University of the Arts Helsinki Music Technology Master's Thesis Guide: S-MTOM_24 40 ECTS Creative + Written Project

Quick answer: what is the Music Technology master thesis?

The current linked Music Technology curriculum is 15200 / MT_2024, labelled “Music Technology, Master of Music, 2024–2026”. The formal degree is a 150 ECTS Master of Music with a target duration of 2.5 years. The final S-MTOM_24 Master’s Thesis Project is 40 ECTS, Pass-Fail, and explicitly includes both a creative component and a written component. The current Study Guide planner shows a wider 102–158 ECTS range, but that is planning metadata and does not replace the formal 150 ECTS MMus award.

1. Use MT_2024 as the current linked curriculum

The public Music Technology programme page currently links Study Guide object 15200, code MT_2024. The public page remains a current study-option page although it also indicates no admission in 2027. This guide concerns the current enrolled-student academic structure, not admissions.

2. Formal MMus scope is 150 ECTS

Uniarts’ degree information gives the formal Master of Music a scope of 150 ECTS. The Study Guide planner root currently displays 102–158 ECTS, reflecting the way profile and elective ranges are represented. Do not publish 102 ECTS or 158 ECTS as an alternative completed degree scope.

3. The current programme has three profile paths

The current plan separates Creative Electronic Music Practices, Recording Arts, and Film and Game Music Producer profile paths. Their profile-credit structures differ, so a thesis guide should distinguish universal requirements from profile-specific preparation.

4. Master’s seminar 1 is compulsory, 6 ECTS

S-MT59A_24 Master’s seminar 1 is a compulsory 6 ECTS, Pass-Fail course. It covers requirements for master-level academic writing, research-topic selection and delimitation, research questions, information searching, source criticism and preparation of the master’s proficiency-demonstration plan.

5. Master’s seminar 2 is compulsory, 6 ECTS

S-MT59B_24 Master’s seminar 2 is also 6 ECTS and Pass-Fail. Its current learning outcomes continue the same master-level planning, writing, peer-feedback and source-critical skills. These two generic seminars are directly visible in the current compulsory structure.

6. S-MTOM_24 is the exact 40 ECTS thesis project

The current final course is S-MTOM_24 Master’s Thesis Project, 40 ECTS. It is evaluated Pass-Fail. Do not import a 0–5 scale from another Sibelius Academy programme.

7. The project must contain creative and written components

The exact S-MTOM_24 content states that the thesis project includes a creative component and a written component. A software tool, composition, recording, installation, performance system or other technical/artistic artefact cannot replace the written thesis component by itself.

8. Delimit the project before technical production expands

The learning outcomes require the student to delimit, design and realise an advanced music-technology project. Technology projects can expand rapidly through new features, devices, media or collaborators. State what is inside the evaluated project, what is supplementary material and what is explicitly outside scope.

9. Make research questions visible

The thesis criteria explicitly include the definition and relevance of research questions. Research questions should guide the creative and technical work rather than being added after the artefact is finished. Each major design, experiment or documentation choice should connect to the question being investigated.

10. Contextualise the work culturally and artistically

S-MTOM_24 expects cultural and artistic contextualisation and discussion. Explain how the project relates to existing practices, technologies, aesthetics, research traditions or professional conventions. A technically sophisticated system still needs intellectual context.

11. Originality is broader than technical novelty

The exact criteria consider originality in the project, artistic conception and investigative approach. Originality can therefore come from the artistic question, method, technical design, interaction between technologies, documentation or interpretation, not only from inventing new hardware or software.

12. The written text should contain the author’s own voice

The thesis criteria expect awareness of the author’s subjectivity and the presence of the author’s own voice in the text. Reflective writing is therefore legitimate when it is analytical, evidence-aware and connected to the research question rather than purely autobiographical.

13. Sources and the student’s thinking should be balanced

The course asks for versatile national and international sources used in good proportion with the author’s own thinking. A strong review should not become a list of technologies or papers. Use sources to frame decisions, compare alternatives, interpret outcomes and locate the project within a wider field.

