Memorization

by Sharon Kaplan
Originally published in the MMTA Newsletter, November 2009

Kids are so overbooked these days.  If it's not a lot more homework with higher scholastic expectations, it's time consuming sports or other extra-curricular activities that take up more time than in any of the almost 50 years that I have been teaching.  So it was imperative that the Piano Exam Development Committee consider these changes in students' lives when we worked on the program.

What we haven't talked about yet was our very long deliberations concerning memory.  Several people have asked that not all pieces need to be memorized.  We very seriously considered that proposal, but were hung up on two issues: 1) students that did memorize all the pieces deserved to be given credit for their accomplishment and 2) the logistics of laying out the exam in a way that wouldn't cause confusion at the site and possible mistakes by judges. 

Our solution, after much research, was to change the number of points allotted to memorization.  We found that this rewarded the student who did the extra work necessary to memorize all the pieces, while not significantly altering the score of the student who had not memorized all the pieces.  It also gave us the opportunity to realign the percentage of points in other areas, rewarding musicianship to a greater extent.  We charted the exams using 3 points for memory, 4 points for memory and 5 points for memory, and this combination brought things closely into alignment with the original concept of the exams in 1970.

2002 Syllabus

Level	Skills	Studies	Repertoire	Memory	Questions	Sightplaying
Prep	-	-	-	-	-	-
1 & 2	20%	10%	50%	7.9%	-	13.2%
3 – 6	17%	8%	50%	12.5%	4.5%	7.6%
7 – 9	20.5%		55%	14%	3.5%	7%
10 - 11	17%		57%	17%	3%	6%

 

2010 Syllabus

Level	Skills	Studies	Repertoire	Memory	Questions	Sightplaying
Prep	26.3%	-	52.6%	7.9%	-	13.2%
1 & 2	20.2%	-	60.6%	9.1%	-	10.1%
3 – 6	19.7%	-	60.6%	9.9%	3%	7.6%
7 – 9	21.9%	-	58.4%	8.8%	3.6%	7.3%
10	20.4%	-	61.2%	8.2%	3.4%	6.8%
11	17.6%	-	64.7%	8.8%	2.9%	5.9%

This excited us.  What about you?

The first 40 years

by Ruth Anderson

Originally published in the May/June 2009 MMTA Newsletter

At this time next spring the new Syllabus package will be available for distribution to members. Committee members have written many articles describing the content and features. Inasmuch as I am a serious pack-rat, pretend to engage in historical research, and have been involved as a teacher and judge since the program’s inception, I would like to share some history.

Paul Freed, Professor of Piano at the University and former MMTA president, initiated the syllabus program as a guide to students and teachers providing a comprehensive program of technical skills, sightplaying, theory and performance from various historical periods. Paul was familiar with the Canadian examination system, and in the 1960’s he and Shirley Rediger, MMTA president, spent time in Canada studying their system. Made possible by grants from the Bush and Bremer Foundations, the first Syllabus was published in 1970 and capably administered by Ethel Hascall.

Colleges and universities throughout the state were contacted for their endorsement, and their facilities used for testing sites. Paul personally traveled to many sites to train prospective judges.

A theory testing program was already in place and these exams were incorporated into the comprehensive program. A performance-only certificate was available for those bypassing the theory exams beginning with the 1978 syllabus. All syllabi had 11 levels – until 2010, which will add a preparatory level. All award extra points for repertoire memorized. Special books of studies, Adventures in Time and Space, were compiled and published for levels 1 – 6.

A brief overview of the first four syllabi invites interesting comparisons.

1970 -- Critiques were to be written in third person and directed to the Board of Examiners. This policy was gradually abandoned. The total of each level was 100 points, with categories of Pass, Excellence, and Distinction. Essays were required in levels 5 – 10, questions in levels 1 – 4 and 11. Pentachords were played in parallel motion with 2-note slur patterns. Only one substitution was allowed, from the current contest list only, and a written request was necessary. Pentachords in various patterns were included through level 4, and for each level specific parallel major and minor keys were required for technical skills.

In upper levels, scales included detached, in thirds and sixths, and contrary major and minor. Repertoire lists were much shorter than in the current syllabus.

1978 -- Students were required to list 3 choices of testing centers on their application and assignments were made after all registrations were in. Written requests for the one allowed substitution were required, but additional substitutions were permitted at upper levels. The top scoring category, 80 – 100, was divided into Distinction and High Distinction. Various touches were required in pentachords, and Lydian and Phrygian pentachords were added in level 4. Required keys for technical skills were no longer limited to the same keys for all skills. Repertoire lists were expanded. The most challenging addition was major scales in double thirds for levels 7 and higher, and harmonic scales in contrary motion at level 10.

1981 -- Scoring was expanded to 120, then 130 points at upper levels. Essays were discontinued, replaced by oral questions at all levels. A glossary of skills was included. Pentachords in contrary motion were introduced.

Chord and arpeggio sequences in upper levels were introduced, and scales in double thirds were discontinued. An Addendum was published in 1982, and substitutions from the contest lists of the previous four years were permitted.
 

1989 -- Scoring was expanded to 100 – 165 points. The Studies lists were expanded to include other publications, and some of the previous selections in Adventures were placed at different levels. Contrary scales were dropped from upper levels, and scales in octaves were added. Repertoire lists were constantly expanded, particularly for the contemporary period.

