Does a 5 on the AP Music Theory Exam really mean anything?

So, I have my AP music theory test this coming Monday, and I've been studying and working so I can get a 5. I'm relatively certain I will, since I got a 5 on my practice exam and I've improved a bunch since then. However, I've started to think of what it actually means to get a 5, meaning in comparison with the other musicians around the world.

I was recently talking with a violinist friend of mine who is in the Juilliard pre-college program. She's fantastic, but I had no idea whether she knew any theory or how her ear was. I asked her if she can do dictation like on the AP theory exam, and she told me that Juilliard expects so much more than the AP does. So, my question is, with this in mind, does getting a 5 on the AP exam mean you're good at music/have a good ear, or does it just mean you have a basic level knowledge of music and some ability that puts you slightly above average.

If I struggle melodic dictation (I have trouble remembering the melodies since to me they sound just like exercises and aren't at all memorable), does this mean I'm almost musically illiterate, or are the melodic dictation examples truly hard?

I think it's an interesting question, and I'm sure other people have wondered as well.

It varies. The actual AP test, in my experience is a poor indicator on what a student knows, but a good indicator at how a hard a student is willing to work. The problem with AP classes has and will always be that they teach you how to do well on the test. Yes you have learned some good and fundamental information, and yes sight reading is a good skill to have, but doing well on the AP test does not mean you somehow possess above average musicianship. This simply means that you studied the information you were given and worked on the skills needed.

As for melodic dictation, that's an acquired skill. The more you work at it, the better you'll become. For some people it's harder to learn at first, and for others it isn't terribly difficult - this says nothing about your overall ability in music. What this simply means is that if you find it a hard task to do, you haven't mastered it. There will come a time when it becomes relatively easy for you, it might take a few years until it's natural, but overall it will happen if you keep working on it.

---

Now, I'll inject my academic elitism in here. Nothing on ANY AP test is difficult. AP classes and the test that go along with them essentially are bare-bones introduction classes. The only difficulty that comes with the material is that the concepts and skill sets may be new, but to me that doesn't translates into "hard" just different. Like most things in life, simple dedication and consistent hard work, and you'll do well.

It varies. The actual AP test, in my experience is a poor indicator on what a student knows, but a good indicator at how a hard a student is willing to work. The problem with AP classes has and will always be that they teach you how to do well on the test. Yes you have learned some good and fundamental information, and yes sight reading is a good skill to have, but doing well on the AP test does not mean you somehow possess above average musicianship. This simply means that you studied the information you were given and worked on the skills needed.

As for melodic dictation, that's an acquired skill. The more you work at it, the better you'll become. For some people it's harder to learn at first, and for others it isn't terribly difficult - this says nothing about your overall ability in music. What this simply means is that if you find it a hard task to do, you haven't mastered it. There will come a time when it becomes relatively easy for you, it might take a few years until it's natural, but overall it will happen if you keep working on it.

---

Now, I'll inject my academic elitism in here. Nothing on ANY AP test is difficult. AP classes and the test that go along with them essentially are bare-bones introduction classes. The only difficulty that comes with the material is that the concepts and skill sets may be new, but to me that doesn't translates into "hard" just different. Like most things in life, simple dedication and consistent hard work, and you'll do well.

I disagree to a point on that. Yes, the tests do test how much you've studied, but someone with absolutely no ability, or extremely little ability will never be able to get some of the examples. For example, my mother took guitar lessons for two years and could never learn to play a single chord (eventually her teacher gave up on her and recommended she quit). She still can't sing a melody at all and can't even clap on beat- she just has some problem with music. I think the test does indicate something, I'm just not sure how much. I believe that saying it means absolutely nothing is an overstatement. Everyone in my class was exposed to melodic/harmonic dictation at the same time, with no prior experience, (me included) and some people have done very well consistently without any practice while others continue to get 2/24, 1/16, etc.

I didn't say the test means absolute nothing, simply that if it is an indicator of something, it's your ability to work. The simple fact of the matter is that the AP music test is an introduction to music you'll be studying at the college level, nothing more. As for the examples you gave, I say so what? Maybe some people work harder at these things than other, maybe some people are indeed incline to get it at first, but as I said earlier that your natural talent towards a particular field means nothing compared to consistent dedication towards a subject.

I once had a graduate student under my care. Clearly brilliant beyond most students, had the natural act towards knowing how to prove a theory and clever in many regards. However, he failed all his graduate level courses for one simple reason, he knew what he knew well and relied on his gifts, but compared to less naturally inclined people, his work ethic was horrible and a student who would need 100 hours of studying to get a course sure enough surpassed him now.

