Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Piano Teachers Forum Newbie to ABRSM exams

In the UK, 'Asian' typically means people from the Indian subcontinent (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka) not China. I know Americans think this odd, but we are, after all, two nations divided by a common language (as some wit, or maybe sage, might say).

I do change my terminology (& spelling) depending on who I address my posts to....

(BTW, my rugs are alpaca - Peruvian).

We do concerto repertoire in the "off" years between exams. That, and other ensemble repertoire. The competition kids don't necessarily want to learn their obligatory Kabalevsky if they can avoid it.

I disagree. I think these "levels" are arbitrary and subjective. What's "level 3" to you is "level 5" to another teacher.

I hate it when some of my students keep on asking me, "What level is this piece?" Without fail, my response will take up 10 minutes of lesson time, demonstrating the ludicrous endeavor of labeling every single piece with a "level."

One of my "level 6" students two years ago played a piece that was listed as "level 9." I didn't tell him that until he completely mastered the piece, and then when he found out he's been playing a "level 9" piece, he burst out laughing.

You are right to a certain extent. I do think a lot of care has gone into placing repertoire on the ABRSM lists but there are some discrepancies, for example a piece which appeared on grade 6 years ago may be on the current grade 7 list. And different pieces present different challenges which some students will find more or less difficult than others. Still, it's a good guide to begin with and teachers can use their discretion when choosing from it. For me it's useful because I don't always remember which pieces were best from one year to the next so it jogs my memory.

As regards concerto repertoire between exams I feel we are talking about a different level of student entirely. Most of mine are intermediate or below so are nowhere near concerto repertoire. Those that are don't give me many problems and are pretty self sufficient with motivation by that stage. Their deadlines tend to be recitals rather than exams.

One obvious fact is that an organization that gives exams must organize those exams, and thus must place repertoire in some order. That doesn't mean it's the only possible order.

A few years ago I was involved in a project where a teacher deliberately took a piece that was ranked "grade 3/4" (depending on the organization), and put it out for students of any level to put into it what they could. This teacher knew his material, and had some ideas about teaching. The idea was that students at "high" levels would be able to do much more with it - and should - rather than going after sexy music which was "fast and impressive" (which was one thing he was trying to impart). What's involved should tell us something, as I'll try to set out below.

The piece was ranked "grade 3/4" because of the things that are taught at that grade level, and expectations. It was in an easy key signature, had few if any modulations, and it was slow. There was a minimal amount of pedal that had to be used - so it wasn't "grade 1". In other words, it could be played at a "grade 4 level"" meaning that those skills usually taught within the system could be applied, and were expected to be there.

If it was played that way, then it would get good grades in an exam, since expectations were met. Googling performances tended to show a relatively boring, correct, piece which sounded like good "student playing", if played at this grade 4 level.

In fact, the piece was one of those miniatures, that was brought to life if played by an experienced, well-developed musician who could bring out nuances through pedal, voicing, gentle rubato. It asked for this kind of treatment. In fact, these slow, simple pieces require more skill to make them musical, and played that way they would be played with a "grade 9 skill".

How is the piece ranked, and toward what? A piece can have different grade rankings depending on purpose.

Finally, a teacher may be wanting to transmit specific skills to a student, and look for a piece that will allow that to happen. He will choose the piece according to the nature of his student at that period, the nature of what he wants to teach, etc. It might not be the student's "grade" at all - because the student herself has an array of skills that may map in various places of official sites.

I would think that that grading gives a general idea to teachers, so that they are not faced with a bewildering set of countless pieces to choose from. It might set a first order.

They certainly can. I had a student once who worked very hard but, unlike with others I taught, it never showed at exam time. She could never get it together on the day and show what she could do, so exams became a disincentive for her. We were both much happier when we left the actual exams behind, and she continued to progress with her playing.


