Hi everyone,

We're introducing a new forum feature which will offer you all the opportunity to directly submit your questions about ABRSM examinations, syllabuses and courses to our Chief Examiner, Clara Taylor! Clara will regularly visit this topic to make a selection of the most interesting, popular and unusual queries and her most recent responses to chosen questions will be posted to the General Music Forum on a monthly to six weekly basis.

Are you confused by choral singing exams? Baffled by the bassoon syllabus? Puzzled by Performance Assessment? Take advantage of Clara's considerable expertise and ask the burning questions that are on your mind!

You may begin...

I would like to know if the board has any plans to introduce graded examinations in composition please?

I'd like to know if the ABRSM have considered introducing a theory diploma exam, similar to the AMusTCL offered by Trinity/Guildhall. I'm working towards Grade 8 theory and would like to do a diploma; at present I'll need to transfer to another board in order to do it.

Just like to add I think having this thread is a great idea.

I would like to second this. At Grade 6 there are over 100 scales and arpeggios that the candidate needs to be thoroughly familiar with. In theory as they proceed up the grades they will be learning them gradually, but in practice they still need to revise everything they've done for all other grades, as well as learning some new ones. No one will deny that learning scales is an essential skill, facilitating dexterous fingers for playing pieces, but over 100 when the examiner can only hear very few of these in the exam?

I agree, and not only for piano (having just spent most of the last 2 hours playing through the 261 assorted requirements for the Grade 8 recorder scales section....)

When I was a child of about 5 my piano teacher had an LRSM certificate above her piano. It was very impressive, lots of curly writing, gold and other colours, at least A3 size.

My question is:

Did the LRSM certificates used to look like that, and if so, why the change to the boring A4 things that resemble degree certificates from any old university?

Yes - thirded ! One of my adult students regards this as a feat of memory that is virtually impossible for him.

I would like to ask why the Board doesn't think it necessary to have a warm-up room (with a piano) for candidates at every exam venue. (I know some venues do, but it's not standard). I'm sure they can afford it!

Whoops, sorry I duplicated your question - it is late though so please forgive me!

Just wanted to say "Hear Hear". I agree with everything you've said and will be very interested in you receiving reply. I've changed to the LCM because of the same reasons. Have changed to them as I 'm already familiar with the LCM as they offer graded exams for the keyboard, which I also teach as well as piano. However, I'm going to investigate Trinity's syllabus too soon.

Good thread.

Too many scales - yes!

Written/composition diplomata - yes!

How long will it be before jazz exams are offered at Grade 6 and above? Could you even think about jazz diplomata like London College does?



BTW my 2001 LRSM certificate is bigger than A4 and has some calligraphy on it.

I couldn't think of any alliteration for this.

How about the abrsm approaching the OU about some sort of collaboration below FRSM level? The OU has various arrangements with partner institutions where the OU itself awards the qualification and the partner institute does the assessing. Lots of us here have done OU music courses but they don't offer a full degree because they can only offer courses that cover theory, history and analysis. Some sort of partnership for music qualifications, maybe even a full BMus degree, would surely only increase take-up for both institutions.

Liz

What would ABRSM attitude be to a candidate using a five string viola (strung C, G, D, A, E ) in a viola exam?

And other unconventional instruments, e.g. electric bowed strings? (I know electric guitar is specifically forbidden in the guitar regs, I assume the same would apply to bowed strings, but just curious)

I would like to ask about the performance assessment exam. These Music Exams suggests that we should prepare 15 minutes of music, and that the examiner discusses with you what you want to get out of the assessment before you start, and how you did afterwards, then sends you away with a written assessment. How is this possible if the exam itself is also 15 minutes? Should we actually prepare, say, 10 minutes of music?

(Great thread.)

I was wondering why the Aural Tests have to include memory tests?

Many adult pupils (especially) are simply unable to remember the first piece of music to compare it with the second. ( I certainly can't remember four bars to sing back ).

It seems unfair to test something which cannot be improved through effort.

Actually I thought that memory efficiency could be improved by effort/practice...?

The mark schemes for Grade 1 to 5 are the same. I understand that a Grade 5 piece is harder than a Grade 1 piece, but is that the only variation between the grades? So an examiner would mark a grade 1 student, obviously playing an easier piece, in the same way as he would mark a Grade 5 candidate? So the same level of tonality, is expected from a Grade1 candidate as a Grade 5? A Grade 1 candidate should show the same mastery of the instrument to enable him to play dynamics effectively, for example, as a Grdae 5 candidate?

