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

[briantrumpet]

This is exactly why the vast majority of my post-grade 5 pupils take the Trinity exams.

All of mine do (and pre Grade 5 too), for several reasons:

Firstly, the choice of repertoire is better. Not easier, better. And they use obviously look to use books within individual grades and across different grades: thinking of the candidates, not the publishers' needs.

Secondly, I have a fundamental objection to using the singing voice as the main way of assessing aural ability. I'm passionately in favour of my pupils singing and enjoying singing, and equally passionate about it being an inaccurate and unfair way of assessing aural skills.

Thirdly, I don't think candidates should have to jump through irrelevant hoops to take an exam, as irrelevant but compulsory learning undermines the joy of learning. Great chunks of the Grade 5 theory exam are irrelevant to many learners.

But the Grade 5 Theory exam fees do bring in an annual income to the AB of about ?700,000. So not irrelevant to the AB.

[lilly763]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory. I virtually didn't study for the exam aside from looking over some of the more obscure vocabulary and still earned nearly full marks. Perhaps some of the minutiae are irrelevant, but most of the exam is pretty basic material that I find relevant to performing at a intermediate level, and it's possible to get a good mark even without some of less useful skills. I know a few young musicians who play at a grade 6+ standard and wouldn't be able to pass grade 5 theory (heavily Suzuki-trained children on string instruments, for example), and it DOES impact their ability to perform effectively, particularly in an ensemble setting. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but I think it is important that they learn the relevant theory eventually, and fair that they wouldn't be given the same certificate as other musicians of equal proficiency who do know this theory, and can therefore be more useful in ensemble situations. This is just my experience though, and it's probably biased by the fact that my former viola teacher used Suzuki and many of his students were like this...

[Deborah]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory.

Surely this depends on one's starting point, though. Way back when I did Grade 5 theory, one only had to know treble and bass clefs; because I only played the clarinet, my bass clef knowledge was virtually non-existent, to the extent where the first thing I did in the exam was to write out a row of bass clef notes with the letter names underneath, and to which I referred throughout the exam. Transposition, on the other hand, was a walk in the park, as I'd been used to transposing for a long time, whereas players of non-transposing instruments struggled with it.

[flobiano]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

[lilly763]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory.

Surely this depends on one's starting point, though. Way back when I did Grade 5 theory, one only had to know treble and bass clefs; because I only played the clarinet, my bass clef knowledge was virtually non-existent, to the extent where the first thing I did in the exam was to write out a row of bass clef notes with the letter names underneath, and to which I referred throughout the exam. Transposition, on the other hand, was a walk in the park, as I'd been used to transposing for a long time, whereas players of non-transposing instruments struggled with it.

Hmm, this is fair, but I do think that pretty much every instrumentalist should be able to do these things after a certain point. I suppose I was at an advantage clef-wise since I play piano and viola, and so have to use the three different clefs regularly. But as a clarinettist, shouldn't one be able to read the piano accompaniment part (which uses bass and treble clef)? In fact, shouldn't anyone who plays in an orchestra (or any other ensemble) at an intermediate level be able to read any line of the full score (which requires knowledge of all clefs and transposition)?

[sbhoa]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

Maybe you'd be surprised how much effort some are prepared to put into not learning.

[Susie]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif)

Maybe you'd be surprised how much effort some are prepared to put into not learning.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) Believe me, I expended copious quantities of red ink, changed tack from "disappointed", to "regretful" to "quite cross and nearly angry" over a period of about 7 weeks, not to mention the shoe leather I wore out taking sample papers back to pupil, and phone calls to her mum, and said pupil managed not to improve one jot (save the paper that she took to school to complete - no doubt it was a collective effort, and she managed to pass that one solidly) and failed the miserable exam. Zero effort. (except on my part) Grrrr.

[Village Flute]

I think grade 5 theory syllabus must have changed a bit since I took it as I have no recollection of doing chords or SABT. I did O level music subsequent to grade 5 theory and learnt some basic harmony to be able to do a 2 or 4 part harmonisation which has been useful when making arrangements of parts for our church music group. I don't think this has helped my playing at all, O level aural was helpful because writing down the exercises is much easier than having to think about singing them.

Wouldn't it be more useful to have to play something and transpose it than do it on paper, there are times when you might be faced with something not written for your instrument and you have to play it there and then. If I want to transpose a piece of music to make a part for someone on another instrument I'd use a computer package to do it which is what I do for the church music group.

[sbhoa]

If I want to transpose a piece of music to make a part for someone on another instrument I'd use a computer package to do it which is what I do for the church music group.

It can be useful to be able to quickly write out a transposition by hand so that your players don't have to wait until next rehearsal to have a play through.

