Ask The Chief Examiner Response - June 2007 Options

[Aquarelle]

[quote name='AnotherPianist' date='Jun 21 2007, 04:13 PM' post='537433']
To the person searching for the new technical requirements they are very well hidden but are here.

Many thanks AnotherPianist. You must be a computer wizard! I was glas to be able to have another look at these.

[elidatrading]

One thing that I find odd in the practical musicianship exams at grades 7 and 8 the improvisation is a free improvisation on a poem or picture... that seems a very odd test to me, I wonder what they're trying to test. As surely whether an improv fits with a poem is at least partly very subjective. I thought the test, think it's G6, that asks for an improvisation using a musical motif or interval sounds like a good test of "using given material", but the poem one seems a bit odd... maybe it's just me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Me too, that's what put me off attempting anything higher than grade 6.

Liz

[anacrusis]

Many thanks AnotherPianist. You must be a computer wizard! I was glas to be able to have another look at these.

She is a computer wizard (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

On specialist examiners - I don't think a flautist is a recorder specialist, unless they also play the recorder; I'm not sure that any board could really offer a truly specialist examiner service without relying heavily on recording exams. That's a pity - having just performed in a music festival with a specialist adjudicator, there were some very recorder-specific comments which could only have come from someone with insider knowledge; it can be valuable to have guidance from someone other than one's teacher (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) .

[Dulciana]

2. Is there any chance of the scale list being reduced for piano exams? The list for Grade 5 and above is so unnecessarily long and some students are opting to do TG exams because they want to play pieces on the piano rather than endless lists of scales.

Yes - new technical requirements will be introduced in 2009 and the scale lists for piano will indeed be made more manageable in terms of volume, assisting both candidates and examiners. The standards of performance required will, however, remain the same!

Clara

The new scale lists for piano aren't that different to the present lists. At Grade 5 all majors and either melodic/harmonic are required. That's a lot of scales compared to the other exam boards.

My feeling is that this would be more acceptable at Grade 6. Grade 5 is still, in many ways, an 'early' grade that can be passed by those who will never become real musicians. Whereas Grade 6 seperates the sheep from the goats more. What is the necessesity to know all the majors and minors at Grade 5? They half-learn them and promptly forget them, in many cases. I agree that the standard required for playing them shouldn't change, but a smaller number, at this stage, played and remembered well, would stand them in better stead for the future than half-learning a large number of scales, which most will have to relearn for next time.

[sarah-flute]

One thing that I find odd in the practical musicianship exams at grades 7 and 8 the improvisation is a free improvisation on a poem or picture... that seems a very odd test to me, I wonder what they're trying to test. As surely whether an improv fits with a poem is at least partly very subjective. I thought the test, think it's G6, that asks for an improvisation using a musical motif or interval sounds like a good test of "using given material", but the poem one seems a bit odd... maybe it's just me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Me too, that's what put me off attempting anything higher than grade 6.

Glad it isn't just me. I thought that was a very bizarre test. And not at all sure how it tests one's musicianship.

On specialist examiners - I don't think a flautist is a recorder specialist, unless they also play the recorder; I'm not sure that any board could really offer a truly specialist examiner service without relying heavily on recording exams. That's a pity - having just performed in a music festival with a specialist adjudicator, there were some very recorder-specific comments which could only have come from someone with insider knowledge; it can be valuable to have guidance from someone other than one's teacher (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif).

I agree that "specialist" examiners who play an instrument only loosely connected aren't really specialists at all. I think the boards would be better off being a little more honest about this. I was really shocked when I realised that these "specialists" could be a flautist examining a recorder player, or an oboist - or vice versa. I realise that it would be incredibly difficult to get real specialists for every instrument, but I think that saying the examiner would be an experienced musician from the same family of instruments would be more accurate. As it stands, the only folks who really get specialists are probably pianists and maybe organists? Unless they count piano and organ as related (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

[elidatrading]

I agree that "specialist" examiners who play an instrument only loosely connected aren't really specialists at all. I think the boards would be better off being a little more honest about this. I was really shocked when I realised that these "specialists" could be a flautist examining a recorder player, or an oboist - or vice versa.

