PAU Music Analysis II (Balearic Islands / UIB) common mistakes
PAU Music Analysis II (Balearic Islands / UIB) · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
Writing the Roman numeral for a chord's root position but omitting the inversion figures (e.g. labelling a first-inversion dominant as simply 'V' instead of 'V6', or a second-inversion tonic as 'I' instead of 'I6/4'), and then describing the bass line as if the chord were in root position.
Candidates learn chords as abstract root labels and treat figured bass as decoration; under exam pressure they default to the triad symbol they recognise and never cross-check the actual bass note in the score.
What to do instead
Before writing any numeral, circle the lowest sounding pitch in the score and determine which chord member it is. Build the habit of always writing the full symbol (root, quality implied by key, and figures 6, 6/4, 7, 6/5, 4/3, 4/2). At the end, re-read your Roman numeral line against the bass line alone as a separate pass.
Confusing the label of a cadence with the harmonic motion that produces it: calling any V–I arrival a perfect authentic cadence even when the soprano ends on the third or fifth, or calling a I–V close a 'half cadence' without checking whether it is a genuine phrase-ending dominant.
Cadence types are memorised as a short list without the conditions (root position, soprano on tonic, both chords in root position for a PAC; the half cadence requires a structural phrase end on V, not just any V).
What to do instead
Make a checklist for each cadence: which chord is final, are both chords in root position, what scale degree is in the soprano, and does the phrase actually end there? Practise labelling cadences in short excerpts where the soprano note is deliberately varied, and state the type plus the reason (e.g. 'PAC: V–I, both root position, soprano 1').
Marking a modulation at the first chromatic accidental rather than at the point where the new tonic is confirmed by its dominant (or by a cadence), so the analysis shows a key change two or three chords too early.
Candidates equate accidentals with modulation and do not distinguish applied/secondary dominants, modal mixture, and chromatic passing tones from true tonal reorientation.
What to do instead
Use a two-stage test: locate the accidental, then ask which chord it belongs to and whether that chord is a dominant of a new key that is subsequently confirmed. Label unconfirmed cases as applied chords (V7/x) or mixture. Draw the pivot chord explicitly and only place the new key label after confirmation.
Producing a form diagram that lists sections (A, B, A') without bar numbers, without cadence points, and without thematic content, so the diagram cannot be checked against the score.
Diagrams are treated as a labelling exercise rather than an analytical argument; time pressure pushes candidates to write the skeleton and move on.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed column format: section label, bar numbers, thematic material (phrase incipit or motive description), cadence and key at the end of each section. Never write a section letter without its bar span. Leave the diagram until the harmonic analysis is done so the boundaries are evidence-based.
Describing phrase structure with vague vocabulary ('a long phrase', 'it repeats') instead of identifying the actual construction: period vs sentence, antecedent/consequent, basic idea, presentation, continuation, cadential liquidation, and the bar counts of each unit.
The terminology is known passively but not practised on real scores, so under exam conditions the candidate falls back on everyday descriptive language.
What to do instead
Drill a small set of score excerpts, labelling each phrase with unit names and bar counts (e.g. 'sentence: basic idea 1–2, varied repetition 3–4, continuation 5–8, cadence bar 8'). Write the bar count next to every unit name so the claim is falsifiable.
Treating the melody as a string of chord tones and labelling every non-chord tone as a passing note, missing suspensions, appoggiaturas, anticipations and escape tones, and so misreading the harmonic rhythm.
Non-chord tone categories are learned as definitions but not applied at speed; candidates also analyse melody and harmony in separate passes and never reconcile them.
What to do instead
For each melodic note not in the chord, record three things: its metric position, the direction of approach and resolution, and whether it is accented. Accented, approached by leap or prepared by suspension resolves differently from a weak-beat stepwise passing note. Then verify that the harmonic rhythm you claimed is consistent with those placements.
Writing commentary that narrates the score ('then the bass goes down, then the melody rises') instead of making analytical claims about function, tension, formal role or stylistic convention.
Candidates confuse description with analysis and run out of analytical vocabulary mid-answer; narration also fills space safely when unsure.
What to do instead
Use a claim–evidence–significance sentence pattern: state the analytical point, cite bar numbers and the specific chord/note, then say why it matters (e.g. 'the delayed resolution of the dominant in bars 21–24 intensifies the approach to the recapitulation'). Ban yourself from sentences that only report register or direction.
Ignoring the historical and stylistic frame: analysing a Baroque binary movement with sonata-form expectations, or a Romantic work with strict Baroque dissonance rules, and never mentioning genre, period conventions or the work's likely function.
Harmonic and formal technique is revised in isolation from repertoire knowledge, and candidates fear that contextual statements are 'not analysis' and will not earn marks.
What to do instead
Before analysing, write two lines: probable period/genre and the conventions that follow (e.g. 'Baroque dance movement: binary form, tonal answer, cadence to the dominant in the first half'). Let those conventions guide which form model you test first, and include one contextual sentence in the commentary tying a specific analytical decision to period practice.
Misreading the score's analytical notation: mistaking the key signature change for a modulation point, ignoring clef changes and ledger-line register, or misidentifying the figured bass in a continuo part as chord symbols to be analysed literally.
Score reading is assumed rather than trained; candidates read the top staff only and treat continuo figures as harmonic labels rather than as interval instructions against the bass.
What to do instead
Practise reading short scores away from the instrument: state the key signature, clefs and any changes before analysing. For continuo, realise the figures against the actual bass note first, then compare with the written upper parts. Always check whether a key signature change coincides with the confirmed modulation.
Leaving the analysis incomplete at the end: harmony annotated for the exposition only, no cadence labels in the development, no final diagram, because time was spent perfecting the opening.
Candidates work linearly and polish early material, underestimating how long the later sections take; there is no time plan.
What to do instead
Work in two passes: first a fast pass marking key areas, cadences and section boundaries across the whole piece, then a detailed harmonic pass. Allocate time explicitly (e.g. 15 minutes for the overview pass) and reserve the last ten minutes for the diagram and a completeness check against the score's final bar.