I'm not anti-exams. I'm anti:
[1]teaching TO exams;
[2]teaching ONLY what's on an exam syllabus;
[3]using exam results as anything more than a general guide to progress in certain areas;
[4]restricting repertoire to exam requirements, so for example, only 4 main pieces per year.
[5]the competitive thing where people ask "what grade have you done?" - actually, that can be useful knowledge, but so often it's "what mark did you get? XXX got A+"
[6]the assumption that if you haven't done exams you haven't covered the ground.

Re point #6 - That was the situation I was in when I was 14, having played for 7 years, taught by my father. And there certainly was ground I hadn't covered. I'd never played a scale, for example. My fingering was, according to my new teacher with a grin on his face, "unorthodox". But there were loads of other things in which I was far ahead of the average grade 7 student who'd just gone through the exam system. I'd just covered ground which wasn't on the exam syllabus. And the gaps were filled in a fairly short space of time.

There are good things about the exam system. I see good teachers using it well, and bad teachers using it badly. Same with the competition system. I'm less enthusiastic here, because whereas the exam is ideally about feedback, the competition is often about "who won?", not feedback about their performance. Comparison rather than evaluation, though of course the performance experience is still valuable.

That's what sent me to a teacher when I was 14. I wanted to play Chopin "properly". I wasn't interested in collecting certificates.

Some people do not perform well on exams. So exam grades can make people seem more knowledgeable or less than they are.

There is also the difference between "fill in the bubbles" and "essay". Bubble tests frustrate me. Essay tests don't, because I can express things more completely.

Bubble tests tend to expect a right/wrong answer and give us no way to present a slightly different slant on things that may be better.

I may be back to give thoughts about the rest, but I agree with all your points.

I've worked for many parents who believe this little certificate is proof that they've spent the $$$ to pay for their kid's piano lessons. One parent in particular framed her kids' CM certificates and proudly displayed them on top of the piano. Her kids absolutely hate piano, and the more time they spend preparing for CM the more they hate piano. And maybe they'll grow up resenting their mother.

[do I hear an echo from across the pond?]

Despite the fact that I suffer from performance anxiety (and still do - when playing for musicians, which I now refuse to do) and never did myself justice in any of my piano exams, I believe they still have a place.

I don't think I'd ever have concentrated so hard on polishing my technique and the set pieces (and scales, arpeggios.....) if there wasn't an exam looming - I was far too interested in learning new stuff (most of which I learnt for my own pleasure, without telling my teachers) to have bothered spending time on ironing out small glitches in anything I played. I had a voracious appetite for music, and spent many happy hours sight-reading through volumes of Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert, Schumann, Chopin etc that I borrowed from the school music library, picking the ones I wanted to learn for myself.

I'm more in favor of exams for the young, than competitions - where there's only one winner. (Don't believe the usual blah, blah about "everyone is a winner" - just see the runners-up cry their hearts out....). And definitely more in favor of exams than putting children through playing in public, in front of other students and parents. As I said before, if any of my teachers had insisted on this (as apparently many American teachers do), I'd have given up altogether rather go face such public humiliation.

It seems to be there's a lot of double standards going on: teachers who make their students play 'recitals' even though they have no ambition to be professional performers, yet refuse to let them do exams, and maybe not even teach them theory (you don't need to know any theory to play well, right?). What does the child have to do for several weeks prior to those recitals? - yes, spend all their time on one piece trying to iron out mistakes, only to lose their nerve during the actual event in front of several people (not just one examiner), and mess things up......

What do you teachers have to do to get your teaching qualification? That's right, do an exam. Would parents hire a teacher who has no qualifications?

BTW, I never kept any of my piano or theory exam certificates - even my diploma has long disappeared into the ether....

Bennevis, in the last few days you have ignored every one of my posts and responses.

My observation is that you are going by your subjective, personal experiences first of all, and wish to apply this to everyone. Secondly, observations of surface appearances of what might be called end results (recitals are end results) from which you have drawn conclusions, and now these conclusions for you are fact. From there you give opinions on what teachers ought or ought not to do, coming close to judging them. Worse, you do not seem to give them credence for what they have found after decades of working with students. One would think that one thing we learn as students and former students, is to pay attention and think anew about things that are presented. There seems to be no flexibility toward unfamiliar ideas.


