Scales Or Aural?which Is Your Heaven,which Is Your ######?, sorry if this has been done before, but there's a sight reading/me Options

[fluterocks]

just realised the title heading was too long- the last word is memoriser.
I was just curious, I know both are important in creating the well balanced musician but it doesn't mean we have to like it does it?
I'm much more of a scales person myself, not into the whole sight singing malarky in aural.

Which one is your heaven or ####?

sorry if I've missed a scenario off or anything, interested to see responses

[hello_cello]

aural, scales, scales

Dont like aural, but am goodish at it.
Like scales, but CANT remember the fingerings for some reason

[jacobvaneyck]

I'm not sure one can differentiate between the two. They equally have their place. I think the biggest problems are how the requirements are set out. Some say there are too many scales in a lot of grades (not least the upper piano grades) and aural can sound very haphazard the way it is done at present. No wonder so many come to hate aural and singing.

Lets say you are learning French, German, another language. What is more important in learning to speak it fluently (pieces) or write letters in the language (theory), or translate something without help (sight-reading/quick study)? Rattling off vocabularly lists/grammar tables from memory (scales), or listening critically to conversations in that language (aural)? Both are an important part of the learning.

Music is a language!

[Cyrilla]

I'm not sure one can differentiate between the two. They equally have their place. I think the biggest problems are how the requirements are set out. Some say there are too many scales in a lot of grades (not least the upper piano grades) and aural can sound very haphazard the way it is done at present. No wonder so many come to hate aural and singing.

Lets say you are learning French, German, another language. What is more important in learning to speak it fluently (pieces) or write letters in the language (theory), or translate something without help (sight-reading/quick study)? Rattling off vocabularly lists/grammar tables from memory (scales), or listening critically to conversations in that language (aural)? Both are an important part of the learning.

Music is a language!

Hear, hear!!

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[fluterocks]

Quote:Neil.clarinet
"Lets say you are learning French, German, another language. What is more important in learning to speak it fluently (pieces) or write letters in the language (theory), or translate something without help (sight-reading/quick study)? Rattling off vocabularly lists/grammar tables from memory (scales), or listening critically to conversations in that language (aural)? Both are an important part of the learning.
Music is a language!"


I'm not trying to say which is more important, as I do agree that all parts of music are important...you worded it a lot better than myself by comparing it to a language, which I suppose it is when you think about it.
But, just because something is important doesn't mean you can't have a preference or dislike to one or the other...I am yet to come across someone, who whether they are brilliant at both or simply awful actually enjoy to do both, so I was wondering which people's preference generally lies...

[anisha93]

hmmm, well i think aural is more important than scales, but i'm better at scales than aural.

[lizbun]

I like scales better, but I think aurals are important too (IMG:style_emoticons/default/clarinet.gif)

[snhs]

I'm not sure one can differentiate between the two. They equally have their place. I think the biggest problems are how the requirements are set out. Some say there are too many scales in a lot of grades (not least the upper piano grades) and aural can sound very haphazard the way it is done at present. No wonder so many come to hate aural and singing.

Lets say you are learning French, German, another language. What is more important in learning to speak it fluently (pieces) or write letters in the language (theory), or translate something without help (sight-reading/quick study)? Rattling off vocabularly lists/grammar tables from memory (scales), or listening critically to conversations in that language (aural)? Both are an important part of the learning.

Music is a language!

I think your analogy is flawed. In playing the pieces you naturally need to listen to the accompaniment for singing/most instruments and for piano/organ etc you need to listen for the interaction between parts. Hence the pieces are more like learning to converse in a language than just learning how to speak it. The aural part is all very well so long as we're talking only about section D, the others sections though? I can know what lieder or a trill is without being able to reproduce one vocally, just as I can detect what the Bass is doing despite not being able to sing/hum/whistle/reproduce it on an instrument by ear.

