Diploma and beyond., Why do certain boxes need to be ticked before sitting it? Options

[MNW]

Why is grade 8 necessary in order to sit the DipABRSM? I can understand why a minimum of grade 5 theory is expected after grade 5 practical because ABRSM want students to develop all round musicianship but what is the reasoning behind requiring grade 8 to progress onto the diploma? Surely if a student can play the pieces, write the performance notes and perform on the other tests to diploma+ standard then it doesn't matter if they've not sat grade 8 practical. Or is this a way to stop lots of students applying when they are not ready?

I also wonder if a minimum age limit should be required when sitting the diploma. DS teacher sat the diploma at 13 but by the time she was 18 she realised that her attempt (she passed) at 13 was poor in comparison to what she could offer at 18 due to maturity allowing her to perform more musically.

[anacrusis]

My suspicion is that it is a wheeze to maximise income, behind a front of wanting to appear to maintain standards. We have had, in the pasts, posts from hothousers appearing to want to know how to write their kids' programme notes, and how to drill them for vivas so it may well be that some sort of standard maintenance might well be in order - however, I can't see why, if someone is properly prepared for a given exam, they shouldn't be allowed to take it. ABRSM also demands grade 5 theory before higher practicals can be attempted, again under the guise of ensuring that basic knowledge towards passing particularly aural elements are in place, but again I'm not convinced that it's really all that useful or necessary.

ABRSM does the same for all its dips, demanding the one before, or one higher from other boards as prerequisite for attempting the next up. Others take the view that if you're prepared to put up that much cash in the attempt, they can still maintain standards by ensuring that only those who are really ready will pass. Perhaps the fellowships, for which licentiateships are required by all the boards I know of, might be considered to be in a different league here, and reasonably so - but I'm fairly sure whatever the actual reason given, the real one is about returns. Either way, there are reasons enough for me to look elsewhere for hurdles to attempt. *bolts*

[RoseRodent]

I have my suspicions about income too, but then again if you study the syllabus carefully there are a large number of "or equivalent" substitutions. If you think you have anything verifiable that you can send in as proof you meet a similar level then you can do that. I didn't take grade 6 theory - quite honestly have yet to see much use out of my grade 5 and I have forgotten almost all of it. Much is far more relevant to composers and directors than to performers, if it's about producing a more musical performance at higher grades there should be less writing out transpositions and more about musical periods, the timeline of invention of certain instruments, changes to instruments over the years and how that has changed performance, that kind of thing. But in lieu of my grade 6 theory I sent documents showing I did a music course at university with similar content and I now have an exemption letter.

They do all have to be documented substitutions, though, which is a shame if you play really well but just don't want to have to do a grade 8 just to enter the dip but don't have anything at all to show for that. I think that will be very few people, who don't have a win at a festival, who don't have an A-level performance, nothing at all to submit as a possible alternative. At the end of the day why not allow people to waste the examiners' time when they are being paid handsomely for it? Unless diplomas are loss-making examinations, then they have a duty as a charitable organisation not to waste money on them, they must demonstrate that the investment of funds in this examination is for the benefit of the stated persons (i.e. musicians). If the diplomas are entirely paid for by the entry fee then you should be able to just show up and do one, if you are clearly below any possible passing standard the examiner can stop you after 2 bars and refuse to hear anything else.

If you've seen "Britain's Got Talent" and similar you will know how delusional some people are about their standard of performance!

[anacrusis]

My point being that AB demands a substitution of already equivalent level to the one being attempted - ie, if you want to do AB licentiate, you need to have (otherboard) licentiate already, not their associateship. That being so - once embarked on (otherboard) dips, you effectively have to duplicate repertoire level to sit AB if you want to switch, with all the financial implications around it. Under a front of elitism, what it actually is doing is trying to exert leverage to get candidates to embark on AB in the first place....or alternatively, chasing candidates away to other boards. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wacko.gif) *does not compute in my brain*

[sbhoa]

I didn't take grade 6 theory - quite honestly have yet to see much use out of my grade 5 and I have forgotten almost all of it. Much is far more relevant to composers and directors than to performers, if it's about producing a more musical performance at higher grades there should be less writing out transpositions and more about musical periods, the timeline of invention of certain instruments, changes to instruments over the years and how that has changed performance, that kind of thing. But in lieu of my grade 6 theory I sent documents showing I did a music course at university with similar content and I now have an exemption letter.