I have no doubt that this was true for you, and may be true for many students. But not ALL students. And that's the rub.

Another thing that can and does happen is that a particular student may benefit from learning particular things, but because of the exams, the teacher is forced to stress other things for the sake of the exam. What the student needs for that student's growth has to be put on a back burner.

Another thing again is that some students may hate exams, dread exams, LOVE learning, and are prevented from learning because of the exam culture. What was good for you is not good for everyone.


If I were forced to choose between one and the other, I would choose exams, and then, look at the anecdotal part of the exam results. But even better - neither. Or in the least, give these their favourite part.

I disagree with any segregation in terms of "for the young". A student is a student. Learning is learning. EVERYONE needs to get the same skills. You do not magically acquire those skills because you are over twenty. An adult needs the same skills as a child.


Where did that come from? Where do you see that teachers are doing that combination of things that you have just outlined?
1. The teachers participating in this board have a variety of ways they teach: some have recitals, some don't have recitals, some have recitals and exams, some have exams with no recitals, some have no recitals and no exams. So you are describing an imaginary set of persons.

2. What does "being a professional performer" have to do with recitals? In my first set of lessons, I took part in recitals and I also enjoyed that part. I was almost 50. Presently in the ABF I, like others, have taken part in some of those recitals, because to be able to play in front of others is an experience that is good to have. I turned 60. What do you think my chances are of becoming a professional performer? Is that the point? Maybe another Susan Boyle, ten years older?

3. Where do you get that none of the teachers who have written in teach theory?


The SAME approach can happen before exams - maybe months of it. Otoh, it might NOT be done in exams OR in recitals.


I would not look at a teacher's "exam results" when looking for a teacher.

What you write is full of assumptions, both in terms of the "oughts" - which is not borne out either by experience teaching in order to know what works, nor by willingness to listen to teachers about their experience (a golden opportunity missed) - and then assumptions about what people actually do.

Thank you to the three teachers who shared their thoughts, and the thoroughness of that in each case.

So, you would hire a teacher with no qualifications to teach your children?

As for the teachers who make their students do recitals - there're plenty of posts I've read where various teachers here insist that their students do regular recitals - or else refuse to teach them. And there're regular posts from adult students who apparently don't dare refuse to participate. I could name names....

Exams are a fact of life for all children who go to school. You do an exam to get a degree. You do one to get your teacher's diploma. However, I've already said that exams are not necessary for piano students - but it's useful for those who aspire to a lot more than just being able to get around the piano. Apparently, some people here twist my words to mean that if students don't do exams, they aren't serious. And some people also equate that to teaching students just to pass exams, rather than making them into all-round musicians.

I reiterate - the only classical piano students I've ever met who have big gaps in their piano technique or musicianship (i.e. which isn't commensurate with the things they have been taught) are those who weren't taught according to a syllabus from one of the reputable boards, whether or not they actually did the exams.

Posts about this very point abound in ABF, and also occasionally in Pianist Corner. It's not just my biased opinion - go look.

Are you trying to have a serious dialogue where people come up with things that they find work (or don't), or are you trying to win an intellectual debate? Because this smacks of a debating tactics like practised by lawyers of the kind "Have you stopped beating your wife?" I stated that my choice would not be based on exam results. If you would like to know how I would choose a teacher I'd be happy to tell you. My children are adults, and make their own decisions. Perhaps one of them may decide to teach music one day.

What SOME people do does not indicate what ALL people do.


If you want to look at what is commonly done, you must also examine why it is done, and to what purpose. Just because something is commonly done does not mean it is effective. My interest involves the learning of skills, not the measurement and slotting of massive groups of students, which is one main reason for doing exams. The first person who warned me of the limitations of exams was my professor of educational psychology during teacher training. After that I worked with these ideas and observed the results. You are still at the hypothesis level.

The bottom line is that we can get general impressions from what we read in forums in general but these are impressions. You simply cannot put everyone and everything in one basket this way.

