Hello folks

In the Chief Examiner's response to our questions recently, Clara Taylor said that the ABRSM were discussing the possibility of introducing graded exams in Composition.

I thought it might be interesting to see how many forum members would welcome the introduction of Composition exams....





Below is the quote from Clara Taylor:

compositions are a bane!(at least for me)

-no
-student [working on taking grade 8]
-no

There is a problem with this type of thread as one chooses each option seperately .. for example you can't see how many students voted yes and already do compositions...

Perhaps if people posted their answers it would allow us to see what type of people are interested?

- Yes

- Student

- No

Yes
Teacher
Yes

I would only be interested in these if the Board devised them in collaboration with the needs of teachers and students.

David

I've copied the above quote from soojinyun0405's thread about a Diploma in Composition.

I haven't yet studied Composition, so I'm perhaps not in the best position to judge, but I'm going by the fact that the London College of Music do offer graded exams in Composition so it must be possible. They start at Grade 2 and subsequently offer exams at G4, G6 and G8. The LCM don't have any pre-requisite to sit the graded exams at any of the levels, but I can see that some knowledge of theory would be essential.

My College is planning to start offering a course in Composition & Arranging this September, depending on the numbers. I'm only G3 going on G4 (both Theory and Practical), but I've been told that the course can be tailored to the appropriate level. So if Composition can be taught to my level, and the LCM can offer exams at my level, then there must ways of overcoming soonjinyun0405's concerns about it.

I'd be interested to hear what teachers think about this

--------

Voted:

Yes - Student - No

I use LCMM composition grades from time to time with my students. Several make the decision not to take music at G.C.S.E. level for various reasons but enjoy composing and arranging pieces amd the LCMM exams are ideal for them. If they decide to choose music at A level they are well prepared for the composition section too. Composition should be a natural and logical continuation of the study of music theory, just as it is with other subjects. At school we did not learn to read simply to enjoy the work of others. We learnt to write our own essays, poems, diary entries etc too. In an ideal world we would all study composition alongside theory and write works of our own too. I like the exams offered by LCMM. They give a very wide range of choices, but encourage both instrumental and vocal writing as well as welcoming a composer's own style to develop. Would anyone care to try a grade two (or higher) composition challenge?

I would like to do composition exams at some stage Petrat, but I don't think the teacher who is running the course at my College has any thought of doing exams at the moment and I don't want to rush things. I would like to think that by the time I'm ready to take Composition exams, the AB will have introduced them, because rightly or wrongly, I would think that they would be structured in such a way as to dovetail better into the Theory and Practical exams I'm taking with the AB. I might be completely wrong to think this but I don't know enough about it at the moment. I'll have to see what the options are when I get further along the line

Yes, I would. Nearly completed all the things for the grade 2 (and have the piano book ready for the arranging part of grade 4) but a forum challenge would keep me motivated.

hillyb

I'm waiting for the piano book to come so I can do the arrangement for Grade 2. Although I've already done several composition diplomas, I wanted to do the graded exams to get a feel for what they were looking for should I want to enter pupils.

David

i think a certificate in composition

i think that it would be abit pointless having 8 grades for it, most of it you learn in theory in my opinion

Same here

No-Student-No

Simply because i am not exactly good at composition and it's not something i do at all often. I managed to get it good enough pass theory, but not with an exceptional mark or anything

However, I do support it in the fact that i know some people are really good at composing and would welcome exams in it. if i were better, i would...

Just out of interest how would people respond to the argument that at the grade levels people should be studying theory (in the way it is taught now, or some other way) and only once one has got through learning the theory should one then formally begin composition?

After all, grade 1 theory is fairly basic involving note names and getting the right number of beats in a bar etc. so grade 1 composition would have to be about grade 5 theory level as it would assume the knowledge of grade 5 theory: only at this grade people are actually expected to write a short melody. Perhaps, therefore, theory exams should be aimed higher than grade 8 theory (or at least higher than grade 6 so people have the requisite knowledge of harmony) so that people have learnt all the tools they need to compose, before actually beginning composing. There are elements of composition throughout the theory exams anyway, at the level they can be approached with the theory knowledge so far.

Maybe composition should come in later, at a higher level, once people have learnt the tools that they need to do it.

The only students I teach composition to are those who are preparing for GCSE, where I give guidance along with the school music teacher.

As someone who does compose, and who studied composition as part of a degree course, then I know I can teach it... its a matter of having someone interested enough to do it. However my eldest son is showing a natural ability to improvise which often leads onto composition. If he decides he wants to write music, then I have no problem in using graded exams whether they by ABRSM or another board as an external way to assess his work.

