Talk:ABRSM

Exams
All the practical exams I have taken have been in November. The sentence saying "September" should be changed.
 * well change it then ChrisUK 19:01, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know what all of the times are. If I did, the sentence would be even less informed than it is now. 194.66.185.193 15:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I can check with my music teacher. When I have, I shall change it Hurdygurdyman1234 22:08, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

If you look on the ABRSM website, they are Feb/March, June and November. Emma H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.235.100 (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Delhi School of Music
I highly doubt that Delhi School of Music has anything to do with ABRSM apart from the fact that some ABRSM examinations are conducted there. If examination venues can be counted as affiliated with ABRSM then our local church, a commercial piano studio that sells musical instruments would be one of them and so would thousands of other venues. I've deleted it and I hope 59.177.9.176 doesn't put it back up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.43.39 (talk) 03:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Malcolm Boyle
I really don't think that the link to Malcolm Boyle is particularly relevant. onie assumes that there are hundreds of examiners, so why should he be linked to? (I have removed) MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 00:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

i really think this isnot fair because some people do the test when the have finished a book so they can do the test any time they want and some schools have to doit every year or even every 5 months. this is just what i think a cheat and unfair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.152.245.104 (talk) 19:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Grades and Ages?
Could a section about the 'usual' ages of canditates that take certain grades be included? I know grades are open to all ages, but I have noticed the ABRSM literature about music grades is all aimed at children (Why would my parents need to know about my exams?). I am 23 years old and I will be taking my Grade 7 next year, so am I musically retarded (I mean no offence here, I literally mean 'left behind')? A list of 'usual' ages of grade candidates would be nice. (Mawkish1983 09:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC))


 * I don't think there is an 'average age' for each rgade; I'm 16, and got my Grade 7, but only because I got accelerated directly to it. I know some People 18 who are taking grade 1, and somepeople who are 14, who are grade 8. Maybe there could be a section on what grades people take after learning their chosen instrument for 'x' years. MHDIV ɪŋglɪʃnɜː(r)d  ( Suggestion? | wanna chat? ) 16:42, 14 April 2007 (UTC)


 * That is a good idea. It would help a student plan their development better.  (Mawkish1983 10:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC))

I'm 32 and sitting my grade three theory exam in just over a month - it all depends when you started studying surely? (I took up music about two years ago). It would be better to put the average length of time taken to achieve a grade rather than ages. Emma H —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.205.235.100 (talk) 13:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm 41 and will taking my grade 2 pratical exam in May. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.107.248.220 (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

In my experience (taking exams myself when younger, and having two children learning, it's reasonable to expect a child to progress by about one grade per year, but obviously there are those who work through faster and those who take longer. Much depends on how much practice you do! Mikehc (talk) 14:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry don't agree. Every student learns music differently and appreciation should be given for any progress whatever speed it is at. My daughter just did grade 3 violin and she's 9, others in her class are doing grade 1 and have taken years to get there, are we then going to say that they're behind the curve - certainly not, we should encourage their progress. Hope this helps.

Ages are completely irrelevant. The majority of people learn musical instruments as children, but as this page shows, people can be motivated to learn at any age. And it's the motivation that matters - not the pace at which you take graded exams. 84.71.97.109 (talk) 09:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)Sijo

Link?
Hi, I would like to hear your opinions on the validity of the following site: 196.211.48.106 12:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC) Doesn't look like an official ABRSM site so I would remove it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RuthKirby (talk • contribs) 11:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Picture
I think a picture of the Board's Logo/seal should be added, and one of those text boxes that are under the picture and say history and founded by and stuff like that. Jasonxu98 (talk) 00:07, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Israel
I don't think the information about Israel is relevant enough to the article (why does Israel get a special mention? Why not one of the 100 odd other countries that also don't have ABRSM exams? So I'm going to remove it :) Geqo (talk) 04:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Diplomas - Question
Are the ABRSM Diplomas, Licentiate Diplomas and Fellowships university degrees? Could a person holding a Licenciate or a Fellowship progress to a full university Masters or a research degree?--Karljoos (talk) 19:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

The New York Times Manual of Style
Per: The New York Times Manual of Style:
 * center(v.). Do not write center around because the verb means gather at a point. Logic calls for center on, center in or revolve around. p. 61.

