The IB Music IA criteria assess both your practical music and the thinking behind it. Teachers look for purposeful experimentation, connected development, precise commentary, and musical evidence that supports your claims. At HL, they also assess how effectively you manage, document, and evaluate a collaborative project.
Under the current course, Experimenting with music is internally assessed at SL and HL. HL students also complete The contemporary music-maker. Understanding the distinction matters because polished music alone cannot earn marks allocated to rationale, process, evaluation, or presentation.
What counts as the IB Music IA?
Your teacher initially marks the internal components, after which the IB moderates the school's marking.
| Component | Level | Maximum marks | Final weighting |
|---|---|---|---|
| Experimenting with music | SL | 28 | 30% |
| Experimenting with music | HL | 28 | 20% |
| The contemporary music-maker | HL only | 32 | 30% |
At SL, “Music IA” normally means Experimenting with music. At HL, the term may refer to either internal component or both. Exploring music in context and Presenting music are externally assessed, despite also involving portfolios, performances, compositions, and written explanations. The IB Music syllabus breakdown explains how the four components fit together.
Experimenting with music requirements
SL and HL students submit:
- A written experimentation report of no more than 1,500 words
- Three related creating excerpts, with a combined maximum of 5 minutes
- Three related performing excerpts, with a combined maximum of 5 minutes
- A clearly labelled track list with exact timings
- Citations and a bibliography for sources and musical stimuli
The report contains creating and performing sections, each with a rationale and commentary. The three excerpts should reveal stages of one developing experiment rather than three unrelated activities. For example, you might extract a rhythmic feature, alter its metre and accents, and then combine it with a transformed harmonic texture.
Experimenting with music mark scheme
| Criterion | Focus | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| A | Rationale and commentary for creating | 6 |
| B | Practical creating experiments | 8 |
| C | Rationale and commentary for performing | 6 |
| D | Practical performing experiments | 8 |
| Total | 28 |
Criteria A and C assess your explanation and justification. Criteria B and D assess the practical musical evidence. Strong writing cannot fully compensate for weak experiments, while excellent recordings cannot earn explanation marks when commentary is missing.
Criterion A: creating rationale and commentary
Criterion A rewards a purposeful rationale and relevant explanation of creating decisions. Explain why you selected the source, which context and area of inquiry apply, which musical features you extracted, and what you intended to test.
Commentary should explain development rather than list actions. Instead of writing, “I changed the chords because they sounded better,” identify the change and effect: “Open fifths and added-note voicings reduced functional resolution, reflecting the harmonic ambiguity found in the source.” Higher-band work connects research, stimulus, experiment, and musical consequence.
Criterion B: practical creating experiments
Criterion B considers whether the three excerpts demonstrate connected and imaginative development. Higher-level evidence usually shows deliberate manipulation of rhythm, harmony, melody, texture, timbre, register, or structure, followed by increasingly independent treatment of the source.
Simply transposing a borrowed melody or changing its instrument is limited experimentation. Reshaping its phrases, rhythmic identity, harmonic setting, and textural role can demonstrate genuine transformation when the decisions serve a coherent purpose. The excerpts need not be finished compositions, but the experimental progression must be audible. The RevisionDojo guide to composing IB Music coursework gives practical advice on retaining drafts and documenting development.
Criterion C: performing rationale and commentary
Criterion C applies the same explanatory principles to performance. Identify the convention, technique, or interpretation being investigated, then explain how informed decisions changed the performance across the excerpts.
Suitable focuses include articulation, phrasing, ornamentation, tone production, improvisation, rhythmic feel, balance, ensemble interaction, or music technology. Avoid writing a rehearsal diary. “I practised slowly” describes an activity; it does not explain which musical idea was tested, how the sound changed, or why the next interpretation followed.
Criterion D: practical performing experiments
Criterion D rewards audible development, transformation, and musical decision-making, not accuracy alone. A singer investigating ornamentation might test different placements, densities, phrase shapes, and interactions with accompaniment rather than submit three increasingly accurate imitations.
Technical control matters because decisions must be clearly heard. However, a flawless but substantially unchanged rendition may demonstrate less experimentation than a secure sequence of purposeful interpretations.
