I'm a teacher, and an accompanist doing a lot of exam accompanying and exam preparation (including aural tests and sight-reading) at all levels.
The aural test that really infuriates me because it is so weighted in favour of certain groups of candidates is the sight-singing one.
Not everyone is comfortable with singing alone anyway, even if they sing in choirs and are happy doing that, but to expect players of all instruments to sing at sight in C seems to me totally ridiculous. Singing candidates have to do the same aural tests as instrumentalists - they don't have to play an instrument at sight in the exam. Why not?
The people who have an immediate advantage in the sight-singing test are:
1. Those of us who have perfect pitch, who just know what the notes sound like when we look at the music. I believe people can train themselves to some extent to have perfect pitch, and even those of us who have it can certainly benefit from developing good relative pitch, but having perfect pitch to start with seems to be entirely a matter of luck.
2. Singing candidates and other people who sing regularly in situations where they have to read music.
3. Candidates who can choose to sight-sing in the same clef and key as they read for the instrument they have just put down (i.e. not players of transposing instruments, who as far as I know are not offered the choice of music in the key they have just been reading on their instrument, not men who sing bass and play the flute or women who sing soprano and play the double bass, etc. etc.).
The fact that anyone taking G6+ practical exam has passed G5 theory and nominally knows how to read treble and bass clefs in C doesn't mean that they can immediately "change gear" to sight-sing from them under pressure when they have just been looking at something completely different, even if they are comfortable singing in general.
I've been accompanist to a good amateur choir where everyone had to re-audition every year, and the audition included a sight-singing test. Many of the singers in that choir, who were all very keen and could read music and sang regularly every week, got really nervous about the sight-singing and some of them were quite bad at it even if they had singing lessons. As a whole choir they could usually do a pretty good job of sight-reading a new piece in rehearsal, and nearly everyone could then take the music away and learn their part on their own reasonably quickly. That's really all you need unless you are hoping to be a session singer or join the BBC Singers!
A few years ago there was a very interesting discussion on an e-mailing list that I read, about writing cues in orchestral parts when players had to sing something in the middle of playing. Should the cue be in C or in the key of the instrument (e.g. B flat for trumpet, or F for horn)? The consensus was that it was best to put it in the key of the instrument, because that was how the player was thinking at that moment.
However, a side issue that branched off from this discussion, was whether it was reasonable to expect players to be able to sing adequately in that situation anyway. Here the concensus was that you were unlikely to get good singing from (in this case fully trained professional) players without quite a bit of rehearsal.
Full Version: Unfair Advantages In Sight-singing Tests
I agree with you entirely.
Anyone who is taking a grade exam in singing will have a very distinct advantage in the aural tests over an instrumentalist. I am a professional musician, but I admit that I would have great difficulty sight singing even a few simple bars - my brain simply wouldn't be able to both pitch the note and enable me to sing it at the same time....and I'm not sure I'd be any better even if I took singing lessons.
This subject has been raised several times on these forums and I think there a lot of people who are of the same consensus.
I can remember dreading the aural parts of my grade exams, because I was never fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to practice what was required. I usually ended up having to make an educated guess at the answers, with varying levels of success.
Singers should have aural tests which are tougher than those of instrumentalists, or, make them do a keyboard harmony exercise which will require them to spend some extra time on their musicianship in another area.
The AB should think about modernising their system a little and including the option of Initiative Tests as an alternative to the Aural Tests, just as the GSMD grade exams do. Trinity also offer either Ear Tests or Aural Awareness.
Anyone who is taking a grade exam in singing will have a very distinct advantage in the aural tests over an instrumentalist. I am a professional musician, but I admit that I would have great difficulty sight singing even a few simple bars - my brain simply wouldn't be able to both pitch the note and enable me to sing it at the same time....and I'm not sure I'd be any better even if I took singing lessons.
This subject has been raised several times on these forums and I think there a lot of people who are of the same consensus.
I can remember dreading the aural parts of my grade exams, because I was never fortunate enough to have had the opportunity to practice what was required. I usually ended up having to make an educated guess at the answers, with varying levels of success.
Singers should have aural tests which are tougher than those of instrumentalists, or, make them do a keyboard harmony exercise which will require them to spend some extra time on their musicianship in another area.