I'd like to ask this question too started a topic about it a while ago: is the marking standard for grade 5 really the same as that for grade 1 as in the official literature; or is better playing required in reality as would seem sensible. Surely, for example, a grade 5 pianist would be expected to have better tone and dynamic control than a grade 1 pianist to pass; similarly a grade 5 violinist would be expected to have a better grasp of intonation.

I also have a controversial one: what does the board think of the practice of entering the same exam twice in the same session to maximise the chances of passing? This is allowed, and seems popular in some areas, but doesn't seem to reflect well on the system.

Another one I just thought of, a topic that comes around quite a lot: why aren't the grade exams recorded to ensure quality assurance when the diploma exams are? Obviously cost is a factor but if the extra assurance is needed to ensure equal standards why isn't it needed lower down?

Nice thread, I'm sure we'll get some interesting answers .

I also have a controversial one: what does the board think of the practice of entering the same exam twice in the same session to maximise the chances of passing? This is allowed, and seems popular in some areas, but doesn't seem to reflect well on the system.

I agree - to me it seems like abuse of the system. I suppose it would be turning away revenue otherwise - but I too am interested to know whether the board seriously do not sometimes question this use of the exams? I wonder how examiners feel about it too.

Some people must be made of money! But seriously, if this is common practice, surely the board ought to get the message that teachers don't think exam marking is all that consistent?

Liz

I would also be interested to hear the answer to AP's question...

There are some really intriguing (and very mildly controversial ) questions on this thread - keep them coming!

Hear! Hear! I recently had a grade 6 pupil who really struggled with remembering all the different scale patterns - she coped OK up to grade 5 but once I had introduced the new minor scales, everything went pear-shaped and it didn't matter how many different ways of practising them we tried, she just couldn't get them all sorted in her memory and was spending far more of her practice time trying to sort these out, to the detriment of her pieces, sight-reading and aural (she was a sixth-former too so was snowed under with homework and coursework etc.) She passed, but I think she would have done better if she hadn't had to do all the scales - especially when only a handful are required in the actual exam - as she could have spent more time on the other sections of the exam. To me, it just seems like a giant memory test and nothing more.........

This might be a tall order, but here goes...........(cough, cough).....Get Rid of AURAL!!!
For me, aural is the destroyer of practical exams (I do well on the other parts of the exam, aural just ruins everything......sometimes).

Could it be made more approachable (easier)?. I know it's a vital part of musical knowledge etc., but is all what you get in the exam relevant?
*she grins at the hope of aural being made easier/got rid of *

EDIT: could it be made possible to allow the use of CD accompaniment if someone is desperate? i.e. with my last exam, it was very difficult getting hold of an accompanist (There was lots of ringing around and asking at college if anyone was available). I must have phoned near on 10 people! Thankfully, I managed to get hold of one at the last minute and managed to fit in a quick rehearsal. I may have ended up not taking the exam (due to no accompanist); £62 down the drain. I know trinity allow CDs, could ABRSM? Maybe not so good for the higher grades, possibly for the lower ones?

I am a singing teacher but I do agree with Noodle. One of my pupils is having lessons in order to cope with the singing back part of aurals...doesn't seem fair

I'd like to ask if there is any way for teachers to offer feedback on syllabuses after they have been in use for a couple of terms.

And, as a supplementary, why the new flute syllabus will be in force for 6, rather than 4 years, especially when the new exam pieces book contains only three choices for each list. Whilst I know there will be a number of other options available, it is likely that candidates will opt for the pieces 'in the book' rather than spending extra money on other material, and I can envisage being slowly driven mad in five or six years time.

Finally, why will the flute part + CD not be available as a package? The flute part+ piano part+ CD comes at a very high price compared with the flute part on its own. Most Grade 1 students would be happy with just the flute part, with the teacher buying the complete set to have the piano part available when required.

SIX YEARS????????????????!

Yes, the blurb for the seminars in the Autumn says 2008-2013.

Blimey. It'd better be good

Can i second the get rid of aurals suggestion.
As someone pointed out earlier it seems unfair to expect singing and instrumental candidates to sit the same aural test after all you wouldn't try handing a violin to a singer and asking her to play something back by ear in an exam.
In addition are all the parts of the aural really that crucial to general musicianship?
I can see the point in asking questions about passages etc but when would an orchestral musician ever be told to start singing back passages?

