Trinity Guildhall have launched their new syllabus. For students taking exams up to grade 5 they can choose any 2 of Aural, Sight-reading, Improvisation and Musical Knowledge. At grade 6 and above, Sight-reading is compulsory, but students can choose either aural or improvisation.

My first reaction was 'great!'. I have only a few students taking Trinity exams and as they would be my weaker candidates, they should be able to obtain higher results by leaving out the options they are less good at. However, now I've had a chance to think about it, I'm not so sure it really is a good idea. Yes, it will improve results for candidates who are good at Sight-reading and poor at aural and vice versa, but am I there to get good results from students, or as a teacher should I be trying to train good all round musicians not just children who can play the piano/violin/viola. Probably the route I will take with these students is to continue with their aural, sight-reading and improvisation and then let them take the exam on the options they are best at. Unfortunately, I know some teachers who will see this as a fantasitc opportunity to leave out aural or sight-reading altogether. I remember an examiner telling me some time ago that we (peris) are music teachers and not piano teachers. There is a lot more to a child's musical education than being able to play an instrument, aural is an essential part of musical training, and sight-reading is a skill which needs developing too.

What happens when a child who has chose not to do aural for grades 1 - 5 decides that Improvisation is too difficult and has to do aural instead for grade 6. As most exam aural tests tend to be progressive, he/she will be disadvantaged and have to probably work through earlier grades before attempting grade 6, in the same way someone changing exam boards after grade 5 would.


Any thoughts? Are 'tailor made' exams a good idea?

Although it could benefit some pupils, I think it is veering away from the all round musician. I hate aural, and currently have to do it in AB exams, but it is really useful, and I would like to develop it. Removing the option from the exam means that people's ability would get worse, when it really is quite important to have a basic aural awareness (the same for sight reading)

Just my two pennies worth.

Personally, though I think all those things can become a bore when preparing for exams, they are all vital aspects of learning which allow musicians to function. I always hated the idea of having to do grade 5 theory, but it wasn't until I got to grade 8 practical that I realised how useful it all had been.

I think that too much choice is a bad thing.

David

I went to the presentation in Portsmouth a week ago.

I liked the ideas of the aural test they are developing. And the Musical Knowledge. And Improvisation. But I think it's a pity that these and the Sight Reading are either/or choices - I think all four are valuable.

I'm also intrigued by the technical tests that may replace scales for many instruments.

I'm still waiting to see exactly how they will work for singers in real life.

Personally I think you can teach the all-round skills but not need to see a pupil examined in them to feel you (or they) have succeeded. Whatever syllabus we teach to for exams, the important thing is the quality of the musician we produce at the end and their all-round knowledge. A good teacher will still cover all the "extras" as well as the, "this is how you play your instrument" bit. If you don't they can never be really rounded, 100% musicians.

I suppose my concern is that for less able pupils, or for less able teachers, the "opt-out" will be seen as a huge bonus to avoid "nasty", difficult things. At least the ABRSM syllabus means pupils will cover these areas every now and again even if not very much with some teachers.

I haven't seen the new Trinity Guildhall stuff yet but my reaction is that, even with my less able pupils, I shall continue to stick with ABRSM in the hopes of continuing to try to turn out more rounded musicians, who've proven that rounded response under examination conditions. However, my first comment still applies. The quality and breadth of the teaching and natural aptitude and work ethic of the pupil will be the things which really shape and grow them as musicians, not an exam system.

I was there at Portsmouth too - where were you sitting? You really wouldn't have missed me as I was sitting next to the lady that made the big point about specialist examiners!

I agree that it is a bad idea that sight reading and aural is not compulsory until Grade 6 (and even then you need not do aural, but improvisation)

I suppose the answer is to let the pupil play to its strengths in exams, but continue with all the other things in lessons. Otherwise, yes, the sight-reading, etc, would come as a bit of a shock in the upper grades. However if a pupil is particularly poor at sight-reading (perhaps because of dislexia) it is questionable whether it is the right thing to do to hold back progress in other areas until the sight-reading catches up. It may never catch up, and the child could become so demoralised that it won't continue to play at all. In this repect, I do feel that these "tailor-made" exams will be well received by many.

Sight-reading, incidentally, is something that often seems to "kick in" at about Grade 4, especially when the child has started very young and was a quick memoriser.

Left hand side of the room as you faced the front, about three rows from the back, next to Andante in C. Wearing a turquoise rugby shirt & black jeans and with dark hair in a pony tail.

That's interesting.
I found sight reading very easy right from the start and only later on has it lagged behind and I couldn't sight read the pieces I was learning.

