Does anyone else feel that certain parts of the aural tests are inappropriate for all candidates, or at least or at least provide greatly different challenges for different groups of people? I speak as a brass teacher...

Two areas spring to mind. Firstly, the singing bit. Please don't get me wrong - I am a fervent believer in the desirability of all musicians to be able to sing ('if you can't sing it, you won't be able to play it' - especially true for brass players). BUT, once you get on to the singing the upper part/lower part, surely its fair neither to ask girls (or unbroken voices) to sing a bass part (it's something which their voices will have had no regular training), nor to ask broken voices to sing melody parts, having to make octave (or two octave) transpositions. As a precaution, I always send pupils whose voices are breaking (or have just broken) in with instructions to tell the examiner their usable range - often it's no more than an octave, and if any of the singing bits go 'over the break', the results can be unpredictable (or occasionally hilarious).

But my bigger gripe is the 'Listening to music with understanding' (LTMWU) bit. I know that virtually none of my pupils will have had a musical upbringing like mine (Radio 3 on all day from the age of 0), and not a large proportion of brass players play piano (why is it that not so many brass players have second study instruments??).

Hence my incredulity when I read in the Aural training books for Grade 6 'all candidates will know what a Courante is by now'. What tosh. Trumpeters virtually never do Courantes. (I can't remember ever playing one on trumpet in my 36 years as a trumpeter.)

Ah, there's the rub. LTMWU is written by, and for, pianists. (And I note that all AB examiners MUST be proficient pianists.) Pianists will be familiar with courantes and all the baroque dance forms. They will be familiar with cadences, and keyboard textures. Their hands do counterpoint and chords. They will be familiar with Bach and Mozart and Beethoven and Schubert and Schumann and Tchaikovsky and Bartok. Brass players have virtually no repertoire, outside of orchestral parts, written by any of these composers. Yes, I know there are arrangements for brass of most of these composers, but they certainly don't need to know their piano writing style, or their harmonic style, or anything about cadences to be able to play trumpet music well. So why should brass players be expected to know all this stuff?? Again, don't get me wrong - I would love for all my pupils to have a wide knowledge of all these things, but I think that LTMWU illustrates to a large degree the piano-centric basis of much of AB thinking.

I know that basic value of the LTMWU is sound - encouraging musicians to develop the aural awareness and theoretical terminology to be able to discuss music in a meaningful way - but I do feel that as the tests stand they are very badly flawed, and represent neither a fair nor a relevant challenge to all candidates. So there!

I'm definitely not familiar with most of the dances!! Maybe i'm just a bad pianist

I agree that the aural tests seem to favour pianists, and often are more easily taught by piano teachers which puts other instrumentalists at a disdvantage. I struggle to understand why it is necessary to recognise modulations - something I don't have a problem with myself as I have perfect pitch - gut does it make for a better cellist?

And how is it helpful to name the chords in a cadence progression, including their inversions for a player of a non-chord instrument?

Not sure what I think about this - it depends if you think the aural tests are there to test the player of that instrument specifically, or the all-round musician. I agree that a non-pianist is possibly going to struggle with some of the stuff at the higher grades, and that it seems inappropriate for them - but if they are going to be good, all-round musicians, they surely should be developing a good ear, and should be able to recognise cadences and modulations? And these things will be relatively familiar to anyone doing GCSE (?) or A-level music.

So maybe it's less that what they are asking is not a good idea, more whether an ABRSM is the right place to test it. Anyone going to uni or music college will, in almost all cases, have to have an A-level anyway, so it's not like grade 8 is a substitute for that. Maybe the ABRSM is kidding itself that they are providing an alternative to a more general musical education, such as develops in the classroom alongside the instrumental lessons? I know that there is NO WAY I can properly teach some of the things they ask for, even at relatively low grades, within the context of an oboe lesson - if the kid knows the difference between Baroque and Romantic music, they've got it from their school class. So it does beg the question of what the ABRSM is examining, exactly, yes...

