Another kerioboe inspired thread (sorry about that kerioboe ). I was replying to this in another thread, but then I thought it's worthy of it's own topic, if all the discussion is in one place, a lot of it gets lost.


You're right of course, although scales and sightreading do require at least some ability to play the instrument in some way. This reminds me of a point I've been thinking of for a while; but never got around to starting a thread on. If someone tells us they have passed grade 8 does that actually tell us anything about their standard of playing? Is a grade really a standard? For example,

The 27,27,26 on pieces and free marks for everything else scenario: the person may not even be able to read music, or know anything about aural, or know what a scale is.

Another scenario could be the person gets full marks on supporting tests so 21, 21, 18 a total of 60 marks and then gets 13, 13, 14 for the pieces (I've not looked at the marking criteria, but I'd guess this translates to an almost recognisable standard of playing).

And obviously there are all marks on the spectrum in between these. The fact is, without knowing anything about the breakdown of the person's marks, we can't solidly definitely conclude anything about their ability to play really, even knowing they've got grade 8 .

Then there's the key minefield of time taken to learn pieces, clearly someone who gets the same mark at grade 8 with 2 weeks' work was of a higher standard than someone who took 2 years to do the same thing. Add to that the conundrum of marks too, grade 8 distinction standard isn't the same as grade 8 pass standard, and is grade 7 distinction standard higher than grade 8 pass standard? What happens then ?

It's fascinating: if I decided tomorrow to start playing grade 8 pieces or working towards the grade 8 exam I could perhaps say I was 'grade 8 standard' (by some people's definition and more liberally in a few months' time when I could play the pieces to pass standard); I could work on grade 6 pieces and be grade 6 standard, or I could have a crisis of confidence, go back to working on grade 4 pieces and be grade 4 standard . If a grade is a standard, how could someone be all of these?

The more I think 'what does a grade tell us about someone's playing' the more I think 'it tells us the difficulty of the pieces they chose to play'. Anyone have any insights?

all that a grade shows as far as im concerned is that on one particular day, you played three pieces you chose from a list and some scales to the satisfaction of a more advanced musician you've never met before.

I can see an argument for having to pass every section of the exam, instead of being able to get high marks in some sections but fail in others still get an overall pass. Not that I'm going to be the one to make that argument though

I think that a grade probably gives us an expectation of a person's playing rather telling us a fact about it.
This expectation will vary according to who holds it.

One expectation I would have of someone at grade 5 and above is that they know all their key signatures and wouldn't be lost if I started talking about things like related majors/minors......not exactly playing but it's something I would expect that players of a certain grade would know. I know that this is not always so and that others would disagree.

This is like someone who is doing a PhD calling themselves a 'doctoral student' - ie not yet been examined - or had the piece of paper

A wise woman.

I view grades a bit like 'Years' in school, but without the age factor. It gives an idication of what 'level' you're working at, according to the only standardised criteria we've really got. As we all know, though, there will be those who will be towards the top of the class and those who will scrape by. Unlike school, though, we don't necessarily do a grade a year; we go at our own pace. I've said before that I think grades are good for self-esteem, and draw a line under a pupil's progress, which can otherwise be hard to quantify, but at the end of the day this is a performing art, and anyone choosing a musician for performance purposes will do so on hearing them play.

I agree that you should have to pass every section of the exam- i know someone who got something like 29,28 and 30 on their pieces and failed scales, sight reading and aural. but because of their amazing marks in the pieces still passed.

The problem with grades is when you get uni courses and conservatoires asking for grade 8 distinction. I understand that this is because they only want the best on their courses- and in terms of conservatoires it gives applicants an idea of the expected standard. But there are always exceptions and some are too set in their ways; for example one conservatoire whose open day i went to (not naming names) pretty much told me that because i dont have grade 8 distinction on piano, not to bother auditioning; despite the fact ive just done dipABRSM, all of my A level performance pieces were L-FRSM level (and i got an A), and im working towards grade 8 theory!

Im sure i have just as much chance of getting in as someone with grade 8 distinction, but just beause i didnt have it i was treated differently. I mean the head of keyboard studies was lovely, and then the second he asked what my grade 8 mark was and i told him it was just a pass, his tone changed completely

One problem I can see arising if this was implemented is deciding where to draw the line. People would probably start to ask the same question about the marks required for a merit. And if the merit requirements were changed, it would be asked about distinction.

