I have just discovered that one of my old Grade 7 piano pieces is listed as an option in Grade 8 this year!!

It's in List B, the Haydn 1st movement from Hob. XVI/50 - I did this for Grade 7 in *thinks* about 1990 AND I had to do the entire sonata. I realise that entire sonatas are no longer required but still, if it was Grade 7 back then, surely it should still be Grade 7?

Is Grade 8 worth what it used to be?

Grade pieces have dodged about the levels for much longer than that. A Schubert piano scherzo was grade 4 one year, grade 5 another when I was rather younger....but I'm sure that the criteria used to mark it would have been slightly different. Equally, you may find a piece apparently going "down" a grade, and again, the examiner will be looking at the performance for the new grade in a different way. Composers don't write their pieces thinking of a particular grade, at any rate not at the higher levels - boards look for particular skills from candidates and select pieces which ask these of them. You will inevitably have some overlap - if nothing else because one person's difficulty is another's easy-peasy bit.

the above's also partly the reason why there's alot of overlap between G7/8 and the diplomas - it's the performance standard that's marked, i think the piece is just a means to an end - and everyone hopes that that end is a distinction

That's it in a nutshell!

I am sure the examiners will have the ABRSM equivalent to "level indicators" against which they mark for each grade.

Shame though that there is not the opportunity to do whole sonatas anymore at Grade level.

I think some pieces are what they might term "borderline" - as in more demanding grade 7/less demanding grade 8, as I've always thought grade standards were more of a band than a thin line. One of my grade 6 pieces has recently been a grade 7 piece (that's from way back in the 70's !!!) Plus of course, a piece that one pupil finds tricky may seem more straightforward to another, and vice versa........

Oops! Just repeated what someone else has already written!!!

I really can't comment on Grade 7 or 8 piano, having never got that far! However, I have a feeling that at least some parts of the flute syllabus haven't changed much in standard over the years. My daughter has chosen to play the same List C piece for her Grade 3 flute as I played in 1976 - the piece has reappeared on the newish syllabus. That seems very consistent to me! She's aiming for a better mark though. . .

As I've said recently on another thread, the flute syllabus has, if anything, got harder. I played the Lennox Berkeley Sonatina first movement for Grade 8 back in the 70s, and it's now on the Grade 7 List. The Louis Aubert Madrigal has moved from Grade 7 to Grade 6 while I've been teaching.

There is an identical sonata by Loeillet which appears in the current woodwind syllabus on the Grade V Flute list and the Grade VII Oboe list (something pointed out to me by one of my oboe pupils who had a sister doing the flute version for her Grade V). I'm still struggling to see how that came to be!

I'm no expert, and 2 grades does seem a lot, but given the wider range of the flute and (I believe) less complex fingerings, would the piece be more technically challenging on the oboe?

Yes, I did it for Grade 5 flute, and I think the reasons Sarah gave for this sound right.

There is also a Telemann Sonata on the Grade 6 list for flute that's also on the Grade 8 list for treble recorder. I've played it on both instruments (including for my Grade 8 recorder exam) and I don't think it's any easier on flute.

A popular topic. I think the general rule about exams is that everyone who has done it in the past thinks the exam is easier and dumbed down now; everyone who hasn't done the exam or is to do it in the future thinks the exam hasn't. There are of course, thank goodness, some people who do the exam and then look at it from a detatched manner and say actually the standards have been maintained and point out that just as some things are easier; others are harder. We are fortunate enough to have many of those people in this thread .

I agree with all the people who say the piece is a means to an end: I recall hgirl saying a while ago that her dipABRSM (horn) pieces were on both the LRSM and FRSM lists as well. According to the above hypothesis in theory FRSM is no harder than dipABRSM but of course that's nonsense: fortunately the two officially have different marking criteria. With grade exams the marking criteria are officially the same (for 1-5, 6-8) but there seems to be the implicit assumption that if a grade 4 piece is played for grade 5 later it'll have to be done better, I'd agree. Officially it's not so but I suspect it is implicitly (hence my poll a while back on whether marking criteria across the grades stay the same).

I'm sure that in any given year one could find the easiest grade x+1 piece and note that it is in fact easier than the hardest grade X piece, it doesn't mean the second exam is easier than the first. It's a lot harder to play a grade 6 piece as well as Alfred Brendel would than play a grade 8 piece well enough to pass the exam!

To be honest exams can be 'dumbed down' a lot more by the way that they're taken by people; not by the exam boards themselves. If one picks the easiest three pieces, the only ones one can play (just because they're the easiest; not because they're the pieces one happens to like) plays nothing else at that level; spends a very long time learning them (2 years if necessary); fails the sections that don't suit one's skills and does just enough work to pass then one is making the exam easier. Even someone learning the hardest pieces taking the above approach has probably done something easier than someone learning the easiest pieces in a few months. Someone doing the above in 1960 will have had an easier time than someone doing the exam the 'normal' way in 2006. Furthermore I wouldn't doubt that someone getting a merit in 2006 played better in the exam than someone getting a pass in 1960. Not forgetting the exam is only a small part of what being grade 8 level is: grade 8 level pianists will have played quite a bit of grade 8 level repertore, some 'hard' some 'easy' so it matters not what they play for the actual exam really.

