I am becoming increasingly concerned about preparing pupils for aural tests and how fair a test they are. I teach in a number of schools where access to a piano is virtually impossible, limiting hugely the pupils's ability to prepare. Most of the aural test requirements, particulary at the higher grades are dependent on an instrument able to play more than one line and cannot be reproduced on a woodwind instrument. When I do have access to a piano my ability to play the tests is limited, even though I have grade 8 piano, the pieces are very difficult. Many of my colleagues do not play piano at all, so goodness knows how their pupils manage. In a perfect world they go off to one of my colleagues for some extra lessons, but this is a considerable extra cost on top of what they have already paid for the exam and is completely beyond many parents. This means I have pupils being discriminated against because of what school they go to and what their parents earn. Neither of these ideas fit comfortably.
Furthermore (and this may be more controversial) I have seen little link over the years between pupils who have a talent for aural tests and those who have a particular talent for playing a woodwind instrument. For example, I have two pupils sitting grade 8 bassoon this term, both are wonderful players, supberb sounds, good intonation, excellent expression, can lead ensembles wonderfully, but can't get near the aural. But they are much better bassoonists than the pupil with perfect pitch that I've entered who can do aural in their sleep!
I'd be very interested in hearing other people's experiences to see if they tally. A straw poll at my music centre finds everyone in the same situation.

It might be worth looking at the new Trinity Guildhall syllabi (from 2007). For supporting tests, it will be possible to choose two options from Sight-reading, Aural tests, Musical Knowledge and Improvisation. (SR is compulsory from Grade 5 onwards.) I read that this is in order to allow candidates to play on their strengths.

I agree with you that being good at aural tests is not always indicative of being able to deliver a good performance. A seperate issue, perhaps, but the same holds for sight-reading, up to a point.

Take a look at hofnote.com. A new aural training programme;I have just started trying it for my lower grade pupils. (I am nothing to do with the company).

You can get CDs to practise the aural tests.

Yes their are CDs with the aural tests specifically for AB tests. There are also websites that do ear tests though not the same, like musictheory.net, Good Ear Trainer. As for perfect pitch, this generally is not the same as good aural. Aural is testing your understanding and perception of music away from an instrument so you can apply this to your playing, so of course it's relevant. Why would it be included if it wasn't of some value? Good luck to you and your pupils.

If you have Grade 8 piano, you must have played 100s of piano pieces. Why don't you use some of those that you can play well to teach aural? I have several specific aural test books, but I also use lots of other music to encourage, test further, prove a point etc. Surely the speciman test books are purely guides for us all to use as little (or as much!) as we choose?

True, but it makes some of the tests ridiculously easy, especially for anyone who is already reasonably comfortable singing, increasing the bias towards certain groups of candidates.

I'm happy to have people's understanding and perception of music tested. To my mind an unacceptable proportion of the ABRSM aural tests is testing memory and singing. There have been a number of previous discussions around this subject.

Interesting point Dacapo. I think the most relevant in the grade 8 aural is the last section, where you are played a piece and discuss its features. Some of the singing tests seem not quite so relevant and could be reviewed, but presumably they want to test musical memory and of course sight singing is how well you can translate dots into sound. As a clarinettist I have found this of incalculable benefit. Maybe less so for pianists but that's a subject I'm not intending to debate.

I remember an interesting point by one teacher in a solfege class that sometimes sight singing tests are transposed to throw those with perfect pitch (not AB exams but elsewhere), ie. it's the shape of the music, whether you use intervals or think solfege, not the absolute notes you see. Clever.

I'm in danger of being accused of having a vested interest in promoting Trinity Guildhall (which I don't) but their new set of aural tests (yet to be disclosed, unless they've popped up since I last checked the website) will have less emphasis on singing and memory, and more on a deepening understanding of the same musical example.

I'm glad someone else uses their own repertoire to practise for aural tests! I was mildly concerned that my pupils were disadvantaged by me avoiding some of the specimen pieces!

now that is evil for those with perfect pitch, but an advantage to those who can sight-sing without it!

I used to have problems with that when we were sight-singing at school - the teacher used to give us a starting note down from the one written as some of the girls in my class would have struggled with the higher notes at original pitch, but that meant it floored me as I could hear the pitch of the written note in my head and then had to try to sight-sing and transpose at the same time......

Did you ever try reading the shape of the notes (ie how a non-perfect-pitch-person would sight-sing) rather than reading which notes were which and then transposing?