Andante et al: Does anyone know when the new woodwind syllabus will be put on the web?

We candidates of more mature years find that it is much more difficult to do than when we were younger

Not get rid of aural tests as such, but change the content - more in line with what TG do maybe.......?

cd summed up my feelings about the aural. Not scrap them, but certainly revise them. Seeing people groaning about singing back (again!) we tend to forget you can play back if you really can't sing, but the AB are not very clear how this works. Are you told the starting note? what if you play a transposing instrument (like clarinet or sax)? And of course you can hum or whistle (stated in These Music Exams). What about playing the kazzoo??? But it is still only a small part of the exam that could be the difference between a merit and distinction or pass and merit, not pass or fail.

I do agree AB can learn from TG with regard to things like viva voce, improvising, fewer scales etc. The sheer volume of scales at the higher grades seems unnecessary. Yes scales have their place and are essential for learning an instrument, but does it really take this many to find out?

Another gripe I have is the repertoire, not least the new piano books. Having only just started teaching piano I am so disappointed with the current exam books and am avoiding them as much as possible, keeping on 'fun' books. It also compounds those unlucky enough to have teachers who only use the exam pieces to teach. This is wrong of course, but it really makes it many times worse than if the pieces were half decent. I like the woodwind syllabus, more varied and fun.

Finally, can the AB consider allowing backing CDs at least in the lower grades, either for accompaniment when a 'real' one is not available, or set playalong pieces (Guest Spot, Take The Lead etc.).

As for the diploma exams, is it really necessary to insist on getting permission to photocopy for the required copies for the examiners? Can't it just be make the copies and destroy them after the exam? That sounds quite fair and legal.

The scale requirements of AB flute G8 (over 100 of them) just look obsessive when compared to Trinity's option of preparing an Orchestral Extract. I have to admit that I hadn't looked at the Trinity syllabus until I read several times on this site that it's much more reasonable than AB.

Also with Trinity there's the option of not doing Aural at all - at grades 1 to 5 candidates can choose any 2 of:- AURAL; SIGHT READING; IMPROVISATION; MUSICAL KNOWLEDGE. And in Grades 6, 7 and 8 there's SIGHTREADING, and AURAL or IMPROVISATION. So it's possible to miss the hated aural out all together.

I also think there is a need to provide the opportunity for a full BMus degree via a combination of distance learning/practical assessments.

I too am thinking of moving to Trinity for the simple reason that my younger pupils seem to prefer the selection of pieces for each grade (they consider a lot of the ABRSM syllabus to be boring!) so my question would be to ask if there are any plans for a major overhall of the music for the practical exams?

I would have to disagree with you on that. I mean in certain cases a mark or two can be the difference between a pass or fail. Admittedly if you're reasonably good at the instrument you are still likely to pass but for certain cases/people a distinction is important and it seems unfair for them to be handicapped in attaining their aims by a skill no one would require of them in the real world. As I said in my original post i can see a certain point to the analysis aspects of the music and the rhythmic section as competence in these areas are relatively important and even naming cadences at later grades has its purposes. So maybe instead of scrapping it altogether they could just remove the A and B sections from it.

I don't really see the problem with scales. After all if we go back to the real world argument are you really going to say you can't play music if its in certain keys? Scales have an important purpose and unlike singing, which with the exception of choral work is seldom if ever required of an orchestral musician, play an important role in developing fluency etc.

The problem with the scales as set is not playing them - it is being able to memorise them. The process of learning them to this extent, especially when so many are demanded, is a grind, and to be honest, a bore to those of us who don't memorise easily - when more than half of one's practice time is taken up trying to do so, it makes music a chore instead of a pleasure. There are other ways to ensure facility in different keys, notably playing in them.

There is an argument which would say that you will learn more in playing scales for half an hour than you would with pieces. My first teacher very seldom did scales and if she did only in f and g major whereas my next teacher taught me all of the Gr 5 scales and my playing improved substantially. There are also numerous pedagogues on almost any instrument who advocate learing scales in full as the way to unlocking more complicated repertoire e.g. Moyse, Galway etc.
I would agree that it is probably more pleasurable to spend time on pieces but in terms of improving ability and competence in keys scales are next to unbeatable hence the number required for exams.

