Hello....Earth calling the Chief Examiner......is there anybody out there?

I don't think, checking back, we were promised immediate responses from Clara Taylor. If I've understood the initial posting correctly, it seems she will choose a few topics and reply in a group about every 4-6 weeks. Given that she must be hugely busy and probably doesn't have time to linger in the forums (unlike us ) that seems fair enough to me.

That said, it would be good to have some initial responses now after all the first enthusiasm that has prompted a lot of posts.

Here's hoping.....

Isn't this a little rude? Would you say it to her face? Just wondering.

Yet somehow, in the run-up to a higher-grade exam, we have to make sure that the pupils know all of their scales <bangs head against wall trying to remember if she asked for E melodic minor three octaves last week or not>

Seriously, what would be useful is if past syllabi could be made readily available, and the website seems to be an ideal place for it. It would stop (or at least, hopefully reduce) the number of "what grade is this piece" threads, would provide a useful resource for anyone preparing for a diploma (you want QS material? Have a look at the appropriate old syllabi for your instrument); in fact, for anyone wanting material acknowledged as being of a certain level but without necessarily having "Grade Whatever" all over the cover.

exactly Sarah - I think you are absolutely right. The more you do the better/easier it will become. Definitely.

A good thread - revealing lots of interesting ways of seeing all this "music thing" - different prejudices and mindsets!!
I don't think any exam system can be perfect, if by that you mean suitable for all. As Neil suggests, it should be trying to help develop a well-rounded musician. It's not just about testing what you CAN do... it's more far-reaching than that.

As to developing repertoire... then don't do exams, you are only asked to play 3 pieces. How about an exam that asks for 7 or 8 pieces... plus some improvisation (it's not just for jazz).. composition... aurals.. conducting etc etc that shouldn't be so narrow then!!
As Neil said also, you can't really choose the bits you are good at and reject the tricky bits (for you)...

Good luck to Clara in sorting through all this interesting thread. Thanks for initiating it.

Hi everyone,

As I said originally, Clara will provide a collection of answers to a selection of the most popular and interesting questions every four to six weeks - it would be a huge task to answer every query individually (and immediately) and her other responsibilities are fairly important! If we find that the thread is particularly popular we may revise that timescale but it will remain in place for now.

Another question... the exams increase in price as the grade gets higher, irrespective of whether the exam gets additional time or not (so Grade 1 and 2 woodwind are the same length but cost different amounts). Why? I understand that higher grades need a longer exam time... and therefore should cost more... but if the exam is the same length of time... is it harder to examine Grade 2 than Grade 1?

Sorry if it came across that way, not meant to be rude - but why start a thread and then leave us all hanging? I'm sure CT has a sense of humour and will take the remark in the spirit it was intended.

I looked at this thread this morning for the first time and found it quite frustrating because of the way all the topics are mixed up. Wouldn't it be more helpful to Clara if there were a way to keep questions and comments on e.g. scales and aural tests separate? I felt I could usefully do a composite response to six messages about aural tests and eleven about scales. Whether I shall manage either or not remains to be seen...

Yes, that would be immensely useful.

But she's not keeping us hanging. It says in the first post that her replies will be on a monthly to 6 weekly basis - the thread only started on May 9th so we've got a while yet before we get a response from her.

Yes, it has been less than a week! Give the woman a chance!

Hi dacapo,

If the thread remains as popular as it is now we may consider creating more focused topics within a broad 'Ask the Chief Examiner' theme but for now we would rather not lead the debate by imposing restrictive structures from above - it's intriguing to see which questions and areas of interest are most popular when people have the freedom to ask whatever they like.

As someone who had to work VERY hard to achieve a pass at Grade VIII piano, I think it's a pity but pretty predictable that people here are effectively asking for the higher grades to be "dumbed down" (fewer scales, less/no aural etc.)

One of the true glories of the ABRSM exams is that they're more or less the same as they always were (except for the pieces offered in List C, natch ) There's none of the "coursework" element that has so degraded academic exams at GCSE and A level - if you pass Grade VI now you're just as good as someone who passed it ten, twenty, thirty years ago.

