Perhaps we were at the same undergrad school? See my earlier post on the subject of clefs.

Hmmm. I think that's pushing things a little too far....

Crikey!

This is a reprint of the old, nineteenth-century Bach-Gesellschaft, isn't it? The only version I have of the Art of Fugue is a reprint (in pocket score format) from this edition - in open score and SATB clefs. I still read it through occasionally when I'm feeling masochistic. It's not easy!

I think fluency with the soprano clef can also facilitate one's ability to transpose. The other thing that I had to do in my first two years of undergraduate keyboard harmony class, besides to learn all five C clefs, was to play open scores with lots of transposing instruments. We were taught to pretend that the staves for the transposing instruments were written in different clefs.

Ideally I'd like to master all five C clefs!

Yes, all of the Dover Bach scores are reprint of the Bach-Gesellschaft edition. I wouldn't use it for piano teaching (especially the French Suites), but a lot of it is quite reliable.

Now that, to my mind, would be a far more useful test for FRCO - just something modest like a score for 4-part strings, horn and clarinet.

Just saw this on the "other" board - surely the easiest Fellowship going?

http://www.societyofcrematoriumorganists.org.uk/

Oh my giddy aunt!

But no requirement to read obscure clefs!

Aye!

I doubt it, as I'm from the other side of the Atlantic Ocean.

Anyway, I think familiarity with different clefs is useful for reading complicated open scores with transposing instruments. It saves a lot of time to read the parts using different clefs than to do the actual transposition.

Just an aside: I have always found the soprano clef much easier than the tenor clef. Maybe it's because I don't play instruments like the cello, trombone or bassoon.

Can someone please tell me whether the GRSM diploma still exists or not??????

sorry, slightly branch away from the original topic.

The GRSM diploma was a graduate diploma, awarded after full-time study as an undergraduate at the RCM, I believe. I'm pretty sure it's no longer available, but I'm open to correction (as always! ).

Both the RCM and RAM offered the GRSM. The GSM had their own graduate diploma, the GGSM. Didn't TCL have their own too? I think you're right about them no longer being available - a look at the college's websites would elucidate, I'm sure.

Yup, Trinity had the GTCL.

Thanks for clarifying that it was both the RCM and RAM, Vox.

The GRSM was, regrettably, abolished when each college was permitted to award 'degrees' in performance, etc., rather than professional diplomas.

Traditionally, conservatoires trained musicians for performance and teaching, whereas the universities trained people for music theory, though often with an optional performance paper. The results from some of the provincial 'universities' have been very unfortunate as they have lacked conservertoire teachers.

The issue is far wider than just music, for all kinds of law schools have sprung up with exactly the same problems.

As I recall, this arose from John Major's admininstration when every technical college became a 'university' with predictable results.

In music, as always, the able and hard working will succeed. The less able and less hard working are, unfortunately, sometimes encouraged to achieve things they can never reach.

Barry Williams

Barry, as I sit wading through yet more watered down AS, A2 and GCSE syllabuses, your last statement could not be more accurate in a number of subjects in education today.

I fully agree. The problem is that "the debate" always happens at the most emotive time - when the results come out - with the predictable result that students and parents are up in arms at the suggestion that their A*'s are not worth the same as those from 10-20 years ago. The debate should be happening at a non-emotive time, e.g. December or February.

And as for degrees from former technical colleges vs. those from actual redbricks/ivory towers, well there lies a whole other debate that is probably best left for now.

It's all seriously OT anyway :-/

When I taught 'A' level, 'AS' level and GCSE last (about 13 years ago), I thought then how low the standard had dropped. (As a student, I was in the first year of those taking GCSE.) Do we think the standards are now even less than they were then?

HG, hard though this might be to believe, but yes, the bar is even lower. And yes, I agree, the summer months of discussing this are a very emotive time. And yes, I think we all know about some of the 'former technical cleeges' that now offer bona fide degrees. And yes, the quality must be getting better, because according to statistics published by the governemnt, more people are getting firsts....

I was talking with one of my accompanists the other evening. He teaches for the OU. Unfortunately, he says that things which used to be taught at 'A' level are now having to be taught at undergraduate level because they're no longer part of the 'A' level syllabus. Whilst I'm sure that some will shoot me down in flames for saying this, I think it a great pity that there seems to be a general dumbing down of standards.

Couldn't agree more. I am not a teacher so probably have no clue what I'm talking about, but the impression I have is that the rot set in with comprehensive education and the perceived need for one-size-fits-all syllabuses which stripped out the academic content. "A" levels have of necessity been dumbed down because the baseline knowledge attained at GCSE level has also been dumbed down. That is not to say that the amount of knowledge required to pass "A" levels is not great, but that it lies in a rather different direction. Also I suspect the module approach works in the pupils' favour.

Mind you, my father used to claim that the school certificate and higher school certificate were more difficult than the "O" and "A" levels that replaced them. He was probably right.

I seem to recall that, when I was teaching 'A' level and GCSE, one board for GCSE didn't require pupils to read standard notation, but accepted graphic score instead. How does one go from that to harmonising a vocal score in four parts in Bachian style - which was still an 'A' level question when I was teaching it? I could never quite fathom an easy transition between the two....

That's most excellent. I thought I'd go a search for people using it and I found the College of Page Turners, which seems to dish out FCPT. http://collegept.wordpress.com/2008/07/

Well an addition of FSCO would sound impressive, and it would provide another choice of hood! It seems FCPT entitles you to another hood too.

Does anyone know what hoops organisations have to go through to be able to dish out letters like this?

In the same way that I am innocent of any charge of watching BGT, I take pride in my complete ingnorance of the significance of academic hoods or other fanciful regalia and refuse to take any interest thereof.

