The Limits of Eloquence: Improving your EE
Craft and Content: Avoiding the Pitfalls in the Extended Essay
Receiving Extended Essay results can be bewildering when you have submitted what feels like a well-written paper, only to find yourself in a lower grade band. This often happens when the writing unintentionally shifts away from focused analysis into measure-by-measure descriptions, or when the RPPF is focused more on procedures. By examining an actual EE, this page highlights common pitfalls and offers practical diagnostic exercises to improve your final product.
“Avoiding Pitfalls” Photo by Victor Lu on Unsplash
Consider this actual submission (May 2026) centred on drum performance and arrangement, where a student investigated how progressive rock drum tracks were adapted for a big band ensemble. The essay is well-written and shows genuine passion for the material; it is personalised and includes detailed, self-made transcriptions.
However, the essay only received 9 out of 34 marks (Grade D). Let's attempt to understand why.
Understanding the Allocation of Points
The student has stumbled into three specific analytical traps where descriptive prose has replaced critical analysis.
Pitfall 1: Delaying the Analysis
Many Extended Essays take far too long to get to the actual analysis, and this particular example is a case in point. The valuable word count at the start of the paper was wasted on non-analytical setup:
1) writing out basic textbook definitions (which examiners will know anyway)
2) embedding multi-page drum key legends and kit-mapping diagrams into the main body, AND
3) explaining basic notation mechanics.
“Music Analysis” Photo by Rezli on Unsplash
Pitfall 2: Narrative Description
When examining the drum arrangements, this essay catalogued bar-by-bar events:
In measure 12, the snare plays on beats 2 and 4 while the hi-hat plays quarter notes…
Listing what instruments play at specific timestamps with no or limited reference to the heart of the essay is deemed to be narrative description. The information included here must address the question of the Extended Essay specifically (see below for a reminder of the question and the subject topic).
In this particular essay, the critical analysis requires explaining how and why that specific rhythmic pattern alters the structural tension, metric feel, or stylistic character of the piece, for example.
“Narrative Description” Photo by Jimmy Liu on Unsplash
Research Question: To what extent does the rhythmic reinvention of songs in the album Cheating the Polygraph transform their original versions written by Porcupine Tree?
Topic: A comparative analysis that focuses on tempo, note values and time signature changes of Futile, Sound of Muzak, and So Called Friend from the original version by Porcupine Tree in the style of progressive metal and the big band rearrangement done by Gavin Harrison and Laurence Cottle of these songs in Cheating the Polygraph, released in 2015.
Pitfall 3. Reflections on Procedures
This is a typically neglected area and one in which students often fail to devote necessary time towards evaluation of findings and the methods adopted.
Criterion E carries 6 marks (almost 18% of the entire mark for the extended essay) and is assessed exclusively through your 500-word Reflections on Planning and Progress Form (RPPF).
In this student sample, the reflections focused almost entirely on administrative steps, software difficulties, and personal anxiety:
I felt intimidated by jazz…
My next step was to select two pieces…
The reflections should demonstrate intellectual decision-making. Your reflections must explain why you selected a particular analytical method, how you adapted your musicological framework when encountering an analytical obstacle, and what the limitations of your findings are.
“Reflections” Photo by Wahde Stock on Unsplash
Note that the assessment for the Extended Essay will change in 2027, with the Engagement portion (Criterion E) will no longer be worth 6 marks (out of 34), but rather 4 points out of 30, and re-labelled as Reflection.
You can read about these updates HERE.
Here are some exercises that you may wish to complete after you have started the writing process.
Exercise 1: Ensuring Your Analysis Always Links to the Research Question
Task: Read through the draft of your extended essay and select any statements that you deem to be not directly related OR only partially related to your research question.
Convert any of these statements into connected analytical arguments.
You need to ask yourself about each of these statements:
Why does this musical detail matter to your research question?
If these details are partially relevant, you should make attempts to re-frame the statement and more specifically connect it to the research question (RQ).
If you feel that it you cannot make a relevant connection, you should consider removing it altogether.
You may wish to make a table. Here are some samples from the student essay above (the cell in GREEN demonstrates that a reframing is possible, with ORANGE for a partial removal, whereas those cells in RED should be removed as they are not relevant).
