just realised the title heading was too long- the last word is memoriser.
I was just curious, I know both are important in creating the well balanced musician but it doesn't mean we have to like it does it?
I'm much more of a scales person myself, not into the whole sight singing malarky in aural.

Which one is your heaven or ####?

sorry if I've missed a scenario off or anything, interested to see responses

aural, scales, scales

Dont like aural, but am goodish at it.
Like scales, but CANT remember the fingerings for some reason

I'm not sure one can differentiate between the two. They equally have their place. I think the biggest problems are how the requirements are set out. Some say there are too many scales in a lot of grades (not least the upper piano grades) and aural can sound very haphazard the way it is done at present. No wonder so many come to hate aural and singing.

Lets say you are learning French, German, another language. What is more important in learning to speak it fluently (pieces) or write letters in the language (theory), or translate something without help (sight-reading/quick study)? Rattling off vocabularly lists/grammar tables from memory (scales), or listening critically to conversations in that language (aural)? Both are an important part of the learning.

Music is a language!

Hear, hear!!

Quote:Neil.clarinet
"Lets say you are learning French, German, another language. What is more important in learning to speak it fluently (pieces) or write letters in the language (theory), or translate something without help (sight-reading/quick study)? Rattling off vocabularly lists/grammar tables from memory (scales), or listening critically to conversations in that language (aural)? Both are an important part of the learning.
Music is a language!"


I'm not trying to say which is more important, as I do agree that all parts of music are important...you worded it a lot better than myself by comparing it to a language, which I suppose it is when you think about it.
But, just because something is important doesn't mean you can't have a preference or dislike to one or the other...I am yet to come across someone, who whether they are brilliant at both or simply awful actually enjoy to do both, so I was wondering which people's preference generally lies...

hmmm, well i think aural is more important than scales, but i'm better at scales than aural.

I like scales better, but I think aurals are important too

I think your analogy is flawed. In playing the pieces you naturally need to listen to the accompaniment for singing/most instruments and for piano/organ etc you need to listen for the interaction between parts. Hence the pieces are more like learning to converse in a language than just learning how to speak it. The aural part is all very well so long as we're talking only about section D, the others sections though? I can know what lieder or a trill is without being able to reproduce one vocally, just as I can detect what the Bass is doing despite not being able to sing/hum/whistle/reproduce it on an instrument by ear.

Music may be a language, but within that language there should be the flexibility to use slightly different accents/dialects (instruments), so to ask one person to learn two accents/dialectics for the same qualification as someone who only needs to learn one is ridiculous. It would be like asking someone from London to learn a Glaswegian accent before they could get their GCSE . Likewise expecting them to be able to play by ear if they can't vocally reproduce it would be like expecting someone to learn Braille or Morse Code before they could get their Int. 2 English.

I certainly don't agree with the sight-singing with an accompaniment for Grade 6 upwards. Without some formal vocal training, this is nigh impossible to do.

Generally the AB aural tests are far too itty bitty anyway.

ABRSM, take a leaf from the TG syllabus with the aural tests.

Well, I'm okaaayyy at aurals (not great, but okay!), but I'm really struggling with the speed of the grade 6 scales, and the staccato sclaes too, so I think I'd ban them if I had a choice!! In saying that, thought, I think they are v. good for developing control and speed etc, and getting a really good understanding of keys...

WHAT!!! scales are much more useful! Without them Mozarts sonata k545 would be impossible!!!
Davidx

I loath scales. I abandoned them after G5 in Flute and went on to discover the beauty of TG's Orchestral Extracts scales alternative. And for piano I'm happy to play the LCM complicated study at high speed - at least I don't have to memorise it and it has a nice tune.

So if given a choice I have to vote for Aural - but then I've done so many practical exams that it's not exactly a challenge. I'm not sure how helpful it is to be able to identify a HARMONIC interval though (no, not MELODIC - it's LCM G5 next week). Why would I ever need to do that in the real world?

