Just wondering whether I am the only person who wishes that the piano syllabus would last for longer than 2 years. All the other instrumental syllabi last for much longer, some even for 6 years!! Why do they have to change the piano syllabus every 2 years, making everyone buy new books and learn new pieces? Is it just a money-making exercise or are there other hidden reasons?

But presumably the pupils would be learning new pieces in any case, as they'd be progressing up the grades. It's only the teachers who have to do this and, personally, I don't find it that onerous. Besides, I don't think I could put up with Creepy Crawly or Bah-ba-doo bah for more than a couple of years...

I think the reason the syllabus lasts longer for most other instruments is that there simply isn't as much repertoire to choose from.

And there are far more piano exams taken than most other instruments.

If I pass my grade 1 exam in March, so I start on the 2 book. If I take my grade 2 next March then Will I have to get the new 2 book for the exam? "It,s all very confusing".

It depends when you take the exam next year. The pieces in the current books are valid for 2011-2012, but also include exam period A in 2013 so I think you should be fine. Otherwise if you are taking your exam after period A then you will need to use the new books for 2013-2014, which I think will be available in August.

If you live in Europe and you are taking your G2 in March 2013 then you can still use the 2012 G2 book.

(In France, I can use the old books for a full year after they've 'expired', i.e. the 2011/2012 ones are valid for all three 2013 sessions).

But presumably you won't be buying the G2 book straight after passing your G1 exam in March 2012 ?

I mean, it's not a good idea (at all!!!) to spend one year working on the exam pieces.

So, if you're thinking of taking your next exam in March 2013, buy the new book in August or September 2012 when it comes out.

If your teacher has a second-hand copy of the 2011/2012 syllabus to lend you, you can use that in 2013 no problem (although check with your ABRS rep all the same).

I was going to make these points. I guess strings have the most material after piano, hence the four-year syllabus. That's certainly long enough, I was so relieved to see the back of Through My Window last term, and that was actually a decent piece!

It's easy to be cynical and say it's a money-making exercise, but that leads to the opposite question, as a two-year violin syllabus would sell even more books...

It's also worth noting that the woodwind syllabus only increased to six years after the board began publishing the flute and clarinet books - they were four-year syllabuses before.

This would fit with the economics of how big the print runs must be to have specially-edited collections at what is, after all, not all that great a cost for individual books.

porilo you are lucky then you weren't around in the days when the piano syllabus was changed annually. As a teacher I think a change every second year is just about right and I can't wait until July!

I'm usually pretty well bored with the grade pieces by the second year - especially the lower grades that usually more people are doing.

I would think that the examiners will be bored too! Since there are more piano students, especially in the lower grades, listening to similar pieces for two whole days must be boring!

I don't think I would be bored if I were an examiner. After all, every performance is different and no two students play the same piece in exactly the same way. My feeling is that every 2 years we as teachers have to learn new pieces so that we can teach them to our students. I certainly do not teach anything unless I have thoroughly learnt it myself. Sometimes it takes several weeks to learn a piece properly, especially at the higher grades.

Why would a music teacher not want to learn new pieces of music? Personally I find it quite exciting when the new syllabus is released.

Er ...... I think you've misunderstood what I wrote. Of course I enjoy learning new pieces of music, but it takes time which I find I don't always have. If I can learn something which I can use for the next 5 or 6 years, rather than just 2 years, then why not? Maybe that sounds lazy but there are only so many hours in day which I have free for my own study and learning, so economy of time is essential.

Do you really have to "learn" the piece to teach it?

I have on occasion bought pieces to my lesson that my teacher is unfamiliar with (these have included pieces on grades 7, 8 and diploma lists) and not only has he never refused to teach them to me but he has been quite excited at discovering something new. It sometimes takes him a couple of attempts to play a tricky passage correctly to me but I have never seen this as a problem; in fact I find it interesting to observe how he goes about sorting out a passage that he can't just sight read. And as for interpretation, he has a vast musical culture which seems to enable him to draw parallels with other pieces he does know.

For me, definitely yes. I am a very slow learner, I always have been, but I learn things thoroughly and once they are learnt then they are learnt. I personally would not feel confident in teaching a piece at sight which I had never seen before. Occasionally it has happened that a student has brought a new piece and I always take a copy and ask them to give me a week to go through it myself so that we can start from the next lesson. When I was taking my exams I did enough sight-reading (and it's still my weak point) and I don't think I should be doing sight-reading myself during a student's lesson. I've never refused to teach a piece which a student wants to learn, and like your teacher I always enjoy discovering new pieces too, but get flustered when I am "put on the spot", which is why I always ask for a week's "grace" so that I can learn it myself first.

Maybe this is because I'm not a teacher and I have got hold of completely the wrong end of the stick but I don't think at the higher levels you necessarily need the teacher to be able to play the whole piece. I can't actually remember the last time my teacher played a piece all the way through for me. He will demonstrate bits I am having trouble with and sometimes he will play alongside me for a couple of lines (although obviously you couldn't do this unless you have a 2nd piano in the room).

I think this is a reason why my teacher at university chose to teach there rather than the music college: we were too musically opinionated and inquisitive to passively churn out 19th-century showpieces. A couple of weeks before my final recital I mentioned somthing about a Lutoslawski piece I was preparing, in relation to a rehearsal I'd arranged with my accompanist, and my teacher exclaimed "Oh, there's a piano part?!"

I am fine with two years. It is just about right for me though I must admit that the three year extension for those of us in Europe can be a godsend if you have had a pupil miss an exam - as has happened to me - broken wrist. It does also compensate for the fact that I only get an examiner once a year and can't just say OK we'll do it at the next session. It gives me the cholce of putting pieces on ice and doing something else until it's time to look at them again or choosing a completley new set or skipping a Grade exam.. And that choice will depend on the pupi's age, ability, tastes and also on the year they are in at school.

On the other hand I am glad the recorder syllabus lasts longer. Some of the pieces in the higher grades are quite hard to hunt down and I have had music shops send the wrong pieces.

I am already beginning to look forward th the next new piano set. As far as teaching pieces I have never played, I don't mind at all as long as I think they are pieces I could - or could have - played. If I understand what the composer wants and can get this over to the pupil I think it suffices. I have often had to say "Let's discover this together." After all you wouldn't expect every university lecturere in English literature to have read every single novel or poem - even from their specialist perieod. The thing is not necessarily to know - but to know how.