Hmmm. Sorry, bit of a burble, thinking as I type...

I think you make a lot of valid points: the tests are far too piano-centric. I think the knowledge of chord-related stuff is still very useful and that should be kept in etc but there are parts that clearly favour pianists. My main gripe is with the pieces used for Part D (naming a likely composer etc) - Mozart, Bach, Tchaikovsky etc are fair enough composers to use, fairly distinctive and relevant to a wide range of instruments even if only through orchestral parts. But composers like Chopin that wrote almost solely for piano? Such composers are almost wholly irrelevant to any other instrument really. I do wonder why the AB don't administer this particular test via CD - surely it brings up more areas for the candidate to comment on (timbre etc) that are equally valuable to the existing ones?

Slightly off topic. My daughter is learning in France where the aural/theory side of things is taught very differently from in the UK but it is becoming increasingly obvious to me that the whole system in France is also written by and for pianists and yet even fewer people have a second study instrument in France than in the UK.

Exactly. This would have two advantages - firstly, it would mean that we could differentiate between orchestral instruments and piano, or voice for that matter, with specific CDs for each group; and secondly, it would reduce the necessity for all examiners to be good pianists, widening up the breadth of expertise available for the pool of examiners. Change is long overdue. It's one reason I preferred Guildhall (and now Trinity Guildhall) - minds there seem to be more open.

I'd second that! It's the insistence on singing, and the obsession with the piano, that's putting me off taking the exams. If the idea of singing back a passage is to test your aural comprehension, then why not allow someone to play it back on their instrument? Or would that test the examiner's aural skills too much?

They do from grade 4.

I was offered the choice of doing exactly that in my recorder exam this term. But as I'd not practised it that way in lessons, I stuck with singing. You've also got an option on whistling or humming.

T.

You ARE allowed to play it back on your instrument. Most players don't have a clue how to do this though, because so little music is taught aurally and so much of it - far too much of it - is taught purely from notation.

I teach my youngest pupils (pre Grade1) to play back phrases on their violin as well as sing them back, which they can now all do beautfully after just a couple of sessions. If you do this with students from the beginning they have the choice to sing or play back the phrases. If you spring it on them just before the exam then no wonder they have problems with it!

Why don't we all just teach aurally right from the very start, incorporating singing into lessons as if it was the nost natural thing on earth? Surely music should be 'heard in the head' as well as interpreted from dots, otherwise are we really teaching music musically in the most essential sense?

In fact, and at the risk of being controversial, I'd even say that if a teacher feels 'caught on the hop' when it comes to a pupil being ready for the aural tests come exam time, then they haven't been teaching 'aurally' but focussing too exclusively on getting fingers in the right places.

I think this is more understandable in the case of peris teaching groups in schools and when there's (frankly unecessary and musically unproductive) pressure from the school/parents/peer group to get through exams quickly. For privately and individually taught students there's no excuse whatsoever for a teacher not to be able to prepare their students more than adequately for the aural tests or any other part of the exam, frankly.

Even the most reluctant student can be persuaded to sing by a patient, sympathetic and supportive teacher, especially when only the teacher and the student are in the room.

Slightly off topic - In my jazz band we played without 'dots' last year, and I swear it improved my aural skills a lot...though I still find it harder, I'm getting better slowly.

I also think aural tests are far too hard 'hard'. And as for the singing issue - I hate doing it, but two of my friends insisted on only doing it for the examiner in the exam room, practising at home, and not even doing it for a teacher...is it just me, or is singing more intimidating than anything else.

Great that your jazz has improved your aural skills, but the aural tests aren't hard if you've been taught to experience music aurally.

Singing has only become intimdating for children in recent years with the drastic reduction in classroom singing because of misguided teachers thinking they need to reduce it in order to deliver the curriculum effectively. In one of the primary schools I work in they have a LOT of singing AND get good results. All the children there are very confident about singing in front of each other, and with the string group I run there (5 kids), I always get them to sing a piece together before learning to play it - they have no problem with this at all and sing their little hearts out!