So personally, I don't particular care to much for how talented or how well you understand an introductory topic in your field. In the long run, that natural predisposition will level out. You asked for some people's opinion so I gave you one. If you already felt that the AP test mattered a lot, then so be it. In my experience, it has never been a good indicator in how well a person will do in music.

I forgot to mention this: When you say a person with limited ability will never get some examples, I think you're over inflating the difficulty of the examples. THESE are INTRODUCTIONS. These are NOT the most complex things you will encounter in music. They are at most times remedial, even for me, someone who willingly admits that of the group of composers here I am less verse in advance theory. IF the person is of reasonable intelligence, meaning - no mental defects, has the desire and the time to work on his foundation then all of those "examples" can become easily understood. You or your peers may have grasped them sooner, but that does not imply someone else may have never ever grasped them.

In Physics, it took me 1 year to understand Ashtekar variables, a simple (but advance) mathematical idea. My peers understood it within it weeks, yet now all my research uses those non-stop. If you were to judge me, you may have gauged that i have no ability in quantum gravity, but a few years later, I understand it better than ALL my peers and I say that with absolute confidence because I am the only one who passed the class without a curve (oh and they all ended up studying blackholes that helps too!)

It means to have a solid foundation of the fundamentals of music theory. It'll get you some college credit and allow you to place out of the basic courses. Helped me to get into some graduate level courses much earlier that I could have normally. If I recall, it really wasn't that hard, judging by the quality of music on this website, most people here could easily ace it no problem. A lot of what makes good composers or performer though cannot be assessed on a written test.

I didn't say the test means absolute nothing, simply that if it is an indicator of something, it's your ability to work. The simple fact of the matter is that the AP music test is an introduction to music you'll be studying at the college level, nothing more. As for the examples you gave, I say so what? Maybe some people work harder at these things than other, maybe some people are indeed incline to get it at first, but as I said earlier that your natural talent towards a particular field means nothing compared to consistent dedication towards a subject.

I once had a graduate student under my care. Clearly brilliant beyond most students, had the natural act towards knowing how to prove a theory and clever in many regards. However, he failed all his graduate level courses for one simple reason, he knew what he knew well and relied on his gifts, but compared to less naturally inclined people, his work ethic was horrible and a student who would need 100 hours of studying to get a course sure enough surpassed him now.

So personally, I don't particular care to much for how talented or how well you understand an introductory topic in your field. In the long run, that natural predisposition will level out. You asked for some people's opinion so I gave you one. If you already felt that the AP test mattered a lot, then so be it. In my experience, it has never been a good indicator in how well a person will do in music.

I forgot to mention this: When you say a person with limited ability will never get some examples, I think you're over inflating the difficulty of the examples. THESE are INTRODUCTIONS. These are NOT the most complex things you will encounter in music. They are at most times remedial, even for me, someone who willingly admits that of the group of composers here I am less verse in advance theory. IF the person is of reasonable intelligence, meaning - no mental defects, has the desire and the time to work on his foundation then all of those "examples" can become easily understood. You or your peers may have grasped them sooner, but that does not imply someone else may have never ever grasped them.

In Physics, it took me 1 year to understand Ashtekar variables, a simple (but advance) mathematical idea. My peers understood it within it weeks, yet now all my research uses those non-stop. If you were to judge me, you may have gauged that i have no ability in quantum gravity, but a few years later, I understand it better than ALL my peers and I say that with absolute confidence because I am the only one who passed the class without a curve (oh and they all ended up studying blackholes that helps too!)

Yes, I did ask for your opinion and was glad I had it, I just wanted to respond with my view as well. This was supposed to be a discussion forum after all, there's no point in having people just pop in and say their opinions and then leave.

I also never implied that the examples were complex, that's one of the reasons I started this thread. To ask people what level they thought the examples were. Still, I disagree that talent plays no role in the test. I'm not saying anything about how far talent will take you, just that it's impossible to do well on the test without any musical talent whatsoever.

ust that it's impossible to do well on the test without any musical talent whatsoever.

First in case anyone is curious, i'm humoring this because my wife is in LA.

Secondly...what is musical talent? Are you talking about the innate gift that some people seem to have? Are you implying that people who don't seem to have that innate gift then they have a chance at doing well on an introduction test? Are you saying no one who has ever got a 5 did not have that "natural ability"? Or are you saying if they got it then they had to have had it? If you are saying that, then isn't that a bit circular in logic?

I think you just have an overinflated idea on your abilities and your peers abilities if you believe that.

First in case anyone is curious, i'm humoring this because my wife is in LA.

Secondly...what is musical talent? Are you talking about the innate gift that some people seem to have? Are you implying that people who don't seem to have that innate gift then they have a chance at doing well on an introduction test? Are you saying no one who has ever got a 5 did not have that "natural ability"? Or are you saying if they got it then they had to have had it? If you are saying that, then isn't that a bit circular in logic?

