~

~ -...

Music

International Baccalaureate"
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
Baccalaureat lnterrliltlonilll International Baccalaureate® | Baccalauréat International® | Bachillerato Internacional®
Bach1llerato lnternacion•I
November 2023 subject report Music

Contents

Grade boundaries 3
Exploring music in context 4
Experimenting with music 8
Higher level the contemporary music-maker 11
Presenting music 14

Page 2 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

Grade boundaries
Higher level overall
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 10 11 - 21 22 - 37 38 - 51 52 - 66 67 - 80 81 - 100

Standard level overall

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0 - 10 11 - 20 21 - 36 37 - 50 51 - 63 64 - 76 77 - 100

Exploring music in context

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-2 3-4 5-7 8 - 10 11 - 13 14 - 16 17 - 24

Experimenting with music

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-2 3-4 5 - 10 11 - 14 15 - 17 18 - 21 22 - 28

Higher level the contemporary music-maker

Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-3 4-7 8 - 12 13 - 17 18 - 23 24 - 28 29 - 32

Presenting music
Grade: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Mark range: 0-5 6 - 10 11 - 16 17 - 21 22 - 27 28 - 32 33 - 38

Page 3 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
a International Baccalaureate
Baccalaureat International
Bachillerato Internacional
November 2023 subject report Music

Exploring music in context

The range and suitability of the work submitted
Marks in this component were often within the 7-16 range, which is disappointing. This is probably caused
by schools not having a full understanding of the requirements of the criteria, misunderstanding their
intention. For example criteria C1 and C2 do not necessarily reward musicality. There were instances
where students presented artistically interesting practical exercises that did not meet the requirements of
the content of the descriptors. In these situations the artistic exercises often received a low mark at best.

Student performance against each criterion

As in previous sessions, there were some compelling reports. However, this section will focus on
describing areas that need attention from schools and their
the supervision of future student
high marks to be used as examples of better practice for subsequent sessions.

Criterion A
Many students chose diverse selections for exploration. However, many did not justify the areas of inquiry
(AOIs) and contexts for each of the selections. Some justifications were not convincing, or the
characteristics of the pieces did not match the AOI indicated. The presented evidence had several
problems. For instance, an alarming number of musical examples lacked clefs, many comments did not
have in-text citations, timestamps used often corresponded to the actual original musical clips, that were
not available to examiners, and not to the evidence presented in upload 3.
There was some confusion about the use of music for film. For example, a film using music from Mozart
that was obviously not composed for that
composer purposefully created music to support the plot and the images on the screen. In other cases,
students selected music that was created for dramatic impact such as dance music. However, in their
analysis, they did not connect the music to that reason which made them correctly classify it as AOI 3. In
these cases, students described musical elements that were not directly supporting the dramatic effect.
A few students went well beyond the requirement limits for illustration and words. Please remember that
these limits are 2400 words and 5 pages of illustrations. Beyond those limits, examiners are instructed not
to read or consider evidence. This impacted some responses that had sections 2 and 3 beyond the 2400
words and, as a result, were not taken into consideration for awarding marks.

Criterion B1
This was a challenging criterion for students. Several students explored many pieces, resulting in
abundant diversity and breadth. However, because of the 2400 word limit, the depth of the information
provided was shallow. There is a balance to be established between the number of pieces selected for the
submission, the diversity, the breadth, and the depth of the musical research. Musical findings were mostly
descriptive in about 25% of the submitted responses. Some students took analytical findings from
secondary resources, which is not a problem, but there was a lack of comprehension of the analytical
commentary. The use of evidence often listed stylistic characteristics of the genre but failed to engage
with the selections chosen for discussion. Responses that earned the top marks were those that tried to
relate musical findings with the chosen AOI but examined relevant examples. Students should stay away
from providing anecdotal information about composers. As implied above, with a limit of 2400 words, the

Page 4 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

selection of information presented needs to be effective. Please provide only the information that is
relevant and purposeful. Telling that a composer started studying music at 4 years of age might not be as
relevant as explaining the musical characteristi Students relying on audio only
for analysis did not provide enough depth. There were too many responses where the excerpt on the
audio was totally ignored, the student presenting a totally different section of the piece for analysis. Audio
was not always used to the advantage.