Good point - I try not to blame my teacher, and much as I love him, I don't think we've really worked on aurals enough, and my oboe teacher just assumes I've done it with my piano teacher... I don't do badly in the singing usually...

Perhaps the exam boards need to define exactly what they think an 'aural test' actually IS

Are we checking that the pupil can hear sounds, listen to sound, reproduce or imitate a sound, understand sounds or remember sounds. On the other hand is an aural test simply a verbal response to a question set by an examiner - for example - 'is this piece fast or slow, soft or loud ?' Or 'what is this interval?' 'Is this piece Baroque or Romantic?'. The latter question is more about musical knowledge of texture and style than aural awareness I think.

I think the revision of the AB aural way back when (I can't remember exactly) was an attempt to make the aural bit of the exam more musical and possibly they have made the whole thing far too complicated. I spend an awful lot of time at the higher grades sorting out exactly 'what' the pupil has to do through a sea of examples in a set book. I have found this particularly difficult in preparing a pupil to study Grade Five PM.

I am not sure if having to sing is a problem in itself - there are just too many exercises which are too alike and too long in the higher grades. Also, they are too diffcult and beyond the pupils' experience of music. For example, sing (or play back) a four bar melody - is this a test of memory or musical understanding? Then, they have to sing the lower part with the examiner playing the top line. The exercises have no relationship or sense of progression from one to the other. Perhaps this is where TG and LCM have got it right - they have thought it all through from the pupils' point of view - questions and exercises are from one set piece of music, that the pupil can relate to.

Another thing I can't quite understand - why is only sight-reading tested in Diplomas without an aural option? Teachers are told endlessly that we must take individual learning styles of pupils into account when we teach but in my view there are some exams which are still too prescriptive.

Happy Christmas all

Use the CDs - they are an exact representation of what happens in the exam. They're not particularly cheap but you only have to buy them once (there are two of them) - I've found them incredibly useful and helpful.

Thanks Violinia I'll have look for those in the New Year.

I use the Aural cd's and they are great.

While this last paragraph is probably true, the fact remains that the pupil first wanted to come to lessons to learn to play an instrument; this is not what they had in mind - needing symapathy and support to do something that they don't want to do and which they're often uneasy with - and which appears to be taking taking time away from what they do want to do, which is play. If we're honest, how often are we slogging through these aural tests just for the sake of passing exams? Unless they're singers, they're not going to be singing again outside of the exam room. The whole experience might even put them right off singing. And it takes a lot of time to prepare for aurals properly; we only have half an hour a week, usually, for everything! A lot of this time isn't spent on improving a pupil's musical ear; it's spent on familiarising them with the requirements, and what their options are - just for the sake of passing the exam!

Going right back to the beginning of this thread, I think part of the problem is people often expect supporting tests to be specific to their instrument, or have direct relevance to the repertoire, technique etc. of said instrument. There is certainly an argument for these kinds of tests, but I think the fact is the aural tests are actually trying to test more general musical skills that someone at grade x on any instrument should be capable of. LTMWU, singing back, sight singing, cadences etc are undoubtedly laudable skills to have for any musician. The question is whether this is the place to test them, as mentioned above.

I can see the point about singing different voice types eg boys singing upper parts, girls singing bass lines, though voice type aside they are useful things to manage, and are hardly rocket science. There is also the issue of transposing, eg taking grade 8 clarinet (Bb) then sight singing a bass line at concert pitch. I would also argue first study singers do not have an advantage here, as while their voices may be better trained, their reading skills may not be the same, ie temptation to learn songs by rote. (shoot me down singers if that's a load of tosh)

There is also a clear case pianists have an advantage with some of the aural tests, but piano is a tough instrument to master. It is often said pianists have greater understanding than exclusively wind or string players. Piano is a much harder instrument to learn.

On the whole I have to agree aural should be taught as part of learning the instrument ie listening to own playing/others, playing by ear etc. Not just going through the AB books (hardly the best resources anyway).

