Taking up something that Skylark touched upon in another thread, I wonder if anyone else might agree that it should be compulsory to achieve a pass mark in all three pieces in Grade exams? I think it would be uinfair to insist upon a pass in every section, as some are poor sight-readers and some are very underconfident with aural tests, especially the singing parts, but they may well still be good performers. Since this is a performing art, is there an argument in favour of making it compulsory to at least reach a pass mark in the pieces? Would this make a statement of someone's 'Grade/Level' more credible?

Or should the overall pass mark simply be higher, as we all know that a very flawed performance can still achieve a pass mark? Should this only be the case in higher grades, in order than younger, or early-stage candidates not be too easily discouraged?

An interesting point. In order to answer this question it would be useful to know how it would actually affect the number of people passing the exam. Would many more people fail? I suspect it's much more common for the pieces to be the higher marks (after all people are wanting to play the instrument, not necessarily do all this other stuff). So I'd think it's much rarer for someone to pass the exam, but fail the pieces . As for a higher pass mark, I'd go for it, but it would put more pressure on the supporting tests as well!

It would also mean that a grade definitely told us something: that the person could perform at least 3 pieces to the required pass standard.

No, I would disagree. I can think of one case where a pupil got 19 for one of her pieces but did very well in all the other sections of her exam (25 and 26 for the other pieces). Overall she demonstrated that she had reached the required level and it would have been unfair if she was denied a pass just because one of her pieces went haywire. If, however, someone failed perhaps two of their pieces then you might wonder if they had reached the performance level of the grade ...

Personally, I think the system is probably best left as it is. Making the pass mark higher would not actually raise the standard, as marks are awarded in relation to the pass standard, rather than adding from zero or deducting from the maximum. I feel the pass standard can be very low, especially in the lower grades & I know that examiners are told to try to award passes wherever possible. This is why I don't generally enter pupils until I feel they are ready to get a good result.

I wouldn't be very happy about candidates having to pass every section - although it would be a useful ideal, in practice it would lead to a lot of frustration if somebody (possibly unexpectedly) narrowly failed one section despite doing very well overall. If they retook it, the same thing could happen or with a different section. I have had distinction pupils fail one section & although we always try to improve that section for the next exam, I think it would be ridiculous to have to retake the exam for it. This kind of thing could result in people giving up on the exam system, or even giving up lessons out of frustration.

My question here would be (and to the second point of the above post) would the examiner actually have awarded 19 for that piece if candidate would have failed the whole exam for it? I mean maybe they put just below the pass mark to 'make a point' but if it would have resulted in the candidate failing the exam I think they'd have thought a lot more carefully about whether that 19 should have been a 20.

I think this would be a major drawback - it would make it almost impossible for an examiner to be honest with every mark, if one poor mark would mean an otherwise very good candidate would fail.

What about making an average pass over the three pieces necessary for an award i.e. 19/20/21?

But how much absolute difference is there between 19 and 20 anyway? It could be a matter of opinion. If the piece was clearly a 16, rather than borderline, then the examiners would have to be honest, and fail the candidate because of this.

But we already have that under the current system. A poor aural mark can result in a worthy candidate not getting a distinction or a badly performed piece could result in an otherwise competent performer failing even if by one mark. I think the temptation for many examiners is probably to give the benefit of the doubt, after all you seldom hear of candidates getting 99 or 119 marks.

Let's take aural out of the equation for a moment. If we ask, 'What Grade are you?' what are we really asking? Personally, my meaning would be "How well can you play?" and the question provides me with a quick way of getting a vague idea before I listen to them. Okay, we talk a lot here about 'all-round musicianship', but, really, I think to have a certain grade should be indicative of a certain standard of playing. Some good sight-readers are incapable of truly polishing a piece, and others will get by on good aural test results. Should a candidate still be able to pass if semi-sightreading one of the pieces, by virtue of the fact that they are good at supporting tests? They are, after all supporting tests - presumably supporting a certain standard of playing.

Hmmm. To pass in every section separately or just achieve a pass overall? This would seem to be a fundamental part of the planning of any examinination system and a question to which there is no easy answer. Of course the AB uses both systems - pass overall for grades 1-8 and pass each section independently for Dip and above.

At up to Grade 8 I would guess that is recognition that it is possible for one slip to ruin the performance of a single piece (in that it can throw the performers confidence completely therefore destroying the piece). It would seem unfair to fail an amateur candidate (who may very well be a young child) for an entire exam on the basis of what amounts to a single mistake.

Beyond grade 8 they make no bones about these being examinations for "Professional qualifications". At that level I think it is perfectly reasonable to require that each section is passed in it's own right. A professional should be expected to get it right first time almost every time.

I know there is a world of difference between a concert pianist and a surgeon but in terms of professionalism there are similarities: You wouldn't be too impressed if a surgeon came to you after your operation and said "it always goes much better than that at home!"

Yes but if you're having a heart transplant are you really going to care if your surgeon can't take out your appendix, as long as he can keep replace your heart and keep you alive?

