Introduction
The Master of Music (M.Mus.) in Contemporary Music Performance is a graduate programme designed for advanced performers in non-classical genres, especially those specializing in rhythm section and popular music instruments (e.g., guitar, bass, keyboards, drums, voice in popular styles).

Thank you for your interest in this programme. It offers experienced musicians a pathway to a master’s degree while focusing on performance excellence in contemporary styles such as jazz, rock, pop, fusion, etc. The programme combines intensive performance projects with scholarly work in order to deepen both practical and theoretical understanding. Performers in a variety of styles are welcome – the University does not exclude any particular genre of contemporary music. However, this degree is foremost a rigorous test of musicianship and technical skill at an advanced level. Candidates should be prepared to demonstrate virtuosity, creativity, and a broad command of their instrument and genre. For example, a jazz-focused candidate will need to exhibit not only improvisational fluency and swing feel, but also complexity in harmony and form; a rock or pop-focused candidate might demonstrate virtuoso technique or stylistically authentic articulation beyond the basic level of commercial music. It is unlikely that a portfolio of work that remains too simple or rudimentary (for instance, performances that avoid any improvisation, extended technique, or interpretative depth) would sufficiently showcase the “variety of advanced aspects” of performance craft expected at the master’s level.

The programme is structured to allow personalization — the student will work with an assigned Mentor (an experienced faculty member) to select appropriate repertoire and research topics that align with the student’s artistic goals, all within a framework that ensures comprehensive mastery and academic rigour.