Criterion B2
This criterion seemed to confuse the students and the implications to inform the submission at C1 and C2
were often weak. The objective of this component is that students explore musical materials and then,
with the knowledge acquired, they create practical exercises putting into practice the knowledge
acquired. This rather simple scheme is not always followed. There were several responses that chose
stimuli that were not explored in the research part of the report. In these, some of the responses that
addressed the AOI and Context and explored the creating or performing conventions in detail were
awarded full credit. It was apparent that a majority of students/instructors do not understand the IB
guidelines for "Implications of the research for the practical exercises."

Criterion C1
A musical element found in a piece is not necessarily a convention. If a concerto is written in Bb major does
not mean that all concerti are written in Bb major. To determine what is a real convention of a style there
is a need to explore many examples representative of the style. Unfortunately, some students explore one
piece and believe that all elements present in the piece are conventions of the style. For example, let us
pretend that a student is interested in the Baroque piece Battalia by Biber, which uses dissonances to
represent a battle. If a student explores only this piece, the student will believe that dissonance is a
convention of the Baroque style. There were some cases where the student had tried to fuse conventions
from all the pieces researched. In general, the results were not convincing. It is not always understood that
it is how the musical content is organized that will display an understanding of the style rather than simply
putting random features of a style together without thought or understanding.

Criterion C2
By far, this criterion caused the most difficulty for students. It was rare to hear a successful adaptation.
Most of the submissions were arrangements, variations, or transcriptions to the student
with little observation of the performing practices of the original.
elusive to students and probably also to their teachers. In most cases, the students simply transcribed the
notes of the stimulus (often just one line of the stimulus) to their instrument. In these cases, there was

inventive and performed different lines of the stimulus on a multitrack medium. However, this often
resulted in a more sophisticated and complete transcription but still without any awareness of
'performance practices'. Many vocal students selected instrumental stimuli that they transcribed to their
voices. This presented often idiomatic challenges to performing the instrumental lines. Only a very small
number of students showed ingenuity in creating adaptations that showed awareness of performance
practices.

Page 5 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future students

Criterion A
Students need to be reminded that there is a need to clarify the contexts and AOIs in relation to their
selections. Using pieces that are piano reductions but talking about the instruments/voices from the
original (not necessarily the audio) does not support discussions well. A judicious choice of 3-4 pieces will
allow for in-depth analysis of the short excerpts offered in upload 3. In general, including more pieces than
this risk weakening the research that can be presented within the maximum requirements. Scores offer a
way to convey concise information that could save students many words. While it is challenging to use
notated evidence in pop music and traditional music, in most Western Art Music it is possible to find scores.
However, students should be aware that including scores without annotation or comments makes the
illustration merely decorative. The score should be used to support an argument. In cases where scores
are not available, students have created transcriptions of brief passages with maybe one or two musical
elements, such as a simple rhythm or melody. In this way, students have shown commitment to the
research.
Students who selected AOI-4 and obtained high marks did not limit their observations to list the electronic
instruments/resources displayed in the pieces. In their analysis, students explained how these electronic
resources were used in the piece.

Criterion B1
Musical findings need more depth rather than a superficial description of the score. Students who got high
marks in this criterion presented relevant findings. Anecdotal comments do not help to explain what a
convention is. Evidence presented on responses cannot include resources such as external YouTube links.
Rather, the source material should be available on upload 3 or 2 with accurate timestamps or in
conventional notation. The location of analytical findings should be annotated on the score or by use of
timestamps. Students should be encouraged to use accurate terminology, evidence, and location.

Criterion B2
Students with high marks in this criterion were students who saw the component as a whole and not as a
series of unconnected steps. These students understood that the exploration described in section 1 was

this connection, explaining the implications became simple.

Criterion C1
A convention is something that connects a style. High-mark students understood that not all the elements
found in a specific piece are conventions. For instance, if the meter of a classical sonata is 4/4 that does
not mean that all classical sonatas are in 4/4. If the key of a classical symphony is in G major does not mean
that all classical symphonies are in G major. Therefore, these elements are not part of a convention.
Students need to determine what is a simple musical element and what is an element that is part of a
conventional use.