Sample Self-Evaluation of the Extended Essay Draft
Example | Relevance? | Re-frame the Statement / Rationale for Removal | Links to the RQ |
“…the analysis also suggests that the …traits of the drumming are heard in progressive rock, math metal and progressive metal” (p.22). | The only real relevance here is that I am discussing rhythmic attributes, but it is not relevant to the discussion on the reinvention of the original progressive metal version from its complementary big band version. | Rather than serving as mere genre markers of progressive rock, these specific rhythmic attributes form the primary material that Harrison manipulates to bridge the aggressive drive of the original track with the syncopated swing of the big band scoring. | I need to pivot from simply cataloguing genres to explaining how those rhythmic traits function in the transformation |
“Use of clean acoustic guitar strumming in parts as opposed to heavy distorted guitar used throughout math metal songs” (p.22) | My RQ is specifically devoted to rhythmic reinvention, and using information to help illustrate timbral differences in math metal are irrelevant. | This information, along with the “clean singing” and the riff-based structure that follows (also p.22) should also be removed. | none |
Something similar is heard in Buddy Rich’s piece ‘Birdland’ where the same musical section…has a different drum groove playing in each repeat (p.36). | My focus has shifted from analysing how the original piece was transformed to comparing the new version with secondary tracks that share similar stylistic features. | Varying the drum pattern across recurring sections is a hallmark of big band drumming, exemplified by Buddy Rich's arrangement of 'Birdland'; Harrison adopts this exact jazz convention to transform the rhythmic momentum of the original rock track. | Re-anchors the analysis directly to the comparative subjects (the original vs. transformed versions) rather than making only tangential comparisons. |
This song released in 2005 is in the key of D with notes borrowed from the phrygian mode and has a tempo of 141bpm with a time signature of 7/4. | I realised that mentioning the key and a relation to the Phrygian mode are off-topic for an RQ strictly restricted to rhythmic reinvention. | While the original track relies on a driving, straight-eighth 7/4 rock groove at 141 bpm, Harrison re-orchestrates the 7/4 meter into a syncopated jazz-swing feel, displacing the primary backbeat to alter the metric momentum. | This eliminates off-topic references, restricting the focus purely to tempo and meter as the baseline for rhythmic transformation. |
After compensating for the double time shift for notational clarity, it becomes clear that the tempo was raised from 112bpm to 120bpm, which is not a considerable change (p.37). | I think that stating that an observed shift is "not a considerable change" yields no meaningful insight regarding rhythmic reinvention (or on the topic of tempo change for that matter). It is important to recognise that not all analytical findings/ observations can yield meaningful results. | There is a subsequent comment about a change in speed in the verse and the pre-chorus, but again I have not made it explicit as to how this relates to rhythmic reinvention. | not explicit |
The rhythms (in the original) were | On reflection, I realised that simply listing basic note durations is not insightful. It fails to explain how the change in subdivision alters the feel of the subsequent version and whether it can be deemed a ‘reinvention’. | Harrison introduces triplet subdivisions against the original straight-eighth pulse to vary the primary groove, using demisemiquaver subdivisions during drum fills to increase metric density into more pronounced sectional transitions | This reframing helps to pivot from basic notation listing to analysing how altered subdivisions actively transform the metric drive and feel of the arrangement. |
Summary of Task - Why It is Meaningful
By auditing your draft with a self-evaluation table, you are taking control of your essay's focus. You identified statements that drifted away from your core topic and decided whether to reframe them or remove them entirely. You need to be strict with yourself, as you do not wish to include information in your essay that is off-topic or leads to an analytical dead end.
This task should hopefully help you to not merely “dump facts”. It also eliminates empty descriptions and forces you to explain musicological function.
In the process, it protects your word count by giving you permission to cut details that do not add analytical value, keeping your paper lean and focused.
Finally, it converts description into argument. It moves your writing out of passive narrative commentary and into high-level critical analysis, improving your mark in Criterion C (Critical Thinking).
“Holding Up a Mirror” Photo by Laura Chouette on Unsplash
For numerous examples of off-topic statements, you may even consider changing your research question, but this is something that you should discuss with your supervisor, depending on where you are in your EE journey.
