First ever post....please be gentle!

I'm thinking of doing my FRSM flute in June. I've read the regulations for the written submission, but was wondering if anyone here had some pointers. Unlike the LRSM, it doesn't seem to require "programme notes" as such, just 4500 words related to some or all of my programme. Would an essay comparing two of my pieces suffice? or should it be something much broader? Ideally I'd like to find some examples of successful FRSM submissions so I can see what I'm aiming for (no teacher to ask for advice). Any and all tips appreciated.

My working title for mine is
"How does the choice of language, the way words are set (or not as the case may be) affect the performer when preparing for a song recital.

The programme has two pieces that are vocalise in it. Large amounts of coloratura work. Is all 19th and 20th Century and with the exception of the Rachmaninov Vocalise all French or Spanish. Language can apply to rhythmic language, melodic language and harmonic language depending how it best illustrates each point as all aspects of language be it musical or poetic are relevant for the essay. There is a huge difference for the performer in preparing a vocalise to a song with words, and there are some fairly obvious comparisions between items in the programme to use for quotations.

If in doubt contact the ABRSM office.

Oh and good luck! There are some Fellows around here that may be able to give you the odd pointer. I have another one helping me out a bit.

I haven't done it, so can't offer specific advice, but remember that the FRSM give a credit for the dissertation module of the OU's MA in music, so it needs to be masters standard.

Hi Helen:

You can discuss topics with the syllabus principal (it was Dr. Nigel Scaife - not sure if it still is), but I believe it has to be something which illustrates performance aspects of part of your programme. Just comparing/contrasting two pieces won't have sufficient academic rigour. Mine was based on the "historical" interpretation of the Baroque organ works which were part of my recital programme.

I think if you want to take it in July, you are cutting it fine if you are going to get a topic agreed and written to the appropriate standard before the application closing date.

Thanks for the pointers everyone. I realise I'm going to have to put in some quick work over the next few weeks (ekkk! 5 weeks until application needs to be in). Wish I lived nearer a good library.

I was thinking about doing the set Bach Sonata, as that would be an easier preformance based essay to produce, but would prefer to put something new out there (possible basis for further Masters research...?) Additionally, if it's so open to interpretation, what if I get an examiner who doesn't like the way I play it? Wouldn't it be safer to do the Schubert as there's less room for error as he was so clear with his markings?

Also, does my title need to be approved by the Chief Examiner in advance?

I don't think it has to be, but it certainly helps to get their feedback avoid the case where you submit something which is not appropriate and will result in an automatic 'fail' of that part of the exam.

It doesn't have to be agreed per se, however I have contacted the board in order to check I was on the 'right lines' and set out a research brief.

Given the submission date is late April, I agree with MrB unless you are a speedy worker, you need to have the structure in place large swathes of analysis either done or the passages marked up and the methodology determined. Your book/periodical list intact, and be keeping a running bibliography.

I realised I could have written some dusty tome and had to make it relevant to the preparation of a performance. This is now modifying my approach and editing.

Would agree with previous posters that you might be cutting it a bit fine this piece of work although relatively short isnt a straight forward essay. It's got to be properly researched complete with bibliography, following academic writing principles. You need to show a depth of understanding of primary and secondary sources and an ability to make your own observations and deductions to come up with a new angle on the performance isues in your programme - not an easy thing on it's own!

My working title for my clarinet FRSM is "To what extent and how did the technical restrictions of the pre Boehm clarinet affect the works written for it in the time of Spohr"

I'll be looking at whether the music, musicians or the instrument development pushed the techniques needed and to what extent they were interlated, i'll need to be looking at lots of orginal sources and instruments to do this and it's likely to take months to work through a well reasoned coherent argument. It will be the submission that drives my entry date not my recital (which will be Martinu Sonatina, Brahms Sonata no 1 and Spohr Concerto no1) as i can already play it now.

Remember it costs ?600 for an FRSM entry - not something you want to pay for twice. Best check with the board to be sure your subject is suitable, and read the ABRSM "Music in Words" to get feel for the standard and style of writing required.

Thanks: I appreciate your feedback. It's clear that it's certainly not a night before the exam creation (like my LRSM....). I want to do this properly, so think it'd be right to put off the exam until later, when I've had time to properly research my submission.

having just re-read my previous post i might need to learn to spell or turn the spell checker on too!!!

Another thought.... if your written submission isn't acceptable, do they tell you you cannot continue and not to do the recital? or do they let you do the recital knowing before you play a note that you've failed the diploma already?

Wow! That sounds really interesting. I'm sure it will be fun to research.

The latter, I believe.

[/quote]
The latter, I believe.
[/quote]

The reason I say this is that when I did it, I got scant comment on my Written Submission, even though I had spent ages on it. When I enquired as to why the feedback amounted to about a sentence, I was told that if it had been unacceptable, there would have been a lot more detail on what needed looking at.

I guess it is like anything academic - if you submit an assignment which is below par, you don't get an early nod to let you off the rest of your modules until such time as you get that assignment up to scratch !

Why so surprised? To pass you need to pass each part separately, but if you fail you only need to retake the part you failed, with the passed parts carrying over. If they prevented you from taking the other parts once you have failed one that would not be possible. I have a friend (known to many on the forum) who started his Dip exam with the recital and fell apart with nerves, to the extent that a normally comfortable if not distinction level pass turned into a narrow fail. By the time he came to the quick study he had recovered to distinction standard, and the viva/notes were the same. As a result, his retake will concentrate on the recital only, in order to attempt distinction standard there and get a distinction overall. This would not have happened if he had been asked to leave after the recital.

I don't understand why this is surprising since one is allowed to retake each part of the exam separately.

No one wants your diet solutions. Go away.

(reported)

Thanks for the advice everyone. I feel I should explain the smilies, as I've obviously missed the mark with internet humour a little... My surprise was that my area rep lead me to believe that my written submission had to be accepted before I could continue, when in reality it seems it only had to be submitted for me to proceed to the practical element of the exam. Results to follow at a later date!

Thanks for the update helen. How are things progressing with the WS?

Meant to update on this. Thanks to you all for your help and advice. As you may have gathered, I did get my submission in on time. The examiner gave loads of helpful feedback. Many of my (commented on) faults could have been avoided if I'd given myself more time, and had someone else proof it. In the end I got 19/25, which I was pleased with, but know that if I'd organised my time better, would have been a higher mark.