Firstly, full disclosure: my textbooks, Learn Your Scales and Arpeggios for Clarinet and Saxophone were modelled around the current syllabus of the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music and quote directly from it. To be able to do this I signed a licensing agreement with ABRSM which is legally binding and entails payment of a royalty; if you have used their copyright material, including syllabuses, in your publication without such an agreement, you could find yourself in a lot of trouble. This arrangement has undoubtedly enhanced sales, as many exam candidates are desperate to find a solution to what can seem like an intractable problem. The syllabus change makes the books in their present form, whilst not redundant, less relevant to many students. A setback, however, can also be an opportunity. A second edition of these books is currently in preparation. All reference to the ABRSM syllabus is to be removed and I am now free to reorganise this progressive methodology into a more logical order than was permitted by even the current syllabus, making the books relevant for a wider range of students including those preparing for different exams or none. Issuing this material in different formats including as e-books will make them available to a wider market. Additionally, I will no longer be liable for royalties to a third party.

I have, nevertheless, examined the new syllabus for clarinet and saxophone with a sense of puzzlement and dismay.

Clarinet

• • The introduction of scales and arpeggios for a twelfth on an instrument with such a large range seems a regressive move; at Grade 2, students can no longer be trusted to play beyond G in the second register, whilst Grade 3 students no longer have to venture into the third register.

• • For Grade 3, A major has been extended to a twelfth, requiring the student to negotiate break fingerings, so why not go for the full two octaves?

• • Sharp keys are introduced at an earlier stage than the corresponding flat keys, despite flat keys being easier to play in than sharp ones on the clarinet (this is why the clarinet in A was invented).

• E minor does not appear until Grade 6!

Saxophone

• • The saxophone plays more comfortably in sharp keys as befits its being a transposing instrument in E-flat or B-flat. D major does not appear until Grade 2, while D minor is included in Grade 1. A major and E minor, both easy scales, now do not appear until Grade 4.

• • There was really no need to reduce F-sharp minor to one octave at Grade 4: the top fifth of the scale does not cause difficulty.

• • Candidates are not required to use C-sharp, B or B-flat on the L5 keypad until Grade 5; the range at Grade 4 is reduced.

• • B-flat minor does not appear until Grade 8 when it is required for two and a half octaves.

• Chromatic scales for a twelfth or two and a half octaves have no coherent rhythmic structure. This is dealt with in arpeggios for a twelfth by repeating the dominant at the top and the tonic at the end. No such neat solution is proposed for these chromatic scales (strictly speaking, half an octave is an augmented fourth: that would work rhythmically).

Both Instruments

• • Dominant sevenths should now resolve on to the tonic: why? More often than not, this does not happen when dominant sevenths occur in music, and the tonic is not part of the chord. Such notions will have to be abandoned when students reach an advanced stage and begin practising dominant sevenths in their inversions. This curious affectation is familiar to string players, but no string teacher of my acquaintance has been able to explain why they do it.

• • The introduction of extended range scales and arpeggios and scales in thirds at an earlier stage seems arbitrary and is not part of any logical process of learning. While such exercises can be a valuable part of scale work, they seem to have been introduced here simply to provide extra hoops for students to jump through.

• The principle of arranging scales and arpeggios in clusters for the advanced Grades is sound as it is consistent with a methodical approach to learning. It was possible to apply this when working from the old syllabus; however, the order in which these clusters appear for the top three Grades has no apparent logic, with some easier clusters from Grade 6 reappearing at Grade 8 for no apparent reason.

The new wind syllabus has been under discussion for a long time and I was one of many teachers who responded to a questionnaire sent out by ABRSM more than two years ago. I also discussed some of the proposals with the Chairman of the Board, Mick Elliott when I met him at the Rhinegold Music Education Expo at the Barbican Centre in 2015. On this occasion, he gave me his assurances that there would be no reduction in the Board’s rigorous standards. What is clear from my examination of the syllabus is that there is less to prepare for each grade and that the selection of items is less reflective of a systematic approach to learning scales and arpeggios than before; it is, to a greater extent, an arbitrarily selected series of hoops to jump through.

