# Why graded piano exams?



## hreichgott

Just wondering why all the UK folks seem to be into taking graded RCM exams.
What's the purpose of having the general population of music students go through a whole lot of graded exams? I'd think exams wouldn't really matter until the college/conservatory stage. Unless maybe you needed to pass a certain level as a credential for a teaching job or something.
Do the schools require children to take these exams?
Are the exams fun in some way???


----------



## PetrB

The exams are optional. It costs additional to take them (ahem.)

In the U.K. -- Canada, too, I believe, you can take a course of study and become a certified piano teacher for those more beginning levels, without needing a four year degree in piano performance and pedagogy from a music school or university. [[ADD: for those teaching certificates, one must past muster at about Freshman / Sophmore conservatory level (maybe higher) and the program includes the candidate, under observation by the institute's teachers, working with a student, including that typical pedagogic wrench thrown in the works that you may get assigned a student with a disorder or learning ability.]]

The exams may be worth several credits which are viable within the high-school level (A, O levels, and whatever Canada calls those). None of those are requisite for uni or conservatory admission, none transfer or make a jot of difference when applying to conservatory or as a music major at a university or college... one must audition, no credits transferred or waivered because of those earlier system exams.

There are now graded systems within the U.S. State of New York has one, I know. Other states have it, others do not, and I wonder about the consistency of quality and qualifications from one place to the next.

An acquaintance of mine is an adjudicator in that N.Y. State system. They advocate for anyone other than a beginner, that they find a teacher only certified within that system, and moreover look for a teacher whose students are winning competitions -- I think what that acquaintance blanket recommends is only important for those students who show the most ability and drive. So many "Kiddie Competitions" have little merit, credibility, offer little or nothing worthwhile in the way of prizes... I think many of them are a business of more benefit to those who run them than for the participants and winners.

For the kids -- the exams seem to set up more stress than anything else. For the vast majority, the only usefulness I can think of is learning to play under that particular duress... a public piano recital is enough without an exam.)

As I said, it costs to take an exam, apart from the cost of lessons. As you know, you progress with an aim to later qualify to audition for an upper level education as a music major (or you don't), and with the right teachers from childhood on, no system, grades or exams are necessary.

There is a decent argument that one must pass some muster of criteria before a shingle advertising "Piano Teacher" is hung out. This is very much European mentality, twofold: protecting the consumer, and Job Protection for those within the craft.
My hunch is there are a lot of mediocre teachers within that bunch, as well as some great ones.

Ergo, I think some is well intended -- the craft and trade having a similar general standard of expectations, especially as far as a member of the population looking for a piano teacher who is actually a decent teacher. The job protection angle, I think less important (if you are good, your reputation builds and proceeds you). The exams? Tantamount to an extra cash racket, I think.

In another epoch, without paid exams and grade levels, I knew exactly where I stood as a piano student. I made an audition tape as part of applying to an arts camp while in middle school, played in some school recitals. When I attended that arts academy as a high school freshman, grades for private lessons were still given by the private teachers. My first jury EXAM was as a freshman in conservatory.

Currently, I've seen young adolescents posting this question on other fora, "How much should I charge to give lessons?" Some of them _say_ their teacher told them they should start to teach -- throwing the caliber of both teacher and that student into very questionable high relief. Are we talking pop piano chop-shop "chord method" lessons and the teachers who have taught that and the students who think then they can teach... or is this from those who had more the sort of training I had from day one? If this is a new low, a laxness and lowering of a general standard and expectations in what constitutes either teacher or capable student, with shingle hung out,adverts in circulation, and number of pupils as clientele, maybe it is time for a more regulated standardization -- _which I would hate to see and think not necessary_.


----------



## Feathers

It's a source of motivation and a way to keep track of your progress, especially for kids who want to learn to play the piano in a systematic manner without planning on going to a conservatory. Some people are totally satisfied with the simple pleasure of learning newer and more difficult music as they improve as piano students, but others, like some kids and their parents, may not feel like they are "achieving" anything until there's a certificate and a grade to prove it. When I was younger, whenever I told my peers that I played the piano, the question that followed was almost always something like "What grade are you at?", to the point where it seemed as if that one number is the definition of how good you are as an amateur/student pianist. So, the view that piano exams are an important proof of skill is a common (and not entirely unreasonable) view. 

I think if you use piano exams as a way to assess and motivate yourself, it could be beneficial. However, I know some kids who seem to learn piano to pass exams (rather than the other way around), and that could really negatively affect their musical attitudes and appreciation.