[quote name='Robodoc' date='Sep 8 2007, 04:58 PM' post='587529']



I know there is a world of difference between a concert pianist and a surgeon but in terms of professionalism there are similarities: You wouldn't be too impressed if a surgeon came to you after your operation and said "it always goes much better than that at home!"
[/quote]




Yes but if you're having a heart transplant are you really going to care if your surgeon can't take out your appendix, as long as he can keep replace your heart and keep you alive?
[/quote]
That's kind of my point! Does it matter if you can't get a good mark in the aural tests when you walk out in front of an audience?

My own opinion is that you shouldn't have to pass every section, but post Grade 5 (?) I think you should have to pass all three pieces to get the certificate, even if the overall mark is a pass.
EDIT - I really thought I'd got the hang of this quoting lark; I could do it the last time I tried to quote sections of two people...

Put in [quote name='snhs' date='Sep 8 2007, 05:50 PM' post='587530'] After the



I agree though Dulciana - I've yet to hear of an audience that wanted to hear a diminished 7th on C played over 3 octaves, from memory, on the program

Aha! So someone else has problems with quoting! The only way I've found to quote sections is to quote the whole thing and then delete the parts I don't want. Hopefully, some expert will now tell us both how to do it properly - hurrah!

I think i'd probably agree with you on both counts, although maybe an average pass on the pieces would be fairer as the examiner might not be as concious of failing someone on the basis of a mark below pass.

True!

It's just like programming - you need to pair up the parentheses. Only in this case it's the quote and /quote tags.
If there's more of one sort than the other, the computer gets confused.

T.

I heard - a long time ago, and I can't remember from where now, but it was a source I thought reliable at the time - it may even have been from an examiner - that if a candidate fails on two pieces, the examiner is instructed to engineer a fail overall, the thinking being that if the candidate can't produce at least two reasonable renderings of pieces they don't deserve to pass.

I have always wondered what they would do in such a case if someone's supporting tests were immaculate, but I suppose that if the pieces aren't good (which the candidate has probably done the most work on), the scales etc aren't likely to be so either!

That's interesting. In one exam I did a few years ago I failed two pieces (19 and 16). I expected to fail one, and the other I expected good marks, but it didn't go well on the day. I still passed overall though and my supporting tests were far from immaculate.

Maybe. But I think I'd prefer shifting of the weighting thus Pieces>Sight-reading=Scales>>Aurals. Then again, it's not as if the 3 pieces are 'of the same type' - so let's say you were extraordinary at the modern spectrum, but were rubbish at the Baroque and Classical Eras, but compensated in this sense that you got a pass overall, then is there anything wrong with that? It's not as if Bach had any proficiency in the style of 20th Century, nor that of Classical!

Personally, it doesn't really affect me, as I can play all the genres to a good standard, despite detesting music from the Classical Era ( ). However, I would not be impressed if somebody could play none of their pieces well, and got through on pretty much scales, sight-reading and aurals alone - so maybe just a necessary 'pass' mark split between the pieces would be best.

~Wobby~

How about this viewpoint: think of the supporting tests as an attempt to rectify the fact that the exams aren't perfect. One can't really reliably conclude that a person can play pieces generally at a certain level by listening to only 3: these may be the only pieces they've learnt ever. They may have learnt them by rote and they may have been told exactly how to articulate every note by their teacher, it may have taken them 2 1/2 years to learn just these pieces. Fair enough, you say, they played the pieces in the exam to the required standard, so what? You're right too. However, what we'd like to do is make some judgement, not about how well the person can play those three pieces, but rather how good they are at playing their instrument at that level, that's the goal.

The person above is clearly not as good as someone who knows about interpretation, did a lot of the work themselves, learnt the pieces in 3 months etc. So how can we split them? We can't on just three pieces, no way, the final result is the same (although the standards are clearly different: their abilities to play a further 3 pieces are much different). This is where the supporting tests come in, they're not perfect, it's difficult to achieve that objective, but they're the best the AB could think of. Suppose someone plays their Baroque list A piece beautifully, we conclude 'wow, they're a great interpreter of Baroque works'; we then come to part D of the aural test, play them some Bach, and they comment on what a wonderful piece of Romantic music they have just heard and the fact that it's not at all contrapuntal. Oh dear, it's clearly the teacher behind most of this brilliant, insightful, informed interpretation, we don't take marks off the piece, but instead they lose marks on the aural: fair, we've discovered something they've not yet learnt in their playing ability. Suppose someone else comes along, brilliant pieces, but can't sightread at all, we know they may well have spent a long time learning these pieces, and possibly done it by rote, so again they'd lose marks. We're not taking the marks off them directly from the piece, just trying to judge their musical standard, rather than their ability to play 3 pieces (which is fairly uninteresting).

It's also a guidance in making sure teachers are teaching the right thing: especially with increasing exam driven pressure, a number of teachers simply wouldn't teach the other necessary aspects of musicianship if they weren't on the exam!