Regulations for the degree of Master of Music (M.Mus.) in Contemporary Music Performance
1. Format of the Examination
The M.Mus. in Contemporary Music Performance is assessed via a combination of performance-based examinations and a written research component. There are three parts that must be passed for the award of the degree. Candidates are required to register for the degree at least twelve months before their final recital submission, to allow adequate time for mentorship and preparation (except in cases where a submission by prior published work or portfolio is approved, which is uncommon for performance degrees). The three parts are outlined as follows, and each part’s requirements are described in detail in subsequent sections.
2. Part 1: Interim Performance Project
As the first part of the programme, each candidate must complete an Interim Performance Project. This is essentially an exercise that allows the student to focus on a specific aspect of their performance practice and receive formal assessment and feedback early in the programme. The Interim Performance Project might take one of several forms depending on the student’s specialization and interests, as agreed with the Mentor. For example, it could be a mini-recital recording of roughly 20 minutes, highlighting one style or ensemble context – such as a recording of the candidate performing three jazz standards in a trio setting, or a set of progressive rock pieces performed multi-track by the candidate. Alternatively, it could be a studio project where the student arranges and performs all parts (or key parts) of a piece to showcase versatility, or a collaborative performance focusing on the student’s instrument (for instance, a series of drum solos or groove demonstrations accompanied by a rhythm section). The chosen project must be substantial enough to demonstrate graduate-level skill, but it can be more focused or experimental than the final recital (Part 2). The candidate will submit recordings (audio or video as appropriate) of the Interim Project for assessment. An accompanying brief write-up (approximately 1,000 words) is required, in which the student explains the goals of the project, the repertoire or material chosen, and any special techniques or innovations applied. If the project involved original arrangements or improvisation, the student should detail those elements. The University’s examiners will evaluate Part 1 and provide feedback. This component serves both as a diagnostic (to gauge the student’s strengths and areas to develop) and as a way to ensure the student is on track for the final recital. A student who does not pass Part 1 may be allowed to redo the project or may be counseled to withdraw if the performance is far below the expected standard.
3. Part 2: Final Recital Performance
The second part of the degree is the Final Recital, which is the main practical examination. The candidate must present a substantial and varied programme of music, roughly 45 to 60 minutes in total duration, demonstrating the full scope of their abilities as a performer in contemporary music. The Final Recital repertoire should be chosen with great care and in consultation with the Mentor well in advance. It must display a balance of styles, tempos, ensemble configurations, and technical demands, so that collectively the pieces illustrate the candidate’s versatility and mastery. For example, a guitarist’s programme might include a complex jazz fusion piece with improvisation, a solo guitar arrangement of a standard or popular song, and a technically challenging instrumental rock composition. A drummer’s programme might include performing with a jazz combo on a bebop piece, a funk/R&B piece emphasizing groove and pocket, and an experimental piece (perhaps using odd meters or extended techniques) with a fusion band. Vocalists or other instrumentalists would similarly select repertoire that covers multiple facets of contemporary performance (showcasing range, interpretation, improvisation/ad lib skills, etc., as applicable). Approval of programme: The complete set list for the recital, including song titles, composers/artists, instrumentation, and approximate duration for each piece, must be submitted to the University (via the Mentor) for approval typically a few months before the intended recording/performance date. This is to ensure the content meets academic and musical standards and has sufficient breadth. Recording the recital: Given the distance learning format, candidates will usually record the recital performance to submit for examination. This can be done either in front of a live audience (for instance, the candidate might organize a public or private concert and record it) or in a studio/live room setting without an audience. In either case, live continuity and musicianship should be emphasized; the recording should ideally be one continuous performance or simulate one (if recorded in segments due to logistics, it should still be essentially live takes of each piece). Editing should be minimal – only basic mixing or post-production is allowed, and no “auto-tuning” or splicing of multiple takes into one performance. The candidate’s performance in each piece should be unaltered, preserving any minor mistakes as part of the live character. Multi-camera video is permissible for visual interest if an ensemble is recorded, but the audio must reflect a real performance. The University may request information about the recording process to ensure authenticity (such as confirmation from a recording engineer or the on-site mentor). The Final Recital submission will include the high-quality audio/video recording and a Recital Report (or programme notes). In the report (approximately 1,500–2,500 words), the candidate should provide context for each piece: why it was selected, what specific techniques or interpretative challenges it presents, and how the candidate approached it. The report can also discuss any notable collaborative aspects (e.g., working with accompanists or band members) and reflect on the candidate’s artistic goals for the recital. This document helps the examiners understand the intent behind the performance and the level of thoughtful preparation involved. Part 2 is examined by a panel (including at least one external expert when possible) appointed by the University. The panel will assess the recital on criteria such as technical proficiency, musical interpretation and expression, stylistic authenticity, ensemble coordination (if applicable), and overall artistic impact. All pieces in the programme are considered collectively to judge the candidate’s range and consistency. A passing performance will show a professional level of execution appropriate for a master’s graduate: essentially, the candidate should perform at a standard suitable for public performance in professional venues or for commercial recording release. If any serious deficiencies are noted in one aspect (for example, if one piece is significantly weaker than the rest), the panel will determine whether it is enough to fail the whole recital or whether the overall standard still merits a pass. (In some cases, the panel might request an additional piece or an edited programme if they feel a particular requirement was not demonstrated – this would be handled under either a “referral” or Part 3 revision scenario, as described later.)
4. Part 3: Dissertation or Analytical Monograph
In addition to the performance components, candidates for the M.Mus. must also complete a substantial written project that demonstrates scholarly engagement with an aspect of contemporary music performance. There are a few options for this Part 3 written requirement, which will be determined based on the candidate’s interests and the Mentor’s guidance:
– The candidate may write a Dissertation (research thesis) on a topic related to contemporary music performance. Examples of suitable topics include: an analysis of the performance practice of a particular genre or artist (e.g., “Polyrhythmic Techniques in Progressive Metal Drumming” or “The Improvisational Language of Bill Evans: Analysis and Application”); a pedagogical study relevant to the instrument (e.g., “Developing Funk Bass Groove: A Methodological Approach for Advanced Students”); or an exploration of historical and social aspects of a scene (“The Evolution of NeoSoul and its Bass Techniques”). The dissertation should be in the range of 15,000 words (approximately 50–60 pages), showing evidence of original thought, critical analysis, and familiarity with existing literature. Proper academic referencing is required. Original research (such as interviews with musicians, transcriptions and analysis of performances, or experimental studies on technique) is encouraged.
– Alternatively, the candidate may produce an Analytical Monograph or Extended Programme Notes tied closely to the repertoire performed in the Final Recital. In this case, the writing would involve a deep theoretical and historical analysis of each piece performed, possibly augmented with musical transcriptions, comparisons to other recordings, and discussion of interpretative choices. The scope and length of this monograph would be slightly less than a full dissertation, typically 8,000–10,000 words, but it must demonstrate a level of insight and research commensurate with graduate study. It should not be merely descriptive; it needs to situate the pieces in context and show advanced analytical skills. This option works well if the recital repertoire itself provides a cohesive theme or cross-section of a field that can sustain scholarly discussion.
– A third option (with University approval) could be a Professional Project with Commentary. For instance, a student might create an album of original music or a significant arrangement portfolio as part of their performance output. They could then submit the album (the production of which would essentially be an extended performance/creative project) and an academic commentary explaining the creative process, influences, and an analysis of the music. This option blends practice and research, and the accompanying commentary would typically be 10,000+ words. However, this route requires careful planning to ensure the “creative project” satisfies the performance requirements and the commentary meets the scholarly standard. Regardless of the format, the Part 3 written component is supervised by the Mentor (and possibly a second reader with expertise in the topic). The candidate will need to submit a proposal or outline early in the programme, get it approved, and then work through drafts with feedback. The final submission is examined by the University’s assessors (one of whom may be an external academic expert). The written work is expected to be of publishable or near-publishable quality for a master’s level — well organized, thoroughly researched, and demonstrating mastery of the subject matter. A pass in Part 3 indicates the candidate has not only strong performance skills but also the ability to engage analytically and/or academically with their art form.