When analysing your selected piece(s) for your Extended Essay, creating minute-by-minute listening logs and full bar-by-bar transcriptions is a helpful analytical tool to gain a more comprehensive understanding of your selected work(s), as it helps you gather substantial data and unpack the music.
However, not all of this information should end up in your final essay. Copying pages of measure-by-measure descriptions into your paper turns your writing into passive narrative description, which directly lowers your mark for Criterion C (Critical Thinking).
“Decluttering” Photo by Thilina Alagiyawanna on Unsplash
Your essay should present curated, high-impact musical evidence - not merely transcriptions of your research process.
Here are some steps that you may wish to adopt to ensure that the relevant information ultimately appears in your essay:
Step 1
Scan your draft for sections that record your process or (perhaps) the initial observations that you had about the topic. You need to recognise these as research tools, and not something suitable for final analysis.
Step 2
Ask of every highlighted section:
- Is this working research data or final essay materials?
- Is this an unlinked listening-log comparison?
- Am I engaging in theoretical hypotheticals instead of evaluating actual musical choices?
Step 3
- Pivot unlinked listening-log observations into functional commentary on the selected works.
- Cut raw timeline tracking tables, unlinked song name-drops, theoretical hypotheticals, and initial analytical notes from the main body text.
Here are some examples from my essay that I should reconsider:
Tables 1 and 2 occupy pages 12 - 21 and only contain the following type of detail (all taken from p.16):
Verse 1 (00:58 - 01:32): 16 bars (Bar 25 to 40) in 4/4
Pre-chorus 1 (01:32 - 01:49): 8 bars (Bar 41 to 48) in 4/4
Chorus 1 (01:49 - 02:13): 9 bars (49 to 57) in 5/4
This needs to be sifted through to ensure that only relevant data is presented.
Reconsider this definition (from pp.11-12):
Math metal is a modern metal style that fuses the rhythmic complexity... with the heaviness and timbres of metal music like distorted guitar riffs, double bass drumming, growling vocals mainly written with the intent of producing technically demanding music.
I need to focus solely on the rhythmic aspects of the definition to aid the thread of my argument.
The link to other songs does not strengthen my argument (p.37):
The song is played in a high tempo of 240 bpm, which can be compared to Rich’s fast-tempo songs like ‘Time Check’ and ‘Sister Sadie’.
I need to think carefully about the purpose of including this information.
Engaging in these hypotheticals is not particularly helpful in forging the argument (p.40):
If we were to create an exact double-time arrangement of the original version using the same time signatures as mentioned in this essay, the modification would be to the bottom number for each time signature or the number of bars. For example, a bar of 4/4 would become a bar of 4/2 or two bars of 4/4, a bar of 9/8 would become a bar of 9/4 and so on.
Not sure that including this level of detail is particularly helpful. Perhaps my focus should be on what has actually occurred - unless my RQ is about deviating from standards or common expectations.
Identification of motivic materials and the unique timbres of the tubax and marimba are observations I had in the analytical process, but do not belong in the essay (p.53):
In addition to the traditional big band instrument (sic), it extends the ensemble's lower register by use of tubax and adds a unique timbre with use of the marimba. It further transcends conventional traits by reinterpreting motivic material in ways which are explored in the next section.
Similar to exercise 1, this information is not relevant to my research question.
A weak or overly broad Research Question (RQ) is the single biggest cause of descriptive writing. If your RQ is too vague OR lists too many musical parameters, you will naturally fall into narrative description and fact-dumping to cover everything.
Here are some steps that you may wish to adopt in order to develop a more sharply focused research question. Do not feel that this is something that needs to necessarily happen at the start of your journey. View the RQ as an ever-moving window that can change in a manner that will best frame the focus of your essay.
Step 1
Scan your draft Research Question against these three criteria:
- Does your RQ isolate 1–2 specific musical parameters rather than listing multiple ones or more general categories?
- Are you attempting to analyse too many works?
- Does the RQ ask how or to what extent the musical parameter creates a specific musicological outcome?
- Have I explicitly stated the effect being evaluated?