Well, the ideal situation (I guess) would be to have the candidate play 10 pieces or up to a certain length. But obviously that would take too long and too much of the examiner's time up. Thus, the supporting tests kind of make up for identifying those that have 'cheated'.

But honestly, those that spend years over their pieces to get the perfect qualification are only cheating theirselves - sure they can get away boasting to their friends, but if other musicians were to ask them to play a piece, it should be clear what they have done. Same applies to if they were applying for a place in an orchestra - they would probably be asked to demonstrate their skills, and even if they played their exam pieces, they would be caught out when it comes to rehearsing for their orchestral pieces!

In respect to using the aural tests and sight-reading as 'proof' that the candidate has 'cheated' may have some exceptions still though: i.e. they may naturally have the right feeling for how to play Baroque pieces, just they are very poor at the terminology of the pieces. In the same way, they may just be panicky when it comes to sight-reading, and play it better in different conditions. At the end of the day, the certificate is really for oneself and one's teacher to assess standards of playing and track levels of improvement, and in that way, it serves its purpose.


Going on to the assumption that everybody is completely moral and doesn't do this (of couse not true, but to those that aren't, they have nothing to gain/lose anyway due to aforementioned points), we can still return to the idea of an overall pass for the 3 pieces being a requisite?

~Wobby~

The candidate could propose a list of 10 and the examiner then select 3 at random, this would be a lot of work, even for genuine candidates though! The other issue is picking pieces to suit one's technique, in theory a grade X pianist should be able to play any grade X piece (small hands etc. are allowed to spread chords or omit notes) therefore theoretically the board should be able to assign any piece from each list to the candidate for performance in the exam. Would make the preparation less enjoyable though as one wouldn't get to select the pieces on liked.

You're right, of course, anyone going the 'learn three pieces ever' route is only cheating themself, but it's a shame that it devalues the qualification for the genuine people.

Actually, the idea of 10 choose 3 does not seem too bad. There could be an expansion of the syllabus for each grade to the size used on the Dip. etc?

The question is, would we allow a candidate to be a specialist, or must they be an all rounder? In the former case, couldn't we allow them to choose an era or 10 pieces out of the 'bigger syllabus' that they liked from which the examiner could pick 3?

In the latter case, with us wanting them to be an all rounder, it is tough that they don't like it, as they must be sufficiently good in all pieces, whether they like them or not. In a sense, currently the exams are like that in that if one hated all the pieces in a certain section, they have to do it anyway.



And this would weed out all the cheaters, unless they were dedicated cheaters, in which case by learning all 10 pieces, they reach the standard they were aiming at anyway!

For the genuine articles, this doesn't have to be too much effort. It was said in another thread that if only the necessary preparation was undertaken (i.e. fingering, grasp of the notes of the piece) per piece, providing they 'read around' their grade, they should be able to play the pieces to a sufficient standard to pass the test on that piece without too much effort - that is their true standard. So apply this idea to the 10 pieces.

I think that was the idea of the scales in today's exam. I expressed the opinion a while ago that when many people complained about the numerous scales at Grade 8, perhaps it is not expected that they learned every scale to perfection, but due to their 'reading around' of their grade, they should be able to play the scales to a reasonably proficient standard without having to perfect them.



~Wobby~

RSCM Organist Training Scheme levels use something similar to this, but with even less choice for the candidate. There's a list of about half a dozen hymns and a list of about half a dozen worship songs. You choose two off each list to play, but the examiner will choose a further one from each list. So you have to be able to play everything on the lists, though you do get the chance to show the ones you think you play best.

I think this is actually fair for a scheme that's all about service playing, because (in most churches) the organist doesn't get to pick the hymns - he just has to play whatever he's told to.

The RSCM Levels give more freedom of choice in voluntaries, psalms and anthems, as those are things that an organist is likely to have more control over (some are 'pick from a list' and some are free choice).

I think most people would be unhappy to see compulsory pieces on AB grades though and I think there would be less reason to include them. Unless the syllabus lists were quite long, having to choose 10 pieces to learn (from which an examiner would select 3 to hear) would mean having a fairly limited choice of which pieces to learn. And, for many instruments, would mean the accompanist would also have to learn a lot more pieces and you would need to find more time for the pupil and accompanist to practice together (not such a problem for those of us whose teachers accompany us in exams, but I imagine it would be a pain for those who have a separate accompanist).
It would mean that people couldn't get through by learning just 3 pieces per grade, but I don't think it would be very practical for instruments that are played with piano accompaniment. And if it was introduced only for unaccompanied instruments, there'd be a huge stink about that being unfair.

T.

Just out of interest how would you justify the A and B sections of the aural?
I can see the argument for sight reading and the D section of the aural, scales are fairly obvious and the C section is understandable.

I like this idea so one could still demonstrate how well one could do when focussing on the piece as a 'certain' one, and people would still have to learn all 10 for the third one. However, one would have to require that the third piece was passed in order for the exam to be. Incidentally Wobby, I'd still be in favour of requiring people to be all-rounders, where the repertoire exists for their instrument, of course.

