I have a pupil who has entered for all the exam boards up to Grade 7, but hasn't done AB since Grade 4 and doesn't have Grade 5 theory. She would find it fairly easy to consolidate most of the knowledge required, but her spare time is limited, and certain aspects of the syllabus would take a little studying and thinking about. She would like to have the option of all three main boards for Grade 8, especially as she doesn't find the current TG Grade 8 very inspiring. So I looked at the Practical Musicianship syllabus closely for the first time tonight, and, unless I'm missing something, it seems like a much easier option than Grade 5 theory for somebody who is a natural musician, but who hasn't done much formal theory. A lot of what is required is the type of thing we do for fun in the lessons to which the pupil arrives with the confession of 'not having practised much that week' - although I never really thought of this in terms of 'practical musicianship'. It also has similarities to the TG aural and improvisation tests, which most of my pupils enjoy and are fairly familiar with - whatever tests they choose to do in the actual exam.

So - am I missing something, or is Practical Musicianship an easier option than Grade 5 theory?

The pupils who start with me do theory work alongside their practical, so getting the necessary Grade 5 in time to take the higher practical grades isn't usually a problem. However, I have found the Grade 5 musicianship option VERY useful on a few occasions where I have inherited a pupil who is quite advanced but has done little or no theory.

It's by no means a walkover, especially the first test (singing and playing back, which can often be a real problem because of the length of it) but those who are naturally good at aural usually do fairly well overall. I'd recommend going through the earlier-grade exercises first so as to build up gradually to the Grade 5 requirements, rather than just pitching straight in at Grade 5 level, though.

No, I'd say that Grade 5 Practical Musicianship is a far harder option than Grade 5 Theory. It needs a far higher level of musical maturity.

This is, of course, based on the serious scientific sample of one person attempting it - me

My experience of doing it was that the level of improvisation required was very high - I was marked down for not being adventurous enough - and the "spot the difference test" is an absolute nightmare, way harder than the TG grade 8 aural version of the same.

Good luck to your pupil with whatever you decide to do.

Yes I entered my son...but he pulled out...because of a brace primarily..it seems ok until you work at it and find out that it is not an easy option. He moved to T/G and is on G4 Theory now..and has done G7 Singing.....you need another instrument as a singer..he had trumpet but found it hard...and tried piano..not good for singers. I know a woodwind teacher who enters pupils for Jazz exams which exempts them from doing the theory..I had a pupil who did G5 Jazz in Clarinet..and was thus able to do G6 with me(singing) and g6 in clarinet...I don't know if that might be an easier option?

I agree with Jo - it is a great option for those who are good at aural, but it is best to start with the easier examples and build up to grade 5. It does require some theoretical knowledge of course (sense of key for transposing; ability to realise ornaments; structure and development of ideas for improvisation; chords for continuing melody or adding an accompaniment). One advantage is that it's all over in under 20 minutes, and this suits pupils who just don't want to (or can't) sit and write for 2 hours.

Thanks, everyone, for your thoughts. Maybe it's harder than it first appears - but we'll have a go. It sounds more fun than theory, for a start. I find teaching theory in the instrumental lesson just too much, timewise, so I send them to somebody else for theory - but this girl didn't want to add to her weekly diary.

I've been reading up about Practical Musicianship as well and I really like the look of it! I think I'll give one a go at the end of the year

How difficult it is compared to theory probably depends on the person. I never minded aural tests and would have preferred to do something more practical rather than the theory exam if I'd been given the choice at the time, I think.

My group 'jazz' classes have sort of taken a turn in this direction too. We all had a discussion about what we actually wanted to get out of these sessions, and most of them would prefer to be able to improvise than simply play jazz. We've been through a mixture of things that we know well, and things they've made up, with each person trying the same tune in a different key, and harmonising just the cadence points for now. They're also playing made-up duets with one concocting a melody to fit in with another's chords - so I've been thinking that we might as well work towards something like PM rather than Grade 1 jazz. They enjoy filling in the empty bars in the jazz, but aren't so keen to add to their practice load by actually learning the notated bits!

I think Practical Musicianship can be easier for pupils with a natural ability and well-developed aural skills. By 'easier', I mean it takes them less effort and time to get to the standard required to pass the exam. Realistically, this is probably because they have already been practising a lot of the required skills - such as improvisation - as part of their general music-making in a way that less musically-inclined kids won't necessarily have done.

I do an awful lot of theoretical work with my pupils in conjuction with the repertoire they're learning (in addition to aural work this way, too) but there are still things that aren't quite the same until you sit down and put pen (or maximum HB pencil) to paper.

To an extent, and there are certainly pupils I would steer in the direction of theory - but the question was Is PM easier? and my answer was Yes it can be, for certain pupils.

My experience of my musical high-flyers who, for one reason or another, needed a Grade VI prerequisite quickly, was that it was easier to capitalise on the general musicianship they had built up through a range of different instruments than to cram for the theory paper. These were all bright students with a good general knowledge of theory, but the practical musicianship skills had largely evolved naturally and so required only honing, whereas the theoretical knowledge and exam technique required for the theory paper would have had to have been specifically taught.

I'm not saying one route is right for everyone - just citing experience of specific pupils. For those for whom aural work is a struggle, theory is definitely the way to go.

They suit different people. I think for the naturally talented musician, PM is quite straightforward. I teach quite a few kids with leaning difficulties/special needs (whatever the current PC term is), including teenagers with no grasp of numbers at all, so rhythms, metre, intervals etc are just so alien. I've had one with Aspergers who could barely reach double figures in the theory, but PM they could just do it, and with very little help from me I might add!

If your pupils is around the grade 8 standard, the jazz grade 5 would certainly be within their range as well.

What about doing Jazz exams tho....what instruments can they be done in...

I agree with this. I know some very musical children who have breezed through the practical musicanship at age 8 or 9, who would have really struggled with G5 theory. I, on the other hand, passed G5 theory when I was 8 without any difficulty, but certainly don't think I'd have managed practical musicanship (assuming they had it in those days). We're all different.

I did Grade 5 Practical Musicianship instead of theory, and while I managed to get a merit and found it reasonable (if I did get a little stressed the night before...), I'm not sure that I actually learned a huge amount from it... I still feel that my theory "side" is slightly lacking. That's possibly just me though!

Bit like the good old days when you could do Keyboard Harmony instead of aural tests at the higher grades. THere are those who find them really easy and useful, and others who couldn't get near! I'd be interested as to why they stopped doing the kbd harmony tests, does anyone know?

I've also entered young pupils for PM rather than theory. - they are the ones who have turned gray while trying to add up semiquavers (let alone demisemiquavers) . I tend to enter them for grade 4 on the same day as their grade 3 or 4 instrument exam, so they jsut stay in the exam room. Then do the same with grade 5. In this way, there are no extra nerves - its jsut like an elongated aural part of the exam..

That sounds like a really good idea.

I have a pupil who once asked me, "Miss, what's a demise-mi-quaver?" (He'd only seen it written down!)