Hi

I teach the piano, but also do a fair bit of accompanying, and I am gobsmacked by the amount of times I'm asked to 'go over a bit of aural' with students. Invariably when I'm asked to do this the poor kids have done no aural at all, not since their last one or towo 10 minute sessions for their last exam. This happens with Grade 6, 7 & 8 as well, and I do wonder whether these teachers have even looked at the aural requirements - how on earth do you 'go over' modulations, for instance, with someone who has been given no idea of what the word even means?
I hasten to add that this isn't all teachers - many instrumental teachers prepare their students thoroughly, but there are a sizeable minority that don't. Surely if you enter a student for an exam then all aspects of the exam are your responsibility, and if you can't for some reason teach aural yourself, then tell the students that they will need to arrange aural training with someone else? (I also know some instrumental teachers don't have pianos, but there are CDs available now that can be used).
Sorry to moan, but I find this really gets my goat - it's so unfair on students who have really worked at their playong to be dropped in it like this.

It seems that only the exam boards are interested in aural. Perhaps they might hear a message there from their customers?

But it's true, though, that many instrumental teachers don't - or can't - teach the aurals as required for exams. Maybe this would be different if the aural tests weren't so geared towards pianists, a point which was raised in another thread; I can't remember which one now or I'd post a link. Alicia Ocean does have a point, but I actually think many of the tests are useful (if we could eradicate the singing bit...)

However, in the meantime, in entering pupils for an exam we have to go along with what's on the syllabus, like it or not, or we're asking a lot of our pupils to do themselves justice whilst ignoring a whole section.

David, I'm not slagging off teachers willy-nilly here - but it HAS been my experience, as a music teacher in primary schools, that on many, many occasions an instrumental teacher has put his/her head round my door and said, 'Oh, so-and-so is doing their Grade X next week - could you just run through a bit of aural with them?'

The issue here is not whether we should or should not have aural components to the exam, or of what those components should consist.

The fact is that at the moment they DO form part of the exam, and I do feel that teachers are not fulfilling their part of the bargain if they can't or won't prepare their students for this aspect as well as they prepare them for the other components.

As Dulciana says, this is not uncommon. Him Indoors was recently asked to take on a 14 year-old who got 140 in her Grade 7 piano last year but failed the aural spectacularly (so every other aspect must have been stupendous!). I've spoken to the girl and she told me that her piano teacher has never done any aural with her - and the gaps in her knowledge and understanding are vast, poor girl. And HI now has to try to get her through Grade 8 aural from almost a standing start...

Bagpuss has also come across this 'phenomenon' on many occasions.

Yes I take your point............. but if you'd had experience as I have, of kids turning up confident that they've worked well for their exam, and then leaving knowing that there's a whole section of that exam that they're unprepared for, wouldn't you feel concerned? I'm not trying to slag individual people off here, (goodness knows I'm well aware that my own teaching isn't that wonderful - that's why I read this forum so much, to learn from others' experiences). But this is a fairly common practice, and I think it would benefit from discussion. If many instrumental teachers feel that the aural part of the exam is either unsuitable or superfluous, then perhaps if they made their views known to the board that might be a useful step forward, instead of putting their students through unecessary stress.

They did, and that element is now optional - for Trinity exams up to G5

It would seem to me that the aural tests are there as a message to teachers as much as anything else - to make sure they incorporate the purely aural as well as the technical, interpretive and expressive aspects of music into their teaching. If students are consistently struggling as much as it seems with the aural tests, then some teachers haven't got the message and are seeing 'aural' as a last minute add-on just before the exam.

If you incorporate aural training into lessons, as you should, then the tests pose no problem at all, so why don't we just do this instead of griping about the aural tests? I find the kids enjoy it if you treat it as a game: 'lets play some aural games now' and make up your own versions of the four tests, plus others of your own. Recently with a seven-year-old I've been doing 'call and response' with her on our violins as well as with singing (so she has that option in the exam as well as singing back the phrase) and she's becoming remarkably good at it to the extent that she's now learning to play quite complex tunes by ear, having built them up phrase by phrase. I'm intending to extend this to all students so that 'aural training' becomes an integral part of all my lessons. Yes it takes up a bit of time that could be well used improving technique etc etc but I see aural traning as incredibly important otherwise we're in danger of creating technicians not musicians.