I think you just have an overinflated idea on your abilities and your peers abilities if you believe that.

All I said was that for the aural section of the exam you need to have some ability in music to hear the chord changes/melodic intervals. There is no way to practice that if you have absolutely no ability. Some people's abilities are in math, while others are in languages. Some people no matter how much they practice just can't learn a language proficiently from a class. Music is even harder to learn because some people just really have no ability for it, as I've learned from experience.

I've never said anything about my or my peers abilities being good, or even slightly above abysmal, all I've said is that some people just can't get the aural section with any amount of practice. My point is not complicated, it's not physics, it's not higher level college theory.

I don't appreciate your tone. If you solely wish to continue "humoring" this discussing, please save yourself the effort.

There's not so much more a person can do when you talk about natural ability and people having no ability thus no way to improve. It's just so completely absurd and a sign that you truly do have an inflated sense of self if you believe you got a talent that is God given. Honestly, since you mention this, no one has abilities in math. They have learned skills. There hasn't been a person who was 10 and came up with a grand theory without first being educated to some degree. Sure some people (like rarely than rare) can see things better than others, but that insight doesn't make them better mathematician, it's the ability to think through the insight, which makes them better at it.

The same thing applies here to your precious music. A person can get better at their aural skills no matter how bad they are at first. No matter what. There is no limiting factor int his, it is practice. This isn't your ability to throw 97 mph, which is a talent you can't train, you either have it or you don't, but that doesn't mean the kid who could only throw 70 can never work up to 90. Same thing, the kid who gets it all wrong now, might get 99% of it right a few years later. Experience tells me this happens all the time when that kid wants to learn how to do it.

There's not so much more a person can do when you talk about natural ability and people having no ability thus no way to improve. It's just so completely absurd and a sign that you truly do have an inflated sense of self if you believe you got a talent that is God given. Honestly, since you mention this, no one has abilities in math. They have learned skills. There hasn't been a person who was 10 and came up with a grand theory without first being educated to some degree. Sure some people (like rarely than rare) can see things better than others, but that insight doesn't make them better mathematician, it's the ability to think through the insight, which makes them better at it.

The same thing applies here to your precious music. A person can get better at their aural skills no matter how bad they are at first. No matter what. There is no limiting factor int his, it is practice. This isn't your ability to throw 97 mph, which is a talent you can't train, you either have it or you don't, but that doesn't mean the kid who could only throw 70 can never work up to 90. Same thing, the kid who gets it all wrong now, might get 99% of it right a few years later. Experience tells me this happens all the time when that kid wants to learn how to do it.

It's no secret that some people are tone deaf. It's rare, but it's true. Just like some people are blind or color blind. Are you arguing with me that a tone deaf person can train themselves to take dictation, like a blind person can train themselves to see the difference between yellow and brown?

This is all I've been saying this whole time. Dictation is a learned skill, that's obvious - you need a knowledge of the staves. However, some people can't hear the difference between notes, they are tone deaf, and thus can't take dictation.

the person is of reasonable intelligence, meaning - no mental defects

Read closely. The medical condition tone deafness is a hearing impairment which research suggest is a mental problem, thus a mental defect. So your little example is quite contrite in this context.

Personally, my experience in life shows that while Testing is a good thing and a good way to gauge a person's ability - sometimes tests don't tell you the full story. I've seen and met many people who did very well on tests - yet, their actual abilities left a lot to be desired. As others said here, tests really only show how well you study and prepare over anything else.

Read closely. The medical condition tone deafness is a hearing impairment which research suggest is a mental problem, thus a mental defect. So your little example is quite contrite in this context.

Mental defect is normally read as some type of learning disability, but if you wish to go by the exact definition, then fine. However, I think you would run into quite a bit of trouble if you called someone who's tone deaf mentally defective, or someone who's colorblind mentally defective. Whether scientifically correct or not, it is not generally accepted by the public to call people who have a sensory problem mentally defective as that is normally used for other types of problems. If you would please show me what information you are citing in which the condition is referred to as a mental defect it would be greatly appreciated.

Either way, there are a lot more tone deaf people than you may realize, and all I've been trying to say is that those people who are tone deaf will not be able to get it. There are different degrees of being tone deaf, just as with being color blind as well.

All I said was that for the aural section of the exam you need to have some ability in music to hear the chord changes/melodic intervals. There is no way to practice that if you have absolutely no ability. Some people's abilities are in math, while others are in languages. Some people no matter how much they practice just can't learn a language proficiently from a class. Music is even harder to learn because some people just really have no ability for it, as I've learned from experience.

