Why is grade 8 necessary in order to sit the DipABRSM? I can understand why a minimum of grade 5 theory is expected after grade 5 practical because ABRSM want students to develop all round musicianship but what is the reasoning behind requiring grade 8 to progress onto the diploma? Surely if a student can play the pieces, write the performance notes and perform on the other tests to diploma+ standard then it doesn't matter if they've not sat grade 8 practical. Or is this a way to stop lots of students applying when they are not ready?

I also wonder if a minimum age limit should be required when sitting the diploma. DS teacher sat the diploma at 13 but by the time she was 18 she realised that her attempt (she passed) at 13 was poor in comparison to what she could offer at 18 due to maturity allowing her to perform more musically.

My suspicion is that it is a wheeze to maximise income, behind a front of wanting to appear to maintain standards. We have had, in the pasts, posts from hothousers appearing to want to know how to write their kids' programme notes, and how to drill them for vivas so it may well be that some sort of standard maintenance might well be in order - however, I can't see why, if someone is properly prepared for a given exam, they shouldn't be allowed to take it. ABRSM also demands grade 5 theory before higher practicals can be attempted, again under the guise of ensuring that basic knowledge towards passing particularly aural elements are in place, but again I'm not convinced that it's really all that useful or necessary.

ABRSM does the same for all its dips, demanding the one before, or one higher from other boards as prerequisite for attempting the next up. Others take the view that if you're prepared to put up that much cash in the attempt, they can still maintain standards by ensuring that only those who are really ready will pass. Perhaps the fellowships, for which licentiateships are required by all the boards I know of, might be considered to be in a different league here, and reasonably so - but I'm fairly sure whatever the actual reason given, the real one is about returns. Either way, there are reasons enough for me to look elsewhere for hurdles to attempt. *bolts*

I have my suspicions about income too, but then again if you study the syllabus carefully there are a large number of "or equivalent" substitutions. If you think you have anything verifiable that you can send in as proof you meet a similar level then you can do that. I didn't take grade 6 theory - quite honestly have yet to see much use out of my grade 5 and I have forgotten almost all of it. Much is far more relevant to composers and directors than to performers, if it's about producing a more musical performance at higher grades there should be less writing out transpositions and more about musical periods, the timeline of invention of certain instruments, changes to instruments over the years and how that has changed performance, that kind of thing. But in lieu of my grade 6 theory I sent documents showing I did a music course at university with similar content and I now have an exemption letter.

They do all have to be documented substitutions, though, which is a shame if you play really well but just don't want to have to do a grade 8 just to enter the dip but don't have anything at all to show for that. I think that will be very few people, who don't have a win at a festival, who don't have an A-level performance, nothing at all to submit as a possible alternative. At the end of the day why not allow people to waste the examiners' time when they are being paid handsomely for it? Unless diplomas are loss-making examinations, then they have a duty as a charitable organisation not to waste money on them, they must demonstrate that the investment of funds in this examination is for the benefit of the stated persons (i.e. musicians). If the diplomas are entirely paid for by the entry fee then you should be able to just show up and do one, if you are clearly below any possible passing standard the examiner can stop you after 2 bars and refuse to hear anything else.

If you've seen "Britain's Got Talent" and similar you will know how delusional some people are about their standard of performance!

My point being that AB demands a substitution of already equivalent level to the one being attempted - ie, if you want to do AB licentiate, you need to have (otherboard) licentiate already, not their associateship. That being so - once embarked on (otherboard) dips, you effectively have to duplicate repertoire level to sit AB if you want to switch, with all the financial implications around it. Under a front of elitism, what it actually is doing is trying to exert leverage to get candidates to embark on AB in the first place....or alternatively, chasing candidates away to other boards. *does not compute in my brain*

