The parents' forum may not be the best place for this. However, it is inspired by Dora's recent posts, and I'm a parent, so this is where I shall put it.

Out of curiosity I've just looked back over my own daughter's exam reports for the 13 ABRSM exam's she's taken to date. In the aural tests her marks have been:

18 (3 times)
17 (3 times)
16 (2 times)
15 (once)
14 (once)
13 (once)
12 (once)
11 (once).

So, although these suggest she's generally quite good at aural there's a remarkably wide spread. Is this everyone else's experience? I'm no mathematician (Dora, comments please!), but I can't help feeling that if the tests were doing their job properly the range of scores would be narrower.

Although my daughter is never confident about the aurals, and I do as much as possible to help with preparation, I have become increasingly cynical (and consequently rather more laid back!) about them over time. In part, this is because such a large element of the whole business seems to be a matter of luck. For instance, if you are asked if a cadence is perfect or imperfect the chances of being correct are 50%. Further, the tests picked by the examiner in each section of the exam inevitably will suit one candidate better than they might another.

Any thoughts?

What you haven't said is which grades you're referring to; obviously that could make a difference. The marks would be more meaningful if, say, a student was tested every day or every week for a defined period. As it is they simply show what was achieved on the day of the exam.

I've come to the conclusion that the aural component of the test may be fairly random, but the study and preparation done for the aural tests are useful!

Yes, I think so.

My youngest son finds Gd 6 aural easier than Gd 4 since the cadences are SO obvious and he is a good sight singer. Lots depends on what other musical experiences the candidates have I think.

I think the point about which grade these marks are for is very relevant. In my experience it is relatively easy for pupils to get high marks in the aural tests in Grades 1, 2 and 3. From Grade 4 onwards the tests are much more difficult for some pupils. From Grade 5 onwards they become more difficult for teachers to prepare as well - particularly for teachers whose first instrument is not the piano. I think this is why we read on the forums that some parents find some teachers don't prepare the aural tests.

Also, the reverse can be true. A pupil who hasn't done very well in the early grades can "click" into aural later on - just because they have, by that time, had a wider aural experience.

I think there is also an element of luck in the aural tests - as there is in many exams. I don't see how this can be avoided. (It happens in sight reading as well.) I have had Grade 5 pupils who can sing back one melody without any problems at all, only to find that another is, for them, impossible. A lot depends on what they are given on the day.

This is pretty much what I think too. I've been intregued that my daughter has scored quite highly and poorly at teh same exam level on the same day. I suspect no two examiners would come up with the same result, in that they would deliver different tests.

If I were a more sensitive soul I'd be deeply offended by this (I'm joking).

I agree that Grades 1 to 3 are much easier than Grade 4.
I think the echo singing for Grade 6 is easier than Grade 4 but I'm not musical so what do I know.
When I look at the elements of the Aural for the upper grades then nothing individually can be worth much.
I also do think that it is pretty subjective. Beth did a Grade 5 at Christmas and got 9/18. I had done my best but Beth wasn't really listening to me because her Grade 4 had gone well. She was in her first term at secondary school and I should have had more sense than to allow her to be entered for an exam that term. I thought the 9 was probably well deserved.

4 months later she did another Grade 5. She was listening this time and trying much harder. Her sax teacher was amazing and made fantastic progress with her. She is both very musical and a gifted teacher. Beth is incredibly lucky to have had her. She had taught Beth to echo sing with confidence. We had spent way more time on the discussion question too. On top of that her language problems had been identified and various accommodations were made by the Board.
Despite all that Beth only got 10 at Easter.

The examiner doesn't seem to me to have been hard. Beth got 17/21 for scales despite being unable to play one scale at all after several attempts at it. The examiner pointed out that the 10 cost Beth a distinction, she got 127, so presumably gave it because that was honestly what they thought her performance was worth.
Remember I'm an academic. I wonder if examiners dislike giving 129 as a mark. We are not allowed to give 9s. If that was the case I wonder if they thought she wasn't worth a 13 and wanted to make her a clear merit.

My plan is to continue working hard at aural as part of Beth's development as a musician. Enough people say it is important, and Beth's teachers generally are very good at aural, to persuade me that we can't neglect this. When we get to a Grade 8 I will find some way of cranking up the aural input, not sure how though. I have every Grade 6 aural resource that I have found.
We are about to lose our sax teacher and my current plan is to find a postgraduate student to do aural with Beth next year, on top of singing lessons.