As you point out though, a lot of problems with the practicalities of implementing this system....


Don't know, I wouldn't defend them particularly. Perhaps one could argue the person might have learnt the pieces legitimately by ear, poor justification I know. Some say it's good for sightreading to be able to hear in one's head first, but then again sightreading is tested itself anyway. Maybe someone else, who can see their practical use could answer that but I can't.

We may need to ask the CE, she seems rather attatched to the aural tests for some reason .



That sounds like quite a good idea actually. It would probably be a better way to assess the TD as well i.e. saying you can be asked any 3 pieces from grade 1-6 for DipABRSM.

Probably because they're the section of the exam of which the usefullness is most often questioned. She's probably sick of them to be honest ; she has to tow the official line I think don't know if she agrees or not. I think it's a good question though, ask away .

99, 119 or 129 are not allowed. If the marks add up to one of these the examiner has to make a decision to go one way or the other. But I still feel it would put even more pressure on the examiner if a single fail mark caused a generally excellent candidate to fail.

I would prefer the system of choose 10, examiner picks 3 though... maybe it would take a while to assign a grade to a long selection of pieces, but it only needs to be done once - thus it can be an extensive list as required. Then, the candidate would still have a fair degree of choice. And if we want to force eclecticism, then add on restrictions that one is only allowed 2 pieces from the same era out of the eras of Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Impressionistic, 20th Century, ?21st Century? and then there would still be a fair element of choice due to the numerous eras.

As for the 'accompanied' instruments, maybe one accompanied piece they can choose as a definite from the list, and then another, they must pick 2 out of the list, and then the examiner chooses the one they want to hear. And then their 3rd piece is a solo, and so they pick 4, and then the examiner chooses the one they hear?

~Wobby~

I can see you point but the same would be true of 98 etc. Anyway your concern about pressure on the examiner would be dealt with by taking an average over the three pieces to decide whether an overall certificate can be awarded, i don't there are many examiners who would be to average out the three pieces while moving on to the next section and finishing their comments.



Might be worth a go. Maybe we could arrange a code with the smilies for her to indicate if she really agrees with it.

The RSCM syllabus balances out the compulsory stuff with some free choice stuff too.

Level 1, you have to learn 6 hymns and 6 songs (all compulsory). You play 4 (2 of each type) of your choosing, and the examiner chooses another 2 (1 of each type).
You also play two voluntaries of your choice from a given list of books and there's a vive voce section as well.
So you play 8 things in total, but have to learn 14.

Level 2, you learn 8 hymns and 7 songs (all compulsory), play 3 of each (your choice) and another 1 of each (examiner's choice).
You also play any anthem or communion setting of the Gloria (free choice).
You play a psalm/canticle chant (free choice) and two anthems (from a given list of books). Plus there's a viva voce.
Total of 12 things to play, but you need to learn 19.

Level 3 has a list of 10 hymns - you choose 3 and the examiner chooses another (so you learn all 10).
There's a list of 5 worship songs and you choose 1 (the examiner doesn't choose any, so you only have to learn 1).
Then 2 psalms/canticles of your choice, the organ part of an anthem (your choice from a list of 6), a Bach chorale prelude (your choice from Orgelbuchlein or Novello book 18), "a quiet movement from a sonata by Mendelssohn or Rheinberger" and "a piece for manuals and pedals by Flor Peeters, Howells, Vierne, Dupre, Mathias or Leighton". Plus viva voce.
So, you play 11 things and learn 17.

By the end of level 3, you've learned at least 38 hymns/worship songs. But you'll probably have learned a whole bunch of others for services anyway.

Overall, you're playing a lot more pieces than in an AB exam, and learning even more. But you don't have the supporting tests to do, just viva voce.
The whole emphasis of the syllabus is different though, because it's about service playing specifically.
I'm working for RSCM stage 1, but I'm doing AB exams in organ as well and they test different things, so the two together, supplemented with a bunch of extra technical work, provide a pretty good framework for developing my playing skills.

I think most people would NOT want to have to learn up to 19 pieces for an exam and play 12 of them, especially when they're already used to the current system.
Organists don't mind cos they have to keep learning things for services anyway. But I would hate to be the one to have to try to sell this set-up to other instrumentalists! :-)

T.

I can see this working at the higher grades, but having to learn 10 pieces would be very off-putting for beginners, especially young children. I won't ever let this happen again, but my 7 yr old did 2 exams last term (G1 piano and G3 cello). Both teachers wanted her to play her pieces from memory. Learning 6 pieces from memory was one thing (and in fact she had 7, as she didn't decide between 2 piano pieces until a week or so before the exam). But 10 would have been very hard work, and 20 pieces? - forget it!

(Incidentally, she easily passed all sections in both exams and got a merit for her cello and a distinction for her piano.)

Trust me on this: Heart transplant surgeons can take out your appendix - it's the other way around that's a problem!

