- Term Papers, Book Reports, Research Papers and College Essays

Final Major Project Evaluation

Essay by   •  June 15, 2017  •  Coursework  •  1,780 Words (8 Pages)  •  530 Views

Essay Preview: Final Major Project Evaluation

Report this essay
Page 1 of 8

Final Major Project Evaluation

Our Final Major Project (F.M.P) was made up of a large team divided into a wide variety of roles. It was vital that a high level of co-operation and communication was maintained between all to ensure the success of the project. Upon reflection, almost all the successes and short-comings that occurred can be stemmed to the dedication or lack of dedication to this team-work orientated attitude. I will now evaluate what was successful and unsuccessful about the project, try to explain why it happened and suggest how things could have been improved.

The First point of focus that I will use an analysis of the projects’ success will be the Final Performances in the Folley Arts Theatre. The basic goal of our F.M.P was to divide our year group into six separate bands and for them to compile an entertaining and interesting set of material (of whatever nature they wanted; covers or originals), to be performed at a high standard. Based on the performances in the Folley Arts Theatre, I feel this goal was definitely achieved. Not only did all the bands provide a performance of a high standard, they all had their own individual identity in terms of their sound and presentation to their audience, which I think provided a high level maturity to the performance, that told everyone that this was more than just an ordinary college project. I think this can be owed to the plentiful amount of rehearsal provided for the performers on this project, which I think gave everyone a chance to apply a high level of thought towards their musical contributions to the project, whether it be the stylistic characteristics of their own material or their interpretations of other artists’ material.

These performances also saw heavy involvement of the stage management department (Josh, Will, Martin, Matt, Elliot). Their main role was to oversee the setting up of equipment required for performances, with the priority of maximising safety and quality of sound. I felt the department fulfilled their role very well in this project. The organisation applied setting up the Folley Arts Theatre was of a high grade, with the department drawing up a rotor of who was to transport what and ensuring that all heavy equipment was transported by lift, which meant that the setting up of equipment was swift, free of confusion and very safe. With regard to sound quality (Josh, Elliot), this department gave great attention to everyone’s sound preferences by asking every band their desired equipment for the performance. This meant everyone was satisfied with the equipment provided. However, I think a short coming of the department was the lack of a discussion about the performers’ preferences on the arrangement of the stage. In my opinion, I felt that the placement of guitar amps on the stage, directly next to each other, was mis-judged, as on stage it was often hard to dis-tinguish between the sound of different guitars, which for guitarists meant that it was very hard to judge the balance between the multiple amps. If this project were to be repeated, I think the stage management department should have a discussion with all the bands on their preferences for stage arrangement, because a large number of performers were dis-satisfied with on-stage sound and I think this was largely due to a lack of judgement applied to stage arrangement.

As I’ve already mentioned I think that the standard of the musical performance made the project feel of a much higher profile than just a normal College Performance. However, as a group we agreed that other media had to be applied to make the project feel of a higher level. One of the main ways in which we attended to achieve this was via the Multimedia department. We had agreed as a group that the multimedia department should make a mini-documentary about each of the bands to be played via at the beginning of their performances. I feel that the quality of the content, editing and direction of the documentaries was of a average standard however as result still provided an added level of entertainment and seriousness to the performance. I think this was due to the level of preparation carried out by the Multimedia department (Lauren, Tara, Carmen), which saw them dedicating large quantities of time to camera and software inductions, to ensure they had an able ability with equipment and large amounts of time on editing.

The documentaries were not without their short-comings however. The main of which was that the concept of accompanying the videos with recordings of each of the bands never materialised because next to none of the intended material was ever recorded. This also meant our concept of creating a CD made up of these recordings that could be sold at the performances never materialised either. This I feel was a major failure of the project because in early discussions about the nature of the project, we all felt that producing a product such as CD to be released in conjunction with the project would add a new dimension to the project as a whole, that would make if feel like a much more serious, business like operation. I feel the reason why none of these things ever materialised was due to the dis-organisation surrounding the intended recording sessions at the Royal National Blind College (RNC). In my opinion, the main reasons why this occurred was because the responsibility of organising the sessions was never assigned to any one department. As a result of this, no rota was ever drawn up of who was scheduled to record each week, which resulted in many bands being un-aware and un-prepared for the sessions. This commonly led to bands declining recording sessions and not recording anything at all. If this project was to be done again I think a particular department should have been assigned the organisation of recording and that they should draw up a timetable of who was to record and when, so that all bands knew when they were to record far in advance. This I feel would counter-act the problem of band un-awareness and lack of preparation that prevented many recording sessions from happening.

The project directors (Ben, Will), whose role mainly concerns organising the preparation process of the project, got a good overall perspective of which departments prepared effectively and which failed to take note of the co-operative attitude needed for the projects’ success. The Marketing department (Lauren, Rhi, Myself, Jack, Tom, Jamie, Nick, Tara) I felt was a paticulalarly pro-active department. During weekly meetings I saw weekly progress as the department worked closely with college publicity head, to design publicity materials such as flyers and posters. I felt they were paticulalarly co-operative with the rest of the group as they discussed with the entire group the design of their marketing materials (posters etc.) to ensure it satisfied everyone’s taste. As a result, I felt that everyone felt the theme and appearance of the publicity materials used was appropriate. However, although the department was an effective unit, I do not believe their publicity was particularly successful. Based on the attendees of the performances in the Folley Arts Theatre and the small scale level of publicity used, I do not think the publicity the marketing department utilised succeeded in bringing in many people from outside of the college’s sphere of influence (Students, staff and friends of these people). If this project were to be repeated I think this problem could be acted upon by use of some higher level publicity such as local radio and press (newspapers, magazines), as I think these are more effective means of enticing an external audience.



Download as:   txt (10.5 Kb)   pdf (47.7 Kb)   docx (9.2 Kb)  
Continue for 7 more pages »
Only available on
Citation Generator

(2017, 06). Final Major Project Evaluation. Retrieved 06, 2017, from

"Final Major Project Evaluation" 06 2017. 2017. 06 2017 <>.

"Final Major Project Evaluation.", 06 2017. Web. 06 2017. <>.

"Final Major Project Evaluation." 06, 2017. Accessed 06, 2017.