Some people upthread - possibly teachers - mentioned pupils who were struggling for hours and hours to learn the 100+ scales for the higher grades. Surely this is more a sign that those people have reached their natural plateau of passing exams? Or maybe they need to take a bit more time before moving on - learning new repertoire etc. I found some aspects of the Grade VIII syllabus extremely challenging - legato scales in major thirds, for example - but if this were taken out of the syllabus Grade VIII would be diminished.

I guess it's all symptomatic of the current trends in education, that everyone should go on to higher education, whereas any sensible analysis would show that you should concentrate on what you're good at. Otherwise we'll end up in the ridiculous situation where being able to play Fur Elise will be sufficient for FRSM.

Edward

On the idea of sight-singing being scrapped from the practical exam, I would agree, but not necessarily on the basis of other's arguements - I don't think the problem is in the singing itself, but the relevance to the practical exam. I think that perhaps rather than scrapping it altogether, it should be moved into either higher level Theory exams, or possibly an optional part of the possible 'Composition Exams' mentioned below? Because I think it is there to test a musician's ability to hear the basic tune of the song before they play it, which would tie into good groundings in theory and composition, surely, rather than the practical aspect?




I love this idea! And then if this idea goes through:

Possibly, with each of the candidate composer's permission, they could be used for the sight-reading pieces instead - my main problem with sight-reading at times was the sense that they occasionally they didn't feel like real pieces... at least if they were pieces the candidate composer's composed, then a) The sight-reading would have the structure of a genuine piece, and b) It would be a very nice compliment to the candidate composers too, and might make them more enthusiastic in their work!

Or, maybe (I'm probably pushing my luck) use the best candidate compositions of the grade they're composing for as available choices for part of the contemporary pieces for List C? Then it really would be 'music of the modern people'!

(Or, if the idea doesn't go through, then maybe use some people's compositions in the Theory exam for Sight-reading Grade 1/2?)





Hmm... although this is not really another suggestion, I think that this helps demonstrate my point in favour of not scrapping the multitude of scales.

I think the idea of lots of scales is that if you are at a sufficient standard and have played lots of pieces in different keys, then you should have naturally improved in your scales. And then you are being tested on this 'natural improvement'.

I think the main reason that people are likely to complain is that they spend hours trying to master every scale, being the perfectionists musicians are, when perhaps the purpose was just to get a general grasp of the musicians abilities from the way they play scales without having addition practice. And not being able to play a certain scale at all would show poor roundness of ability, no? The purpose of increasing the number of scales with the grade is to demostrate a musician's ability to play in many keys, so if they have played a piece in that certain key, then they should at least be able to do OK in it.

And thus onto Neil's point, maybe the latter way in which he left the scales down to his natural ability was what was expected of candidates all along?

So maybe either increase the number of scales heard by the examiner (but let the candidates know that this should not mean that they spend hours trying to perfect each and every scale, but play with their natural improved ability at playing over time), or reduce the percentage that scales takes, and put more on pieces or something?

~Wobby~

Scales serve a purpose which aid in the developement of musical ability on the instrument you are playing. I fail to see how singing back four bar phrases will aid my flute playing or anything else for that matter. Then there is the factor of how useful it will be e.g. will a conductor ever ask you stand up and start singing a four bar passage previously played by the bassons?

Or play a scale?

Touche

Well just going over it mathematically if you get 20 on each of the pieces thats you up to 60, 16 for scales and sight reading, which takes you to 92. Thereby 8 marks make the difference between pass and fail. There are of course other permutations e.g. 10 on sight reading, 23 on two pieces, 20 on study, 17 for scales giving 93 and 7 required to pass. I think in sich cases a trained singer would have a distinct change of passing whereas an instrumentalist is doubtful to.

Since when was singing part of rounded musicianship? If you are a singer it makes sense to sing but if you are an instrumentalist it will seldom if ever be required therefore in examination terms it serves no valid purpose.