Criterion C2
The situation with this criterion is very similar to criterion C-1. Students who reached high marks

is performed differently if it was written by Corelli, Rachmaninoff, Mariachi music from Mexico, or part of
Argentinian tango. Students with high marks were able to determine what the performance practices

Page 6 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

were, and they tried to incorporate them into their instruments. For instance, a student became familiar
with the way that the violin is played on a tango (with passages including strong accents, staccatos,
tremolos, and, on some occasions, pizzicatos, fast glissandos, playing ornaments behind the bridge) and,
as a result, adapted the piece for the flute using what would be considered 'extended techniques' in the
flute such as flutter tongue, keyclicks, jet whistle, tongue stop to make the adaptation sound (in the flute)
as close as possible as if it had been played by a tango violinist.

Further comments

easily solved if the instructions in the guide had been follow. Yes, the guide is not very easy to navigate.
However, spending more time trying to understand it would probably be beneficial in solving the issues
that have been highlighted above.

Page 7 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

Experimenting with music

The range and suitability of the work submitted
Examiners encountered work covering almost the full range of marks. The lowest scoring work was
generally incomplete. No examiner had the opportunity to give the very highest mark in this session, but
the overall general standard was probably higher than in the May session.
The work was mostly suitable, which would indicate some progress in the understanding of the
component. However, there were some cases of misunderstanding of some of the requirements; some
students submitted their own performances or compositions instead of experimentations on both
performing and creating, but these cases were considerably fewer than in earlier sessions.
Some students demonstrated noticeable less efficacy in conceptual/written expression (criteria A and C)
than in practical work. This was particularly so in creating, and in these cases, the commentary was often
too brief, lacking detail and evaluation.
In this session more schools presented excerpts of an experimental process (three experiments in a
progressive series) than in previous sessions, but still more than half of the responses featured sets of
experiments that were exercises complete in themselves, usually, but not always, related to a single
stimulus. This resulted in examiners having to approach the responses in different ways depending on the
form of the work presented. A progressive series of experiments would be evaluated for its

preparatory, or even a kind of research. Whereas in the case of three separate exercises the examiner
would need to evaluate this transformation in each of the three different situations and then calculate an
overall mark.
Experiments in creating using publishing programs (Musescore/Sibelius/Finale) and experiments using
digital workstations were roughly equal in number.
Many students in their creating chose to work in music from a genre without citing specific stimulus music.
music c - the genre was mentioned,
sometimes described, but often without any specific pieces being named or referred to in any way.
Students creating with music technology were often very good at explaining their technical decisions, but
sometimes vague when talking about musical choices, just using indefinite phrases such as, I added some
chords.
The requirement to include areas of inquiry (AOI) and contexts was better observed in this session,
although there remain ambiguities as to whether the AOI is referring to the stimulus music or to the
method of work, (a Bach sonata reworked on a DAW might be AOI2 or 4 for example). Probably most
students made some attempt to justify their choices of AOI and context.
Most students managed to present experiments in creating and performing in different AOIs and contexts
although sometimes this was achieved via the somewhat creative definition of these.
Experiments in performing were slightly stronger in this session and tended to concentrate on more
conventional development of musical elements/ideas rather than feeling the necessity to go for extreme
techniques.

Page 8 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

It is still quite common for students to perform less well in experimenting as a performer, as they struggle
to move from a musical elements type analysis towards the more physical, technique-based analysis
required for performing.

Student performance against each criterion

Criteria A and C
There was increased attention to AOI and context, though not always effectively. Justification of musical
decision making appeared only in the higher levels, whereas unexplained outlines or description were
more common.
The presentation of sources varied from those students who gave no references, through those who gave
a list of sources in an appendix, to those who directly referred to reference sources.
Several students limited themselves to making some general background statement regarding a stimulus
or a genre, without this having any bearing on an experimenting process.
Ongoing evaluation of the process was given by fewer than half of the students. This evaluation was more
common in cases where the experiments were progressive/linear.