The AB should think about modernising their system a little and including the option of Initiative Tests as an alternative to the Aural Tests, just as the GSMD grade exams do. Trinity also offer either Ear Tests or Aural Awareness.
Perhaps we singers do have the advantage when it somes to sight singing, but we do have to learn all five of our pieces by heart.... and have an unaccompanied song - no room for any 'wobbly bits' there!
However, as a singer and oboist I would much rather sight read oboe than sing, simply because of you intend to play say a G#, you can be fairly sure that's what you'll get. There is a bit more room for error when you sing it....
However, as a singer and oboist I would much rather sight read oboe than sing, simply because of you intend to play say a G#, you can be fairly sure that's what you'll get. There is a bit more room for error when you sing it....
I wish i had perfect pitch....
but i think i have another form of pitch...i can listen to notes and play them on my flute, considering that i find the starting note first.
I only can sing a note (for example A), after ive started from C,D, E etc
wat picth do i have or i totally have no pitch at all? LOL
but i think i have another form of pitch...i can listen to notes and play them on my flute, considering that i find the starting note first.
I only can sing a note (for example A), after ive started from C,D, E etc
wat picth do i have or i totally have no pitch at all? LOL
I also agree~ I mean not only do I have a struggle to hit any notes in a sight singing test, but invariable I can't even figure out the rhythm, get out of time with the piano, and therefor try singing again chords that throw me off even more!
| QUOTE (missfabflute @ Aug 14 2004, 09:28 PM) |
| I wish i had perfect pitch.... but i think i have another form of pitch...i can listen to notes and play them on my flute, considering that i find the starting note first. I only can sing a note (for example A), after ive started from C,D, E etc wat picth do i have or i totally have no pitch at all? LOL |
That's relative pitch
Singing is 90% by ear and 10% by mouth. If you can hear the sound in your head first you will almost definitely get the correct intonation. And if you are a good musician you should be able to hear notes in your head.
When singing an individual line or soprano line with accompaniment I don't usually go wrong, but my headache comes when I sing bass to accompany other voice parts. The other voice parts disrupt the sound in my head.
| QUOTE (wangchenwei @ Aug 15 2004, 01:06 PM) |
| Singing is 90% by ear and 10% by mouth. If you can hear the sound in your head first you will almost definitely get the correct intonation. And if you are a good musician you should be able to hear notes in your head. |
It's not that simple. I meet a lot of exam candidates who have serious problems pitching notes accurately. I think of them as "missing link singers". There's nothing wrong with either their ears or their voices, but they can't yet make the link between them accurately. It takes time and perseverance to get the link working properly, but I'm sure most of them would manage it if they thought it was worth the effort.
I'm usually meeting them just a couple of times to rehearse for an exam (as their accompanist), so I have to concentrate on convincing them that provided they sing something they will get some marks. If they concentrate on getting the rhythm right, aim to make the melody go up and down in the right places, and get the length of the last note right they will maximise their marks.
Somewhere on the forums I mentioned last term that I had been working with a Grade 4 candidate who absolutely refused to even attempt to sing in the rehearsals with me - the first time I've ever had that happen. She evidently did sing in the exam, but I haven't heard how she got on.
By the way, people with pitching problems often refer to themselves as being "tone deaf". Tone deafness is extremely rare, but does exist. I'm told that people who are genuinely tone deaf speak as if they were in fact deaf, without the normal speech inflections.
In some areas there are now "Can't sing choirs", to get people singing successfully when they are convinced they can't.
Hi everybody!!! I've just got back from the Kodaly Summer School and will write a piece about it as soon as I have time, hopefully later today, or when the whole thing has settled in my head! (These things can take time..)
Meanwhile, reading all the posts above, it seems immediately apparent that aural skills are NOT being effectively taught, otherwise these problems with sight-singing just wouldn't occur.
This is a really strange thing to say!! I saw in the same post the point that some people can sight-sing just fine when in a choir but can't manage it on their own, but that this doesn't matter unless they're going to be professional singers, but to my mind nothing could be further from the truth.