If you incorporate it into lessons the aural tests can end up being the easiest part of the exam, not some weird add-on. I always loved the aural tests as a child because I knew I could do them (sorry) - this was because my mum had received a fantastic aural training as a matter of course at school in Vienna, which she then duly passed on to me as a matter of course. Children are such cyphers and all the kids I've done these aural games with seem to love them, especially when you put the boot on the other foot and get them to test you. Pretend to get the answer wrong and then get them to explain your mistake - watch them gloat and explain it in impeccable detail ('you played two notes there when there should have been one! You went up at the end instead of down!') Not too often though!

They really enjoy it because neural pathways open up and it awakens their curiosity and makes them feel intensely alive - you can see it happeneing; you really enjoy it because you can see the learning process at work, which is always wonderful - everybody gains so why don't we just do it and equip our students with good aural skills as well as technical/interpretive/expressive skills, and apart from anything else (like the lifelong benefits) an extra 18 marks can be accrued in an exam without all that last minute panic.

Surely it's not unreasonable to expect that if your teacher agrees (or in some cases even suggests) to prepare you for an exam that they will cover ALL of the syllabus.
If teachers disagree strongly enough with part of the syllabus then there are other options...... either choose another examining board whose syllabus you prefer or choose not to use exams.

[quote name='Violinia' date='Jan 8 2008, 11:11 AM' post='653092']
It would seem to me that the aural tests are there as a message to teachers as much as anything else - to make sure they incorporate the purely aural as well as the technical, interpretive and expressive aspects of music into their teaching. If students are consistently struggling as much as it seems with the aural tests, then some teachers haven't got the message and are seeing 'aural' as a last minute add-on just before the exam.


My son was disappointed with his pass mark for his grade 8 aural. He is at disadvantage because he never sings and is not a keyboard player. I'm not sure what it adds to his string playing abilities to recognise that there has been a modulation to the sub dominant rather than dominant or even to sing at sight.

I'm not saying that aural skills are not important. I just question what some of the tests are really trying to demonstrate as part the test of ability as a player. Actually, said son did not have a problem with modulations but found some of the singing tests more challenging.

I have perfect pitch so by and large the modern aural tests woould not have presented a problem to me, but that does not necessarily make me a better musician, just a lucky one.

I show the little ones how to sing at sight. We use the first tunes from their beginner books to do it. I think it helps with sight reading on your instrument enormously, as you can hear what is coming next and know what to expect

I know when I get a piece of sight reading I hum through the first line in my head. Also, when you are playing with someone and sight reading the accompaniment, it's handy to be able to "fill in" say, a chord from a cadence from ear, where the written notes are too many to read accurately... I might not be playing exactly what's written, but at least I end in the right key and it sounds OK, and the soloist isn't put off

Another reason I like to be able to sight sing is when I'm shopping for new music... I can browse through pieces in a shop and decide if I like the sound of it or not

If sight-singing is taught from the earliest, then an ability to look at a score and hear it in your head is imbibed from the beginning; I fail to see how that can be a bad thing for a musician! There's an enormous gap between a traditional musician playing by ear - a category into which all musicians could fit until the advent of notation - and an instrumentalist who doesn't have a clue what he's going to play until he puts his fingers into places designated by a written score. Why do so many of us find it so hard to see that this type of instrumentalist is a sort of aberration compared to the true meaning of the word 'musician'?

Sight-singing is one way to restore the aural skills that have been sadly lost from the armoury of so many instrumentalists. It's natural for children to sing and as music teachers we have a duty to get our pupils to sing in lessons if they haven't already been put off by their contemporaries or even worse, insensitive teachers.

As for recognising modulations, I don't see how anyone can see this as a pointless skill. It makes sense of a score that suddenly starts using accidentals - it helps explain what the music is actually doing, where it is going and where it is coming back to. How can this be a pointless aspect of a musician's knowledge?



Never thought of that - very good point. Imagine a musician unable to go into a shop, look at a piece of music and be unable to hear in his/her head what it sounds like. Just plain weird. Next someone'll say there are plenty of music teachers who can't sight-sing or hear the music in their heads when they look at a score - at which point I'd want to go and bang my head on a very hard surface.

