I was thinking it would be a good idea if the Board allowed you to 'carry forward' passes from the aural part of exams if you are taking the same grade on a different instrument.

For example, if someone has passed grade 8 piano and then later decides to take grade 8 clarinet, wouldn't it be good if the examiner could just 'pass' them on the aural bit seeing as they have already performed well in this test before (i.e. in their grade 8 piano)? That is, they have proved they can do it, so why should they have to do it all again? This is a generic musical thing, rather than something specific to the instrument.

Or perhaps there should be a whole aural exam, e.g. grade 8 aural (might be a bit similar to practical musicianship?) and if you've passed that you don't need to further 'prove yourself' by doing the aural part of other grade 8 instrumental exams.

I have used grade 8 as an example but I guess it could apply to any grade. Also, under this format exams would be, on average, slightly shorter, so there'd be less chance of things running late!

Thoughts?

Superb idea, and then there could be some proper tests too, more instrument-specific and practical. The problem would be whether people treat is as many regard theory - do it because you have to, then forget it all! Maybe a viva voce could then be included in the practical exams

Might there be a chance that between Grade 8s your aural skills might improve?!

Think a viva would be a good idea though.

Looks like it could work. The idea of a separate Grade 8 Aural exam though sounds terrifying

Interesting thought, but, if you passed Grade 8 piano, say and did aural - why worry about aural for any other instrument, even if it's at Grade 8 as well? Surely it can't be any harder, can it?

1 potential problem: money.
It would have to be a cheapish exam, or it would put a lot of people off.

They'd have to carry forward the mark, rather than simply the 'pass' so that the marks could still be added up to get an overall impression. Also I don't think they store mark breakdowns anywhere (I may be mistaken). I guess they might also want to make sure that one can still do the test at the time of taking the next exam, which may be several years later (what when the syllabus changes?). Okay, I'm just being boring now, I think it's a good idea if it would work . As MrB says though in theory it shouldn't be hard to do it again (although in practice it may well be...). I don't think a seperate exam would work though: seems a bit over the top, and I don't think many people would opt for it....

Yes.. you could get lucky and have tests you find easier the first time and harder the next.

Wow. Did you see the row one teacher provoked by suggesting this a few months ago? I did, and it was quite something to read. Just did a check. Read it here. Crikey.

Me, I am on the side of the instrument-specific stuff.

Trinity College exams have always included a viva voce at all levels, but alongside aural tests, not instead. I'm waiting with interest to see how the new Trinity-Guildhall syllabuses and marking systems are going to be organised. I just hope they will incorporate the best of both rather than the worst. At least it isn't the Government doing the re-organisation...

I'd definitely like a viva. ABRSM is the only major board without one - Trinity and Guildhall both have them (Guildhall's is called Musicianship Questions).

I'm amused the implication that aurals aren't proper tests (aural skills in general are pretty darn useful, especially when you want to do arrangements, play by ear or compose and I think aural tests generally encourage people to prepare this), but each to their own!

I'd quite like Grade 8 aurals to be optional after your first Grade 8 exam. That way, those who wanted to improve their mark could do so (admittedly with a risk, but there you go - I suppose you could just go for the highest mark if you were lower, but that might not be ideal) and those who didn't want the hassle could opt out. The only complication is that it could easily lead to people scrape-passing when they should fail based on aurals due to fluke passes, which I assume ABRSM wouldn't want to encourage too much! It could work, but to be honest doing aurals again probably wouldn't bother me much (aurals have been something I've almost enjoyed!)

I've just found a lot of the aural work is completely detached from anything I have done as a musician.

Perhaps the idea of an aural exam is a bit extreme, but maybe even a Practical Musicianship pass could substitute for the aural part of exams at the same grade level or lower? I don't think that would be unfair.

I agree it's a shame there's no viva.

I just think asking questions like 'tell me what this cadence is' is almost like saying 'Prove to me that you've done your grade 5 theory as I don't necessarily believe it!'

I have found that, too.


Me neither. Of course, it is equally lacking in relevance to actual playing.


The Trinity viva is most useful in terms of encouraging exam candidates to study the theory that lies behind the piece. Trinity candidates can offer playing from memory instead of a viva - equally useful in developmental terms. I would like to see the AB introduce something similar.


Not entirely relevant to your playing ability, either. Listen to enough cadences and you will be able to recognise them straight away. You might still not be able to hear the individual constituent parts or the chords.

Aural is just a game. Good players do well. Bad players do not.

I don't think that would be unreasonable, but how would the marks be allocated? How many marks would a pass at PM be worth in the aural?


It would be entirely possible to do grade 5 theory and still not be able to aurally identify a cadence.


Improv, transposition, playing by ear, being able to identify wrong pitches or rhythms, sight-reading? Yeah I can see how they're all completely irrelevant... not. And although I have never done it, I know that better pianists than me frequently have to cobble together accompaniments on the spot...

Few of these are tested in exams. Exam aural is irrelevant to any of this.

Hence my query about all those things which ARE tested in PM exams....