I voted "No" in the poll, but I would reconsider if it were structured along these lines.

Possibly - it might give me a kick up the backside as I have looked into the exams but have not managed to actually get on and do the work for it!

I voted

Yes
Student (maybe teacher one day but not presently)
Yes, LCM - well, eventually (see above!)

I think that even quite new beginners can develop their skills in composition and I introduce it within a few weeks of the start of lessons. I ask pupils to improvise simple melodies, or to add answering phrases to given openings. The next step is for them to write these down on manuscript. Then simple accompaniments such as repeated percissive patterns or drones can be added. The pupils of all ages love it and I find that it really brings throry alive. I think that the LCMM graded exams in composition are well structured and thought out.

I agree. I think the theory is important and that learning the theory will likely help one's composing, but I think that doesn't preclude it being possible to compose, and to learn a lot about composing (and indeed theory!) before the theory is totally known. For instance, you're going to remember the wisdom of not using parallel 5ths (except for effect) much better by using them in a piece and going "hmm, that sounds odd!" than just reading "do not use parallel 5ths" in a theory book, IMO. And surely if one is studying with a half decent teacher one will learn about things like how to group notes, how to use time signatures, key signatures, etc etc just as well or maybe better through learning to compose as through learning theory. Taught well, the two disciplines should feed off and help one another, and putting theory concepts into practice in one's own compositions is going to make the application and meaning of those concepts much clearer and easier to understand and remember.

Someone else has likened it to learning one's letters in order to write as well as read. I'd say it's also a little like learning a foreign language. It's pretty much accepted these days that sitting and learning grammar and vocab will only get you so far - using the language (and making lots of mistakes into the bargain) is also a very important part of the learning process. Knowing the rules isn't much use if one does not know how to put them into practice

I agree with both of the above. And by the same token, I think improvisation should play a bigger part in the whole teaching process. Or maybe it does for many, but when exam time comes along we tend, as teachers, to focus on the syllabus. I think it's a good thing that TG have included this in their options for the supporting tests; it's another facet of music learning and creativity that gels it all together - practical, thoery, composition, sight-reading, aural, improvisation, etc. Improvisation + theory = composition.

I'm working on grade 6. Not sure what a Challenge involves - is it within a certain time frame?

^ ^ ^ with petrat and Sarah-flute

I don't see why composition should be any different to theory and practical exams. Nobody says, for instance, that you can't do clarinet exams until you've learnt to cross the break and play the clarion register. The exams are tailored accordingly, ie Grade 1 exams don't include any notes above Bb on the middle line of the stave. I'm sure composition exams could be tailored in the same way, and indeed the LCM have proved this. I think it would be good as well to see composition exams also include some analysis of published pieces, and again some very simple pieces could be found to suit the lower levels.



As an extremely novice but aspiring composer , I was interested to read this because the small amount I have composed to date has been by improvisation, but something I read recently indicated that it was usual for a composer to sit down with pen and paper (or computer) and scribble away without ever touching an instrument. I can see that musicians who are a lot more advanced than I am can hear the music in their head sufficiently well to do this, but is it the norm?

I would suggest that sitting down with a pen and paper is effectively improvising in your head personally I have composed both ways, and don't think one is good and the other bad. Indeed a composition may involve both ways of composing.

There were (and probably still are) eminent composers that fall into each of these camps. J S Bach insisted that his students work directly from brain to paper, as he did himself; F J Haydn (and Stravinsky also IIRC) often worked at the keyboard. I recently confirmed that I can still write decent conventional harmony in three parts straight onto paper (I checked it on the computer before we played it), but on anything more harmonically ambitious, I use computer playback every few bars to see whether my ideas work or may listen to each chord before recording it in the Finale file.

I don't use compostion as much as I'd like in lessons, there isn't usually time, but I do try to introduce it even if only occasionally.

Real beginners get to do simple improvisation in their first lesson, making up patterns on one note, etc. I encourage pupils to make up tunes, suggest ways they could possibly be improved, but don't interfere too much, just give lots of praise for having a go. My husband usually typesets them into professional looking pieces, the younger ones love this. Even a tune on three notes can look impressive typeset on a piece of good quality paper!

I think that older pupils are often wary of the huge range of possibilites, having a very structured framework can help and make them feel 'safe'. One idea I keep meaning to try is to get more advanced pupils to write sightreading pieces for the lower grades, look at the parameters and see what they can do. Then the pieces could actually be used and they'd get feedback. Anyone else done this?

I do some composition and arranging, mostly to fulfil a particular need, don't know if I'd have the time or inclination to do an exam (do have a degree which included composition, though).

This sounds like a brilliant idea to me. Please do try it and tell us how it goes.