I don't understand why you are lecturing teachers based on what you assume the individuals are doing, rather than being curious and wanting to know more. The things you are actually concerned about, those values, may actually have answers here. Why not start by finding out what people do, and why. Not what you assume they do.

Why don't you answer my direct question, instead of making silly & spurious extrapolations? Would you hire a teacher who has no qualifications? Just yes or no. I don't need, or want a debate on this.

And you're wondering why I don't bother to answer your numerous posts (and PMs) addressed to me?

You keep making silly extrapolations (for the nth time) based on my posts, then accuse me of having no idea about teaching. When, pray, did I ever use the word ALL teachers with regard to anything I've posted in this thread?

I said right at the beginning - I'm not a teacher, and I have no teaching qualifications - but I do know (now) what makes a good teacher. I didn't, when I was a child - but I'm thankful that all the four teachers I had who took me through all the ABRSM grades, and on to performance diploma were, at the very least, highly competent as well as dedicated to ensuring that I had an all-round music education to as far as I wanted to go, rather than just getting me through exams, or just getting me to the stage where I can play 'sufficiently' for an amateur.

Your definition of "qualification" is based on exams. And I already answered that in the statement that led to this question.

Maybe yours posts are simply being misunderstood.

This is going in circles, so it's best to end.

To your other points:

I see that as getting to what is BEHIND the exams, working through what objectives the test-makers are after, then making sure nothing is being ignored. I think that is a good thing.

Teaching only what is on exams is a trap. Recently we found out that the ASBRM has apparently taken some keys off the list for scales, if the requirements someone posed in this thread are correct.

I would look at the broad strokes, work from that. Years ago any serious student was expected to cover major scales and the three commonly taught forms of minor (natural, harmonic and melodic) in all keys. I would still want to blanket cover them, and also do an in-depth analysis of how and why the most recommended fingerings were chosen, but I would want to do this in all 12 keys. I did not specifically see requirements for modes, and I would like to get into how modal fingerings are chosen.

There also seems to be a tendency to separate different areas of music, so "classical" students would not have to think through blues scales, or how fingering is chosen for them - which I think is a little depressing. By the beginning of the 20th century and certainly on through today musical styles are not longer strictly segregated.

Full agreement.

Obviously we as teachers have to make certain that some of the music we teach is mastered, and that means spending more time on some things, but I like the bulk of work to be done more quickly, because staying too long on a very small amount of repertoire will inevitably have a seriously negative impact on reading ability.

That doesn't tell us much, does it? ;

Agreed.

Good point about fingering. Fingering is an art, not a science, and when I finally got a teacher who looked at it this way my ability to solve technical problems skyrocketed. As you very well know, following the fingering in books only teaches you to passively accept someone else's solutions. Often those solutions are good, but not always.

Obviously reading and sight-reading are terribly important for many things. I view them as different parts of the same thing. I had an insatiable curiosity about music, so I spent a huge amount of time reading through music. I don't know how we can fully teach this, since so much of it is a kind of "musical appetite", but I got my first job accompanying at age 15.

Something that is perhaps often overlooked is that we do not know which of our students will simply play for fun - and never more than that - and which may eventually have the need and desire to make money from music. To do that often being very well-rounded is the key, because as professional musicians we can never be completely sure where the next opportunity will be.

I agree, and I also believe that in competitions we learn that a winner has to be chosen even when there is no clear winner. If, for instance, I listen to different performances of a famous work, all by very fine players, I am much more likely to see several of them as standouts, each with something very special, and I have no need to rate them against each other.

That mindset is rather out of step with the world of competition, often even for children.

Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

I have more time to answer. Bennevis you wanted a yes or no answer to this:

This question was asked following my statement that I would not look at a teacher's "exam results". Therefore it seems first of all that in your opinion, "exam results" and "qualifications" go hand in hand. If I am not interested in a teacher's exam results, then I'll be happy with an "unqualified" teacher. A yes or no answer cannot reflect what I would look for.

