After some serious thoughts, I've decided to postpone the exam till sometime in 2010. Reasons for that: it's expensive and I want to pass in my first attempt; have been stressed out by written final exams and have been rather unwell; after my final recital this coming Tuesday I will need to learn some other stuff for upcoming recitals in the new season. The vierne is coming on, but the reger is a pain. have to do stuff step by step. Sorry about the rant.

Postponing the diploma sounds a sensible idea to me. Finals can really take it out of you, and to feel ill as well was not what you needed. You can always review the decision in a couple of months time when you've had time to regain your usual equilibrium.

Very best of luck for Tuesday! I hope you really enjoy performing - don't let the pressure get to you.

Yes, good luck next week.

If you don't feel ready for the F then you are right to wait; good thing you were not yet committed to November.

Is the FTCL essential ? I do not wish my comment to sound like a de-valuation of this diploma, but will possessing it raise your status significantly ? Am I right in believing that you are going to do a course at RNCM and achieve MMus? If so,I would have thought the higher degree would carry more 'weight' in the academic/teaching job market. And from what you write re learning new stuff for next season's recital series and being stressed out you seem to be already overworked. Having said all this, I do think, however, you've made the right decision to (at least) postpone the examination, and I wish you well in your busy musical life : studies, concerts etc.
rk

Good luck preparing for the recitals next season. What are you going to play?

It doesn't hurt to have both a MusM degree and a FTCL diploma, but between the two qualifications, I agree that a MusM would carry more weight, musically and academically speaking. Also, it would be more useful to have the ARCO and FRCO diplomas than the FTCL.

Hmmph!

For reasons which I've gone into at length here before, I'd strongly disagree. As I've said, I would never again enter any pupils for RCO exams (or at least not until the RCO becomes much more transparent and realistic in their requirements for FRCO). Whilst the requirements for ARCO are quite reasonable (although the performance element is considerably less exacting than the standard required for FTCL), the hoops which the RCO nowadays require candidates to jump through for FRCO are quite ridiculous, and require candidates to spend a lengthy amount of time acquiring skills which they would be most unlikely ever to use again. Have a look at the online syllabus if you doubt this! I would much rather that they spend time developing the skills which are required of a competent organist, and learning new repertoire &c.

I believe that it's been the case at the RAM for a number of years now that none of their organ tutors gained FRCO, although they've all since been given honorary ones so that the RCO appears in the list of qualifications belonging to the organ teachers at the RAM....

i haven't quite decided what i'm going to play yet. my organ tutor and i are going to put some ideas together once i'm done with the recital on tuesday.

FTCL just gives me the extra push. I will have to sit the ARCO and FRCO diplomas during my up-coming college years, have been told that i cannot run away from them (several people have been pressing me into doing the exams, haha).

What a pity ARCM isn't available nowadays! When I sat it - about 18-20 years ago, I guess - it was a very worthwhile qualification. My then organ teacher (a respected Cathedral organist) encouraged me to take it rather than an RCO diploma as i, it tested all the necessary additional aspects of organ playing (vocal score, transposition, sight-reading, improvisation etc) in addition to a written paper; ii, the required performance standard was every bit as high as FRCO and iii, it was transparent. Although the failure rate was high, it was merely because the candidates who failed hadn't reached the required standard to satisfy the specialist examiners - not because they hadn't been to consultation lessons with a certain RCO officer beforehand, which was rumoured (with due reason) to have been necessary at that time to have gained an RCO diploma.

By the way, good luck next week LK!

Is ARCO at the same level as DipABRSM/ATCL, and FRCO to FRSM/FTCL, or are the diplomas harder/easier? I don't really know much about the RCO diplomas, except for what Holz Gedeckt mentioned. I think it was on this forum where someone said the FRCO may as well have asked for the sight reading to be done while wearing a blind fold and having flaming daggers thrown at them!

Jacob.

Sorry to upset you, HG. I made the comment about the ARCO/FRCO vs FTCL because of LK's aspiration to become a cathedral organist. I thought that the RCO qualifications would be better for her.
I wasn't aware of the rumour concerning the RCO exams at the time of writing.



The playing requirements between the ABRSM and TG diplomas are about the same, but the ABRSM diplomas seem more demanding with the written submission and viva voce.

The ARCO and FRCO are definitely easier than DipAB/ATCL and FRSM/FTCL in terms of repertoire requirements; however, the written tests and keyboard tests are more demanding. To pass the RCO exams, you have to be an excellent performer and scholar.