I've not voted in this poll but might ask my daughter to look at it later. Like Jo's son she enjoys improvising and has mentioned composition once or twide outside the usual Theory grade based ones. I think it would be something to enjoy but I wouldn't be happy about her learning with proper support from someone qualified or experienced enough to do it.

I think if Composition is only intoduced at post Grade 8 Theory then it's becomming exclusive. It might even encourage more people to continue with practical skills.



This makes sense to me and there would be considerable value in learning this way.

I agree, what a fantastic idea!

I usually write pieces for them myself, but that is a very good idea. Actually LCMM use the compositions written by some of their students in the grade examination books and they are popular with my students.

Mine came in the week, and I've made my submission. I must say that I actually fount it more daunting than the composition diplomas as the requirements are far more rigid. I'm not sure my idea of arranging is the same as theirs, besides, I didn't particularly think any of the pieces were worth arranging! Anyway, we'll wait and see..........

David

It seems to me that whilst composition may be possible without any knowlege of theory (Paul McCartney was pretty good at it long before he learned any theroy, if indeed he ever did), doing an exam in it would require knowledge of theory because otherwise you wouldn't be able to communicate your ideas adequately. For instance, it would probably be totally impractical (in sheer numbers) to set an exam where the answer could be given several months later in the form of a concert, though this might well be a perfectly reasonable format for very high level exams or concerts (c.f. the Queen Elizabeth competition in Holland)

For this reason, how about graded exams in composition but only starting at grade 6, with grade 5 theory as a prerequisite? Effectively, theory exams would branch into "pure theory" or "applied theory: composition" after grade 5.

I found learning theory dull as ditchwater. It wasn't hard (I was glad to give up teaching myself it once I had my G5, perhaps 6 might have cause more problems) just a tiresome bunch of learning rules, memorising names for things, and practising the "handwriting".

Before I learnt all my scales (majors, minors, appeggios, doms and dims for flute) intervals, chords and scale writing were occasionally tricky, but in the end doing the practical meant I came round to appreciating the theory...

And that's the point really. Theory is a bunch of rules and memorisation I struggled to get to grip with until I found ways to link it with what I was playing on a daily basis. The theory books ABRSM produce do not do this. If composition exams provide further ways for theory to be linked up to what it's really all about: the music, then I can only be in favour of it.

I am always wary though, of having something that is essentially a creative process assessed. What happens when you write a composition outside of the rules?

The examiner shouts "Eureka and Rejoice!" at something that's original and thought-provoking?





Edit: If ever the AB introduce composition exams, that could be a question for the CE....

Why not? One doesn't need to necessarily know what chord sequence one is using to know that "ooh that sounds good". If one's theory is good enough to write it down, why is that not good enough to do an exam in composition? We don't stop people from taking instrumental exams until they can play "real" repertoire with fabulous technique. We start off by testing the basics and not expecting perfection. Why should the same not apply for composition exams?

At grade 8 one could expect a very good knowledge of the theory behind the composition. At grade one, not so much. It seems to work for instrumental exams...


- I enjoyed theory, mostly, but I still think many of the theory books out there (and not just the AB ones) are unbelievably dry and somewhat divorced from any actual MUSIC!

Er . . . It is: That's rather what I meant: Theory enough to write down your composition and thereby communicate your ideas. I'm not by any means suggesting that you should be possessed of a comprehensive and exhaustive knowledge of all musical theory before composing, just enough to communicate ones compositions in writing.

So then why only start compositions at grade 6 standard? Anyone with grade 3 or 4 standard theory could certainly think up and write down a melody and quite possibly a harmony, even if (at that level of theory) they might not understand the subtle rules of harmony etc and may therefore inadvertently break a few. After all, grade 5 theory requires one to write a melody in the exam room without access to an instrument. Certainly if one can do that there's nothing to suggest one can't write a melody with an instrument to hand.

Naturally also there are people whose theory knowledge is lacking either because it doesn't "click" for them or because they dislike it and therefore avoid it. It wouldn't stop them from being able to compose and improvise music.

I was composing and writing down music many years before I ever had a formal theory lesson. Starting composition exams at grade 6 and assuming that one would only compose when one's theoretical knowledge was somehow "up to it" would be very discouraging for many young would-be composers whose theory knowledge could only be bolstered by learning to compose.

Which is why I think that this suggestion:

...is an exceedingly bad idea.