[quote name='sarah-flute' date='May 21 2006, 11:45 PM' post='327309']


I used to have problems with that when we were sight-singing at school - the teacher used to give us a starting note down from the one written as some of the girls in my class would have struggled with the higher notes at original pitch, but that meant it floored me as I could hear the pitch of the written note in my head and then had to try to sight-sing and transpose at the same time......
[/quote]
Did you ever try reading the shape of the notes (ie how a non-perfect-pitch-person would sight-sing) rather than reading which notes were which and then transposing?
[/quote]

I don't have perfect pitch, but would like to, because then I could help my own children with their scales whilst making the dinner in the kitchen. (When you can only hear whether it's major or minor, you can't yell "3 in the left", "F#", etc. You have to see which one they're doing. However the voice is an instrument like any other, and I would imagine that perfect pitch means that seeing that note on that line means to you that you"hit" that note - hence transposition is as difficult with the voice as with anything else. Am I right...?

Yes, if you have perfect pitch. However, as long as I am not going into an insane key, I often transpose the same way on the flute - looking at the shape rather than the notes - hence wondering if it could work the same way for someone with perfect pitch transposing when singing

I know what you mean.

I want to reply to Cath M's first topic which was about not being able to play piano well enough to prepare students for the higher grades. I am in that position myself and cannot play the pieces for the final aural test where the piece is played and questions are asked. I can just about get through the cadences ..slowly..and the modulations but can't help my students with that final section. It always hurts when the results come back with low marks in the aural tests.

I do encourage CDs and the use of websites, but without anyone there to tell them if they are right or wrong their value is still limited.


The unfairness of pupils' marks being effected by the quality of their teacher's piano playing or the amount of money their parents have to spend on extra aural, or whether there's a even a piano in their school is a tricky one. A fairer test, that can be handled by a teacher of the instrument on which the exam is being taken, with no great extra expense really needs to be considered.



Of course I use lots of different music that I can play, but for an unconfident pianist it doesn't make it any easier playing a 3 part piece exactly the same twice in a row so they can sing the bottom part. Also, there's the small problem of virtually no access to pianos at many schools. There really needs to be an alternative for children in this situation.

I thought the websites did give the answers, but I could be wrong. Colleagues of mine who are non-pianists use CDs of aural tests at lessons and in rooms where there isn't a piano available. They have the books and can correct and explain answers as neccessary. Other colleagues ask their students who are doing higher grades to have a few aural lessons with me before their exam!

Hi, Noodle! I always get in a tizz at this time of year over aurals - squeezing in extra lessons - children living on pizza - dishes piling up; finally in hand this time, but can I keep you in mind next year!!??

I don't play the piano well enough (especially when I know I have to get it right) for the higher grade aural tests either. However, I have a collection of different cassettes and Cds which I use. Aural Training in Practice is fine if you have the accompanying book, and the Soundwise cassettes and Laurence Perkins Aural CDs contain the answers. I believe the AB now produces CDs of the specimen tests as well.

I also use CDs of piano music for the last question; there are a lot of cheap compilation CDs around which contain piano excerpts from different periods.

I have started using Hofnote for all exam students. They do get feedback on what the right answer was and a chance to listen again. What I like is that as their teacher, I can log on and check if when the have used it and how many exercises the students have done before I see them again. It saves time in the lesson and the students seem more relaxed about practising as it is less pressurised than in the lesson.

I think aural tests should continue as they are an important part of teaching students to be a complete musician.

Support material in all forms is out there to help. But why just concentrate on Aural to get through exams. Why not make it part of everyday tuition. I believe the same should be true with sightreading. With both of these skills part of general teaching like teaching notation to younger pupils they become second nature.

I don't really think aural tests are too big a problem for most in their current form - although I would like to see less emphasis on memory and singing. I know I hated this as a child, as I had a problem then with pitching my voice - which was taken by teachers to mean that I simply didn't have a good ear. However, I could reproduce melodies very easily on the recorder.

The biggest problem with teaching aural well is the time factor. When a child comes to a teacher to learn an instrument, it wants to learn to play things and show off to friends; clapping and singing is not what it had in mind! In an ideal world, I'd have everyone for two half-hour lessons a week, but this is more money and commitment than most parents and children are willing to give. Post Grade 5, it an unfortunate fact that one doesn't get through everything in one lesson, and aural tests do tend to be neglected until an exam is imminent. "Tested, but not taught" is a quote that springs to mind - I'm not entirely sure where I read this, but it might have been in the article in Libretto about Cyrilla and Kodaly. I don't really have an answer to this as far as private teaching is concerned. Extra lessons are not always popular, and I often end up rescheduling people in order to put the higher grades at the end of the evening - so that we can over-run and get through everything to my satisfaction. However, whilst I get the odd bunch of flowers and bottle of wine, this is unpaid.

