Napoleon said he would rather have lucky generals than good generals.

On the other hand, Garry Player said that the more he practiced, the luckier he got.

Let's assume you've prepared adequately (learned and practiced the repertoire, practiced the scales and arpeggios, rehearsed the aural tests, visited the hypnotist to deal with your performance nerves, taken your insulin, hay fever and anti-epileptic medication, dialysed, planned to arrive in the right place at the right time etc.).

How much does luck affect the outcome of music performance exams?

Not at all, or almost not at all. Some aural test examples are easier than others, and some examiners are more generous than others. Apart from that, it's really down to preparation and experience.

But isn't it down to luck which examiner you get...you may get a nice one or you may not?
As to luck overall, it's irrational, isn't it?

Yes, that's what I meant. Sorry if I wasn't clear.

It might kind of depend on whether you believe in 'luck' and such things. Surely if you've done as much work as you can, then any examiner is going to have to recognise the effort you've gone to, as your exam should be pretty impressive?

I think it's down to luck which examiner you get and whether they understand your instrument or fate.

Some examiners are more generous than others.... The last examiner was particularly generous.... one pupil got a distinction who struggles to read music!!! She did quite well in her sightreading. She does has a nice tone and this seemed to get her through all sections and the examiner appeared to overlook a multitude of other sins as her tone is pretty nice ( her articulation can be quite poor)
Different examiners have different pet things they are looking for... so if it's tone... and your tone is thin, you will be marked down in all sections. If they are more into dynamics at early grades, and you give good dynamics ... you get an excellent mark.
Some pupils hate a certain scale or arpeggio. I had one candidate come out jubilant that she didn't get asked a certain arpeggio. In fact I taught her today and she is doing Grade 3 and said "I didn't want that arpeggio last time and didn't get it... so this time I don't want this scale....I'm usually lucky". I tried to persuade her her luck might have run out.... but she does seem lucky so far.
I have my Grade 5 piano in a few days... now as far as sightreading goes, I don't mind complicated rhythmns as my sight reading with my main instrument is way beyond Grade 5... so a difficult rhythmn sight reading will be much easier than a difficult key one (where my clarinet experience will be no help)... so I'm hoping for a difficult rhythm in c major.... That would be lucky. I would also do better if they didn't ask certain scales and the aural is easy......
My pupils often comment when we are looking at AB specimen sight reading tests that some are much easier than others.... and they say "I want one like number 8... it's easy".

I'm rambling here... maybe luck is involved.... or does the examiner give you the harder aural tests if you've done well in the exam so far, or is it random? Do high flying candidates get harder sight reading to stretch them whilst the struggler gets an easier example to attempt?

I recently entered for the recorder short recital class in our local music festival. I'm really a baroque buff, don't much care for contemporary music, and had chosen my pieces to suit my tastes, but also Googled the adjudicator, and found she likes more recent stuff - so I shoved in a piece with a few avant-garde techniques "to keep her happy".

Her main points of criticism on the day were of my playing, and as follows -

harpsichord too loud - need a short lid-stick
harpsichord tuning drifted, making my intonation dodgy
ornaments were pants (sadly true...I learnt them too late, and fell over a couple of them)
programme order wrong - I should've finished with the cacophonous modern piece

She told us all that, then awarded a medal to me

Luck? Hmmmm....

I read somewhere that examiners can't be bluffed. If you're lucky you might get a good sleep the night before the exam, or if you're unlucky the neighbours might decide to have a fireworks party in their garden until one o'clock in the morning. You arrive in the exam room and if you're lucky there will be a decent piano to play but if you're unlucky a bee (not me I hasten to add) will fly in the window and land on the piano key you're just about to hit in the middle of your Bach.

However.......whatever happens to you, if you are well prepared you will do well enough in your exam. You will overcome the lack of sleep (or book into a quiet B&B near the exam centre) and you will politely ask the examiner if you can close the window before you start to play because you suffer from hayfever (even if you've taken the anti-histines). If the piano is below par or your semiquaver runs don't quite work out like on your own piano a good, well-prepared day and knowing your pieces and the syllabus requirements backwards will get you through. Even if you're not lucky enough to get a distinction this time, isn't that what being professional is all about - coping despite all adversity.........

Fantastic response - love it (and so true.....)

Glad this cheered you Perhaps well timed too! (re: your thread).

All the above has happened to me except the bee. The nearest to that was when I was standing slightly behind one of my adult pupils as I listened to his playing. With horror I noticed a huge wasp/hornet thing sitting quietly on his ear listening to Mozart's Minuet in F (he was completely unaware)! Even more quietly I said 'don't move'......thankfully he didn't panic and swiped it away without getting stung!