Interesting that you see theory in this light.
I chose to do grade 5 theory not because of having any thoughts of higher practical grades but because i realised that I'd learned much of what was required as part of learning to play. I see it largely as 'everyday theory' though I do admit to sometimes double checking 'official' rules on note grouping/beaming when I teach it.
I did grades 6, 7 and 8 some year after grade 5 and it wasn't easy to find a teacher. Despite getting distinction for all 3 of the higher grades I'd now need to revise the harmony if I needed to use it as, unlike much of the grade 5 syllabus, it's not something I regularly make use of. I do find that it helps with teaching though as I'm more confident in helping students (particularly grade 5 and up) to understand how the music they are playing is put together.
I'm not sure that the reasoning behind the theory requirement is to aid musical performance. I see it as showing that you have a basic understanding of the nuts and bolts of music instead of being someone who just plays without much awareness of some basic concepts.
Since you are by no means the only one who has grade 5 theory but no longer has the knowledge I don't think that in reality it does function in that way. There's not really much you can do about it though.

Trinity Guildhall don't have such prerequisites until the FTCL. They take the view that if your are not good enough you will fail anyway, prerequisite or not.

Then again my recorder teacher told me to do grade 8 first then ATCL the year after so it is good preparation in some respects. I hasten to add it was a repertoire choice over AB as I did have the 'prerequisite' for dipABRSM in any case.

I think Grade 6 theory is only a prerequisite for the teaching diploma, I assumed it was there to ensure that a potential teacher. who is likely to be teaching someone theory up to grade 5, has demonstrated a slightly higher level of knowledge than their future pupils. In the same way that a primary school teacher is expected to have GCSE English, Maths and Science.

Surely by then she would be sitting the LRSM. The DipABRSM is very much a first diploma, whereas the LRSM is thought of as a professional qualification. Children who sit GCSEs or A-levels early also find that they don't always get the A* they might have done if they'd waited, but since the qualifications are a stepping stone to the next stage, it hardly matters as long as they pass reasonably well.

In 1963 I had to wait until I was 16 to take ALCM (I took it in June after I was 16, they wouldnt let me take it in March, the month of my 16th birthday). Also the highest exam I had previously taken wa Grade 6.
Do LCM insist on grade 8 being passed now to take ALCM, I suspect not.

She had sat the LRSM too but her point was that she felt that, looking back, it was too young to take them and she cringed at her lack of musicality and maturity back then and felt a minimum age/experience limit would be better rather than ticking boxes to look impressive.

... thereby equipping them to irreparably damage their students' capacity for mathematical understanding

[Hence the "Jeremy Paxman" phenomen of being dismissive of those that are not familiar with the minutiae of politics, geography, history and Greek myths, while being impressed by the most elementary of scientific or mathematical knowledge].

I've had a look back at the syllabus for theory and I think the reason why certain things stick in my mind are because those were the things I did have to sit down and learn purely for the exam. Other things (clefs, key sigantures, relative minors, enharmonic equivalents, names of intervals) I'd already learned anyway because they did add to my practical musical knowledge and performance skills. I recall the pointless hideousness of sitting and writing out SATB music into chorale format so vividly because I had been reading such music for years and didn't see why anyone might consider this difficult. I'd spent my childhood harmonising hymn tunes at sight so having to sit down and do this on paper just to get a certificate so I could carry on with my practical exams was annoying. The theory class teacher made us all attend every week and then write out the exercises for homework, even if we clearly knew exactly what to do already, I wanted to murder her! (I was, after all, about 13)

But the main things I had to actually learn as brand new information for grade 5 theory were all about transposing instruments - none of which I play! I've yet to figure out how it's useful for me to be able to write out music at concert pitch for an A clarinet, or to know that a French horn is in F specifically for the purposes of taking a grade 6 practical exam on the viola. Yes, it's interesting general musical knowledge, and absolutely essential for people taking composing or directing, but how does it relate to grade 6 viola? It didn't and it still doesn't, so I think that's why I took such a passionate hatred of my grade 5 theory, it was just a thing I had to "get out of the way" so I could pursue what I was really interested in achieving.