I have found that most of my students sight read without any problem in the early stages too as it is a normal part of the lesson through having a play through of new pieces so that they and I know that they have an idea of what to do.

Are we meaning the same thing by the term "sight-reading"? As in, getting most of the notes, timing and tonality correct in a new piece at the grade/level that they're at? No, most of mine couldn't do that; a Grade 3 would make a reasonable stab at a Grade 1 piece, and a Grade 7 would make a reasonable stab at a Grade 5 piece (on average). They could pick their way through a piece at their own grade, but I wouldn't call this sight-reading it - I'd just call it "picking their way through"! When I said that SR often kicks in at about Grade 4, what I meant was that they start to get a better understanding of tonality, and their reading becomes more fluent more rapidly. I've always found the SR learning curve to rise quite slowly at first, and then rise more rapidly. But it probably all depends on our different teaching methods - theory is another thing that people approach differently. I don't really think about it till they're at Grade 3 practical, because I find that they don't relate it to the playing before then. However, if I suddenly present a Grade 1 paper to a Grade 3 player, I find that they know and understand most of what's on it, because of little snippets that we've talked about when appropriate - and the grouping, etc, all makes sense and falls straight into place.

I agree with oboist on the teaching but not necessarily examining each skill. What strikes me is they are saying after grade 5 you MUST sight read, but not MUST anything else. I agree this is an important skill, rubbish as I am at piano sight reading, but why more than anything else. Also I think the aurals have become rather wooley, I mean, no singing. It seems to be giving in to kids' reluctance to sing these days. Also it's two questions it seems, on pretty similar topics. All this picking and choosing may allow people to play to their strengths, but it doesn't encourage much musicianship training.

I do like the smaller number of scales for higher grade piano exams, this is one thing putting me off grade 8 piano with the AB. I suppose if I could do the Trinity scales, studies, the AB pieces and aurals, and sight reading from either, that might be a half decent exam. We can only dream.

I teach the London College of Music Electric guitar exams and the Trinity classical guitar exams Both do not involve sight reading You can pass the LCM electric guitar exams just using tab which I think is a pity - there is no substitute in my opinion for music notation

I also teach AB grade piano

I do think that sight reading is important and should be started as soon as possible and maintained because most pupils in my experience play better than they read and this often puts them off tackling pieces if they think that a key is "difficult"

I have a special interest in this area as I have 10 percent vision in the right eye and 15 percent vision in the left Sometimes in order to read music properly I have to get it printed up to A3 size

Nevertheless I think sight reading is important

I'm talking more about pre grade 1.... real beginners playing in a 5 finger position or in a fixed position with some extensions (like thumb on C and having the A above or B below included).
Maybe it's when the hands start having to move into new positions that sight reading loses pace?




But after grade 5 the options narrow more as the choice is only between aural and improvisation, musical knowledge is no longer an option at later grades for some reason (if I was doing those exams I think I would choose musical knowledge).

My teacher alwasy says, "The more you practise and do it, the better you get." So if you apply the theory to this , it would seem that this way of doing the exams isn't great. I do think that it will lead to children (or aduts for that matter!) only learning what they want to learn, and so therefore they will never become rounded musicians if they are only learning for exams. Having said that, even doing AB exams you don't become a rounded musician if all you do is exam music! I think that all of the aspects of music that you can choose between are important, and should be included in all the grades without choice, because yes, there will be some teachers who will teach their students everything, be it on the syllabus or not, but there will be others who don't. I'm sure we can all think of a teacher who does nothing but push their students through grades, and so therefore by giving the choice of not doing certain things, they will miss out even more. Now I am definitely not saying that ALL teachers are like this, but there are a definite minority who are, and I feel that the students of this type of teacher would be at a disadvantage later on if these other skills have been skipped.

I think that they should all be included, or that you must at least do 3 out of the four to be a more rounded musician, but I think that the long term development of the student's musical knowledge should eb considered, and this means that they need to cover all aspects of music to be the best, most rounded musicians.

If you want all pupils to do SR/Aural/Scales, you already have ABRSM! Trinity seems to be appealing to a slightly different audience, but also allowing the exam to be almost identical to AB, if the candidate wishes. I would have thought that making anything compulsory would be more constructive in the early grades, so that candidates get into the habit of expecting it, and would probably just continue it through the grades.

My clarinet teacher has always told me trinity are inferior exam to the abrsm, she wasn't being snobbish or anything of the sort it was just her opinion!