How many people are capable of having 10 pieces up to performing standard?
Especially 10 pieces at the top of their ability range?
Or am I just totally useless?
And by the time you get to grade 8 it could take a few years to get that much secure.

As for singing back (or optional playing back from grade 4) a short melody...... I don't see that as an unreasonable expectation. Isn't it at least partly about listening? It's only the musical equivalent of remembering a short shopping list long enough to reapeat back to your mum what she wants you to buy.

Yeah, maybe just for Grade 6-8? Although not from memory! And yes, 20 pieces would be a bit much!



The point wouldn't be for the candidate to learn the pieces up to performing standard - the whole idea of 10 pieces is simply to discourage it in the first place. Typically, one learns through lots of short pieces within a few lessons with one's teacher, or maybe works through a book full of pieces (such as 'Hours with the Masters' at the appropriate grade, etc), along with a fair concentration on the exam pieces.

So, with this system, one should 'go through' the 10 pieces like the pieces they work through in lessons, but not 'perfecting' them like a performance. And thus it wouldn't take 3 times as long to work with this system either, and there would be less chance of the candidate getting bored of their pieces. Having 'read around' their grade a bit, their general standard of playing should be passable, without the extra time spent on polishing up - so in a way, this is their truer standard of playing. Note they won't have to memorise the pieces either - they can read from the music. The examiner's marking would reflect upon the pieces not being perfected, but the same would be true for every candidate, and so the marking would still be OK, just the standard of perfection required per mark less.

For those that haven't 'read around' their grade, they will struggle, so this system admonishes not playing a wide variety of pieces - i.e. it is a good way of stopping people from simply learning the 3 pieces of a much higher standard than they are at to perfection and nothing else - and if they choose to spend a decade to perfect every piece, then by that time, they would have probably 'earned' their grade anyway, only having less fun doing so!




As suggested earlier, maybe 1 out of the 3 pieces should be one they get to choose for definite and can perfect, so that the examiner can hear the standard of what the candidate thinks is a performance, as well as hearing the general standard of playing on the other 2 pieces. For 'accompanied instruments', their perfected piece would be an accompanied piece.

The only problem I can think of is getting hold of the 10 pieces! Maybe if they just printed a copy of each piece seperately, so then the candidate could pick and mix the correct 10 pieces - but they don't have a flashy front and back cover that prices it up. OR provide a copy of the sheet music online for free that candidates can print off (except for the modern stuff, which obviously must be paid for)? EDIT: Then again, if the syllabus choice were expanded hugely, all you would need is the book you typically work through in lessons, with pieces of the grade you are working for, which you should already have handy!




I don't have a problem with the singing back personally, just the sight-singing! Not that I'll be needing to any time soon unless I take up another instrument!

~Wobby~

I think this is getting at the crux of the argument. Some people would say that to be grade x standard, you just need to pass the relevant exam, possibly having only ever learned 3 pieces of that difficulty. Others would say that you should be able to get to grips with a wide range of repertoire of that standard, in a reasonably short time, and that there is a problem with the exam system if people can scrape through the exam by taking an awfully long time to drag 3 pieces up to the required standard.

Should the exam be testing the upper limit of your current ability? Or should it be about showing what you can handle comfortably within your current capabilities?


I think most people would be able to have 10 pieces up to performance standard, if those pieces are well within the scope of their technical and musical ability. (If you want an extreme example, someone with grade 8 really should be able to get 10 grade 1 pieces to performance standard without undue struggle!)

But if someone can play 10 pieces "at the top of their ability range" to performance standard, then I would think they were misjudging where the top of their ability range actually was. They could probably master a few pieces of greater difficulty than those 10, though it may take them a little longer and a bit of hard work.

T.

Exactly. And there are many plus points to the system too! That raises another point: whether it should be numerous pieces of the standard of the Grade, expected to be at an acceptabley fluent standard; or numerous pieces of a lower standard expected to be at performance standard? Both would be acceptable, I think, though.

~Wobby~

True. It could also get really expensive


Pretty well summed up, I think, Robodoc - the grade examinations have a standard to maintain, so they're not to be dumbed down or made too easy to pass, but they're also amateur qualifications and thus a margin for error/minor disaster is reasonable. The Dips require a pass in every section because they are a professional qualification, and the kind of standard which would be unreasonable at amateur level can reasonably be expected.


Good points.


Have a thought for the accompanists, though! Not to mention buying the exam music in the first place. I think it would make the system rather unwieldy. Examiners would probably be less likely than ever to know obscure pieces on less popular instruments. Plus, would an average grade X candidate really be prepared to learn 10 pieces to a decent standard for the sake of the certificate? The exams would likely become for an elite... though of course one could argue whether that is a good or bad thing.


True on both counts.


Sounds like a wise way to do the exam - for that particular discipline - because of the nature of the beast. By the same token I would expect an accompanying exam to test a different set of skills than a performance exam. But would it really be sensible to test, say, a flautist on all the same skills?


