The Recording That Must Stand In for the Performance
A SACE Stage 2 ensemble's summative performance is recorded for external moderation. The recording is made on a single phone placed at the back of the hall. The performance is strong, but the phone picks up audience noise, the piano sounds distant, and the balance between the drummer and the guitarist is unclear. The recording also stops for 40 seconds between the second and third works because the phone's storage warning interrupted it. The ensemble's teacher believes the performance merits a high result and worries the recording will not support it. The school has one week before the moderation upload deadline and no opportunity to reconvene all six players. The teacher must decide what to submit and how to explain the recording's limitations.
1. Explain the risk the recording poses to the ensemble's result and what the teacher should do before the deadline.
Read the worked answer
The recording is the moderator's only access to the performance, so its quality is a substantive risk, not a technicality.
Risks:
- Poor balance capture means the moderator may hear an unbalanced ensemble that was actually balanced in the room.
- Audience noise obscures entries and dynamic shaping, which are assessed.
- The 40-second gap breaks the continuity of the program, making it hard to judge stamina and flow across works.
Actions before the deadline:
- Check whether any other recording exists: a parent's phone, a second device, or the school's camera. Even a partial second source can corroborate balance.
- If a better source exists, submit it as the primary recording and note the phone recording as supplementary.
- If not, submit the phone recording with a concise written note describing the microphone position, the audience noise and the storage interruption, so the moderator can interpret what they hear.
- Do not re-record with a partial group and present it as the ensemble performance; that would misrepresent the assessed event.
Principle: disclose limitations, never disguise them.
2. The teacher considers asking the four available players to re-record the program in a quiet room and submitting that instead. Evaluate this option.
Read the worked answer
This option should be rejected, though the reasoning is worth setting out.
Why it is tempting: a quiet room and a closer microphone would produce a cleaner, more flattering recording.
Why it is wrong:
- The assessed event is the ensemble performance of six players. A four-player re-recording is a different performance by a different ensemble.
- Submitting it as the summative recording misrepresents the assessed event, which is a breach of assessment integrity regardless of intent.
- The missing players would have no recorded contribution, which is unfair to them and to the group's balance.
Legitimate alternatives:
- Submit the original recording with a disclosure note.
- If school policy permits a re-performance for valid reasons, seek approval first and record the full ensemble, disclosing why.
- Provide corroborating evidence such as rehearsal recordings and the teacher's observation notes, clearly labelled as supplementary and not as the assessed performance.
Conclusion: the integrity of the submission outweighs the cosmetic gain.
3. The teacher submits the original recording with a disclosure note. Explain what the note should contain and how the teacher should frame the ensemble's result so the moderator can judge fairly.
Read the worked answer
The note should inform interpretation without arguing for a mark.
Contents of the note:
- Recording conditions: single phone, rear-of-hall position, audience present.
- Known limitations: distant piano, unclear drum-guitar balance, 40-second storage interruption between works two and three.
- What was heard in the room: the ensemble was balanced, and the interruption was technical, not a break in playing.
- Any supplementary evidence supplied and its status.
Framing the result:
- Describe the performance against the criteria with specific, verifiable observations, such as secure entries after the second work and controlled dynamic shaping.
- Point to timestamps where the recording supports the comment, so the moderator can check.
- Acknowledge where the recording cannot confirm a claim, rather than asserting it.
- Avoid language that pressures the moderator or predicts a grade.
Principle: the note should let a moderator who was not present reach an informed judgement, and should be honest where the evidence is weak.