Take this sample result:
Pieces - 27, 27, 29
Scales - 17
Sight-reading - 19
Aural - 16
Total - 135

If you work out the percentages for each mark, every one of them is, in itself, a distinction - apart from scales, which is only a merit. Do we then say that this candidate didn't deserve the distinction? Or that you should have to get a distinction mark on each section in order to have one overall?

The higher up the results scale you get, the harder it is to deliver right across the sections. So, changing it would make a distinction /far/ more difficult to achieve than it is now. This would mean that you couldn't make direct comparisons between results under the current system and results under the new 'achieve the required standard in all sections' system.

T.

Indeed, and this is a different topic with its own thread . What I was trying to get at is that if I said to you 'I'm working on grade 4' you'd think very differently of my playing than if I said to you 'I'm working on grade 8'. Even though it's only what pieces I'm choosing to play (no matter how well or badly, you have no idea even if I say 'I'm really great'). Equally I could take and pass either of those exams in the next 12 months I'm the same standard whichever I choose to do but you'd judge my playing differently because of the choice. So the grade someone does doesn't necessarily imply their standard.

Teiger, good point, I wonder how many people would still have a distinction in any exam if that was brought in, I'd have to get my mark sheets to work out if I'd have any...

Sbhoa's point is interesting, I agree a grade gives us an expectation of someone's standard, that isn't necessarily implied by that person having passed the exam. It's interesting that we should have this expectation, especially in this day and age where exam training is often considered to be everything, but certainly we do.

I'm not sure i'd agree with you on this. You need to remember that some people have more difficulties than others because of factors beyond their control i.e. while some may be unable to pitch others may have perfect pitch etc. It is more than likely that they will be aware they are out of tune, they are simply unable to do it but they are no less musically aware because of it.
As i pointed out on another thread it would also put boys at a disadvantage with the singing requirments given less exposure to singing/social aspects/breaking voice etc.

Some (cue Cyrilla ) would argue that the ability to pitch is not without one's control (besides there's enough on the aural to pass it whilst failing the singing parts anyway). I can't play grade 8 violin pieces, sad that I wasn't born with that ability, should I therefore be let off those as a requirement for grade 8 violin, I'm aware that I can't do it ?

Hey, I really must stop being soooo predictable..

In theory you're correct that notionally you can pass the aural without the singing but given that it is meant to be an overall mark if you seriously fail the first two you are likely to lose confidence. Equally if you know you have to get cadences/naming chords and section D right then you are likely to take additional time considering your answer, which is in reality going to condemn you to failure anyway given that they expect a prompt response.
Playing pieces is more dependant on the effort you put in though. If you expend sufficient effort on it you can probably get to grade 8 eventually. The same cannot in my view be said for the first two sections of the aural as it relies on very specific ability to obtain the pitch immediately and then reproduce it almost instantaneously.
As i've pointed out it also disadvantages one group more than another and whereas i'm sure most boys who attend choir schools sail through it and there are some girls who have just as many problems with it, on average that is not the likely outcome.

[/quote]
I'm not sure i'd agree with you on this. You need to remember that some people have more difficulties than others because of factors beyond their control i.e. while some may be unable to pitch others may have perfect pitch etc. It is more than likely that they will be aware they are out of tune, they are simply unable to do it but they are no less musically aware because of it.
As i pointed out on another thread it would also put boys at a disadvantage with the singing requirments given less exposure to singing/social aspects/breaking voice etc.
[/quote]
I totally agree with you snhs, my son hates the aural and failed it for his Grade 5. He doesn't like singing in public, but passed the aural for his other grades. He got a distinction through his excellent marks in everything else. Surely the playing itself is more important than the aural, and in the present system is weighted accordingly so that people can still get a distinction without the aural?

Does anyone know how much weight RCM give to aural? My son wants to study maths at uni and will probably apply to Imperial College. According to the prospectus there are 5 scholarships available which would entitle the holder to lessons at RCM; you have to have grade 8 distinction, and you have to send in a copy of the mark sheet in order to be selected for audition for a scholarship.

