Our rubrics are designed to assist artisans who want to enter A&S projects into shows and competitions. They are also designed for judges as guides to scoring entries. Anyone is welcome to use our rubrics, they are not reserved for Kingdom events and are meant to help standardize expectations throughout the Sylvan realm. If everyone knows what to expect while working on their projects, and expectations are set for entrants and judges, then we should arrive at an objective scoring platform throughout our Kingdom, with some room for subjective opinion as well.
| Category | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Methods Is the structure, pace & flow, and method of performance appropriate for the performance? Does/do the performer(s) use appropriate techniques for sound & movement? |
• The methods used are purely modern. • The style of presentation does not fit well with the selection. • Use of space, dynamics, other techniques do not match the piece or otherwise detract from its presentation. |
• The methods used are mostly modern. • The performer showed some awareness of appropriate historic style for the performance. • Use of space, dynamics, other techniques are appropriate, but do not necessarily enhance the presentation. |
• The methods used are mostly modern and partly historical. • The performer(s) generally made choices consistent with the sense of the piece. • Use of space, dynamics, other techniques somewhat enhance the presentation. |
• The methods used are partly modern and mostly historical. • The performer(s) gave a solid delivery with choices regarding space, dynamics, other techniques enhanced the presentation. |
• The method used is mostly consistent with the historical source of the selection. • The performer(s) gave a solid delivery with excellent choices regarding use of space, dynamics, and other techniques that significantly enhanced the presentation. |
• The method used is purely consistent with the historical source of the selection. • The performer(s) gave a masterful delivery, using techniques to greatly enhance the sense of the piece. |
| Content How well does the target form match the composition of the piece? To what extent does the performer’s original content (if any) enhance the chosen target form? |
• The piece is a modern composition with little to no material drawn from period styles, sources, or formats. | • The piece is a demonstrably modern composition, but is nominally based on a period form, or incorporates a few period elements into its framework. | • The performer(s) followed some aspects of a period form and showed awareness of period compositional elements. • The style of composition is partially original, but follows a period method (e.g., a modern contrefait). |
• The performer(s) successfully drew on a historical composition form and matched original material to the period framework in an unobtrusive way. • The content is entirely historical but is fairly simple/easy to reproduce, with little originality. |
• The performer(s) used a historical composition form and matched original material to the framework, or mixed original and period content, in a way that is consistent with similar pieces of its historical basis. • The content is entirely historical and is somewhat complex or difficult to present or reproduce. |
• The performer(s) used a historical composition form and matched original material to the framework masterfully, or mixed original and period content, in a way that creates an entirely historical impression. • The content is entirely historical and is very complex or highly challenging to present or reproduce. |
| Historical Accuracy Does the presentation replicate or vary from the provided historical example(s)? Original pieces or reconstructions that adhere to period forms or presentation styles count as authentic. |
• The performance is essentially modern in its overall presentation. • No exemplar is provided and/or no deviations from a similar period performance style are explained, verbally or in writing. |
• The performance is mostly modern in its overall presentation or is a poor attempt at reconstruction of a period style. • An example of the performance style as it would be presented in period is provided, and some of the deviations are explained, verbally or in writing. |
• The performance has reasonable resemblance to a historic exemplar of the same style or is a fair attempt to reconstruct a period style. • Variations from the historic style are partially explained. |
• The performance is drawn from a period exemplar or closely resembles a similar known performance style, or is a good attempt to reconstruct a period style. • Adequate, reasonable explanation is given for variation(s) from the period framework. |
• The performance is a documentable or extant period piece presented in a reasonably accurate and appropriate historical style, or a successful reconstruction of a period piece. • There are few deviations, for which thorough explanations are provided. |
• The performance is a documentable or extant period piece or a carefully reconstructed one that duplicates similar historical exemplars in every detail. • If there are any deviations at all, they are completely explained and do not detract from the overall impression of historical accuracy. |
| Quality of Workmanship The skill with which the performance is presented. How entertaining is the performance? How pleasing are the ways in which the elements of the performance are combined? Does/do the performer(s) present an enjoyable experience? |
• The performer(s) lacked confidence or basic command of the necessary skills for the chosen style. • The performer(s) faltered in ways that detracted from the desired effect. • The performance lacked or had minimal eye contact, appropriate movement, effective dynamic variation, etc. |
• The performer(s) presented a clean performance free of errors. • The performer(s) ably covered minor mistakes without affecting the presentation. • The performance featured somewhat effective eye contact, minimal use of space, some dynamic variation, etc. |
• The performance was presented solidly and confidently. • The performer(s) showed affinity for their chosen style and exhibited adequate command of the skills needed for the performance. • The performance was mildly entertaining and/or effective, featuring adequate use of dynamics, intonation, and interpretive elements. |
• The performance was presented with good dynamic variation, intonation, audience engagement, etc. • The performer(s) showed considerable skill in the technique(s) and style(s) presented. • The performance was was moving, effective, entertaining, or otherwise a pleasing example of its style. |
• The performance was presented with exceptional execution of elements including intonation, use of space, movement, etc. • The performer(s) exhibited highly proficient skill in the technique(s) and style(s) presented. • The performance was very entertaining and/or highly effective, engaged the audience very well. |
• The performance was presented with masterful command and execution, intonation, movement, etc. • The performer(s) exhibited exceptional proficiency in the technique(s), style(s), and material presented. • The performance was superbly entertaining and/or exquisitely affecting, held the audience start to finish. |
| Research & Project Planning Journal What informed the performing style or composition choices? What other exemplars or frameworks were used to create the piece? To what extent are the techniques, reconstruction, and/or composition process chronicled? |
• The performance has no documentation, including verbal introduction. • Performer(s) are unable to answer questions about the historical context of the presented work. |
• The performer(s) can verbally share some historical background or provide a rudimentary context for the presented piece. • The performer(s) provides a few exemplars of the extant work or similar work. |
• Rudimentary written documentation including the historical background and context or an extant source, or other examples of same style. • Documentation includes some information about the techniques employed in reconstructing or composing the work. • Copies of the text, music, and/or script, in modern notation are included in the written documentation, as well as the source for the same. |
• The performer(s) provides a reasonable familiarity with the historical context and background of the piece, style, and/or techniques involved in the presented work. • A brief bibliography, along with copies of the text, music, and/or script, in modern notation or facsimiles of the original. |
• The performer(s) provide evidence of good familiarity with the broader historical background, context, and settings in which the piece would have been performed in period. • Copies of the text, music, and/or script, in modern notation or facsimiles of the original, are included in the written documentation as well as other supporting exemplars. • A bibliography with citations and other supporting exemplars. |
• Extensive familiarity with historical background, context, settings and styles of a period performance of the work or similar work, and/or analysis from a performance perspective. • Copies of the text, score, etc, in both original and modern notation (if an extant piece), or facsimiles of period examples in their original. • Documentation includes a bibliography with full citations, and if applicable, early drafts and/or considerable discussion of the reconstruction or composition process. |
Main Rubrics Page | Material Culture | Research Paper | Youth Projects