Music may be a language, but within that language there should be the flexibility to use slightly different accents/dialects (instruments), so to ask one person to learn two accents/dialectics for the same qualification as someone who only needs to learn one is ridiculous. It would be like asking someone from London to learn a Glaswegian accent before they could get their GCSE (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif). Likewise expecting them to be able to play by ear if they can't vocally reproduce it would be like expecting someone to learn Braille or Morse Code before they could get their Int. 2 English.

[AmandaL]

I certainly don't agree with the sight-singing with an accompaniment for Grade 6 upwards. Without some formal vocal training, this is nigh impossible to do.

Generally the AB aural tests are far too itty bitty anyway.

ABRSM, take a leaf from the TG syllabus with the aural tests.

[singerpianist]

Well, I'm okaaayyy at aurals (not great, but okay!), but I'm really struggling with the speed of the grade 6 scales, and the staccato sclaes too, so I think I'd ban them if I had a choice!! In saying that, thought, I think they are v. good for developing control and speed etc, and getting a really good understanding of keys...

[driftwood]

WHAT!!! scales are much more useful! Without them Mozarts sonata k545 would be impossible!!! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif)
Davidx

[Alicia Ocean]

I loath scales. I abandoned them after G5 in Flute and went on to discover the beauty of TG's Orchestral Extracts scales alternative. And for piano I'm happy to play the LCM complicated study at high speed - at least I don't have to memorise it and it has a nice tune.

So if given a choice I have to vote for Aural - but then I've done so many practical exams that it's not exactly a challenge. I'm not sure how helpful it is to be able to identify a HARMONIC interval though (no, not MELODIC - it's LCM G5 next week). Why would I ever need to do that in the real world?

[fluterocks]

I loath scales. I abandoned them after G5 in Flute and went on to discover the beauty of TG's Orchestral Extracts scales alternative. And for piano I'm happy to play the LCM complicated study at high speed - at least I don't have to memorise it and it has a nice tune.

So if given a choice I have to vote for Aural - but then I've done so many practical exams that it's not exactly a challenge. I'm not sure how helpful it is to be able to identify a HARMONIC interval though (no, not MELODIC - it's LCM G5 next week). Why would I ever need to do that in the real world?

I don't see the need for sight singing (unless you're a singer), as it's supposed to tell the examiner that if you can't pitch your voice you can't pitch your instrument apparently! Ridiculous. I think it's time ABRSM took a note of TG exams...there was a time when ABRSM were gaining more and more numbers for exams(hence the world's leading exam board), but now TG numbers are going up because there is more freedom and choice and sadly, ABRSM numbers are falling. I am a firm believer in that though I may not be a sight singer(or any kind of singer for that matter), it does not make the slightest difference to whether I can or cannot pitch my instrument! I can see the importance of scales however, but I can also see that pieces that contain scaley patterns may be more practical for those who can play the scales but cannot memorise...but people have different strengths, and for some they are the best support test...I however find them immensly useful for theory.
But the sight singing. has to go.FACT.

[maya3]

I certainly don't agree with the sight-singing with an accompaniment for Grade 6 upwards. Without some formal vocal training, this is nigh impossible to do.

ive never had any formal vocal training, and find this by far the easiest part of the aural tests. as well as waffling on about the piece that they play. the bits i hate are singing back the melody (i can never remember it all the way through) and modulations. if you dont have perfect pitch they are nearly impossible.

scales i hate too.

x

[BassoonBoy]

I dont see the point in aurals. Isnt music aural anyway? why should their be a seperate test in it?!

I think the amount of scales that sound exactly the same, step wise that is, should be cut down. I love doing all the different things like scales in thirds, diminished 7ths, dominant 7ths etc because theyre different! Playing three sets of twelve scales that sound the same is not fun! I know scales are useful for when playing music but wouldnt it better to work the other way round? Learn the scales from the music instead of learning scales for the music?

Rant over... phew

I did get some very easy scales in my exam today though G major for the first one! Im so lucky:D

My examiner asked me "if we could do some scales now please" and I replied "if thats completely necessary" and she laughed with a "good answer- now, G major"

If your nice and funny, theyre nice back! remember that for your exams

Grade 8 Bassoon 21/06/08 RIP!