5. Originality and Intellectual Property
All work presented for the M.Mus. (whether performances or written research) must be the original work of the candidate. For performance, this means the recordings must feature the candidate’s own playing or singing, and any arrangement or production contributions by others should be clearly acknowledged. If the candidate is performing original compositions, those should be composed by the candidate (or used with permission of the composer if not). In the written dissertation or commentary, any material borrowed from other sources (whether quoting an author’s words, borrowing ideas, or using musical transcriptions from publications) must be properly cited and referenced. Plagiarism or unattributed use of another’s work, in any portion of the submission, is strictly prohibited and will result in disqualification from the degree or other appropriate penalties under University regulations. Likewise, a candidate may not submit the same performance or research work for which a degree or diploma has already been awarded elsewhere (no “double dipping”). The University may require the candidate to sign a statement affirming the originality and independence of their work. Integrity of performance: as in the B.Mus. regulations, candidates must avoid heavy editing of performance recordings. Any editing or splicing that is done (for instance, to patch a minor error) should be disclosed. The spirit of the examination is to evaluate the performer’s real capability, not studio ingenuity.

6. Supervision and Mentoring
Candidates for the M.Mus. in Contemporary Performance will be supported by a Mentor assigned by EAU’s Henderson Memorial School of Music. Regular communication (via email, video call, etc.) with the Mentor is a crucial part of the programme. The Mentor provides guidance on repertoire selection, advises on the scope and focus of the written research, and gives feedback on interim work (such as drafts of the dissertation or run-throughs of performance pieces). While formal “tuition” in performance (like instrumental lessons) is not the primary mode at the master’s level, mentors may arrange for specialized coaching or refer the student to resources if needed for particular technical or stylistic development. It is ultimately the candidate’s responsibility to maintain progress, but the Mentor ensures that the student’s efforts are aligned with the degree requirements and that academic standards are upheld. If a candidate wishes to engage additional practical tuition (for example, studying with a renowned artist or teacher outside the University), this can be integrated into the programme as long as the assessment components are completed through EAU. (Note: The University may charge additional fees for optional one-onone practical instruction beyond the standard mentorship, as per the supervision regulations.) Supervision of the written component might involve an additional subject-matter advisor if the topic is highly specialized.

7. Previous Experience and Qualifications of Candidates
Applicants for the M.Mus. in Contemporary Music Performance are expected to hold a bachelor’s degree in music (typically a B.Mus. or B.A. in Music) or an equivalent qualification. Equivalence may be demonstrated by a combination of formal training and professional accomplishment – for example, a performer who has no undergraduate degree but has obtained a high-level performance diploma (such as Fellowship-level from a conservatory or board) and has several years of professional experience might be considered. In line with the University’s flexible entry policies, candidates who do not have a traditional degree but believe they have the requisite knowledge and skill may undergo an assessment (including audition recordings, portfolio review, and an interview) to determine their readiness for graduate study. Because this is an advanced performance degree, the incoming student should already function at a performance level roughly equivalent to the final year of an undergraduate performance programme or higher. Additionally, a solid grounding in music theory and history is expected (so that the candidate can comfortably undertake the analytical components). Any deficiencies in background (for instance, if an otherwise talented performer lacks some theoretical knowledge) might need to be remedied through prerequisite work or bridging modules. All candidates must demonstrate English proficiency appropriate for graduate academic work. The University will typically require non-native English speakers to have a certification (like IELTS/TOEFL) at the level required for postgraduate study, unless their prior education was conducted in English. Admission decisions, as always, rest with the University’s academic board, which will consider the totality of the candidate’s profile.

