LC Music common mistakes
LC Music · Understand the traps and how to avoid them.
In a Digital Recorded Exam, the candidate films one continuous take with the camera framing only the hands or only the instrument, so the face, instrument and hands are never all visible at once, and the candidate is not shown announcing their name and candidate number at the start.
Candidates treat the recording like an audio submission and optimise for sound quality, assuming the examiner only needs to hear the performance. The video requirements are read once and then forgotten, and the phone is placed wherever the tripod fits rather than where the examiner can verify identity and technique.
What to do instead
Before recording, re-read the technical requirements and set up a single wide shot that shows face, hands and instrument together for the whole submission. Record a short test clip and watch it back on a laptop, not the phone screen, to check framing, lighting and audibility. Begin the take with the required spoken identification, and do not stop and restart between items unless the rules for that exam explicitly allow separate files.
In a Live Online Exam, the candidate loses time at the start to audio, camera or screen-share problems, then rushes the first piece to make up for it, and the candidate's supporting materials (music, ID, programme) are not to hand when requested.
Candidates prepare the repertoire thoroughly but treat the platform setup as an afterthought, testing it minutes before the slot. They also assume the examiner will lead the technical check, so nobody has rehearsed what the candidate must do if the connection drops or the camera needs repositioning.
What to do instead
Run a full dress rehearsal on the same platform, device and room at least two days before, including the login, camera angle, microphone level and any screen-share of scores or programme. Put ID, printed programme, music and a charged backup device within reach. On the day, join early, accept that a short technical pause is normal and does not count against the performance, and start the first piece at the tempo you rehearsed rather than compensating for lost minutes.
In a Theory Exam, the candidate answers the first question that comes to mind on harmonic and interval questions without checking the key signature and clef, so a whole run of answers is consistently a tone or a third out.
Under time pressure, candidates read the notes and apply a rule from memory while silently skipping the key signature, especially where a piece has modulated. One early misreading then propagates through every related question, and the candidate never notices because each answer looks internally consistent.
What to do instead
Adopt a fixed written routine for every question: state the clef aloud in your head, write the key signature and any accidentals at the top of your working, then answer. Build a habit of a two-minute end-check where you re-read the key signature of each excerpt and verify the last three answers. In practice, mark your own past-paper attempts against the key signature first, so errors of this type become visible.
In a Piano or Keyboard grade, the candidate plays scales and arpeggios at one memorised speed regardless of the stated tempo, with uneven tone and a hesitant turnaround at the top, and cannot start from a requested note without restarting the pattern.
Technical work is practised as a warm-up rather than as examined repertoire, usually fast and always from the same starting note. Candidates memorise the sound of the pattern instead of the structure of the scale, so a request to begin on a different degree, or to play contrary motion or a specified rhythm, breaks the automatic chain.
What to do instead
Practise technical work with a metronome at a slow tempo you can play perfectly, and only raise it when tone and evenness hold. Deliberately start each scale and arpeggio from several different degrees, and practise the named variants (contrary motion, similar motion, staccato, legato, specified articulation) as separate items. Record one technical session a week and listen for the turnaround at the top and bottom of the range.
In a Singing or Musical Theatre grade, the candidate performs from memory with words that are approximate in the second verse, and the accompaniment drowns the voice because the backing track or pianist has never been balanced against the live acoustic.
Candidates learn lyrics by singing along with a recording, which masks gaps because the original vocal fills them. Rehearsals happen in a small room or with headphones, so the balance problem only appears in the exam room, and the candidate has never practised recovering from a forgotten line.
What to do instead
Learn text as spoken text first, line by line, and test yourself by writing the lyrics out and by starting each verse cold. Rehearse at least twice in a larger room with the actual accompaniment at performance volume, and agree a balance and a tempo with the pianist in advance. Practise a recovery strategy: keep the metre going, rejoin at the next line you know, and never stop the performance.
In a Strings, Woodwind or Brass grade, the candidate plays the set pieces well but loses marks on sight-reading by stopping at the first wrong note, and on aural tests by answering before the second playing of a phrase.
Sight-reading is left until the last weeks and practised as note-spotting rather than as keeping going in time. Aural skills are the least familiar activity in the exam, so candidates rush answers out of nervousness and do not use the preparation time the tests allow.
What to do instead
Practise sight-reading daily for five minutes with a strict rule: never stop, keep a steady pulse, and accept wrong notes. Clap the rhythm before playing. For aural work, use recorded tests weekly and train yourself to wait for the full phrase, hum the answer internally, then respond; in the exam, use the stated preparation time and the repeat playing rather than guessing early.
In a Recital Grade, the candidate builds a programme of pieces in the same key, tempo and mood, exceeds or falls well short of the stated timing, and presents no written programme or spoken introduction where the requirements call for one.
Candidates choose pieces they can already play rather than pieces that work together as a programme, and they time the programme once in rehearsal without allowing for stage pauses, applause or a slower performing tempo. The programme note and spoken element are seen as paperwork rather than part of the assessment.
What to do instead
Plan the programme for contrast in period, key, tempo and character, and check every piece against the level requirements. Time a full run-through with pauses included, and aim to land comfortably inside the permitted duration. Draft the written programme with accurate composer, dates and work titles, rehearse the spoken introduction aloud, and check running order and page turns in a final dress rehearsal.
In a Performance Diploma, the candidate submits a written programme note or thesis that summarises the plot and composer biography but offers no analytical argument, no engagement with sources and no consistent referencing, and the viva or discussion exposes that the candidate cannot defend the claims made.
Candidates transfer school-level essay habits and write descriptively because it feels safe, and they leave the written component until after the recital is learned. Sources are consulted but not recorded, so citations are reconstructed from memory and the argument is never tested by anyone else before submission.
What to do instead
Agree the argument with your teacher before writing: one clear thesis about the repertoire, supported by analysis of specific passages, editions and recordings. Keep a running bibliography with page numbers as you read. Draft early, have someone question you on it aloud, and rehearse the viva by defending each claim in one sentence. Check the word count, referencing style and submission format against the current specification.
In a Teaching Diploma, the candidate writes lesson plans and a portfolio that describe generic good practice, with no evidence of assessed pupils, no diagnosis of specific technical problems and no reflection on what the candidate would change.
Candidates write what they think assessors want to read rather than documenting what actually happened in their teaching, often because they have not kept records during the year. Reflection is confused with description, so the portfolio reports activities without evaluating outcomes.
What to do instead
Keep contemporaneous records from the start: lesson notes, pupil profiles, recordings, assessment points and your own reactions. Write case studies around a concrete problem (for example, a collapsing embouchure or a flat hand position) and show the diagnosis, the intervention, the evidence of change and what you would do differently. Have a colleague read the portfolio and ask what you learned, then make sure the answer is visible in the text.
In a Pre-Grade 1 or Early Learning assessment, the adult answers for the child, prompts every response, or apologises and explains to the examiner, while the child's preparation has been aimed at perfect pieces rather than at the listening, clapping and echo activities being assessed.
Adults accompanying young candidates are anxious and want to help, and preparation at home has focused on the performance pieces because those are easiest to rehearse. The interactive and aural elements feel unpredictable, so neither child nor adult has practised them under exam-like conditions.
What to do instead
Rehearse the whole visit, including entering the room, greeting the examiner and the listening and echo activities, with a familiar adult sitting still and silent. Teach the child that a wrong answer is fine and that the examiner will repeat anything needed. Prepare the activities as games at home, and brief the accompanying adult in advance on the expectation that they do not speak for the child.