Whilst this is not a change to the wind syllabus, it is also worth noting that the removal of melody writing and word setting from Grade 5 Theory, a hoop all must jump through before proceeding to advanced grades, means that candidates can now complete the entire paper without the need to hear in their mind a single note of music.

The most significant area of dumbing down, however, would appear to be in the new sight-reading tests. The parameters set out in the syllabus have pulled this test at every grade down to about one grade level below the current syllabus. In addition, the new tests are much shorter, in many cases, less than half the previous length. This sends, very much, the wrong message when sight-reading is such an essential skill for orchestral wind players.

Advance notification of the new syllabus promised: “a wider choice of repertoire than ever before, including syllabus favourites alongside famous classical tunes, music from the world of film, TV, and musicals, and much more”. My heart sank at this: my students cringe at any suspicion of teachers and other adults trying to “get down with the kids”. You will be lucky if you find a Grade 3 student who even knows Hedwig’s Theme or the March from Raiders. Most of the supposedly popular pieces are more likely to be recognised by their grandparents than by their parents, so whose needs are really being served by inclusion of this material? In any case, many such pieces are popular because they are melodically unambitious, and the constraints of writing for the voice mean that vocal pieces generally do not transcribe well for orchestral wind instruments. Mind you, such pieces are easily avoided: it turns out that the selection of pieces is mainly the same old stuff with a few supposedly popular numbers thrown in as a bit of a sop.

At the top end of the Grade range for clarinet, there is much Brahms, though examiners are unlikely to hear it all that often as most accompanists will not be able to manage the piano parts. There are just two opportunities to dip into Weber’s considerable output and very little other established repertoire, but a high proportion of arranged pieces (Paul Harris must be very happy). To omit the Mozart Clarinet Concerto altogether is perverse in the extreme; it is the most famous and popular piece of music ever written for any wind instrument and occupies a unique place in history. It may be argued that overexposure of this work means that other repertoire does not get a look in, but this is lazy thinking. Essentially an operatic composer, Mozart recognised the potential for the clarinet, with its distinct registers, to convey dialogue: the consequent narrative and dramatic power of his writing had a profound effect on subsequent composers and there is much to be said for studying their output in the context of this.

The dilution of rigour and relevance in the new ABRSM syllabus forces me to re-evaluate the role of graded exams in my teaching. I have, throughout my career, found this progressive system of assessments to be useful in providing a structure for learning. It is comprehensive in its inclusion of technical elements, demands for developing musicianship and the opportunities provided for interpretative and cultural development. Increasingly, however, and very much in line with trends in education generally, schools and parents have come to regard the graded exam system as an end in itself: effectively, a series of qualifications. This commodification of educational provision (“If I play it the way you say, how many more marks will I get?”) is far from conducive to the proper development of both executive skill and creativity, and seems to lead to the presentation of arbitrary and, ultimately, meaningless hoops for the student to jump through.

I envisage an approach, tailored for the needs of each individual student, which builds an understanding of the history and development of the instrument, its technique, repertoire and context in musical and cultural history. None of these elements can be studied in isolation but should be assimilated through a comprehensive and carefully structured process. It is right to give students a degree of choice when selecting pieces to learn, but they need a broad experience on which to make those choices. Primarily, this means developing reading and quick learning skills to enable them to build as wide a stylistic awareness as possible, and will entail the return of the study book. As I have demonstrated through my scale books, technical development should be methodical, and relevant to the demands of music being studied. Downsizing the importance of exam preparation will provide greater opportunity to support ensemble work, without which justice cannot be done to wind instruments. This will require close cooperation between instrumental teachers and school music departments, always a tricky area logistically, but with the potential for huge mutual benefit.

I will continue to use the grades, where appropriate, in my teaching, but the graded exams can provide a comfort-blanket for instrumental teachers and there is laziness in over-reliance on them. Educators have a responsibility to reach out to parents, setting out objectives and explaining how they can support their children’s learning. We cannot expect parents to free themselves from the narrow prescriptions of an exam syllabus unless we do the same.