8. Expected Standard of Work
The standard expected in the M.Mus. (Contemporary Performance) programme is that of a polished, professional musician who is capable of performing at a level warranting critical acclaim by knowledgeable audiences. By the completion of the programme: o The performance should exhibit a level of technical proficiency and artistry such that it could be presented in professional venues (clubs, concert halls, recording sessions) without reservation. At M.Mus. level, merely avoiding errors is not sufficient; the playing or singing should be expressive, stylistically nuanced, and technically confident to a degree that it holds the attention of fellow expert musicians. The candidate’s performances are expected to be of record-release quality or concert quality. For instance, an M.Mus. pianist in contemporary styles would be expected to navigate complex improvisations or arrangements with creativity and personal voice, not just accurately reproduce notes. o The written work should reflect a strong command of academic skills. It is expected to be free of factual errors and demonstrate insightful analysis or argumentation. At the master’s level, the candidate should be able to critically engage with sources, synthesize information from various references, and perhaps even challenge or expand upon existing viewpoints in the subject area. The writing must be clear, well-structured, and properly referenced. Submissions for M.Mus. (be it a dissertation or extended notes) should ideally be of a standard that portions of it could be presented at a conference or in a journal catering to music professionals or academics. In summary, the graduate (upon successful completion) should stand out as a masterful practitioner of their art who also has scholarly depth. The degree signifies that the individual can operate comfortably at a high professional level, and is prepared either to enter the industry at a superior level, teach at an advanced level, or potentially continue to a doctoral programme (should they choose the academic route).

9. Presentation of Materials
All materials for examination must be presented in a professional manner. For performance recordings: multiple camera angles (if video) or stereo mixing (if audio) should be used such that the performance can be clearly seen and heard. It is recommended that video recordings include the performer’s full view (hands on instrument, etc.) where relevant. Each piece in the recital or interim project should be a separate track or chapter, and accompanied by information (either in an accompanying booklet or embedded metadata) including the piece title, composer/original artist, the names of any other performers in the ensemble, and the date/location of recording. For the written thesis or report: it should be typed and bound or in PDF format if electronic. Musical examples (notations, figures) can be inserted where appropriate, and should be labeled (e.g., “Example 4.1: Transcription of solo from …”). A bibliography and discography (for recordings listened to) must be provided at the end, as well as any appendices (for instance, full transcripts of interviews if those were part of research, or detailed charts). The candidate should submit the required number of copies: typically, two bound hard copies of the dissertation (or as instructed by the University) and three copies of any recording media (audio CDs, video DVDs/USB drives) for the performances. It is the candidate’s responsibility to ensure that all media are tested and working before submission. The University will archive one set of submissions; none of the submitted materials can be returned to the candidate. In cases where digital upload is feasible and secure, the University may allow or require electronic submission through an online platform.

10. Examination and Oral Defense
The final examination of the M.Mus. candidate’s work is carried out by an Examining Board constituted by the University. This typically includes the Mentor and at least one examiner who was not directly involved in the supervision (often an external examiner with expertise in the field). The evaluation covers Part 2 (Recital) and Part 3 (Written component) primarily, since Part 1 is an internal progress assessment. After reviewing the recordings and the written thesis/monograph, the Board will meet (either in person or virtually) to discuss the candidate’s performance. The Board may decide one of several outcomes:
– Pass: The candidate has met the requirements in all components. (In very exceptional cases of outstanding work, the Board may recommend a Distinction or special commendation, if the University’s regulations allow degree classifications at the master’s level.)
– Pass subject to minor corrections/revisions: This typically would apply to the written component. For instance, the Board might require the candidate to correct some formatting issues or clarify a few points in the dissertation before the degree is awarded. These minor corrections are verified by the Mentor or a designated examiner but do not require a full re-examination.
– Referral for re-submission: If either the performance or the written work (or both) is not up to standard, but the Board believes the shortcomings could be remedied, they may defer the result and allow the candidate to re-submit the deficient component. For example, they might require the candidate to perform an additional piece, or re-record part of the recital that was unsatisfactory; or to rewrite certain chapters of the dissertation for a second evaluation. The Board will provide feedback detailing the required improvements and a timeline (often within 6 months) for re-submission. Only one opportunity for re-submission is allowed. The re-submitted work will then be re-examined (usually by the same Board if possible).
– Fail: If the work is well below the expected standard and/or the Board feels it cannot be remedied through revision, the candidate will not be awarded the degree. In such case, depending on circumstances, the Board might suggest if any lesser qualification (such as a Postgraduate Diploma) can be awarded for the work that was completed, but this is at the University’s discretion and if an established exit award exists.

