Introduction
The Doctor of Music (D.Mus.) in Contemporary Music Performance is a doctoral-level programme aimed at outstanding performing musicians in non-classical genres. European-American University is proud to offer this pathway, which parallels our pioneering D.Mus. in Performance for classical musicians, now extending the opportunity to virtuosi in contemporary music fields such as jazz, popular, rock, and other modern styles.

This doctoral degree is a portfolio-based examination of the candidate’s achievements as a performer, requiring the demonstration of the highest level of technical skill, artistic interpretation, and creative individuality on the candidate’s instrument or voice. All requirements can be completed via distance learning with no residency, making it one of the first doctoral awards to recognize excellence in contemporary performance through remote assessment. It is intended for musicians who have already attained a professional or nearelite level of performance; the submission of recorded performances is the central component of evaluation. The programme does not include conventional coursework; instead, it focuses on the presentation of a performance portfolio accompanied by scholarly reflection.

By awarding the D.Mus. in Contemporary Performance, the University acknowledges a performer as being at the zenith of their art, comparable to a DMA or Ph.D. in terms of prestige, but with an emphasis on performance innovation and mastery rather than academic research alone.

Regulations for the degree of Doctor of Music (D.Mus.) in Contemporary Music Performance
1. Format of the Examination
Candidates for the D.Mus. in Contemporary Music Performance must submit a portfolio of recordings of their performances, upon which the evaluation for the degree will be based. The portfolio shall consist of no more than three substantial performance submissions that collectively demonstrate the breadth and depth of the candidate’s musicianship. These submissions should include at least one example of a major performance showcasing the candidate in a leading role, and others that highlight different facets of the candidate’s artistry. Specifically, the portfolio must fulfill the following conditions:
– Major Live Performance:
At least one recording should be of an extended live performance (for example, a concert, festival set, or recital) in which the candidate is the featured performer (soloist, band leader, or equivalent). This recording should be minimally edited (preferably an unedited live take or series of takes) and present a continuous programme of significant length – roughly 45–60 minutes is expected for this component. It should encompass multiple pieces demonstrating contrast in style or mood, essentially simulating a full live concert experience. The majority of this recording must be taken from an actual live event with audience (where feasible) or a live studio session, and it should capture the spontaneity and interaction characteristic of live performance.
– Supplementary Performances:
The candidate may include up to two additional recordings that complement the major performance by illustrating other aspects of their capability. For instance, one supplementary submission might be a studio recording or album the candidate has made, particularly if studio work and production are integral to their artistry. Another could be a collaborative project or a context that the candidate didn’t explore in the main live set (such as a recording with a big band for a jazz guitarist, or an acoustic trio session for an electric bassist, etc.). Alternatively, a candidate might submit a video of themselves performing a challenging solo piece or improvisation that was not part of the concert, if it highlights a specific virtuosity. Each supplementary recording should be substantial – generally in the range of 15–30 minutes – and together, the portfolio’s total recorded duration will typically be between 90 and 120 minutes of music across all submissions.
– Repertoire and Style Requirements:
Across the portfolio, the candidate must show diversity and versatility as well as consummate skill. If the candidate specializes in one genre (e.g., jazz), diversity can be demonstrated within that genre (for example, including up-tempo bebop, a ballad, a free improvisation, etc.). If the candidate’s career spans multiple genres, the portfolio may include representative performances from different styles (e.g., one jazz performance, one rock/fusion project). The key is that the range of expression and technique displayed is broad and all at a doctoral level of excellence. o Instrumentation and Ensemble: The candidate can perform in any ensemble configurations appropriate to their instrument and genre. It is understood that for many contemporary instruments (drums, bass, etc.), performance is often as part of an ensemble rather than completely solo; thus, playing in group settings is expected. However, if the instrument allows solo performance (e.g., guitar or piano solo pieces), including at least one piece or section of unaccompanied playing is encouraged to observe the candidate’s pure instrumental voice. In ensemble tracks, it should be clear which performer is the doctoral candidate (for example, by crediting and by the prominence of that instrument in the mix).
– Originality in Repertoire:
The candidate is free to perform existing works (standards, covers) or original compositions. There is no strict requirement to include original material, but doing so may further demonstrate creativity. On the other hand, interpreting well-known pieces with exceptional originality can be equally impressive. The chosen pieces should be ones that allow the candidate to demonstrate interpretative depth and/or improvisational creativity, not just technical execution. For example, performing a personal rendition of a jazz standard with inventive improvisation can be as valid as performing an original composition.