[briantrumpet]

I think grade 5 theory syllabus must have changed a bit since I took it as I have no recollection of doing chords or SABT. [...]
Wouldn't it be more useful to have to play something and transpose it than do it on paper, there are times when you might be faced with something not written for your instrument and you have to play it there and then. If I want to transpose a piece of music to make a part for someone on another instrument I'd use a computer package to do it which is what I do for the church music group.

Short/open score was there in the mid 1970s, as I remember thinking then what a pointless but easy question it was.

Re transposition - it is in trumpet exams (AB and Trinity), as it's something we all have to be able to do on the fly in orchestras. And when arranging, even if I'm using notation software, I still always do a mental check. And still occasionally I still have to use a 2B pencil and manuscript paper when needs must...!

[fsharpminor]

Organ exams have transposition from Grade 6 (I think) it's a good skill to have whatever instrument. .

[corenfa]

I see transposition, keyboard harmony etc as practical skills that are just generally helpful when being a musician- I see why these used to be under Practical Musicianship as mentioned by someone else earlier. I think these "side skills" all fall under that grouping same as numeracy skills do in the realm of maths. Any field has a cloud of associated skills and just being able to tell whether something "looks right" is useful.

Having these little skills up to scratch also makes music-making a lot more fun (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) because I can do things like play the cello part of a Brandenburg Concerto on horn (I lasted a couple of pages before I had to give up, there were just too many notes!!), or attempt to reduce scores if I have to. Also, knowing theory and harmony makes a lot of piano accompaniments to stuff a lot more fakable. I like being able to fake my way through an accompaniment - I really like playing with other people, and I wouldn't be able to do it as much as I have if I wasn't able to fake things. Of course, this totally breaks down if you give me Stravinsky or Hindemith where I can't fake it (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) (Edit: and it's why I'd never pass the quick study for a DipAB, where it's not necessarily fakable)

A point about computers that I realised today after I messed up at work (nothing to do with music though) - the thing about computers is that while they will do exactly what you *tell* them to do, that may not be what you *want* them to do. I'm not having a go, I'm speaking as a programmer who has screwed up MANY TIMES. It's never the computer's fault (IMG:style_emoticons/default/blush.gif) - when I tell it that I want it to transpose up a major third instead of minor third as I actually wanted, I need to be able to sanity check that I've asked it to do the right thing.

Edit: I'm an idiot, I thought this was in the "playing instruments and theory" thread. However, I think that much of what I've said can be applied to Diplomas; if the above skills are something that they want diploma candidates to have as part of general musicianship, then I could see a case for the specific graded theory and practical exams being a requirement.

[staccato]

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.

The dipABRSM may be a first diploma but it is still recognised as a 'professional' qualification.

[barry-clari]

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.

The dipABRSM may be a first diploma but it is still recognised as a 'professional' qualification.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/agree.gif) You obviously have first level, second level and third level diplomas, but all are recognised as professional (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RoseRodent]

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory.

It's quite possible to know what things do without knowing what they are. Before studying for grade 5 I could sit at a piano and make a composition, play from open or close score, realise a figured bass or add appropriate chords underneath a given melody with appropriate use of inversions. But I didn't know what a supertonic in first inversion was, I just knew when I needed to play one. I had all the knowledge applicable to making the practical music, and could describe the chord as "An A minor with the C at the bottom" so the only thing I gained from learning that it was a supertonic first invesion was the ability to describe it with that label.... usually to people who didn't know what that meant and I had to tell them it was "An A minor chord with the C at the bottom" and we'd come full circle.

This is why there is not necessarily a relationship between passing theory and being any good at practical performance, just because you wouldn't recognise a perfect cadence if it sneaked up behind you in a dark room doesn't mean that you would not instantly and automatically make one if given a piano. I wish Practical Musicianship had been available back when I had to do all this, I'd much rather have had these skills tested using an instrument than a piece of manuscript paper. It's still useful to learn the words that describe these things, but I definitely think the learning needs to be that way around - here's a skill you just used, by the way there is a name for it.

I'm glad there is now more variety of ways to fulfil the prerequisites. I can't see the earthly point of testing whether you can successfully realise a figured bass without the aid of a keyboard instrument, when the main point of being able to do it is being able to produce a keyboard part in practice. Does anyone ever lock you in a room with a piece of manuscript and ask you to produce a keyboard part, adhering strictly to the rules and given chords, forbid you from playing it out loud then mark you on what you produced? Composers and arrangers generally sit in a room with minimally one instrument when they work. Why can't you use consecutive 5ths? Because they don't sound good. So why not let you spot them by sound, not by looking painstakingly through a written piece counting intervals?

As much as you can't really have practice entirely divorced from knowledge of theory, you shouldn't have theory entirely cut off from its practical application, because that doesn't happen either. The nuts and bolts of music is to make something which sounds good, why do it in a soundless environment?