Surely to make it realistic, either the standard expected in playing the pieces, OR the difficulty of the pieces, would have to be lowered, because the exam would become proportionately harder if the same standard was expected in any of 10 pieces of the same difficulty to current exam pieces. It would also penalise people who may take a long time to learn pieces/find it hard to keep them in their performing repertoire, even if they were genuinely "of that standard", along with the people who were trying to get through on the strength of 3 pieces.

On a different note, I know that even though I am 100% sure I could learn 10 pieces of grade 5 or probably even 6 standard to *reasonable* standard without masses of trouble, it would add a great deal to the stress of the exam which I already find stressful. Not knowing what you were to be expected to play would make the exams far more stressful/less attractive for students who suffered from bad nerves.

Isn't part of the exam learning to play a piece really well though? (for the distinction brackets of the marking criteria) An exam which tested being able to play any from a list of 10 pieces "pretty well" would be quite a different animal from an exam which tests (basically) "this is the best I can play these 3 pieces". It might stop some of the "cheating" but it would be testing IMO a different skill set. Playing to distinction level is not what everyone looks for from an exam, but it is part of the possibility of what one is being tested on.


It's possible to play 3 accompanied pieces in many string exams, and it's usual to play 2 in woodwind. Exams would become more expensive if one had to pay one's accompanist to learn "this list of half a dozen accompaniments" even if the number was just upped to 6.


Yes... time spent learning the pieces can have other reasons besides "playing above one's ability". 10 pieces truly at "performance standard" would be quite a mammoth task... it can as it is be quite difficult to keep 3 pieces "on the boil" so that they're all there or thereabouts on exam day... even if one is very much at the required standard.

Not too many! I think we might be getting a bit carried away here generally...
It was suggested that they shouldn't be at performance standard, but playable/passable - but what does that say about the candidate? That he's a good sight-reader and a quick learner and can 'scrape a pass' pretty quickly? Who cares? Can he put on the polish that makes a piece of music shine, and actually makes people sit up and listen? At Grade 8 level surely that's what we want from the pieces - not a display of quick-mindedness by a Jack of all trades.

I might just be wrong here (not being a concert pianist... ) but I imagine that most would have practised, repractised and perfected for a VERY long time what's on their tour programmes. So I wouldn't call it 'cheating' to spend a long time on exam or performance pieces. A perfectionist with the ability to actually perfect is really very rare! Some could practise till doomsday and never make a job of something that anyone else would pay to listen to.

Yes - it would be testing a very different set of skills.

In response to some of your queries: the former quote means accompanied instrumentalists would only have to learn 3 accompanied pieces, but play 2. So, same cost as always. The latter quote will allow for examining of a piece up to performance standard. Although it may be a different skill, it would test 'truely' whether if one is up to the standard.

In regards to whether one is willing to learn 10 pieces up to standard just for the sake of an exam, they would - in fact, they already do (hopefully). Maybe I'm generalising, but doesn't one play many pieces at one's grade throughought the year, whilst working through lessons, though not at performance standard. So providing the syllabus is fairly large, they wouldn't have to learn any extras, just do what they always do, but for focusing on one piece, and improving their overall standard. Either that, or make sure the 'workbook' they buy for the year has pieces covered by the board.

For slow learners, they would be going at the pace they go through their 'workbook'. Normally, one enters for the appropriate exam after one has worked through one's workbook, so in a sense, it would take the same time as before.

Even if the examiner doesn't know the piece, the fact the board would have already graded the piece means the examiner doesn't have to exert effort upon ascertaining whether the piece is at the correct grade. All they have to do is assess whether the piece is played to a decent standard.

I agree that the standard of performance expected to account for this. If one cannot keep pieces of their grade at a reasonable standard (but note not a performing standard), but can maintain the 3 perfected pieces, what good is it?

One could still get a distinction from their overall marks, just it would be from different things, i.e. a much better overall standard than average.

In this case, the exams would not be elitist, but would be much more credible, and so no longer devalued for genuine people, I think, having filtered out the cheaters.


For the nerves thing, perhaps the candidate could be notified of the pieces they will be playing when they get the date of their exam? Or a few days before the exam? Maybe they fill in an online thing, and then a randomiser chooses 3 to tell them at this later date? Hmm... but these are obviously the finer details!



EDIT: In response to above... again, one of the pieces would be to be perfected. Secondly, I'm fairly sure a concert instrumentalist would be able to play pieces of 'their grade' to a reasonable standard - at the very least, Grade 8 pieces! I seriously doubt they would be actually unable to play 'Chopsticks' and have perfected every bit of their repertoire. They wouldn't have 'scraped a pass' really quickly, as they would have had to work through the typical amount of pieces they would do to enter the exam in the first place. Even the ultimate sight-reading Grade 1 couldn't sight-read Grade 8 pieces to perfection. Just because the pieces wouldn't have to be at performance standard doesn't mean they wouldn't be at a good standard - given time, anyone can improve. If you truly wanted them to be able to perform 'really great shiny pieces', you'd get them to apply for the Performing Certificates, which of course, would be harder still.