Don't forget that the sight-reading will be in archaic clefs too, and that you'll be suspended upside down whilst being asked to write it out in tablature with a spare hand at the same time!


No, not upset at all!

Interesting, though, that a number of Cathedral organists have chosen not to take the RCO diplomas either, including some very distinguished names....

Now come on HG, I know we've jousted on this subject before, and some of your suggestions of rumours verge on the libellous!

The observations of playing versus FRSM are hard to quantify. Certainly, the FRCO playing test is shorter, but the standard of pieces is pretty similar, if not a little narrower. Yes, the tests are hard, no disputing that, though contrary to popular rumour, there are no odd clefs in the sight reading.

Also, the paperwork is hard, and you need to pass both papers, but just because they haven't watered down the requirements for passing, we shouldn't just dismiss it.

I agree, there are some eminent names in the organ world who haven't passed (or taken) the diploma and have been given Hon FRCOs, and yes, that does grate a bit. But for those of us who have passed the exams, we will fiercely defend them!

But of course!

I don't think that it's a case of not having watered down the requirements but, rather, that they've made the paperwork increasingly obscure with various revisions over the past few years or so. Looking at old syllabi, I think the requirements of the exam used to be quite reasonable. Looking at today's, I wonder why anybody would want to mug up on some of it. Certainly it would be of little - or no - use in the 'real world'.

True, I do want to be a cathedral organist. I also want to be a recitalist as well (giving recitals give me joy

Excellent performer and scholar, am working on both....


I think I will be fine on Tuesday morning for the final recital exam, feeling calm. Will have another run at the Church tomorrow (truely like 4-manual organs....hehe)

There are two issues here. Firstly, some of the historical topics are a little obscure (particularly the ones I had to do, I should know), but it did introduce me to a whole new area of repertoire, some of which I now use. Secondly, I think they are also testing the candidates scholarly skills at finding out information on periods/organs and analysing music that from that period. Those skills can be replicated in other areas as a recitalist/organist matures and explores different repertoire. I also think it is important for organists to learn about registrations and some stop lists of typical organs from some periods.

I learnt a lot about organ tablature that I didn't know previously, and combined with the 'stylus fantisicus' debate, makes me now understand why most of the editions of Buxtehude are flawed in some way.

Flor Peeters (and some other Belgian composers) were barely represented in my repertory before the exam. I have since discovered new music that I have learned, and also how varied the man's output was. I was guilty of typecasting the whole output on a couple of pieces I had learned in my youth.

There is a real who's who of organists who never passed or took the FRCO, that doesn't make them better or worse organists. I know in the case of a couple of high profile examples, it was the tests that undid them.

I agree. Whilst the FTCL is undoubtedly a top diploma, like it or not, it is the RCO exams that continue to carry the real kudos in the organ world. It's still the first thing people look for.


Really? How very dare you. I fear this means Mounted Cornets at dawn!

As regards the FRCO I will concede at once that there is one requirement that is anally retentive - the inclusion of the soprano clef in the score reading exercise. Who is ever going to need to read it at sight? It might conceivably be useful to the cathedral organist who comes across some old 19th-century editions in the choir library, or to the academic incarcerated in the stacks of some university library, but it's an obsolete clef for goodness' sake! Dare I suggest that it's only there because the RCO want to keep up with the Joneses in the universities? *

That apart, the tests seem to me perfectly reasonable and relevant in today's musical world. But it is very much a case of horses for courses. If you are an organist and want a top diploma that simply attests to your skill as a performer and nothing more then the FRCO is probably not for you. It's overkill.

The FRCO aims to test far more than that; it is testing the complete range of musicianship, of which performance is only a part, albeit a major one. It is the stuff of legend that, as a student, Sir George Thalben-Ball stood in at the last minute for an indisposed Walford Davies and sight-read the accompaniment to ten movements from Bach's B minor mass - from the orchestral score, transposing it down a semitone. Now even the RCO might baulk at setting that for a test, but, in principle, that is the sort of breadth of musicianship they are seeking to examine. Musical theory and the applicant's practical ability to wield it is also in there - as is musical history.

The FRCO seeks to examine the all-round musician. Mere performers, look elsewhere!

Aah! The wife's away and the single malt is exceedingly fine tonight!

Your turn...

* Lest this sound like sour grapes, I might add that only yesterday I was reading through a double choir motet by Victoria in TrTrST; SSAB clefs. I won't claim it was note-perfect, but I coped. The difficulty is not so much the clefs themselves as remembering which part has which clef!

