For preparation of quick study, do u just practice same piece over and over again? Or do you each time practice a different piece, even though how badly you played.....

Please give me some opinion.
Thanks

Quick study is sight reading. So play anything and everything you can find or borrow of about Grade 6 - 8 standard. Get your teacher to lend you a load of stuff - and develop a strategy for looking over the piece before you start. Look for all the pitfalls etc.

Hey binkyhk,

A really useful book I found recently is 'Quick Study Practice for Piano Diploma Exams' buy Josephine Koh (Wells Music Publishers) - cost me less than a tenner (I think) on musicroom.com.

Good luck.

denmark

Well it isn't, really...

Remember that QS pieces are typically not idiomatic and are just awkward for the sake of it. Thus if you do go looking for gr6 pieces to practice against, make sure they are 'modern' rather than obvious-i-can-guess-what-is-coming-next Baroque/Classical pieces. Ensure when you practice for the QS you discipline yourself to begin by looking through the piece and trying the trickier sections within the time allotted by the syllabus. You should end up devising a strategy which becomes second nature and that will stand up under exam pressure.

Good luck!

One very simple but useful way is: Try to learn and practise more and more pieces to know more styles and technique.

Not having taken an ABRSM diploma (I last sat a piano exam over 20 years ago) but considering it, amongst other options, I am rather disappointed to hear that. An idiomatic piece would make sense. But what is the sense of just trying to trip the candidate up with something of no practical use? I sthis true? Other opinions?

My understanding is that the Quick Study pieces are written especially for the Diploma by modern composers; for DipABRSM the remit is to write something of grade 6 standard.

Modern composers may write some odd things, but I don't think they would claim to be being "awkward for the sake of it". If you look at some of the pieces in Spectrum they can have odd passages, but that's contemporary music for you.

I think a diploma standard musician should be able to make a good job of something at grade 6 level with 5 minutes to prepare. Sightreading musically is something that's often required of orchestral musicians and pianists providing accompaniment, so it makes sense IMO to include it on a diploma.

But there is the problem. I can make a decent quick study of plenty of the items on the LRSM and FRSM lists where the pieces are in a style I am familiar with, but some of the stranger stuff on the Grade 6, 7 and 8 lists I could do nothing with in 5 minutes.

Familiarity with the style counts for more than some abstract idea of the " level" of the piece.

You know the answer to this one, Tom - expand your repertoire so that you learn to play more modern pieces easily! Breadth of repertoire is surely the reason for the A, B and C lists for grades; it's to encourage you to learn a lot of different styles rather than concentrating on a few composers you really like. You wouldn't expect to pass a diploma playing just romantic pieces, or whatever your favourite era is.

I very much agree with this. And now I understand why I can sight read certain pieces off the Grade 6 syllabus, but others scare the living daylights out of me. It's to do with texture and steadiness of rhythm, too. Disjointed pieces are harder to read, harder to concentrate on and maintain the musicality, but not necesarily more difficult to play technically.

I used to DREAD sight reading in piano exams. In fact, at my last exam, I was so overcome with not being able to read, that it even had an effect on the performance of my pieces which in previous exams, I'd been able to approach with confidence, trusting in all the hard work I'd put in along the way. Now I feel I'm a better sight reader after having been a teacher, but still I'm worried about the QS section in Mmy DipABRSM in December, too.

It does make sense that they include it. It's important for a teacher to be able to play their students' pieces at sight. However, they don't seem to set any definite perameters. The term 'Grade 6 standard' is so broad! Knowing what to study is almost a matter of guesswork... The AB are definitely getting better with their exam requirements (a recent review of piano scales and a change in sight reading towards more musical pieces), but I still don't think they've put enough thought into testing sight reading and general spontaneity in musicianship. They seem to think up requirements out of thin air with little practical application in mind....

(I've recently discovered Trinity, and I must say, in this respect, the syllabus details seem more sensible).

[quote name='twinkle' post='887657' date='Oct 23 2009, 10:30 PM']
[quote name='Mad Tom' post='887647' date='Oct 23 2009, 09:58 PM']
Familiarity with the style counts for more than some abstract idea of the " level" of the piece.
[/quote]
I very much agree with this. And now I understand why I can sight read certain pieces off the Grade 6 syllabus, but others scare the living daylights out of me. It's to do with texture and steadiness of rhythm, too. Disjointed pieces are harder to read, harder to concentrate on and maintain the musicality, but not necesarily more difficult to play technically.