Do you remember the lady who had either an LRSM or perhaps it was even an FRSM on bassoon and failed DipABRSM on recorder? As if someone who had reached that level would not KNOW if they had done exceptionally badly in an exam or if they were unprepared for it. The most likely scenario there, surely, was an examiner expecting a baroque instrument to produce a wide range of dynamics without causing intonation problems. They wouldn't do that for harpsichord. If examiners really have to examine instruments with which they are unfamiliar, then at the very least 1. it should be clearly acknowledged that this is the case and 2. they should go into the exam equipped with guidelines from a specialist about any peculiarities of the instrument.

I did a viola diploma once (not with ABRSM) where they criticised my "similar motion" scales. Now my scales were indeed under standard, but it would have been far more relevant to have a comment that actually related to the instrument being examined! Diplomas aren't cheap after all.

Liz

[sarah-flute]

Yes, exactly!

If examiners really have to examine instruments with which they are unfamiliar, then at the very least 1. it should be clearly acknowledged that this is the case and 2. they should go into the exam equipped with guidelines from a specialist about any peculiarities of the instrument.

Couldn't agree more - having someone who is essentially a non-specialist seems a bit mad to me, but it's the fact that they are classed as specialists and advertised as such that frankly seems ridiculous.

I did a viola diploma once (not with ABRSM) where they criticised my "similar motion" scales.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Presume your contrary motion scales, on the other hand, were brilliant? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Now my scales were indeed under standard, but it would have been far more relevant to have a comment that actually related to the instrument being examined! Diplomas aren't cheap after all.

Yup.

[silyaznfoo]

For the practical exams, do I have to use the edition they suggest (ie. Henle)? Or can I use my own book? Also, can I print uncopyrighted sheet music from imslp or some other site and use that instead of a book during the exam?

Thanks.

Yes, exactly!

If examiners really have to examine instruments with which they are unfamiliar, then at the very least 1. it should be clearly acknowledged that this is the case and 2. they should go into the exam equipped with guidelines from a specialist about any peculiarities of the instrument.

Couldn't agree more - having someone who is essentially a non-specialist seems a bit mad to me, but it's the fact that they are classed as specialists and advertised as such that frankly seems ridiculous.

I did a viola diploma once (not with ABRSM) where they criticised my "similar motion" scales.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Presume your contrary motion scales, on the other hand, were brilliant? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Now my scales were indeed under standard, but it would have been far more relevant to have a comment that actually related to the instrument being examined! Diplomas aren't cheap after all.

Yup.

[elidatrading]

If examiners really have to I did a viola diploma once (not with ABRSM) where they criticised my "similar motion" scales.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Presume your contrary motion scales, on the other hand, were brilliant? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Certainly were - I didn't lose a single mark on my contrary motion scales - got 0/0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

Liz

[sarah-flute]

If examiners really have to I did a viola diploma once (not with ABRSM) where they criticised my "similar motion" scales.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif)

Presume your contrary motion scales, on the other hand, were brilliant? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Certainly were - I didn't lose a single mark on my contrary motion scales - got 0/0 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)

[SomePianist]

On specialist examiners - I don't think a flautist is a recorder specialist, unless they also play the recorder; I'm not sure that any board could really offer a truly specialist examiner service without relying heavily on recording exams. That's a pity - having just performed in a music festival with a specialist adjudicator, there were some very recorder-specific comments which could only have come from someone with insider knowledge; it can be valuable to have guidance from someone other than one's teacher (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif).