~Wobby~

Not at all! :-)
I hope I was clear that I thought the RSCM scheme was a good test of service playing, but that it wouldn't transfer well to more general instrumental exams.

Even playing other instruments in church doesn't make the same demands as playing the organ. I'm not brilliant at flute, but I don't have to practice service music on it at all. A single line of a hymn or worship song is /not/ difficult to sight-read on the flute, especially as most of the tunes will be familiar. I was quite capable of playing anything that might come up in church by the time I took grade 2. The music group has a quick run through things before the service, mostly to check things like 'what are we using for the introduction?' and 'how many repeats of this are there?'.
You're also unlikely to be in a situation where a flautist is the sole instrumentalist for a service, so you can find safety in numbers. I'm a big fan of safety in numbers as people who were at the forum flute day or KatyJay's recorder day can attest! ;-)

An organist has to play 4 parts and is much more exposed. He has to keep going no matter what and provide a solid lead to the congregation. A flautist is at liberty to switch to the alto line for a verse, or stop playing for a verse, or take a verse up an octave - to provide variety or to try to provide an appropriate match for the the words. (An organist will make adjustments in registration, but still has to keep playing all 4 parts all the time.)
And as well as hymns, there's voluntaries, music during communion and, if there's a choir, various stuff to accompany it.
That all adds up to quite a lot of music, some of it quite demanding, to be delivered every week, or possibly several times a week, with much of it changing from one week to the next.
With grade 3 under my belt, I'm not yet at the point where I can play a complete service on the organ, let alone at the point where I could just turn up half an hour beforehand and sight-read things, the way I do on flute. (I reckon I'll be about grade 5 before I can do the former, and grade 8+ before I could even consider doing the latter.)

I really struggle to get hymns service ready. As I'm just starting out, I usually get given at least a week's notice of what hymns I have to learn - 2 weeks if I'm lucky (and if there's any that I can't get up to scratch in time, the real organist plays those ones). But once you get to the point of /being/ the real organist, you might not be told what the hymns are until a day or two beforehand, or maybe even not until just before the service and you don't have someone else there to play ones you find too difficult.

I've also been told to learn a particular voluntary, from scratch, with 2 weeks notice. Easy for an experienced organist. Terrifying for a beginner like me! It was made somewhat worse by the fact that I spent a week and a half perfecting the first page before discovering the existance of a further 2 pages, which left me about 3 days in which to learn them. (Since then, I always double check for extra pages.) So, before I'd even started work for grade 3, I was playing something in a solo performance situation which I'd been working on for only 3 days. Eeeek!
Stuff like that just doesn't tend to happen to beginners on other instruments. (You have to be crazy to decide to play the organ, and if you're not crazy when you start, you will be by the time you've been playing it a while!)

AB exams for organ are much the same as their exams for anything else, apart from requiring sight-transposition at grades 6-8. So the particular challenges of service playing (needing to have lots of pieces up to standard at the same time, not having a say in which hymns you have to play, doing playovers/introductions, playing accompaniments, etc) aren't tested.

The reality for most people learning the organ is that, sooner or later, being an organist is going to include some service playing. Even if you don't take up a church position, you're likely to maintain links with churches (after all, that's where you find most of the organs!) and be asked to help out occasionally. So, service playing skills are an important thing for organists to develop.

Changing the AB organ exams to test those skills would stop them from being comparable to AB exams in other instruments - not a good thing.
Changing the AB exams in all subjects to make similar demands on everyone to those placed on organists? - also not a good thing.

The AB could introduce additional exams in service playing for organists, but as organists already have RSCM and RCO exams available, I think it would be unnecessary.


My point was that there are schemes in existence which take the "learn lots of pieces and the examiner will select some to hear" approach that someone (AP?) had proposed, but that this approach is being used to test something fairly specialised (for which it works very well) and wouldn't transfer well to more general exams.

T.

But it wouldn't be "the same cost as always". Woodwind players would have to pay the accompanist to learn 3 pieces - only 2 of which would be used. String players could very well be already playing 3 accompanied pieces, and do not always (by ANY stretch) have the option to choose an unaccompanied piece, so would likely have to pay the accompanist to learn 4 pieces. Plus, if one can rote learn 3 pieces then rote learning 4 is hardly a challenge... so to make it fair and comparable to the 10 pieces for piano, we're talking a wider choice, and more pieces to pay one's accompanist for. Could get silly REALLY easily.


Yes - sorry Teigr, I am actually in total agreement with you - I was more pointing out that the very reason the exam was like that is because it's examining a very specialised skill! Sorry, I didn't post very clearly!

It's quite a different thing to learn 10 pieces (even up to performance standard) and to have 10 pieces which are all "at performance standard" at the same time.


