In relation to another topic Violinia wrote:
"I think you get extra marks for memorising in exams. My son (here I go again) memorised all his three pieces in his Grade 5 exam recently and it could well have helped towards his 100% marks in each one of them. It also helped him to play them really confidently as they were 'in his blood' so to speak.

Please excuse the constant unsavoury bragging about my son's exam - I'm partly (mostly) Jewish therefore have every excuse."

I don't have any problem with bragging. I'm happy to brag about my daughter who got 143 for Grade 8 violin.

However, alarm bells ring when I hear of someone getting full marks for all three pieces (she didn't get full marks for any of hers). For me, "perfection" is a very, very strong and unequivocal term. It means there was no tiny detail that could have been any better. In all the years I've been performing as a pianist and flute player I can remember only one single occasions when absolutely everything went exactly as we had planned it (I was accompanying my flute teacher in a sonata by the 18th century composer Leonardo Vinci, not to be confused with the more famous Leonardo da Vinci). Last year a candidate I was accompanying, an adult who was already very proficient on another instrument, got full marks for one of his Grade 4 trombone pieces, and I really felt he deserved it. The playing was both technically accomplished and stylish.

Within the last couple of years I've heard of a young GSMD flute candidate being awarded full marks for all three pieces. The really alarming thing about that one was that she had come out of the exam quite dissatisfied herself with one of them. To my mind that devalued the whole system. I also remember a previous occasion, not an exam but a festival, where an adjudicator awarded full marks to an exceptionally good performance which I knew wasn't perfect. It really tarnished the occasion for me and for the performers, who also knew it wasn't perfect, and we despised the adjucator for apparently not knowing the difference between exceptionally good and perfect.

This is the earlier incomplete version of my Perfection? topic message. I don't understand how it got sent. The later one (10.07 p.m.) is the one I meant to send. It must be nice to be _really_ computer literate...

I encountered something similar to this, though on a somewhat smaller scale, when doing the performance part of my GCSE music exam in January this year. Several of us were awarded full marks for our four pieces, which I was very pleased about but I felt that it was a bit extreme of the teacher-examiner seeing as most of us were far from perfect in our playing. I understand that everything has to be done by the published marking criteria and we might have met that as it appears on paper, but 25/25 across four different pieces? That's going a bit far, surely?

QUOTE (cecilia @ Aug 14 2004, 02:41 PM)

I encountered something similar to this, though on a somewhat smaller scale, when doing the performance part of my GCSE music exam in January this year. Several of us were awarded full marks for our four pieces, which I was very pleased about but I felt that it was a bit extreme of the teacher-examiner seeing as most of us were far from perfect in our playing. I understand that everything has to be done by the published marking criteria and we might have met that as it appears on paper, but 25/25 across four different pieces? That's going a bit far, surely?

Cecilia - that's different.

Exams such as GCSEs and A levels are marked and then rounded. You may have got 25/25, but only been marked as 22/25 - the same happened in A levels, when getting 92%(ish) or more in 6 maths modules since AS levels were instituted, has lead to being given 100/100 in all the papers.

What actually happens in exams is that there are grade boundaries.

Eg out of 100, let's say that 82 is A, and we're going to have a 6 mark boundary - this means A=82, B=76, C=70, D=64 etc (and a fail would be 52%). However, we add double the boundary to the top A, giving up A-82, top boundary = 94. this means if you get 94/100, or 95/100, or anything more you get 100/100. Then everything else is scaled, to give the standard A=80, B=70 set of marks that all students know and love/hate.


I hope that helps explain, it's very very confusing!

Before I go on, I would say (JMHO) that is the area of arts in general - performing arts, design, drawing etc, *anything* that is in any way subjective - would never have a fixed level designated "PERFECT". As a long time fan of the likes of figure skating, gymnastics and ballet, even when the performances are given a 6.0, 10.00 or deemed perfect by a jury, if you talk to the actual performers who got those marks, they (unless feeling full of themselves that day!) would invariably say that, yes, it was great to get the mark of perfection, and it was a fabulous performance that was given today, *but* the bar will always be raised higher. There are always further heights to reach (to quote Jascha Heifetz). One of my favourites quotes of a skating couple I enjoy a lot is where the guy said of his partner "With her, you will never reach a 6.0."

