Ask The Chief Examiner Options

[Suepea]

It seems unfair to test something which cannot be improved through effort.

Actually I thought that memory efficiency could be improved by effort/practice...? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

We candidates of more mature years find that it is much more difficult to do than when we were younger (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[chocolatedog]

This might be a tall order, but here goes...........(cough, cough).....Get Rid of AURAL!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
For me, aural is the destroyer of practical exams (I do well on the other parts of the exam, aural just ruins everything......sometimes).

Can i second the get rid of aurals suggestion.
As someone pointed out earlier it seems unfair to expect singing and instrumental candidates to sit the same aural test after all you wouldn't try handing a violin to a singer and asking her to play something back by ear in an exam.
In addition are all the parts of the aural really that crucial to general musicianship?
I can see the point in asking questions about passages etc but when would an orchestral musician ever be told to start singing back passages?

Andante et al: Does anyone know when the new woodwind syllabus will be put on the web?

Not get rid of aural tests as such, but change the content - more in line with what TG do maybe.......?

[jacobvaneyck]

cd summed up my feelings about the aural. Not scrap them, but certainly revise them. Seeing people groaning about singing back (again!) we tend to forget you can play back if you really can't sing, but the AB are not very clear how this works. Are you told the starting note? what if you play a transposing instrument (like clarinet or sax)? And of course you can hum or whistle (stated in These Music Exams). What about playing the kazzoo??? But it is still only a small part of the exam that could be the difference between a merit and distinction or pass and merit, not pass or fail.

I do agree AB can learn from TG with regard to things like viva voce, improvising, fewer scales etc. The sheer volume of scales at the higher grades seems unnecessary. Yes scales have their place and are essential for learning an instrument, but does it really take this many to find out?

Another gripe I have is the repertoire, not least the new piano books. Having only just started teaching piano I am so disappointed with the current exam books and am avoiding them as much as possible, keeping on 'fun' books. It also compounds those unlucky enough to have teachers who only use the exam pieces to teach. This is wrong of course, but it really makes it many times worse than if the pieces were half decent. I like the woodwind syllabus, more varied and fun.

Finally, can the AB consider allowing backing CDs at least in the lower grades, either for accompaniment when a 'real' one is not available, or set playalong pieces (Guest Spot, Take The Lead etc.).

As for the diploma exams, is it really necessary to insist on getting permission to photocopy for the required copies for the examiners? Can't it just be make the copies and destroy them after the exam? That sounds quite fair and legal.

[Alicia Ocean]

The scale requirements of AB flute G8 (over 100 of them) just look obsessive when compared to Trinity's option of preparing an Orchestral Extract. I have to admit that I hadn't looked at the Trinity syllabus until I read several times on this site that it's much more reasonable than AB.

Also with Trinity there's the option of not doing Aural at all - at grades 1 to 5 candidates can choose any 2 of:- AURAL; SIGHT READING; IMPROVISATION; MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE. And in Grades 6, 7 and 8 there's SIGHTREADING, and AURAL or IMPROVISATION. So it's possible to miss the hated aural out all together.

[Allannah]

How about the abrsm approaching the OU about some sort of collaboration below FRSM level? The OU has various arrangements with partner institutions where the OU itself awards the qualification and the partner institute does the assessing. Lots of us here have done OU music courses but they don't offer a full degree because they can only offer courses that cover theory, history and analysis. Some sort of partnership for music qualifications, maybe even a full BMus degree, would surely only increase take-up for both institutions.

Liz

I also think there is a need to provide the opportunity for a full BMus degree via a combination of distance learning/practical assessments.

I too am thinking of moving to Trinity for the simple reason that my younger pupils seem to prefer the selection of pieces for each grade (they consider a lot of the ABRSM syllabus to be boring!) so my question would be to ask if there are any plans for a major overhall of the music for the practical exams?

[snhs]

But it is still only a small part of the exam that could be the difference between a merit and distinction or pass and merit, not pass or fail.

I would have to disagree with you on that. I mean in certain cases a mark or two can be the difference between a pass or fail. Admittedly if you're reasonably good at the instrument you are still likely to pass but for certain cases/people a distinction is important and it seems unfair for them to be handicapped in attaining their aims by a skill no one would require of them in the real world. As I said in my original post i can see a certain point to the analysis aspects of the music and the rhythmic section as competence in these areas are relatively important and even naming cadences at later grades has its purposes. So maybe instead of scrapping it altogether they could just remove the A and B sections from it.

I don't really see the problem with scales. After all if we go back to the real world argument are you really going to say you can't play music if its in certain keys? Scales have an important purpose and unlike singing, which with the exception of choral work is seldom if ever required of an orchestral musician, play an important role in developing fluency etc.

[anacrusis]

The problem with the scales as set is not playing them - it is being able to memorise them. The process of learning them to this extent, especially when so many are demanded, is a grind, and to be honest, a bore to those of us who don't memorise easily - when more than half of one's practice time is taken up trying to do so, it makes music a chore instead of a pleasure. There are other ways to ensure facility in different keys, notably playing in them.

[snhs]

The problem with the scales as set is not playing them - it is being able to memorise them. The process of learning them to this extent, especially when so many are demanded, is a grind, and to be honest, a bore to those of us who don't memorise easily - when more than half of one's practice time is taken up trying to do so, it makes music a chore instead of a pleasure. There are other ways to ensure facility in different keys, notably playing in them.