Here is my original RQ:
To what extent does the rhythmic reinvention of songs in the album Cheating the Polygraph transform their original versions written by Porcupine Tree?”
On reflection, my RQ fails to meet several of the criteria. Although it isolates a single musical parameter (rhythm), the term "rhythmic reinvention" is too broad to function as an analytical category. It would be more precise to define the specific type of rhythmic manipulation under examination, such as metric subdivision or pulse displacement. This lack of specificity is arguably a contributing cause of the amount of description in my essay. As the question does not demand analysis of a particular type, I have tended to supply background information at the expense of analysis of implication and purpose.
“Evaluation” Photo by Sasun Bughdaryan on Unsplash
A second issue concerns my scope. Although the RQ refers to the album as a whole, the title mentions only three songs - "Futile," "Sound of Muzak," and "So Called Friend." However, since each is compared with its original Porcupine Tree version, this amounts to six pieces in total, making it difficult to examine the rhythmic dimension of any one of them in genuine depth.
Finally, the verb "transform" is used to describe the outcome of these changes, but on reflection it is too vague and difficult to quantify. The question needs to state precisely what is being evaluated and what the implications of these developments are.
Step 2:
You may wish to consider this type of structure for your extended essay:
To what extent does X in the work of Y transform/affect this particular musicological outcome?
Of course, this is not a structure that everyone needs to follow, but it contains the essentials for an Extended Essay in music. You may write about more type of Extended Essay research questions in the Extended Essay Guide.
In light of the questions above and your responses, attempt to redefine your RQ to focus on:
- A more specific musical parameter (or two)
- A single work and its complement
- A clear evaluative inquiry ("to what extent" or "how")
An explicitly stated and quantifiable effect/outcome
Here is what I have come up with for a more sharply focused RQ:
To what extent does the manipulation of metric subdivision and pulse displacement in Gavin Harrison’s big band arrangement of ‘Sound of Muzak’ transform the metric momentum of the original Porcupine Tree track?”
- I replaced the broad label “rhythmic reinvention” with two specific, interacting features: “metric subdivision” and “pulse displacement”. This anchors the paper in precise musicological concepts.
- I reduced the scope from an entire album more broadly (three full tracks are mentioned in the title) down to a single work and its complement. This provides ample space for deep score analysis.
- I retained the "To what extent...” phrasing to ensure the essay remains an active critical evaluation rather than a passive narrative summary.
- Rather than relying on a vague verb like “transform,” I defined the explicit target outcome as “metric momentum”. This provides a concrete, measurable concept that can be evaluated systematically through score evidence and structural analysis.
Step 3:
Again, one should further refine the scope of the essay and focus solely on meaningful and impactful examples WITHIN the selected work(s). That is, you might wish to focus only on the transitional portions of the piece(s), or areas in which your selected musical feature(s) is more prominently at work.
Further, it would be worthy to mention which of the musical parametres will NOT be discussed in your essay. This should be included in your introduction portion, and it would be beneficial to state the reason (beyond mere time constraints) for its/their exclusion.
Here is a potential example of what you could include in your introduction:
To maintain a strict focus on how the arranging choices transform metric momentum, this investigation intentionally limits its analytical scope. While a comprehensive score analysis could encompass multiple musical domains, the following parameters are intentionally excluded: Harmonic Structure and Tonality, Timbre and Use of Instrumentation, Melodic Phrasing and Contour, Dynamics, and the broader Structure.
“Impact” Photo by Wolfgang Weiser on Unsplash
Possible Student Reflection:
Given my more sharply focused RQ, I thought that it would be beneficial if I were to focus more on specific and relevant excerpts, rather than broader descriptions involving the entire structure.
Excerpt A: The Verse-to-Chorus Transition
For example, I could isolate this important transition where the metric feel shifts between sections. This degree of focus would render full-track timeline tables unnecessary.
Excerpt B: A Primary Structural Interlude or Solo Section
I think selecting a specific section where the polyrhythmic density or pulse displacement reaches its peak would be much more beneficial than a broader overview, which attempts to cover too much. Analysing a targeted 12–16 bar window isolates the primary rhythmic manipulation without wasting words on repetitive sections.