I agree with a poster on my thread that this will all be a minor hiccup in the scheme of things in a few years time. I know that Beth is not unique, certainly among other children of parents on this list, but aged 11 I guess children are more likely to be taking Grade 3 than Grade 5.
Because we are not a musical family she hasn't been exposed to any kind of critical evaluation of classical music and while I did endlessly sing nursery rhymes when she was small she just didn't have the exposure to music that some other children have had at her age.
Her sax teacher claims to have had similar difficulties at her age.
Beth works so hard practicing her instruments that she is almost bound to have her instrumental ability continue to outstrip her aural development. We may have to defer Grade 8s until there is a better match between the two. Or we may just take the hit and hope for a distinction anyway.

I am already seeing examples of Beth's aural development. Perfect and imperfect cadences are a breeze and if you play a phrase she can sing the tonic. I have no idea how she does that and no one has taught her that, she can just do it.
Dora (going bankrupt)

Someone who's great at aural can have a bad day. Likewise, someone who's rubbish can make several lucky guesses. Scores also depend on how well you prepared for that exam in comparison with others etc etc, so one person can get quite a range of marks. For the higher grades, the piece you get for test D could also make a huge difference (I can waffle for hours about a Chopin-like piece but wouldn't know where to start if I got Mozart) and if you're particularly good at recognising certain modulations and cadences but not others etc.

I got 18/18 when I did grade 1 piano, 15 for grades 2, 4 and 5 and 16 for grade 6. Then I hit a bit of a brick wall as far as aural was concerned and got 12 for grade 7 despite working really hard at it in the run-up to the exam. For grade 8, I worked really hard again, but still no real improvement and both me and my teacher thought I'd probably get about 10, but on the day, I got lucky and came out with 16 (I seriously thought my teacher was having me on when I got a text saying I'd got a distinction overall and 16 for aural!). The next term, I did grade 6 recorder and got 13, so that was worse than a higher grade and my previous grade 6.

I'm not sure this argument stands up as the examiner could have given her 11/18 and she would still have ended up with a 'clear' merit. 118 and 128 are quite common results, although I had suspected that the policy is to avoid awarding 119 or 129; I've certainly never come across those marks.

The policy definitely is not to allow 119, 129 or 99 - I've heard Clara Taylor say so & I think it's written down somewhere.

I really have no logical explanation for the 9 and 10 then apart from "Luck, or not, on the day." That doesn't feel right though. Examiners comments would support the marks awarded which would suggest that student performance on the day is variable at least in our case.

I do wonder why there are separate theory exams, which you only have to pass once, but aural is presented as a separate element of every exam. Why not just at the first exam at each grade unless the student seeks a retest.
Dora

Possibly because it wouldn't work to have a sit-down theory exam as part of a practical exam, and they wouldn't be able to test you properly on theory in a short amount of time, whereas they can do that for aural.

Aural seems to me to be a complete lottery! My son had never failed aural until he reached grade 8 - results for 10 exams had ranged from 18 at grade 3 to a low of 14 at grade 5 and up to 16 for grade 7.

On taking grade 8 for the first time (clarinet) he achieved only 12. He therefore put in a lot of time and effort, appeared to have greatly improved, and on his next grade 8 (piano) achieved 10! Undaunted, he put in still more time and effort, again seemed to have improved, and on taking clarinet grade 8 again (for a distinction) achieved 10!!

There is no way that his aural by the third grade 8 was worse than on the first one. He had spent a lot of time practising, and although it was never going to be the best part of the exam, was confident of passing. I can only think he had such a hang-up about it by then that he went to pieces on the day, although he thought it had gone reasonably well.

The good news is that it's easily possible to gain a distinction without passing aural. The bad news is that it does knock your confidence to fail three times, and has resulted in him feeling useless at aural. To be honest, I can't see the point of the aural exam; the big plus about ABRSM diplomas is that aural doesn't appear at all - if it's so important, why not?

I agree with this. I did really badly in the aural section of both my grade 3 and grade 5 exams but got good aural marks in both of them (from memory 16 or 17) which was way more than I could possibly have awarded myself if I was examining. So I don't feel the marks in anyway reflect my ability.

I do think that aural training is important and useful - but I tend to do preperation for the exam tests and not maybe the aural training that would be best for me. But that's another thread!

I know of an adult learner who thinks it hilarious that he made an error in his grade 8 aural (he got the period/style wrong, but the examiner kept letting him guess, with more and more hints, until he finally got it) yet got full marks for the aural. Aurals ought to be the least subjective part of the exam but they seem to vary wildy, and the last question rarely has any resemblance at all to the sort of things suggested in the practice books.

I haven't yet had time to read through all the other replies but just to answer this, the grades vary between 1 and 5. Instruments are cello,clarinet,singing and piano. The first was taken in autumn 2004 - grade 1 cello - when my daughter was 8. This was one of the 18s. She hasn't done all the grades on all her instruments, bu taking her Grade 3s as an example, she got:

17 in Grade 3 cello in summer 06;
18 in Grade 3 clarinet in autumn 06;

but

11 in Grade 3 singing in spring 07.