I don't see the need for sight singing (unless you're a singer), as it's supposed to tell the examiner that if you can't pitch your voice you can't pitch your instrument apparently! Ridiculous. I think it's time ABRSM took a note of TG exams...there was a time when ABRSM were gaining more and more numbers for exams(hence the world's leading exam board), but now TG numbers are going up because there is more freedom and choice and sadly, ABRSM numbers are falling. I am a firm believer in that though I may not be a sight singer(or any kind of singer for that matter), it does not make the slightest difference to whether I can or cannot pitch my instrument! I can see the importance of scales however, but I can also see that pieces that contain scaley patterns may be more practical for those who can play the scales but cannot memorise...but people have different strengths, and for some they are the best support test...I however find them immensly useful for theory.
But the sight singing. has to go.FACT.

ive never had any formal vocal training, and find this by far the easiest part of the aural tests. as well as waffling on about the piece that they play. the bits i hate are singing back the melody (i can never remember it all the way through) and modulations. if you dont have perfect pitch they are nearly impossible.

scales i hate too.

x

I dont see the point in aurals. Isnt music aural anyway? why should their be a seperate test in it?!

I think the amount of scales that sound exactly the same, step wise that is, should be cut down. I love doing all the different things like scales in thirds, diminished 7ths, dominant 7ths etc because theyre different! Playing three sets of twelve scales that sound the same is not fun! I know scales are useful for when playing music but wouldnt it better to work the other way round? Learn the scales from the music instead of learning scales for the music?

Rant over... phew

I did get some very easy scales in my exam today though G major for the first one! Im so lucky:D

My examiner asked me "if we could do some scales now please" and I replied "if thats completely necessary" and she laughed with a "good answer- now, G major"

If your nice and funny, theyre nice back! remember that for your exams

Grade 8 Bassoon 21/06/08 RIP!

But I've had all my worst marks from friendly examiners and my very best ones from the miserable ones.

ditto!
In both grade 1 and 4, i had 2 really grumpy looking examiners (the sort who go, oh look, another beginner) and I got 2 distinctions. But in grade3 I had this really happy bouncy man who seemed happy to be there, and I scraped a merit! So I think that smiling/frowning doesn't have any effect- it's just pyscological that you think it makes a difference...

I think scales are far more useful. It's more than 25 years since I did my grade 8 and as someone who plays purely for pleasure rather than making a living from music I have had no use for aural since. Scales however I play every time I practice as they keep my fingers active and help with all sorts of passages in pieces. The tests may have changed a bit since I did them but I remember having to conduct time to a piece the examiner played - I didn't have any intention of being a conductor and anyway a conductor would have the score in front of him so what use was the test?

Well, I wouldn't say scales are exactly heaven but they're easy-peasy compared to aural, which is pretty well murder. A necessary evil though.

I enjoyed aural until about grade 8 (so I marked it as 'enjoy'). Scales are useful as long as there aren't too many of them then learning them doesn't achieve anything. I thought the Trinity Guildhall method for scales was very helpful.

Listen, Listen

When I first read the options I didn't think 'aural' in terms of what has to be done in an AB exams. If we leave exams aside, I think it's absolutely ludicrous to think that scales are more useful than aural skills. As for playing a Mozart sonata without first playing scales - well, you could certainly play scales with ease after the sonata, but the reverse is not necessarily the case. However you do need aural skills to make a good job of the Mozart sonata.

If everyone was thinking in terms of AB exams when answering the questions, the results are not a very good reflection on AB's interpretation of the word 'aural' with regard to how they test it. But I've been there many times in my arguments here.

The AB aural tests include several skills for which I have found no particular need as a conductor, that being one of them. TG aural has one absolutely vital one: look at this, listen to that, note the difference.

I do think the conducting test has its uses. It shows they know the time signature, gives it shape, and shows they know where the down beat is. And not just the test itself, but teaching for it helps build an awareness of how to recognise time signatures and feel that strong beat. It can also help establish 6/8 as a clear 2 in a bar, which is relevant to how it should be played.

I don't often disagree with kenm on the subject of aural tests! (And this is not a big issue - but if we want pupils to be able to recognise time signatures, this is as good a way to do it as any!)

I used to like scales, until I discovered 6th's apart.

I've always hated aural tests simple becuase of memorising musical terms and the dreaded singing.

There are countless ways of getting better at this sort of thing in the music of Mozart, Chopin, John Field.......If you do it in real music, then exam requirements are a doddle.

Once you've got it I think it's a great trick.

If you are the stage of playing scales in 6ths haven't you automatically been using the most common musical terms for an awful long time?

