Klarinet Archive - Posting 000399.txt from 2004/04

From: "Mitch ..." <fusheyumang@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Music exams in U.S.
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 19:45:29 -0400

In regards to theory exams within the examination boards, when i was doing
my ABRSM exams from grades 2-5 on clarinet, i did ALL the theory exams
associated with these exams. I was living in New Zealand at the time and
ABRSM and Trinity are the big boards there. Then i moved to australia. ABRSM
doesn't exist here. There is Trinity and AMEB - the Australian Music
Examination Board - which makes students learn about 5 pieces and only three
are asked and they do other controversial things with their silibus.
However, to do your associate diploma in performance - AmusA, you need to
have grade 3 theory. to do your licentiate - LmusA, you need to have grade 6
theory. I switched to trinity and two years ago i was up to associate level.
At that time, trinity required that everyone doing a licentiate in
performance (LTCL) have their associate in theory (AmusTCL). So i did my
Amus theory in one year, having done no theory since grade 5 level three
years earlier. I got through it in 8 months with a bare pass of 70/100 and
failed 3 out of 5 sections. BUT I think that doing this exam taught me so
much about harmony and structures and really analysing pieces of musit. Had
i not had to do the theory exam, i wouldn't have. I'm under the impression
that that rule only existed for 3 years from 2001-03. However, i am really
glad i had the experience. I think they should introduce the rule for all
music examination boards.

With music in schools, in Queensland in Australia at lease, there are two
music subjects in senior - music and music extension. Music is predominantly
theory - visual and aural analysis play a huge part. Aural skills - rhythmic
and melodic dictations, error perception, sight singing, singing internally
and chord progressions also play a minor part. Composition accounts for 1/3
and performance is not even taught in class - it is assumed you are taught
this in lessons and school ensembles. This is how i think music should be
taught, because people learn theory and still have performance teaching in
lessons.

Music extension is taken in conjunction with music ie as a separate subject.
It is a performance based subject. 1/3 of it is your ensemble playing, which
is assessed by the conductor. 1/3 is your aural skills, as listed above, but
significantly more difficult. 1/3 is solo performance, through 3 concerts
throughout the year, sight reading, an essay comparing and contrasting two
of your works and your program notes. Again, no performance work is taught
in class - it is assumed your teacher does that. So, the class time is taken
up with the finer details of performance - bowing, presentation, analysing
previous concerts etc. And of course aural skills, how to write excellent
program notes and the big essay.

I think the system established in schools works well and gives students some
of the theory they need in their playing.

Mitch Riley

From: "David Glenn" <maestrodavidglenn@-----.com>
Reply-To: klarinet@-----.org
To: klarinet@-----.org
Subject: Re: [kl] Music exams in U.S.
Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2004 22:52:28 +0100

>From: David Glenn
>
>> >ABRSM, (several colleges thru`out U.K.) and Guildhall and Trinity,
>> >individual colleges) do emphasise theory almost as much as performance.
I
>> >s`pose this good.
>> - snip -
>> >Tony W.
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>> Tony,
>> Let yourself be corrected by an expatriate American: The ABRSM exams do
>not emphasise theory almost as much as performance. To be exact, the
>theoretical part makes up 18 out of 150 points on the exams (smallest part
>of all). Scales and chords 21 points. Sight reading 21 points. 90 points
>left for the three pieces. So it appears that the ABRSM exams emphasize
>playing and not theory. The only hitch to this is that you have to take
one
>theory exam (grade 5) which is really not hard before you can do the
>practical exams in the higher grades. As far as my teaching goes, it's
just
>enough theory required to make me do something with my students on it once
>in a while. I am glad about this since I started with these exams because,
>with 25 minute units and you know how much some students practise ... it's
>hard to get around to these things sometimes.
>
>
>David,
>Don`t get confused with 'theory' and 'aural' tests. ABRSM instrumental
exams
>do not cover theory at all, but they *do* emphasise theory just as much as
>playing! There are separate theory exams which do not include playing
your
>instrument. Yes, one has to be grade 5 level in theory before going on to
>sit grade 6 instrumental exam - this is a separate exam.
+++++++++++++++++++
Tony,
Yes you're right, I do have some tendency to mix them as one is not possible
without the other. And because, in addition, until now all my pupils who
have come so far have done not the grade 5 theory but the grade 5 practical
musicianship test (for language reasons). Obviously you need some theory for
this as it is a substitute for the theory exam but it's really just as much
hearing and playing ability. And, like Tony P. and I already said, the grade
5 theory is really not hard. Yes, there are seperate theory exams for each
grade but no, you do not have to do any execpt gr. 5. Therefor I remain of
the opinion that the ABRSM exams do not emphasize theory. I never did any of
the exams myself so that means that Tony P. is about 5 grades better than I
am!
As far as theory for getting into college (Trinity), I had almost none and
was easily accepted. But boy was I sorry for the lack of knowledge then! At
college level, the emphasis on theory is considerably more.
David
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

And similarly for
>qualification to enter into the 3 - 4 year college study with instrument
as
>first study, (including a second instrument study in addition, which can
be
>voice) the student must have passed the grade 8 on instrument, *and* the
>separate grade 8 in theory. This covers traditional, 20 cent. and modern
>harmony techniques: counterpoint and fugue: composition: vocal writing:
>knowledge of other instruments and orchestration.
>
>I`m a music writer in addition to my clarinet and piano playing, so I may
be
>bashing my own corner here, but I believe that our exam systems need to be
>looked at in such a way so as to not prevent a promising instrumentalist
>from qualifying for entry just because their own instrument, say bass
>trombone is a million miles away from (and being forced to learn a certain
>amount of), say harp. To me it`s nonsense. One could say that it 'sorts
the
>men from the boys'; ultimately the colleges want the best talent, but if
>America can produce fine players with not quite so much emphasis on theory
>as in UK, then there is a case to rethink what value theory really is to
an
>instrumentalist. It`s 'nice' to be talented in both - but not essential.
How
>will the harp pedal changes help the bass trombonist in his portrayal of
>'The Ride of the Valkyries'?
>I have the 'best possible' :) portrayal of this by the Cleveland Orch.
under
>Szell (1969) Magnificent brass! (How much harp or piccolo would they have
>known?)
>Best,
>Tony W.

SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org

   
     Copyright © Woodwind.Org, Inc. All Rights Reserved    Privacy Policy    Contact charette@woodwind.org