I can't tell you how much **** music I bought before I learned to sight-sing ...

And don't you just hate those music shops where they have CDs playing in the background?

W

And don't you just hate those music shops where they have CDs playing in the background?

or even worse - a tinny radio !

It would be better than listening to ME singing! I can hear it in my head but it doesn't always come out of my mouth as planned. Which is why, as somebody with no training in singing, I'd be disadvantaged in an AB aural test. While I do think it's good to hear and understand cadences and modulations, I still feel that non-keyboard players are at a disadvantage here, as, unless they're used to always playing with an accompaniment, they won't be used to these things being heard at every lesson, with the teacher pointing things out and discussing them as they go along - thereby incorporating aural into every lesson.

Maybe it should be a 'requirement to teach' the exam syllabi - or to enter students for exams - that the instrumental teacher have a certain piano grade? Enough to be able to practise and play the simpler aural test samples? They wouldn't have to fork out for a piano; the most basic keyboard would do.

This is a moan I can identify with My daughter ended up with one shared 20 min aural lesson for G6. No point in moaning about just found someone else who she prefers to teach her aural and will therefore work harder for.

On the other side of the coin her FLute Teacher is doing her best to go through the Jazz Aurals in plenty of time. As she's not that familar with them I'll get support form someone who is. No teacher can be everything to every pupil and that is most definately not a criticism.

But then what about the teachers that can't teach aural? Mine certainly had a good shot at it, using the CDs and getting me to sing back stuff played on flute. I can hear modulations and cadences without any trouble at all.

But sight singing? Singing back a bass line when I've only ever listened out for one on an ABRSM CD? (Or maybe while playing with a group, but that is a subconcious skill.) Identifying chords (with their inversions) when inversion aren't exactly covered by grade 5 theory and my knowledge of chords is based on basic triads worked out from appegios?

Grade 8 aural tests certainly seem to be very hard and somewhat biased again people with the limited musical training I had. I don't consider myself a musician, but I am a competant flautist, yet I honestly don't see how I was supposed to pass G8 aural tests. The ARBSM CD simply cannot give enough practise for people to gain those skills, without considerable outside input. (Like a teacher that plays piano...)

(consequently, G6 tests, which seemed more relevent were fine... except for sight singing )

I don't get it - are there really any instrumental teachers putting students in for exams who can't teach aural??? I agree the Grade 8 aural tests are hard but all a teacher needs to do is buy the CDs and books and teach themselves, after which they can teach them to others. If they still can't teach them, then they need help! They're music teachers after all, so their students should expect them to have solid aural skills, otherwise their teaching is going to lack a whole dimension, surely.

I really enjoy teaching aural! (yes, I know, get a life, Bag).

It IS possible to teach it and I would happily run aural classes regularly but generally parents are not prepared or able to pay. It isn't necessarily a matter of teachers who cannot teach it - some are on such short lesson times it takes serious time-management to be able to fit everything in.

I inherited a lovely flautist last year from another teacher. She plays like a Flute Goddess - super. She knew few scales and had never done any aural except just prior to each exam until she came to me. She had a pass at G6 but failed the scales and aural by some margin. She has just achieved a fantastic 127 for G7 and passed both the scale and aural sections comfortably. She was SO over the moon today and rightly so. I know she is distinction calibre for 8 (which is at least 3 terms away) but I have already started working her (in my sneakily subtle cat-like way) towards the listening requirements. It CAN be done!

There is no quick fix and I will keep my personal views about the current aural syllabus to myself (!) but if the AB decided suddenly to include juggling one's instrument (ooo, there's a thought.... ) as an examination requirement I would do my best to prepare my pupils to do it rather than put them on the spot on the day....

Dame Hermione Bag xx

The juggling would certainly put us pianists at a disadvantage

Seriously though, when you say (tamsin) "what about the teachers that can't teach aural", that's like saying "what about the teachers who can't teach music".... The whole subject is about listening skills!

I'm not sure I understand about the grade 8 exam being biased towards people with limited musical training. I'm sure doctors' exams are biased against people with limited medical training...at least I hope so