Criterion B

context- which may be external to the student

student to create his own new context. Adapting might therefore have been seen as an alternative to
transforming rather than something inferior.
Some students set out to take a stimulus and to work it into chosen new contexts, whereas others
presented a genre or artist and said they were going to create in this fashion. The evaluation of

student themself. These students were effectively

students managed to personalize the generic
elements.

Criterion D
Audio evidence of experimenting in performing again showed a wide variety in quality, taking into
account also that students were ranging from accomplished players to those which had been playing their
instruments possibly for less than two years,
Stronger students showed an openness to trying things out, using the various parameters available to
them sometimes going to extended, or unusual techniques, Weaker students performed with little or no
discernible variation from the original.
The element of improvisation sometimes helped a student personalize his rendering of a piece.
Improvisation was, in fact used almost exclusively in performing experiments rather than as a creating
activity.
Some students included creating elements in their performing experiments, presenting performances of
what were, effectively rearrangements. These generally scored less well than others since the
development of musical ideas was not being achieved though performance. This remains a grey area in
the component,

Page 9 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

Only a small minority of students offered performing experiments using technology, and fortunately these

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future students

From the work submitted it was obvious that some schools have all students do the same tasks, especially
in experimenting as a creator. While this may be a useful method when students lack an idea to start out
from, it may also, in some cases, be taking away from students the freedom to play to their strengths and
is not recommended for experiments that are included in the submission.
The experimenting component should be encouraging imagination, and even some leaping in the dark
and risk taking to push boundaries, which may lead to discoveries.
It is important students understand how planned and informed research and trialling is essential to artistic
work. The relationship between research and experimenting process is not always coming over strongly.
Students should try to show what it is they are taking from the research to apply into the experimentation
process.
Teachers should direct their students to explain the decisions in their experimentation process, rather than
just list what they do.
Encourage use of the elements of music in describing experimentation processes, using terminology to
show understanding.
Students should remember to offer some evaluation after each experimenting excerpt, this may be a
negative evaluation if the student feels the experiment has not produced a useful result.
Establish meaningful discussions of AOI and contexts for the study of music from the very beginning.
Clarify how experimentation in interpretation is different from performing or performance preparation. It
is trying something with a purpose (and a plan structured through study, research). In performing
experiments, the student should show the desire to change a stimulus through performing in a different
way. This does not have be to a new, or unconventional way, just a different way that will bring about
some change. Think carefully about the different performance techniques that can be used and
experimented with.
When uploading audio tracks, try to leave a few seconds between each excerpt. Audio experts that run
together can be problematic for the examiner to discern between.

Page 10 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

Higher level the contemporary music-maker

The range and suitability of the work submitted
November 2023 was the first time that the CMM component was assessed in the Southern Hemisphere,
showing us a wide range of work submitted, especially taking into consideration the difference between
English and Spanish submissions.
In this session, we can find very good examples showing a good comprehension of this component. At
the same time, many samples were again focused on other than musical aspects, with superficial
discussions and evidence, although planning the project was the stronger aspect of this submission.
Also in this session, most of the submissions were about composing where, in many cases, the pieces
presented had little control and development of material, especially for an HL student.
Many students missed the opportunity to utilise supporting documents to expand upon their submitted
information. Instead, they often provided transcriptions of their presentation or a synthesis of it. However,
there were some good examples where students submitted the full score of a composition.
While collaboration was generally understood as an important aspect of the component, many students
struggled to demonstrate and prove leadership in their identified roles, as stated in the music guide.
There was also a discrepancy between the guide and the submissions regarding the aspect of an identified
role. The guide consistently refers to the role as a singular, but many students referred to it in the plural
form, such as "my roles have been singer and composer". Only one role will be assessed according to the
guide requirements, students who include evidence for more than one are effectively wasting
minutes/words in their submission.

Student performance against each criterion

Criterion A
Most of the evidence was about planning and in the form of a Powerpoint presentation with voice over.
There are few students with work that achieves full marks, where examiners find musical and research
evidence.
A very good approach to this criterion was the inclusion of score excerpts and video of students practising
or rehearsals.
In many cases there was no evidence of collaboration rather than the voice of the student over the
presentation talking about it.