For those of the 'I learn [instrument name] not pointless aural for the exams', let me re-iterate YOU DON'T HAVE TO ENTER FOR EXAMS IF YOU JUST WANT TO PLAY. So maybe the teachers who gripe about forcing pupils through scales, aural, sight reading etc etc etc 'just for the exams' could consider ignoring the exam system and devising their own innovative curriculum for each pupil. I have a few pupils like that.

Whatever anyone feels about the importance of aural skills, and becoming a general musician et al, the simple fact is that there are many instrumental teachers out there who do not teach these skills.

My teacher did not play the piano, which meant that all the aural I did was from the CD's. Many people seem to say positive things about these, but personally I found them of no use at all. While they gave an idea what I was suppose to know, they did not teach how to do it, or provide enough practise to learn it.

I teach in a country where you can be 100% sure that 99.9 % children will not know the difference between baroque and romantic music or anything much else in that line because they don't have any kind of decent musical education in school. I have given up being shocked when they don't know who Debussy was and as for Ravel - who was born not far away from here - well ! I do my best to fill in the gaps but it remains a very very small best. I don't think the ABRSM are kidding themselves - I think they are rather "not waving but drowning". I actually feel it is important for instrumental teachers to try to put the repertoire we teach into its musical context but I have every sympathy with teachers of instruments other than the piano for whom this is even more difficult. I didn't realise how difficult it was until I was inveigled into teaching flute.

Apart from the repertoire thing I was suprised to find that although my flute pûpils could quite easily hear the difference between tongued and slurred on the flute they were puzzled by staccatto / legato on the piano.

I am also among those who think all this singing in aural tests is quite wrong and in many cases actually harmful.

I don't pretend to know what the answers are and I am not able to use other boards but if the ABRSM wants to encourage intelligent listening and a real love of music then it might be worth replacing at least some of the aural tests with questions about the pieces and the instruments actually being studied. These are the two elements common to all candidates and are in many cases their only gateway to the wider musical world.

I agree very strongly with these last few points. I take on board what neil said about just not doing exams if we disagree with so many aspects of supporting tests, but the fact reamains that exams are a great motivator to perfect (verb) when pupils otherwise wouldn't. (I'm not fussed on the competitive aspect of festivals when it can come down to the articulation of a single note.) So if we don't agree with certain aspects of exams, all we can do is argue our point somewhere like here. I like the TG idea of a single piece of music being used for different questions, but I can see the point that the questions are geared towards pianists. Aquarelle has a good point that it would be more interesting and beneficial for a student to be questioned on an excerpt (of the examiner's choice) from a piece that they've just played on their own instrument. Questions could move on to take in a wider context, but they should be relevant to the candidate's exam thus far.

There are so many good and thoughtful responses here so far ... I wish I had confidence that AB would really Listen With Understanding to what's being said. Sadly, I don't have that confidence as the power that the AB holds really stifles innovatory thought and lessens the likelihood of either radical change or the lessening of the grip of the keyboardistas.

It's probably bad manners to say such things on an AB-hosted site, but I hope that AB will be looking over their shoulder at the new TG syllabi, and others will be seeing good ideas there too. I'm not sure that everything in there is perfect (for instance, I wouldn't have substituted scale learning for playing scale studies .... rather I would have 'playing tunes by ear' in different keys as my scale/arpeggio/key-playing section), but it does represent fresh thinking ... which is not much in evidence from the AB.

After all, why should they change when they're still getting such vast numbers of candidates. And don't get me started on Grade 5 theory....

I see what you're trying to say - and yet - is becoming a musician in the truest sense of the word only about learning how to interpret dots, where to put fingers and what to do about expression markings? Or shouldn't we be making sure our students can hear (and harmonise) music in their heads, recognise intervals and everything else that goes into making someone truly aurally conscious? Can one even be called 'musical' without good aural skills?

