So, can anybody out there tell me exactly why an aural is included in a piano exam - other than to provide the examiner with some form of twisted pleasure watching students' embaressment struggling through the test.

I could understand the purpose for string/wind instruments - where it's up to the player to produce the right note - and thus some appreciation of how the note should feel may be required.

But a piano...! From beginner to concert pianist - when they hit middle 'C' - middle 'C' is what you get.

You could imagine Beethoven easliy failing the test!!

QUOTE

I could understand the purpose for string/wind instruments - where it's up to the player to produce the right note - and thus some appreciation of how the note should feel may be required.

In aural tests I never have used my flute and a flute isn't played to me.

You should know how to listen whatever instrument you play.
Even playing piano it is useful to know what sound you expect to hear when you play a note.
Being able to sing or play back a phrase is a good skill to have too.

QUOTE

You could imagine Beethoven easliy failing the test!!

actually no, I can't imagine that.

Good aural skills are a vital part of being an all-round musician. It's not just about being able to produce a note, but about hearing what you see on the page, and seeing what you hear played. It's difficult to be a good performer without good aural ability - which can be taught.

Maggie

QUOTE (billy @ Dec 20 2004, 01:43 PM)

But a piano...! From beginner to concert pianist - when they hit middle 'C' - middle 'C' is what you get.

But who says all pianists who sit the AB exams will become concert pianists. Some may become composer/performers or better still jazz musicians who may lean on their aural skills.

QUOTE

You could imagine Beethoven easliy failing the test!!

He had an exceptional inner ear and aural imagination. I doubt he used his physical ears too much for composing. No way could a deaf guy come up with, say, the big Masses and the late String Quartets (well, the middle ones either) without this inner world in which it all happened for him.

I don't understand the point of the aural tests. We have the practical musicianship tests for the people that want to do aural, so why make the rest of us suffer?

QUOTE

I don't understand the point of the aural tests. We have the practical musicianship tests for the people that want to do aural, so why make the rest of us suffer?

Why do so many people want to pick and choose?
If you want to take exams then you must be prepared to cover the syllabus.
The other thing I have difficulty with is how people who claim to be really interested in learning music complain about aural/theory/scales etc.
Surely if you really want to learn your instrument then anything that comes as part of the package is fine because that is what it takes to learn.

The point about having aural, sight-reading and scale playing tests in exams is to assess the overall musicianship of the candidate. Do they listen well, have they perception of what printed music can sound like, do they know when they've heard music change in character etc. Can they read well (sight-reading)- an essential skill for any serious musician - and have they got solid technique backing up their playing (scales etc).

Whilst, to some extent, you can discern some things through three pieces, aural skills not always so obvious to assess just be someone playing to you. IMHO anyone who is serious about being a musician who thinks you don't need aural skills is missing the point. Every musician needs to be using their ears the whole time they're playing (it's not just about producing the notes) and these aural tests are designed to help the student develop the skills needed for all-round musicianship. Even if you are a Pianist, you still need to be able to listen to what you're playing, to understand it and, if you plan to play with other people, aural skills are integral to good ensemble.

Sadly, far too many people teach aural as a last minute "panic" a few days before the exam which gives rise to the "suffering" complex amongst students. It should be an integral part of learning any instrument or vocal studies. Nobody should "suffer" aural - it should be natural and, where there are problems, these need to be addressed through tuition. Same goes for sight-reading too.

Sorry if this upsets some but I am a very strong believer in teaching these skills to my pupils from day 1 - for most it then becomes fun and not a nightmare. Yes, Grade 7 and 8 aural is hard but it you've moved through the grades, acquiring the skills needed for each, then even these demanding tests can be mastered in time.

QUOTE (purple dolphin @ Dec 27 2004, 10:21 PM)

I don't understand the point of the aural tests. We have the practical musicianship tests for the people that want to do aural, so why make the rest of us suffer?

Someone else likened trying to play music without aural skills to trying to draw/paint if you've lost your glasses or partly blind.
How can you know if you're playing or singing in tune; if you play a wrong note, if others are playing correctly if you can't hear what you're doing?
But I hear popular music and the singers often sing whole songs flat and no one complains so perhaps it doesn't matter to the average listener.