Because it does include so many things that don't have a direct relationship with performing it does seem to rub people up the wrong way that they have to do this, and perhaps if it were more about musical history and more variety of composition techniques (not just realising a figured bass and following a rule about consecutive 5ths) it would have more of a direct relationship to performers, and they would be glad they did it. At that level I don't see that the transposing instruments need cover much more than "Why is the clarinet part in a different key?" - 2 marks for a reasonable answer. Writing the whole thing out "including accidentals where required" is simply laborious for people who don't compose or direct, and I don't feel it really adds anything that can't be gained from a simpler explanation. Maybe two different examinations would be more useful "Theory for practical performers" and "Theory for composers and directors" and you need to take the appropriate examination to the route you want to follow. Of course it makes yet another expense for people who want to follow both routes, but you can't win 'em all! Since you can substitute it with Practical Musicianship or Jazz improv it's clearly not a bit essential to write out parts for transposing instruments provided you can sight-sing.

Interesting that you're not sure of the rationale behind the theory requirement - as someone who teaches it (and enjoys doing so) I'd agree with your reasoning, but I'm afraid the actual content of the exam displays the same muddled thinking typical of AB.

I have gripes with many parts of the Grade 5 exam. I'm honest with students with what I think about the parts I feel nonsensical: the open/short score (I've never used that skill in 40 years); the learning of hundreds of obscure foreign words (I look them up if I need to in real musical life); learning (for instance) that a contralto is lower than an soprano (why do I need to know this to do Grade 6 trumpet?) etc. And then there's the omission (inexcusable, in my opinion, in the 21st Century) of basic pop/jazz chord notation.

BUT I stress that if students are really on the ball on the core stuff - key signatures and scales, chords, time signatures and rhythmic notation, clefs, composing a melody, and transposition (and I do happen to think that's a useful skill to learn) - they will be really close to passing on that alone. But I do find it hard, if not impossible, to justify other parts of the exam.

Unfortunately I think clinging on to its outdated content the AB expose the fact that both their practical and theory exams were designed for people intending to study at a conservatoire or to read music at university. I really don't think they are well designed for those for whom music is something they do just for pleasure and have no intention to study with a view of taking music as a career. Trinity do seem to have grasped the nettle in this respect.

This is exactly why the vast majority of my post-grade 5 pupils take the Trinity exams. With the amount of pressure from GCSE and A level exams and numerous other activities many would give up altogether if they had to take a theory exam to continue. The 'musical knowledge' section of Trinity, up to grade 5, covers all of the theory relevant to their playing, apart from transposition which I cover through performance exercises in lessons. I cover this section regardless of whether the pupil chooses to take it as a part of their exam.

I can't help reading that as BRAIN trumpet.

All of mine do (and pre Grade 5 too), for several reasons:

Firstly, the choice of repertoire is better. Not easier, better. And they use obviously look to use books within individual grades and across different grades: thinking of the candidates, not the publishers' needs.

Secondly, I have a fundamental objection to using the singing voice as the main way of assessing aural ability. I'm passionately in favour of my pupils singing and enjoying singing, and equally passionate about it being an inaccurate and unfair way of assessing aural skills.

Thirdly, I don't think candidates should have to jump through irrelevant hoops to take an exam, as irrelevant but compulsory learning undermines the joy of learning. Great chunks of the Grade 5 theory exam are irrelevant to many learners.

But the Grade 5 Theory exam fees do bring in an annual income to the AB of about ?700,000. So not irrelevant to the AB.

Maybe it's just me, but I don't see how any solid grade 6+ musician could have trouble passing grade 5 theory. I virtually didn't study for the exam aside from looking over some of the more obscure vocabulary and still earned nearly full marks. Perhaps some of the minutiae are irrelevant, but most of the exam is pretty basic material that I find relevant to performing at a intermediate level, and it's possible to get a good mark even without some of less useful skills. I know a few young musicians who play at a grade 6+ standard and wouldn't be able to pass grade 5 theory (heavily Suzuki-trained children on string instruments, for example), and it DOES impact their ability to perform effectively, particularly in an ensemble setting. There's nothing wrong with this per se, but I think it is important that they learn the relevant theory eventually, and fair that they wouldn't be given the same certificate as other musicians of equal proficiency who do know this theory, and can therefore be more useful in ensemble situations. This is just my experience though, and it's probably biased by the fact that my former viola teacher used Suzuki and many of his students were like this...

