Galicia PAU Music Analysis II / Análisis Musical II 2º Bachillerato CIUG common mistakes
Galicia PAU Music Analysis II / Análisis Musical II 2º Bachillerato CIUG · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Labeling every chord in a passage with Roman numerals but never assigning its tonal function (tónica, dominante, subdominante) or noting which degree the passage is anchored on, so the analysis stops at 'chord naming'.
Candidates memorize the chord-to-numeral conversion table and treat the task as transcription; the CIUG rubric for harmonic analysis asks for function and tonal behaviour, and students underestimate how much credit depends on interpretation rather than identification.
What to do instead
After each numeral, add a function tag (T, D, S, or their prolongations) and state in one sentence which key and degree govern the phrase. Practise on 8–16 bar excerpts where you must write a function line under the numeral line, so the two layers become automatic.
Confusing cadence types: calling a V–I with the tonic in the soprano an 'imperfecta' because it 'sounds weak', or labeling a IV–I as a plagal cadence when it is really a subdominant arrival inside a phrase, and mixing up semicadencia on V with cadencia rota V–VI.
Cadence names are learned as a list without the two decisive criteria (final chord/degree and soprano position), and students rely on how conclusive the music feels instead of checking the voice leading and the melodic degree of the top voice.
What to do instead
Build a decision checklist: (1) which chord ends the phrase, (2) which scale degree is in the soprano, (3) is it phrase-final or internal. Apply it aloud to ten short examples, writing both the label and the two criteria that justify it, so the reasoning is visible to the examiner.
Describing a modulation as 'it goes to the relative major' without locating the pivot chord, the confirming cadence in the new key, or the exact bar where the tonal centre shifts.
Students hear a new key but cannot retrace the mechanism; they also fear committing to a bar number, so they hedge with vague statements that earn no credit.
What to do instead
For every modulation, write three data points: pivot chord (with its dual Roman numeral, e.g. vi in old key = ii in new), first appearance of the new leading tone, and the cadence that confirms the new key, each with bar numbers. Practise on classical sonata expositions where the I–V or i–III move is standard.
Confusing phrase, period and sentence: labeling any eight bars as a 'period' regardless of whether there is an antecedent–consequent relationship, and missing the 4+4 parallel structure or the presentation–continuation design of a sentence.
The Spanish terminology (frase, período, semifrase, antecedente/consecuente) overlaps with everyday usage, and students count bars instead of comparing melodic and harmonic endings of the two halves.
What to do instead
Before naming the form, map the phrase endings: does the first half close on a half cadence and the second on a perfect cadence with similar melodic material? If yes, it is a period with antecedent and consequent. If the second half is a continuation with fragmentation and faster harmonic rhythm, it is a sentence. Write the cadence of each phrase end before assigning the label.
Calling any ABA layout 'sonata form' and then failing to identify the exposition's two tonal areas, the development's fragmentation and tonal instability, and the recapitulation's resolution of the second theme into the tonic.
Ternary and sonata form look identical on a bar-count diagram, and students memorize the letter pattern without the tonal criterion that actually defines sonata form.
What to do instead
Use a two-column template: theme/letter on the left, key on the right. Sonata form is confirmed only when the second theme appears in a contrasting key in the exposition and returns in the tonic in the recapitulation. If the keys do not change, it is simple ternary. Apply this test to the piece before writing the form label.
Ignoring texture entirely or writing only 'melody with accompaniment', without distinguishing homophony, polyphony/imitation, homorhythm, pedal point, ostinato or antiphonal writing, and without noting where the texture changes.
Texture is the least drilled parameter in class compared to harmony and form, and students lack the Spanish vocabulary to describe it precisely, so they default to a safe generic phrase.
What to do instead
Prepare a texture lexicon with one-line definitions (homofonía, contrapunto imitativo, homorritmia, bajo ostinato, pedal armónico, textura de melodía acompañada, antifonal). In each analysis, mark the bars where texture changes and name the change; texture shifts often coincide with formal boundaries and reinforce your form argument.
Describing the melody only as 'ascending then descending' without identifying the motive, its interval structure, and how it is transformed (sequence, inversion, diminution, augmentation, fragmentation).
Motivic analysis requires interval naming and comparison across statements, which is slow; students prefer impressionistic adjectives because they can be written without counting intervals.
What to do instead
Isolate the first 2–4 bar motive, write its interval succession (e.g. +2, +2, −3), then track each reappearance with bar number and the transformation applied. Two or three well-documented transformations are worth more than a paragraph of adjectives.
Misreading the score's basic parameters: wrong clef or transposing instrument, ignoring the key signature change mid-piece, misreading metre changes, or confusing the anacrusis with bar 1 when numbering bars.
Candidates read the piano reduction or a single system and skip the opening instrumentation and the small print; bar-number errors then propagate through the whole commentary.
What to do instead
Before analysing, spend three minutes writing a score header: instruments and transpositions, key signature(s) with any changes and their bars, metre with changes, tempo marking, and whether the piece begins with an anacrusis. Number bars explicitly from that point and refer to them consistently.
Writing a historical contextualisation that is a generic paragraph about 'the Romantic period' with no link to the specific features analysed, and no identification of genre or plausible composer from stylistic evidence.
Students reproduce memorized period summaries because they are unsure how to argue from the score, and they fear naming a composer in case it is wrong.
What to do instead
Argue from evidence: pick two or three features you actually analysed (e.g. chromatic mediant, expanded orchestra, cyclic motif) and state what they indicate about period and genre. Name a probable composer or stylistic circle with a hedge ('compatible with', 'typical of') and justify it. Even a cautious attribution with reasoning scores better than none.
Presenting the commentary as an unordered list of observations with no introduction stating the key, form and genre, and no concluding synthesis, so the examiner cannot see the argument.
Under time pressure candidates write whatever they notice first, in the order they notice it, and never plan; the rubric rewards coherent structure and correct terminology used in context.
What to do instead
Use a fixed skeleton: (1) two-sentence overview with genre, probable period, key and form; (2) form with bar numbers; (3) harmony and cadences; (4) melody, rhythm, texture; (5) stylistic conclusion. Spend five minutes on a bar-numbered outline before writing, and reserve the last paragraph for synthesis linking features to style.