Candidates are required to register for the D.Mus. degree (i.e., apply and be accepted as a candidate) before assembling the final portfolio for submission. Because many candidates may have pre-existing recordings from their career, it is allowable that some or all of the material submitted was recorded prior to registration (unlike some degrees where work must be done post-enrollment). However, the candidate should consult with the Mentor about which performances to submit, and ensure they meet the criteria. There is no mandated minimum enrollment period for D.Mus. (Performance) by portfolio, but as a matter of process, a candidate typically spends at least several months working with their Mentor to compile the necessary documentation and written components (see below) even if the recordings are already in hand.

2. Originality and Authenticity
All submitted recordings must represent the work of the candidate. It is crucial that the performances are authentic and not misleadingly enhanced. Live recordings should be unedited beyond basic mastering; studio recordings may have multitracking or overdubs as is common in album production, but the candidate should clarify what parts they personally performed and if any programming or editing was involved. The candidate should disclose the nature of each recording (live/studio, any edits, overdubs, use of session musicians, etc.) in an accompanying document. In cases where a candidate’s role might be unclear (for example, if the candidate is a producer-DJ who “performs” by programming and mixing), explicit descriptions of the creative performance input are required. The principle is that the artistic performance contribution of the doctoral candidate must be clearly identifiable and significant in each submission. Candidates may not submit work for which a degree or diploma has already been conferred upon them. If any portion of the performance was part of another qualification (say, a recital used for a master’s degree), it should be indicated and will likely not count toward this doctorate unless it is a different, higher standard performance of the same repertoire. Plagiarism is not typically a concept that applies to performance, but ethical practice requires that any uncredited use of others’ recorded material (sampling, etc.) is avoided or cleared and credited. In summary, the portfolio should be the candidate’s own performing artistry, presented truthfully.

3. Supporting Written Component (Contextual Commentary)
Although the D.Mus. (Performance) focuses on practical excellence, the candidate is also required to submit a contextual paper or critical commentary alongside the recordings. This written component is ancillary to the performance but is nonetheless important for the examiners to understand and evaluate the submission. The contextual paper should be roughly 5,000–10,000 words in length. In it, the candidate will:
– Describe the content of the portfolio, including for each submitted performance: the date and venue of the performance or recording, the personnel involved (band members, etc.), and the repertoire performed (titles, composers, whether it’s an original composition, etc.).
– Discuss their artistic approach and interpretation. For each major piece or segment, the candidate should reflect on what interpretative choices were made. For instance, if the candidate is a jazz saxophonist, they might analyze key moments in their improvisations, explaining their creative process or the influences they drew upon. If the candidate is a drummer in a rock setting, they might discuss how they tailored their technique to serve the music, or how they approached solo passages.
– Situate their work in context. The candidate should articulate how their performances relate to the broader tradition or industry. Are they carrying forward a lineage of style (e.g., a blues guitarist referencing classic blues traditions), or are they innovating in some way (introducing new techniques, fusing genres, etc.)? They can mention major influences, repertoire significance, and any unique contributions they believe they are making to their field.
– Reflect on the technical and musical challenges encountered in preparing and executing these performances, and how they addressed them. This portion can highlight the level of expertise required, underlining why the work is of doctoral caliber.
– If applicable, mention any critical reception or impact of these performances (for example, if a recording submitted was released commercially or received reviews, the candidate can mention that as evidence of its professional standard). This commentary should be written in a formal, organized manner, but it can be in the first person given its reflective nature. It should demonstrate that the candidate is not only a performer but also a thoughtful artist who can evaluate and articulate their work. While not as extensive as a Ph.D. thesis, this document performs a similar function to a dissertation in a performance doctorate: it provides evidence of the candidate’s ability to engage in critical self-assessment and to contextualize their artistry within the music field. The supporting paper will be read by the examiners prior to listening to/watching the recordings, and it often forms the basis for any oral examination questions.