I agree! I just don't think aural tests as we see them in exams is the best way to ensure that good aural skills are established. As teachers we can comment on harmonic progressions in the music that we play, with regard to how that influences how we phrase it, how we feel a cadence 'coming on', how the composer gives us a sense of tension and release - what techniques does he use to do that? - look at where the music modulates, discuss how common or unusual the modulations are, talk about how we know aurally that it's 6/8 rather than 3/4 - I could go on forever! I'm especially dubious about how singing to an examiner from a few dots on a page can say anything about our musical awareness other than that we can pitch our voice accurately. I think it would be much more beneficial and testing to be asked things like, "What key is this short (previously unseen and unheard, but written for the candidate's own instrument) passage in?", "From the rhythmic structure, would you describe this as potentially celebratory or expressive - or whatever?" It could be worth considering whether it would be useful to use the same passage as for the sight-reading test, doing these 'aural awareness' questions first, thus linking the whole thing together, and making the sight-reading appear more as a piece of music, rather than a series of dots to be blundered through, as it often is!

Actually what I'm saying is probably supporting the TG aural tests, though that wasn't really my intention when I started out with this response! The only thing about TG aural tests is that they are definitely easier for pianists - I would imagine. And even then, a lot of time is spent on making the pupil familiar with what exactly will be asked rather than on actually teaching the skills required. The book that comes along with the book of questions is good in that it gives tips on cadence recognition and explains the circle of fifths and so on, but with time at a premium, most time does end up going into how to pass the exam rather than anything else.

But then I suppose it's better than nothing, which might be the case if exams had no aural tests at all.

Violinia, I do broadly agree with you on this issue, but I do feel that you're also being a little utopian (so therefore agree more with Dulciana!) Yes, of course we are trying to train *musicians* not instrumentalists - but my little 12 year old oboe student is not going to see it that way. If I were to try and teach the difference between the musical eras to them *properly*, I'd be spending at least 5 lessons sitting there with CDs, and no-one touching their oboe. Can't really see that going down well. It's no good expecting me to teach it from the music they're learning, as 90% of oboe music is Baroque or C20 anyway, and besides, understanding the differences involves more than a melody line.

Similarly, although I've done a lot of singing in my time in choirs and such like, I have never had singing lessons, and I don't feel qualified in teaching my students how to sing. (And I agree with whoever said that it's daft that we have to.)

Who wants to start a petition to the AB?!

As a parent I want my daughter to have an all round musical education. It's even more essential as she intends at the moment to persue a musical career. Of all the elements in the exam Aurals is the one she finds the hardest. She tends not to put the effort required in to learning scales but she genuinely finds elements of the Aural difficult.

Like most pupils her age that are not natural singers she shies away from using her voice. I have to say though that the aural element of the exams have given her the confidence to try. Without finding out that working at something like singing will inprove your ability to do it, she wouldn't have joined the choir at school.

Having said all of that I can see both sides of this arguement as a parent. Developing all round musicality is important but perhaps that needs to done in a seperate way for those who want to take music further. I realise it's hard especially for Peri's with all the other aspects of thier job to teach aural too.

Post deleted.

Hmm. You do also have the option of playing a melody back on your instrument. If you can't sing it back because you can't pitch the notes correctly and you can't play it back either because you haven't a clue how to play by ear, then there's something seriously lacking on your musicianship, period!!!

Erm, yes, but you could take that 'musicianship' argument to any degree ... one could add all sorts of things that a fully-rounded musician should be able to do (transpose at sight, read a full score, improvise, play chords on a piano and do figured bass, etc. etc.), but the essential questions are:

1) what are the core aural skills necessary at the appropriate level of study to play your instrument which are not apparent through the playing of prepared pieces?

2) how are these skills best and most fairly assessed in an exam?

As I said in my original post, I think the aural tests (particularly at higher grades) are badly flawed, in that they both go too far in testing certain aural (and vocal) skills, candidates' knowledge of musical styles and history, and are biased towards keyboard players.

