Supplementary
The supplementary rubric below is to be applied where relevant, according to the academic judgement of the examiners. Examples include:
- Lecture recitals
- Original music: improvisation/devising/composition in performance
- Vocal performance: roles, role study, acting scenes
- Studio recording, composer/performer/engineer collaborations, negotiated projects
- Independent projects involving research, documentation, and performance
| Research | Original music | Acting and physical performance | Artistic collaboration | Editorial collaboration | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Exceptional: A1-2 | Original in its synthesis and an identifiable contribution to scholarship in the field | Innovative, ambitious and securely founded work that strongly projects an individual creative voice | A masterful performance, fully utilising the resources of voice and movement. | A seamless collaborative approach; fully interdisciplinary | Ownership of and engagement in all aspects of the recording and editing process: exceptional curatorship between performer and engineer |
| Excellent: A3-5 | A thorough command of the research area providing insights into complex issues | Boldly original, creative and intelligent work drawing on a well-founded practical and theoretical perspective | A strong characterisation, displaying detailed, effective and imaginative voice and movement choices. Highly articulate, fresh and spontaneous. | Generous, imaginative, decisive and original contribution; sensitive collaboration with other disciplines | Demonstrating informed and well-considered choices of edit points and sound quality throughout, with due reference to other recordings in the field as appropriate |
| Very Good: B1-3 | A deep understanding of the research area with evidence of originality in a clearly focussed argument, supported by detailed reference to appropriate scholarship | Creative, original, and intelligent work, securely rooted in practice and theory | Confident projection of character, with secure and effective voice and movement choices. Articulate, imaginative, engaging. | Active, co-operative, sustained contribution; openness in collaboration with other disciplines | Demonstrating edit points and decisions on sound quality that have made a significant contribution to the effectiveness of the recordings. |
| Good: C1-3 | A clear understanding of the research area with evidence of independent thinking rooted in appropriate scholarship | Imaginative work with some originality, supported by a practical and theoretical understanding | Secure characterisation enacted through effective voice and movement choices. Consistent and believable, displaying some imagination. | A clear contribution; co-operative relationship maintained with other disciplines | The performer’s artistic intent is consistently reflected throughout studio recordings. |
| Satisfactory: D1-3 | An understanding of the research area, with insights mostly drawn from existing scholarship | Evidence of originality, drawing on practical experience and basic principles | Some sense of character, with evidence of considered choices in voice and movement. Mainly consistent focus. | An identifiable contribution, minimal interaction with other disciplines | The performer’s artistic intent is clearly reflected in studio recordings, though not without some shortcomings |
| Unsatisfactory: E1-2 | Limited insight into research area and lack of awareness of existing scholarship | Limited evidence of originality and lack of insight into basic principles | Inconsistent characterisation, with poor use of voice and movement. Insecure, lacking focus and conviction. | Unsatisfactory interaction with little contribution | Limited or unsatisfactory evidence of the performer’s artistic intent reflected in studio recordings |