Composers usually have to be able to arrange music too, and this is a very good way to learn the ins and outs of writing for instruments other than ones own. The London College of Music exams in composition include arranging as well as writing original pieces and these can be done by beginners with only a modest knowledge of theory . It is a good way to introduce a fun element into the drier side of theory and helps learners in many other ways too. I find that their sight reading tends to improve and their aural work too when I introduce composition into their lessons. I hope that the Ab will look carefully at the LCMM syllabus if ever they decide to introduce graded exams in composition. They could learn quite a lot.

If writing down a melody requires grade 5 standard theory though, then surely any composition exam would have to be above this level at least. I doubt someone who would be unable to pass grade 3 or 4 theory would be able to do this without a reasonable amount of help. It's not so much a case of 'banning' people from doing composition if they're not at this stage, simply that if they genuinely have done and written down a composition then that would actually put them as working at around the grade 5 level; so it would be unfair to award them a grade 1 qualification when they've had to work at a much higher level than that.

It depends on the method of assessment too, of course, how is a composition exam assessed? Does one do all the composing beforehand and turn up with it? Or is one expected to do it in the exam? How do we know that the student has done the composition themselves in the former case. Perhaps a grade 1 would be fair if we have no idea that their teacher didn't write it down for them, or even if this was expected. I just can't help but feel that there's a lot of basic theory that we need to learn before composing at any formal examination level, which would mean that to start composing anything worthwhile (and communicating it successfully) one would need more than grade 1 theory level and hence it would be misleading to start composition at grade 1.

One more thing that springs to mind is the following from the theory marking criteria:


Can examiners really tell? Or do you think they'd feel obliged to either always give good marks, average marks or poor marks to something like this?

But the big difference in an exam room is that one does not have access to an instrument. So grade 5 requires one to be able to create and write down on paper a melody without ever hearing it outside one's head. Logically, if one can do that at grade 5, one should be able to do it WITH the help of an instrument somewhat before grade 5. And indeed, doing so can help teach the skills to enable one to do it in the exam room.

It is a nonsense to suggest that one can only compose or that compositional exams should be confined to those who are post grade 5 theory. I know that I was composing and writing things down well before I ever had formal theory lessons... and certainly before I was grade 5 standard in anything, practical, theory or otherwise.

A grade 5 theory exam tests things - for example, tenor and alto clefs - that are not immediately relevant to someone writing a melody for, say, a flute. Similarly, a composition exam would test things that may not be tested in a similar grade composition exam. Grade 5 composition skills would be a different bag to grade 5 theory skills, and the same would apply at grade 1.

Grade 5 accompanying with Trinity is, according to many, rather tough compared with grade 5 piano. Doesn't mean that only one of them is "really" grade 5 - they are testing a different set of skills.

As Petra has mentioned, LCM exams go from grade 2 and also introduce arranging. They test an entirely different set of skills than a grade 2 theory exam would. There will no doubt be things in a G2 composition exam that wouldn't be in the picture at grade 2 theory. That's not because it's a harder exam, it's because it's examining different things.

A music student does not need very much knowledge of theory to be able to write a simple melody down. My students do it after a few weeks of lessons usually. Very often their ideas are good and quite original too.
The LCMM exams in composition are marked when a folio of compositions is submitted, and this can be done at any time. It is up to the integrity of the entrant to send work that is their own rather. It is much the same with compositions for G.C.S.E. and A.level music although I suspect that there is a great deal more teachers’ input in many of these works.
I still think that composition should be taught and encouraged from almost the start of lessons. I likened it earlier to learning to read and then to write. If a pupil knows the basics of note and rhythm reading then the writing music should follow on as the next logical step. In school children do not learn to write so that they can only read the words of others. They are taught to be creative from a very early age, making simple sentences about their home or their day, a holiday or an outing. Little by little they move on to other things; poems, diary entries, short stories and so on. I feel that music should be taught in the same way. Theory is not meant to be learned simply to get the pupil through an exam prerequisite. It should be enjoyed and integrated into the whole learning process.

- one does not allow a child to write stories, sentences, etc, only when they have a total grasp on the grammar of the English language and have read several Shakespeare plays. One of the ways they learn to write well in English is by writing, and by making mistakes and learning from them.

The composition part of grade 5 theory may well have changed in the 20+ years since I did the exam. At that time the composition was just a few bars completing something already written. There was no way I could hear what I was writing in my head, but I had no problems in doing the composition part of the paper, simply following the "rules" - making sure it was in the right key, bears some relationship to the first part rythmically and harmonically/melodically, right number of beats in the bar, resolves to the tonic or 5th etc

I don't really have any strong views as to whether ABRSM should introduce composition exams, or what level they should be if they do. I do think that just maybe there seems to be too much emphasis on examining and grading every bit of musical learning at every stage. Why can't something just be learnt and practised without having an exam at the end, or a declaration that you have reached grade x level in 23 different disciplines?