What I would look for. The teacher:

- must understand the instrument and the mechanics of playing it well, and not just through his "talent" since he must transmit this to beginners
- understand "things of music" which we might loosely call theory and such, because the student is learning to play music in the piano. To teach effectively, he has to understand how things work on the musical level, and use his judgment on what to teach when and how to each student.
- know how to TEACH
- be willing TO teach - to transmit skills and knowledge that are the underpinnings of independent playing

The last two points should not be underestimated.

I am not convinced that the passing of tests will necessarily reveal the things that I have outlined. The word "qualified" can mean having a piece of paper that calls you the member of some profession, or it can mean that the person actually has the skills and the willingness to use them. There is a handful of professions which are both an art and a science, where proof of ability is nebulous.

I suspect that what we're after is similar, but that you take a greater stock on exams and formal systems as the solution.

I don't think this should be an argument, but rather people should gain more understanding about how different systems can be made to work.

I have nothing against exams, but they are not for me.

I went to school and had a lot of exams. Did rather well in most but actually learned very little. So I would seriously question how the exams would benefit me now. I have an "exam" every week with my teacher. She checks what I have learned and what needs to be better. The rest of the time I study seriously to meet my aspirations which are much more than just "to get around the piano".

Also to prepare a few pieces for an exam would probably be no different than me preparing a few pieces to meet my own (and my teacher's) satisfaction, except that I can go even further with no deadlines. I am a perfectionist and having to finish something when not satisfied myself is not for me. Without exams I can work on the things that are interesting at this time, instead of trying to block my mind and concentrate on something that is too much routine to really activate any deeper learning processes. Such studying killed my interest for the piano for decades, now that it's back I won't risk losing it again.

I can see no benefit in taking examinations for filling the gaps either. The way I learn is not in a specific order determined by a level of difficulty for an average person. I learn holistically, which means there's a right time for ME to get things. I may learn something "hard" immediately while struggling with something basic endlessly. I know it will come to me if I just wait, not by endless repetition. I did not properly learn scale fingerings the first two years of my lessons as adult, no matter how much I practiced. But then I suddenly learned all the major scales in about a week when my brain was ready to connect the dots. That's how it goes for theory also. It needs to have relevance, otherwise I will not remember it the next day no matter how many exams I have.

I also learn how to plan my learning myself much more, whatever mistakes I have done in the process have taught me a lot. I do take input from my teacher, but I take full responsibility of my goals and I think I have learned a lot from that too. Picking obscure pieces that I cannot listen to from recordings and often don't have fingerings available has been most useful for my skills in studying new pieces. If I only had pieces from a cyllabus I wouldn't have bothered so much, but would have made use of every possibility to cut corners



But are those gaps really a problem for them in the long run? What may they have that someone who did exams doesn't? If the exam system is dominant where you come from, are all the good teachers using it, leaving very few options for serious study outside it?

I don't see how piano playing is different to any other skill. Some people can take all the exams without becoming any special, while others have few formal certifications but still are highly skilled in what they do.

To answer Opus_Maximus' questions:


Theory exams are written tests on rudiments and music theory.

Practical exams are either voice or instrumental exams -- the student either sing or play a specific instrument for the practical exam. For piano, the practical exams (depending on grade level) would also include scales, arpeggios, and hearing tests (intervals, cadences). Higher level practical exams also include "viva voce" -- a verbal question-and-answer portion where the examiner asks the students questions about the music they prepared for the exam. (E.g., playing a Bach prelude & fugue? Answer some question about Bach, explain what's "equal temperament" and what's good about it.)

Students can take (or skip) "theory" exams and "practical" exams separately, and pass them separately. Though I believe passing Grade 5 theory exam is considered a prerequisite for practical exams of Grade 6 and higher.

ABRSM is different from and independent of RCM. (RCM = Canadian system, ABRSM = UK + Commonwealth system.)

No membership required. Even parents/guardians can enter their children for ABRSM exams, and adult students can enter themselves.

Personally, I think ABRSM is a good system that has helped many students (and teachers) all over the world. Good luck!