“Details Matter” Photo by Mak Flex on Unsplash
Further Refinement
By refining your Research Question and Topic Statement, you establish firm methodological boundaries to better focus your writing.
This particular series of steps eliminates scope overload and replaces the “secondary” parameters with sharp musicological concepts. In a sense, it gives you explicit permission to cut the additional fodder and ignore off-topic details.
Finally, it sets up your essay for top marks in Criterion A (Focus and Method) and Criterion C (Critical Thinking) by ensuring every paragraph delivers a clear, unified, and high-level musicological argument.
“Sharply Focused” Photo by Zoran Borojevic on Unsplash
The reflections included in your EE submission carry significant weight (Criterion E: 6 marks). A common trap is treating the RPPF as a diary log of the procedures that you undertook. For example:
First I selected my song, then I imported it into Logic Pro. I researched jazz terminology…
The high-scoring reflections demonstrate intellectual decision-making, explaining why you selected specific analytical methods, how you adapted your approach when confronted with obstacles and what the limitations of your approach are.
Try this set of steps to transform your procedural statements into evaluative insight.
Step 1
Whilst you cannot make changes to your reflections once they have been formally submitted (and then locked by your supervisor) across the three mandatory submission periods (initial, interim, and final), you should thoroughly audit your draft before each entry is finalised. Flag any of your statements that rely on:
- merely administrative logistics
- the mechanics of software
- timeline logging
- unlinked personal feelings
Here were the reflections that were ultimately submitted:
Initial Reflection:
As a drummer, I was looking for topics about rhythms and drums. I was particularly intrigued by Nate Mueller, a drummer whose social media videos demonstrate how different drumming approaches can alter a songs character. That's when I was introduced to "Cheating the Polygraph" which prompted the inquiry - How do Mueller and Harrison transform the song through drumming? While Nate plays with a drum less track, "Cheating the Polygraph" used altogether new instruments. After some, preliminary research help me understand the big band format and realised that I have had limited exposure to jazz and swing music including transcribing in that idiom. Although this made me somewhat apprehensive, but I was excited about the opportunity to explore jazz and expand my repertoire knowing that it is an essential skill for all drummers. In order to overcome my apprehension, I have been listening to all the songs in 'Cheating the Polygraph' and researching about prominent jazz artists like Buddy Rich. My next steps were to select two pieces for in-depth analysis.
Interim Reflection:
After comparing the original and big band versions, I selected Futile and Sound of Muzak/So Called Friend for analysis due to their compelling rhythmic interest. Initially I chose Cheating the Polygraph/So Called Friend but I shifted away from it as it did not capture my interest as strongly. My primary challenge was the scarcity of existing drum transcriptions, requiring me to create them myself. While the originals proved manageable, the big band arrangements, characterised by rapid tempos and dense drumming and use of Logic Pro presented a steep learning curve. Obtaining the full band scores provided some guidance with the basic skeletal structure, precise drum notation still remained my responsibility. I have now nearly completed the Futile big band transcription albeit with some guidance but at this point I have gained significant confidence in tackling complex jazz drumming and Logic pro as a transcription tool. After the transcriptions are done, I would be doing a delving into note values, time signatures and tempos of each of these and then compare the respective versions to evaluate the changes.
Final Reflection:
After the completion of the essay I thought that both Harrison and Cottle have created masterpieces. I have a new found appreciation for big bang arrangers and would like to try it out. While working on this essay, I had was finding it difficult to organise and present dense rhythmic content present in these songs but finally use of tables and annotated score helped me do so. This experience also helped me explore new artists like Meshuggah, Buddy Rich, Don Ellis and Bob Brookmeyer. It encouraged open-mindedness toward new styles, as I have now developed a strong affinity for jazz and wish to explore it further. To someone starting their EEs, I would say do not hesitate from taking risks like I did with the transcription process as it will surely be helpful. Although I am pleased with my essay, I remain uncertain about its broader audience and practical value beyond personal growth.
Potential Student Rethink:
If I were to peruse these reflections again, I would isolate the following and rewrite them as follows:
From the Initial Reflection:
In order to overcome my apprehension, I have been listening to all the songs in 'Cheating the Polygraph' and researching about (sic) prominent jazz artists like Buddy Rich. My next steps were to select two pieces for in-depth analysis.