14. Document aesthetic and technical decisions precisely

S-MTOM_24 explicitly values precise description of processes and aesthetic and technical decisions. Record software and hardware versions, signal paths, algorithms, interfaces, production decisions, calibration or configuration details when they matter to understanding the project.

15. Analysis should lead to conclusions

The assessment criteria call for analysis of results leading to conclusions and openings for future development. Avoid ending with a production diary. Explain what the project demonstrated, what remained uncertain, how limitations affected interpretation and what a next iteration should test.

16. Documentation is part of the assessed project

The course requires clarity and accessibility of documentation related to the processes described in the written component. Documentation should communicate the process and support the discussion, not function as an unexplained file dump.

17. No numeric page count is published in the exact thesis card

The course says the text should show sufficient depth and detail but not be too long. It does not publish a fixed numeric page count in the exact current card. Do not borrow page limits from Theatre Academy or another Sibelius programme.

18. The thesis is Pass-Fail

S-MTOM_24’s evaluation scale is Pass-Fail. The assessment still has detailed qualitative criteria, so Pass-Fail does not mean low expectations. The student must demonstrate a coherent creative-research project and a strong written articulation.

19. There is a seminar-chain ambiguity to confirm

The S-MTOM_24 qualification field says “Master seminar 1, 2, 3 & 4.” The current MT_2024 plan explicitly exposes generic Master’s seminar 1 and 2, plus two profile-specific seminars inside each profile. It does not expose generic course units literally named Master seminar 3 and 4. Confirm the current interpretation with the department instead of inventing course identities.

20. Profile seminars are not interchangeable labels

Creative Electronic Music Practices, Recording Arts and Film/Game Music each have their own two profile-specific seminar courses. A public guide should not rename them “Master seminar 3” and “Master seminar 4” without official confirmation, even if they may function as later seminar stages in practice.

21. S-MTC61_24 is profile-specific, not universal

S-MTC61_24 Research methods basics, 2 ECTS appears inside the Creative Electronic Music Practices profile. It introduces artistic research, forms of knowledge, mapping, academic reading/writing and material collection. Because it sits in that profile, do not tell every Music Technology student it is compulsory.

22. S-MTV96_24 and S-MTV97_24 are electives

The current plan lists S-MTV96_24 Research Methods 1 and S-MTV97_24 Research Methods 2, each 4 ECTS, under elective studies. They can provide substantial artistic-research and qualitative-method support, but they are not universal compulsory courses for every profile.

23. No one research method is mandatory

The methods courses discuss qualitative methods, structured collection, coding, analysis and interpretation of process materials. Their presence does not make interviews, surveys, coding or thematic analysis mandatory in every thesis. Select methods that answer the actual music-technology question.

24. Technical evaluation can still require research design

A software, hardware or signal-processing project may need benchmarks, listening tests, user studies, comparative analysis, error analysis or structured reflective documentation depending on the question. Define what evidence could falsify or weaken the claim before collecting only supportive examples.

25. Creative practice does not automatically prove general claims

Practice-based insight can be rigorous and valuable, but a successful artistic result does not automatically prove that a method works for all users, systems or contexts. Keep situated artistic findings distinct from broader empirical claims.

26. Separate evaluated artefacts from supplementary materials

S-MTOM_24 specifically asks for a clear statement distinguishing parts submitted for evaluation from supplementary materials. Label code repositories, patches, stems, multitracks, datasets, videos, schematics and installation files accordingly so examiners know what is formally assessed.

27. Reproducibility improves technical credibility

When the project includes code, synthesis patches, DAW sessions, hardware configurations or computational analysis, record versions, dependencies and configuration assumptions. Reproducibility may not be possible for every artistic element, but technical claims should be as inspectable as the project allows.

28. Collaboration needs authorship clarity

Music-technology work often involves performers, engineers, composers, developers or visual collaborators. Document roles and permissions early. The thesis should make the student’s own creative, technical and analytical contribution visible without erasing collaborators.

29. The maturity requirement is separate and 0 ECTS

The final module also contains the S-KS_24 maturity offering at 0 ECTS. The current English branch S-KS9123_26 is 0 ECTS and Pass-Fail. Zero credits does not make maturity optional.