It is not a question of whether a piece is "up to standard" but whether an examiner has any idea whether it's being played well. There simply isn't time in an exam timetable for the examiner to look at every piece of music for every candidate, and with copyright etc it often isn't feasible to have copies made for the examiner to look at as the candidate plays. More pieces mean it is less likely for an examiner to know pieces well even in the commonly examined pieces, which means they will be even less well equipped to know whether, say, in a piece with complex interaction between parts, the piece was played well, just for an example. Examiners do sometimes look at music - I've had it happen to me. Usually it seems they know enough of the repertoire played to them to make a reasonable judgement so that occasionally having to have a quick look at the piece before or after the performance doesn't make things overrun overall. If there was enough on the syllabus for each student to have a choice to learn 10 pieces from a list that would have to be somewhat bigger than that to give a choice, then even in the commonly examined instruments the examiners would likely be constantly coming across music they had to look at to have an idea of how faithful the performance was. 30 seconds isn't a lot, but for 3 pieces for each exam over the course of an exam period, that would add up into more time which would either result in lots of slow running or exams needing more time allowed and thus becoming more expensive.


Most students find it difficult to maintain 3 pieces to performance standard without one going off the boil or getting sick of one of them. Even if those pieces are below their level... it's very easy for boredom to set in.


But possibly a lower standard of real polish and flair in the playing of those pieces, which is after all the hoped for end result of learning music and passing exams - making music that's worth listening to. I wouldn't especially want to listen to "Pretty good, considering that's a random selection from 10 pieces!" performances myself... it misses the point! As Dulciana says, one wants to hear music that makes one "sit up and listen". Not music that is "pretty good, considering!"!!!!


When they get the date of the exam: That gives between 2 and 5 weeks for those pieces to be polished beyond recognition. Which seems both to partially defeat the object of your system in the first place, and most certainly leaves candidates unfairly subject to the vagaries of the postal service, even if all the exam dates were sent out an exact period before the exam.


Nerves wise, not a lot better than being told on the day.


Strange but true, not everyone has internet access. (Unfair to rely on vagaries of postal service once more - or indeed the 'net, which is brilliant until it throws a wobbly, and then one might not be able to access the information. Nightmare time.) And if one is keen on candidates being at least vaguely generalist, you would need software that would be able to pick a decent varied programme. Or someone paid to sit and work it out.


... which would contribute towards an unwieldy and unworkable system IMO.


I don't have a clue what you're trying to say here...

Well, it's still kind of a theoretical discussion, and I'm very doubtful the exams style will even be changed at all, and I'm not suggesting the system be implemented (but I wouldn't mind it if it were). I'm just suggesting a theoretical solution to the idea that one may only know how to perform 3 pieces well and nothing else.



But if that is truly all you want, then the current system is fine. However, if in some theoretical situation where there was only a choice between people being able to play a single perfectly polished piece rather than all pieces from their grade under to a reasonable standard, with a few pieces touched up on, then surely you would just assign them an FRSM piece to learn from their very first lesson to go over for a few years to get up to perfection? My brother just wanted to learn Moonlight Sonata 3rd Movement on the piano, and that's it really, and that's perfectly fine if that's all you want to do. In terms of the technical aspect of it, he is doing fairly well, and hasn't got bored of the piece at all.

What I was saying in the earlier post was when you implied it favoured people being 'really good sight-readers', which surely couldn't be the case? And even if it were, good sight-reading is normally a sign of a decent standard, anyway?

But in terms of a credible qualification, even though Grade 1-8 aren't 'professional certificates' like Dip, etc., for a non-musician looking at the qualification, they expect a good standard overall, as opposed to one apocryphal piece and the others substandard. If there were a student who was a first time learner child, and then somebody waving a Grade 8 certificate came around offering to teach them, and then the parent then heard this person unable to perform themselves any of the pieces they were offering to teach, but managed to play a first, brilliant piece to get through the initiation stage if asked, then the parent would probably have to sack this teacher, and would never look at the certificate as a valid way of ascertaining the standard of a teacher ever again.


~Wobby~

Wobby, I'm confused because I don't think I have ever suggested that being able to play one piece to a fantastic level and nothing else would ever be good use of one's time or abilities?!? If that is the impression you have had from my postings then there has certainly be a huge misunderstanding somewhere.

This is an interesting thread.

Let me tell you about my Grade 7 piano, which in retrospect, I took a term earlier than I should have done.

I got 106 marks, which were made up as follows: 18, 20 and 21 for the pieces, 13 for the scales, 17 for the sight reading and 17 for the aural.

If I'd taken the exam the following term I would have undoubtably scored higher on the pieces. I knew the scales well, but nerves and shaking hands meant all my staccato scales went to pieces. Another term's practice might have made a bit of difference, but not much. I would have been unlikely to improve the sight reading and aural marks (unless I spotted the dominant 7th that time!).

If I had failed in July (because i had failed one of the pieces), I would have resat the exam in the autumn. I considered doing so in any case, but was talked out of it by my piano teacher.

And, if I had passed with a better mark in the autumn (my previous two piano exams having been merits), I might not be in the position of doubting my abilities so much now.

Alternatively, having failed, I might just have given up. Who knows?