In summary I don't think the exams have been dumbed down, sometimes pieces go down a grade too and it's to do with how well the piece is played, what mark the person gets and what they have done in preparation for the exam that really determines how good they are. So what if one doesn't have to play a whole sonata for grade 8 anymore? Many people will do that before grade 8 anyway; some will play more, shorter, things with varied styles which is equally valid.

I understand the points about having to play the same piece better at Grade 8, but it just struck me that that particular Haydn sonata was rather easy anyway, even for Grade 7, so to see it at Grade 8 just seemed a little odd.

Ah well.

AP, you always put so much thought into your posts! The two statements above in particular I agree with absolutely.


I don't think it's really possible to judge the rising or falling standards of a whole exam board by the movement of one piece though, is it? There always seems to be a lot of "In my day..." about exams, but some pieces move up the grade boundaries, some move down. I think CD hit the nail on the head, grade standards cover a band of standards, and as has been said here and elsewhere, what different people find easy or difficult may be very different.

Strangely enough, there was something very similar on the BBC today - here.

It's not just music it applies to, apparently.

I don't know very many teachers, but I know a few who are frustrated by the format and approach of the major school exams, and do feel that their subjects have been trivialised over the last couple of decades. University staff report that English usage has deteriorated - not just changed as we expect all living languages to change - and that students are struggling to put together CVs and formal letters of application. I don't want to put down the achievements of youngsters today - I do think that many subjects are being taught in less depth, but also with a broader sweep - and there most certainly is a far wider spread of subjects available than there was when I was sitting "O" and "A" levels - I doubt anyone could cope with the wider range in combination with the greater depth of the past...

Having said that, I do think that the music exams set by the major boards don't show much evidence of dumbing down - though the recent threads about changes in the approach of Trinity/Guildhall show that there are plenty of you out there who would disagree on this one...

*dons hard hat and ducks below parapet*

Quite probably true: I can't help feeling very sorry for frustrated students who are being taught strictly to syllabus and taught to pass exams, which seems to be happening more & more with the number of exams students are expected to take. I think sometimes those who harp on about falling standards in academic exams forget that the students can only pass the exams they have been given, and judging by some of the comments and frustrations expressed by GCSE and A/AS candidates during the last exam season there are a good number out there frustrated that they aren't really given the opportunity (esp at GCSE) to show what they're really capable of.

Ugh, not sure this makes any sense, apologies if that has turned out as meaningless waffle...

Oh yes, I so agree with this. For music don't we want to learn to play an instrument not how to pass an exam? And in schools wouldn't it be great to understand how we learn and be able to reflect on our experiences so we can build on this, not just while we ar in formal education either, rather than learning "how to pass the course".

*puts on special hard hat labelled "academic" and similarly ducks behind parapet*

But I was never taught how to do this (in a traditional Girls' Grammar in the 70s), and still struggle with what's expected, whereas No 3 son (bog-standard comprehensive) had a whole day last term where they had the experience of applying for a job, with lessons in drawing up CVs and being interviewed.

As far as I can see, the English langugage syllabus at GCSE covers more about the use of English than it used to in my day, when it comprised only composition and comprehension.

I'm sure when I did my 'O' level we had to do a letter too, we had to know about layout and terms of address etc for different sorts of letters? Or did I dream this??

Well, it might have been a different exam board. The syllabuses were nowhere near as similar as they are nowadays with the National Curriculum. All we did for O level English Language was writing (either a story or an essay depending on which question you did) and a comprehension paper. I've never been taught how to write a letter, as far as I remember.

I remember this too, but perhaps I'm just very very old......

Ahh maybe that's it... Yes "In my day......"

*goes back to OLTVA thread where she belongs*

Not just horn - there are half a dozen pieces which appear on all three clarinet syllabus lists. Movements from these works appear on the grade syllabi as well, e.g. the third movement of the first Brahms sonata is a Grade 5 piece, but one can also play it for FRSM.

A grade piece may be borderline between two grades, but there's also the old chestnut of what different people find easy or hard.

A former teacher of mine had a theory that the technically easiest pieces required far more interpretation, and I'm inclined to agree.

*joins janexxx in OLTVA thread*

Yes - I was taught how to write different types of letters and how to lay them out etc etc...