WHAT? You mean they've abolished it? Sacrilege!

Really? Assuming you mean the performer's diploma rather than the teacher's (which you must since the latter didn't require anything like the same standard of playing), I wouldn't have said so. I don't recall the tests being as stiff (well, to be honest, I don't recall the tests at all!) As I saw it, it was exactly on a par with the LRAM. I remember that the pieces in the teacher's ARCM were roughly ARCO standard, so I can see your point, but I really don't think the performer's exam was quite as exacting as the FRCO. Just my take on it - I might be wrong.

I find this hard to credit. What is this due reason then? All I can say is that when, after a stupidly long interval (during which I gave up the organ altogether for three years), I eventually came to do my FR I didn't have any lessons from anyone and it didn't do me any harm. OK, the bastards failed me the first time around, mainly because they didn't like my Bach, but the second time I made sure I gave them the flippant, superficial sort of interpretation I knew they wanted and sailed through. Admittedly it was a bit more than 18-20 years ago, but not by all that much.

EDIT: Sorry to anybody trying to decipher this. I've spent the last 20 minutes trying to sort out the blessed quotes, and I can't see what's wrong with it! I'm not going to spend any more time on it - I've got a life to live....

[quote name='Vox Humana' date='May 27 2009, 01:00 AM' post='830272']
[quote name='organ_dummy' post='829273' date='May 23 2009, 02:51 PM']Also, it would be more useful to have the ARCO and FRCO diplomas than the FTCL.[/quote]
I agree. Whilst the FTCL is undoubtedly a top diploma, like it or not, it is the RCO exams that continue to carry the real kudos in the organ world. It's still the first thing people look for.
[/quote]
Hmmm. Not so sure I'd agree, Vox, having come across more than one FRCO who seem to find playing 'Wolvercote' as difficult as one of the riddles of the Sphinx.

[quote]
[quote name='Holz Gedeckt' post='829302' date='May 23 2009, 03:53 PM']the hoops which the RCO nowadays require candidates to jump through for FRCO are quite ridiculous, and require candidates to spend a lengthy amount of time acquiring skills which they would be most unlikely ever to use again[/quote]
Really? How very dare you. I fear this means Mounted Cornets at dawn!
[/quote]
I'll come armed with a Trompette en Chamade!
[quote]
As regards the FRCO I will concede at once that there is one requirement that is anally retentive - the inclusion of the soprano clef in the score reading exercise. Who is ever going to need to read it at sight? It might conceivably be useful to the cathedral organist who comes across some old 19th-century editions in the choir library, or to the academic incacerated in the stacks of some university library, but it's an obsolete clef for goodness' sake! Dare I suggest that it's only there because the RCO want to keep up with the Joneses in the universities? *

That apart, the tests seem to me perfectly reasonable and relevant in today's musical world. But it is very much a case of horses for courses. If you are an organist and want a top diploma that simply attests to your skill as a performer and nothing more then the FRCO is probably not for you. It's overkill.
[/quote]
Have you seen an up-to-date syllabus, Vox?
[quote]
The FRCO aims to test far more than that; it is testing the complete range of musicianship, of which performance is only a part, albeit a major one. It is the stuff of legend that, as a student, Sir George Thalben-Ball stood in at the last minute for an indisposed Walford Davies and sight-read the accompaniment to ten movements from Bach's B minor mass - from the orchestral score, transposing it down a semitone. Now even the RCO might baulk at setting that for a test, but, in principle, that is the sort of breadth of musicianship they are seeking to examine. Musical theory and the applicant's practical ability to wield it is also in there - as is musical history.
[/quote]
Yes, that was pretty exceptional. But how many of us would need to do that?
[quote]
The FRCO seeks to examine the all-round musician. Mere performers, look elsewhere!
[/quote]
I'd argue that, having incorporated all the reasonable tests in ARCO, they had to think of something else to come up with, and have introduced all these additional requirements which didn't used to be sought in the FRCO syllabus.
[quote]
Aah! The wife's away and the single malt is exceedingly fine tonight!
[/quote]
So I'd gathered! Has the last batch of Co-Op's Aberlour disappeared yet?

[quote name='Vox Humana' date='May 27 2009, 01:36 AM' post='830276']
[quote name='Holz Gedeckt' post='829313' date='May 23 2009, 04:11 PM']What a pity ARCM isn't available nowadays![/quote]WHAT? You mean they've abolished it? Sacrilege!

