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 scores share the same key, available notes, note durations and seed. The selected style changes harmony and melodic writing. Jazz swing alters the playback timing of written quavers; both scores are notated evenly. 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 the phrase and difficulty criteria. Tonal mode is preserved from V0.8. Genre experiments have their own original templates: jazz guide tones and seventh chords, funk groove-based harmony, pop chord loops and hooks. 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 templates use established harmony and voice-leading principles, 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 fixes the metre at 4/4 and does not yet implement full grade or instrument-transposition profiles.
3. Your professional musical assessment
Rate the new style or tonal 0.8 using the five criteria below; explain any weakness in the comments.
4. Keep a reproducible record
The test record includes the seed, style, selected notes, rhythm, new 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.