As part of the examination process, the University may conduct an oral examination (viva voce). This is common for master’s programmes especially when a dissertation is involved. The viva voce, if held, will typically be via video conference for distance candidates. In the viva, the candidate will be asked questions by the examiners about both their performance and their written work. For example, examiners may ask the candidate to discuss how they developed a particular improvisation, or to elaborate on a statement in the dissertation, or to justify a methodological choice. The oral exam serves to verify the candidate’s depth of understanding and to confirm authorship of the written work. It also provides an opportunity for a two-way scholarly discussion, where the candidate can clarify any misunderstandings the examiners might have had from reading the document or listening to the recordings. Performance-related questions might include technical or interpretive inquiries (“How did you approach adapting X song for solo guitar?”) and the candidate’s reflection on their own artistry (“What do you see as the most distinctive aspect of your playing style?”). The candidate is expected to demonstrate expertise and articulate their thoughts clearly during this defense. The outcome of the viva is considered alongside the submitted materials in making the final decision. The final result will be communicated formally by the University. If all requirements are satisfied, the candidate will be cleared for the award of Master of Music (in Contemporary Music Performance). In the event of required revisions or resubmission, instructions will be given and the Mentor will continue to assist the candidate through that process. A candidate who fails to satisfy the examiners after a re-submission will not receive the degree (and the registration will be terminated). However, if the candidate has met the threshold for some lower award and if University regulations permit, an intermediate qualification may be conferred (for example, a Postgraduate Certificate or Diploma in Music Performance) – this is not automatic and would depend on specific criteria being met.

11. Re-submission and Re-examination
A candidate who is permitted to re-submit any component (performance or written) must do so within the timeframe stipulated by the Examining Board, normally within six months to one year of the original examination result notification. The candidate does not need to pay a new full tuition fee for re-submission, but there may be a nominal re-examination fee. The scope of the re-submission should strictly address the deficiencies noted by the examiners. If it is a performance re-submission, the candidate might need to record additional pieces or a new recital as specified; if it is a dissertation re-submission, the candidate will make the required corrections or expansions as detailed by the Board. The revised work will then be examined, usually by the same examiners if available. The Board can then decide to Accept or Reject the re-submitted work. Only one re-submission opportunity is allowed for each part. If the candidate fails to satisfy the Board on the second attempt, no further chances are given, and the result is a fail. The University encourages candidates to take any referral as a learning opportunity – Mentors will continue to support students in improving their work for re-submission, but it is expected that the student put in significant effort to raise the level to the standard expected.

12. Award of the Degree
When the candidate has fulfilled all requirements and the Examining Board has recommended award of the degree, the student may proceed to graduation. The degree awarded will be “Master of Music in Contemporary Music Performance”. If the candidate’s work was of a religious/sacred nature and met the criteria, the University may, where appropriate, award the degree as “Master of Sacred Music (M.S.M.) in Performance”, but normally the secular designation is used for this contemporary performance track. The University may include an endorsement or specialization on the transcript indicating the primary instrument or focus (for example, “Contemporary Performance – Guitar” or “Contemporary Performance – Jazz Studies”) if deemed appropriate. The date of award will be the date the University approves the final result after all components (including any corrections) are done. Graduates will have their names entered in the University’s Register of Graduates and may participate in convocation ceremonies if they wish. The University will issue the diploma and an academic transcript listing the components of study.