Time allocation

The following year, 1873, Hullah reported that real progress had been made with regard to the amount of time spent on music in the training colleges. First and second year students were taught separately and ‘more time was given to musical instruction and practice’ (Hullah, 1873, p. 287). Furthermore fewer concerts were given by the students at the majority of the training colleges. This meant that less time was spent on learning pieces for a concert and more time on teaching the students to sing at sight. The practice of withdrawing students from music practices had been reduced but not stopped altogether. Much had been achieved but Hullah wanted more. In 1877 he wrote ‘more time than formerly, though still not always enough, is given to musical instruction and practice, and more of the practice is in reading ‘at sight’’ (Hullah, 1877, p. 657). This was one area in which Hullah's appointment clearly had a positive impact.

The imperfect choir

Progress may have been made with regard to the amount of time allocated to music but his suggestion that neighbouring single sex colleges should meet together in order to give their students the experience of singing in a perfect choir had not been taken up. Several of the colleges, however, had come up with alternate ways of getting around the problem. At Peterborough a class of boys in the practising school had been used to provide the treble and alto parts for the college choir and at Liverpool the tenor and bass parts were played on a harmonium while the accompaniment was played on a piano. In 1875 Hullah again urged the colleges to make arrangements with neighbouring colleges in order to give students the opportunity to sing in a perfect choir. He repeated his concern that the ‘quantity of good music for the exclusively male or exclusively female’ was ‘very limited’ (Hullah, 1875, p. 494). His frustration that the students were not given the opportunity to sing in a mixed choir was evident in 1875: ‘I regret to say that my recommendations have been so far without effect, save in a single instance’ (1875, p. 495). In one area, however, he did have some success. By 1876 he was able to report that the practice of singing soprano parts an octave lower in the male colleges was ‘nearly extinct’ (Hullah, 1876, p. 729).

Lack of previous knowledge

The standard expected of the students in the practical examination was not very high. It could not be as so many of them had done little or no music before entering college. The majority of the students had been pupil-teachers and, as such, music should have been a part of their apprenticeship. There were two reasons why this was not the case: the pupil-teacher apprenticeship started at the age of 13 years, the very time at which a child's voice began to change and, secondly, ‘a good many masters cannot at present properly prepare their pupil teachers in music for entry into the training colleges’ (Hullah, 1874, p. 282). Hullah considered that it was only possible for students to make up for this ‘neglect’ by a ‘sustained application’ of which few were capable and a ‘sacrifice of time’ that fewer could afford (Hullah, 1874, p. 281). Table 2 shows the extent of the problem.

Table 2

Source: Hullah Annual Report 1872–1875

The solution lay ‘in the more general teaching of music ‘from notes’ in elementary schools’ (Hullah, 1875, p. 491). The problem was that singing from notes was not a requirement of the school Code. Hullah revisited this topic in each of his succeeding reports and made his most positive comment in his final report: ‘The knowledge and skill of candidates for admission to training colleges are greater than they were some years since.’ Even then he had to qualify that statement by adding ‘but they are still deplorably small’ (Hullah, 1881, p. 587). This was the one area over which Hullah as Inspector of Music in the Training Colleges had no direct influence and he accepted that the situation would never change greatly until the school Code specified that singing by ear was not an acceptable alternative to singing from notes.

Instrumental skill

In his 1873 report, Hullah gave an account of the work in the Church of Scotland Training College, Edinburgh. In this college all of the students were given piano lessons in classes of eight students. The level of ability varied from class to class but the more able students were able to play pieces such as Handel's ‘The Harmonious Blacksmith’. Such work was not confined to Scotland: ‘much attention’ was given to instrumental music in the English training colleges and in one college, Liverpool, every student was given piano lessons (Hullah, 1873, p. 290). Some progress had been made regarding the number and quality of instruments available for use by students but there were still colleges where the instruments were ‘hopelessly out of order and too few in number’ (Hullah, 1873, p. 291). By 1875 he considered that instrumental music had made ‘considerable progress’ (Hullah, 1875, p. 493) and noted that students were often accompanied by their fellow students in their vocal solos for his examination.