I agree that "specialist" examiners who play an instrument only loosely connected aren't really specialists at all. I think the boards would be better off being a little more honest about this. I was really shocked when I realised that these "specialists" could be a flautist examining a recorder player, or an oboist - or vice versa. I realise that it would be incredibly difficult to get real specialists for every instrument, but I think that saying the examiner would be an experienced musician from the same family of instruments would be more accurate. As it stands, the only folks who really get specialists are probably pianists and maybe organists? Unless they count piano and organ as related (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif)

Well organs blow air through metal pipes so perhaps a flautist examiner would be okay (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

There is in fact a thread where an organ diploma was being examined by a 'specialist' examiner who was "not an organist".

Link to thread

In this case there was a problem with the organ and the candidate was concerned that the examiner might not have noticed. Is this the standard of assessment we should receive for a professional qualification costing several hundred pounds? (NB my irritation at this tale is not the problems with the organ, which is bad enough, rather the possibility that the 'specialist' examiner might not have noticed).

I repeat here that we should demand expert assessment in diplomas. If waiting lists develop, e.g. due to the shortage of expert organists to assess organ diplomas, then that's just too bad.

These examples of non-expert examiners have put me off taking my FRSM and I'm seriously considering another examination board.

I would be extremely interested in hearing a response regarding the definition of "specialist" used by the AB.

[sarah-flute]

I'd totally forgotten that thread, you're right, that is appalling.

Well organs blow air through metal pipes so perhaps a flautist examiner would be okay

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif), yeah, exactly (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif)

Personally, it doesn't bother me so much that the examiners are not specialists so much as that they are called specialists when they clearly aren't! I remember something similar with one of katyjay's dips (the LTCL I think??) where her "specialist" was someone who accompanied singers (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) sure, more of an expert than some random instrumentalist, but hardly a specialist singing examiner!

I think it would be brilliant if the examiners truly were specialists, but it's the fact that they're being touted as specialists when they clearly aren't that really makes me quite cross. As I said in that post,

I think that saying the examiner would be an experienced musician from the same family of instruments would be more accurate.

Not an ideal situation, although it seems common to all the boards? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) - but at least it would be honest, whereas calling a flautist a recorder specialist or an oboist a clarinet specialist is very misleading IMO.

The examples Liz posted here are a case in point (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rolleyes.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/mad.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

Maybe these things should be cut and pasted to the current thread, too.

[SomePianist]

I think it would be brilliant if the examiners truly were specialists, but it's the fact that they're being touted as specialists when they clearly aren't that really makes me quite cross. As I said in that post,

I think that saying the examiner would be an experienced musician from the same family of instruments would be more accurate.

Not an ideal situation, although it seems common to all the boards? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/unsure.gif) - but at least it would be honest, whereas calling a flautist a recorder specialist or an oboist a clarinet specialist is very misleading IMO.

I agree that under the current system then your description would be far more accurate. However, I do feel that experts should be more specifically qualified.

Are you sure that this is common across all the boards?

[sarah-flute]

I don't know for sure, but as I said, I do recall that katyjay had a pianist who accompanied singers as her "specialist".

Just found the relevant posts:

http://forums.abrsm.org/index.php?s=&s...st&p=488991

http://forums.abrsm.org/index.php?s=&s...st&p=489407

That was for her LTCL. As you can see from YAP's post, clearly it wasn't an isolated incident (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

No idea about LCM or GSMD, etc.

I do agree that the ideal should be real specialists. Or at the very least, someone who was clued up about a particular instrument, rather than just played a "similar" (for a rather loose definition of similar....) instrument. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/sad.gif)

[jod]

My examiners for my LRSM were both pianists - one being a specialist in accompanying Lieder and Melodie. Curiously I had a question in the viva about Melodie!

Personally that's good enough. Someone who accompanies to the level they are lecturing about accompanying singers will have an understanding of the voice and what they are listening to. I just pitied the flautist who went before me, but as this guy is a specialist at accompanying Chamber music in general he's probably got much more experience than you lot would be prepared to give him credit.

I do know of a singer who examins LRSM, but they would hardly give me my own teacher!

Examiners do have training, and they do come from a general music background. Personally the work that Clara Taylor has done in developing examiners has been marvellous. The examiners I've experienced in the last few years have all been extremely professional and personable.