4. Supervision
Candidates for the D.Mus. (Performance) by portfolio are not required to undertake formal coursework or supervision in performance through the University; many candidates will be mid-career professionals who apply with an already accomplished background. However, upon acceptance into the programme, each candidate is assigned a Mentor (usually a professor or senior academic in music) who will act as a liaison and advisor. The Mentor’s role is to help the candidate ensure that their submission meets all the regulations and to provide feedback on the contextual paper. If the candidate desires, they may also discuss repertoire selection with the Mentor and seek guidance on which performances to include. The Mentor does not typically “teach” the candidate how to perform (since at this level the candidate is assumed to be an expert performer already), but rather provides an academic and procedural support. Some candidates might register for the D.Mus. with a full portfolio already in mind, needing little guidance; others might use the registration period to produce a new live recording or refine their documentation. The University can accommodate either approach. Mentorship and any optional tuition or coaching the candidate seeks are available for additional fee if beyond basic advisory support. The candidate is encouraged to stay in communication with the Mentor during the preparation of the submission, to avoid any missteps in meeting the requirements.

5. Registration at Other Institutions
A candidate is permitted to use performances that were prepared or recorded while they were registered at another institution or engaged in other programmes, provided those performances have not been used towards another degree (as per regulation 2 on originality). For example, if the candidate was part of a university ensemble during their master’s programme and a recording of that ensemble (featuring the candidate prominently) exists, they could include it here if it’s artistically relevant and not submitted for the previous degree. Similarly, being simultaneously enrolled elsewhere (say, doing a Ph.D. in musicology) does not preclude submitting one’s performance work for the D.Mus., as long as all work for each degree is distinct. The ethos of EAU is to recognize professional outputs regardless of where or how they were produced, as long as they meet standards. If any doubt arises about potential conflicts (such as overlapping content with another degree’s requirements), the candidate should clarify with both institutions and get written permissions if needed.

6. Previous Qualifications of Candidates
To be admitted to the D.Mus. (Contemporary Performance), a candidate must typically hold a degree or qualification that attests to their advanced standing in music. Normally, this means possessing at least a Bachelor’s degree in Music (B.Mus. or equivalent) or a Graduate Diploma in Music. Many candidates will also hold a Master’s degree (M.Mus., M.A., etc.) or have equivalent professional experience. Additionally, candidates are expected to have a proven track record as a performer: this could be evidenced by professional engagements, recordings, awards, or prior qualifications such as performance diplomas (e.g., Fellowship diplomas from conservatories or boards). The formal requirement as per regulation is that the candidate must hold at least a bachelor’s degree or an equivalent highlevel diploma in music performance. Exceptional performers who do not hold a degree might be considered via the APEL (experiential learning) route, but they would need to demonstrate an extraordinary career to justify waiving the typical academic prerequisite. The University will evaluate each application individually; a detailed performance résumé, references from recognized musicians or educators, and sample recordings are generally required as part of the application to ascertain the candidate’s suitability for this highest-level award.