Such progress was not confined to the piano. At Culham Training College a small brass band had been formed by one of the students (the son of a bandmaster). This showed what could be achieved in a relatively short period of time when ‘competent direction’ was available (Hullah, 1875, p. 494). Not all of the colleges were as supportive of instrumental work. In 1876 Hullah recounted the experience of one music lecturer who, having offered to provide free tuition for those students who had played the piano before entering college, was told by those in authority over him that not only would the lessons interfere with their other work but that ‘it did not become persons of their station in life’ (Hullah, 1876, p. 728).

In 1877 he gives an account of the work done at Cheltenham Training College where a band of string instruments had been formed and was used to accompany ‘some of the simpler choruses in Handel's oratorios very creditably’ (Hullah, 1877, p. 659). His report for 1879 was the last in which he made reference to instrumental work and he considered that there was ‘cause for congratulation’ (Hullah, 1879, p. 524). As evidence he cites the orchestral work at Cheltenham and Borough Road, the instrumental work at Culham and the piano teaching at Edinburgh, Liverpool and Bangor and the fact that ‘at a large number of colleges, male as well as female, a number increasing year by year present themselves always as accompanists to their fellow students’ (1879, p. 525).

Standards achieved

Improvements in facilities and opportunities for the students were only important if they were accompanied by a similar improvement in the standards achieved. The most significant improvement was shown by the second cohort of students examined. Hullah commented that these results, ‘if not yet satisfactory’, were encouraging and that they showed ‘a considerably increased amount of skill in practical music’ (Hullah, 1873, p. 285). In 1872, 60% of the students examined had been judged to be excellent, good or fair. In 1873 that number had risen to 76%. The following year the improvement was less marked but Hullah was still able to claim that ‘considerable improvement’ had been made (Hullah, 1874, 280).

Direct comparison with 1873 is difficult because of the way in which the figures were presented. In 1872 and 1873 Hullah gave the number of students classified as excellent, good or fair expressed as a percentage. In 1874 he gave figures for the number of students who were awarded 60% and over and for those awarded between 40 and 60% in the final examination. It is not known why Hullah changed the way in which he presented the statistics. It might be that he was asked by the Committee of Council on Education to give percentages rather than the more subjective excellent, good and fair. It is, however, strange that he changed his method of presentation for a third time in 1877. The less generous of spirit might conclude that this was an attempt to make direct comparison more difficult from year to year. Such progress was, in any case, bound to be limited as the figures for 1874–1876 show that over 90% of students were already achieving at least 40% in the examination.

In 1877 Hullah acknowledged that there was a need for further progress but maintained that what had been achieved was ‘not altogether unsatisfactory’ (Hullah, 1877, p. 662). The following year he again reported ‘year by year improvement’ but no mention was made of progress in his 1879 report. In 1880 his comment ‘improvement all but interrupted’ is telling (Hullah, 1880, p. 526). He then went on to advise the Committee that further progress was unlikely until something was done to improve the teaching of singing in the elementary schools. Hullah was right to note the link between the work done in the elementary schools and the level of ability of the students entering the training colleges. However, there may have been another reason why he issued this warning. The statistics show that since 1878 there had been a small but steady decline in the standard achieved by the average student.

In his final report, the tone adopted is defensive. He states that the average marks varied from college to college and that: ‘they rise in one or two instances to 29, in another they fall to 22’ (Hullah, 1881, p. 587). He then gives five reasons as to why this might be: First, the ability of students depended on the region where they came from because ‘certain parts of Great Britain are more favourable to music’ (Hullah, 1881, p. 587). This would, however, only hold true if all of the students went to their local college, which is unlikely as an important feature of the training colleges at this time was their residential nature. Second, the knowledge and skill of the students before entering college was ‘deploringly small’. Hullah had been complaining of this for many years and yet he had never implied that it was anything but a national problem. It is, therefore, unlikely that this lack of knowledge would explain the differences between regions. Thirdly, the amount of time allocated to music in each of the colleges differed. This was a valid point. Fourthly, the knowledge and ability of the teachers in the elementary schools varied considerably. This is really an extension of his second point and, because it was a national problem, it was unlikely to be a reason for regional variation. Finally the students were not always using the method of sight-singing employed by the college lecturer. This was little more than a criticism of the students who chose to use tonic sol-fa instead of the fixed doh method which he favoured.