HL contemporary music-maker criteria
The contemporary music-maker, commonly called CMM, is an HL-only collaborative project worth 30% of the final grade. Students submit a continuously narrated multimedia presentation lasting no more than 15 minutes. The final project or curated extracts may occupy no more than 7 minutes.
| Criterion | Focus | Marks |
|---|---|---|
| A | Selection of evidence | 8 |
| B | Discussion of the process | 12 |
| C | Technical and musical proficiency | 8 |
| D | Organization and presentation | 4 |
| Total | 32 |
Criteria A and B: evidence and process
Criterion A rewards carefully chosen evidence, such as rehearsal footage, annotated scores, DAW sessions, planning records, collaborator discussions, feedback, and recordings. Evidence should reveal artistic intentions, decisions, leadership, and responses to problems. A large collection of photographs proves participation but rarely demonstrates musical development.
At 12 marks, Criterion B is the largest CMM criterion. Discuss successes, challenges, improvements, and musical or collaborative choices against your original aims. Strong evaluation links an aim, a decision or problem, evidence of its musical effect, and a reasoned judgment about success or possible improvement.
Criteria C and D: proficiency and presentation
Criterion C assesses proficiency in your identified role, which might involve composing, performing, arranging, producing, conducting, or sound design. The evidence must make your personal contribution identifiable within the collaboration; an impressive role title earns nothing by itself.
Criterion D concerns the clarity of the multimedia presentation. Logical sequencing, precise narration, readable notation, balanced audio, captions, and accurate labels help the moderator understand your work. Poor editing can obscure otherwise strong evidence.
How teachers and moderators apply the criteria
IB assessment uses a best-fit approach. Teachers compare the complete submission with the descriptors and select the band that represents it most accurately. Marks are not awarded mechanically for including terminology, screenshots, or a particular number of reflections.
The IB moderates a sample from the school to test whether the teacher applied the expected standard. If marking is too generous or severe, marks across the group may be adjusted. Criterion-specific evidence is therefore more dependable than trying to satisfy one teacher's personal preferences. IB Music coursework examples can show how evidence is organized, but they should be analysed rather than copied.
Common reasons Music IA marks are lost
- Unrelated excerpts: Separate ideas do not demonstrate a developing experiment.
- Description without justification: Reporting a decision does not explain its musical purpose.
- Weak source connection: Research is mentioned but does not affect audible choices.
- Polish without process: A finished track may reveal little experimentation.
- Vague references: Claims need timestamps, bar numbers, or clearly identified excerpts.
- Reflection without evaluation: “It went well” requires evidence and judgment.
- Invisible collaboration: HL students must show collaboration and their own responsibility.
- Exceeded limits: Material beyond official word or time limits may not be considered.
Protect authenticity by crediting influences, recordings, samples, software, and collaborators. RevisionDojo's guide to integrity in IB Music explains these responsibilities.
A criterion-led final check
Before submission, confirm that:
- Each experiment has a clear musical purpose.
- Creating and performing excerpts show connected progression.
- Major claims point to precise practical evidence.
- Commentary explains why decisions were made.
- CMM evidence distinguishes your contribution and leadership.
- Evaluation measures outcomes against the original aims.
- Track labels, timings, citations, and credits are accurate.
Conclusion
The IB Music IA criteria reward visible and audible musical thinking. Strong Experimenting with music submissions combine purposeful rationales, precise commentary, connected excerpts, and genuine transformation. Strong CMM projects add selective evidence, critical evaluation, identifiable responsibility, and convincing musicianship.
Use the criteria while choosing evidence, not only after finishing the work. RevisionDojo's IA guidance, coursework exemplars, and rubric-aligned feedback can help identify weak areas, while Jojo AI can clarify criterion language without replacing your own musical decisions.
Sources and referenced URLs
- Official IB Diploma Programme Music subject page
- Official IB Music subject brief
- Current Music guide, updated November 2025
- IB assessment and moderation overview
- RevisionDojo IB Music syllabus breakdown
- RevisionDojo composing guide
- RevisionDojo Music coursework examples
- RevisionDojo academic integrity guide
- RevisionDojo IA guides