Best wishes

Just as a teacher can tell if a pupil has practised or not, an examiner will be able to tell if a candidate has prepared well for an exam. Exam nerves and 'bad luck' are bound to have small effects on the outcome, but I think are unlikely to influence the examiner's overall impression. The knowledge and skills of a well prepared student will shine through (?)

With me and performing I think its mostly preparation, but luck still comes into it! If I see someone in the audience I didn't notice before who I want to impress I suddenly freak a bit for example! But if I'm unlucky mentally as long as you've prepared well you can recover without too many people noticing the blip!

With my students, hmm I had one kid who was ill for a few days before her exam and she got substantially lowe r than I thought she would, so thats bad luck? But then she never practised her scales so because she didn't prepare properly she couldn't take on the bad luck and get a good mark regardless! So in conclusion of my ramblings, luck matters but if you prepared you can get over a bit of bad luck!

I only know about flute - but I suspect that tone has a lot to do with the result. The examiner must have a fair idea of how much effort at least has gone into preparation from the tone of a woodwind instrument. I'm inclined to think that this "evidence" of hard work put in would convince an exminer that the odd slip is just down to nerves.

Another interesting topic . I think it depends how one defines luck, I don't believe in luck as any fatalistic special magical thing; the way in which I would define it is based on the things which one doesn't have any direct control over oneself. If the things one has no control over happen to go in one's favour, then that's 'good luck' and if they don't then it's 'bad luck'. Doesn't necessarily mean anything special is happening or someone or something is watching over and causing these effects, just that the events in the world must pan out in some way, whatever that may be, and the person will either be affected positively or negatively depending how this happens to occur. So when I wish someone good luck for an exam, I'm not believing that my saying of that will cause the uncontrollable things somehow to magically go in their favour, I'm simply wishing them well, in the sense of letting them know that I hope they will do well (not that I believe hoping will affect the outcome, but I'm sure most people will agree it's nice to feel people are thinking of them ).

I certainly think a lot is blamed on bad luck when it is really bad preparation. I don't think it's bad luck if nerves get the better of me and I'm unable to play, because I know that I will be nervous. Yes it's hard to predict when a piece can withstand that level of nerves and indeed what that level is, especially since it nerves at that level are unlikely to take effect until the day of the exam. However, it's not bad luck per-sé because I will get nervous in the exam (to some extent, knowing me this will be a large extent and it will affect my playing) and if I prepare enough I will be able to play well in spite of this. Whether I have prepared enough when the time has come is not a matter of luck though, it's something that's happened in the past, how nervous I get isn't a matter of luck really: I will be nervous, so there's no luck in it, just a case of whether or not I have in the past done enough preparation. Of course it's natural human instinct to have come out of the exam, and played it right in every other situation, to still feel that I have been unlucky if it goes wrong then, but I haven't really I just hadn't prepared enough for the situation. There is an element of risk: not knowing how much the nerves will affect my playing, and of course, this is the skill in knowing when to enter and how much preparation to do, but it isn't luck.

Again to take someone else's example, if someone keeps me awake all the previous night, if I'm well prepared I'll do the playing well anyway, if my playing was shaky enough to be affected by that then it should have been better prepared in the first place so that risk wasn't there.

The effect of the elements that are beyond one's control are a lot smaller than those that are within one's control: someone who is destined to achieve 140 if they play as they normally do, isn't going to fail the exam because the examiner is mean, the piano isn't good, or they didn't sleep last night. Yes they may get 135 instead of 140 because of some of these factors (if the marks were lower I'd expect the fluctuation to be smaller, i.e. one may get 125 instead of 127, and around pass/merit/distinction boundaries, it's much harder to gain/lose marks). In summary, luck does affect things in the sense of uncontrollable factors going in someone's favour, and I suspect would cause small fluctuations in marks, but the difference one can make in terms of preparation and controllable factors overrides this greatly, to the point that these factors aren't nearly as important as is often said to be the case.

During my last exam session there was a huge accident at the motorway junction, closing it in both directions. Several candidates had to cross the junction to get to the exam centre. My grade 8 rang my mobile to tell me that he was stuck in traffic and hadn't moved for 20 minutes. I rang the local candidates to ask them to attend early, and between us we managed to juggle the appointments and the examiner didn't have a break. However, by the time others arrived, their nerves were frazzled with the stress of worrying whether they would get there at all. The examiner was marvellous and told everyone to take their time. All passed, but I wonder what marks they would have achieved if everything had gone smoothly?