I think where the 6.0's, 10's and full marks come in (politics aside ) is that these marks are given in a comparative scenario. In competitions, the judges may have felt that was as close to perfection as one can get compared to the rest of the lot. Or the judge left him/herself with too little room so was forced to give the highest mark possible. With music exams, the candidate may have been exceptional, esp if he/she come on after a bunch of mediocre candidates. The examineremay have felt after listening to the mediocre ones, that an exceptional performance was nigh on perfect. Hence the mark. Also in music exams, esp G1-8 the level of competence required is nowhere near the standard you would need for a diploma. So someone doesn't have to play like Michealangli (who apparently never played a wrong note) to get full marks.

For the ABRSM exams, maybe my attitude towards the perfect mark is different. If I see say a 28 or 29, I might be thinking I wonder how I lost that one mark. Did I hit a wrong note? Did I lose the tempo very slightly in one bar? What was there that warranted that mark being lost? More like full marks is given if the potential of a candidate at that standard playing that paritcular piece is reached. Not because the piece was played to utmost perfection in the context of everything. If a candidate got full marks, it is more an indication that they performed extremely well and the examiner was very satisfied and enjoyed it a lot, rather than have the candidate go away thinking they have reached perfection in technique and musical interpretation.

Sorry, I rambled. Hope at least some of that made sense.

I'd much rather a performance be very musical and convincing with a few wrong notes, than for all the notes to be perfect but be bland and unmusical.

QUOTE

If a candidate got full marks, it is more an indication that they performed extremely well and the examiner was very satisfied and enjoyed it a lot, rather than have the candidate go away thinking they have reached perfection in technique and musical interpretation.

what a wonderful way of putting it, especially the bit about the examiner enjoying it. In student concerts I have seen students that I have been totally absorbed in and if I had to give them an exam mark they would get full marks even though I'm sure they didnt play every note right, but then who knows? When a student plays that well do we even notice the odd wrong note or stumble?

QUOTE (pianissimo @ Aug 14 2004, 10:26 PM)

I'd much rather a performance be very musical and convincing with a few wrong notes, than for all the notes to be perfect but be bland and unmusical.

Playing (or singing) all the right notes certainly doesn't ensure a perfect performance, and I wouldn't want anyone to class a bland and unmusical performance as perfect.

However, I would definitely prefer not to have a performance with even a few wrong notes classed as perfect either. A performance can be outstanding and wonderfully enjoyable without being perfect. That's what I mean by "perfect" being absolute and unequivocal and that's what I think full marks should imply. If an exam candidate has noticed imperfections in his/her own performance and is then given full marks how can they have faith in the judgment of the examiner in other parts of the exam?

QUOTE (Chopininoff @ Aug 14 2004, 03:03 PM)

With music exams, the candidate may have been exceptional, esp if he/she come on after a bunch of mediocre candidates. The examineremay have felt after listening to the mediocre ones, that an exceptional performance was nigh on perfect. Hence the mark.

As a teacher I've always planned the order of my list of candidates for exams very carefully, mainly to try to avoid the weaker ones having to play after someone better. I occasionally play for batches of candidates for other teachers where they don't seem to have considered this at all. The candidate who plays very well after a batch of weaker ones may indeed benefit from the "halo effect", though I certainly hope examiners are trained to guard against this. It must be very hard to wipe the mental slate clean after every single candidate, especially with a succession of people playing the same music.

QUOTE

Also in music exams, esp G1-8 the level of competence required is nowhere near the standard you would need for a diploma.

That's not relevant because the music is at the appropriate level for each grade, building up technical and musical demands through the grades (at least in theory - sometimes I think there are rogue pieces that are out of line in one way or the other).