[quote]When I sat it - about 18-20 years ago ... ii, the required performance standard was every bit as high as FRCO[/quote]Really? Assuming you mean the performer's diploma rather than the teacher's (which you must since the latter didn't require anything like the same standard of playing), I wouldn't have said so. I don't recall the tests being as stiff (well, to be honest, I don't recall the tests at all!) As I saw it, it was exactly on a par with the LRAM. I remember that the pieces in the teacher's ARCM were roughly ARCO standard, so I can see your point, but I really don't think the performer's exam was quite as exacting as the FRCO. Just my take on it - I might be wrong.
[/quote]
Yes, it was the performer's diploma. I'll have to dig out an old syllabus if I can find one, and we can compare notes!
[quote]
[quote]and iii, it was transparent. Although the failure rate was high, it was merely because the candidates who failed hadn't reached the required standard to satisfy the specialist examiners - not because they hadn't been to consultation lessons with a certain RCO officer beforehand, which was rumoured (with due reason) to have been necessary at that time to have gained an RCO diploma.[/quote]I find this hard to credit. What is this due reason then? All I can say is that when, after a stupidly long interval (during which I gave up the organ altogether for three years), I eventually came to do my FR I didn't have any lessons from anyone and it didn't do me any harm. OK, the bastards failed me the first time around, mainly because they didn't like my Bach, but the second time I made sure I gave them the flippant, superficial sort of interpretation I knew they wanted and sailed through. Admittedly it was a bit more than 18-20 years ago, but not by all that much.
[/quote]
Crumbs, I guess the censor isn't working!

The FRCO syllabus was reasonable then. It's changed a lot since....

At last, I no longer feel alone in this thread! Anyone else dare to admit they have passed it?





You'd be surprised at how little, if any, keyboard tests there are at university. Its less than 20 years ago since I left and my tutor managed to find the only two examples of the bassus profundis clef he could for us to practice on. These days, you're lucky if they have to read the alto clef!!

slightly off the topic here.

my final recital (at 9am) went pretty well, but had a few dodgy bits (due to nerves). one of the examiners (who's my dissertation supervisor and an organist) said that i had nothing to worry about. my external examiner is a recitalist based at huddersfield (you might be able to guess who it is).

no worry guys, i am more than willing to take those diplomas...hehe. will work really really hard

Well done, LK!

Great news, liebe klavier! Just the results to wait for now then.

Well, as we all know, FRCO = Former Really Competent Organist. But if they passed FRCO and can't play Wolvercote properly, then doubtless they could just as easily have passed FTCL and not be capable of playing it properly, so I'm not sure of your point. I still stand by my contention that, rightly or wrongly, the RCO diplomas are the ones held in the most esteem.


Yes.


It depends in what professional circles you are operating. A cathedral organst/DoM, for example, would likely find a use for many, even most, of the FRCO skills quite regularly, including the ability to compose and arrange. A recitalist who does nothing else but give recitals (if such a person exists) would have no need of the complete range of skills.

The exact nature of the requirements has changed a bit, but the skills tested actually seem to me to be much the same. One could (perhaps should) argue that it is perfectly in order for the FRCO tests to be "unreasonable" since the aim is to test exceptional musicianship. Apart from the obsolete soprano clef issue, I certainly do not see any of the skills as pointless.


No idea, but Sainsbury's has! Laphroaig Quarter Cask at the moment. Mmm...

Reminds me also, that the Baritone clef was a regular as well!

Despite being able to read all these clefs, I still can't figure out guitar tab when kids at school ask.

Having totally mucked up my quotes earlier - apparently! - I wonder if I dare have another attempt at multiple quotes.

I wonder why it is that a number of leading organists haven't bothered with them, then?


Erm - reading in obsolete clefs, transposing pieces of organ music on three staves? And all the written tests?

Sorry, Vox, but I think that the days when the RCO set the benchmark have long gone. They're now an organisation struggling to find a place for themselves, and are even nowadays without premises after the Birmingham fiasco - trading out of a suitcase, are they not? - who are making their exams increasingly difficult to try to hold on to (or to regain) the esteem in which they once were held. They started going down the slippery slope a number of years ago, and I think that the other boards now offer more relevant qualifications than this outmoded institute.


Perhaps that might be a rather more useful test nowadays!

The rubric for the ARCM Performer's diploma in the mid 1970s was something along the lines of '..a concert hall standard with distinction.'

