Just wondered if anyone else has encountered this problem.........

Several of my students play other instruments aside from what i teach them and the majority of them take their practical examinations in their instruments with the ABRSM. However, a lot of them consistently keep coming to me asking to help with their aural tests becuase their other teachers have neglected to go through them.

Some pupils have even told of how their teachers have only ran through them once or twice a few lessons before the examination!! This completely shocked and annoyed me. I start aural/inititative preparation very much in advance of the exam, and i would say that 80% of the lessons spent on exam related material had aural tests in them, even if its only 5 minutes spent on them.

A colluegue of mine, another fellow private tutor, has also encountered this problem. She is sick of having to pick of the pieces of other teachers who are clearly neglecting an important part of the exam. It seems these teachers only see the three pieces as the important part. Neither of us mind helping our students, i would help mine out with absoloutly anything if i can, its just frustrating that these people are charging my studentsalong with many other people im sure, and not really covering everything they should be.

Its ridiculous!

All of them. Probably because they have shared lessons and refuse point blank to sing in from of another classmate.

Yeah most of my past teachers have totally ignored Aural aswell. Its really annoying .
Its like throwing marks away in an exam
I had to work through the aural for exams myself (with a little help from my mum!)




My last flute teacher has been known to say to students a lesson before the exam 'Oh by the way you do know about the aural don't you?'

I have had experience of this, too. And also piano students coming from previous teachers and having passed one or two of the first exams but having no idea at all, unless they are naturally good at it, of aural tests.

It is really frustrating having to start at the beginning and work through to the grade the children can actually play at, and it holds things up because I will not enter a student for an exam unless he or she fully understands what is required at the grade and can do the tests with relative ease.

Recently I have had pupils (actually all from one particular school) who are playing other instruments and also in junior orchestras, but who have little or no experience of aural tests. I don't know how teachers can let this slip, nor how the poor students can play in an orchestra without knowing how to listen.

Good to have a rant...I was really feeling like it. I feel better now.

My teachers focus on aural far too much for my liking. I can cope with all of it apart from the singing, and it turns out we just end up wasting valuable lesson time which could be spent working on pieces and scales etc doing aural which im gonna mess up in the exam anyway (i panic over it)

I am sure you will get a flood of replies soon from the aural enthusiasts about how they despise this sort of "neglect" .

I hate aural and my flute teacher never made me do any aural because he knew I hated it. I would say it becomes more of a problem at the higher grades really.

Here, I make reference to Nat (is that allowed ). She recently entered a candidate for a grade 2 exam and I know that she did not spend countless minutes going over the aural. Why? Because she saw no need really. To her pupil, grade 2 aural was not a struggle, and I think Nat will be surprised if she does not come out with 17 or 18 out of 18 marks for the aural. I think that if a candidate really struggles with aural and a teacher doesn't recognise it and do anything about it then it is fair to be concerned, but (like in Nat's case) there is nothing to be gained by going over the tests week after week when the candidate can do them. There are more marks to be had elsewhere in the exam, and whilst people think aural is the be all and end all, I believe that if a candidate can do the tests then let it be, concentrate on other parts of the exam.

I understand it must be frustrating though if a teacher has not even attempted anything aural based, even if I do hate it, it is still unfortunately part of the exam.

I just wanted to put another view point across .



Yes, singing is terrifying .

I prefer the logical approach - explore aural skills whenever necessary and valuable all the time, so when you get to the exam, there's nothing new to cover. For example, before trying a new piece, try to clap the dificult rhythms, sing some intervals etc. When playing with piano acc, try to identify some simple chord progressions (Ic Va Ia and the like) and so on. I mean, you shouldn't really have to suddenly sit down and LEARN to sight-read or LEARN about scales. You should just do them all the time.
They're in the syllabus for that reason anyway! They're not there to give us something else to worry about, but to encourage us to become familiar in general with other important skills, and whether you think they're valuable in exams or not is irrelevant, you can't question that at least some aspects of them are useful and indicative of a true musician rather than someone who can put their fingers in the right places to get through a piece.

The sad thing is that so many people (teachers, students and parents alike) see Aural skills as an "add on" that you wheel out come an exam. Aural skills which, IMHO, include the ability and willingness to sing - the most natural instrument of all is the voice - are fundamental to every musician. You don't have to sit down and do ABRSM (or anyone else's) tests to "do" aural.