Surely this depends on one's starting point, though. Way back when I did Grade 5 theory, one only had to know treble and bass clefs; because I only played the clarinet, my bass clef knowledge was virtually non-existent, to the extent where the first thing I did in the exam was to write out a row of bass clef notes with the letter names underneath, and to which I referred throughout the exam. Transposition, on the other hand, was a walk in the park, as I'd been used to transposing for a long time, whereas players of non-transposing instruments struggled with it.

Hmm, this is fair, but I do think that pretty much every instrumentalist should be able to do these things after a certain point. I suppose I was at an advantage clef-wise since I play piano and viola, and so have to use the three different clefs regularly. But as a clarinettist, shouldn't one be able to read the piano accompaniment part (which uses bass and treble clef)? In fact, shouldn't anyone who plays in an orchestra (or any other ensemble) at an intermediate level be able to read any line of the full score (which requires knowledge of all clefs and transposition)?

Maybe you'd be surprised how much effort some are prepared to put into not learning.

Believe me, I expended copious quantities of red ink, changed tack from "disappointed", to "regretful" to "quite cross and nearly angry" over a period of about 7 weeks, not to mention the shoe leather I wore out taking sample papers back to pupil, and phone calls to her mum, and said pupil managed not to improve one jot (save the paper that she took to school to complete - no doubt it was a collective effort, and she managed to pass that one solidly) and failed the miserable exam. Zero effort. (except on my part) Grrrr.

I think grade 5 theory syllabus must have changed a bit since I took it as I have no recollection of doing chords or SABT. I did O level music subsequent to grade 5 theory and learnt some basic harmony to be able to do a 2 or 4 part harmonisation which has been useful when making arrangements of parts for our church music group. I don't think this has helped my playing at all, O level aural was helpful because writing down the exercises is much easier than having to think about singing them.

Wouldn't it be more useful to have to play something and transpose it than do it on paper, there are times when you might be faced with something not written for your instrument and you have to play it there and then. If I want to transpose a piece of music to make a part for someone on another instrument I'd use a computer package to do it which is what I do for the church music group.

It can be useful to be able to quickly write out a transposition by hand so that your players don't have to wait until next rehearsal to have a play through.

Short/open score was there in the mid 1970s, as I remember thinking then what a pointless but easy question it was.

Re transposition - it is in trumpet exams (AB and Trinity), as it's something we all have to be able to do on the fly in orchestras. And when arranging, even if I'm using notation software, I still always do a mental check. And still occasionally I still have to use a 2B pencil and manuscript paper when needs must...!

Organ exams have transposition from Grade 6 (I think) it's a good skill to have whatever instrument. .

I see transposition, keyboard harmony etc as practical skills that are just generally helpful when being a musician- I see why these used to be under Practical Musicianship as mentioned by someone else earlier. I think these "side skills" all fall under that grouping same as numeracy skills do in the realm of maths. Any field has a cloud of associated skills and just being able to tell whether something "looks right" is useful.

Having these little skills up to scratch also makes music-making a lot more fun because I can do things like play the cello part of a Brandenburg Concerto on horn (I lasted a couple of pages before I had to give up, there were just too many notes!!), or attempt to reduce scores if I have to. Also, knowing theory and harmony makes a lot of piano accompaniments to stuff a lot more fakable. I like being able to fake my way through an accompaniment - I really like playing with other people, and I wouldn't be able to do it as much as I have if I wasn't able to fake things. Of course, this totally breaks down if you give me Stravinsky or Hindemith where I can't fake it (Edit: and it's why I'd never pass the quick study for a DipAB, where it's not necessarily fakable)

A point about computers that I realised today after I messed up at work (nothing to do with music though) - the thing about computers is that while they will do exactly what you *tell* them to do, that may not be what you *want* them to do. I'm not having a go, I'm speaking as a programmer who has screwed up MANY TIMES. It's never the computer's fault - when I tell it that I want it to transpose up a major third instead of minor third as I actually wanted, I need to be able to sanity check that I've asked it to do the right thing.