There's a Kodaly workshop in Cambridge this October, if anyone is interested. I know both the tutors and they are excellent.

People often say this - but I started violin in a class of TWELVE 6 & 7 year olds (many moons ago!) - a half hour lesson once a week - and aural was an integral part right from the beginning and came in every single time we played anything - and my aural skills are all the better for it. Our progress on the instrument was pretty good, too, and the clapping/singing etc was always related to the instrument so one didn't feel "what's this got to do with anything.

Most of my teachers later in life didn't bother with aural till exams or not even then in some cases and yet I have got close to full marks in all the exams I have done. So I find it difficult to buy the "there's no time" argument - if it's in there in the thick of lessons right from the start, a foundation can be laid that will serve a student well for - well, it's served me well for 20 years despite neglect on the part of many of my music teachers... if a teacher can do this with a dozen unruly 6 and 7 year olds playing an instrument as notoriously difficult as the fiddle....

Younger children are not my problem - if problem is the right word! It's managing the time for aural tests in higher grades, when they're also doing A-Levels, Duke of Edinburgh, and God alone knows what else! They don't want extra lessons, and it's difficult to fit it all into the one they've got!

How much do others think that ear/aural training impinges on students performance and enjoyment? As a child my teacher left aural until exam time. He didn't seem to relate it to my playing. But and I wish I had done more. I have just taken a class through A level (both AS ans A2) and made them do aural training throughout the year.

How long are your lessons Patricia?

I insist that lessons are an hour for singers, and at least 45 minutes for pupils over 13. This allows me time to do aural and sightreading. The trade off, I only see most of my pupils on a fortnightly basis. But it seems to work as they practice. (and that includes aural and sightreading)

I cracked the singing the lower part thing this week (sorry, this has nothing to do with whether they should be changed or not, but I was so pleased with myself!) After singing soprano, and first soprano usually, in church choir for the past 9 years, my Grade 7 aural has caused so many problems. When I did my piano I think I was lucky and got it mostly right, but the practices with my teacher were always appalling.

I told the choirmaster about the problems I was having and he suggested I sang alto for a verse in every hymn, and after three weeks of doing that, I've cracked it!!

Oh, and also, my teacher has started doing aurals at the end of every lesson for 5-10 minutes, because of the problems I was having. That helped overcome my dread of aural tests, at least....

My lessons are 30 minutes. I hadn't really thought of insisting upon an hour for older/more advanced students, but I suspect it wouldn't go down well. I do try to lengthen lessons in the run-up to exams, or throw in extra ones, but these, whilst appreciated, are not paid for. I don't know of any teachers where I live who do more than half an hour at a time, though I can see (obviously) that it would be a good idea. I realise that from a business point of view it is silly of me not to charge parents for this extra help - but I get the impression that it would not be wanted if it was costing. And at the end of the day, I know I would find myself unable to say, "Well then, that's your problem, but don't blame me if he/she doesn't do just as well as you hope." When all is said and done, the teacher is the obvious fall-guy when aforementioned parent is conversation with another parent. They are unlikely to say "Well, actually the teacher wanted her to have more lessons but I wasn't prepared to pay for them."

But I will certainly think about this - perhaps for Grade 5 and up?

I'd like to have an aural lesson in the week, but there is no one really I can go to! Up til recently with my flute lessons the focus has been things for A Level Music (recital) and things for auditions and things. I don't think she feels she has adequate enough piano skills to help me either. I need someone to tell me how I am doing, but the only person who I enquired about I don't think was really interested, they could only help me with things like candences, and would have needed to work out what they were doing in advance.

What I mean is, the aural training I got as a child served me well for years despite teachers in later years largely ignoring aural. If the foundations are laid, it doesn't become a worry.

I agree, if I had done basic aural from when I picked up the flute, then aural would just be another aspect of playing, rather something that I'd find hard because I do it so infrequently!

Yup - it was in my 'The Kodaly Experience' article in the May 2003 issue of Libretto. I made the point that aural is too often only TESTED, not TAUGHT.

What Sarah and others have said is so true - if aural aspects of musical training were included right from the start and solid foundations were laid, this would stand children and adults in such good stead later on, even if the aural work did not continue. I am a firm believer in the effects of early exposure to music and am convinced that this has a profound effect on later attitudes and achievement.

As to the problem of time in lessons - as my erstwhile boss on the Guildhall's String Training Programme (Philippa Bunting, daughter of Christopher) used to say, 'What are your lessons so full of that you cannot do aural work??'