30. Do not assume every student uses the English maturity branch

Maturity language depends on school-education language and earlier demonstration of Finnish or Swedish proficiency. Confirm the student’s current branch instead of choosing English solely because the programme is international.

31. Music Technology’s exact maturity completion format is not stated here

S-KS9123_26 says to see the degree programme or major course page for the completion method, while S-MTOM_24 does not publish a specific maturity method. The audited current sources therefore do not support importing the classical Level A programme leaflet or another programme’s remote-exam format.

32. AI applications are not permitted in the maturity test

Current Uniarts ethical guidance says AI applications are not permitted in the maturity test. Keep maturity work independent even if permitted AI tools were used transparently elsewhere in the thesis process.

33. Do not borrow the generic written-thesis deadline table

The current Sibelius Academy written-thesis deadline table explicitly names Arts Management, Music Business, Church Music and Music Education. It does not name Music Technology. Do not copy those dates into this programme without a current Music Technology instruction.

34. Confirm the current departmental submission workflow

Because the generic named-programme timetable does not establish Music Technology deadlines, use current department communication, the live course implementation and study services to confirm submission, assessment and graduation timing.

35. Turnitin applies to the written component

Current Uniarts ethical guidance requires originality checking of written theses through Turnitin. The final written component should be checked before approval and then frozen so the assessment and repository versions stay aligned.

36. Taju stores the written component

Sibelius Academy and library guidance requires written thesis components to be stored in Taju. The Music Technology thesis has a mandatory written component, so repository planning is relevant to every S-MTOM_24 project.

37. Deposit the same assessed version

The Taju guide says the repository file must be the same version submitted for assessment. Do not silently change text, figures, links or documentation after assessment and upload a materially different version.

38. Use accessible PDF/A

The written thesis deposited in Taju must be an accessible PDF/A. Music Technology documents often contain screenshots, diagrams, signal-flow figures and code snippets, so alternative text, readable contrast, logical headings and accessible tables should be planned before final conversion.

39. The thesis is a public document

Current repository guidance states that the thesis is a public document. Restricted Taju access is not confidentiality. Remove private credentials, API keys, confidential client data, unreleased commercial assets and other material that cannot lawfully be public.

40. Copyright applies to audio, video, code and media

Music Technology projects can incorporate recordings, samples, software libraries, images, video, scores and other copyrighted materials. Citation is not always enough to grant republication rights. Track licences and permissions before final documentation and repository deposit.

41. Personal data can arise in user or listener studies

Interviews, usability tests, listening studies, observation, recordings and video can process personal data. Define purpose, controller, lawful basis, information notice, storage and retention before recruitment or recording begins.

42. Pseudonymisation is not anonymity

If re-identification remains possible, pseudonymised data is still personal data. Small expert communities and distinctive voice or performance recordings can make indirect identification particularly easy.

43. Cloud services and AI tools require data checks

Transcription, model-hosting, analytics, file-sharing and AI services may transfer data outside the EU/EEA. Do not upload participant recordings or confidential project material without checking the university’s current data-protection and contractual rules.

44. Ethical review is not universal

Formal ethical review is not automatically required for every master thesis, although some designs may trigger review considerations. An ethical-review statement is not itself a research permit. Discuss risky participant or intervention designs with the supervisor early.

45. Societal impact is positive but not mandatory

The exact thesis criteria say awareness of societal impact is not required but is a positive element. Do not turn that into a compulsory standalone impact chapter for every project; include it when it meaningfully strengthens the work.

46. A practical workflow for S-MTOM_24

Complete the compulsory master seminars; confirm the profile-specific seminar chain; delimit the project and research questions; define which artefacts are assessed; choose justified methods; plan ethics, rights and data handling; develop creative and written components together; document technical and aesthetic decisions; analyse results; run originality and accessibility checks; freeze the final written version; submit through the current departmental route; deposit the same accessible PDF/A in Taju; complete the correct maturity branch; and verify the full degree before graduation.

47. What to confirm with Music Technology staff

Before the final semester, confirm what currently satisfies the thesis-card reference to seminars 1–4, the current supervisor and examiners, any written-length expectation, department-specific deadline and submission system, documentation/artefact delivery, maturity method and language branch, Taju timing and target graduation date.

