Music exams & jazz

Many students in Australia, or their parents, seek music lessons that follow a syllabus set by one of the external music examination organisations. These exams are very popular and often assumed to be essential. However, at Jazz Workshop Australia, we generally don’t encourage our students to follow these programs—especially those students focused on learning jazz and improvisation. Before exploring the reasons why, let’s first take a look at what music exams actually are.

What Are Music Exams?

In Sydney, Australia, where we are based, the primary organisations running music exams are the Australian Music Examinations Board (AMEB) and Trinity College London (TCL). Others include the Associated Board of the Royal Schools of Music (ABRSM) and Rockschool (owned by AMEB). These organisations offer a series of ‘grades’ that students can progress through. Students prepare repertoire and technique based on a syllabus and sit for exams to determine if they meet the requirements for each grade. High achievers receive distinctions, while others simply pass.

Teaching and learning for these exams usually happens in private music lessons. Students must purchase the required books of repertoire and technique, which, along with exam fees, contribute to the business model of these organisations. Exams are typically held at external centres where students perform for an examiner. The exam often includes additional tests like sight-reading and aural perception. Some time after the exam, students receive their results.

So, Why Are Exams So Popular?

Here’s a summary of some common reasons why people value music exams:

• They provide a clear, objective measure of a student’s progress.
• There is a perceived prestige associated with higher grades.
• Some schools or community bands require them.
• Many people mistakenly believe they are equivalent to formal qualifications.
• They offer a clear structure for lessons for both teachers and students
• They give students a tangible goal to work towards.

Most of these benefits are real and valuable to many students and teachers. However, it’s important to clarify that these exams are not equivalent to university diplomas or other formal qualifications. While they are carefully structured by music educators to develop students’ skills progressively, they remain a business service rather than a formal training framework. They are recognised to the extent that lots of people find them  useful as an independent measure of a student’s level and one that makes it relatively easy to compare students.

Why Most JWA Students Don’t Do Exams

The most significant issue with music exams is their ‘one-size-fits-all’ nature. The set syllabus doesn’t account for individual students’ goals and needs. The best music lessons are tailored to each student, focusing on their specific objectives and interests—something an exam syllabus simply can’t provide.

A common criticism of school education is that it becomes overly focused on standardised testing – teaching for the test at the expense of genuine education. The same problem exists in exam-driven music education. Lessons can end up being more about passing the exam than about actual learning or exploring new musical ideas. Also, mainstream music exams in New South Wales rarely cover jazz in a meaningful way, often treating it superficially or not at all.

Music exams can also be a crutch for teachers who lack the expertise or inclination to design custom programs for their students. Expert teachers, like those at JWA, create individually tailored lessons that address each student’s needs and aspirations. A hallmark of good teachers is the skill, based on knowledge and experience, to decide what and when to teach – responsively according to what each student needs. Exams can restrict that autonomy.

Jazz and Exams: An Uneasy Fit

Most JWA students focus on learning jazz, and mainstream music exams don’t align well with that goal. We did experiment with an exam syllabus of our own, focusing on skills and concepts without set repertoire. However, our teachers, who each have their own approach to teaching jazz, weren’t particularly interested in adopting a standardised program (albeit an optional one). And that makes sense—experienced teachers should have the freedom to design lessons based on their own expertise and the individual needs of their students, rather than following a rigid, pre-set syllabus.

Alternatives to Exams

For those looking for ways to measure progress, there are plenty of alternatives to exams. The simplest, with good jazz educators like ours at JWA, is to ask your teacher—they’re the experts. Other options include playing in more advanced jazz combos, navigating complex chord progressions, or participating in jam sessions.

Instead of exams, students can work towards:

• Performing at concerts.
• Recording projects.
• Learning more challenging works.
• Gaining into a band.
• Attending jazz camps.
• Playing successfully at public jam sessions.

Good lessons provide clear goals in the short, medium, and long term. Motivated jazz students usually have their own ambitions and don’t need exams to understand where they want to go.

In Conclusion

To be clear, exams can be useful for some students and teachers. At JWA, we do have teachers willing to prepare students for exams, and not every student here studies jazz. However, for those focused on personalised learning and jazz, exams often prove to be more of a distraction than a benefit.