ConcertReviewguidelines_video_LSC.pdf

MUSI 1306: CONCERT REVIEW GUIDELINES – VIDEO CONCERT

1. Watch and listen to the concert on video. Be an active listener (vs. passively listening).

2. Analyze the performance (musical elements), program pieces, performers & venue.

3. Write a report. If it helps, think of it as taking on the role of music critic/observer.

Basic Guidelines:

• Write a 2-3 page paper (substance trumps length) analyzing the event.

• Submit documents to “Concert Review” dropbox on D2L. NO LATE PAPERS ACCEPTED.

• Check syllabus & D2L for due dates.

• See rubric for grading details (p.2); see paper formatting guidelines in D2L>General Information.

WHAT DO I WRITE?

Introductory paragraph:

• Briefly describe the event (type of music, type of ensemble, date, time, location, purpose, etc.). In

the opening sentences or even in the title, you might summarize the general experience. Avoid

naming all of the titles of compositions in this paragraph.

Questions to address in the body of the review: (you DO NOT have to write about them in this )

• What about this experience was new or different for you?

• What impressed you about this concert experience and why?

• Which selection appealed to you the most? Explain what it was about the music/performance

that made it stand out. Be specific – pitch, rhythm, intonation, blend, balance, etc.

• If there was a selection that you did not enjoy, why didn’t you enjoy it? Be specific about the

music!

• What was your opinion about the musical performance & the group’s presentation of the music?

How did the audience respond? How well did the performers work together?

• Your conclusion should summarize your overall impression of the concert.

Above all, review the musical elements of the performance. Reports which include analysis of musical

elements and the above criteria will be given full credit.

Conclusion:

• Summarize overall impression of the concert; give reader reason for going (or not going) to the

next concert. Offer suggestions of improvement or note aspects done well.

Concert review style suggestions that will make your review more professional:

• Avoid the use of the word “song” when you may really intend the word “piece” or “composition”.

• Name the title when you’re talking about a composition and put its name in italics.

• Here is an example of an efficient way to name the composer and title of a composition:

o “Mr. Smith’s composition Voices Rock effectively employs an offbeat combination of witty

lyrics, lush harmonies, piano, and African instruments.”

• If you comment on specific people (i.e. the conductor or soloists) give their names for clarity.

• Read other professional concert reviews. You might get a few good ideas about what is

appropriate in terms of style and content.

CONCERT REVIEW RUBRIC:

CATEGORY 0-1 2-3 4 5

Formatting
(-.5 for every

infraction)

Introduction

Introduction paragraph
is missing title, venue,
and date of the
concert. Name of
musicians/ ensembles/
conductors are
missing. Overall intro
to concert setting is
missing

Introduction paragraph
includes one of the
following: title, venue,
and date of the
concert. Name of
Musicians/ ensembles/
conductors are
missing. Overall intro
to concert setting is
vague

Introduction paragraph
includes two of the
following: title, venue,
and date of the concert.
Name of Musicians/
ensembles/ conductors
may be included. Overall
intro to concert setting is
limited.

Introduction paragraph
includes title, venue, and
date of the concert.
Name of Musicians/
ensembles/ conductors
are included. Overall
intro to concert setting is
included.

Body:
Description

Few or no musical
examples or
descriptions. Details
are vague. Pieces are
listed but not
described. Discussion
of reaction to pieces is
missing.

Limited discussions of
a few pieces are
included. Title of a few
pieces and composers
are listed.

Some discussion of
music examples and
descriptions; Title of
some pieces and
composers are listed
Discussion of reaction to
some pieces are
included.

Many detailed musical
descriptions and
examples to show, not
tell. Brief discussions of
most pieces included.
Title of each piece and
composer is listed
Discussion of reaction to
each piece is included.

Body:
Evaluation

Evaluation of concert
is missing. Audience
response is not
mentioned and the
overall judgment of the
concert is listed.

Evaluation of concert
is limited. Audience
response is not
mentioned and the
overall judgment of the
concert is listed.

Evaluation of concert
uses facts or reactions to
the pieces as support.
Audience response is
mentioned and the
overall judgment of the
concert is listed.

Evaluation of concert is
reflective and uses facts
or reactions to the pieces
as support. Audience
response is mentioned
and the overall judgment
of the concert is listed
and discussed.

Conclusion

Conclusion is missing
or just one sentence.

The impression of the
concert is summarized
in less than three
sentences. Ending is
vague or leaves the
reader wanting more
information.

The impression of the
concert is summarized in
three sentences.

The impression of the
concert is summarized in
more than three
sentences. Analysis
leaves the reader with a
feeling of completion and
sense of understanding
of event.

Grammar/Punct.
(-.5 for every

infraction)

Supplementary
Content

No supplementary
documents submitted

One requested
document submitted
(program, ticket stub or
photo)

Two requested
documents submitted
(program, ticket stub or
photo)

Copy of program, concert
ticket and attendee
(selfie) submitted with
report

See formatting guidelines on D2L>General Information>Formatting Guidelines