Scales on just a clarinet mouthpiece are fun

I think I'd better stick with the conventional way for now.

I can always show you...

...............oh yes, go on

Come to an event, and I shall

Excellent. Can you teach a whole class of us to do it?

Could do, I guess...

I'm still incredulous about the fact that, after all the threads where so many people strongly advocated singing in aural tests, and the importance of developing aural skills generally, there are currently 43% who would like to see aural tests removed from exams. Something is not adding up here....

Well, I don't teach beginners, so I wasn't commenting on that, only on what a conductor needs.

That's down to the question. "If you could ban one from exams which one would it be?" prompts a choice, one or the other, while you could still truthfully answer no to "Do you think either should be banned from exams?".

But there was an option to ban neither. More voted to ban aural than neither.

Yes, indeed but the way its worded with "If you could" lets you make the choice without thinking of the possible consequences.

I've just added a reply to the "Aural training" thread (post 13) which is relevant to this. I do think that the way aural is dealt with in AB exams is largely responsible for the unpopularity of 'aural', generally. It is a word which is synonymous for many with 'what happens in the exam'.

What I'm finding hard to believe here is not that exam aural tests are unpopular, because I can see why that is, and I can see why many people don't agree that certain aspects of them test 'aural' skills at all. What I'm surprised at is that so many seem to have this opinion now after there being so many people in the past hammering home the 'benefits' of the singing parts of the tests, and so strongly defending their inclusion. Maybe we've had different people responding to this thread than to other threads about aural tests. For so many here to feel that they are useless is definitely something to think about. If students aren't relating the aural tests to the rest of their musical learning, or seeing their benefit, then something is wrong with the nature of aural TESTING.

For the record, I am strongly in favour of the sort of aural test that I took in Part I of my degree. This had three parts, IIRC:

1) Take dictation of a four part chorale;

2) Mark on a short score the ways in which a recorded performance differed from it (pitch and rhythm);

3) Listen to a recording of an orchestral work and identify its genre, its period and its general organisation.

On my course, instrumentalists had to sing (in the Choral Society) only if they couldn't get a place in the University Symphony Orchestra.

Dictation, in simpler format, even for beginners, would actually be a great way of assessing the ability to hear pitches rather than singing. Instead of teachers wasting time teaching pupils to pitch their voices when they can hear but not pitch vocally, teachers who otherwise might not do much theory would be encouraged to spend time on writing notation in the early grades.

Your number 2 above is basically what is required in TG, except that it's played on the piano. Number 3 is the first question in the upper grades, but again, it's piano.

It would be possible to do that orally: "This note is C; what is this note?"

Some teachers whose pupils I hear seem not to spend enough time on time values, especially of rests. This becomes obvious when a typical English amateur is asked to read from barless notation, and the usual tactic of working backward from the barline fails. Of course, the AB exams reveal it clearly enough in the sight reading test; I don't know what weight accurate rhythm is given.

Yes, this is why I recommend TG to people who hate to sing. I think piano is OK up to G8. University music exams usually take place in the presence of a good audio set-up.

Having gone through Grade 8 aural twice, grade 7 aural twice (not to mention the inter-boar A level Aural of 1987) and taken grade 8 scales on the oboe and grade 7 scales on a treble recorder that really did not want to play ball that day, and gone part way to learning grade 8 piano scales. I think it is fair to say I know scales and aural. I see the point in both and they are as valuable. Scales help you anchor yourself within a tonality, they can help you gain technical finesse and maintain intonation on a woodwind instrument and finger dexterity. Aural, as the "au" prefix demands the musician to listen and inwardly digest. These are both vital skills that I apply equal weight to when teaching. As a result I enjoy both, and would get rid of neither.

I will not say either is my zenith nor nadir, they are just part of the complete package, and this music lark is all about becoming a rounded complete package with a range of technical and musical skills that allow you to make music.

Nutty questions!

Scales teach you about the tonal system as well as developing motor skills.

Every musician needs to train their hearing.

It helps to learn to enjoy everything you need to do to become a musician.

Should they be in exams? Depends on what the exam is examining. If it is instrumental performance then neither has any business being inthe exam. The performance is all. If it is all-round musicianship that is being examined then both should be in the exam, along with many more things, many of which (sadly) are not.