So, the worst mark was in the latest of the 3 exams, for which in total she'd had most practice

That is really quite disturbing. One could understand a difference of a couple of marks either way so a range of say 14 to 17 but 11 following a 17 and 18 is not easy to understand especially if the total marks were reasonably comparable so you can't argue she had an off day, especially since it was a singing exam.
That is really hard on your daughter.
Dora

and I might add that her Grade 5 marks have been similarly variable, but in reverse:

12 in Grade 5 clarinet, in spring 08,
16 in Grade 5 cello summer 08
17 in Grade 5 singing spring 09,

so in this case she does seem to be getting better with practice!

The last thing I would want to do is take anything away from Beth's fantastic aural score. What you say though Dora does kind of fit the randomness of the aural exams (previous marks rather than current one).

I must admit I've wondered sometimes if scales and aural are sometimes used to place a candidate firmly in one band or another.

A little off my original topic, but I've wondered this too. My daughter got full marks in her grade 5 clarinet scales despite the fact that she got one scale wrong. Her overall result was 130!

However, I have encountered people who've achieved overall marks of 119 and 129 so it does happen.

Regarding my original post, I do agree with Banjogirl that the aural tests should be the most objective bit of the exam and I think wide variability is a bit disconcerting. It's all very well putting it down to luck on the day but I would like to feel that the aural tests are a reasonably reliable indicator of my daughter's actual ability and preparation - just as, when she eventually does GCSEs etc it seems reasonable to expect that the results will reflect her ability/preparation in the subjects she takes.

Exactly. One understands there is a balance between "real" ability and performance in the day. But if the range is so wide that performance on the day proves to have little correlation with the underlying ability and achievement then it lacks credibility.
I am glad there is no aural component to the diplomas.
Dora

Well, exams are not important! It does not matter! So don't get hung up on marks. It drives me mad. Any child that undergoes any exam is to be congratulated. I hate all this exam comparison activities.

I mentioned in my post above that there was an element of luck in the aural tests and I think the wide differences in scores quoted above could just be that.

When using the AB specimen tests with pupils I have found that one example can ellicit a perfect response and another example of the same test a poor response. As far as I know examiners have several examples of each test to choose from. If they happen to choose one that a particular candidate finds difficult then marks will be less than if the examiner had chosen another example. And if in the course of the aural tests the examiner picks two examples which a particular candidate finds difficult the problem is worse. I am not talking about examples actually being widely different - they should be more or less the same - but they never can really be on account of what different candidates find easier or harder.

I don't think it is possible for teachers to ensure that a candidate will react positively to every test every time. Also every single examiner and every teacher will vary in how they give or prepare the tests. It's not a robot situation.

I don't think in any exam of any kind one can totally eliminate the element of chance. We just have to live with it.

That said I do think the aural tests could be improved upon - but that's another story.

As I recall, aural tests are marked as whole rather than each component adding up. So you can completely flunk sightsinging and singing echos, but do quite well if you can pull out a stunning bit of discussion.

To this end, bearing in mind I just don't do singing, I got my best ever aural mark in G6. This was because in that exam I had the examiner who ut me most at ease. In practically every other exam I sat, I was completely frozen up / terrified out of my wits by the time the aural came round. That makes discussing a piece of music quite difficult... and my marks reflected this.

At the higher grades preparation can only help so much if you don't get an examiner who you can get into a decent discussion with.

We are only comparing the childs marks to others they have achieved not against other children. I think it shows that we actually think about how our children earn their marks in exams. Expecting high marks is much more dangerous in my opinion than trying to figure out how they are gained.

I disagree exams are important in that bursaries, admittance to specialist music colleges and UCAS points can all be gained from sitting the exam and particularly what level you achieve. I don't think they are the end of the story or provide a completely acurate picture. I've come to realise that the learning that goes to making my child a better player is more important than 3 pieces on a particular day. However I do think if there are seperate rewards for the exam pass then AB and other boards should do everything possible to make them as fair and equal as possible.

As paying customers we have a right to expect that.

Sorry Debra I have to disagee with you on this one. They may not be important to you, but if poeple didn't see them as important then they wouldn't take them. I agree that if someone doesn't pass an exam it's not 'the end of the world' but overall the exams and a fair marking system is still important.

Actually, I do agree with you - up to a point. Lower grade music exams are not important in the grand scheme of things, and I have always encouraged my daughter to enjoy them as an opportunity to play. I'm not sure she takes any notice of me though!

I'm really just intrigued by the lack of consistency of her results and the possible reasons. Up to grade 4 she always did significantly worse in aural tests in singing exams than in the same grade on cello, even though by the time the singing exams came round she'd had more practice. This has always struck me as a bit odd.