Now i must agree! The pupils should be competant in all musical aspects of that chosen exam but trinity are letting people get away with their weak points so therefore unfortunely they will be inferior musicians.

I teacher two pupils at the moment and theres no way when its time to start thinking about exams they will be doing trinity!!

What trinity is doing is not fair to music students its letting them become bad musicians through no fault of their own!

Nicia-Clarinet-Flute, this was a point the presenter at Portsmouth addressed.

His answer was that if a teacher is doing their job properly they won't just be teaching with the next exam and the skills it needs in mind, they will be teaching all-round skills, irrespective of whether those skills are tested in the next exam or not.

If a teacher lets people "get away" with not learning in their weaker areas, that's not a fault of the exam system it's a fault of the teacher.

No exam has ever tested the whole of a candidate's skills. What the new Trinity exams do is to be upfront about that fact.

Personally I'd like to see all these supporting tests be compulsory, rather than either-or. But that's just my opinion.

[quote name='Nicia-Clarinet-Flute' date='May 31 2006, 01:39 PM' post='333460']
My clarinet teacher has always told me trinity are inferior exam to the abrsm, she wasn't being snobbish or anything of the sort it was just her opinion!

Now i must agree! The pupils should be competant in all musical aspects of that chosen exam but trinity are letting people get away with their weak points so therefore unfortunely they will be inferior musicians.
(end of quote)

They will not be inferior musicians if they are able to pass at post Grade 6. Sight-reading is compulsory at this point, and Trinity exams are accredited in the same way as ABRSM. Not all those who take up music lessons will make it this far, regardless of whether they are made to do sight-reading or aural as part of their exams or not.

I agree on both points here - that just because things aren't examined doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught - but also that some teachers will look at it as a way to avoid things rather than an opportunity to teach everything then only be examined in the stronger points...

It does seem rather odd...

I am probably not the only person here who remembers that some twenty years ago the ABRSM offered a choice for grades 6-8 on the piano of either aural or keyboard skills (I think that is what it was called).

I changed piano teachers when I was about 16 and was both exam and aural phobic. Eventually my new teacher talked me into doing grade 6 (after having initially tried to get me to do grade 7). I insisted that I would only do it if he would let me do the keyboard skills instead of the aural. He said he would teach me this part, provided I then let him teach me the aural exercices. He was adament that the reason I thought I was bad at aural (and had in fact failed this part for grade 4) was because I had never been taught to do it properly. He claimed that the aural was easier than the keyboard skills and that if I learnt both I could chose on the day of the exam. I must admit that I didn't believe him at all and had no intention of ever doing an aural in an exam again if I could possibley help it.

I enjoyed learning the keyboard skills, was confident I could get a good mark for them and I think this took the stress off the aural. To my great surprise, when he got round to teaching me the aural I discovered I could do it, even the singing! Before I went into the exam I hadn't decided what I would do but at the end, when the examiner asked me, I opted for aural and got full marks.

All this to say that I think having a choice is a great idea. As the teachers here have already pointed out, a good teacher will be teaching all these elements anyway. I like the idea of preparing them all and then, on the day, depending on your mood and what you feel confident in at that particular moment chosing what to do.

sounds great, but on ABRSM grade from 6-8 you get UCAS points (i have 5 already!! yay!) but with trinity you don't... if they want to get to uni, then those extra UCAS points would help.

Actually they do, and in fact Trinity were the first exam board to achieve them.

I think it would be very distressing for a student who had worked hard for their Trinity exam only to be told that it was an 'inferior' board. I worry that the recent changes will do more to cement this notion. I've had good and bad experiences with both boards but overall personally find favour with the AB. I've inerited a student with grade 5 piano and couldn't even tell me what andante meant! I decided she would be better off with AB and take time looking at repertoire whilst doing the theory books as her theory and scale knowledge wasn't sufficient for another grade yet, and in any case without the theory being more prevailent, how would she cope with the Viva in the later Trinity grades? It can be utterly frustrating for students wanting to do grade 6 when they don't have the grade 5 theory but I totally see now why the AB insist upon it.

Some students can be very pushy and demanding (even from an early age!) and if they didn't think there was a good reason for them to do something (ie be assessed) then it can be a battle to ever convince them it is a worthwhile enterprise!

According to the information I have that won't even be an option at the later grades under the new Trinity Gulidhall syllabus and with no theory requirement no one needs to know any theory at all.

GAAAAAHHHH!!

that's mad!

Music exams for people who aren't too interested in learning about the music?
Another interpretation of the need for inclusion...... if it's hard for some people then lets make it easier