If the student has made a reasonable effort, it should be possible to find something true, specific, and positive to say, even if it is only to notice that some element shows improvement from previous efforts. (See below if the student has not made a reasonable effort, but try to distinguish actual lack of effort from frustrated and ineffective efforts.) It should also always be possible to find something that needs more work; in the case of high-achieving students, this may mean challenging them to do things that most students at their age or level do not yet do. Like any other skill, critique improves with practice. Remember, specific critiques that suggest possible fixes are much more helpful than general statements of dissatisfaction. For example "The dotted rhythms sound like triplets" is much more helpful than "the rhythm is wrong;" and "The chord progression feels too repetitive and predictable" is more helpful than "I don't like the harmony." If you are trying to lead a group of less-experienced musicians in critiquing each other's performances, you may want to try using the attached checklist, or develop your own checklist to use as a note-taking sheet. I suggest that rather than sharing the checklist directly, the critic should use it as notes to help organize a more focused verbal or formal critique. The musician who is just learning how to critique may want to consider each of the following elements.
- Pitch - Is the student playing the correct pitches, in tune?
- Rhythm - Are all of the rhythms correct? Is the performance smooth and without hesitation? Does it convey a good sense of the meter, if there is one, or a sense of flowing freely, if there is not?
- Tempo - Does the piece work well at this tempo? Are any changes in tempo deliberate, appropriate, and effective, or are they accidental and distracting?
- Dynamics - Did the performance include all written dynamics and accents? Did it also include appropriate dynamics and accents even when they were not indicated (for example, phrasing dynamics and accents implied by the style of the piece)?
- Articulations - Were articulations correct, performed musically, with good technique, and with attention to the style of the piece?
- Tone quality - Is the student performing with a good sound in every part of the range? Is the timbre one that is considered appropriate for the instrument, the style, and the mood of the piece?
- Technique - Is the student using the accepted techniques (for example, for bowing or fingering) that make a musically-satisfying performance easier to produce?
- Musical style - What is "right" or "good" depends very much on the musical tradition to which a piece belongs. Specific approaches to tuning, articulations, and rhythm that are "right" in one piece may be "wrong" in another. Are all elements right for the style of this piece? Do they all work together to convincingly create the appropriate style? (This includes all of the above elements as well as any that are specific to the style, such as ornaments or improvisation.)
- Physical - Are posture, stance, instrument position, tension, breathing and other physical elements making a good performance easier or more difficult? Would they convey confidence and competence to an audience?
- Presentation - Do any other elements of the presentation have a positive or negative effect on an audience, for example facial expressions, or the placement of the written music if the piece is not memorized? When it is relevant, the student should also practice introducing the piece, dressing properly, and responding to applause.
- Ensemble elements - If this was a group performance, was the balance between parts good? Did group members stop and start together? Did they play together, producing clean, clear rhythms? Did they use the same stylistic elements, such as articulations and accents?
- Form - Is the form clear? Does it organize the piece aurally, make it more understandable, memorable, enjoyable, and compelling? Is there an appropriate balance between repetition and change? Are cadences believable and satisfying?
- Presentation - If written, is it notated clearly and correctly? Would a performer have any difficulty interpreting it? If recorded or performed, do the performance or production values allow the listener to enjoy the piece, or do they create distractions?
- Melodic Elements - Are melodic elements interesting, effective, pleasant, or compelling? Do they make effective use of phrasing, motivic construction, or counterpoint, as appropriate to the style and form of the piece? Does the voice-leading in each part make it easy or difficult to sing or play?
- Rhythm - Do the various rhythmic elements work well together? Do they fit the meter, the time signature, the style? Is there a good balance between simplicity and complexity?
- Harmony - Are harmonic elements used correctly within the chosen texture and style (for example, drone, tonal harmonic progression, traditional counterpoint, or dissonance) clear? Is the voicing effective?
- Instrumentation/Orchestration - Are timbre, technique and other capabilities of each instrument used effectively? Are range and other limitations considered, so that parts are not difficult to perform well? Are parts written so that the correct balance between leading and supporting parts is easy to achieve?
- Dynamics, Accents, and Articulation - Do these add interest to the piece? Are they appropriate to the style, genre, and instrumentation?
- Text or Lyrics - If there are words, do they add interest? Are the language, grammar, and sentiments appropriate to the style and intent of the piece? Do they work smoothly with all of the musical elements?
- Style - Which elements (rhythm, melody, instrumentation, etc.) successfully evoke a particular style? Is the result a persuasive use or example of a style or fusion of styles?
- Interaction - Finally, does each element support or undermine each of the other elements? (For example, is the form reflected in the orchestration? Does the melody fit with the harmony? Does the rhythm seem to fit naturally with the lyrics?)