Regular development of aural/listening skills should be part of learning any instrument or singing and introduced quite naturally into the lesson. Nor do you need to be a pianist to teach/do aural in the early grades - you can develop someone's level of ability just as easily using a single line instrument/voice. The need for piano only really comes in from Grades 6 upwards when you have to do the 2 or 3-part stuff, cadences etc.

Personally, I feel the loss of quality singing (in some cases any type of singing) in our primary schools has much to answer for. I was only discussing with an adult pupil of mine the other day how, when we were aged 5-11, we had weekly class singing lessons, learning a wide range of music in decent keys which developed our voices and musical ear quite naturally and nobody thought it "odd" to sing or do musical games to developing powers of listening etc. Those skills have been the absolute foundation of my own musical life and development and I am sad the majority of my own pupils don't enjoy the luxury of this any more.

Finally, friends who are examiners tell me that it's quite normal to get candidates come into the exam who have no experience of ever rehearsing for the aural tests and they have to coach and examine them to get them through the tests. Very disappointing really.

Its nice to hear other people have experienced the same problems as I have. Its terrible however that it happens. Aural is an important part of music learning, its part of the examination so that should tell people how important it is.

I couldnt live with myself if i neglected my students or if i felt i hadnt covered an area fully with them before an exam

It does get neglectect alot, although my trumpet techer spends alot of time on it in lessons - so this more than makes up for my piano teacher - who does very little.

Its part of the exam so i guess we have to approach it; but I really think the aural tests (not done one yet though) are seriously infuriating if you have to sing.

I know the idea is to test your ear not your singing voice but frankly, I haven't sung for over ten years and find it quite annoying that I need to start again now just to pass a *piano* exam. My ear is ok... but I somehow doubt my voice will replicate the intervals etc.

R

This happens to me too. The scenario is usually - pupil arrives for lesson; when we are settled pupil says - oh, my (other instrument) teacher says can you do some aural tests with me for my exam please. I ask what grade they are taking (this is always one or two grades higher than we are working on for piano) and when the exam is (always in about 2 weeks time). I then ask if their (other instrument) teacher has done any aural with them. The answer is either "no", or "they gave me the CD of aural tests for the grade, and I don't really understand what I'm meant to do". I then point out that 2 weeks is not long enough to "do" aurals, and anyway we are not working to that grade on the piano and I don't think I should abandon our piano work to do what their other teacher should be doing. I do always oblige in the end - for the pupil's sake - but it does annoy me.

I would feel less annoyed about it if the other teacher contacted me to ask if I could help. I feel that it's taken for granted that I will do it and that is what I resent.

That scenario sounds very familiar jm-hamilton. I agree with Bohemian's opinion above. Listening to music and analysing various aspects of it should start from the very beginning, clapping, listening to yourself playing, and musical awareness. I know that so many pupils (and I was one myself I have to admit) detest singing or are embarrassed by it, and that's another topic. But aural practice is important for the 'complete' musician and it's part of the exams, so it's much better in my opinion to begin at the beginning and it becomes part of the student's lesson, as much so as scales, sightreading and pieces.

Whether you agree with the aural tests or not I think it's irresponsible to enter someone for an exam and not teach them what is on the syllabus.

Yes, this is irresponsible and may jeopardise the student's chance of success.

That's true sbhoa. Our last examiner had several candidtes who had never done aural tests and hadn't a clue what they were supposed to do. She also had several candidates doing grade 1 violin who had never done arpeggios and didn't know what they were.

I get quite a few of my students asking me to help with aural tests when they are entered for exams in their other instruments. I also get some students coming to me for help with aural for advanced grades because their teachers aren't pianists.

As a child, I never got aural training practice and did badly in the tests (my dad did some with me before the exams.... but he wasn't my teacher...). Now, my piano teacher does lots of practice with me and i get really good marks. My daughter too was a bit ropey with aural tests at first but she has got better and better with practice and has got 18 and 17 for aural in her last 2 exams. She has had problems pitching in the singing... but with practice has made so much improvement. I make aural part of all the lessons I give when pupils are preparing for exams and they make so much progress... pupils who aren't good at pitching naturally improve with practice. My youngest child has no problems with pitching notes but can't "spot the difference" very well... but she needs to learn to do that really if she wishes to become a good musician... so I hope her teacher continues with the aural !!!!! As a violinist... she needs to hear if she's in tune... Any musician should be able to hear the beat... I want my pupils to be able to the difference between crescendos and diminuendos and if they hear it in music... hopefully they will recreate it in their own playing.
Listening skills are important for a musician and children are often not very good at listening so they need to get the practice. I went into the end of my daughter's flute lesson and her teacher was doing a "spot the difference" of sorts (not ab style). The teacher played the piece the way my daughter played it... then how she wanted it played and made my daughter work out what was different... this really was aural training in practice. After that my daughter played so much better. That is why aural should be part of lessons... it helps become better musicians if we can listen well.

