Some useful highlights
from the full report
MUSIC VIDEOS:
"There were a few truly outstanding music videos, as always, but in general many moderators
were a little disappointed with the submissions for this brief; as one moderator put it, ‘some of
the music promos bring out clichéd products’.
However, some moderators noted that in the
Music Videos there was an i
ncrease in performance and less dependence on narrative, with
almost all candidates demonstrating the ability to lip synch and shoot a variety of set ups to
cover the performance.
Some very impressive music videos were seen which demonstrated a
clear understanding of the conventions of the form, with candidates exploring a range of genres
and forms. A number of videos were more conceptual this session. Some videos captured their
respective generic tones very well (a ska-based track seen by one moderator was particularly
effective in its use of cameras attached to the instruments themselves, including a trombonecam).
Less successful music videos tended to demonstrate errors which have been outlined in
previous reports: over-long takes, poor synching, editing which did not match the rhythm of the
song, content which did not match generic expectation, repetitive structure or a lack of thought in
terms of mise-en-scene, weak lighting etc.
In general, these issues had been reflected in the
comments and marking, although some work was over-rewarded. And as one moderator
summed up for many, we saw: ‘too many videos that show a happy couple, one of them finds
out the other is unfaithful, then they split up…. Break up usually shown on a sofa.’ It is also
advised that candidates ‘avoid videos from out of the window of a car’ – especially shooting
scenes at night."
EVALUATIONS
This element frequently seems to be rushed by candidates, they are advised to timetable sufficient time for this process.
Question 1; there was a large number of candidates who only addressed their main
task production, with no mention of ancillary texts; other candidates didn't reference existing
media products in their response to Q1 - just outlining general genre conventions.
Question 3 - responses were often limited to evidence of audience research rather
than a discussion of the findings and how that impacted on their production; candidates need to
conduct more detailed feedback and then evaluate what has been learnt from this, not just
describe the results.
Question 4 some very detailed responses which covered not only the technologies used but the processes
candidates had gone through to use them. The best answers linked clearly to research, planning
and production, with detailed reflection and consideration. The weakest responses were, once
again simply lists of technologies used with little or no analysis or discussion.
Creative use of digital technology in the presentation of responses continues to be a weakness
with many centres, though some have really tackled the issue of presentation of evaluations
well, with candidates using a different method for each of their four responses. The best
evaluations utilised more than one method in each response. It was disappointing to see a large
number of evaluations presented simply as unillustrated essays either directly on to the blog,
Word documents or as brief text-based PowerPoint presentation; none of these make sufficient
use of ICT
‘Documentary ‘making-of’ style videos
are always a delight and usually communicate candidates’ ability so much more effectively than
text ever could’; i
n fact, a combination of director’s commentaries, Prezis, podcasts and
comprehensively-illustrated and hyperlinked blog posts worked well.
Some
candidates presented video responses that were 20 minutes long, which demonstrated their
engagement but which were very difficult to moderate - a well-focused, well-illustrated 5-minute
response should be long enough. Also, it is vital that when there are group presentations,
candidates either introduce themselves or are captioned, so moderators can identify them and
their respective contributions.
