not from poor preparation. That context belongs in the comment.
- The question is whether the group compensated: did the remaining players adjust dynamics and voicing to fill the space? If they did, the ensemble showed adaptive control, which is a strength.
- If they did not, and the thinness persisted across the work, it is a balance weakness shared by the group.
Evidence:
- The recorded performance, with timestamps for the thin passages.
- Rehearsal notes showing when the compensation was discussed and whether it was tried.
- The side-by-side part comparison, showing what was removed.
- A comparison with the first work, where the texture was full, to show the issue is local.
Conclusion: describe the thinness accurately, credit any compensation, and avoid letting one documented consequence outweigh the group's secure melodic work.