For a trumpeter, core aural skills do not involve different categories of cadences, or Clementi, or courantes. (I hope you like the alliteration there!) Yet my pupils are expected to know these for their AB aural tests. These are irrelevant learning goals at this stage of learning for my pupils. And irrelevant learning goals put learners off learning. That's what badly designed tests do. Look at mainstream education for proof of that.

Actually I think they should reinstate the interval tests - I have no idea why they removed them from the earlier grades in the first place. If they were there, teachers would be forced to teach interval recognition, which would be a very good thing for musicianship.

I think the B tests (singing/playing back section) are good and should stay. Surely being able to reproduce a heard short phrase should be part of any musician's skill-base.

I think the A tests are good too - surely you should be able to tell if a piece of music is in 2 or 3 time.

I think the C tests are good because you should be able to hear and describe slight differences in a piece of music - this test tests your listening ability.

I'm less convinced by the D tests because they're so classically orientated and classical music is far from the only music out there! They should be replaced by interval tests - starting with fourths and fifths at Grade 1 and increasing in difficulty as you move up the grades.

As for piano skills being basic to musicianship - I totally disagree. Keyboard skills are fantastic to have for sure, but you can be very musically aware without them. I'm talking about 'intrinsic musicality' here, not musical skills that arise through any particular specialised study. Surely it isn't hard to work out what intrinsic musical skills are, and why all musicians should be equipped with them?

Ah, I think we're starting to get somewhere. I might agree with you about keyboard skills, BUT (no.1) they do give a much stronger picture of the chords and harmonic progressions which our melodic lines articulate (or 'which underpin our harmonic lines', if you want to take the anti-Rameau stance.) But it does illustrate one of my central tenets (and which I sense you would agree with, Violinia), that all these musical skills, although often taught discretely, actually are all part of the picture which is called music. So I like to teach theory integrated with aural, aural skills linked with keyboard and instrumental skills, and so on. BUT (no.2), in limited time and with all the pressures inherent in the job (trying to get the best possible overall outcomes in the least possible time, in other words), prioritisation is necessary.

I wish I had time to teach all my pupils basic keyboard skills - I remember vividly that the totally-non-keyboardists at university were at a distinct disadvantage in much of their work. I wish I had time to listen to great swathes of varied music with my pupils and to talk with them about it. I'd like to discuss the theoretical aspects of all the music my pupils are playing. But I haven't. I suspect the vast majority of teachers are like this. It would be nice if the AB would recognise this bald fact of school instrumental lessons, and target the aural tests on what can be efficiently and effectively taught as an integrated part of lessons for ALL categories of instrumentalists.

So yes, I completely agree about the too-narrow focus of the D tests. I too would like to see the re-introduction of interval tests. And yes, of course pulse and rhythm skills should be there. I still think that the singing part needs much greater thought - I completely agree that all instrumentalists should be encouraged to sing (and should be able to - especially pianists!) but does this need to be examined?? (If the only way you can get people to sing is by threatening them with that bit of the aural tests, then something's gone terribly wrong!!)

Here's a thought ... how about developing this idea: the examiner gives the candidate a notated excerpt of music. The examiner plays the excerpt twice, both times with a couple of differences from the notated version (but the same differences each time!). The candidate has to identify where the differences from the notation occured. I know this is similar but different from the TG version. This is intentional, as my version means that the only way the candidate is going to know where the 'mistakes' occured is by singing to themselves from the notation, not by remembering a previously played version. See? It specifically targets the 'can you hear it in your head?' bit, but doesn't require the candidate to sing out loud. And although it does use notation, it would only be with the purpose of testing the ability to hear, as distinct from the ability to reproduce with your voice what you hear in your head (though I would, of course, encourage pupils to use their voice as well in the checking process.) Just an idea - but not a bad one, the more I think about it!

Anyway, wouldn't it be nice if we could come to a broad consensus on this subject? Could the AB ignore that?? I don't think anyone would be asking for a 'lowering of standards' or to make the tests 'easy', just to make them more relevant and fairer. I don't think that's asking too much. I'd happily contribute to any AB panel discussing this.