If i'm ever asked to play a scalic passage i think the conductor would appreciate me being able to play that scale well. I rather doubt standing up and singing it instead of playing the passage would work as well. Do you?



Don't get me started on irony i've just started trying to forget English before my other exams start.
The fact is scales become easy through practice for everyone. If they practice with sufficient rigour it will eventually fall into place and apart from anything else they are crucial to playing the instrument well. Singing on the other hand does not always improve with practice and has no bearing on how well i play my instrument thereby it has no place in an exam which tests instrumental ability.



How long do you think we spend playing the 3 pieces for the exam? I think if you added up the time it would be somewhat in excess of 3 times that spent on scales.
As to decreasing the difficulty i was told by a music teacher in schol that the SQA by decreasing the level of pieces required by a grade was not decreasing the difficulty of the exam as whole. If her argument was correct then yours might well be but i disagree on both counts.

A thread for questions to the Chief Examiner is not really the place to debate these issues, but you seem to be confusing necessity of a skill with the ability to improve through practise. It is not that black and white. Some will improve scales and singing and anything else through more practise. Others will hit a brick wall with any of these things depending on where their strengths lie. Sorry, not as simple as you make it out to be.

I take your point about the mathematics of aural, but still, 20 for pieces is quite poor and for all pieces even more so. A lot of people will have one or maybe two weaker marks but if all are that poor you are relying on making up with the aural. That is not the purpose of it.

There is a whole seperate thread in this (if not a doctoral thesis )

Since man first opened his mouth and sang?



In my experience, it does.

I'm not sure about the Dips but if they have cut them out it will only be because they are already covered in Gr.8. Hence they can presuppose that you are able to play them.
I did tone down my get rid of aurals altogether stance. As i said earlier the naming of cadences and analysis of passages does play a significant role and is beneficial for future tasks including some aspects of the Dips Viva Voce and Programme notes. In the actual sung element they appear to serve no purpose in the overall development of instrumental thereby they serve no purpose in an instrumental exam.

Speaking as a professional educator, albeit not music, arguing from the point of view of whether changes are dumbing down,
or whether particular individuals are consistent in their point of view, is pointless. It can only go round in circles as we are seeing.

The professional way out of the impasse is to decide on your objectives; what do you want to be able to say about someone who has passed, with the minimum mark, a certain exam? These need to be assessable, realistic
and relevant.

It seems to me that scales, aural and sightreading are on a list of useful skills that were decided to be assessable.
There are other possibilities such as improvisation, historical knowledge of the chosen pieces etc etc that could
well vie for space in an exam. So, that is one problem.

Next, you have to decide does the assessment test the objectives. And here we have the crux of the arguments we are seeing.
How many scales? What sort of aural?

To answer these, you have to go back to the objectives.....

If the objective is to have instantaneous memory recall of 200 plus scales and arpeggios, then that is what the
test should have, but you shouldn't then also test how beautifully all 200 are played (unrealistic).
If the objective is to understand them, then there should be a little time allowed to work
them out (instead of being penalised for hesitating). If the objective is to play beautiful pearly scales, then why not
restrict the number you can ask? If you play several of them beautifully, no doubt you can play similar ones beautifully
if necessary given a little practice time. And so on.

Arguing over the objectives is an informative process and it's easier to agree on what is a fair exam if you have clear
objectives.

I don't know but i think this is demonstrating my point. It is possible to improve scales through practice just as it is possible to improve memory. It is not, however, always possible to pitch notes based on one four bar passage. Why should there be a component which precludes people from doing well and, as Neil concedes, getting a distinction or even a pass based on a variable over which they have no control.

loops: Yes. And going back to my last point, I believe in scales they are testing your knowledge and the speed to which you adapt to different keys, and not trying to get 'beautiful pearly scales'.