The FTCL was then available to people who had either LRAM or ARCM Performer;s Diploma. I think the LRAM Performer's rubric had something similar to the ARCM.

When I took it the sight reading for the ARCM was horrendous - the right hand and pedal were in one key and the left hand in another key. There were two written papers and ear tests, as well as the viva voce. (In later years they dropped the paperwork.) I played a full recital programme of fifty five minutes, including a great chunk of the Reubke and Brahms' A flat minor Fuge.

It was clear that mere flamboyance would not suffice. True panache and interpretive skill was required for both LRAM and ARCM, both being then the normal examination after three or four years of full time training.

The ARCO and FRCO are still clearly aimed at the church organist. The standard of sight reading is extremely high and a very high level of accuracy is required. The RCO examinations simiply test different things. They do not test concert performance. LRAM and ARCM do not test score reading and, for FRCO, what used to be near graduate level paperwork.

The standard of some of the players who take music degrees from what used to be technical colleges is really rather low. In my day (that makes me sound old!) performers wen to the conservertoires and learned technique and muscicianship, amongst other things. Those who wished to study theory went to university and took a degree instead. Some who essayed to go into the cathedral world did two or three years at a conservertoire and then went to university as organ scholars, invariably to Oxford or another place of learning, on the Fens, that sometimes wins the boat race. Things have changed, but some of the singers from these newer universities clearly do not have the technique to sustain professional musical life.

My daughter said that ARCM stood for 'Awful Rotten Church Musician' and LRAM for 'Lousy Rotten Amateur Musician'. I was not amused!

Barry Williams

Agreed, Barry, tho' I'm 99.9 percent positive score reading was one of the tests for ARCM....

As M'sieur Guilmant wrote above, there certainly have been cases where it was because, although they were brilliant players, they weren't up to the rest of the exam. But equally it's likely that they - and others - felt confident enough about their futures not to feel the need for that esteem.

There is a well-known former cathedral organist who used positively to boast about how he'd got to where he was without any qualifications.

There's no law that says you have to have an RCO, or any other, diploma. Rather, the point of having a diploma is for what it says about the holder. When you see a qualification after someone's name, you know broadly what sort of musical skills to expect, even though they may have allowed them to slip over the years.


But it's only the soprano clef that is obsolete. Alto and tenor clefs are still very much in current use. Ask any string player! Or bassoonist, or trombonist. Top organists who work with orchestras (as many cathedral organists/DoMs do) need to be able to read these things.


This raises a completely different issue which would be off topic to explore here, but I would dispute that the exams are "increasingly difficult to get hold of". Goodness me, the candidates are now given 15 minutes to look over the tests beforehand! I know it's away from the keyboard, but still! Whatever is the world coming to?

"Alto and tenor clefs are still very much in current use."

I play Bach from the Dupre edition where these clefs are used to avoid ledger lines.

Of course, the use of these clefs has nothing whatsoever to do with score reading, which is an entirely different skill. My teachers preferred me to learn score reading from orchestral scores. so that I got to know the music as well as acquiring the score reading skills.

Barry Williams

Hells bells, I must be going senile; I don't remember any of this! All I can remember about it is that it took place in Room 90 and the last piece I played was Alain's Litanies. I do remember it feeling like a pretty tough exam though. I never really thought much of it, other than that it was another piece of paper and that one had got that particular expectation out of the way. Seems I ought to be more proud of it.

Or perhaps they just didn't feel so inclined to be put through unnecessary hoops which they'd never need to jump through again in order just to pass an exam?

Yes, agreed. But why use the soprano clef in exams, then?

I think that the tests have changed over the past few years, though, even if candidates are given 15 minutes. Was transposition of a piece of organ music on three staves always a necessary part of FRCO? Was transposition of a hymn tune (however important this can be to a church organist) always part of ARCO?




We could have told you that years ago, my friend!


Yes, you ought!

I think we're agreed on that one!


Yes and yes. Back in the early 70s I saw a set of early 20th-century FRCO tests and they were certainly a bit different. If I remember aright, the transposition test was a harmonically very quirky double chant. At a glance it looked far easier than anything in the then current syllabus, but it really sorted me out. I think the sight reading was much the same sort of level though.


On the other hand, I do remember where you play! Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Sorry to disagree Vox but a) I'm not certain that transposing a piece on three staves was always a necessary requirement of FRCO and b) I know that transposition was merely an option for ARCO only a few years ago as I entered a pupil who couldn't transpose for toffee, but excelled at the other option (harmonisation?).