Yes I agree as well. How can you enter people for grades when they have no idea of what to do in one part of the exam? I don't think the tests are perfect, but they're there - and they need to be prepared for. This is where I'm pleased I can find my way around a piano........(although I do encourage pupils to listen carefully to all sorts of different pieces of music on many different instruments, not just piano- the general musical knowledge of some pupils I've inherited from other teachers over the years has been shocking - little knowledge of different musical styles, composers, musical periods etc etc etc.)

As for not knowing what arpeggios are.... well, that deserves a few of these noodle....

You are right Barry. I don't think the aural tests are perfect either, but they still need to be practiced whether I like them or not. Teachers who do not prepare their students for the full exam are failing their students. As for children going into the exam never having learnt arpeggios, is ridiculous. Never mind , Barry, maybe a P45 would solve the problem.

Yes noodle, it most certainly would........

I haven't come across this problem personally. For me, aural is as much part of a normal lesson as anything else. It means that when exams come round, the tests are a natural progression from what we have been doing anyway. I know people don't like aural, but I think it is a vital part of learning to play. What they usually mean is they hate the exam aural tests - they never seem to have any problems with aural work we do indirectly in lessons.

David

I have a pupil for keyboard lessons (I teach his sister piano), he plays trombone at school and has been entered for grade 4 next week. I have spent the last 2 hour lessons with him playing the accompaniment and going through aural tests which they haven't had time to do at school and because the accompanist hasn't turned up yet for a practice. As his teacher I want to see him do well and therefore don't mind doing this for him, however, it really is the responsibility of his teacher at school and they get the credit for him getting a good mark in this area

As a parent I know that my childrens otherwise excellent instrumental teacher does not teach aural in the instrumental lessons and I know that I will cover the aural myself or buy in additional lessons purely for aural. Some teachers are happy to do this.
I would also say that, generally, teaching aural for the grade tests requires a degree of competence at the keyboard which not all instrumentalists possess. Furthermore not all lessons take place in room with a piano, especially school lessons.

I can see how this would work, my pupil's teacher did not have any back-up or communication on this part of the exam and just presumed that it would work out in time for the exam. In my opinion, if a teacher enter's a pupil for an exam then they should have every aspect of the exam covered, whether that means asking the pupil to have additional aural tests then fine, but they should make sure this is in place beforehand.

I agree with both of these comments. My keyboard skills are seriously limited and although I can busk my way through some of the lower level tests, I struggle with the more advanced ones. Also, I teach at school in a room with no piano. I have the use of a very basic electronic keyboard but there is no hope of varied dynamics (apart from the volume knob) or articulation or any musical stress. I do make sure my pupils are prepared for the aural tests but it is difficult.

W

Aural is a fundimental part of music training. It should be encorporated into every lesson, and not just for exams. I must admit to failing on that in the past, but now aural and sight reading is encouraged as are musical understanding and improvisation, They are all important musical skills. I try to turn my pupils into musicians not just good technicians of their instruments.

I don't have a piano in one of the rooms I teach in but have found the "Aural training in practice"CD (AB publication, goes alongside the books)very helpful (I do have a plug and can access a CD player). Also... I am still learning the piano and find some of the pieces too hard for me to play even at the lower grades - especially when you have to make sure you get the dynamics are articulation right!!!! My daughter's violin teacher got these books too as she found the piano parts hard for the higher grades... and in some rooms she doesn't have access to the piano.
So not having a piano or not having excellent piano skills can be overcome. In fact, my pupils who have done aural with a CD find it much easier when they get to have a "live" piano in the exam and the final practises when I can access a piano.

And as the books point out some of the aural training can be done using instruments other than the piano.
Dynamics and atriculation can be demonstrated on most instruments as can rhythmic and melodic difference. You can sing (or clap) back phrases played on other instruments too, or use the voice for that sometimes.
The basics of form and style are possible without a piano too, and you can use any CDs you have to listen to extracts of different sorts of music.. it doesn't have to be the examples from the book.

