Another question: do you (I address any piano teacher interested in replying) think that it's important or valuable for students to take piano exams and advance through a set of grades?

I think it's valuable for some students to do exams. I know teachers in my area who insist on all their students doing exams and competitions. I don't insist - I encourage those I think would benefit from it to do exams.

So much depends on the individual student - and also on the teacher. If you're a teacher who's obsessed with everyone getting honours you may be tempted to spend the whole year just polishing the four exam pieces, to the detriment of the general development of the student. You may also be tempted to just stick to the exam syllabus, which, even in the best of them doesn't cover everything.

Having said that, I've had students where the prospect of an exam has been hugely motivating, and others for whom it was a bit scary but they did it anyway and surprised themselves with how well they did. Then I've had plodders who worked quite solidly, but froze up in the exam room in spite of all our preparation and were disappointed by their result. Does this latter case mean you wouldn't ever enter that child for another exam? Well, it depends, doesn't it? Which is really the answer to the whole question.

PS - just to answer a bit of your question I missed: I think that it can be helpful to advance through "the grades" even if the actual exam isn't taken.

I'm sure for some people taking exams is a pointless excercise in 'achievement bagging' - but for others they mark convenient milestones by which to help measure progress and reassure that all that work *is* going somewhere and can help build confidence.

If nothing else getting into the habit of doing exams early is a good way of getting used to performing in front of unfamiliar audiences.

My daughter (5yrs old) has just sat her Grade 1 exam and is justifiably quite proud of her achievements. Would she still be proud without the arbitrary measurements of her skills? Perhaps - but the ubiquitous nature of exams gives a common point of reference in conversation when she's talking to other people.

depends what the student wants to acheive. Sometimes exams are benificial, sometimes it's a waste of time. if they're just there to have fun, exams aren't really necessary. If they are serious about studying, then yes, i think it can be an excellent learning tool, to motivate them to do better and seek higher rewards.

Generally if any student is lacking motivation, exams can be a good push in the right direction. I always felt really proud of myself when i completed an exam (and did well). Even for my youngest students, when they finish the little "tests" at the end of their beginner books, and i sign the pretty certificate, they get very excited (i know, not an exam... but same principal).

I do require all of my piano students to take the annual exam offered by my state's MTA. However, I don't start testing until level 4 or 5. I really don't see the benefit of testing for level 3 or below. Some kids don't "get" theory, anyway, so it'll just be one big waste of lesson time. I try to get my students as far ahead in repertoire as possible by their first test, so they are all playing level-7 pieces but testing at level 4 or 5. I know several other teachers who do the same. Some teachers in my branch don't test at all until level 10!

This year I made an exception for one of my recent transfer students, whose father insisted that the student be tested. Okay. It's his money to waste.

BTW, I must clarify...the state test we have in California is called CM (Certificate of Merit). Students do not have to go through all the levels. One is free to skip a level, or two, or all ten. If you think you're good enough, you can go straight to Level 10 (advanced) and pass and get your certificate. Of course, that sort of defeats the whole purpose of CM.

I think they're necessary for most kids for motivation, but I think they slow the learning process down. My teacher didn't believe in doing exams, and instead shoved me through a truckload of reportoire. As a result I am one of the few people in my year at the con who has played most of mozarts sonatas and a good number of Haydns and Beethovens as well as being familiar with lots of other composers. If you think about, how could doing 100 pieces in a year NOT be better than doing say 10, which is about all the average exam doing kid gets through? Too much time is wasted polishing pieces to perfection. But without the incentive of being able to brag to friends and relatives that "I've done grade 3" or whatever, a lot of kids probably wouldn't practice at all. Catch 22.

I require almost all of my students to take exams, because I want to show to parents and students progress is being made. I find the progress of students who take exams almost always if not always much better than students who don't. And when the students get an excellent mark, their self-esteem is boosted.