----------



## PetrB

Feathers said:


> It's a source of motivation and a way to keep track of your progress, especially for kids who want to learn to play the piano in a systematic manner without planning on going to a conservatory. Some people are totally satisfied with the simple pleasure of learning newer and more difficult music as they improve as piano students, but others, like some kids and their parents, may not feel like they are "achieving" anything until there's a certificate and a grade to prove it. When I was younger, whenever I told my peers that I played the piano, the question that followed was almost always something like "What grade are you at?", to the point where it seemed as if that one number is the definition of how good you are as an amateur/student pianist. So, the view that piano exams are an important proof of skill is a common (and not entirely unreasonable) view.
> 
> I think if you use piano exams as a way to assess and motivate yourself, it could be beneficial. However, I know some kids who seem to learn piano to pass exams (rather than the other way around), and that could really negatively affect their musical attitudes and appreciation.


"What Grade Are You At?" can only be understood by someone familiar with the grading system as proscribed in the context of the music lessons. If you start at age 11, you'd be in grade or level one, and all your school chums would not get that right away. It used to be, "What are you working on" and the music students past the first or second year were fairly conversant, enough anyway, to know where someone stood. There was beginner in three degrees, starting, intermediate and advanced, and simile three stages each of Intermediate and Advanced. The top level of advanced was around or about "conservatory prep."

Of course, my entire perspective is from one who had Classical training in classical music. I never would have had assigned, nor would it have been accepted, to have a Yiruma piece present in the grade level list of repertoire: now, much other than classical music is on those grade lists.

A lot of the demand for grade levels, and satisfaction with, comes from the parents paying for the lessons, who often have no ear or mind to hear themselves if their child is making any real progress.

Although I suppose having a grade rank ready to spit out is handier than what one has to think of to say when asked, "Are you any good?" LOL.


----------



## Taggart

It's a standardised system which helps Music Schools and Music degrees select candidates. There is a whole industry built up around it which has (IMHO) become a bit self supporting.

I've quoted scales books and sight reading books before but there are also a whole range of books (for various instruments) of graded pieces and studies. These fit together to provide a framework for teachers. They also provide a framework for students because the exams cover not just performance but also scales and other technical exercises, sight reading and aural tests. The choice of pieces cover (essentially) Baroque, Classical and Romantic and Modern and you choose one from each area. I do exams because it a) forces me to work b) makes me consider what I'm doing c) makes me do pieces I would not otherwise consider and d) because it's fun.

Above grade 5 you have to have either Grade 5 theory - basic scales, triads, intervals etc - or Grade 5 in any Jazz Subject or in "Practical Musicianship" - playing by ear and accompanying. The aim is to make sure the candidate has the tonal ability to cope with advanced music.

There's some justification from ABRSM here.

When you go on to do A Level Music (top of Grade school) they will expect at least grade 5 Practical. Many music degrees - not performance - will require at least grade 6 on piano to have the harmony skills to cope with the course. Some - e.g. the Folk Music degree at Newcastle - will require grade 8 (at least) plus an audition.

I've grown up with it and find it completely natural so it's nice to have a chance to consider this question. Thanks!

PS The exams are not exactly fun, the examiners are nice, but like any exam it can be stressful. The payoff is when you get the certificate at the end. It's a bit like banging your head on a brick wall - great when you stop.


----------



## Head_case

Pretty much concur with everything above.

Only those who are outside of the grading system get upset at the pointlessness of it....and it is pointless insofar as musicianship does not depend on grading.
Its one of those societal strictures likes Baccaleaureat exams or degrees. Everyone is a genius, but only those who jump the hurdles prove they have it in them to have been schooled through a proven system.

Dilettantes find it harder for their genius to be recognised outside of grading systems, but at the end of the day, unless someone wishes to work professionally in teaching or performing, to step outside of the grading system is not an advantage....its a disadvantage.

I personally don't find it useful as an amateur musician, although I ardently support my younger cousins or nephews to do their grading exams, otherwise it would all be frittered away on facebook or playstation.


----------



## PetrB

The plus side to me, as an admitted outsider, is the requisite inclusion of theory. Any worthwhile teacher is going to include basic technical exercises and scales, arpeggios, etc. But theory beyond knowing the basic key signatures is huge.

Having been driven with no want or need of even a gold star at the end of a lesson, I only abstractly understand the need for other motivations, deadlines, etc. On one plank, I am against them: if some verbal praise and improving as you go along is not enough of a "reward," the rest of those rewards are a bit synthetic, and do smell a bit like a rewards program as tied to some retail business -- half the reason to have them is it keep the customers coming back for more.


----------



## Ingélou

I'm a violinist, not a pianist. Came back to the instrument at age 60 having never done theory or exams in my schooldays, & was at first going to do them (beginning grade 3) but couldn't get on with a teacher who taught only to exams. Now I have a fab teacher who doesn't do exams & doesn't do scales or anything. The Suzuki books give structured progress & playing for him is motivation enough - I practise like billy-o - but I'm not doing any theory. I have an 'untheoretical' brain - play music on instinct - and switch off as soon as the talk gets technical. I think now that maybe I need to do exams to 'make me' work at the theory. Knowing about scales would help me understand what I'm doing so much better.


