Concert Review Rubric By The Appropriate Deadlines See Cours
Concert Review Rubricby The Appropriate Deadlines See Course Syllabus
Evaluate concert reviews based on criteria including performer identification, context, musical description, writer’s opinion, length, structure, writing mechanics, understanding of listening planes, use of course terminology, and inclusion of a selfie and program scan. Submissions are assessed with specific point allocations for each category, with expectations for detailed descriptions and critical analysis aligned with academic standards.
Paper For Above instruction
The assignment requires writing a comprehensive concert review that integrates detailed observations, contextual background, musical analysis, and personal reflection within a structured, scholarly format. This review must include references to all performers, contextualize the performance's location and purpose, and employ precise musical terminology. The critique should demonstrate an understanding of the three planes of listening—sensory, structural, and expressive—while adopting an appropriate academic tone and style consistent with Turabian formatting. Additionally, the review must contain a photograph of the reviewer and a scan of the concert program, ensuring proper documentation.
To craft a high-quality review, the writer should first introduce the concert’s context—detailing the venue, date, and reason for the event. Next, an analytical section should describe the performance’s musical elements, including instrumentation, repertoire, ensemble type, and stylistic features, supported by terminology discussed in class. This section ought to be rich in concrete details, quotations, and critical insights that develop the musical analysis.
The core of the review involves a critical evaluation of the concert, highlighting specific pieces that resonated with the reviewer and articulating reasons for preferences or dislikes. The writer should incorporate insights from the three planes of listening—focusing on the sensory experience, structural elements, and emotional or expressive qualities—demonstrating a nuanced understanding of musical reception. The personal opinion must be clearly stated and substantiated by evidence and analysis.
The length of the review should be between 400 and 600 words, ensuring an in-depth examination without unnecessary verbosity. The paper should follow a formal structure with an introduction, detailed analysis, personal critique, and conclusion. Proper grammar, mechanics, and style are essential, with meticulous proofreading to avoid errors that could diminish clarity.
Supporting sources should be limited to class materials unless additional scholarly or reputable resources are used to strengthen arguments. All references, quotations, and paraphrases must be properly footnoted and formatted according to Turabian style. The final submission must include a title page, table of contents, and bibliography, and should be uploaded as a Microsoft Word document before the Monday deadline of Week 7 via the designated SafeAssign link to ensure originality and proper attribution. Failure to include the selfie and scan of the program will result in penalties, and plagiarism will be strictly penalized as per academic integrity policies.