I assume they just want to see whether a musician can adapt to different keys quickly (i.e. so not too long a hesitation) and their understanding of the scales (i.e. fairly fluent) - both of which I presume the expect to improve as one's standard improves with time.


Therefore, perhaps it is lack of understanding from the candidates in that they are not expected to perfect every single individual scale; rather they should play the scales as they would be in their natural state? Thus, the multitude of scales would not be too unrealistic, as they didn't want you to perfect each one, thus the reason for having so many in the first place? After all, it is an examination session and not an 'improvement session'. (The suggested improvements are to come from the evaluation after the exam - I thought that was the point!)


But maybe I've got it wrong?


Anyway, let's get back onto the issue - I've already kind of made my suggestions in the last post (although they'll only work if somebody else's suggestion is accepted)!

~Wobby~

I'd agree with you that we shouldn't be looking to dumb down the syllabus and i think it should be avoided if at all possible. I am not against an aural segment per se, just against onw which it is sometimes impossible to improve regardless of the time and effort expended on it. I would have no objections were the singing elements removed to improvising, composing, analysing and comparing multiple passages...numerous other fields just so long as it is possible to improve through practice.
I'd agree with the GCSE and A level comment, fyi Adv Highers are considered by Universities to be the only qualification not to have declined in academic rigour.

I think this is my last post on this subject before too many cans containing worms are opened, but snhs, you appear to be arguing with far more experienced teachers than yourself. The concensus here is most things can be improved through practise, and if one is going to fail an exam by not coping they should not be entered.

Anyway, this is going . I hope the CE doesn't lose sight of the issues here. There are some fascinating questions brought up.

Erm. No, they don't always become easy for everyone. Read a few posts (and from some very fine musicians none the less) and you will find there are a few who find them impossible to memorise, even though they can play them perfectly well and they practise a LOT.


I'd be inclined to agree, on my scanty experience of exams as an adult.

I spent a lot more time, as a child, practising scales (piano and violin exams), not sure I ever completely understood them, never did that great in exams.

As an adult (flute and recorder exams) I haven't practised them as much, and in my recorder exam (G1 challenge) particularly got a much better mark than I expected (not great by any stretch - just good enough to surprise me) despite really not having practised them enough at all. In my flute exam I think I got 19/21 - despite a few blemishes that I noticed, and restarting at least a couple of them. Probably because it was fairly obvious that I did know them, and that mistakes were due to exam nerves.

Maybe this is another question for the Chief Examiner: what is the most important thing to aim for with scales?!

I don't know but i'd have said it was for the Chief Examiner to decide if this is the place to discuss such issues. Besides which by discussing the issues here she will be able to deal with multiple views at one time rather than 10 or 20 queries all asking the same question from a slightly different view point.

I would not have said that singing can be improved with practice for everyone. The key criteria for fairness and accesibility must surely be whether something is attainable and not weighing an examination in favour of a particular skill set. Someone may be completely tone deaf, unable to pitch to certain keys or chords assurences on it. It is also possible to argue that the current set is biased (slightly) in favour of females at the lower grades where an upper part is sung and vice versa with higher grades. Even in the boards own aural books there are only one or two examples in the bass clef while all the others are in the treble again disadvantaging certain candidates.

The fact is scales are something you can play hundreds of times before you set foot in an exam room. You decide how much time to spend on them. What their worth in the exam is relative to the amount of practice you give them. Unlike the aural where you are entirely subject to fate. Why should there not be a set of aural excerpts that the examiner could ask for at least that would give a slightly more even playing field? Ultimately i see the best solution to be removing the sung element and all the biase it creates in the exam and doubling, tripling..dodecupling the analysis element or adding something else entirely.

If you really want i can give you a circumstance where a pupil would get full marks on the three pieces and still fail, but that would be too predictable.



In terms of practicality singing in not useful in the majority of orchestral posts etc. I am sure there are several musicians in top class orchestras who are unable to pitch four bar passages after one or two hearings but i am sure there will be few if any who couldn't rattle up and down scales for you.
In certain people singing does improve with pratice but siginificant proportions of people find it impossible.