Table 3

Source: Hullah Annual Report 1877–1881

Lack of knowledge

On the question of the students’ lack of knowledge Stainer felt the outlook was optimistic. The introduction of the New Code promised much for the future. His optimism was, however, short lived. In his 1887 report, one can perceive his sense of frustration. Stainer, and Hullah before him, had repeatedly discussed the need for pupil-teachers to be given some instruction in music before they entered the colleges. Such advice had not been heeded, and Stainer reported that he had heard of cases where pupil-teachers were told that there was no need for them to receive any such instruction in music because of the ‘admirable tuition’ they would receive in college (Stainer, 1887, p. 529). Two years later little had changed: ‘I have once more to point out that many pupil teachers receive an insufficient training in practical music, and on entering college prove a source of trouble and anxiety to the teachers’ (Stainer, 1889, p. 528). In 1892 an examination in vocal music was introduced for pupil-teachers. This was a full 20 years after Hullah had identified the problem in his first report but at last ‘this obstacle to progress’ had been surmounted (Stainer, 1892, p. 212).

There were four other areas discussed in some depth in Stainer's reports: instrumental skill, the quality of the songs presented for examination, the standards achieved by the students, and the theory of music.

Instrumental skill

In his first report Stainer commented favourably on the number of students who demonstrated real ability as performers and suggested that recognition should be made of their ability by the award of separate certificates. One of the reasons for this suggestion was that some of the students were turning to external bodies for validation of their skills. This, he felt, was wrong: ‘students, and especially the better class of students, ought not to find it necessary to seek guarantees of ability from sources external to the Department and their own colleges’ (Stainer, 1883, p. 595). The number of students showing instrumental skill continued to grow year by year. This was not, however, always a good thing.

In 1891 Stainer felt it necessary to ‘caution the music professors in college against allowing an indifferent or careless instrumentalist to exercise much influence over the studies of fellow students’ (Stainer, 1891, p. 527). In their eagerness to allow the students to accompany solos or choral works, the music lecturers in the colleges had lost sight of the need for accuracy and genuine skill as an accompanist. Too many performances had been ruined by well meaning but musically lacking students accompanying their peers. Stainer concluded that ‘unless the college is fortunate enough to possess a really good accompanist’ it would be better to ‘provide an outsider to accompany everything while the students are under examination’ (Stainer, 1891, p. 527).

Quality of songs

As a part of the practical examination the students were required to sing a song of their own choice and in the early years the quality of the songs chosen left a lot to be desired. Hullah had achieved much during his time as Inspector but this was one area in which little progress had been made. Stainer was more successful. In 1885 he commented that it gave him ‘great pleasure to report a vast improvement in the character and style of the songs sung by the students’ (Stainer, 1885, p. 473). There was, however, still room for improvement.

Stainer accepted that it was necessary for the students to choose songs that presented no great technical difficulties and that had a limited range. There was, however, ‘a large literature of classical and beautiful songs’ which met both of these requirements, and he felt that use should be made of these rather than the weak drawing room ballads that were so often presented (Stainer, 1886, p. 480). The point was heeded and in 1890 he was able to report that the lecturers had ‘done their best to introduce good classical songs in place of the weak and silly ballads which were passed on from hand to hand’ (Stainer, 1890, p. 499).

The quality of music presented was important to Stainer because he felt that if the students were introduced to music of good quality in college they would be much more likely to use music of that quality in school. Stainer did not expect the students to use classical songs in school and it would be regrettable if such music was ‘above the head of children’ but that was preferable to tunes that were ‘weak or silly’ (Stainer, 1894, p. 207). Stainer's reason was simple: ‘every tune which is thoroughly taught to a child will probably be fixed in his memory for life’ (Stainer, 1894, p. 207).

In 1897 of the 2,000 songs heard by Stainer and his assistants 580 were by Mendelssohn, 235 by Schubert, 201 by Handel, 166 by Sterndale Bennett, 82 by Schumann, 35 by Beethoven and 28 by Spohr. In other words two-thirds of the songs presented were by established composers. Stainer commented that the remaining third were not ‘ill-chosen or unworthy of study’ (Stainer, 1897, p. 354). It may have taken 15 years but in that time the ‘weak drawing room ballad’ had been replaced by ‘songs of a higher and healthier type’ (Stainer, 1897, p. 353). If the link between the quality of songs presented for examination and those used in schools was proven, the outlook was healthy for the elementary school children well into the next century.

