Scholarship

This must include:

(a) A video recording of up to 15 minutes of the you performing music from one or two of the following options:

• performance as a featured soloist of a significant work or programme of works

• group performance

• performance on a second instrument.

If available, a copy of the score of the works performed should be supplied with the recording.

The performance must:

• be a continuous and unedited recording made at a particular performance event

• be no more than 15 minutes in duration (including pauses between items)

• take place in front of an audience

• be recorded by a stationary camera, and the sound recording should be of the highest-possible fidelity.

Note: The maximum duration of the performance is set at 15 minutes, as this is considered to be sufficient time for a candidate to demonstrate their fulfilment of the requirements for Scholarship. A performance that exceeds this time limit by a few seconds will not be penalised, but the marker will not watch the remainder of a performance that significantly exceeds this time.

(b) A critical reflective analysis of the work(s) that may involve, but is not limited to, discussion of:

• choice of repertoire

• programming decisions

• how characteristics of the music were considered in preparing the performance (e.g. rhythmic features, tonality, tempo, dynamics)

• how stylistic features of the music were considered in preparing the performance (e.g. ornamentation in Baroque music, technological effects in rock, improvisation in jazz, cultural practices)

• how technical issues were considered in preparing the performance (e.g. bowing, picking, fingering, breathing, stance, diction, language, articulation)

• how musicianship issues were considered in preparing the performance (e.g. balance and voice-leading).

This must include:

(a) The score and audio recording of a significant work or a selection of shorter works  you have composed.

The recording:

• may comprise any combination of live performance or computer realisation of the work(s) (i.e. inclusion of a live performance is not mandatory)

• must be no more than 15 minutes in duration

• may include one arrangement or re-composition (not more than 5 minutes in duration).

(b) A critical reflective analysis of the work(s) that may involve, but is not limited to, discussion of:

• choice of instrumentation

• choice of texts

• how musical ideas were developed and structured

• issues related to notation

• how technical demands of realisation of the music in performance music were considered (e.g. bowing, fingering, breathing, language, articulation, conducting a performance)

• how stylistic features were considered

• how the work is representative of the developing skills, style, and/or philosophy of the composer.

This must include:

(a) A comprehensive study, along with an annotated score, of a substantial musical work. This may be in the form of an essay of no longer than 3000 words, or a video seminar (no longer than 15 minutes in duration), and must include:

• an examination of FIVE musical elements deemed by the candidate to be most significant

• a critical discussion outlining the musical contribution of each element in relation to the success and/or effectiveness of the work.

(b) A critical reflective analysis of the work, which may involve, but is not limited to, discussion of:

• the extent to which the musical elements are typical of the period in which the work was written

• the place of the work in the composer’s output

• the place of the work in the development of the genre

• implications of this work on future composers and their compositions

• a personal reflection on the work.

General commentary

Scholarship music in 2024 was consistent with other years, with the one exception being the use of

AI generated material in the critical reflection being seen for the first time. This is unacceptable and

NZQA requires teachers / schools to validate and attest to the originality and authenticity of a

candidate’s submission.

Candidates do not need to read their NSN out loud before their introduction, nor should they state

their name. this can lead to unnecessary hesitation and nerves making the start of the performance

appear unnatural. A file name that is clearly labelled with the NSN is all that is required.

The camera angle is critical to ensure the whole performer can be seen, especially in instances

where their technique needs to be observed (e.g., pedalling on the piano). Videos should be set to

one fixed camera only – zooming in and out on a performer can mean the candidate loses

opportunities to demonstrate their communication (e.g., hand gestures, communication with their

accompanist). Accompanists (if applicable) should always be visible to allow the candidate’s

communication with them to be seen.

For videos submitted for portfolios, it is important to ensure recordings are started at the correct

moment. They must not include unnecessary dialogue between performers and their teachers, the

audience, or the accompanist before the performance begins or after it ends. The candidate’s

introduction must be captured in full. The recording should not end until the performance has finished

completely (e.g. bowed to the audience, acknowledged their accompanist) as a performance is

judged from start to finish, including these aspects (just as any performance recital would be in a live

setting). Markers want to see the performer acknowledge the audience and the accompanist if

applicable.