Unfortunately the word 'aural' immediately conjures up grade exam aural TESTS and all the horrors that those hold for very many people (myself as a child included). As other forum members have pointed out in the past, aural means listening - and sadly, quite often in instrumental lessons students are not taught to develop their musical memory, listening and understanding.

And of course parents are unwilling to pay extra for something 'which is only going to earn a few more marks'.

I'm afraid that until there is a major change in the way that music education is viewed in this country, this problem will always remain.

The general perception of music, certainly among the majority of parents, is that 'music=learning an instrument' and that 'learning an instrument=getting your grades'. Full stop.

I know, from the work I have done with both children and adults, that there is so much more to music than this. And I know that children who are taught in the Kodaly way well become rounded and confident musicians. They are not scared of singing and their ears are perceptive; their skills in areas such as sight-singing and dictation are well-developed, as is their musical memory.

I just long for the day when all children are taught in this way at school as a matter of course. The children who show particular aptitude for and interest in music can then begin to learn an instrument (following a minimum of one year's Kodaly work) and their instrumental work can continue to be backed up by the Kodaly lessons which are basically teaching both 'aural' and 'theory' in a clear, enjoyable way.

I've just asked some of my teenage students (who started with me at school when they were 4-5 years old) for their comments on the Kodaly work they do, for a brochure that I'm putting together. Here are just a couple of them:

'Its benefits to me are infinite. I can't imagine a musical mind without it' (Y12)

'Kodaly does not just teach me how to sing, it teaches me what song is.' (Y10)

'I understand music rather than just play it.' (Y11)

'Kodaly always makes me smile and has helped to give me confidence.' (Y8)

'Kodaly is not just musical training, it's emotional therapy. Kodaly attracts inspired people - and it has made me truly inspired!' (Y12)

Yes, this is the problem. They want their children to be able to play things that are 'nice to listen to', and to do well in exams for the sake of being able to say, "I got xxxx in my Grade xxxx." Their understanding of what is inherent in the subject does not go beyond that - and they appear not to want to learn.

Oooh, I've only just seen this topic, and it's a pet niggle of mine. When I was a child, I used to do my aural tests with my piano teacher, even when it was for a flute or recorder exam. My teachers did not play well enough to do them with me.

Now I'm the teacher in the difficult aural situation. I work for a music service so have no say in how things work. I teach in groups of up to four until grade 5. Tell me, especailly in schools with no access to a piano, how I'm supposed to prepare a child for say grade 4, do aural tests without a piano, and listen to the other three play as well? Also, I have some individual pupils who are above grade 5. I have a year 8 student doing grade 8 this term. How on earth do you go about explaining some of the complicated things to a child so young, but so talented, that grade 8 aural expects?

Aural work is so much more than a few extra marks in an exam. I started studying Kodaly a few months ago when I realised how poor my aural skills were. I am now beginning to realise how much I have missed over the years.

I had violin lessons as a child, am an adult learner of piano and voice, I have been in many choirs, and I regularly attend concerts; but through all this I hadn't ever truly experienced music.

I am the organist at my local church and had a most wonderful experience whilst practising this week's hymns. For the first time I really heard what I was playing as I listened and recognised the harmonies moving.

I moved on to practice my piano pieces for next week's lesson, and surprised myself when I felt the piece modulating. These were no longer just accidentals that made the piece harder to play, now I could feel the change in the music and understand why I experience particular emotions when I play that passage.

I picked up a few pieces that I have learned recently. I listened as I played this familiar music, and found that it felt new. An audience would have noticed no change between the way I played that day and the previous week; but I knew the difference. Now I am a musician, now I feel with understanding.

How can you really teach someone to be a musician without teaching them the skills necessary to deeply understand and be moved by the music?

Hi Judith, good to see another Kodaly enthusiast on here. I was just thinking before this thread started, where have all the aural/Kodaly discussions gone? There used to be an enormous enthusiasm on these boards for improving aural and using Kodaly's principals. What happened? Anyway, it's such an important issue, especially when there so so many great methods to improve aural, Kodaly being one of them of course.

Kflute, it sucks that you have to teach in those conditions and have no say over it - but once again - my violin teacher had a group of 12 of us and she managed to give me an aural training foundation that has served me well for 20 years. It isn't easy, but it can be done.

Can't you bring a keyboard in? That would let you rehearse the sing back from memory, practise sight singing (I'm a big fan of solfege at this point), and the modulations. The last part may not work unless it has a really good touch sensitive action, but it's just a thought. You can improve this part by listening to CDs of as much music as possible.