QUOTE

If a candidate got full marks, it is more an indication that they performed extremely well and the examiner was very satisfied and enjoyed it a lot, rather than have the candidate go away thinking they have reached perfection in technique and musical interpretation.

That's where I have a problem. If Candidate 1 who performs extremely well and gives enjoyment to the examiner can earn full marks, what's left to reward the totally exceptional Candidate 2, who not only does that but also reaches perfection in technique and musical interpretation? If Candidate 1 knows that (s)he played a wrong note or missed some other technical detail, will (s)he be entirely happy with full marks? If my experience with the festival adjudicator is anything to go by, the answer is no.

I see there's been some comments about my son's 100% marks for all his 3 pieces in his Guildhall Jazz Saxophone grade 5 exam. Well, I was sitting downstairs and heard him play and to be he did sound fantastic, and I'm really not just saying that as a proud mother; in fact to my amazement considering it was an exam, he sounded unusually accurate, confident and expressive.

He has a phenomenally good teacher who continually stresses communication, passion, expression and accuracy, and it may just be that my son was able to deliver three performances on that day that were at the top level possible at that grade. Why look for flaws when maybe sometimes there just aren't any in 3 particular performances?

Violinia

QUOTE
Also in music exams, esp G1-8 the level of competence required is nowhere near the standard you would need for a diploma.

That's not relevant because the music is at the appropriate level for each grade, building up technical and musical demands through the grades (at least in theory - sometimes I think there are rogue pieces that are out of line in one way or the other).

If you look through the diploma syllabus, you will often see G8 pieces cropping up in most, if not all instruments. A lot of G7-G8 pieces are formed of 'standard repertoire' works, but while the examiners would be expecting a professional level of performance of the piece from a diploma candidate, at G8 they are probably more concerned with a more general musicality and technical proficiency.

Well, that's what I've always been led to believe by the ABRSM syllabi and exam guidlines.

QUOTE (AmandaL @ Aug 18 2004, 11:58 AM)

QUOTE Also in music exams, esp G1-8 the level of competence required is nowhere near the standard you would need for a diploma. That's not relevant because the music is at the appropriate level for each grade, building up technical and musical demands through the grades (at least in theory - sometimes I think there are rogue pieces that are out of line in one way or the other). If you look through the diploma syllabus, you will often see G8 pieces cropping up in most, if not all instruments. A lot of G7-G8 pieces are formed of 'standard repertoire' works, but while the examiners would be expecting a professional level of performance of the piece from a diploma candidate, at G8 they are probably more concerned with a more general musicality and technical proficiency. Well, that's what I've always been led to believe by the ABRSM syllabi and exam guidlines.

Just to clarify what I meant (the first part of the quote) is what AmandaL said (the last paragraph). When I said standard I don't mean the actual pieces themselves as I noticed the "repeating" of G8 pieces for the DipABRSM but I meant more the standard of performance expected from the candidate in the exam. The difference between good competent playing and impressive, confident playing with a much in-depth musical understanding.

QUOTE

ABRSM syllabi

Can you say "syllabuses" as well as "syllabi"?

QUOTE (cecilia @ Aug 18 2004, 08:33 PM)

QUOTE ABRSM syllabi Can you say "syllabuses" as well as "syllabi"?

you sure can

QUOTE (cecilia @ Aug 18 2004, 09:33 PM)

QUOTE ABRSM syllabi Can you say "syllabuses" as well as "syllabi"?

"syllabi" is the gramatically correct plural of "syllabus"

QUOTE (Subatomic_Star @ Aug 19 2004, 08:50 AM)

QUOTE (cecilia @ Aug 18 2004, 09:33 PM) QUOTE ABRSM syllabi Can you say "syllabuses" as well as "syllabi"? "syllabi" is the gramatically correct plural of "syllabus"

Both are correct - I just said, and I had previously checked in the dictionary

Does that mean if you're stuck in a traffic jam behind a couple of buses they're not really buses, they're "bi"?