Anacrusis's problem is not with scales but with memorising them. I have no problems playing them from memory but I now live in France where memorising scales is seen as a slightly bizarre activity. My oboe teacher insisted I bought a scale book and stop playing from memory because the important thing is to be able to visually recognise the scale passages in written music.

...which I can do. You'd not know from my playing that I have problems remembering scales; I can do them fine with the music in front of me. In any case, if I have a piece with a run in F# major followed by some turns and twiddly bits, I will in all probability have to alter fingering patterns to accommodate the rest of the music around the scaly bit. That being so, then having spent a long time trying to memorise the F# major scale will not have been so useful - I'd be more efficient to learn how it goes in that particular piece, and for each piece as I come to learn it.

My understanding of the reasoning behind it has always been that the fingers eventually gain such a familarity with the scales that little if any thought is required in playing them thereby leaving the majority of a player's mental faculties free to work on sound and other considerations. This kind of familarity is not obtained, in my view, by playing them from the page although there is almost certainly room for both systems. I fail to see though why the board should reduce the scale requirements as in doing so it will only decrease the difficulty, and therby the value, of the qualification.

I agree with what you're saying .

I'm glad someone does .

...and yet you'd demand that the sections you don't like of the aural section should be dismissed just that easily...

Ultimately a lot of people will like what they are good at and want rid of what they are not. Those not confident singing back, for example will want rid of that section. Those who do it naturally want it left. Same applies to scales, sight-reading.



In theory that is possible, but remember as long as any attempt is made you get at least 6/18 (correct me if I'm wrong) so you would have to get pretty dismal marks elsewhere to fail on the aural part alone.

To be quite honest I think a rounded musicicianship approach is good because it makes 'exam-driven' teachers and pupils concentrate on the complete musician, not rote learning three pieces and a few scales. I know some disagree with me on this but this is how I feel about the system.

Something I meant to be more specific on, have the AB seriously considered adding a viva based on the theory of the exam pieces, like the old Trinity exams (and even instead of the grade 5 theory requirement). Would be good ground work for diploma exams, even though the standard would be way higher in their vivas.

My point exactly - I am not 100% convinced by some of the current syllabus requirements, but saying that one set of requirements must be in or it makes the exam too easy, and yet dismissing another set out of hand... I found snhs's post quite ironic......

In a nutshell.




I know of an (older) adult pupil who currently spends two hours a day trying to learn grade 6 scales.

Why?

And the real irony of scales is only a few will be asked for in the exam and are only 21 out of 150 marks. For my grade 8 clarinet I spent literally hours memorising them, utterly ridiculous amounts, for 5 minutes of an exam. For grade 8 sax I basically left them to chance, just some work the week before the exam, doing most work on the pieces.

I ended up with 16/21 for scales both times.

Yes - well said. I thought the same.

Fwiw I actually think any musician should be able to use his or her voice adequately. Not as a soloist, but in the context of what what Neil referred to as a "well-rounded musicianship approach".

[quote]...... have the AB seriously considered adding a viva based on the theory of the exam pieces....../quote]
This is something else I would find useful (blimey, that's 3 things I want to ask the chief examiner ).

[quote]Scales have an important purpose and .............. play an important role in developing fluency etc.[/quote]
No one has even suggested that they are not important, and I would be disappointed if any exam board did away with the requirement that scales are to be performed in the exam. I also have no problem with the memorising aspect - I usually teach them without using the book very much anyway. My difficulty is the sheer number of scales (I'm thinking of piano) particularly in grade 5 and 6. Quite how the board could cut them down a bit - which ones to leave out - I don't know, that needs a bit more thinking about. I think I'm right in saying that ABRSM have completely disposed of scales for their Diploma exams (correct me if I'm wrong). I remember when I was first working towards a diploma (in the late 1960s) there was one exam I couldn't enter for because I couldn't play the scales in the syllabus - double octave scales - my hands were too small to do them. Think this was the old LRAM. I think I ended up working for ARCM (although I didn't take the exam).

I don't like aural either, never have done, but I don't think it should be taken out of the exam, and to me it seems a lot easier now than the aurals I had to do when I was doing piano grade exams. So people don't like them, well that's tough, learning to do things with good grace that we don't like doing or find difficult is part of life.