Meri

Why should doing an exam mean you play less repertoire? I dont understand this. For it to be true then either:

a) The student not doing exams is not actually finishing learning to play the repertoire properly - and never actually doing a finished job (and so rushing on to the next new piece), or
b) The student doing exams has mis-timed their learning and is waiting a long time after being 'ready' before sitting an exam

The quantity of repertoire is surely irrelevant? (unless your suggesting foregoing the technical work of scales and arpegios in favour of more pieces?)

I took a lot of exams in my youth on various instruments with various teachers but never felt 'held back' by them. Can you explain your logic more?

The case for NOT taking exams, as far as I can tell would be if the student would be discouraged by any results, or if the exam curriculum was not in line with the students goals i.e. if student is veering towards more jazz and contemporary style.

It just tends to be true, from what i have seen, that kids who do exams spend most of their time focussing on getting those few pieces perfect. Perhaps I'm wrong *shrugs*, that's just my opinion.

Let me be clear that I am the kind of teacher who does exams unless parents aren't keen. It's more rewarding as a teacher to do this, and particularly at this early stage in my career it's good to get feedback on my teaching and see where my strengths and weaknesses are.

My teacher though, was one of the best in australia. That sounds biased, but to make a more objective statement, there are unborn kids on his waiting list, and he has had countless students go on to tertiary studies in music, some on overseas scholarships. As such, he doesn't need a pat on the back from AMEB telling him he's doing well, and after 60ish years of teaching (he's in his 80s now) he's figured out what works for him.

He starts students off on the Suzuki method, which isn't that popular in Australia because it takes a lot of work on behalf of the parents, it's more popular in Asian countries, but anyhow, with that method, a child can't progress onto the next level until they have memorised the entire of each book and can play it through from memory in a mini recital. Obviously a piece has to be quite polished to be able to play it from memory. On the side my teacher used 3 or 4 other books, which we would zoom through. I can't remember much of the details as I got through all the suzuki books when I was quite young. By 12 I was working on 2 or 3 sonatas at any given time, and knocking one off every month or so, as well as other smaller works. My teacher had two grand pianos side by side in his studio, and much of the lesson he would play along at the same time. If a piece was unprepared this was frustrating because he would keep playing and you'd just have to try and keep up, and if you tried to just play right hand he'd keep saying add the left hand, add the left hand (don't get me wrong, this was very valuable in teaching to look ahead and not get in bad habits like pausing at the end of each bar). But if you had something up to a decent standard, playing with someone as musical and expressive and brilliant as this guy was an amazing, amazing, priceless experience.

I'm not saying I know i'm RIGHT, this is just my opinion, my observations. Feel free to disagree with me

Firstly - I'm not saying you're wrong - I'm just trying to understand the opinion!

Dont you think theres value is learning to play things 'perfectly' and really crafting the work rather than moving on as soon as the notes are playable. Learning the notes may be the largest hurdle for younger players - but its the working of phrasing, expressions, dynamics etc etc that only THEN really start to bring a piece to life and turn it into MUSIC.

My own experience is that yes - by the time I've learnt something from memory (which I've never been good at) I've got it pretty well down - but I've known plenty of people (my daughter included) who learn from memory (to get the notes, basic piece structure etc) and THEN work on the finer details. Moving on to another piece before doing that final work would be seriously cutting out the value from each piece and it'd become little more than a race to learn various different sequences of notes.

As many of you know, my students participate in National Guild of Piano Teachers' annual evaluation, which is generally called auditions.

I do this for several reasons.

1 - It helps keep me focused and this benefits the student if I'm not using a buckshot approach to lesson planning.

2 - It gives the students an obtainable goal; many students need this, many others do not. It doesn't hurt the latter, while greatly helping the former.

3 - It gives the parents, especially the non-musical, or untrained, or a student of another instrument, an independent corroboration of their student's progress and the quality of my teaching. A report card, if you will.

I do not insist that students participate, ie, if you don't you cannot take lessons with me, but I highly encourage them to do so, and as is often the case, the most reluctant sometimes become the most enthusiastic!