7. Expected Standard of Work
The D.Mus. in Performance is a terminal degree representing the pinnacle of practical achievement in music. The standard of performance expected from candidates is extremely high. In concrete terms, this means:
– The candidate’s playing or singing should be virtually flawless in technique, and beyond that, imbued with profound artistic insight. Technical passages should be executed with ease and precision, and difficult repertoire should appear within the candidate’s total command.
– The interpretative quality of the performances should be compelling and original. At the doctoral level, the performer is not just reproducing known interpretations; they are ideally contributing a distinctive voice. Examiners will be looking for performances that could stand comparison with those of internationally recognized artists in the genre. The portfolio should hold the attention of musically educated listeners throughout, demonstrating that the candidate has something unique and valuable to say through their music.
– In genres involving improvisation (like jazz or certain rock idioms), the improvisational skill should be at the highest level: creative, coherent, and emotionally engaging, with advanced harmonic and rhythmic understanding evident. In composed genres, phrasing and expression should be at a masterly level. – Overall, the submission should reflect a level of professionalism and artistry such that each recorded performance might be suitable for public release or broadcast. Essentially, if an audience of peers (fellow professional musicians) were to hear the portfolio, it should command their respect and admiration. The University expects D.Mus. candidates to be among the elite performers in their field. The assessment will be stringent. Candidates should only submit performances that represent their best work. It is understood that live recordings might have minor blemishes due to the nature of live music; examiners are experienced in recognizing the difference between trivial glitches and actual technical shortcomings. A few minor imperfections in a live context will not disqualify an otherwise outstanding performance, but overall the level should be such that any errors are negligible in impact. In summary, the D.Mus. portfolio should demonstrate artistic merit of the highest order – not just technically correct, but truly moving or impressive performances that contribute to the art of music.

8. Presentation of the Portfolio
The manner in which the portfolio is presented to the University is important for efficient examination. The candidate should submit a written Portfolio Summary at the front of the contextual paper, listing each recording included, with track timings and brief descriptions. The recordings themselves should be submitted in a durable, commonly accessible format. Acceptable formats include high-quality audio on CD or lossless digital audio files (WAV/FLAC), and/or video recordings on DVD or common video file formats (MP4, etc.) if visual performance aspects are to be considered (video is recommended especially for instruments where watching the technique or stage presence is meaningful, such as for drummers or for performers whose visual communication is part of the artistry). If multiple recordings are on one disc or drive, they should be indexed or separated into tracks. Each physical item (CD, DVD, USB drive) should be labeled with the candidate’s name, the degree (D.Mus. in Contemporary Performance), and the contents (e.g., “Disc 1 of 2: Live Concert at XYZ Festival, June 2024”). Along with the recordings, the Contextual Commentary (as described in regulation 3) should be included, preferably in printed form (and digital copy as well). Three copies of all materials are required for submission: this typically means three sets of discs (or drives) and three printed copies of the commentary, so that examiners can review materials in parallel. If any scores, charts, or programs are relevant (for instance, if the candidate is submitting original compositions and wants to include lead sheets or full scores to illustrate the structure), these can be included as appendices (optional). The University treats all submitted materials with care, but cannot guarantee their return; candidates should make duplicate copies for themselves. It is advisable to use reliable shipping when sending physical materials, and to ensure everything is well-packaged. The candidate may also be required to submit a declaration that all recordings are their own performances and all written work is their own, signed and dated.