There is an argument which would say that you will learn more in playing scales for half an hour than you would with pieces. My first teacher very seldom did scales and if she did only in f and g major whereas my next teacher taught me all of the Gr 5 scales and my playing improved substantially. There are also numerous pedagogues on almost any instrument who advocate learing scales in full as the way to unlocking more complicated repertoire e.g. Moyse, Galway etc.
I would agree that it is probably more pleasurable to spend time on pieces but in terms of improving ability and competence in keys scales are next to unbeatable hence the number required for exams.

[Roseau]

The problem with the scales as set is not playing them - it is being able to memorise them. The process of learning them to this extent, especially when so many are demanded, is a grind, and to be honest, a bore to those of us who don't memorise easily - when more than half of one's practice time is taken up trying to do so, it makes music a chore instead of a pleasure. There are other ways to ensure facility in different keys, notably playing in them.

There is an argument which would say that you will learn more in playing scales for half an hour than you would with pieces. My first teacher very seldom did scales and if she did only in f and g major whereas my next teacher taught me all of the Gr 5 scales and my playing improved substantially. There are also numerous pedagogues on almost any instrument who advocate learing scales in full as the way to unlocking more complicated repertoire e.g. Moyse, Galway etc.
I would agree that it is probably more pleasurable to spend time on pieces but in terms of improving ability and competence in keys scales are next to unbeatable hence the number required for exams.

Anacrusis's problem is not with scales but with memorising them. I have no problems playing them from memory but I now live in France where memorising scales is seen as a slightly bizarre activity. My oboe teacher insisted I bought a scale book and stop playing from memory because the important thing is to be able to visually recognise the scale passages in written music.

[anacrusis]

...which I can do. You'd not know from my playing that I have problems remembering scales; I can do them fine with the music in front of me. In any case, if I have a piece with a run in F# major followed by some turns and twiddly bits, I will in all probability have to alter fingering patterns to accommodate the rest of the music around the scaly bit. That being so, then having spent a long time trying to memorise the F# major scale will not have been so useful - I'd be more efficient to learn how it goes in that particular piece, and for each piece as I come to learn it.

[snhs]

The problem with the scales as set is not playing them - it is being able to memorise them. The process of learning them to this extent, especially when so many are demanded, is a grind, and to be honest, a bore to those of us who don't memorise easily - when more than half of one's practice time is taken up trying to do so, it makes music a chore instead of a pleasure. There are other ways to ensure facility in different keys, notably playing in them.

There is an argument which would say that you will learn more in playing scales for half an hour than you would with pieces. My first teacher very seldom did scales and if she did only in f and g major whereas my next teacher taught me all of the Gr 5 scales and my playing improved substantially. There are also numerous pedagogues on almost any instrument who advocate learing scales in full as the way to unlocking more complicated repertoire e.g. Moyse, Galway etc.
I would agree that it is probably more pleasurable to spend time on pieces but in terms of improving ability and competence in keys scales are next to unbeatable hence the number required for exams.

Anacrusis's problem is not with scales but with memorising them. I have no problems playing them from memory but I now live in France where memorising scales is seen as a slightly bizarre activity. My oboe teacher insisted I bought a scale book and stop playing from memory because the important thing is to be able to visually recognise the scale passages in written music.

My understanding of the reasoning behind it has always been that the fingers eventually gain such a familarity with the scales that little if any thought is required in playing them thereby leaving the majority of a player's mental faculties free to work on sound and other considerations. This kind of familarity is not obtained, in my view, by playing them from the page although there is almost certainly room for both systems. I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

[flute fanatic]

I would have to disagree with you on that. I mean in certain cases a mark or two can be the difference between a pass or fail. Admittedly if you're reasonably good at the instrument you are still likely to pass but for certain cases/people a distinction is important and it seems unfair for them to be handicapped in attaining their aims by a skill no one would require of them in the real world. As I said in my original post i can see a certain point to the analysis aspects of the music and the rhythmic section as competence in these areas are relatively important and even naming cadences at later grades has its purposes. So maybe instead of scrapping it altogether they could just remove the A and B sections from it.

I don't really see the problem with scales. After all if we go back to the real world argument are you really going to say you can't play music if its in certain keys? Scales have an important purpose and unlike singing, which with the exception of choral work is seldom if ever required of an orchestral musician, play an important role in developing fluency etc.

I agree with what you're saying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

[snhs]

I agree with what you're saying (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

I'm glad someone does (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif).

[sarah-flute]

I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

...and yet you'd demand that the sections you don't like of the aural section should be dismissed just that easily... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

[jacobvaneyck]

Ultimately a lot of people will like what they are good at and want rid of what they are not. Those not confident singing back, for example will want rid of that section. Those who do it naturally want it left. Same applies to scales, sight-reading.

I would have to disagree with you on that. I mean in certain cases a mark or two can be the difference between a pass or fail.

In theory that is possible, but remember as long as any attempt is made you get at least 6/18 (correct me if I'm wrong) so you would have to get pretty dismal marks elsewhere to fail on the aural part alone.

To be quite honest I think a rounded musicicianship approach is good because it makes 'exam-driven' teachers and pupils concentrate on the complete musician, not rote learning three pieces and a few scales. I know some disagree with me on this but this is how I feel about the system.

Something I meant to be more specific on, have the AB seriously considered adding a viva based on the theory of the exam pieces, like the old Trinity exams (and even instead of the grade 5 theory requirement). Would be good ground work for diploma exams, even though the standard would be way higher in their vivas.