Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner Have the ABRSM got it all wrong?

It was while noting the easy sight-reading key signatures used by George Gershwin for his smash-hit songs, that the thought arose
"Have the ABRSM got their 1-8 Grade examination priorities wrong?"

If Grade ONE exam largely covers Gershwin's range of key signatures, and if (arguably), 95% of world music is written in this range, why dragoon piano hopefuls world-wide through the dreary routine of Grades 2-5 learning accidental-rich key signatures which nobody uses these days (excuse the generalisation)?

If the Grade 2-5 curriculum was to abandon accidental-rich key signatures, the range of music from which to arrange exam pieces would be immense - and offer a sparkling selection for delighted examinees.

Surely the incremental complexity of music should be the steady basis upon which progress is built. The mind-numbing grind associated with obscure key signatures and pedantic studies in minor keys should not be allowed to dampen spirits - remembering that nobody (again a generalisation) composes in minor keys these days.

Here's a reminder of what Gershwin gave the world in the 20s and 30s - never stretching beyond 3 accidentals.

A Foggy Day (1b)
Bidin' My Time (3b)
But Not for Me (3b)
Embraceable You (1#)
I Got Plenty o' Nuttin' (1#)
I Got Rhythm (2b)
It Ain't Necessarily So (2b)
Let's Call The whole Thing Off (2#)
Liza (3b)
Love Is Here To Stay (1b)
Oh, Lady Be Good (1#)
Somebody Loves Me (1#)
Someone To Watch Over Me (3b)
Summertime (0)
Swanee (1b)
S' Wonderful (3b)
They Can't Take That Away From Me (3b)
The Man I Love (3b)
They All Laughed (1#)

Any thoughts?

I think that's a dangerous assumption, to think that 95% of all music is written in "easy" keys. There's plenty of music in remote keys out there, and great music at that. Also, even though a piece may not start in a remote key, it may end up there due to modulations. It's just a short hop from A major to F# major and bang you're playing in 6 sharps. To be truly adept at playing you need to be comfortable in any and all keys. In fact, I don't think there is such a thing as a "hard" key or an "easy" key. There's nothing that makes C-major easier. So there's less black notes - big deal. When you know all the keys it really makes little difference.

And nobody writes in "odd" keys anymore? Well, I'm currently writing a piece in ebm, so I guess that makes me nobody...

As someone with perfect pitch, I personally get very tired of hearing pieces in the same key. Each key has it's own flavor, and I personally love some of the "odd" ones as you refer to them. For instance, Db - what a wonderful key. Not only does it sound terrific, but it fits nicely under the hand.

Learn all the keys. If you limit yourself to the "easy" ones, you're going to be limiting your musical growth.

Music in 'simple' keys can sell more to the public - after all reading multiple accidentals requires years of training. People's ear are rendered less receptive to more remote keys as result and makes them feel alienated when they hear such keys.
Instrumental music from movies, animations and musicals etc is more bold with its experiments with the key than popular songs, which is a good thing I guess.

I think if someone is basing their choice of keys in order to sell more to the public, that's sad. If the public needs an easy piano version, there are plenty of arrangers out there who can make an easy-piano version in C major. I think a musician should stick to their guns and write music in the key they feel it should be written in. I'm not changing my piece in eb minor for anyone, because I envision it in eb minor (although that's a bit of a different situation in that I doubt it will ever get published )

And music in "simple" keys is not necessarily simple. Take the Waldstein sonata. It's one of Beethoven's toughest, yet its in C major. Yet the Moonlight sonata is in (eek!!!) 4 sharps, but it's one of the more managable ones.

People need to get over the stigma of remote keys - they're not so bad.

When teaching I am often asked, "why so many different keys?"
The answer is tough, but I usually explain it in these ways.

Music sound different within each tonal center (key). Try it. Play some recognizable melody in a few keys. If one pays close enough attention, they will discern this difference.

The next question has to do with the perceived difficulty of certain keys. I describe it in terms of tactile, muscular feel. I often refer to the key of C as Kansas...if feels flat. The key of F has a small hill in the middle of it...and the key of E has 2 mountain passes.

This seems to get the message across that one does not "keep track" of those pesky sharps/flats individually, (like misbehaved childen) but rather through an overall "feel" of the hand shapes one encounters in each key. Then the sharps/flats seem to take care of themselves.

How boring would the world be if everywhere you went was like Kansas? No offense to Kansas! I'm just saying each key has it's unique "landscape" that you will get accustomed to if you explore those keys. Moreover, if one limits themselves to a certain key or keys, they are not experiencing the full range of the musical world...like someone unwilling to travel away their hometown.

Who's performing your compositions? Who's publishing your scores?

If "nobody" is the answer to these, then yes, you are nobody in the context of this discussion. Nothing personal, I dont know you and you may be be a phenomenal composer, (and you may have answers to the above questions for all I know).

The bigger oddity to me was the original poster remarking that nobody writes in minor keys these days. ...?!?!!? Huh??? what style are we talking about here? If you're talking about serious contemporary piano literature (read: "who cares") then that literature is full of obscure key signatures, unconventional everything, just for the sake of trying to be different.

If we're talking about popular styles, well of course there's minor keys all over the place. Seems like an exceedingly odd remark.

That brings up an interesting question I've often wondered. What do pianists play?? Sure there's those of us serious enough to focus on the classical repertoire, as discussed in this forum, but what does the vast majority of piano players/piano students actually play as the fruits of their toils? Just the pieces from their method books? Or the sheet music from popular songs that you see at music stores (ie piano arrangements of Dave Matthews latest CD).

I'm not looking down on any of this. I'm just curious, with millions of people taking piano lessons, only a small handful really sustain a serious discipline with classical. What is everyone else doing?