-- Jayjg (talk) 16:45, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
 * But in this case I see it doesn't apply, sorry for the error. Jayjg (talk) 16:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Minor Error from Emma Atkinson
There is no Android version of the Aural Trainer. I would have liked one. This is clear from the ABRSM website. Some of the other apps do have an Android version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.21.55 (talk) 22:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good point. Double-checked here and changed it. Website very cagey about next versions! :) Best wishes DBaK (talk) 07:06, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

L.A.B.
L.A.B. (Licentiate of the Associated Boards of R.A.M. and R.C.M.) was a qualification awarded to candidates in Australia (at least) between 1904 and 1930. Presumably it belongs here ? Doug butler (talk) 01:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Ethnic diversity in syllabus
Editors disagree about whether to include the statements and references about the lack of ethnic diversity in the syllabus. I have just reverted an IP's removal of that section and posted a warning about edit warring on their Talk page. I have renamed the section, previously headed Controversy, to make it clearer what it is about. I can't see a good reason to remove the information - it is well-sourced to reliable sources, and is relevant to the organisation. Starting this discussion for views of others. Tacyarg (talk) 11:16, 31 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't "edit warred". I removed an unnecessary section which gives undue weight to a recent faux-controversy. This was then reverted, and I reverted back (which is allowed as per Wikipedia's policies, as you well know). The other editor then decided to start edit warring and reverted again, which is a blatant violation of the 3 edit rule.
 * In terms of the topic itself, the very concept of a "lack of ethnic diversity in the syllabus" when the purpose of the syllabus is classical European music is patently absurd. It is a niche wedge issue being pushed by activists, and is very clearly given undue weight by having a whole section on very small page. Something isn't notable just because it's been mentioned in a couple of news publications. You do not need me to point you to the sections of Wikipedia policy that say this, as you know it to be true already, but I can do so if you really want me to.
 * Please don't send automated messages to my talk page. 2404:4404:27E4:EE00:16F6:D8FF:FEA0:4493 (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also to be very clear, being 'well-sourced' doesn't make something notable. Giving this "controversy" its own section would be like adding a section to Curry because a couple of reliable sources have run articles covering a "controversy" over the term (https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/great-indian-curry-debate-caudacity-white-people-ncna1277712, https://theprint.in/features/to-cancel-or-not-to-cancel-curry-food-blogger-raises-a-storm-with-instagram-post/720114/, https://news.sky.com/story/food-bloggers-call-for-word-curry-to-be-cancelled-over-claims-it-is-rooted-in-british-colonialism-12376985). A couple of nutters online saying that something is racist and then being picked up by a couple of media outlets does not a notable controversy make. WP:Undue 2404:4404:27E4:EE00:16F6:D8FF:FEA0:4493 (talk) 12:35, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I will also note that the person that reverted my original removal of the section has removed huge amounts of material from the page. Ironically, if all that material were still on the page, this section would not stick out like a sore thumb as it now does. Unfortunately, with all that material removed, the offending section is disproportionately huge in comparison to its relevance.
 * If you think the section needs to be retained, it should be incorporated into the history section, which should be fleshed out to cover the history of the organisation properly, given that it has a very long history. Renaming the section from 'Controversy' does not change that it is essentially a criticism section. 2404:4404:27E4:EE00:16F6:D8FF:FEA0:4493 (talk) 12:40, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Once it has been a week I will be reinstating my edit, as it appears that any desire to discuss this has evaporated as soon as the page has got into the state you guys want. 2404:4404:27E4:EE00:16F6:D8FF:FEA0:4493 (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2023 (UTC)
 * i would be more inclined to discuss this if you didn't just give me a wall of text. lettherebedarklight晚安 02:26, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this section should be removed as it has been given undue weight on a page so small Adevine605 (talk) 17:28, 5 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I'd say the size of an article only really matters if it's too big rather than too small. If the information has reliable sources then I can't really see why it should be removed. Suonii180 (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The petition was started in 2020 and has 4,600 signatures. No longer relevant enough or significant enough for a dedicated section in the article. 2407:7000:9BF1:4000:70E6:963B:97D7:5EEC (talk) 07:28, 13 February 2024 (UTC)