Being unable to sight-sing means you're not hearing the music you're reading in your head, but following it with your trained fingers instead. If you can hear the music in your head as you read it, sight-singing is the easiest thing on earth, and no harder than reading a book and understanding what the words mean.
In fact, when you think about it, sight-reading without being able to hear the music in your head would be like reading out loud, and your mouth being trained to make the sounds that the words represent, but having no idea of what you're going to say until the word actually comes out! How weird would that be!!! But that's how we treat notated music if we can't hear it in our heads...
If you can sight-read on your instrument but can't sight-sing, surely this is a skill worth developing rather than dissing as unnecessary. I remember a thread a few months ago where we were all talking about the ability to play any familiar tune on your instrument in any key by ear. A lot of people said it wasn't important to be able to do it, but not being able to do it is surely a sign of something lacking in the person's aural ability.
I've got a feeling that being able to sight-sing (if we can read notation) and play any familiar tune by ear are all part of the same aural attunement. Surely we should all be aspiring to that level of aural ability? And if not, why not, if we want to be worthy of the description "musician"?!?
Violinia
Meanwhile, reading all the posts above, it seems immediately apparent that aural skills are NOT being effectively taught, otherwise these problems with sight-singing just wouldn't occur.
| QUOTE |
| Not everyone is comfortable with singing alone anyway, even if they sing in choirs and are happy doing that, but to expect players of all instruments to sing at sight in C seems to me totally ridiculous. |
This is a really strange thing to say!! I saw in the same post the point that some people can sight-sing just fine when in a choir but can't manage it on their own, but that this doesn't matter unless they're going to be professional singers, but to my mind nothing could be further from the truth.
Being unable to sight-sing means you're not hearing the music you're reading in your head, but following it with your trained fingers instead. If you can hear the music in your head as you read it, sight-singing is the easiest thing on earth, and no harder than reading a book and understanding what the words mean.
In fact, when you think about it, sight-reading without being able to hear the music in your head would be like reading out loud, and your mouth being trained to make the sounds that the words represent, but having no idea of what you're going to say until the word actually comes out! How weird would that be!!! But that's how we treat notated music if we can't hear it in our heads...
If you can sight-read on your instrument but can't sight-sing, surely this is a skill worth developing rather than dissing as unnecessary. I remember a thread a few months ago where we were all talking about the ability to play any familiar tune on your instrument in any key by ear. A lot of people said it wasn't important to be able to do it, but not being able to do it is surely a sign of something lacking in the person's aural ability.
I've got a feeling that being able to sight-sing (if we can read notation) and play any familiar tune by ear are all part of the same aural attunement. Surely we should all be aspiring to that level of aural ability? And if not, why not, if we want to be worthy of the description "musician"?!?
Violinia
| QUOTE |
| I'm usually meeting them just a couple of times to rehearse for an exam (as their accompanist), so I have to concentrate on convincing them that provided they sing something they will get some marks. If they concentrate on getting the rhythm right, aim to make the melody go up and down in the right places, and get the length of the last note right they will maximise their marks. |
Doesn't this make you annoyed with the teachers who should have prepared these pupils properly for their exams?
Surely it is unfair to enter someone if you know that there is a whole section of the exam (even though fairly minor in the allocation of marks) which they are pretty much unable to make a decent attempt at.
I know someone who accompanies for exams who sometimes encounters the problem of pupils who can't actually play the pieces!!
Violina: you make an interesting point compairing sight singing with reading aloud and it being 'easy' (ha~ excuse student scepticism) if you can hear notes in your head. Well my first though was, oh that would explain my problem, I can't hear notes in my head. But then I thought well that not strictly true I find myself singing all kinds of stuff 'in my head' I've just no idea what the notes I'm 'singing' are!
I'm now trying to console myself with the thought that while I might read all the time, I'm rubbish at reading out loud. It isn't working very well- I dont do exams in reading out loud!
I'm now trying to console myself with the thought that while I might read all the time, I'm rubbish at reading out loud. It isn't working very well- I dont do exams in reading out loud!
Hi Tamsin, yes I didn't mean people who find it hard to sight-sing don't hear any music in their heads at all - I'm sure most if not all people can hear tunes they know in their heads. This is about being able to hear music precisely in your head, and to be able to understand the relationships of the notes to each other. To be able to hear two notes in your head and know exactly what the interval between them is, and to hear a chord in your head and be able to name it.