Interesting that you see theory in this light.
I chose to do grade 5 theory not because of having any thoughts of higher practical grades but because i realised that I'd learned much of what was required as part of learning to play. I see it largely as 'everyday theory' though I do admit to sometimes double checking 'official' rules on note grouping/beaming when I teach it.
I did grades 6, 7 and 8 some year after grade 5 and it wasn't easy to find a teacher. Despite getting distinction for all 3 of the higher grades I'd now need to revise the harmony if I needed to use it as, unlike much of the grade 5 syllabus, it's not something I regularly make use of. I do find that it helps with teaching though as I'm more confident in helping students (particularly grade 5 and up) to understand how the music they are playing is put together.
I'm not sure that the reasoning behind the theory requirement is to aid musical performance. I see it as showing that you have a basic understanding of the nuts and bolts of music instead of being someone who just plays without much awareness of some basic concepts.
Since you are by no means the only one who has grade 5 theory but no longer has the knowledge I don't think that in reality it does function in that way. There's not really much you can do about it though.

[jacobvaneyck]

Trinity Guildhall don't have such prerequisites until the FTCL. They take the view that if your are not good enough you will fail anyway, prerequisite or not.

Then again my recorder teacher told me to do grade 8 first then ATCL the year after so it is good preparation in some respects. I hasten to add it was a repertoire choice over AB as I did have the 'prerequisite' for dipABRSM in any case.

[flobiano]

I think Grade 6 theory is only a prerequisite for the teaching diploma, I assumed it was there to ensure that a potential teacher. who is likely to be teaching someone theory up to grade 5, has demonstrated a slightly higher level of knowledge than their future pupils. In the same way that a primary school teacher is expected to have GCSE English, Maths and Science.

[BerkshireMum]

I also wonder if a minimum age limit should be required when sitting the diploma. DS teacher sat the diploma at 13 but by the time she was 18 she realised that her attempt (she passed) at 13 was poor in comparison to what she could offer at 18 due to maturity allowing her to perform more musically.

Surely by then she would be sitting the LRSM. The DipABRSM is very much a first diploma, whereas the LRSM is thought of as a professional qualification. Children who sit GCSEs or A-levels early also find that they don't always get the A* they might have done if they'd waited, but since the qualifications are a stepping stone to the next stage, it hardly matters as long as they pass reasonably well.

[fsharpminor]

In 1963 I had to wait until I was 16 to take ALCM (I took it in June after I was 16, they wouldnt let me take it in March, the month of my 16th birthday). Also the highest exam I had previously taken wa Grade 6.
Do LCM insist on grade 8 being passed now to take ALCM, I suspect not.

[MNW]

I also wonder if a minimum age limit should be required when sitting the diploma. DS teacher sat the diploma at 13 but by the time she was 18 she realised that her attempt (she passed) at 13 was poor in comparison to what she could offer at 18 due to maturity allowing her to perform more musically.

Surely by then she would be sitting the LRSM. The DipABRSM is very much a first diploma, whereas the LRSM is thought of as a professional qualification. Children who sit GCSEs or A-levels early also find that they don't always get the A* they might have done if they'd waited, but since the qualifications are a stepping stone to the next stage, it hardly matters as long as they pass reasonably well.

She had sat the LRSM too but her point was that she felt that, looking back, it was too young to take them and she cringed at her lack of musicality and maturity back then and felt a minimum age/experience limit would be better rather than ticking boxes to look impressive.

[Mad Tom]

I assumed it was there to ensure that a potential teacher. who is likely to be teaching someone theory up to grade 5, has demonstrated a slightly higher level of knowledge than their future pupils. In the same way that a primary school teacher is expected to have GCSE ... Maths ... .

... thereby equipping them to irreparably damage their students' capacity for mathematical understanding

[Hence the "Jeremy Paxman" phenomen of being dismissive of those that are not familiar with the minutiae of politics, geography, history and Greek myths, while being impressed by the most elementary of scientific or mathematical knowledge].