"Sorry to disagree Vox but a) I'm not certain that transposing a piece on three staves was always a necessary requirement of FRCO."

How far back are we going HG? It's certainly been a requirement since the 1960's, as I have a number of past papers from student days. The type of music used for the transposition test has changed greatly however - these days, "real" organ music is used, as opposed to a test composed by an examiner.

I vaguely remember transposition being only an option for ARCO. It's actually possible to fail any of the three keyboard tests, as long as a pass mark is obtained in the other two.

Ok, as I said, I wasn't certain about that! However, what's the point in transposing a piece of organ music? Would a pianist be expected to transpose a piece of piano music?

But I was reasonably so about it merely being an option for ARCO. Thank you for confirming this.

I don't know what the point of transposing organ music is. A hymn tune/psalm chant or anthem accompaniment I can understand however.............

BTW, my last was badly worded - I wasn't a student in the 60's! I passed ARCO whilst a student in the early 80's, but never attempted FRCO - probably wisely!

Looking through the FRCO keyboard tests from July 1968 and July 1980, the requirements are virtually identical; (1) sight reading (2) score reading (treble, alto, tenor and bass clefs) (3) transposition (a passage written on 3 staves) (4) harmonisation of a melody, and (5) extemporization on one of three themes. The only difference was that in 1980, an alternative to (4) was to play a continuo part from a figured bass.

Are there many other differences since then - such as paperwork, etc?

No, the 1968 and 1980 examinations were practically identical.

1. Write a fugal exposition in 3 parts on a given subject (by Bach in 1968, Ravel in 1980).

2. Either (a) add three imitative parts to a chorale melody, or (b) complete an excerpt from a Palestrina mass, one part being given (treble, alto and tenor clefs).

3. From a piano reduction (1968 - Mozart Symphony on D K297, 1980 - Beethoven "Namensfeier" overture), score a given passage for strings, brass, woodwind, etc........

4. From a given opening, complete a passage for string quartet (1968 - Schubert, 1980 - Brahms).

5. From a given opening, complete a part-song in four parts OR make an entirely original setting of the words given (1968). In 1980, the option to provide an original setting was not given.

6. Answer one of three questions on the history of music. In 1968, the period covered was 1830 - 1950. In 1980, it was 1750 - 1830.

Of course, it's all moved on since then! You can see it all here - http://www.rco.org.uk/pdfs/ExamRegulations09-10.pdf#page=15

Thanks, Sesquialtera!

It seems to have changed - not much for the better - since 1990, though....

Like most things in life............

Henry Francis Lyte had it right with 'Change and decay in all around I see', eh?

I would argue that this is one of the improvements. Now that the questions are focussed towards history and analysis of specifically organ repertoire and literature, that it is actually a more relevant exam.

I would imagine it's a case of it being pointless to set an anthem accompaniment as a transposition test in the absence of a choir, so they set a piece of three-stave organ music instead. After all, if you can transpose that, you can cope with an anthem accompaniment. And if you're circulating in real professional circles you never know when you might be booked to accompany a choir on a sharp-pitched organ and experience a Thalben-Ball moment. Is there any truth in the rumour that Dr Higginbottom once said to his organ scholar, "We'll have Stanford in G up a semitone today, please."?

Well, it's certainly progress from the times when candidates for FRCO could be exempted from the written exam as long as they held a music degree.............



Can you imagine the horror?

[quote name='Vox Humana' date='May 27 2009, 10:13 PM' post='830795']

I would imagine it's a case of it being pointless to set an anthem accompaniment as a transposition test in the absence of a choir, so they set a piece of three-stave organ music instead. After all, if you can transpose that, you can cope with an anthem accompaniment.

Yes - now you put it like that, it makes perfect sense.

Indeed! - though the precise flavour of it might have depended on what temperament the organ was tuned in at the time!

"Key flavour" - now there's an interesting thought!

Or the temperament of the examiners, depending on whether the candidate has taken a consultation lesson or two with them beforehand....

Ability to read the soprano clef can be useful. The Dover reprint of Bach's choral music uses all three C clefs. And this is the edition that most people could afford if they want to study from the open, full score.

At my undergraduate school, students had to learn the mezzo-soprano and baritone clefs as well. Those were hard!!!

I thought the story you claim to be about Dr. Higginbottom was about Mr. Cleobury - perhaps an urban myth then?