1. Compose and compare
2. Examine the musical results
Rate the notes on each score. Tap a square above a note to cycle through blank → ✓ → ? → ✕ → blank. Your marks stay with this exercise and appear in screenshots.
Both versions share the same key, permitted pitches, rhythm and seed, but the harmonic bank may choose a different chord plan and therefore a different melody. Versions use different quality scoring rubrics, so numerical points are not directly comparable. Chord symbols and treble-clef notation are provided for listening and evaluation. Automatic quality scores are diagnostics, not proof of artistic quality.
How the reference framework informs this version
The uploaded Trinity flute, oboe, clarinet and saxophone scores informed our phrase and difficulty criteria. V0.8 draws on transposable tonic, predominant, dominant, inversion and cadential templates and writes a fresh melody under the chosen harmony. V0.7-style review then makes only cautious individual note corrections. It preserves good passing and neighbour notes and keeps the closing bar intact. The bank is guided by harmonic-function and voice-leading resources, not copied melodies. Some combinations of restricted available notes require tonic substitutions. The scores are single-line examples, so chord functions and inversions are our compositional design rules, not extracted harmonies.
Read the musical reference framework (PDF). This prototype currently fixes the metre at 4/4 and does not yet implement the full grade, style or instrument-transposition profiles.
3. Your professional musical assessment
Rate Version 0.8 using the five criteria below; explain any weakness in the comments.
4. Keep a reproducible record
The test record includes the seed, selected notes, rhythm, Version 0.8 and Version 0.3 melodies, chord progressions and automatic audit. Your per-note ✓ / ? / ✕ ratings and comments can also be exported. Nothing is sent to a server.