Slight digression here but still relevant to this 'learning to learn/passing tests and exams' discussion: I was talking to a friend (primary school teacher) the other day and she was telling me of a colleague of hers who is superb at getting the most wonderful creative writing out of the children. One example - from a 6 year-old council estate pupil - 'I was standing in my black, black garden gazing at the vacant sky, watching the stars twirling...' This teacher has been told to stop doing this creative writing because it doesn't improve the children's SATs results.

I despair...

So what do they have to do for SATs?? I would have thought creative writing was something that would be encouraged. Its so sad if it's not.

I totally agree. There is nowhere near enough creativity in education these days in general. I believe totally in an holistic approach and the development of the whole person, but this is not 'in fashion' in today's box-ticking approach to education. It's hard to tick boxes with creative writing because there's no 'right answer'...

But, unless they've changed them recently, the SATs are full of creative writing! My sons were always moaning about it.

#

They were when I took them (just finished GCSEs) but I think that it was marked quite strictly so you had to write a piece that would fulfill XYZ criteria, not just a really good piece of writing (unfortunately).

I really worry about the way the education system's going with all these exams, I really do.

(Oh, and about dumbing down, my mother is a GCSE history teacher and she says that GCSE history is actually harder than O level history because the GCSE requires source analysis whereas the O level she did was more about rote memorisation.)

Oh good GRIEF. That is SO short-sighted and stupid. *angry*

I agree - why can't people realise that there is so much more to life than exams?!

Because teachers' jobs depend on their getting good exam results for their pupils. The whole educational system is set up to provide measurable indicators of success, and this means exams at every stage. That's why.

I realise that but I do think that testing 7 year olds (and making them revise for the tests) is rather worrying. Not to mention the fact that I've had/will have some form of test every summer for 5 years (SATs, GCSE Maths/Science modules, GCSEs, AS levels, A levels). Madness.

Yes, I don't think being taught to pass exams has really benefitted me that much

The occasional exam - give a good indication of how you're progressing/how a child is progressing - good

Continual testing (what the British education system does now) - teaches people how to pass exams, and that's about it, with little thought given to doing anything creative or, dare I say it, enjoyable - bad, bad, bad.

There is far too much testing going on in schools today - the occasional test, obviously, fair enough, but continous testing -no! There's more to life than exams - you've got it spot on Rainbow.

The only thing being taught to pass exams does is show you how to meet expectations. The society we are producing will be one that is good at finding out what they have to do and doing it, rather than the creative, lateral sort of thinking that leads to real advances.

I'm not sure that this hasn't always been true with respect to exams, but fewer exams in the past meant more time for other things, as those posting have pointed out.

One of my sons has developed the skill of doing enough to satisfy himself and the examiners, without really pushing himself to achieve as much as he could be capable of. He leaves himself plenty of time to do the things he wants to do, and views formal education as a necessary evil.

The thing is, with good teaching and not-excessive numbers of exams, it's possible to make formal education interesting, relevant, useful, and creative - I've had teachers who have done so - AND still get good exam results. One of my most interesting teachers in secondary school used the syllabus as a spring-board to bigger and better things, taught us masses of stuff that wasn't on it, told us lots of mad and irrelevant-to-the-syllabus stories, and was generally a fanastic, interesting, creative, inspiring teacher - AND my whole class got excellent marks (including lots of A*s) in his subject (Chemistry).

I teach several home-educated children, and the main reason they are not in school is that their parents want them to enjoy their childhood and their learning, not be bombarded with test after test. They are all very sociable, very bright, and do a huge range of activities, just for pleasure. What is particularly interesting it that at least two parents are, or have been, teachers, and can see that the way our education system is going is not good for the child.
It's great to be able to spend whole lessons exploring different music, playing musical games, etc, etc, without the 'pressure' of preparing some pieces and scales simply to pass an exam.

But there's absolutely no law which says that anyone has to do AB exams.....most of my teaching is actually exam-less, and I find pupils can be just as motivated and make much the same progress anyway. If the pupil wants to do an exam however, I'll help them prepare.

This is VERY good to hear, salrec! I'm sure if I'd had my own children I would have been very tempted to home-educate them for precisely the reasons you mention.

I agree with most of what has been said. However, I do feel that music exams have an important place. I have some pupils who never really push themselves until the entry is in, and then, suddenly the thought of a deadline makes them get the finger out. (I like your signature, Noodle!) My own son is no exception; I entered him for Grade 6 (piano) on the understanding that he would practise his scales. He didn't, and two days before the exam I told him he wasn't going in. Which seemed to suit at first, because it let him off the hook, without the decision having been his. (He's 11.) But then I changed my tune and said, "You're old enough to do your own thing. I'm not going to have you say that you might have passed if mummy hadn't stopped you doing it. It's up to you." I took no more part in it, he asked if he could take a day off school, and learnt all his scales and arpeggios in less than 48 hours - and came out with one of the best marks for scales of all my pupils. So, Noodle - you have a very valid point there!!!