Criterion B
The most challenging criterion.
There were a few very good examples of students discussing the process in all the aspects needed to
achieve full marks, although the process was not fully understood by many students who have spent
several minutes of the presentation talking about the planning and not having the space and depth to
discuss the process in relation to the stated aims.

Page 11 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
a International Baccalaureate
Baccalaureat International
Bachillerato Internacional
November 2023 subject report Music

It was very difficult to find examples in the top mark band which: discussed the challenges and successes
in relation to the stated aims, examined areas for development and strategies for improvement, and/or
evaluated the musical and collaborative choices made.

Criterion C
When a student has followed the submission requirements as intended, this criterion is straightforward to
mark and examiners do see very good submissions.
Examiners had issues marking when the student submitting the work is difficult or impossible to identify.
In this cohort there were many submissions where students have shared the responsibility of creating a
piece of music but have not specified or provided evidence about the part itself. Although sharing a
composition process can be very interesting and can encourage a good learning process, the examples
assessed in this session were mostly about a melody with simple chord progressions.
Good examples of this shared process are when one student created the composition and another student
was in charge of producing it (improving the sound by recording, editing, mixing and mastering).
Another issue was when students did not have a musical role in the project. An example would be a group
organising a concert where one student in charge of the logistics to put different
musicians together to run the concert, making flyers, doing the lights, and not focusing on any musical
intention.
There were many submissions with film scores or compositions for art exhibitions, but few good examples
of good scores produced. Most of these compositions did not present a score

Criterion D
This criterion is straightforward to mark. In general the submissions were purposeful presentations.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future students

To read the Music guide to concentrate on both the syllabus and the internal assessment elements for the
component. Especially the submission requirements and the assessment criteria should be carefully
analysed and discussed with students.
Carefully read and plan activities taking the assessment criteria into consideration. In particular criterion
B.
Ensure the student submitting the work clearly identifies themselves and their contribution to the whole.
This can be done, for example, showing a picture or video of the student. By being specific during the
presentation about the own work done. By annotating some key aspects that can help examiners to
identify a student. This could be as simple as stating, this student is playing the electric bass wearing the
brown t-shirt.
Submit the original source material when working with arrangements. Most of the submissions with
so
allow the assessment of the arranging skills of the student.
If collaboration is undertaken by students sharing the composition process of the same piece, the
leadership for each different presentation should be clear and identify the individual work of each student.
The music presented should be developed in depth in order to achieve an excellent technical proficiency.

Page 12 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

Students should be encouraged to make effective use of the supporting documents to support the
presentation. More detail offered there means that they don't have to try to cram everything into the 15
minute presentation.
Students should be dissuaded from just speaking to a Powerpoint, but rather, include as much variety as
possible in facilitating the final multimedia presentation.

Further comments
This component should be taken as a whole. The roles of researcher, performer and creator are implied in
this component. The one music role that must be identified by the student should be in line with the
project itself.
Some students did not receiving marks that reflected their effort because they were not following the
submission requirements and the evidence was irrelevant. Teachers and students are encouraged to
review the music guide more in detail to ensure that the submission allows the student a fair mark that
does reflect their effort.
Instructions are clear in the guide yet a few things still being missed that need to be elaborated on or
reminders provided:
• students must state the one role they are being assessed on.
• adults/teachers/professionals should not be part of the presentation.
• students need to work with a collaborator.
• presentations should be not longer than 15 minutes.
• the final product must be presented.

Page 13 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
a International Baccalaureate
Baccalaureat International
Bachillerato Internacional
November 2023 subject report Music

Presenting music
The range and suitability of the work submitted
submissions showed an improvement in the understanding of what was required in the
presenting music component and most of the students submitted all the required work according to the
Music guide. There were many highly commendable and compelling submissions showing outstanding
composing and performances with a clear understanding and communication of the role of each of the
four areas of inquiry (AOI) in relation to the selections chosen.
There were, however, still some students unsure of the meaning of the AOI and doing a fair amount of
guess work as to what the purpose behind the selection was. Some programme notes still lacked scores
and references. As mentioned, some compositions were highly developed, but others seemed as if they
were a last-minute project. Most of the performances were of good quality although there were still a
number whose technical proficiency did not match the repertoire selected. Communication of the roles
generally was fulfilled providing that a clear understanding of the AOIs was given in the programme notes.