These Syllabi have been constantly under review, and adapted to serve the changing needs of teachers and students, always without compromising the integrity of the program. Minnesota is the first state in the nation with a comprehensive program of this magnitude, and is still the only state, except for Illinois, with a comparable program. It is especially invaluable for inexperienced teachers as a teaching tool and reference, even if students do not participate in the program. After earning my music degrees in the '50’s I went out into the world with a decent knowledge of music literature, but clueless as to what and how to teach elementary and intermediate students. Yet some of my students learned in spite of their teacher. The syllabus program has been the linchpin of my teaching since 1970.
 

If I were to say the 2010 will be the best Syllabus yet, my prejudice would be obvious.

The inner game of performance preparation

by Kathie Younker

It isn’t very often that we piano teachers get a student who seems to do everything right, but every once in a while we get  lucky.    Sure  enough,  my  student  Emily won  Contest  again.    I  could  see  it  in  her  eyes:    she  was  determined  to  accomplish her goal, and she did it with confidence.  She prepares for her piano exams in the same way.  While I know that we as piano teachers all know what students need to do to succeed, unfortunately we can’t make it happen.  They have to do it themselves.  I wanted to know Emily’s inner “game,” so I asked her to write about how she prepares for performance.  My idea was that her words would probably inspire her peers better than mine would.  I also wanted to know how she internalized and personalized the suggestions she got from me as well as from others.

This is what she wrote:

When preparing for a performance such as the MMTA Piano Exam, I begin with a goal in mind.  I set a date/time that I want to have my pieces memorized and my technical skills refined.  I make sure to practice every day until my goal is met.

To  do  well  in  a  piano  performance  I  need  to know  my pieces  inside  and  out.    I  need  to  be  aware of all articulation and expression markings because these little things can make a big  difference. 

I  also  try  to  personalize  my  pieces  by  changing  tempo  markings  to  suit  my  style.    I  add  extra  articulation,  phrasing,  etc., where appropriate (for example, in Baroque music) that  I  feel would add something special to the piece.  What comes from the heart is what matters.

I spoke with her further about how she prepares herself personally for the performance and the stresses involved.  She replied  that she prepares herself ahead of  time by pretending that she is performing when she is alone at  her own piano.  She is then able to tell herself to treat the performance like any other day of practice.  She pretends that she is alone in the room when she is performing.  She never allows doubt to enter her thoughts.  She tells herself that after she did this much work she is going to make it good.  While she is performing, she doesn’t allow herself to think too much about it because it can interfere with concentration.

The most important things for performers, Emily says, are to plan ahead, be organized, and believe in yourself.  And of course, remember that what comes from your heart is what matters.

Teaching technical skills with ease

by Sharon Kaplan

Technique – ugh, say some teachers. Ugh, say some students. But I find teaching and playing technical scales rewarding, challenging and fun, and by trying to teach creatively, many of my students are  beginning to think so, too.

The requirements in the 2010 syllabus are structured much differently from the old and are helping me in my task. This syllabus will be printed in January, 2010 and testing from it will begin in the fall of 2010. However, I have been testing out the requirements on my students now. My challenge has been to make the segue between old and new without making it confusing for my students.

Most skills will be played in major/parallel minor sequence to solidify fingerings and have a sense of key

center. At level two, C G D will be tested and at level three, A, E, F. My students learn C, G, D, A, E and F at level two. That way, they will be secure with one-octave scales and are preparing ahead for the two-octave scales at the next level. However, for the month before an exam, I prepare them using the P. E. P. P. - Piano Examination Preparatory Packet at the correct level. This is the time I “teach to the test”.

I have found that teaching two-octave scales is easiest using the rhythm eighth note followed by sixteenths . As one student said, “sitting on that tonic note gives me a second to think.” Because it is rhythmic, it is also more fun. I also “borrow” rhythms from pieces or ask kids to make up a jazzy rhythm.

At level 4, students will play a mini-grand scale instead of contrary scales: Once again, I use different rhythms if there is a problem.

Another change in the technical requirements is that diminished chords and arpeggios are introduced before the Mm7. This is because we are trying to promote facility. The dim7 chords and arpeggios are symmetric, making them easier, and they are easier for a smaller hand. The extra year of physical growth should make the Mm7 easier for students to play well. I have been requiring my students to learn both, and it has been helpful.

I do not teach only the required keys. I work in fingering groups, circle of 5ths – anything. I focus on

the required keys and required manner of playing them when we begin to seriously prepare for the
exams, but by then it becomes a job of polishing what they already know.

Here are some “fun” patterns once a student has played in all keys. They are not on the exam, but will help to secure what is needed:

·        Scales: One student calls this the marathon scale – natural minor → harmonic minor → melodic minor → major → down 2 more notes of the major scale (played slowly) to the relative minor and then begin the pattern on that key. Student will cover 1/3 of the possible scales every day.

·        Chords (works for arpeggios, too) 1. Start on any key and play this sequence, either solid or broken: Mm7 → mm7 → half dim7 → dim 7 → down to next Mm7, etc.

·        In any key, 4/4 time, play either solid, broken, or in patterns I (root and 2 inversions) → IV (root and 2 inversions) →V (root and 2 inversions) →V7 (root and 3 inversions)  ending I (root if 4 note chords, I if using 3 note chords)

 This is only a sampling of ideas for teaching the technical skills found in the 2010 syllabus.