By that I don't mean name the notes themselves - only people with perfect pitch are able to do this, and perfect pitch is a dubious asset in any case (see threads about perfect pitch).
What I mean is to hear music in your head and actually know what the music is doing; hear the modulations, know whether chords are major or minor, recognise modes and scales when they appear and distinguish cadences. And by that I don't mean you go 'hey! here's a dorian scale!' or ' ooh listen, here's an interrupted cadence', but to listen with the kind of ear that if the music stopped and somebody asked you whether a chord was major or minor, or what an interval was, you'd be able to tell.
But please don't fret - you can train your ear to recognise all these things, and you can become a good sight-singer too - and your enjoyment of music and especially of music-making will increase enormously as a result. I promise!
Violinia
By that I don't mean name the notes themselves - only people with perfect pitch are able to do this, and perfect pitch is a dubious asset in any case (see threads about perfect pitch).
What I mean is to hear music in your head and actually know what the music is doing; hear the modulations, know whether chords are major or minor, recognise modes and scales when they appear and distinguish cadences. And by that I don't mean you go 'hey! here's a dorian scale!' or ' ooh listen, here's an interrupted cadence', but to listen with the kind of ear that if the music stopped and somebody asked you whether a chord was major or minor, or what an interval was, you'd be able to tell.
But please don't fret - you can train your ear to recognise all these things, and you can become a good sight-singer too - and your enjoyment of music and especially of music-making will increase enormously as a result. I promise!
Violinia
oooh i can tell whether a chord is major of minor! does that mean i can actually DO something aural related?!!
| QUOTE |
| oooh i can tell whether a chord is major of minor! does that mean i can actually DO something aural related?!! |
Yes, absolutely - of course you can. From what you say you just need to develop what you already have and take it further. It can be fun, too!
Violinia
wow!! *faints with shock*!! 
Relative pitch! Thank you so much, that's what I have too but I've never known what it was.
Is it perfect pitch if you can remember what G sounds like and then count up? (I do that too)
Is it perfect pitch if you can remember what G sounds like and then count up? (I do that too)
Oh dear, well I think I can tell a major chord froma minor one but as playing the flute has very little to do with chords...
I think I'm just going to have to resign myself to failing Grade 8 aurals as well as I did the Grade 7 ones. <hangs head in shame>
Mind you, I can tell when a piece modulates into a minor key (who can't) and I can tell a perfect cadence. While waiting for my grade 7 to start I had time to work out that gave me a 1/9 chance of getting full marks in the part C~ guess what, niether came up, although be purely coincidental chance I got the modulation right- mind you, I knew it hadn't gone into the minor, which left me a 50:50 chance.
Why do I get the feeling my maths benefits more from aural tests than my (non existant??) musicality!
I think I'm just going to have to resign myself to failing Grade 8 aurals as well as I did the Grade 7 ones. <hangs head in shame>
Mind you, I can tell when a piece modulates into a minor key (who can't) and I can tell a perfect cadence. While waiting for my grade 7 to start I had time to work out that gave me a 1/9 chance of getting full marks in the part C~ guess what, niether came up, although be purely coincidental chance I got the modulation right- mind you, I knew it hadn't gone into the minor, which left me a 50:50 chance.
Why do I get the feeling my maths benefits more from aural tests than my (non existant??) musicality!
| QUOTE (tamsin @ Aug 16 2004, 12:51 PM) |
| I think I'm just going to have to resign myself to failing Grade 8 aurals as well as I did the Grade 7 ones. <hangs head in shame> |
dont worry tamsin, ill fail them too!
i listened to a piece the other day and i though it modulated to the dominant, so i checked the score and i was CORRECT YAY!!!!!!!!! i can now kind of do 2 things aural related!!LOL
But surely that was another 50:50 chance one...
Sorry, congratulations Natalie, maybe there is hope for me yet (yeah right!!)
Sorry, congratulations Natalie, maybe there is hope for me yet (yeah right!!)
| QUOTE |
| Is it perfect pitch if you can remember what G sounds like and then count up? (I do that too) |
Nope - that's relative pitch plus being able to remember one note without reference.