V

QUOTE (billy @ Dec 20 2004, 01:43 PM)

So, can anybody out there tell me exactly why an aural is included in a piano exam - other than to provide the examiner with some form of twisted pleasure watching students' embaressment struggling through the test.

I used to think exactly the same thing!!
But now I understand how important it is and am trying to develop my aural skills!

QUOTE

Sadly, far too many people teach aural as a last minute "panic" a few days before the exam which gives rise to the "suffering" complex amongst students. It should be an integral part of learning any instrument or vocal studies. ..........  Same goes for sight-reading too. Sorry if this upsets some but I am a very strong believer in teaching these skills to my pupils from day 1 - for most it then becomes fun and not a nightmare. Yes, Grade 7 and 8 aural is hard but it you've moved through the grades, acquiring the skills needed for each, then even these demanding tests can be mastered in time.

Well said.

A few months ago on one of the forums someone said that teachers often test aural but sometimes fail to teach it. Worth repeating I think in this context.

Maggie

I suppose. But I still don't understand why they need to test our aural and theory skills in our practical exams as they have seperate exams. I actually quite enjoy doing aural out of exams, it's just that I can't do it as soon as I walk into the exam room. It's not a case of me being not vary good at it, it just increases my nerves before I go into exams as I am not so confident with it.

QUOTE (maggiemay @ Dec 29 2004, 03:00 PM)

A few months ago on one of the forums someone said that teachers often test aural but sometimes fail to teach it. Worth repeating I think in this context.

It was me, I think!

Well thanks for those informed - sometimes heated responses.

Somehow the debate got widened to cover over aspects of the exam - which was not my intention - scales, pieces, sight and theory are all understandably important. However, I am still not convinced - even after the responses - as to the value of aural for piano.

Unfortunately, nobody from ABRSM gave a quantitative response as to why it is in the sylabus.

I think the most constructive contribution came from Oboist.

I like to keep an open mind on most things - and question everything.

I shall ( maybe ) adopt this approach from Oboist - and maybe in time see the light..........or maybe not, who knows.

Thanks for your responses.

I think that the exams are done that way because the exams aren't just to test how good a pianist you are, they are supposed to test how good a musician you are.

I am virtually speechless that the importance of aural is still NOT UNDERSTOOD - particularly from youngsters learning today. Who exactly are these students' teachers??? Unbelievable. My pupils love their music and do well because they are TAUGHT from day 1 in ALL disciplines regardless of whether they choose to go down the exam route or not. Bah Humbug! Teaching 3 pieces by rote, being satisfied with an approximation of scales and a token "run through" of aural and sight reading just prior to an exam simply isn't good enough. BAH!

Unfortunately, as other posters have said, 'aural' is seen too often, by both teachers and students, as a rather problematic 'add-on' to the main business of learning pieces and scales.

But, as Oboist said, MUSICIANSHIP is so important - and, I feel, should be the main aim of any music lesson.

As someone I revere and respect once said, 'Before we rear instrumentalists...we should first rear musicians'.

I was someone who was able to reach a grade 7 standard of piano playing without learning a thimble-ful of MUSIC. I was just learning where to put my fingers - guessing at rhythm, not understanding the structure of scales, petrified of aural. I reckon I cannot be the only person like this! I also feel sure that it is quite possible to achieve grade 8 without actually being A MUSICIAN.

I do perceive though, that the aural tests devised by the AB do not always follow a particularly logical progression. As an experienced musicianship teacher, there are some aspects of higher grade tests that are easier than some found in lower grades. And why is sight-singing not started at Grade 1???

They also DO seem to be very 'separate' from the other components of the exam and do not necessarily relate to the work covered in the other areas, which may be another reason why they can be seen to be an irrelevant nuisance!

So, basically, I think it's down to this - do you want to be an instrumentalist or a musician??? I do think that it's something that the AB needs to address. Their exams are exemplary in many ways, but as with all exams (I see this with SATS in schools!) there is a danger of the teacher teaching to the test and nothing else.