On further reflection, this is merely “administrative procedure” (listening to tracks and picking pieces) without defining a clear research method.
Here is a potential upgrade:
Rather than just doing general background listening to build confidence, I used my research into big band drummers (like Buddy Rich) to sharpen my approach. I decided to narrow my focus to targeted structural transitions, ensuring I could analyse specific metric shifts in detail rather than giving a superficial summary of whole songs.
From the Interim Reflection
Initially I chose Cheating the Polygraph/So Called Friend but I shifted away from it as it did not capture my interest as strongly.
This can be categorised as “unlinked personal feelings”, as a major change in direction is only offered as a purely personal sharing (“did not capture my interest”) rather than based on musicological criteria.
Here is a more insightful equivalent:
During preliminary analysis, I refined my track selection to isolate pieces where the metric contrast between the rock original and big band arrangement yielded distinct structural shifts. I discarded earlier track pairings whose rhythmic transformations were largely timbral, ensuring my final selection was focused and maximised analytical depth.
Also from the Interim Reflection
After the transcriptions are done, I would be doing a delving into note values, time signatures and tempos of each of these and then compare the respective versions to evaluate the changes.
This is an example of “timeline logging”. It merely outlines a step-by-step chronology and promises lists for comparison, rather than an evaluative investigation.
Here is a reframing:
Following score transcription, my analytical focus was initially cataloguing changes, but then shifted to evaluating how Harrison’s manipulation of metric subdivision and pulse displacement alters the metric momentum of the original grooves.
Also from the Interim Reflection
The big band arrangements, characterised by rapid tempos and dense drumming and use of Logic Pro presented a steep learning curve... but at this point I have gained significant confidence in tackling complex jazz drumming and Logic pro as a transcription tool.
This is an example largely of “software operation” and the DAW as a learning tool. What would be better is to include information about its limitations, for example, which provides evidence of evaluation.
Here would be a more useful version:
I realised that the grid alignment on LogicPro proved inadequate for capturing subtle micro-rhythmic displacements, and, as such, I adapted my approach. I shifted from a reliance on the software to a two-pronged strategy that helped to produce better score transcriptions that focused directly on backbeat accents and triplet subdivisions.
From the Final Reflection
While working on this essay, I was finding it difficult to organise and present dense rhythmic content present in these songs but finally use of tables and annotated score helped me do so... Although I am pleased with my essay, I remain uncertain about its broader audience and practical value beyond personal growth.
Whilst there is some reflection on the difficulties faced here, it is largely an example of formatting struggles and therefore falls into the category of “unlinked personal” statements. In the final reflection, it is best to also mention some of the limitations of the research.
Here is an example of that:
Integrating annotated score excerpts alongside structured tables allowed me to move past static bar-by-bar descriptions and clearly demonstrate pulse displacement. However, focusing so strictly on metric mechanics meant setting aside other important parametres. Nevertheless, this was a necessary limitation that kept the paper sharply focused on my Research Question.
It is important to remember that Extended Essay examiners award marks for critical musicological analysis, not passive narrative description. You will lose marks if you:
delay the analysis by wasting main-body word count on information that would already be known to the examiners (Criteria A & B);- fall into narrative description by listing bar-by-bar events without explaining how or why those events address and relate to your Research Question (Criterion C); or
- rely on procedural reflections on your RPPF that merely log administrative logistics, software mechanics, and unlinked personal feelings instead of evaluating your intellectual choices and analytical boundaries (Criterion E).
“Improvement” Photo by Fachrizal Maulana on Unsplash
To elevate your draft, do employ these four practical exercises:
Exercise 1 helps you reframe or cut statements that drift away from your core topic;
Exercise 2 declutters your paper by replacing raw timeline tables and listening logs with curated, high-impact score evidence;
Exercise 3 sharpens your Research Question to isolate 1–2 specific parameters within a single work (or perhaps 2 at most depending on their length), and a quantifiable outcome, AND
Exercise 4 transforms your RPPF entries across all three submission periods from procedural step-logging into evaluative insights on your methodology and research limitations.