Edit: I'm an idiot, I thought this was in the "playing instruments and theory" thread. However, I think that much of what I've said can be applied to Diplomas; if the above skills are something that they want diploma candidates to have as part of general musicianship, then I could see a case for the specific graded theory and practical exams being a requirement.

The dipABRSM may be a first diploma but it is still recognised as a 'professional' qualification.

You obviously have first level, second level and third level diplomas, but all are recognised as professional

It's quite possible to know what things do without knowing what they are. Before studying for grade 5 I could sit at a piano and make a composition, play from open or close score, realise a figured bass or add appropriate chords underneath a given melody with appropriate use of inversions. But I didn't know what a supertonic in first inversion was, I just knew when I needed to play one. I had all the knowledge applicable to making the practical music, and could describe the chord as "An A minor with the C at the bottom" so the only thing I gained from learning that it was a supertonic first invesion was the ability to describe it with that label.... usually to people who didn't know what that meant and I had to tell them it was "An A minor chord with the C at the bottom" and we'd come full circle.

This is why there is not necessarily a relationship between passing theory and being any good at practical performance, just because you wouldn't recognise a perfect cadence if it sneaked up behind you in a dark room doesn't mean that you would not instantly and automatically make one if given a piano. I wish Practical Musicianship had been available back when I had to do all this, I'd much rather have had these skills tested using an instrument than a piece of manuscript paper. It's still useful to learn the words that describe these things, but I definitely think the learning needs to be that way around - here's a skill you just used, by the way there is a name for it.

I'm glad there is now more variety of ways to fulfil the prerequisites. I can't see the earthly point of testing whether you can successfully realise a figured bass without the aid of a keyboard instrument, when the main point of being able to do it is being able to produce a keyboard part in practice. Does anyone ever lock you in a room with a piece of manuscript and ask you to produce a keyboard part, adhering strictly to the rules and given chords, forbid you from playing it out loud then mark you on what you produced? Composers and arrangers generally sit in a room with minimally one instrument when they work. Why can't you use consecutive 5ths? Because they don't sound good. So why not let you spot them by sound, not by looking painstakingly through a written piece counting intervals?

As much as you can't really have practice entirely divorced from knowledge of theory, you shouldn't have theory entirely cut off from its practical application, because that doesn't happen either. The nuts and bolts of music is to make something which sounds good, why do it in a soundless environment?

Surprised to hear this. I thought it was equivalent standard to the end of first year at a conservatoire, and I wouldn't call that a professional standard. Professional in what respect? I know several youngsters (including my son) with DipABRSM and none of them thinks of themselves as a professional musician.

What on earth does "professional standard" mean anyway? I have a Dip and would never dream of considering myself of professional standard, but I would not consider many of the people I know with LRSM qualifications to be of professional standard either, though of course it is a much higher standard than a first level diploma.

My perception (which may be wrong) is that the boards would like to see the Diplomas viewed as "professional" in the sense of a "professional qualification" - similar to doctors, accountants, lawyers - that if you have passed the exams, you have been evaluated and found to be of a certain standard. It wouldn't then mean that you would then be able to just go and land a job as a musician - similar to how if I really wanted to, I could go and sit the actuarial science exams and be "professionally qualified" which would in no way guarantee me a job as an actuary.

I suspect 'professional' simply means 'beyond school level', in the sense that you've chosen to do it (and quite possibly for career-related reasons)

My son's teacher has told him that as soon as he starts conservatoire he is a professional musician and if the dip is equivalent to the end of the first year of conservatoire (which the boards say it is) then it is a professional qualification. However, I would have thought most people entering conservatoire are at dip level, as they play diploma pieces in their auditions.

Certainly these days, yes.

Hi I am new to this forum I just thought I would start off here!
I completed my DipABRSM on flute last year, and wouldn't have been able to do it without grade 8. it is a lot more challenging than people think, that is why the pass rate is so low. many people put themselves up for the exam but really dont know how difficult it is.