I used to DREAD sight reading in piano exams. In fact, at my last exam, I was so overcome with not being able to read, that it even had an effect on the performance of my pieces which in previous exams, I'd been able to approach with confidence, trusting in all the hard work I'd put in along the way. Now I feel I'm a better sight reader after having been a teacher, but still I'm worried about the QS section in Mmy DipABRSM in December, too.

It does make sense that they include it. It's important for a teacher to be able to play their students' pieces at sight. However, they don't seem to set any definite perameters. The term 'Grade 6 standard' is so broad! Knowing what to study is almost a matter of guesswork... The AB are definitely getting better with their exam requirements (a recent review of piano scales and a change in sight reading towards more musical pieces), but I still don't think they've put enough thought into testing sight reading and general spontaneity in

musicianship. They seem to think up requirements out of thin air with little practical application in mind....

(I've recently discovered Trinity, and I must say, in this respect, the syllabus details seem more sensible).


Surely if you are taking a performance diploma you have to expect to be hit with anything be it classical or contemporary? Do we really want sensible? Is it any help to a future musician to have always played safe? Yes if you are playing for pleasure, then stick to what you know and do what you want and there is much to admire in doing so, but the diploma aims to extract more from you than that.
My only gripe with the quick study is that the ABRSM guidelines for preparing for it do not seem to match the actual pieces being given in the exams.

Maybe it would be useful for AB to provide a commercial performance of the QS pieces used once the syllabus changes, in order that candidates - especially for the teaching diploma - can hear what they ought to have done. It would be helpful in furthering an understanding of the styles required as well as providing feedback for those who might want to retake the exam. A written explanation of what was required might also be useful - 'tongue-in-cheek/highly percussive/in the style of/reminiscent of', etc. It might also bring in more revenue for the AB.... It does seem to crop up all the time on here that candidates have no idea what is required here, and are none the wiser after the event.

Having taken the 3 teaching diplomas I found each of the Quick Studies to be in a fairly recognisable style.I think they had been written especially for the exam but having said this they were not in any way atonal or strange rhythmically. That's not to say they were easy. The FRSM especially was very challenging with difficult key changes and lots of leger line notes dotted all over the place.

In my opinion they are indeed looking for a musical, expressive and fluent performance. I think the comment re dcmbarton on "unexpected rubato" was their way of saying that the pulse should not have altered. I had a similar sort of comment for my FRSM where the examiners commented that although "the character was caught an impression was given that rubato was not always for musical reasons" In other words I slowed down because I had difficulty playing it at the right speed! The marking also seems to get stricter for each diploma. I think this is appropriate as each diploma expects a higher standard and this is also reflected in the higher standard expected for the LRSM and Fellowship diplomas.

To get a distinction in the Quick Study I would say you need to be playing it at the sort of level where - if it were a grade 6 exam piece (NOT a grade 6 sightreading test!) you would achieve a high merit. Only my opinion but hopefully this gives some sort of idea of the standard necessary.

From my experience of helping teachers with these exams this is certainly the area where quite a few have difficulties. Many underestimate the standard required.

BM - do a Diploma and then report back with your first hand experience about the style of the pieces provided for the QS. I look forward to hearing about it and seeing if you share my views which were formed in the heat of actually taking DipABRSM, LRSM and FRSM (Performance). Certainly for my instrument, such pieces are NOT idiomatic based on my experience and if you think 4/1 is a common metre round your way, then I would surprised....

Thing is, people have different ways of tackling this sort of sight-reading when they are teaching, and perhaps have access to some different equipment. I always, always do my sight-reading [of awkwardly rhythmed pieces] with a metronome. I really honestly can't do it without one. I can't see that it would be the end of the world for me to be playing a piece to a student and say hang on I'll put on this metronome and have the thing click or flash away whilst I play them the piece. I can't deal with counting, if I start counting I start counting the notes not the beats, and I can't cope with the strangeness of the counting method that only some notes have an "and" in them, and that "and"s are different lengths if you are counting quavers or semiquavers. If I am counting with someone who does that "one and two and" business then I have to count " 1, 1, &, &" for semiquavers.

I am now learning some completely different ways of interpreting rhythm and doing my diploma submission on causes of arthymic playing. I was taught with that silly business using words, but it only works if you are inherently being rhythmical and you already understand. It's quite possible to say [real example] "boom, boom, tick-et-y, boom" without coming away with crotchet, crotchet, triplets, crotchet. But that's a whole other story!