Musical examples used in the critical reflection should have clefs and time signatures. Examples cut

and pasted from scores without clefs and metre markings become less meaningful.

Authenticity Statements need to be signed by the school - some candidates did not submit these at

all.

Scores for performance portfolios need to be supplied.

Report on performance standard

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship with Outstanding Performance commonly:

• submitted a performance portfolio that was prepared to specifically meet the requirements for the

scholarship assessment – a carefully planned and authentic performance in front of an audience

with appropriate stage etiquette (introduction of their pieces, engagement with the audience,

strong communication with their accompanist and / or other performers (where applicable))

• performed a repertoire that was varied and demonstrated a highly advanced level of technical

ability and musical awareness / understanding of the works

• demonstrated a consistently high level of communication throughout the whole performance

Page 1 of 3 Assessment Report – New Zealand Scholarship Music 2024• demonstrated a high level of musicality in their interpretations of the pieces - expressive and

mature playing that was highly musical; not just technically accurate

• provided a composition portfolio that was well presented and carefully chosen to meet the

guidelines of the scholarship criteria

• submitted compositions that were highly creative, well structured, and had instrumentation

carefully considered

• presented thematic composition material that was original, well developed, and demonstrated

exceptional quality in style

• provided recordings of the works composed (both visual scores and recordings) that

demonstrated an exceptional level of quality

• provided a critical analysis that was insightful, highly reflective, and analysed the whole process

(i.e., from planning to performance / final completed work) as well as discussing future steps

• demonstrated the ability to support their writing with references to a wider body of knowledge

(e.g., other performances, literature)

• included highly relevant annotations and links made to the score(s) in the reflection

• exhibited writing of exceptional quality by effectively utilising appropriate terminology, with well-

informed conclusions and insights. Overall the written communication of their response was at a

consistently high level throughout.

Candidates who were awarded Scholarship commonly:

• presented a well-prepared performance that showcased advanced technical skills and

understanding of their chosen works throughout the entire performance

• displayed a consistently high level of communication by providing a succinct and confident

introduction at the beginning of the performance plus clearly evident communication with the

audience (regardless of its size) and with the accompanist and / or other performers (where

applicable), which was maintained throughout

• submitted a composition portfolio which gave clear evidence of originality and comprehensive

understanding of elements, characteristics, and performance techniques. The technical demands

and capabilities of the instruments chosen were well understood. Visual representation of the

works was highly accurate, applicable to the genre, and very detailed. Recordings of the work(s)

were of high quality.

• submitted a critical reflection that was reflective, original, and made relevant links to their specific

portfolio material and external sources throughout

• effectively and convincingly communicated a written response that was unique and linked strongly

to their specific portfolio material

• included well-chosen and applicable annotations

• submitted a complete portfolio that was comprehensive and insightful.

Candidates who were not awarded Scholarship commonly:

• submitted a portfolio that did not sufficiently meet the specified guidelines, e.g., a performance

portfolio that was only 8 minutes long (essentially only half a portfolio)

• submitted a portfolio that did not meet the criteria as outlined in the assessment specifications

(e.g., performance video was edited and not one recording made specifically for NCEA

Scholarship music, the compositions submitted were collaborative works instead of just their own

work, elements of the musicology portfolio were not completed as per the guidelines provided)

• wrote a commentary that described rather than reflected on / analysed their works for their critical

reflection

• discussed (often at length) aspects of their musical background and achievements as a performer

/ composer / musician that were not relevant nor required for a critical analysis

Page 2 of 3 Assessment Report – New Zealand Scholarship Music 2024• presented a critical reflection that was not substantial, falling well short of the 3,000 word limit with

minimal evidence, a lack of detail relevant to their chosen portfolio material, and / or few to no

sources used and referenced correctly

• presented a critical reflection that lacked originality and drew on structural elements and / or

wording from exemplars

• showed evidence of using AI-generated material.