[RoseRodent]

I've had a look back at the syllabus for theory and I think the reason why certain things stick in my mind are because those were the things I did have to sit down and learn purely for the exam. Other things (clefs, key sigantures, relative minors, enharmonic equivalents, names of intervals) I'd already learned anyway because they did add to my practical musical knowledge and performance skills. I recall the pointless hideousness of sitting and writing out SATB music into chorale format so vividly because I had been reading such music for years and didn't see why anyone might consider this difficult. I'd spent my childhood harmonising hymn tunes at sight so having to sit down and do this on paper just to get a certificate so I could carry on with my practical exams was annoying. The theory class teacher made us all attend every week and then write out the exercises for homework, even if we clearly knew exactly what to do already, I wanted to murder her! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif) (I was, after all, about 13)

But the main things I had to actually learn as brand new information for grade 5 theory were all about transposing instruments - none of which I play! I've yet to figure out how it's useful for me to be able to write out music at concert pitch for an A clarinet, or to know that a French horn is in F specifically for the purposes of taking a grade 6 practical exam on the viola. Yes, it's interesting general musical knowledge, and absolutely essential for people taking composing or directing, but how does it relate to grade 6 viola? It didn't and it still doesn't, so I think that's why I took such a passionate hatred of my grade 5 theory, it was just a thing I had to "get out of the way" so I could pursue what I was really interested in achieving.

Because it does include so many things that don't have a direct relationship with performing it does seem to rub people up the wrong way that they have to do this, and perhaps if it were more about musical history and more variety of composition techniques (not just realising a figured bass and following a rule about consecutive 5ths) it would have more of a direct relationship to performers, and they would be glad they did it. At that level I don't see that the transposing instruments need cover much more than "Why is the clarinet part in a different key?" - 2 marks for a reasonable answer. Writing the whole thing out "including accidentals where required" is simply laborious for people who don't compose or direct, and I don't feel it really adds anything that can't be gained from a simpler explanation. Maybe two different examinations would be more useful "Theory for practical performers" and "Theory for composers and directors" and you need to take the appropriate examination to the route you want to follow. Of course it makes yet another expense for people who want to follow both routes, but you can't win 'em all! Since you can substitute it with Practical Musicianship or Jazz improv it's clearly not a bit essential to write out parts for transposing instruments provided you can sight-sing.

[briantrumpet]

I'm not sure that the reasoning behind the theory requirement is to aid musical performance. I see it as showing that you have a basic understanding of the nuts and bolts of music instead of being someone who just plays without much awareness of some basic concepts.

Interesting that you're not sure of the rationale behind the theory requirement - as someone who teaches it (and enjoys doing so) I'd agree with your reasoning, but I'm afraid the actual content of the exam displays the same muddled thinking typical of AB.

I have gripes with many parts of the Grade 5 exam. I'm honest with students with what I think about the parts I feel nonsensical: the open/short score (I've never used that skill in 40 years); the learning of hundreds of obscure foreign words (I look them up if I need to in real musical life); learning (for instance) that a contralto is lower than an soprano (why do I need to know this to do Grade 6 trumpet?) etc. And then there's the omission (inexcusable, in my opinion, in the 21st Century) of basic pop/jazz chord notation.

BUT I stress that if students are really on the ball on the core stuff - key signatures and scales, chords, time signatures and rhythmic notation, clefs, composing a melody, and transposition (and I do happen to think that's a useful skill to learn) - they will be really close to passing on that alone. But I do find it hard, if not impossible, to justify other parts of the exam.

Unfortunately I think clinging on to its outdated content the AB expose the fact that both their practical and theory exams were designed for people intending to study at a conservatoire or to read music at university. I really don't think they are well designed for those for whom music is something they do just for pleasure and have no intention to study with a view of taking music as a career. Trinity do seem to have grasped the nettle in this respect.

[allegro2011]

Unfortunately I think clinging on to its outdated content the AB expose the fact that both their practical and theory exams were designed for people intending to study at a conservatoire or to read music at university. I really don't think they are well designed for those for whom music is something they do just for pleasure and have no intention to study with a view of taking music as a career. Trinity do seem to have grasped the nettle in this respect.

This is exactly why the vast majority of my post-grade 5 pupils take the Trinity exams. With the amount of pressure from GCSE and A level exams and numerous other activities many would give up altogether if they had to take a theory exam to continue. The 'musical knowledge' section of Trinity, up to grade 5, covers all of the theory relevant to their playing, apart from transposition which I cover through performance exercises in lessons. I cover this section regardless of whether the pupil chooses to take it as a part of their exam.

[Mad Tom]

I can't help reading that as BRAIN trumpet.