Anyway, have they not heard of lesson preparation? It would be a very bad day indeed that I was setting a piece of work for a pupil and I had 5 minutes or less notice that I was going to need to know how it went!

From my experience of helping teachers with these exams this is certainly the area where quite a few have difficulties. Many underestimate the standard required.
[/quote]

I completely agree with this. I have prepared many students for various piano diplomas and almost always find that people have difficulties with the sight reading and quick study areas. (I think it is also the case that because people feel unconfident about these areas they become very nervous which makes them less able in the exam than they really are.)

The only way to tackle sr and qs problems is to start with very easy pieces that can be sight read perfectly and to gradually increase in difficulty. (Working through the specimen sr tests from grade 1 to 8 would be a good idea.) It needs to be done everyday and preferably in two or three short sessions. Ensure that you are as relaxed as possible during these sessions and concentrate fully. Many teachers advocate not worrying too much about getting things perfectly correct. This advice is misleading. In the exam, yes but otherwise no. If you are really struggling with accuracy then you are tackling a piece which is too hard and you need to drop down a level and do more work at that stage. Remeber that sr and qs skills take a long time (in terms of hours spent) to develop, especially if you started learning after the age of seven and you are a pianist or organist.

I agree with this. Doing sight reading in lessons is a wonderful way of finding out where weaknesses are with regard to rhythmic and technical detail. If we simply teach getting to the end without a major hesitation nothing will be learnt. This is a bit of a gripe of mine about sight reading being compulsory too early on in the grade system, as it encourages the 'keep going, no matter what' syndrome, which is all very well once a certain level of proficiency has been reached by going doggedly through a certain amount of repertoire, but if done too soon, it actually hinders proper learning.

I hope I am not stirring more controversy by expressing my opinion here.

First, the disclaimers:
I have taken 5 ABRSM diploma exams (6 if you include Advanced Cert.), 3 on my main instrument, 2 (1 failed, 1 retake) on my third instrument.
I scored 11/15 (DipABRSM), 10/15 (LRSM), 11/15 (FRSM) for my QS on my main instrument (I didn't score as high on any of my recitals).
So I was pretty comfortable with the QS test, and my view may be biased.


My key to achieving a decent mark was:
1) practise scales (all types of patterns, including chromatic ones) diligently. I was more limited by my technique than by my reading, so if I had the technique to pull off during the test, I could play the piece well.
2) pay attention to the performance directions, such as p, ff, < etc. That goes a long way in giving a musical performance.
3) keep a steady beat: musical doesn't mean one has to play with an unsteady beat. With good expressions and nuances, the piece will be musical without a random rubato.


My view on why QS is mandatory for the exam:
I have met many music majors in universities/conservatories who were unable give a musical performance without their teachers' help. They spent a long time working with their teacher, got told how to play a piece, and performed a recital with their teachers' directions in mind.
Potentially a diploma candidate can (and often does) get by the same way and pass the recital portion of a diploma exam.
A real test comes when the candidate is faced with something he/she hasn't seen before, and has to prepare for it without the help of someone else, in regard to style and interpretation.
Also, a diploma is a prestigious award. It's only natural that the Associated Board expect the successful candidate to be an all-rounded musician. I do believe the ability to pass a QS is important for a good musician. Orchestral musicians have to sight-read all the time. So do accompanists.


I hope I am not being too harsh here.

What a lot of common sense you have written. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I wish that young singers were taught to have better sight reading skills.

I think this is quite pertinent and I don't think you're being harsh. This is why I think the best way to prepare for this is not just to practise under exam conditions - as in, practise getting through Grade 6 pieces of whatever style with five minutes to prepare nasty bits, the aim simply being to get to the end without major disaster. I think the best method would be to take an hour to prepare unseen stuff, say, the night before a lesson, and then receive feedback from a teacher with regard to what you're doing well or otherwise. The level of difficulty can be gradually increased, and then the preparation time shortened, as experience improves. But launching straight into practising exam-type tests with five minutes only to prepare, again and again, I think, is unlikely to help very much if it's quite simply above your head. It's like telling a Grade 3 pupil who isn't a great sight reader to 'disregard everything I've been trying to teach you and just gloss over the test in the exam as best you can in order to make it to the end.' As I said above, a certain level of competence needs to be there before the pupil will produce anything musical at all.