Very good relative pitch means being able to find another note by recognising the interval between it and a named note (without counting).
Perfect pitch means being able to recognise any note without any reference or counting.
Violinia
i just can't do grade 8 aural...that's only part A...i often can't hear the bass...
| QUOTE (tamsin @ Aug 16 2004, 02:19 PM) |
| But surely that was another 50:50 chance one... |
yes but i still got it right! i usually pick the wrong option even when theres only 2 answers!
there IS hope tamsin!! if i can do 1 thing aural related, im sure you can!
Yes, maybe, but your not doing grade 8 (suposably) at christmas.
Sorry, I'm not usually no negative, I'm just feeling a bit down and I am never going to pass-ish at the moment.
I'm, sure it happens to us all...
Sorry, I'm not usually no negative, I'm just feeling a bit down and I am never going to pass-ish at the moment.
I'm, sure it happens to us all...
Just interested to hear peoples view on the following.
I've got friend who is not someone you'd call musical but he does appreciate music, and he claims the reason he can't sing is because he can't control his vocal chords in order to obtain the notes he wants - even when he knows the tune.
I've said that if he still can't sing a tune that is already very familiar to him, it's more likely he just can't pitch the notes in his head first.
Any thoughts from people on this?
I've got friend who is not someone you'd call musical but he does appreciate music, and he claims the reason he can't sing is because he can't control his vocal chords in order to obtain the notes he wants - even when he knows the tune.
I've said that if he still can't sing a tune that is already very familiar to him, it's more likely he just can't pitch the notes in his head first.
Any thoughts from people on this?
On request, I tried out some Kodaly techniques on my tone-deaf partner last night, and to my surprise he managed to memorise what I sang in his head and then repeat it back to me in tune. He didn't know he could do this, so perhaps if you use the right techniques you could teach anyone to do it.
You need to start very simply and not launch straight into complex tunes with difficult intervals. I reckon if my partner really wanted to do this (he doesn't at the moment - other priorities), he could learn to sing any tune in tune, but step by step, not all at once.
Violinia
You need to start very simply and not launch straight into complex tunes with difficult intervals. I reckon if my partner really wanted to do this (he doesn't at the moment - other priorities), he could learn to sing any tune in tune, but step by step, not all at once.
Violinia
| QUOTE (Violinia @ Aug 18 2004, 05:11 PM) |
| On request, I tried out some Kodaly techniques on my tone-deaf partner last night, and to my surprise he managed to memorise what I sang in his head and then repeat it back to me in tune. He didn't know he could do this, so perhaps if you use the right techniques you could teach anyone to do it. |
As a result of getting on the Internet 10 years ago I finally "met" someone who had met someone who was genuinely tone deaf, and reported that their speech was without inflection, like a profoundly deaf person, though they were not in fact deaf.
The term I use for people like your partner, Violinia, is "missing link singer". I meet quite a lot of them when I'm coaching exam candidates in the aural tests. There's nothing wrong with either voice or ear, but they haven't mastered the connection between the two. I can often help people to improve their pitching quite a bit in a couple of rehearsals (which may well have to include 3 accompanied pieces and sight-reading as well as the aural tests in 30-40 minutes) - which is all I get before a lot of exams especially at the lower grades.
As far as the exams are concerned I often just have to concentrate on damage limitation. I aim to convince people that if they sing _something_ they will get some marks. If they don't, they won't! After that I encourage them to listen to the shape of the tune, and the rhythm, and the length of the last note, and do their best to reproduce those. Sometimes people who "know" they can't sing find it really liberating to be told not to worry about the pitch, and it immediately improves. It's a very interesting area.
At one point I accompanied singing classes at my old (secondary) school, and the singing teacher told me how she dealt with "growlers". In class she made sure they were always placed between two reliable singers so that they were hearing correct pitches in both ears all the time. If she had time she would also spend a moment at the end of the lesson with them at the piano doing a little bit of individual pitch-matching. They were never discouraged from singing in class. She reckoned that in about 30 years of teaching an annual intake of probably 100-120 girls she had met two that she accepted as tone deaf.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.