Student performance against each criterion

Criterion A
Most of the programme notes were of approximately 600 words although some were over the word count,
and many wasted the word count with unnecessary irrelevant information or stories. Bibliographies still
showed a high reliance on YouTube videos and Wikipedia with long quotes which could have been
paraphrased demonstrating the student
students were still not clearly linking the AOIs to the selections, particularly in AOI2 which was seldom
explained properly. Confusion was evident as well in relation to AOI3 in which students would a describe
a piece, for example from the Baroque era, and link it to film music just because it had been used in a
movie or TV show. There were students seeming almost to guess at the link or writing about the AOIs as if
the composers had chosen those categories back in the time period in which they lived. Multiple AOI links
as well were given to one selection, which indeed is possible but in the end the programme notes needed
to have clear explanations of the four AOIs in relation to the musical selections chosen.
Scores for creating were almost always in the programme notes and generally had more annotations for
the MTech scores/screen shots than in previous sessions. In the ensemble scores and in particular the
orchestral scores, instrumental lists were often missing at the start of the score.

Criterion B
Many fine pieces of creating were submitted showing technical proficiency in writing for acoustic
instruments and MTech along with some creating related to improvisation. Most of the writing for specific
instruments showed care but there were still some compositions that did not take into consideration the
technical aspects of the instrument chosen, for example, writing far too wide chords in the piano, or
writing notes outside of the normal range of a voice type. Some scores had expressive markings with
excellent detail, but others did not have any or only started at the beginning of the score to write a few
articulation marks or dynamics and then seemed to give up after a few bars/measures. The full orchestral
scores generally were in traditional instrumental order but some of the small ensembles had awkward
score set up with instrumentation in random order, for example the piano on the top line of the score
rather than at the bottom for a piano trio. Some of the scores did not specify what instrument the

Page 14 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

composition was written for so that the technical proficiency of writing for an instrument or voice could
not be assessed.
Some works were written for professional level performers and others for amateurs or school groups. In
doing so, some of the students wrote music of a technical level appropriate, but others, particularly those
writing works for beginner performers often wrote melodic lines or accompaniments which were
awkward to play or too difficult for a beginner.
MTech compositions showed good use of effects and generally good planning although there were many
still heavily leaning on extended looping without any development of the initial ideas presented.
Most of the compositions showed that the student strove towards a complete final work of their best
ability, but others seemed to be a string of excerpts reflecting a set of extracts in the manner of the
experimenting in music component.

Criterion C
Often performers did not mention what instrument or voice type was being featured and this impacted
the examiner . Multiple instruments or vocal selections in combinations with ensemble
performances with extracts are acceptable but the student should identify their role in relation to each
selection.
Most of the selections chosen were of an appropriate technical level for the student but occasionally a
piece too difficult for the student was chosen leading to hesitations in the fluency.
Appropriate accompaniments were played for soloists for the most part although sometimes the
recordings needed a better balance as the soloist often was in the background rather than being featured.
For the ensemble submissions more care was given this session with clearer excerpts of the student. Most
of the ensembles showed similar strengths or weaknesses as in the student
the excerpts.
Intonation in ensembles as well as in solo performances showed more consideration.
There was a better understanding as well of when or not to submit a MTech video and how to make the
video. Some of the videos for MTech performance still had the face of the student visible. Some MTech
performances had excellent use a variety of techniques and effects. A reminder, that performing to a
backing track made with MTech is not considered MTech performance for this component.

Criterion D
In the submissions where the AOIs were clearly explained, the communication of the roles were easily
understood in the performances and creating. The audio quality was generally good although sometimes
quite heavy, as mentioned above, in the accompaniment. Some audios had background noise which was
distracting, and others were not checked very carefully before the uploading and either were blank or had
multiple tracks making it difficult to understand what was to be focussed on.