I've never said anything about my or my peers abilities being good, or even slightly above abysmal, all I've said is that some people just can't get the aural section with any amount of practice. My point is not complicated, it's not physics, it's not higher level college theory.

I don't appreciate your tone. If you solely wish to continue "humoring" this discussing, please save yourself the effort.

I'll jump in here.

The thing you need to understand about dictation is that most people can do it by developing referential pitch. Simply use the first pitch given in the example as a guide. I don't know how many chances you get to hear the example, but it should be at least more than one time. Use the first time to sketch the rhythmic patterns and use numbers and arrows to represent steps and leaps between pitches or from your referential pitch. Use the second hearing to fill in those pitches you missed on the first run-through.

You really only need a general understanding of patterns in music, like scales and rhythms, to master the exercise.

Now that I've explained this, let's go back to this question of "natural talent" and what you're talking about. The skills involved in the above happen to include a rudimentary study of intervals. If you can get past the first interval, the unison, you're 50% of the way. Beyond that, learning all your other intervals just involves associating them with things you already know. "Happy Birthday" begins with a Perfect Fourth, "Twinkle Twinkle Little Star" begins with a Perfect Fifth, and so forth. Just study your intervals and use referential pitch if you've got nothing else. Another thing you can do is pick up some scores and recordings and start developing more associations with the material.

Those people who are more "adept" at this just demonstrate that they are more attentive to differences in pitch and associations with music they've already heard. It makes less and less sense to me to say that people who have had more musical experience during their development from childhood into adolescence are somehow more "talented" or something... that's just not verifiable. There's something experiential that these people are drawing from or associating with what they're doing. This is something you're doing more of if you're doing well. This is something you need to be more conscientious of if you're not.

But forget this idea that there's this "magical gift" that manifests itself in the world of music. No cognitive evidence suggests it, and there's no support for it in the history of music. Mozart composed his first work when he was just a child. So what?? His father was a trained music educator and conductor, who paraded his son around the courts to perform. Beethoven shared a similar experience as a child, though his father was not the trained educator that Mozart's father was... and Beethoven is said to have suffered from his father's "encouragement" at early ages, the basis of one suggested theory for the loss of his hearing. There's no mystery here. These guys were breathing music when they were born... were you? Were your classmates??

Regardless, the experience of music is the most significant medium of transference of knowledge, much more than any possible "biological" advantage that may exist, as BD points out. I don't know your mother's experience, but there are tons of questions looming around the failed transfer of knowledge - maybe her instructor sucked, or maybe she just wasn't dedicated enough, or maybe she just didn't have enough development of skill early on and expected to be much more advanced than she could be at the time she was taking lessons... all of these are plausible explanations that happen quite often. So, let's move beyond labels like "talent" and "gift" to see things for what they are... and just concentrate on mastering as much as you can before you take the AP.

Mental defect is normally read as some type of learning disability, but if you wish to go by the exact definition, then fine. However, I think you would run into quite a bit of trouble if you called someone who's tone deaf mentally defective, or someone who's colorblind mentally defective. Whether scientifically correct or not, it is not generally accepted by the public to call people who have a sensory problem mentally defective as that is normally used for other types of problems. If you would please show me what information you are citing in which the condition is referred to as a mental defect it would be greatly appreciated.

Either way, there are a lot more tone deaf people than you may realize, and all I've been trying to say is that those people who are tone deaf will not be able to get it. There are different degrees of being tone deaf, just as with being color blind as well.

http://www.jneurosci.org/cgi/content/abstract/29/33/10215

I dont know if you can read it or not, but by the title you should be able to make the inference.

I have never taken the AP theory test, but I have taught a class that was preparing for the AP theory class during my student teaching for 3 months and I graduated from a school with a very strong theory structure. If you can get a 5 on the AP theory test, you probably have the skills of someone who has completed the first semester of theory in a college music program. That being said, "theory" covers written knowledge and ear training which are two completely different, yet related, skills. Some musicians struggle to hear melodies for quite some time or to sight-read melodies..I assume you are learning some sort of solfege since there is a sight singing component...In my college program, we had to sight sing about ten melodies a week, play chord progressions at the piano, perform rhythmic examples, sing chord outlines, etc during weekly "skills hearings." Every school has a slightly different set up but if you get a 5, I would say you would have a good head start for your first year of collegiate music training. As far as dictation, some are harder than others...when I hear most any melody now, I can immediately write it down...even something incredibly chromatic or atonal is obtainable in short time, but I struggled with dictation immensely for some time in college. Plenty of sight singing and quizzing myself in my head helped greatly. Familiarize yourself with as many patterns as possible. Skip around on various scales or combinations of scales using solfege and making sure you are actually going to the pitches you are singing.