I was thinking something similar about the thread relating to how woodwind exams used to start at grade 3 and miss out grade 7. It didn't seem at all odd at the time, I think partly because as children then we had far fewer exams in anything. I remember believing that grade 5 was roughly equivalent to O-level and grade 8 to A-level (no idea if that's true btw). The first exams we did that were at all important were O-levels, so not having many grades below O-level seemed entirely reasonable.

^^^ I've probably agreed with you before petrat, but it won't do any harm to agree with you again

I wrote my first composition (50 bars) when I was only just Grade 2 - it had a swung rhythm and was probably more complicated to write down than my grade had prepared me for, but that was how I heard it. With the help of a teacher I managed to write it down and I learnt a lot from it

I think that it is very hard to measure composition in terms of grades as it is such an individually creative process. I have found the exams/diplomas useful as they:

1. Require you to produce a certain amount to a 'brief' rather than just free choice
2. You get an independent assessment of your skills both in terms of the actual music, and the presentation of it.

Ultimately, I think it depends on what you want to do with your pieces. I want to get mine published and performed, and it is therefore more beneficial to me to get independent feedback from as many sources as possible. Some of the pieces submitted for a Grade 8 in composition may be technically superb, but totally un-publishable. For example, you'd be criticised for parallel 5ths etc. in an examination, but publishers probably wouldn't give two hoots about it - people don't buy or not buy pieces depending on the number of parallel 5ths and octaves.

I am glad that the LCM have an arranging element, as I think this is very important for composers. I would also like to see more about orchestration too as this is an essential skill for both composing and arranging.

David

I agree. My daughter did the LCM composition exam Grade 2 this year. She got a good merit over all but this consisted of two near perfect marks on the free-er compositions, rather poorer marks on the arrangement (because of those consecutive fifths and octaves) and just 5/10 on presentation!

As others on this thread have intimated, you do need to understand something of harmony, and that is not really assessed very stringently even at Grade 5 on the AB theory track. Plus, if you choose to arrange a Bach gavotte or whatever you also have to have absorbed a sense of musical style and have the skills to reproduce that - again, that is only really assessed on the AB theory path at G8 I think? And after all that you still only get to walk away with a Grade 2 pass!

If the AB do decide to introduce exams in this area, would it be ludicrously controversial to suggest they use some other formula instead of Grades which people are easily and (I think) mistakenly going to equate to the practical or theory track? I would not be in favour of making theory exams a prerequisite, because as I and others have suggested, there are other ways into composition and arranging. Also any child might shudder at the thought of a theory exam, shut up on a summer saturday morning in strict silence in an aromatic school gym, but many children can hugely enjoy the protracted project of building up a portfolio of their own compositions, with no deadline but the limits of their own interest!

-edit- Of course, the G2 pass is emphatically not the only thing my daughter came away with here -she has started to build her portfolio and she has two lovely pieces she can play to friends and family one of which is as "good" as Einaudi!

I think we agree in principal, just the level that we differ on, (and I am prepared to admit I may be wrong there )

No one is saying that you can't compose without knowing any theory (rather the contrary, cf my comment on Paul McCartney) just that you need a little theory in order to be able to write it down. My idea of splitting after grade 5 was based on the observation that melody writing comes into the exam at grade 5 level, not before. To use your English Language analogy, I gree Children can be incredibly creative if you ask them to make up a story. However, if you ask them to write it down they have problems if they can't write.

Also, it may be that I have difficulty appreciating the problems of learning to read and write music, and those things that may go with it, including composition or at least the writing down of compositions, partly because I can' t remember a time when I couldn't do it myself; I learned to read music if not before my earliest memory then certainly before most of them.

yes, change and challenges are always good

But that is a theory exam, NOT a composition exam. One asks people to do things in theory exams that often they don't have to do in their instrumental exams: treble melody instruments reading and writing bass clef, most people reading tenor clef... realising SATB... etc. That doesn't mean that the theory exam must be more difficult... it means it's testing different things.

The reason composing a melody isn't tested in say grade 1 theory, is because it's a theory exam. A grade 1 composition exam would test it, because it would be testing composition. Similarly a grade 1 practical musicianship exam tests improvisation, and a grade 1 practical exam tests the playing of prepared pieces and scales. They are testing different things, and yes, they are linked, but what one is required to do in the exams at any given level will vary considerably according to their discipline.

I will say it again - I was making up and writing down compositions before I'd had ANY formal theory training. In fact, the very fact that I was doing so contributed to making theory pretty easy when I eventually starting working towards a qualification. One doesn't need grade 5 theory to be able to write down a melody.