48. Keep the profile context visible in the thesis

A Recording Arts thesis, a Creative Electronic Music Practices thesis and a Film/Game Music thesis may use very different artefacts and research methods. The 40 ECTS S-MTOM_24 criteria provide a shared assessment framework, but the project should remain grounded in the chosen profile’s practice and expertise.

49. Final consistency check

Before submission, compare the research question, creative component, written argument, evaluated artefacts, supplementary materials, documentation, source references, rights, personal-data records, current seminar prerequisites, maturity branch, Turnitin version and Taju file. The project should tell one coherent story across all of them.

50. Central rule

The current Music Technology master final project is S-MTOM_24, 40 ECTS, Pass-Fail, and requires both creative and written components. Everything else in the workflow should preserve that exact programme-specific architecture rather than replacing it with another academy’s generic thesis model.

51. Sources used for this guide

This guide was verified against the current Music Technology programme page, MT_2024 plan and programme description, exact S-MTOM_24 thesis card, compulsory seminar cards, profile/elective research-method cards, current maturity branch and general guidance, Sibelius thesis guidance, data-protection and ethics pages, graduation guidance, Taju repository instructions and formal degree information.

52. Build a thesis evidence architecture before building the artefact

Create a table connecting each research question to the creative or technical activity, evidence generated, documentation method, analysis strategy and expected written section. This is especially useful in music technology because a project can produce large volumes of files without producing evidence that directly answers the research question. The table makes it easier to decide what should be evaluated and what can remain supplementary.

53. Treat version control as part of research documentation when relevant

For code-heavy, patch-based or iterative production projects, version control or disciplined versioned archives can make the development process easier to inspect. Record major design changes and the reason for them. The final thesis does not need to narrate every commit, but it should be possible to reconstruct the development path behind important claims.

54. Separate creative success from research success

A compelling composition, mix, installation or interactive system can be artistically successful while leaving the research question only partly answered. Conversely, an experiment that exposes limitations can still be research-valuable. Evaluate both layers explicitly so the written component does not become promotional documentation for the artefact.

55. Plan documentation formats for long-term accessibility

Interactive software, proprietary DAW sessions, plugins and custom hardware can become unavailable quickly. Where possible, supplement fragile project files with durable exports such as rendered audio, video demonstrations, screenshots, diagrams, configuration lists and explanatory text. The exact thesis card emphasises documentation accessibility, so preservation is part of good assessment preparation.

56. Protect credentials and confidential technical information

Before public thesis deposit, inspect screenshots, source code, configuration files and appendices for API keys, passwords, private repository URLs, client identifiers or commercially confidential data. A public academic document should not become a route for exposing credentials or third-party secrets.

57. Final pre-submission checklist

Confirm the current seminar prerequisites, approved research question, creative and written components, evaluated artefacts, supplementary files, documentation accessibility, references, licences, collaborator permissions, personal-data records, Turnitin result, current departmental submission instructions, maturity branch and Taju-ready accessible PDF/A. The final assessed package should be coherent across text, media and technical materials.

58. Use the written component to explain why the technology matters

Avoid turning the thesis into a manual that only describes controls or implementation. Connect technical choices to artistic or research consequences: what became possible, what trade-off appeared, how perception or workflow changed, and what the result means in the relevant field. This is where contextual literature and reflective analysis become important.

59. Document failed experiments selectively

Unsuccessful prototypes, unstable algorithms or rejected production approaches can strengthen a thesis when they explain how the final design evolved. Include failed experiments when they reveal a constraint, test an assumption or justify a later decision. Do not include every failed attempt merely to show volume of work.

60. Keep the public repository copy self-contained enough to understand

External media and repositories can disappear. The written thesis should contain enough description, figures and durable references for a reader to understand the evaluated project even if a supplementary link later fails. Where external artefacts are essential, document their version, location and role clearly and follow current rights rules.

61. Graduation is a separate final gate

After the thesis is assessed, verify that the proficiency project, maturity requirement and all remaining degree studies are correctly recorded before applying for the degree certificate. The public programme page’s admissions status does not change this completion process for an enrolled student.

Document all final technical assumptions clearly for examiners.