IB Music SL cheat sheet

IB listening papers use two prescribed works per session (one Western, one non-Western or from another tradition); questions test context, musical elements, and comparison rather than recall of trivia alone.

Element checklist to apply to any excerpt: duration (metre, tempo, rhythm), pitch (melody, harmony, tonality), dynamics, timbre, texture, form/structure, and context (genre, function, audience).

Identify texture precisely: monophonic, homophonic (homorhythmic vs melody-dominated), polyphonic (imitative vs non-imitative), heterophonic, and antiphonal/call-and-response are distinct categories.

Cadence types to name in analysis: perfect (V–I, both root position), imperfect (V–I with inverted or melodic soprano), plagal (IV–I), interrupted/deceptive (V–vi), and Phrygian (iv6–V in minor).

For prescribed works, prepare a structural map: section timings, key centres, main themes with bar numbers, instrumentation changes, and any text or programme source.

Unfamiliar music questions reward transferable observation: state what you hear (instrument family, register, articulation), then infer tradition or style from identifiable markers.

Comparison answers must address both excerpts directly; a point awarded for a feature requires naming the excerpt and giving a specific musical location or moment.

Terminology precision matters: 'ostinato' vs 'riff', 'melisma' vs 'syllabic', 'rubato' vs 'tempo change', and 'pedal point' vs 'drone' are marked as different features.

The MLI is an internally assessed media script (typically a written or web-based presentation) comparing two distinct musical cultures; it is not a composition or a performance task.

Two cultures must be genuinely distinct traditions; comparing two genres within one tradition (e.g., two Western pop styles) does not satisfy the cultural-difference requirement.

The investigation must identify specific musical links (shared or contrasting elements such as rhythm, texture, instrumentation, or function), not merely biographical or historical parallels.

Evidence should cite named works, performers, recordings, and where possible bar or timestamp references so claims about musical features are verifiable.

The script must include audio/visual examples with a bibliography and discography; sources should be evaluated for reliability, not just listed.

Marking criteria centre on the musical links themselves, the depth of cultural context, the quality of aural evidence, and the coherence of the presentation.

Personal listening observations carry more weight than encyclopaedic facts; the examiner looks for what the candidate heard and how it supports the link.

Common failure: treating the MLI as a history essay; every paragraph should tie a cultural observation back to a specific audible musical feature.

The solo performance is internally assessed by the teacher and externally moderated; recordings must be continuous, unedited, and made under the conditions specified for the session.

The programme must demonstrate contrast: different tempi, keys, styles, or periods, and should total roughly the prescribed duration (commonly around 15 minutes of music).

Repertoire must be at an appropriate level of difficulty; the difficulty of the chosen programme affects the achievable mark band, so under-challenging repertoire caps the result.

Assessment criteria address technical control, musical understanding and interpretation, and the communication of the performance, not just accuracy of notes.

An accompanist is permitted where the repertoire requires one; the balance and ensemble with the accompanist form part of the musical understanding judgement.

Score and programme notes should be submitted with accurate composer, work, and movement details; mislabelled repertoire can delay moderation.

Accuracy of rhythm and intonation is judged against the chosen tempo and style; a stylistically appropriate rubato is not penalised as inaccuracy.

Sight-reading or unprepared performance is not part of the solo performing component; all performed repertoire is prepared and declared in advance.

The creating component is internally assessed coursework: candidates submit a composition or arrangement with a written or recorded rationale explaining intent and process.

The submission must show a clear musical intention, coherent structure, idiomatic handling of the chosen forces, and notated or recorded evidence of the final work.

Arranging requires a stated source and target idiom; credit comes from idiomatic reworking (instrumentation, texture, register) rather than transcription.

Score presentation is assessed: clefs, key and time signatures, transpositions, dynamics, articulation, and layout must be consistent and legible.

A recording of the work (live or realised in notation software) supports the score; balance and playability issues are easier to judge from audio.

Stylistic coherence is judged against the declared style; mixing idioms is acceptable only when the rationale explains and justifies the fusion.

The rationale should map decisions to musical elements (form, harmony, texture, instrumentation) and reference the models or influences used.

Plagiarism rules apply to borrowed material: quotation or pastiche must be acknowledged, and the proportion of original material must be evident.