Someone who is truly tonedeaf hears music as noise and would be highly unlikely to want to learn to play it.

There are alternative aural tests for those with hearing difficulties.

And those who are tonedeaf would also be disadvantaged in the analysis sections of the aural which you are happy to keep...

(One could also argue that the anaylsis/cadence/chord recognition parts of the aurals are biased towards pianists and other harmony instrumentalists)

I did not imply that you didn't know how long needs to be spent preparing any element of the exam. Scales once known properly and fully internalised do not require daily practice. Although it may take two hours to play them all once, which i am not certain of, a simple programme of practicing a set number each day will allow all of them to be learnt by the day of the exam. If two hours is the sum total of time spent preparing the scale element then i am certain that between lesson time and home practice the pieces will get far more.

I am quite happy for those candidates to move to another board if that is their wish ultimately its at the discretion of the board to make a decision between the integrity of the qualification and the financial implications.

I was using my teachers argument as an example just as i disagree with her so too do i disagree with you. If we reduce the number of scales, the amount of knowledge required, the exam is made inherently easier.
I've mentioned my practical grade in other threads it is however of no conseqence to this discussion.

They do for some people.

Perfectly possible. A disastorous scale element in which 5-9 marks are awarded may result in a young candidate fleeing the exam room before attempting the remaining segments. Equally it is possible a candidate may refuse to do singing, muck up the analysis element, and do catastrophically badly on scales and sight reading.
It is doubtful but numerically possible.
It is not possible in all cases and i don't think in every circumstance it can be improved.

I wasn't going to join the debate here as I'm not sure that it's the right place but as far as piano goes I think that saying there are 100 plus scales for grade 8 is making it seem much bigger than it actually is.
There are 8 major and 8 minor keys (16 if you really want to count harmonic and melodic separately).
Hopefully by the time someone is at this level they will have gradually learnt them all.
In some ways I think it's less of a memory thing than an understanding how scales are constructed, yes, you do need to get the finger patterns but as this can be built up over a number of years it needn't be a huge learning task.
You have to play the scales in different ways (3rds and 6ths) but that doesn't make them different scales, just a different coordination trick to learn and after the first few it gets easier.
Arpeggios are probably easier to see the patterns.

Once I'd got everything up and running by adding new thigs gradually I was covering the whole grade 8 scale syllabus on half an hour a day..... given that a short warm up takes me about 20 minutes now I'm not doing scales as a regular activity (use them as warm up some days) that is not an excessive amount of time.

People learn by arguing hence i have no hesitation in 'arguing' or debating, as i would put it, with anyone.
Concur with the CE comment hope we have't confused the issues too much.



Science has demonstrated numerous ways in which the memory can be improved for anyone.
Someone will learn scales by memory if they play them frequently enough they become embedded and eventually second nature. I think what often happens is people are daunted by the number and see it as an impossible task whereas if they took the scales grade by grade doing a few a day they would eventually know all of them.

...and some people do all the "right" things and still find it impossible to memorise them accurately.

And re: aurals, as you apparently missed this:


Someone who is truly tonedeaf (amusic) hears music as noise and would be highly unlikely to want to learn to play it.

There are alternative aural tests for those with hearing difficulties.

And those who are tonedeaf would also be disadvantaged in the analysis sections of the aural which you are happy to keep...

(One could also argue that the anaylsis/cadence/chord recognition parts of the aurals are biased towards pianists and other harmony instrumentalists)

Arguably the whole exam system is biased towards pianists but that is for another day.
Possibly tone deathness was a bad example but there are many people simply unable to pitch notes properly.



Sorry it took so long but everyone seems to be against this position. I actually replied to the second part just before you made this post.
I'm not an expert on memory or for that matter music and biology. I am almost certain that if you do something frequently enough over a prolonged period of time you will ultimately know it by memory. If you ask the same people how to ride a bike they will almost certainly remember how even though it may be several years/decades since they last rode one the same is true of memorising poems, phrases and of course musical notes patterns and therefore scales.