9. Examining Arrangements
Once the portfolio is submitted, the University will convene an Examining Panel for the D.Mus. examination. This panel will normally consist of at least two examiners: usually one internal examiner (a faculty member or academic associated with EAU who is not the Mentor) and one external examiner who is an expert in the field of music performance (often a distinguished performer or professor from another institution) to provide an impartial assessment. In some cases, a third examiner or a chairperson might be involved (particularly if the genres represented are diverse and require multiple specialists). The examiners will independently review the entire portfolio – listening to recordings in full and reading the commentary – and then confer to discuss their evaluations. They will then make a recommendation to the University. The Examining Panel is empowered to recommend one of the following outcomes:
1. Award of the D.Mus. degree: if the portfolio fully meets the doctoral standard. This means the performances are of doctoral quality and the written commentary is satisfactory in providing context.
2. Award of a lower degree (M.Mus.): if the portfolio does not quite meet the doctoral standard but is judged to meet the standard of a master’s degree, the panel may recommend awarding the Master of Music degree instead (assuming the candidate does not already hold an equivalent master’s). This is a way to recognize the work that was done at a slightly lower level than expected for a doctorate.
3. Referral (Revise and Re-submit): if the examiners find certain deficiencies that could potentially be addressed, they may refer the submission back to the candidate with specific instructions. For example, they might request additional recordings if they feel the portfolio is too narrow or one aspect of technique wasn’t demonstrated, or they might ask for a rewritten commentary if the original was unclear or insufficient. The candidate would then have the opportunity, on one further occasion, to re-submit the portfolio or parts of it after making the required improvements. The Panel will specify a deadline for re-submission (often within 6 to 12 months).
4. Non-acceptance (Failure): if the portfolio is significantly below expectations and the examiners doubt that a re-submission would be successful, they may recommend that the degree not be awarded and that no re-submission be permitted. This outcome is only likely if the performances are clearly far from the expected standard or if the candidate’s work shows fundamental gaps that cannot be fixed simply by adding or tweaking submissions. Typically, before any final decision, the examiners will hold an oral examination (viva voce) with the candidate, especially if the initial review of the materials places the result in a borderline zone or if clarification is needed. The oral exam can be conducted via video conference for distance candidates. During the viva, the candidate will be asked to discuss their performances and answer questions about their commentary. The examiners might probe the candidate’s understanding of the repertoire, ask about decisions made during performances, or inquire about their career and experience as it relates to the submission. The purpose of the viva is to ensure the candidate can verbally defend the merit of their work and to verify their authorship and depth of insight. It also gives the candidate a chance to address any concerns the examiners might have noted. For example, an examiner might say, “In your third track, during the extended solo, we noticed XYZ — can you talk about what you were aiming for there?” Or, “Your commentary mentions being influenced by John Coltrane’s harmonic approach; can you elaborate on how that influence manifests in your playing?” A confident, knowledgeable discussion can reinforce the impression that the candidate is an expert practitioner. Poor performance in the viva would raise concerns. After the oral exam, the Panel will finalize their recommendation and submit it as a report to the University’s academic board or research degrees committee for approval. The candidate will then be notified of the outcome formally by the University Secretary or appropriate office. If successful or if a lower award is recommended, instructions for graduation will follow. If a re-submission is allowed, detailed feedback will be provided to guide the candidate on what is needed. If not accepted, the report will usually explain the main reasons.

10. Re-submission after an Unsuccessful Submission
A candidate who is referred for re-submission (outcome 3 above) will be given one opportunity to address the examiners’ feedback and submit a revised portfolio. The specific conditions and timeline for re-submission will be communicated in writing. Typically, a candidate may be asked to:
– Provide additional or alternative recordings (for instance, “submit a new live recording that demonstrates your ability in extended improvisation, as the panel found this lacking in the original submission” or “re-record piece X with better audio quality or more precise execution if possible”).
– Expand or revise the written commentary (for example, “provide a more thorough analysis of your performance practice and influences, as the current commentary is too brief”).
– In some cases, undertake a further live audition or interview if recordings were inconclusive (though this is rare for distance programmes). The candidate will be given a deadline, often within 6 months (and not usually more than 12 months), to complete these tasks. They remain enrolled during this period. The revised submission will then be evaluated, usually by the same examiners if available, or by at least one original and one new examiner if necessary. The examiners will then recommend either Pass (award D.Mus.), Award lower (if still not doctoral standard but adequate for M.Mus.), or Fail (if the resubmission still doesn’t meet the standard). Only one re-submission is permitted. A second failure or an inadequate re-submission attempt will result in termination of candidature without the doctoral degree (though again, a master’s might be awarded if earned). Candidates are encouraged to take any referral comments very seriously and possibly seek additional mentoring or coaching externally to improve whatever aspects were criticized. The University wants candidates to succeed and will only refer work that it genuinely believes can be elevated to standard with some effort. If a candidate chooses not to re-submit (for personal or professional reasons), they may withdraw; no degree would be awarded unless a lesser award is agreed upon.