I quoted the top sentence only to say I entirely agree. Wholeheartedly. There is much to be gained from singing, but not like this. It's a contradiction in terms and is sad.

What you suggest about the aural tests, and spotting the difference - this is how it's done from Grade 6 and up in TG. The candidate doesn't get to hear the 'original' once handed the score. The difference, which may be in pitch, rhythm or articulation, has to be spotted without hearing the original - only from seeing it. True, it has already been heard in previous tests which focus on modulation, etc, but it is not repeated at this point.

These broader-scale 'spot the difference' tests from a printed copy are used in the AB Practical Musicianship syllabus (single-stave at Grades 1-3, and harmonised at Grades 4-6). The pupils usually really enjoy doing them.

But only from grade 4. What's the point in that? Why not from grade 1?




Yep. That's the job of a GCSE music teacher.

Brian, I totally agree that there is a mismatch between what the board wants and what is appropriate within the system of instrumental teaching. Educational theory says you have to have 'constructive alignment' (or some such phrase) between what you are teaching and what you are assessing, and it is not at all constructively aligned in this case.

The PM syllabus looks much more relevant than the aural tests fullstop. The aural section should be more like these exams in my opinion. In saying that, why shouldn't a trumpet player (or anyone else) have to discern tonic from dominant, for example (playing a Classical concerto etc. with piano/orchestra) and so it goes on. LTMWU at the lower grades is certainly relevant. How would one play in time, with dynamics etc. if they couldn't hear those differences. At the higher levels it does get more complicated, but you have to quite motivated to get past about grade 5, so its less a case of 'because I have to'.

Perhaps cadences should be in there, along with intervals (the latter being one of the most glaring omissions). But I suspect cadences and modulations are in there partly because they're easily tested with a 'right' or 'wrong' answer. I'm not sure that knowing the names of cadences has ever changed my interpetation of a piece. And I say that as an aural and theory geek.

It's all a question of relevance. It could be argued that baroque dance steps should be part of the exam - perhaps as relevant as anything aural for playing baroque music. But AB examiners are not experts in dance. They are all pretty expert in keyboard skills - hence the focus of the tests, methinks.

Well I think that my examiner thought I was slightly stupid!
Because my head voice range is a bit unusable but I used it anyway.
And my usable chest voice (without straining myself) is about an octave (by the way my voice hasn't broken yet) and I ended up going across a break anyway (ooo funny story, I found a third break somewhere really high, I'll save that story for later) but luckily I can control the note it hits quite well because I used to be able to yodel! I knew it had a use at the time

But yeah I really disagree with the singing bit.
Come to think of it, my examiner said "would you like to sing or play it" and I said "sing it" oops silly me...
But I didn't know that we could play it...so I thought I'll go with what is familiar...

Yes, I think the TG test is a good one, though I think it relies more on memory (the candidate will have heard the music a few times by then) than on being able to hear EXACTLY what he/she is looking at - the score is really used to locate and check the heard alterations, I think. That's why I suggest using a previously unheard piece, as the candidate will need to hear what they're looking at, either by internal or external vocalisation, in order to identify the discrepancies ... but all safe in the knowledge that no-one else has to be able to hear what they're singing in their heads. The evidence of whether they can do that accurately will be in the answers they give. So it's a quite different test that I'm suggesting, even if, on the face of it, it sounds similar.

Will it soon be time to forward this debate on to the Chief Examiner? ... I don't hear much dissention from contributors so far...

If you have good pitch, then your singing in your head may sound very tuneful.
But the singing that comes out of your mouth could be completely out of tune like a strangled cat.
I've just realised...Why am I complaining? I did well in my aural tests! I got 18!
I still don't like them though...

To be honest I think if the aural tests just tested interval recognition they'd achieve a lot more than they currently do. Interval recognition is such a fundamental musical skill and I strongly believe all musicians should be equipped with it.