When it comes to chords and harmony then you need a piano but the ABRSM aural training CDs or something similar can be used if you are rwally stuck for someone to play examples.

I use the old Grade 7 piano CD (green syllabus) for practice examples, especially for spotting the period/composer. It happens to be the only piano exam CD I own, but I'm sure some of the others would be just as good. One advantage is that at least 9 of the pieces will be in the corresponding exam book, so the score is available for cross-reference.

I went into the end of my daughter's flute lesson and her teacher was doing a "spot the difference" of sorts (not ab style). The teacher played the piece the way my daughter played it... then how she wanted it played and made my daughter work out what was different... this really was aural training in practice. After that my daughter played so much better. That is why aural should be part of lessons... it helps become better musicians if we can listen well.

This sort of thing often works really well, doesn't it? I like to play something two ways and get them to tell me which one is right, or which one was better. If you reproduce their slips, they love to spot what you're doing "wrong" and describe it - even though they might do the same themselves and not notice it.

I don't come across this problem in piano lessons - I include aural (though not AB Aural test-style) as a matter of routine. However, all my students play other instruments at school, and they all come to me wanting to go through aurals, and sometimes accompaniments because there just isn't the time or the inclination to do so in school lessons.

All the practice and sneaking in of aurals doesn't seem to help with a reluctance to sing though!

My worst experience was only a couple of weeks ago. A pupil of mine has lessons on another instrument with another local teacher. The teacher actually approached me and said

"you've been doing aural with X haven't you"

i replied yes

"well that's ok then i shan't bother going over it then if you've covered it"

What an attitude - even if a child is fantastic at aural or done it yesterday with another teacher i would still check through that they understood and could do the tests for my own piece of mind!!!!

At the risk of getting on my soap (litter?) box.....

A colleague at one of my schools is leaving and I have been asked to take on all his/her existing students from September. When I saw the list today my heart sank ... half of them are "expecting" to take grades 5 , 6 & 7 at Christmas. I am betting my house and all its contents (except the TV, obviously) that not one of these pupes has ever had any decent training in anything other than playing three pieces taught by rote. The majority of students I "inherit" come to me with pieces "learned" in that way, a few scales if you are lucky, no sight reading ability and no aural training.

Helen - yes, some kids DO find it easier than others, but aural is not confined to "what it says in the syllabus" - alot of my little listening games spring out of all sorts (as per Maggie's comment earlier for example) as much of it is to do with getting each individual AWARE and teaching each pupe HOW to listen. Yes, I do some sort of aural in most lessons but that doesn't mean necessarily ploughing through the delights of Aural Training in Practice or The ABC of Aural Awarenes (who comes up with these titles?!). I mean, would anyone attempt to improve a student's sight-reading just by plonking pieces down infront of them from a book of "Specimen Sight Reading Tests" in the hope that miraculously they would improve? (ghastly word that, specimen....) Of course not, a competent, sympathetic teacher would break it down into components first and do it in such a way the child (or adult) doesn't realise how much they are learning. Putting labels "aural" and "sight reading" freaked me out as a kid so I try not to do it.

I too frequently end up using MY lesson time "aural bashing" for other teachers who cannot be bothered, don't see the importance (how scary for a kid to go in an exam room unprepared?) or plainly don't know HOW to teach kids how to listen.

Sorry to rant....

Tired Grumpy Old Bag xx

Amen, Bag!


Very well put, Bo!


I agree.

What about theory as well? I'm the only singing teacher I know in my area that teaches theory. Trouble is, unlike an instrument, you can learn a song without knowing the rudiments of theory that go along with it. I've had students come to me after FOUR years with another teacher, and they can't read a note of music. That's outrageous!
Mind you, I also get requests from my students' instrument teachers to do the theory with them because they can't be bothered. Or is it that they don't want their instrument lessons suffering, so let the singing lessons be shortened instead?

I manage to sneak in quite a lot of theory even with adults who say they don't want to do theory.
We just don't do workbooks.

Children don't get the choice, if it's a part of their lessons from early on they mostly accept it as part of the learning to play package.

At my son's school they organise weekly group aural lessons (for grades 1-3; 4&5 and 6-8) in morning break which are open to anyone doing music in or out of school. That way the teachers don't have to worry about it (other than the ones doing the group work) and the kids seem to get very high aural marks. Suppose it needs an enthusiastic music department, but I think it's a really good idea.