Recommendations and guidance for the teaching of future students

Criterion A
The programme notes must be to the point and succinct as the word count is only 600 words. Teachers
should make sure that their students are digging deeper into the background of the selections and writing
relevant information rather than giving extra unrelated stories. Quotes are excellent if from reliable

Page 15 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
November 2023 subject report Music

sources, but a shorter paraphrase of the information is preferable and gives more quality information
considering the limited word count. Teachers should make sure that the students understand the meaning
of the AoIs before they write the programme notes otherwise the reader is left to wonder why the AoI was
chosen in relation to the selection. Evidence is needed in the explanation of the choice of the AoI. Scores
must be part of the programme and MTech scores need annotations to explain the screen shots of the
DAW used as well as the effects.

Criterion B
Prior analysis of other works by recognised composers is recommended to understand how other
composers create music and develop their motifs within a composition. Advice about the technical
aspects of the instrument(s)/voice types the student is writing for should be given as well as aid in
proofreading the final score. As mentioned, proper layout of ensemble scores and instrumental lists are
part of standard compositional techniques. A composition does not have to be aimed at a professional
level musician or ensemble but if the work is meant for a beginner, then aspects of beginner techniques
should be used.
In MTech compositions endless looping without development with effects should be avoided, especially
when it is used just to lengthen the composition. The audio in a MTech composition is of utmost
importance and care should be taken that the upload of the audio is complete and of good quality.
Similarly, with acoustic scores, adding a repeat to a section does not show imagination particularly. If a
selection is in a Baroque style with improvised ornamentation in the repeat, the student should mention
what type of ornamentation would be used and not necessarily leave it to the performer to decide even
though that may have often happened during the Baroque era. The score is what gives the information to
the performer in a traditional acoustic composition. As well, variations are an excellent structure for
composition, but students should go beyond basic doubling of octaves or changing of tempo or time
signature if writing variations on a theme.
Improvisations should have a source and plan or a score of the original melody/harmonic scheme.

Criterion C
Playing different instruments/singing in different combinations with various ensembles with extracts
given is acceptable but the teachers should ensure that the students clearly label their instrument/voice
type in relation to each selection performed so it is clear what part of the performance should be marked.
MTech videos are only for performances that have the student using MTech during the performance. A
student playing their instrument with a backing track made by MTech is not considered MTech
performance for this component. Students are reminded as well that the videos are only to demonstrate
the actions done such as pedal loops and their faces should not be part of the video.
Early planning should be done to ensure that this is not a last-minute programme. Sometimes in the
programme one work of lesser technical proficiency seems to be in the programme as if a student was
short of a piece to complete the four AOIs.

Criterion D
If an AOI is not mentioned in the programme notes, it makes it difficult to understand the communication
of the role when listening to the performances and compositions and reading the scores given. The audios
need to be of good quality, and it is advisable to take care in cutting the ends of performance audios, or
preferably, submit complete pieces rather than sections of pieces.

Page 16 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
a International Baccalaureate
Baccalaureat International
Bachillerato Internacional
November 2023 subject report Music

Scores should be proofread carefully as well as the programme notes. Uploads of audio files are of utmost
importance and teachers are advised to allot extra time for this endeavour to ensure that the audios are
uploaded correctly and can be heard.

Further comments
The building block of creating is learning about other composer's compositional techniques. Although
each composition presented by the student must be original, there should be prior learning and study of
established composers' works which can give ideas and inspiration for new compositional works. Similarly,
in performance, a careful study of repertoire and performance practices of great artists needs to be done
for a student to understand how to play/sing a selection in character of the time period/style/genre of the
piece/song which in turn will help in communicating the role of the selection. Listening to a wide range
of recordings of great artists and comparing their interpretations can help guide students in shaping their
own performances and also give ideas for compositions.
As presenting music is a showcase of the student's final work in their DP music course, early planning
should be done to ensure that this is not a last-minute programme. It is recommended to start the initial
recording in first year so that reflections on the work can be made and that the student will have a wide
range of repertoire to choose from for the final presenting submission.
Despite these final cautionary comments, there were many excellent and compelling submissions
showing students with great promise for the future musical world.

Page 17 / 17
© International Baccalaureate Organization 2024
a International Baccalaureate
Baccalaureat International
Bachillerato Internacional