Problem is, my son just cannot do grade 8 aural! He has taken grade 8 three times, and the best mark he got was 12! (Yet at grade 7 he got 16/18 both times.) So although in his grade 8 clarinet he got high marks for every other section and achieved 134, he only got 10 marks on the aural, i.e. a dismal fail. Are RCM likely therefore to think highly of his playing skills, or does the failure on the aural mean he won't get a look in?

Notionally you're quite correct, if someones getting around 28/29/28 then they're already at 85, factoring in 19 at scales maybe 17 at sight reading and they're up to 121 so they're likely to get a distinction but only at the borderline i.e.131/132. They can obviously do better than this but they can never reach the kind of standard they deserve if the exam were completely neutral and even given that 27 is the classification for a piece of 'distinction' standard then you can still be playing at that level and not get the outcome your playing deserves.

If you include 11 marks for the aural in the exemplar above, a minimal fail in the aural (i think), that would take them to 132/150, if you remove the aural from the equation entirely then its 121/132. As percentages thats 88% against around 92%, and although 4% doesn't seem a lot if you're looking at the top end for music scholarships etc based solely on grade 8 results then you can lose out even if your playing is just as good or better than a classically trained chorister. It hardly seems a fair criteria to separate the best instrumentalists from one another.

In short you almost certainly won't fail on aural if your pieces are well prepared, but it can stop you from getting the distinction/merit you deserve. Equally if your playing is not as good, but still adequate for the grade you can lose out entirely purely on the basis of singing in tune.

I think what we need here is....





A music philosophy forum!

To be honest, I assume that anyone who has passed grade 7/8 is going to know at least something about their instrument. If you get 13, 13, 14 for the pieces, that means they've figured enough out not to get zero, and to manage those marks at grade eight means that they aren't AWFUL, even if they aren't everything that 'grade 8' implies.

I'd still have it for my grade 2 flute, but only just. (29, 27, 29, 20, 20, 18). Dropping 2 more marks on list B or scales or sight-reading would turn it into a merit.

The minimum marks you'd need for a distinction (if you had to have it in every section) would be:
26, 26, 26, 19, 19, 16. (132 in total)

My grade 4 flute (for which I got 139 (27, 29, 27, 18, 20, 18), which would currently be regarded as a fairly solid distinction), would drop to merit, because of missing distinction on scales by less than one mark (and less than 1 percentage point - distinction is 86.67% 18/21 is 85.71%, 19/21 is 90.48%).

My flute merits would stay as they are, but my grade 6 merit for clarinet would become a FAIL (I messed up the aural completely).
Organ would drop from distinction to merit, just because of scales. (17, instead of the necessary 18.2 (19 really as the examiners work in whole numbers)).

I know that applying this to the upper results is showing a more extreme fallout. On the whole, most people who pass comfortably, pass all sections. Whereas it may be less usual to see people getting an overall distinction (even quite a high one) with a distinction in every section. But stuff happens and even a well-prepared candidate can fluff one section in the exam. If we cut some slack at the upper level and say 'well, one merit mark shouldn't stop someone from getting a distinction overall', it wouldn't be terribly fair to withhold the same wiggle room at the other end of the spectrum.
My organ scales were fine in lessons and practice (fingering a little dicey in places, but I never made the sort of stumbles that I made in the exam). On the day, I was nervous, my fingers got sweaty and they kept just slipping on the keys.

Solutions? I don't know. Possibly a requirement to pass at least 2 pieces and at least 2 supporting tests? A requirement to get at least 50% in every section?
Keep it as it is but introduce a * for people who get a distinction (or merit or pass) in every section, so they can be sure that no one thinks they got through by doing well on some sections despite failing others?
(Then you have a new can of worms about whether it's better to get a merit* or a plain distinction!)

I'd be inclined to leave it as it is. Yes, it means that people can scrape through despite failing some sections. But we're aware of that possibility and if, for some reason, we want to know /how/ someone achieved their result, we can refer to the mark breakdown. Ensemble positions, school scholarships, college admissions, etc. can be determined by auditions and/or detailed exam results if merely having a particular exam pass isn't deemed to be a sufficiently good indication of ability.

T.

Gardes are interesting and a helpful indicator of roughly where someone is at. They are not the be all and end all and one cannot really assume that much about a person's playing by just knowing their grade, or indeed knowing how long it took them to achieve that grade and the breakdown of their marks. None of that will tell you more than actually hearing them play.