Jump to content


Photo

Trinity Theory paper question

I can only spot four

  • Please log in to reply
17 replies to this topic

#1 Spanish Pavane

Spanish Pavane

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Member: 720213
    Joined: 10-April 13

Posted 05 January 2014 - 20:47

I'm an experienced teacher, including theory so I hope someone can either shed light on this or agree with me that it might be some kind of mistake.  It's Trinity Theory sample paper 1, grade Two (they're free on Trinity website).  Section Three, Spot Five Differences.  1) The metronome mark should be the other way round. 2) Key sig before time sig.  3) The G's in the first bar should be beamed together.  4) The last two notes should be a minim.  And.....????

Of course I wrote to Trinity but I didn't get a reply.

Can anyone see what the fifth is?


  • 0

#2 porilo

porilo

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1124 posts
  • Member: 138745
    Joined: 15-October 10
  • South West London

Posted 05 January 2014 - 22:02

It's got me stumped too. Could it be that the last D in the first bar should have its tail pointing up, as the notes before and after have tails pointing up? That's not really a mistake, though, but might make it look a bit neater.  :D


  • 0

#3 jim palmer

jim palmer

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Member: 28959
    Joined: 15-April 08
  • South London

Posted 05 January 2014 - 22:07

I would agree with your 1...3, and both tenutos superfluous?

:rolleyes:


  • 0

#4 Spanish Pavane

Spanish Pavane

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 75 posts
  • Member: 720213
    Joined: 10-April 13

Posted 05 January 2014 - 22:29

I think there's some very obscure ruling about middle line notes and stems - but it's very nebulous and I've never come across it in over fifty years!! - just came across it recently, something like the distance from the next note influences whether you'd put it up or down.  

Tenuto marks - well, possibly.  But neither of these two things are mistakes as such are they?  I'll have to write to Trinity again, someone must have written the paper!


  • 0

#5 linda.ff

linda.ff

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5032 posts
  • Member: 183500
    Joined: 04-January 11

Posted 05 January 2014 - 23:14

I think there's some very obscure ruling about middle line notes and stems - but it's very nebulous and I've never come across it in over fifty years!! - just came across it recently, something like the distance from the next note influences whether you'd put it up or down.  

Tenuto marks - well, possibly.  But neither of these two things are mistakes as such are they?  I'll have to write to Trinity again, someone must have written the paper!

I'm sure it's the tenutos. Their theory workbooks say you can put middle line stems either way. The first tenuto could arguably be not a mistake, though it seems highly unlikely considering there are no other articulations, but the last is pointless.


  • 0

#6 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 06 January 2014 - 06:44

The second tenuto mark is too far from the note head.- the gap should be no wider than a stave space.


  • 0

#7 linda.ff

linda.ff

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5032 posts
  • Member: 183500
    Joined: 04-January 11

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:22

The second tenuto mark is too far from the note head.- the gap should be no wider than a stave space.

I'm 100% sure it won't be that. First, because at the age at which pupils often take grade 2, their pencil and spacing controls are not finely-tuned enough to get these distances accurate - though I do make sure they understand that leger lines should be as near as possible to the same distance as stave lines, and definitely in alignment, so that the tune can still be clearly seen to be going up and down (I've seen faults in this area in professionally written violin parts, in G&S orchestra; the violinists just took it in their stride). They wouldn't penalise a child for not making stems an octave in length, for instance, and I doubt if they'd expect them to recognise a spacing fault as small as that in a printed copy when they still can't manage any better themselves.

 

But secondly, I've just tried to re-create that phrase on Sibelius, and without the tie, the tenuto was where you said it should be - but as soon as I added the tie, it shifted down to more or less where we see it on the paper. So the tie displaces the tenuto.

 

It has to be the second tenuto sign - give the note its full length but don't slur it to the next - how can you have two tied notes and one of them is not joined to the other?


  • 0

#8 Splog

Splog

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2078 posts
  • Member: 460379
    Joined: 20-May 12

Posted 06 January 2014 - 10:37

That's what I was going to say. Why is there a tenuto mark on a note which is tied to another note? But whatever the fault there has to be an obvious correction. Should that be a minim, or two crotchets which aren't tied, or what? Would the correction be to remove the tenuto? Very confusing. Pity there are no model answers to go along with the papers.


  • 0

#9 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 06 January 2014 - 15:32

 

The second tenuto mark is too far from the note head.- the gap should be no wider than a stave space.

 

 

But secondly, I've just tried to re-create that phrase on Sibelius, and without the tie, the tenuto was where you said it should be - but as soon as I added the tie, it shifted down to more or less where we see it on the paper. So the tie displaces the tenuto.

 

It has to be the second tenuto sign - give the note its full length but don't slur it to the next - how can you have two tied notes and one of them is not joined to the other?