11. Revision of Submission
In some cases, the Examining Panel might find the submission acceptable overall but contingent on some minor revisions or additions, particularly related to the written component. For example, they may say, “The degree can be awarded, provided the candidate revises Chapter 2 of the commentary for deposit in the library to correct certain factual errors and typos,” or “We recommend award, but ask that the candidate append a short section in the commentary clarifying XYZ before final submission.” These are essentially conditions for completion. The candidate would make the required small changes (usually not requiring another full examination, just approval by the chair of the panel or the internal examiner) and then the result is finalized. This scenario is akin to the “minor corrections” often given in academic theses. The candidate will be given a short timeframe (perhaps 1–2 months) to do this and it doesn’t count as a “re-submission” in the formal sense – it’s more a completion of administrative detail. The award is usually not in doubt at this stage, so long as the candidate complies. It should be noted that any required revisions must be completed and approved before the candidate is formally awarded the degree. Failure to do so could delay graduation. However, such revisions are usually straightforward if the candidate cooperates.

12. Submission on the Basis of Previously Published Work
As an alternative route, the University allows candidates to submit for the D.Mus. degree a portfolio of performances that have been previously published in the public domain – for example, commercially released albums, video recordings of concerts that have broadcast or wide release, etc. In this case, the candidate should clearly indicate which recordings in the submission have been published and provide evidence of publication (like album liner notes, release dates, labels or publishers). The content still must adhere to the rest of the regulations (original work, high standard, etc.). The advantage of this route is that it acknowledges established artists who have a discography or videography of note. These candidates might not need to produce new recordings if their existing catalog suffices to demonstrate their mastery. They still must provide the contextual commentary (perhaps focusing on their body of work). The examiners might place slightly different weight in that they can also consider external acclaim or reviews of the published work, but primarily they will judge the content itself. Candidates submitting previously published work may also be required to attend an oral examination focusing on their portfolio. This is to ensure the work is indeed theirs (authorship) and to discuss the artistic process behind it. The same outcomes (award, referral, fail, etc.) apply as normal. One note: if a candidate has a vast array of published material, they should judiciously select what to include, as examiners cannot realistically sift through dozens of hours of material. Quality and representativeness are key – usually up to three main submissions as per regulation 1, possibly excerpted from longer works if needed.

13. Award of Degrees
Upon completion of the examination process, if the candidate’s portfolio is accepted for the degree (and any required revisions are completed), the University will proceed to award the Doctor of Music (D.Mus.) degree. The candidate will receive an official notification of passing and subsequently, the doctoral diploma. The degree may be designated as Doctor of Music in Contemporary Music Performance on official documents to distinguish it from other D.Mus. tracks. If the context of the performances was primarily sacred (e.g., a gospel musician focusing on church performances), and if appropriate, the degree could alternatively be styled Doctor of Sacred Music (D.S.M.), but generally the secular title will be used unless specifically requested and justified. In the case where the portfolio was deemed acceptable only for the lower degree of Master of Music, and the candidate does not already hold an M.Mus., the University may award that degree instead (with the field noted as appropriate). This would typically conclude the examination process; the candidate would not receive the doctoral degree but would have earned a consolation prize, so to speak, of a master’s degree for their efforts. This is in line with some universities’ practices to not let a complete failure occur if the work merits some graduate recognition. If such a recommendation is made, the candidate usually has the option to accept it or attempt a re-submission for D.Mus. (if the panel also allowed that). If they accept the master’s award, then the doctoral candidature ends. Candidates who successfully earn the D.Mus. may then use the title of “Doctor”. They will be listed in the University’s official Register of Graduates. The University, being a globally operating institution, will hold graduation ceremonies or offer to send the degree by mail, as per the student’s preference. Graduates are encouraged to remain involved as alumni and perhaps even participate in mentoring future students or contributing to the community of scholars and artists that EAU fosters. The D.Mus. in Contemporary Performance being a relatively novel offering, its recipients will be exemplars of the University’s mission to bridge professional practice with academic recognition. The expectation is that those who earn this degree will continue to achieve at high levels in their performance careers and serve as ambassadors for the value of reflective practice in the performing arts