Compositional techniques and structure

Repetition restates an idea at the SAME pitch. If it moves to a new pitch level, that is a sequence — and the direction must be named correctly (ascending or descending), matching what actually happens. Mislabelling a sequence as a repetition under-describes the technique and loses the credit.

Inversion flips the melodic shape upside down; retrograde plays the idea BACKWARDS — different devices. Imitation is one part loosely echoing another's motif; canon is strict, whole-line copying at a fixed distance. Using one term for another loses the credit for identifying what was actually done.

Moderators name Structure as the most over-marked criterion: very short single-section pieces, or a plain D.C. al Fine "creating" a ternary return, are over-marked by centres. A D.C. shows no new work — the return must audibly change something (texture, melody or accompaniment) while staying recognisable as A.

The two compositions must differ in their instrument(s), voice(s) or electronic sounds. If both use an identical combination, Composition 2 is automatically awarded 0 for Use of medium — an explicit syllabus rule, not just guidance. Plan contrasting forces for the two pieces from the start.

Reports flag technically impossible writing: a chord voiced for a monophonic trumpet, dense multi-note piano voicings crammed in one hand, pizzicato marked for brass, or a wind instrument written loud in its weakest register. Research each instrument's range and technique before writing.

Borrowed material earns no credit: pre-recorded loops, a theme-and-variations whose theme you did not write, and arrangements of existing pieces are unacceptable — only your own ideas count. Computer notation is not automatically correct: fix default rest values/ordering; a song needs the vocal line notated — lyrics with chord symbols alone caps marks low.