Concert Analysis

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 order)

• 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