----------



## Sonata

As an adult beginner my perspective is a little different. I have no intention of taking any exams, unless my instructor recommends them. I value his input in my development so I certainly will consider them if he feels it will help my growth. Otherwise I spent enough of my life chasing high grades and cramming for exams, so I'm happy to leave it at the door with my music.


----------



## Skilmarilion

I agree with the sentiments so far. It always seemed to me as simply a universal gauge of an individual's ability - useful for those who are keen to study music at a higher level within school, and beyond, I suppose.

As a pianist who took the ABRSM grade exams (last one in 2008), I actually feel it is a counterproductive system of learning an instrument, especially for those who simply want to learn to play for pleasure. I have never been very fond of playing scales, and I actually found having to practise them for an exam extremely tedious. I feel similarly about theory - which you must pass at grade 5 in order to take instrument grades 6 - 8. In all I found the yearly routine of preparing for grade exams quite demotivating by the time I reached grade 7.

The system does encourage continued and systematic practice over many years however, which I do think can be a positive. 

If not for the exams, I don't think I would have 'fallen out of love' with playing the piano for a couple of years, as I did unfortunately. I feel that if I had learnt the piano from the beginning purely to play the instrument, without any exam pressure, I would be at a more advanced level today.


----------



## hreichgott

I agree that having the option of taking an exam if you want or need a standardized assessment of your skills is a good thing. We have a version of the RCM system here in the US, but not very many people take the exams and probably most students and teachers don't know what it is. Whenever I have my first student who's preparing for college/conservatory auditions, I'll probably recommend taking the Grade 10 exam as practice for the audition (and as confirmation to student and family that student is or is not playing at a level that's reasonable for college/conservatory acceptance.) I've only been teaching for 5 years though so don't have anyone at that point yet 

Suzuki is another example of a graded system -- but in order to qualify for Suzuki teacher training, you have to pass a video audition, regardless of how many books you claim to have gone through as a student -- so the actual quality of playing is what matters, not making it through the grades. Also there aren't any exams for Suzuki students.

I agree with those who said that learning and performing more and more advanced repertoire is a motivating thing for students. I would expect it to be sufficiently motivating without having a grade label or exam attached to it, but maybe having outside confirmation is rewarding for some kids.


----------



## Turangalîla

Before I sing the praises of music exams, I will preface it by saying that the RCM (and other organizations) bring in an _enormous_ amount of money. In the 2008 syllabus, the RCM decided to split their piano pedagogy certificate into three parts: Elementary (for teaching beginner to grade 2), Intermediate (for teaching grade 3 to grade 6), and Advanced (for teaching grade 7 and up). Each level has three parts: written exam, viva voce, and performance. You must take all nine mini-exams (each a couple of hundred bucks) before receiving your Teacher's ARCT. I originally thought this program was simply a moneymaker...now I realize its benefits _and_ still think it is a moneymaker. And remember all the expensive theory co-requisites (valuable, but, once again, expensive). And on another note, I am taking my ATCL in Speech and Drama from the Trinity College of London...the examination is only 45 minutes and costs over $500.

Anyways, I actually think that graded examinations are incredibly beneficial. For one, they provide a laid-out course of study for the student and teacher...if there were not exams to prepare for, things like ear training or technique might be left behind. Exams also provide a goal to work towards throughout the year... They measure you up to the same standard of similar students across the country (although I have experienced a few crazy examiners who awarded marks either ridiculously low or undeservedly high). Exams require repertoire to be brought to the highest standard of performance...the pieces must be solidly-learned and well-polished. And they prepare students for future examinations they will experience when they are older. I don't recommend taking _every_ progressive examination...I took grade 2, grade 5, grade 7 and then every consecutive one from there.


----------



## Feathers

I just want to add that another good thing about these exams is that they can give students some pressure, and being able to handle pressure is important not only for professional musicians but for any serious musician. Playing an instrument is often not immediately rewarding, and this can lead to laziness. A little bit of pressure on students to master something at a certain level can lead to significant progress, and getting a "paper reward" (like a certificate or a mark) for it certainly doesn't hurt, as long as it is not the ultimate musical goal. I've only taken two practical piano exams, and I found that they gave me the right push when I needed it.


----------



## hreichgott

Do students perform less in regions where exams are more common? Here it is normal for a student to play in at least one or two recitals a year, for an audience, if only friends and family.


----------



## PetrB

Hey, as long as people believe paying people to keep them motivated will keep them motivated, it rains money on other already established piano teachers.


----------



## Taggart

hreichgott said:


> Do students perform less in regions where exams are more common? Here it is normal for a student to play in at least one or two recitals a year, for an audience, if only friends and family.


Depends on the teachers. Mine certainly encourages recitals simply because it prepares for exam pressures and also because it's fun. My wife's fiddle teacher likewise encourages his pupils to perform in public but he doesn't really do exams. We also have local music festivals where there are folk sections as well as classical.


----------