I haven't sent them out to publishers yet, so the answer would be nobody - yet... Regardless, as a composer I feel music in certain keys - why should I pander to an audience and write all my stuff in C major?

It's like asking a great artist "Why do you paint with so many colors?" If all art (including music) pandered to the common masses, all we would have is a lot of dumbed down, boring art that doesn't challenge anyone intellectually.

I can't speak for what the millions of other people do that take lessons, but for me I'd go batty if all music were written in the same key. It would the ultimate in boredom.

I agree. I love pieces in Ab, Db, and Eb, as well as Ebm, Cm, Abm, Dm, and Gm.

So, with Eb and Cm, we cover Beethoven well enough, and with Dm, Rachmaninoff. I wonder if that's why I'm attracted to those two composers' works...because of the keys they often wrote in? Hmm...

Oh, and using an obscure key signature hardly qualifies as being done "for the sake of being different"

Oh, you're preaching to the choir here. I find it awkward that a whole Bach French Suite is all one key. eck! it gets old fast. When I've been in blues bands, SO many of the tunes are in the standard blues keys. G, A, D, E. eck. An occaisonal Ab minor was a godsend!!!

Good luck with your comps when you start submitting them! Hope you have success.

???

I didnt say it does. I said lots of contemporary piano literature do many things just for the sake of being different, and that can include obscure key signatures.

I didnt say the use of such a signature could only be for that reason. It was a response to the poster who said nobody uses them anymore. They do.

"all reading multiple accidentals requires years of training"

But then again, playing in keys with less accidentals can be much more awkward.

I guess maybe I misunderstood your previous post. And thanks - once I get some comps completed I hope to post some of them here for some feedback, and hopefully I'll try my hand with some publishers. I do it mostly for my own enjoyment, so I don't care a whole lot if they accept them or not, but it sure would be neat if they did.

Are keys sigs with lots of accidentals really that hard? I play some pieces with 4 or 5 flats in the key sigs of EMajor or DbMajor and those pieces are no harder than other pieces I play. If you just think of the key sig as a "preset accidental" what's the big deal or am I missing something? I always thought "hard" had to do with the technical and musical requirements of the pieces (cross rhythms, thick chord texture, bringing out lines, tricky jumps, etc) not with the key signature.

On a related note I did sight-read an "easy" version of Clair De Lune recently after trying to play the original (and coming up short, heehee) and the piece sounded way "off" to me, so sometimes i think you do "lose" some "personality" if you transpose into "easier" keys.


~pianocliff

Well for some instruments it is easier to play in certain keys just because that's the way that instrument is made (take guitar for instance).

But the piano is different; it can encompass all keys. And to most piano players of a higher degree playing in Ebm is easier than playing in C major.

Also certain keys have certain personalities almost. Of course any piece can be transcribed to another, but it's whole being will change if you do. If I was to play Chopin's posthumous C# minor nocturne to F minor, then the piece would sound and feel different.

And also who says that remote keys aren't used as much now? In common music (radio music), most of it is in the same certain keys. But classical music (which is much more interesting to me) goes through every key and that's what gives it so much more substance.

Thanks elfen, You share Gershwin's approach that "simple" keys sell more to the public ... the obvious reason is that these keys are more accessible to all (ie. easier to sight-read)

The company is being swept along on a nostalgic carpet ride of all the nuances of different key signatures. In spite of the list of Gershwin classics, we still have a joker who finds use for the minor key in schoolboy piano lessons.

But with respect, we're searching for an improved ABRSM exam curriculum which promotes optimum progress in formative piano years. Close examination of the body finds that most die-hard pupils taking ABRSM exams pack in their studies at the 5th Grade - and find some excuse to abandon the piano at the age of about 14.

The point being made is that, a schoolboy/girl is not on the same musical wavelength as our mature posters. The teenagers' world focusses on everything being "cool", computer games, TV and hitting the mall. Classical music is just some adult fixation on compositions by "dead guys". Extreme key signatures sadly alienate the "small fry" from the fun of the piano.

Anyone who suggests solving the problem by advocating "practice, discipline or hard work" is asked to stand in the corner ... complete with dunce's cap. We can do better than that.

Small technical point here, I would like to point out that A minor is a key signature with no accidentals in it at all...

~pianocliff

I think that the term "minor" got confused somewhere in this thread to mean key signatures that have lots of accidentals instead of it's proper definition of a scale in a minor mode. Perhaps a better term to use for these keys would be "remote". Even that's not the best, but it is better than using "minor" as that obviously has other connotations.

Who ever said there's a problem? Classical music is what it is, weird keys and all. If that's too tough for modern kids to deal with, then practice and hard work won't solve their problems. It's all about attitude. They shouldn't be made to feel intimidated by these key signatures.

I remember when I saw Schubert's Impromptu Op. 90/3 for the first time and thought - wow look at all the flats. But did that intimidate me away from it? No, I tried it out. And it took me a while to get my mind around it, but I wasn't put off by it. I actually thought it was cool that I could play a piece in such a "weird" key.

One thing that might help is to advocate studying scales and chords in all keys right from the start. Teach kids that the same chords exist in all keys (For example, every key has the same relationships with I-IV-V-I). Expose them to all the keys right up front and don't let them get mired in the doldrums of C Major. Maybe then they won't feel so intimidated when they see something with (heaven forbid ) more than 2 sharps or flats.

Obviously there are some benefits to starting with C major with a true beginner, but a good teacher shouldn't limit themselves to that.

I've always wondered why John Rutter composes his choral music in mainly "black note" keys. There has to be a reason. Does vocal music sound different this way than if written in "white note" keys? Brighter? More harmonic (blending together better)? I have perfect pitch, so I have problems getting the general picture on this.