Evaluating Music

Before proposing evaluation criteria for musification, we must shortly discuss the evaluation of music. In 2.5, we have defined music as organised sound which has been determined to be musical. We have also shown that some consider that music cannot or should not be evaluated, perhaps because of a romanticised view of composition as a genial act of inspiration rather a learned craft. Much of the skill of musical composition relies on learned techniques which must be honed and applied patiently; inspiration is only a part of the process. Consequently, many aspects of music can be evaluated with some objectivity. However, we can probably never ‘completely’ evaluate a piece of music because words are insufficient to fully encompass the feeling and meaning of music. Two excellent critics might disagree on a given piece, despite their shared knowledge of music. Furthermore, the physiological differences between individuals simply negate the possibility of a truly identical experience. Nevertheless, the need for evaluation frameworks for music exists and evaluation is possible.

7.2.1 Lack of contextualisation

The way most composers create – in isolation - means that they do not contextualise their work sufficiently and do not evaluate it comparatively. Landy describes this issue with a focus on electroacoustic music (1999, p. 63):

171

[I]ndividuals staking their claim to an idea, an approach or some such often without adequate contextualisation, but more importantly here without adequate or any feedback or consistent correlation, using methodologies that are often self-referential.

Landy refers to composers who integrate scientific methods in their work, for example. Most of the research and evaluation carried out by composers is based ‘action research’ or practice-as-research methodologies and happen ‘ad-hoc’ (Jordanous, 2012, p. 3). This can explain why they can lack contextualisation. Landy aims for more thorough scholarship; this thesis is a step towards creating a methodology and evaluation framework for the use of sonification in composition.

7.2.2 GCSE Assessment Criteria

To determine which parameters can be evaluated with some objectivity, it might be useful to look at the assessment criteria for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (GCSE)39_{. The Music examination includes a composition} element which consists of a composition to a brief and a free composition. Table 7.3 shows the criteria against which the pupils are assessed. We can see that they are mostly based on concepts found in Western Classical music, with a focus on harmony and form. The evaluation of such specific concepts in the context of musification research would be too restrictive as it would only allow for limited creative possibilities. In fact, most of the portfolio could not be judged through this lens. However, the GCSE assessment scheme demonstrates that some objective criteria exist while more subjective criteria can be assessed qualitatively, particularly in comparison to other pieces written to the same brief. This is why

39 _{GCSE examinations are used in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Pupils usually take them}

172

statistical evaluation of a number of musifications can be useful despite the subjective nature of music composition.

173

Tab. 7.3: Composition assessment grid for GCSE examinations of the AQA examination board (AQA, 2018, pp. 23-24 and pp. 42-48).

Requirement Instruction

Number of pieces ₂

Length of pieces Combined time of 3 minutes

Programme note 150 words: clearly informs the assessor of the

compositional intention, including the intended audience/ occasion. Students must also identify the types of musical element selected and provide details of any software and hardware used in their compositional process.

2 categories from which 4 elements must be chosen

Select and use 4

types of musical

elements from 2

categories

Rhythm, metre, texture,

melody, structure, form

Harmony, tonality,

timbre, dynamics,

phrasing, articulation

Rhythm, metre: change of

metre, compound time,

augmentation, diminution,

cross rhythm, syncopation,

dotted rhythms, triplets,

rubato, tempo change

Harmony, tonality:

perfect, plagal, imperfect

and interrupted

cadences, major and minor tonality, modal

tonality, diatonic harmony, inverted chords, modulation, 7th chords, dissonance, pedal or drone, chromatic harmony Texture, melody: homophonic texture,

polyphonic texture, scalic,

triadic conjunct and disjunct

movement, ornamentation,

ostinato or riff, improvisation, imitation, canon, antiphonal texture, blue notes, passing notes

Timbre, dynamics:

single instruments

and/or voices,

instrumental groupings and/or vocal groupings,

synthesised sounds,

computer-generated sounds, crescendo and

diminuendo, reverb,

tremolo, distortion,

vibrato, falsetto

Structure, form: rondo, arch

shape, theme and variations, minuet and trio, strophic, through composed, sonata, ground bass, popular song form, blues

Phrasing,

articulation: legato,

staccato, tenuto,

marcato, accent,

slurring, arco, pizzicato, tonguing

174 7.2.3 ‘Something to hold on to’ factor

Landy coins the term ‘something to hold on factor’ by which he describes ‘useful musical devices that support the listening experience’ (Landy, 2007, p. 23). When listening to a musical style they are unfamiliar with, listeners need ‘something to hold on to’ in the music, something which they can comprehend. He sums up the need for these ‘access tools’ as follows:

Reading postgraduate theses, programs, and liner notes, one tends to discover the formulae, often obscure and in most cases inaudible, that lead to the construction of the piece, or, one or more aspects that inspire a work, but which are, again, not necessarily to be discovered by listening. […] What is missing is the articulation of musical content and structuring devices that can be shared or discovered that would thus aid willing listeners in terms of accessing works. (Landy, 2007, p. 23)

Landy identifies a range of ‘access tools which can be used in electroacoustic music. This idea is useful in the field of musification too. As we have previously asked, if the listener does not hear and understand the sonification within the piece, what is the function of the musification? In fact, the sonification aspect of the musification might actually provide an access point for the novice listener. The incorporation of the ‘something to hold on to’ factor in the evaluation of musification will be further discussed in 7.3.

7.2.4 Musical Evaluation in Musification

Quantitative and qualitative evaluation of music is possible, up to a point. Evaluation criteria are often linked to musical styles and their associated rules, which makes it difficult to establish definitive criteria for musification as it describes a method rather than a musical genre or style. A more thorough discussion around the evaluation of music is beyond the scope of this project which focuses on musification as a methodology; the question of this evaluation

175

is raised but is not the main objective. The proposed criteria are an attempt to provide an answer to this question but we must be aware of their limitations due to the very nature of music.