A possible theory for why people manage to do worse at a particular grade the second time is that they've been practising for higher grades rather than for that particular grade and will have thought 'oh, well if I got high marks in grade X, a lower grade will be easy' (I was definitely guilty of this for grade 6 the second time round). So, for example, for grade 8 test D, you are free to talk about whatever you want, so can sneakily not comment on elements that you're not great at recognising, while talking in depth about things you do know. If you then go back to doing grade 6 or 7, you will probably find it harder as you are asked about specific things. It's also easy to over-complicate things if you've forgotten that, for example, at grade 6, there's only two cadences to choose from, etc.

Perhaps instead of asking 'Are the scores meaningful?', we could instead be asking' Are the tests themselves meaningful?'. I think many of us might justifiably conclude that they are not. To me they seem to consist of a wholly arbitrary series of random hoops, the jumping through of which have done little if anything to contribute to the overall musical development of my students. A comparison with the TG aural tests will reveal a totally different ( and in my view, more musical) approach to aural testing. It might almost be a different subject.

Some years ago, I had the job of entering a 6th form student for her 4th Grade 8 practical - she already had piano, violin and viola, and was keen to add singing to the collection. 'I suppose you'll be all right at the aural teats by now, then?' I enquired , to which she replied that her aural marks had in fact got lower with each successive exam.

Way back in the day, when the Guildhall was still a separate exam board, candidates taking the same grade in a different instrument had the option of presenting their previous marksheet, and their previous mark would then be carried forward, without having to redo that part of the exam.

Sounds much better than having to do the same aural twice in one day

HelenVJ - why is it that you feel the tests are "wholly arbitrary"? Just curious! I feel that the 5-10 minutes allotted is obviously not enough to test all the aural skills in the syllabus...is that what you meant?

I couldn't find son Viohazard's marksheets for previous exams so have little idea how his aural marks compare over the years. It will be interesting to see how he does in his guitar grade 8 in 3 week's time, since he's had actual tuition in the aural skills required, for the first time ever. (Although I sometimes wonder if the opera singer who teaches him aural spends as much time on modulations as he does on "The Wines of Italy" )!

The nature and/or levels of the tests may differ, but the actual skills being tested are similar to the skills Viohazard needs to know for university entrance here.

I guess it's probably been mentioned already, but I got full marks in my aural tests up to grade five. Consequently I've failed every single one. It just gets to a point at about Grade Five, where you actually need all round musical knowledge to even decipher the questions and it's not really about listening anymore. As a not-naturally-musical singer, who doesn't play any other instruments, and who's rubbish at theory, that's not good for me.
I can listen and hear a piece perfectly well, I can recognise that there are lyrical, songlike melodies or whatever, but if I don't know what period that relates to, it doesn't really help.

Not that that's a bad thing, I just need to brush up on my musical knowledge.

I wouldn't say it isn't about listening because you do have to be able to listen with discrimination. But it is certainly true that all round general knowledge becomes very important. On the plus side I think it's a great help in playing and interpreting and enjoying music to be able to put it into a historical context. On the minus side I would say it's very hard for instrumental teachers to find enough time to cover this side of things adequately - particularly with those pupils who don't come from musically cultured homes and/or have no music lessons in school.

Aurals are a very small section of the exam in total - and I'd think that the particular skills tested in them are about as important in comparison with the performance component as the proportion of the total marks they get: sure, we have to be able to hear and to listen if we want to play well, but I'm not at all sure the tests as they stand can test how well we hear or listen - for instance, is it vital that we can sing in tune, or that we can remember several bars' worth of melody and reproduce that? Some musicians need to know the nature of a cadence in more detail than others do, too, and as for being able to identify the period of a piece, okay, so a well-rounded musician ought to be encouraged to listen to as wide a range of music as possible, but natural preferences, and in some cases also the instrument being studied both tend to limit that....in the end does it matter?

As far as exams mattering or not goes - I know a professional classical musician who has not done exams, and still makes a good career of it: they are not the be-all and end-all - and I too get a bit impatient with the over-ambitious, "a distinction is the only result worth having" school of thought - but I have also done and valued exams for the focus they have given me, and have aimed to be as good a player as I could to give myself enough allowance for the disasters that can happen on the day, and yes, have had results I could be and am proud of. However what's important to me about that is that they have helped me to push myself to become a better musician.

Well I had Emsoboes results today. Now don't laugh.... She scored similar marks for G5 and G7. The comment on G5 mostly correct but errors in B. The comment on G7 errors but B was best

She was really ill on the day and it seems so long ago, and there is just too much else going on musically for me to care anymore.