Someone posted a while ago about how much easier it was for singers to pass grade exams than other instrumentalists and that they themselves could pass a grade three (?) exam without tuition because they had the skills needed already. I forget who it was but if he or she is reading this and has done the exam perhaps they would care to add a follow up post telling us of their experiences and outcome?

I think it was Violinia.

You may well be right. How did it go V?

I would agree, although of course Grade 3 would be only scratching the surface.

I also have a theory that it is easier for below-average candidates playing orchestral instruments to do moderately well in the early grades than it is for below-average pianists and guitarists, as the support of a piano accompaniment can make a lot of difference to a weaker player. Most very low marks (including fails) seem to derive from a lack of continuity in the performance and this is less likely to happen when there is a piano accompaniment. That's my hunch, anyway.

NB, I'm not arguing that certain instruments are easier than others per se, although this may also be the case.

There is the unaccompanied song too and the problems that some singers have maintaining pitch without any piano to support or any ready made notes. Even stringed instruments have four ready to use notes.

Playing an instrument makes sight singing much easier though - I have seen plenty of singers who can't sight sing and plenty of instrumentalists who can run rings around them, at the lower grades at least.

I think it depends on the person whether singing is easier than playing an instrument.

If you're someone who has a good ear for music, then sight-singing is likely to be easier than sight-reading, as you don't have the convert notes to fingerings step, whereas, if, like me, you find it difficult to form the music in your head, sight-reading will probably be easier, as you don't have to think about what its meant to sound like in the same way.

Singers don't have scales. I think quite a lot of people would rather do a 4th piece than learn hundreds of scales from memory.

I'm not a singer, but have a hunch that it could be easier to sing from memory than play from memory. If you have a tune stuck in your head, you could probably sing it straight off (although not necessarily with great technique), however to play it straight off requires the conversion to fingerings.

I'm an instrumentalist, a pianist and a singer. Each discipline has its advantages and disadvantages. Yes, instrumentalists play at least two pieces with an accompanist. While that makes some things easier, they have to learn the ins and outs of ensemble playing: keeping to a strict pulse, counting rests, tuning etc. Wind players have also to play an unaccompanied piece, which tests how well they keep a sense of pulse and continuity without an accompanist.

Pianists are on their own in the exam situation, playing an instrument that is not theirs. There is no-one to remind them about dynamics: no-one to give them a sense of pulse. But they have the complete score in front of them, can start in their own time and at their own pace and don't have to keep some of their attention on the accompaniment.

Singers have to sing everything from memory. They have to memorise not only at least four sets of words (quite often in a foreign language) but have to know exactly where to come in and quite often sing against an accompaniment that seems designed to put them off. And intonation, as has been mentioned above, is crucial and tends to be affected by tension, as does vocal quality. It's disconcerting to know that one's instrument may not perform as usual under exam conditions.

I've taken Grade 5 in three instruments: flute, piano and singing. My results are broadly similar, with the slightly higher marks in piano and singing accounted for by my better aural and sight reading/singing because I am an experienced musician.

I cannot say that I found any one of them harder or easier than any of the others: they all had their own challenges.

Not to mention those singers who have problems maintaining pitch even with a piano for support.

Well said, Andante_in_C, I agree with everything you have written.

To be quite honest, there are a few instruments one could pass a relatively low grade without formal tuition, and I myself would probably say the same with singing, though I have been in choirs with very good singing teachers for a long time, well since school in fact!

I think the difference is how easy it is to make a 'sound' on some instruments, though there is a long way between passing an exam to understanding the sound, interpretaion etc. for a certain level. Same applies to others like clarinet, recorder, piano etc. Getting a tune from an instrument (which to be fair is all you have to do at the lowest grades) and playing an instrument are quite different things.

Everyone should be able to sing to a certain standard. It is a superb foundation for music whatever instrument you play.

I think it's a great deal easier to sing from memory. I have very little trouble remembering songs, perhaps because I've done quite a lot of solo singing and memorising in my younger days. It takes me weeks to memorise a piano piece even once I can play it well with the music; with singing, once I know the song it takes me at most an hour before I can do it from memory.

I do find piano sightreading much easier than sight singing, though. The trouble with sightsinging is that once I've hit a wrong note, I panic and forget the key note; with piano, however many wrong notes I get, I know if I look down at the keyboard I can find the next note correctly! Sightsinging is so much easier with accompaniment, which is the usual case - if you join a choir, there is always piano accompaniment whilst you're learning a piece, even if it's going to be sung unaccompanied eventually.

I did a concert not that long ago with a 'professional' London music college-trained mezzo who simply couldn't stay at pitch, frequently going a good quarter tone sharp or more. I guess that the only possibilities are that either she couldn't hear that she was sharp, or she didn't have the technical control to correct her tuning. Not nice. Fortunately I can't remember her name.

Doesn't seem a very likely third possibility at that level, but with more elementary players or singers there seems to be an aural equivalent of tunnel vision that kicks in, as if an "off switch" in their ears blanks out the accompaniment. Nerves can certainly produce that sort of effect.

I play the viola. I could definitely pass a few grades on the violin, and I suspect it wouldn't take too much work for me to pass say G1 or 2 on the cello.

I'd be tempted to say that I could pass a lower grade also on the recorder - I know about tongueing and it wouldn't take me long to remember basic fingerings.

Similarly, I'd say that I could probably pass a lower grade singing. I can sightsing to an extent, some of the things on the syllabus are things that I already know, I'm generally in tune etc.

I could be sorely mistaken about any of these things, but I think "passing" is certainly possible (marks at the 100-105 level). I'm a reasonable musician, and if I can already make a reasonable sound out of the instrument (inc voice) then I don't think an early grade would be beyond my reach without tuition. I'm used to playing and singing with accompaniment, and am unlikely to be thrown off by an exam situation.

None of that means that I think any of these things are easy to play, or even easy to play well at G1-3 level. Just that it's significantly easier to progress on a 2nd/3rd/4th/etc instrument, and with careful syllabus choice I can imagine passing an exam.

Likewise the voice. You can "sing" well enough to pass the early grades, but just as the quality of sound is sweeter when you have been learning an instrument for, say 18 months, so the voice changes and matures, and sounds sweeter after working on the technique for that length of time.

Yes. I have been teaching myself the flute for about a year, somewhat sporadically. Because of my other musical experience I can sightread and make a decent fist of pieces up to around grade 5. However, I am aware of the fact that with no technical back-up from a good teacher I will never be a super flute player. There's a big difference between physically making the sounds and playing the instrument very proficiently. Singing really suffers from the fact that most people can make a noise! People don't usually respect the other factors involved in learning or teaching singing. I for one would love to teach singing but don't feel qualified (despite having 6 years of good tuition under my belt.)