Hi everyone,

After reading this and this, I've realised I may be heading down a similar path, albeit at an earlier starting point.

I began learning piano in August, when I bought Bastien's Piano for Adults - Book 1, which I didn't find challenging at all. (I play guitar too so I was familiar with the basic theory). Once I completed the book, I started taking weekly lessons and I've now finished (to a reasonable standard) the pieces in the Grade 2 book.

I was looking to begin Grade 3 this week and hopefully do the exam (which would be my first ever music exam) in March, but I'm starting to wonder if that's the best course of action?

Should I learn and perfect (as near as possible...) more Grade 2 pieces before tackling the G3 stuff, or I suppose I could actually sit the G2 exam in March instead?

How worthwhile are the early exams for an adult learner? G1 and G2 don't seem that difficult and I guess I am a little guilty of snobbery and a "I'm better than that" mentality.

I've also just began looking at some G1 Jazz Piano pieces to vary things a little. I figure if I learn both improv skills and classical techniques at the same time, I'll be a much better pianist when it G8 finally comes around...

How long do you guys recommend you spend on each grade before attempting the exam? When I first started I set myself a target of Grade 8 within 5 years and, until recently, thought I was on the right track and ahead of schedule. Now I'm not so sure...

As always, all thoughts and opinions are most welcome.

If you are working with a decent teacher you should be ok. He or she will help you to lay the foundations of a good, solid technique from the start. You may well understand the pieces, and be able to make a fair attempt at them but as I am sure that you know, there is more to it than that. Build up all of your piano skills; scale and arpeggio playing, sight reading, studies to help your co-ordination, pieces in all styles, chord work and so on. A good teacher will guide you through all of this. Short studies would be a great help, possibly the Tuneful Graded Studies series. Don't dismiss the first book; there is plenty to practise there, and it is not an easy thing to be able to bring out melodies against quieter accompaniments. etc. I hope that you do not take this the wrong way but you are still very much a new beginner at the piano. Don't attempt too much too early. There is no rush to take an exam is there?

No offence taken - I realise I'm a newbie (hence my alias...) and all advice is greatly appreciated.




No rush - just my ego pushing me on...

How long would you recommend before someone takes their first exam and is it acceptable, in some circumstances, to skip Grades 1+2 ?

My advice would be that you play and practise regularly, do lots of quick-study pieces, work at one or two slightly more challenging ones alongside these, get in plenty of practise playing to others and think about taking an exam in about a year's time. Your teacher is the best person to advise you of course, but I would not let anyone rush into an exam after having been playing for such a short time.

I too would caution against rushing.

How long would you recommend before someone takes their first exam ?

there really isn't a "one size fits all " answer to this - all students are different and take different times to make the same amount of progress. But it's rare for me to recommend an exam within a year of starting lessons - even for someone who knows the theory in advance.

Thanks guys.

My teacher is somewhat laid back in these matters and says he's happy with whatever I decide to do. He's fairly confident I can pass Grade 3 in March, and at first I thought that was what I wanted.

I do remember at the start (before I took my first lesson) he said that it would be around a year before I would be ready for Grade 1, so I don't know if I'm just a natural or not!

I think what I'll do is have a look at the G3 pieces and ask him for other pieces around the same grade and I'll work on them over the next few months before making a descision on the exams.

Nearer the time, I may even post an mp3 of me playing the exam pieces so you guys can advise me further!

Perhaps you could just aim to take Grade One in March - as an exercise in seeing what an exam feels like without the performance pressure?

First of all I'm delighted that someone found all that advice useful it means our time wasn't wasted writing it .


It's really impossible to say especially without hearing you play. I guess the questions you need to ask yourself are:

• Are you learning the pieces at a rate that you're happy with? That is, it doesn't take you too long to learn each single piece?
• Are you happy with the standard to which you play the pieces, technically and musically? Is your teacher happy with the standard, and do you trust their judgement? That is, are they judging you to the standards you wish to be judged?
• Are you happy with the way in which you learn the pieces: by ear, by rote memorisation, reading, sightreading etc. ?
• Have you been shown how to practise properly, and do sections with the metronome etc. to ensure accuracy?
• How does your sightreading ability compare to that corresponding to the grades you're at?
• What about scales?
• Is your all around musical awareness (aural and theory type things) as good as is expected at this level?
• How do you feel about your standard (confident, unsure)?