If only there was a systematic programme of musicianship training running alongside the instrumental work...my colleagues and I are constantly coming across under- and post-graduate music students who cannot sight-sing a very simple melody and/or who have a weak sense of pulse. So something is VERY WRONG with the system here.

Come on, AB, time to open discussions about this major problem!!

QUOTE

A few months ago on one of the forums someone said that teachers often test aural but sometimes fail to teach it.

I must have been really unlucky then, as I never got tested or taught aural. It was something the school music teacher blamed the peripatetic teacher for not teaching, and vice versa. Since I didn't have musical parents I only managed to struggle through the aural tests with a pass mark. In fact, it wasn't until I got to music college that I got the hang of, and appreciated, what all this aural stuff was about.

Today, there is no excuse for not bothering with aural work. If you search Google, there are plenty of online resources to help students aural and theory skills. One of them is Music Theory which contains theory and ear training skill lessons. I recommend it to all of my students, especially those without musical parents.

Billy, even pianists require the important skill of being able to aurally recognise intervals, or sing back a phrase that has been played to them. The examiners are testing your ability to hear the notes in your head and repeat them - not whether you know middle C on the piano when it's played.

QUOTE (purple dolphin @ Dec 30 2004, 08:49 PM)

I suppose. But I still don't understand why they need to test our aural and theory skills in our practical exams as they have seperate exams.

an *awful* lot of people would never ever do aural if it didn't get tested in exams!

as to certain things being easier at the higher grades - I think that different people find different aspects of the aural tests easier or harder. I'd be interested to know which bits you're referring to... they seem to progress pretty steadily to me. I think it depends how you're been taught, whether you've done music at school, the quality of your teachers. For instance, in the higher grades one of the things is possibly having to give a period for a musical piece... whether or not you find that very easy or very hard will depend greatly on how much listening you've done/whether you have studied music academically, whereas something like sightsinging will depend on whether you have a good sense of pitch/whether you have been taught how to do it.

I agree!

Bet you wont find a single professional musician who can't do aural. It is necessary. I don't like the fact, but it's true.

What kind of 'quantitative response' would you like, exactly?

Why should aural skills be any less important for pianists than for any other musicians? I accept they are absolutely crucial for instrumentalists who need to hear what they're doing in order to find the right notes, ie string players and trombonists, but pianists without good aural skills could end up just 'playing by numbers', and who would want to do that?

Do you not see any potential difference between a pianist with good aural skills and a pianist without?

Violinia

I have been here a time or two on these forums, Billy. There are people here who think that aural is the be-all-and-end-all of everything musical. I am not one of these.

Exam aural is a waste of time. Either you can do it or you cannot. The difference is about 3 marks and makes not a jot of difference to your playing ability.

Ignore it happily unless you want to improve. You will not suffer, neither will your playing.

Steve

Dear Forums Users,

As this topic originated more than a year ago and has only recently resurfaced, I think that it's best closed to avoid further contention.

I leave the final word on aural tests to our Chief Examiner, Clara Taylor who says of the aural section of exams:

The purpose of aural tests is to establish the link between listening to music and playing music. Most candidates find that their aural abilities improve with regular practice and that they gain confidence when aural training forms part of every lesson. The speed and accuracy with which candidates respond to the aural tests can tell the examiner a lot about the candidate’s musical makeup and help to form an overall picture of the candidate’s abilities.]

If you want to improve your aural skills, Clara suggests,

There are many painless ways to get in some aural practice between lessons. These might include:

• Listening to as much music as possible on radio or recordings. If you can get to a concert, even better.
• Joining a choir, band, orchestra or chamber group.
• Clapping the rhythm of excerpts of music you don’t know before you play them.
• Singing back parts of tunes which you have just heard for the first time, possibly on the radio or TV.
• Singing through the notes of music excerpts or themes you haven’t seen before, or indeed of any music you may have in your music case. Singing just a few notes will be helpful, keeping the intervals in mind as you go.

I hope that this is of use. For more information and tips on how to prepare for Associated Board graded exams, check out our publication "These Music Exams" which can be downloaded in pdf format here - http://www.abrsm.org/resources/TMERevised05.pdf

Regards

Christine