 

I agree that the exaggerated displacement of the tenuto mark is a fault in Sibelius, and that something like that would be too difficult to count as a "mistake" at this level.

 

I don't see anything else wrong with that second tenuto, though.

 

I wonder if Trinity have treated a composite error as two separate errors (i.e. one error is that the two tied crotchets should be written as a minim, and another error is that the tie is redundant). Very poor examining practice, though, if that is what happens.


  • 0

#10 sbhoa

sbhoa

    Maestro

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20276 posts
  • Member: 24
    Joined: 31-October 03
  • Tameside

Posted 06 January 2014 - 16:42

That's what I was going to say. Why is there a tenuto mark on a note which is tied to another note? But whatever the fault there has to be an obvious correction. Should that be a minim, or two crotchets which aren't tied, or what? Would the correction be to remove the tenuto? Very confusing. Pity there are no model answers to go along with the papers.

I'm playing music which has slurred notes of the same pitch (looks like a tie) but with tenuto marks on each of the notes.

I'm also struggling to find another mistake. Has anybody had time to read through the theory workbook for clues?


  • 0

#11 Hildegard

Hildegard

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 149 posts
  • Member: 887389
    Joined: 26-October 13

Posted 06 January 2014 - 17:07

The parallel question in Trinity's other Grade 2 sample paper is very straightforward: two wrongly beamed beats to correct, tempo written below the stave, whole-bar rest needed to replace two minim rests and a pair of tied crotchets that need to be written as a minim. No articulation marks on the last of these. I think they may have messed up this question on the first sample paper.


  • 0

#12 Splog

Splog

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2078 posts
  • Member: 460379
    Joined: 20-May 12

Posted 06 January 2014 - 17:19

 

That's what I was going to say. Why is there a tenuto mark on a note which is tied to another note? But whatever the fault there has to be an obvious correction. Should that be a minim, or two crotchets which aren't tied, or what? Would the correction be to remove the tenuto? Very confusing. Pity there are no model answers to go along with the papers.

I'm playing music which has slurred notes of the same pitch (looks like a tie) but with tenuto marks on each of the notes.

I'm also struggling to find another mistake. Has anybody had time to read through the theory workbook for clues?

 

If the tie is a slur, and the tenuto is not an error, why would it be wrong to write it as two crotchets rather than a minim? Sorry if that sounds a bit thick, I'm really intrigued by this.


  • 0

#13 linda.ff

linda.ff

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5032 posts
  • Member: 183500
    Joined: 04-January 11

Posted 06 January 2014 - 22:37

 

 

That's what I was going to say. Why is there a tenuto mark on a note which is tied to another note? But whatever the fault there has to be an obvious correction. Should that be a minim, or two crotchets which aren't tied, or what? Would the correction be to remove the tenuto? Very confusing. Pity there are no model answers to go along with the papers.

I'm playing music which has slurred notes of the same pitch (looks like a tie) but with tenuto marks on each of the notes.

I'm also struggling to find another mistake. Has anybody had time to read through the theory workbook for clues?

 

If the tie is a slur, and the tenuto is not an error, why would it be wrong to write it as two crotchets rather than a minim? Sorry if that sounds a bit thick, I'm really intrigued by this.

 

I think it's a bit odd to slur the notes and then use tenuto signs. I've always called them stretch marks :D and considered them as a contradiction of a staccato, but most definitions of them state that the note should be given its full length but NOT attached to the next note - so why a slur? I've seen two slurred notes of the same pitch with staccato dots though, so two tenuto signs would make sense, but surely not one.

 

As I said, I can see no reason to write a tenuto when there are no other articulations - no staccato and no slurs. Surely a load of tenutos with nothing else would just be another way of writing non legato? As there's no indication that legato is required, it would be non legato anyway. Wouldn't it? 


  • 0

#14 linda.ff

linda.ff

    Virtuoso

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5032 posts
  • Member: 183500
    Joined: 04-January 11

Posted 06 January 2014 - 22:42

 

I agree that the exaggerated displacement of the tenuto mark is a fault in Sibelius, and that something like that would be too difficult to count as a "mistake" at this level.

I can't see why it's a "fault" in Sibelius - it's there to avoid collisions. There's a hierarchy in there somewhere, as to what can be moved and what shouldn't. Cramped spacing is as bad in handwriting as it is in printing.


  • 0

#15 jim palmer

jim palmer

    Prodigy

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1179 posts
  • Member: 28959
    Joined: 15-April 08
  • South London

Posted 06 January 2014 - 23:01

It's certainly very ambiguous. "The AB Guide to Music Theory"  says avoid ties where possible, so perhaps they expect a minim (as lynne 735 said) and no tenuto in bar 2?

 

 

TrinityQ_zps572414d9.png


  • 0