Possibly? You think??

If someone has a genuine, physical, insoluble problem, they should be offered alternative tests. Very few people are in that category. And let's remember, it's pitch - NOT vocal quality or anything else - that is being tested. Candidates are allowed to whistle or hum.

Personally I think that the sight-singing tests in the earlier grades are an unsatisfactory test, but I do think that what they are trying to test (I think!) - interval recognition and reproduction - is an important skill.

re: scales - so how you you explain someone with a high mark in a diploma exam, who spent a lot of time practising scales, and still cannot remember them?

And how would you propse we test this pitch deficient quality?
There was an absolute pitch hearing test posted a few days ago and one of the posters got significantly different results dependant on the day and familarity with the test. It would also be possible to fail such tests on purpose.
I would disagree that interval recognition and reproduction are important in the long run. They serve no useful purpose in virtually all areas of life.
Very easily - Subconciously they are actually extremely familiar with scales they simply associate playing them in isolation with lack of sucess therby if asked to play one they tend to play it unsucessfully whereas in the context of a piece they can reproduce it perfectly. I've never done psychology so there's probably a technical term for it.

Except jazz, improvisation, playing in tune, playing by ear, composing away from an instrument, sight-singing in choirs, being able to "hear" a piece of music before sight-reading it....... just for a few areas of life...


So based on your totally expert knowledge you know that pitching cannot always be learned but scales always can........?!

*throws up hands*

*gives up*

Did you type the last line with your nose, then?

very quick, YAP!

I thought you were referring to me for a second

Car Expert

CE: it's been confusing me all day when people have been using that abbreviation

Anyway. Sorry.

I can play in tune, can compose away from an instrument, and hear a piece of music in my head before sight-reading it - and my intervals and aural are hopeless.

Hehe, I feel so 'duh' for taking so long to click with that one!

And CE, that got me confused for a while too!

(Maybe we should get the Mods to ignore these last few posts - i.e. 'ignore page 6 to 7'? As I don't think it's too helpful to their cause! )

~Wobby~

This is called proof by exhaustion.
Jazz improvisation is accomplished by knowing arpeggios, dom/dim sevenths etc all of which are associated with scales. Given the chord sequence of the keyboard player i can formulate a reasonably pleasing improvisation despite having very poor interval recognition. As to singing i've yet to see any need for it in my improvisation if i do you'll be the first to hear about it.
As to playing in tune we now have wonderful electronic gadgets which do the job for us. Therby removing that 'requirement'.
I think Choristers would generally go in for singing exams quite why the same component is in instrumental exams i don't know. Thanks for highlighting how illogical the situation is.
Again knowledge of chords allows you to compose away from an instrument and with basic harmonic knowledge it is perfectly possible to do just a well without being able to vocally reproduce even a single note of the composition.
Before sight reading a piece of music i generally have my flute and either play through it or finger through the more difficult passages, also aided by scales. Sight recognition indentifies the intervals and any additional support issues that need consideration.

Precisely. Some people are simply unable to pitch as it does not use memory functions. I am unaware of any scientific reasearch which demostrates pitch recognition can be improved. I am quite certain that scales can be learnt with effort, patience and time.

ps - what's to say this:

"Very easily - Subconciously they are actually extremely familiar with scales they simple associate playing them in isolation with lack of sucess therby if asked to play one they tend to play it unsucessfully whereas in the context of a piece they can reproduce it perfectly. I've never done psychology so there's probably a technical term for it."

...doesn't apply in exactly the same way to singing in tune (or not) - yet you're willing to let non-singers off, but the ones who can't memorise scales... tough luck guys... Ah well.

Because those same people are likely to find singing anything in tune just as difficult unlike instrumentalists who are able to master scales quite easily in the context of pieces and, in the case of certain syllabi, memorise entire concertos.
As i've said science proves memory can be improved pitch, a factor independant of memory, can not be improved by any way of which i am aware.