Depends on your attitude/reaction to nerves/need for motivation. I found them useful because I'm a very nervous performer (getting better with experience) and they're useful from the perspective of getting exam experience; especially if they're well within one's abilities. They're also helpful in giving one a target to aim for to really focus on the basics before moving on, something I liked. The final thing is self confidence, one knows one has done it before and it's just a step up. Of course everyone is different and others may not necessarily find them as worthwhile. This may sound bizzare but I've found the exams a good way of slowing my progress to allow me to go at the pace of my weakest area (sightreading) so that I can develop all round skills better without one area lagging behind. My philosophy is the opposite to most: I will go no faster than one grade per year . There's always plenty to learn at any level and one can always learn to play better by playing equally difficult pieces more musically.


I don't think that sort of schedule is such a good idea. I'm not saying it's the wrong length of time, the wrong exam or whatever it's just not the way I would look at things. It's all about what grade 8 means, if it's a piece of paper then yes that would be a plan; but it's really the standard that one wishes to achieve. Play lots of repertoire gradually increasing in difficulty and varied in technique and mood and see what level you're at the next time you feel like doing an exam. Again make sure you develop all round skills including sightreading as you go along and are learning the pieces they way you want to be able to learn them. For example if you want to be able to learn pieces more quickly work on pieces from a lower grade standard and build from there.

I think the major source of confusion is that a grade isn't really a standard it's a difficulty of pieces. A grade combined with a mark is sort of a standard: then again someone achieving the same mark having worked on the material for 2 months instead of 12 is clearly of a higher standard. You've got to decide what a grade means to you: I'll achieve this mark (ish) with this length of preparation time and this much input from my teacher etc. Then try to balance and adapt that as you desire when going through the grades.

Talk to your teacher about this: I'm sure they'll appreciate you being open about it. They may be scared you'll leave if they don't let you do what you want; they may think that you're happier just doing what you want to do rather than what's best for your playing. If you ask what's best for your playing they'll know that's what you're interested in and adjust their approach accordingly .

A lot of writing, and not many straight answers but I hope it's of some use .

I do agree with this up to a point. Something that I think would be a true measure of "competence" in this sense is an exam for which the syllabus appeared on a certain date, and for which it was only possible to enter a set number of weeks later. I suppose I mean something along the lines of an extension of the dipABRSM Quick Study.

However - and I seem almost to disagree with myself here - what level of perfection two candidates will attain if given limitless time will not be the same. Some will reach a certain level and never get any better, no matter how hard they practise, whereas others will ultimately be able to produce a much more convincing performance, despite not being able to do so in such a short space of time. Which of these two should be described as the "better" player is debateable!

What do you think?

I think it depends why they cannot get any better.... a technically demanding piece is all very well, but I would much rather listen to a grade one piece played with real musicality than a grade 8 piece that was technically correct. It doesn't matter how long they take to get there, so long as they have teh musicality to play it well.

I've often thought that but it would be difficult to implement, and as you point out later may favour the quicker learners rather than the true polishers dependent on the deadline.


A very good point and one to which I will have to give some thought. I think in the case of 2 months vs 12 months at the grade levels it's quite clear cut, I'd be surprised if anyone wasn't beginning to plateau at 12 months and the time difference is so wide that the difference in standard (coordination and technique in particular) must be quite marked. Taking 12 months to learn the piece would be quite a big hinderance in terms of wide repertoire development. I agree with you though on shorter, closer, timescales the issue is more difficult to discern.

It's the whole problem of defining if someone is 'better' than someone else (not that it's necessarily something we should try to do idealistically but it seems to be human nature). There are just so many factors: the difficulty of the pieces being learnt, the time taken to learn the piece, the musicality with which it is played, the amount of external input the person has had.... Not only are there a lot of different factors but many of them are not really accurately mesurable or controlable so it's ultimately difficult to define.

What saddens me though is that, at the moment, better is mostly judged on difficulty of the pieces (i.e. grade level), which is counterproductive to people actually developing good, musical, accurate, playing because people just want to be 'better' by doing harder pieces, getting the harder grade. Officially, according to the marking schemes of the AB, if one does grade 1 one year and gets 120 then does grade 2 the next, and gets exactly the same marks in each section, one isn't actually any better at playing (the description is the same) one is simply playing harder pieces. A lower mark one is officially 'worse' (although in practice this is not true as examiners are different; people have good/bad days etc.).