I'd rather buy shoes.

College of Page-Turners indeed. Tsk!

I have heard it said that the colours of the Society of Crematorium Organists' hood are flame red and ash grey.


Barry Williams

The College of Page Turners? Whatever next?!

Unfortunately, these organisations don't need to go through any hoops. Anybody can set themselves up as a 'college' and award 'diplomas'. They're not entitled to try to claim to give graduate status, however.

Yup, anybody can. And, yes, you can be Principal of your own college today! Or you could be Principal of several. Often you find the same culprits behind several of these sorts of organisations, and there are a lot of these so-called colleges out there. And there are people daft enough to buy these ridiculous 'diplomas' too.

I could have fun with my new College there, sending letters to prominent politicians conferring honourary memberships.

Well, don't ask them for a membership fee - they're already claiming enough expenses!

I can't make my mind up whether these candy-floss diplomas are left-wing attempts to discredit the diploma system or right wing attempts to fleece the gullible and desperate. Probably the latter. I wonder how much money they make. Not that much, I should hope.

And I was in the second. The A-levels I took might as well have been different subjects compared to their corresponding GCSE. Witness:

Example 1 - GCSE French oral (role play): you are in a shop. Buy six eggs. Ask how much the ham is. A-level oral: Discuss discussion in contemporary society with the examiner (heck, I can't do that in English! ).

Example 2 - GCSE Music aural: What do you think the composer's mood was when he wrote this piece? A-level aural: We will play a short extract in four-part harmony. Write out all four parts in short score after having heard it twice



Husband read engineering at Cambridge, and the course he did is now a four-year course, partly to ease the pressure in the final year, and partly so that the first part of the first year can be set aside to teaching everyone the maths they previously would have done at A-level.



Oi! I worked really hard for my BA, DipABRSM and LTCL page-turning qualifications!

Shoes are nevertheless good (but is it wise to start a discussion about shoes in Viva Organ?).

By my reckoning, that puts you 2 years younger than me!

I started the senior school the year GCSEs started, and it was obvious to us as 10/11 year olds that it was a pile of steaming manure.

I suffered from the first year becoming a levelling period for my physics degree (and the subsequent optional extension to a four year faux masters) in that I just lost interest as we did approximately nothing new in the first year, which lead to rather poor attendence in the first and second years.

Those of us who did GCEs will know that dumbing down started with GCSEs .......

It may have started with GCESs but it continues with degrees. I am told that modern degrees aim at something quite different, but I am not convinced that they provide the intellectual rigour of former years. No-one can tell me exactly what it is that is 'better' about the modern degrees.

Many years after university I sat three degrees externally under the traditional system and found it just as rigorous, but at that time John Major had not converted all the technical colleges into universities with the power to examine their own students. In my day there were always external assessors to ensure comparable standards. (The fortnightly vivas were the real kill though! We hated them.)

It seems that some of the criticism of the FRCO is directed towards the imposition of absolute standards. Certainly, there appears to be a rigour about that revered examination. Whether the subjects examined are professionally useful is another matter. The ARCO has always seemed to me a much more attainable and useful qualification, though lacking confidence in sight reading, I doubt if I will ever attempt it. Also, both RCO examinations, especially the practicals, are largely directed towards church work, which is not the main interest of my organ playing.

When I take the LRSM (hopefully later this year) I will be able to compare it with the ARCM and FTCL I took (and passed) in organ in 1976 and 1979 respectively. (I think I have settled the programme now.)

Barry Williams

Nope! 3! Thank goodness you went into music and not maths for a career, Monsieur!

We seem to be rather !

Well it was getting a bit of a paean to the Old Days and Weren't We Clever Then.

Let me bring it back. Currently working towards Grade 8: if I hold my fire long enough, do you think the work will one day be worth an FTCL?

Ooops, I thought 1987 was the first GCSEs? Was it '88?

now that i've finished my degree (had my last exam this morning and got told off at the end of the exam by the invidulator for laughing too much!!!) i can get on with more organ playing!!! yay.

Actually Barry, I always thought the LRSM sight-reading (actually "Quick Study") was harder than ARCO sightreading. The guidance given is that the LRSM Quick Study approximates to the standard of ABRSM Grade 7 repertoire. I don't remember ARCO sightreading being that demanding.

Perhaps someone out there could advise - I've often thought of going for LRSM Performance, but the Quick Study has always put me off.

Any thoughts?

Ses.

Yes! You have 5 minutes worth of preparation time, and there's an awful lot you can do during 5 minutes. You're also allowed to play through sections of the piece if you need to.

Like all the sections of the exam, the quick study is something for which you can revise and practise your skills before the exam.

We'll have to see!

Good luck!

Go for it, sesquialtera (and given your quoted location and my location, I might even come and page turn if you ask me nicely (yes, I *will* join that College!)).

Quick Study is something that crops up regularly on the Diplomas board, so you're not alone in worrying about it. As Holz said, you get five minutes to prepare, after which you have to perform. The standard might equate to the grade quoted, but be prepared to be bowled a googly - my one and only experience was DipABRSM clarinet, and the quick study was marked Gavotte, and of course, clarinettists have *loads* of experience in playing Baroque dances

The more you do, the easier it becomes - get hold of some stuff at the appropriate level (or better still, at a higher level), allow yourself five minutes' preparation time, then perform.

I remember as a student on my teacher training course having to teach an 'A' level group to harmonise a chorale melody using Bachian harmony. It was rather interesting considering that some of them were only used to graphic notation which was all they had to study to pass GCSE....

i hated GCSE Music with a passion, as I found everything very tideious.....

AS and A-Levels were slightly better......

okie, on with the organ practice.