Briefing on FHS 2019 ‘Igor Stravinsky and the Twentieth Century’ Jonathan Cross 1 May 2019

Examiners’ Report FHS 2012 18 candidates Classes: 6/9/3/0/0 (9/11/3/0) Mark range: 57-80 (57-77) Average mark: 66.84 (67.1) The best answers demonstrated thorough knowledge of a broad repertoire, engaged with key recent literature on Stravinsky, and moved beyond the issues raised in the lectures/seminars. The weaker answers tended to operate at a more descriptive level. Candidates are advised to read the questions carefully and answer what is being asked by the examiners, not just write the essay they want to write.

Grade Descriptors 80 + Must: provide a coherent, perceptive and original answer to the question Must: demonstrate original thought and impressive general knowledge of the field of study Must: show highly perceptive and pertinent use of primary and secondary sources Must: demonstrate analytical incisiveness and independent judgment formed from precise evaluation of the evidence Must: display flair and imagination Must: have a logically structured argument Must: have very few, if any, linguistic or factual errors

Grade Descriptors 70-79 Must: provide a coherent and perceptive answer to the question Must: demonstrate capacity for original thought and a good general knowledge of the field of study Must: make use of primary and secondary literature to support the ideas advanced Must: demonstrate strong analytical skills & an ability to form an independent judgement based on precise evaluation of the evidence Must: have a logically structured argument Must: have very few, if any, linguistic or factual errors Should: display flair & imagination

Grade Descriptors 60-69 Must: provide a clearly structured answer to the question Must: demonstrate understanding of the arguments discussed Must: make use of primary and/or secondary literature to support the ideas advanced Must: interpret the material presented in clear, considered and accurate fashion Should: show a breadth of knowledge, even if originality is lacking Should: contain few linguistic or factual errors

Grade Descriptors 50-59 Must: provide a mainly relevant answer to the question Must: have a reasonably (if not consistently) structured argument Should: show some awareness of relevant secondary literature May: include signs of confusion and/or factual errors May: lack analysis or independent judgement NB: essays failing properly to address the question set will display many of the qualities of the 60-69 bracket

How to answer a question … Read the question carefully. Recognising the ‘spin’ in any question is crucial. Take your time to consider each word in the question and think through its implications. Plan. This is crucial. You do have time. (Remember you have 50% more time to answer each question than a List A question.) Think of all the things that your answer might contain, and then narrow it down to focus on those most directly relevant to the question. A good essay is a well-structured essay. Argument. What are the key issues? What is your line of argument? Be sure this is pursued consistently though the essay. Why does one paragraph follow on logically from the one that preceded it? Can alternative positions be considered (even if you don’t agree with them)? Evidence. What evidence do you need to support your argument? Historical or contextual issues? Primary documents and source materials? (Remember when citing Stravinsky that it is rare for the words to be his and more likely those of a ghost-writer or exegete.) Works? You should certainly be familiar with the detail of a range of works across Stravinsky’s output (and not just those discussed in the lectures/seminars) to illustrate your argument. Don’t forget his contemporaries. Bibliography. You need to situate your argument within the context of scholarship. Transformative writings such as those by Taruskin and Walsh will be familiar to you, but also look at writers dealing with different aspects of Stravinsky’s work, aesthetic and context. Evaluation. Don’t be afraid to offer a view, so long as it is supported. Wild opinions are not helpful, but a well-articulated position independent of other scholarship can be valuable. You might even hazard this in the conclusion (so long as it stems in some way from what precedes it).

Sample question Discuss critically the notions of ‘machine music’ and the ‘mechanical’ in Stravinsky’s work. (You may, if you wish, focus on just one or two examples.)