Standards achieved

At the end of each report Stainer had continued Hullah's practice of including a table showing the average marks awarded to students at each of the colleges inspected. The average mark had risen steadily during Hullah's tenure as Inspector and progress continued to be made under Stainer. In the main text of his report for 1884 Stainer wrote that the results showed ‘a distinct advance in the practical skill of the students’ (Stainer, 1884, p. 509). He then went on to qualify his statement pointing out that the musical ability of the students varied ‘from the highest to the lowest’ and that ‘a few actually failed to pass the easy tests to which they were subjected’ and that others ‘barely passed’ (Stainer, 1884, p. 509).

It would appear that Stainer had been put under pressure to raise the standard required for a pass in his examination. Stainer resisted such pressure: ‘the special gifts required for making really good teachers of music are comparatively rare’. To raise the standard further would mean that a great number of students would fail. Stainer was not prepared to ‘close the door’ on any student capable of teaching music ‘if only to a limited degree’ (Stainer, 1884, p. 509). Furthermore, Stainer was aware of the fact that the training colleges did not exist to train specialists, and that music was only one of many subjects that the students were expected to master.

In 1890 Stainer made the point again that, despite the gradual improvement in standard, a range of ability existed amongst the students ‘from a high level which would enable them to take a very fair position as professional musicians to the lowest level, in which a bare ‘pass’ with a minimum of marks has been obtained after nearly two years of hard and anxious work’ (Stainer, 1890, p. 499). It may have been that Stainer had yet again been pushed to raise the standard of the practical examination. In 1898 he commented ‘in many colleges the standard has probably reached a level which we can hardly expect it to surpass’ (Stainer, 1898, p. 378). Stainer was not complacent. He was aware that there was a need for some of the weaker students to improve but was adamant that the standard required to pass should not be raised further. Table 4 shows the progress that had been made over the years.

Table 4

Source: Stainer Annual Report 1884–1899

Theory of music

As Inspector, Stainer set the questions for the annual theory examination but left the marking of them to his two assistants: W. A. Barrett and W. G. McNaught. Hullah's reports made little reference to the theory examination. In Stainer's reports, however, reference is made to each examination in an appendix written by Barrett and McNaught. In 1884 the syllabus had been revised. For students sitting the staff notation version of the examination (an alternative was provided for those students who read tonic sol-fa), this included:

First year

1. 1 Notes. Their position on the treble and bass staves. All the major scales. Diatonic intervals. Transposition from one major key to another.

2. 2 Time. The value of dotted notes and rests. Signatures of the simple times. Accent. Content of measures (bars). Transcriptions from one time to another.

3. 3 Execution. Terms relating to expression, pace and style.

Second year

1. 1 Notes. Their positions on the treble, alto, tenor and bass staves. All the major and minor scales. Diatonic and chromatic intervals.

2. 2 Time. The value of notes, dotted notes, tied notes, and rests. Signatures of all the simple and compound times. Accent. Contents of measures (bars). Transcription from one time to another.

3. 3 Execution. Terms relating to expressions, pace and style. The compass and registry of the various voices of men, women, and children; their training with reference to production and intonation.

4. 4 Harmony. Common chords and their inversions. The chord of the dominant seventh in its original position; its resolutions. A figured bass on the foregoing chords to be filled up.

(Annual Report of Committee of Council on Education, 1884, p. 472)

Hullah had been keen to reintroduce harmony into the examination in 1873, and in 1874 commented that the study of harmony had ‘become exceedingly popular, both among teachers and students’ (Hullah, 1874, p. 282). McNaught's experience was somewhat different. For him the ‘indifferent working of the harmony question by a large number of students invites misgivings as to whether the possible utility of the knowledge gained is likely to be at all commensurate with the pains of time absorbed in learning it, and whether the retention of the subject in the syllabus can be justified’ (McNaught in Stainer, 1884, p. 512). Those in authority tended to agree and harmony was withdrawn from the syllabus the following year.

While it was anticipated that the new syllabus would present no difficulty to ‘any well-instructed pupil’ there were numerous examples of the students’ lack of knowledge. Two examples will suffice. In 1885 the meaning of the term Dal Segno was given as ‘sacred music’ or ‘place right peddle down’ (McNaught in Stainer, 1885, p. 475) and in 1886 one student, in an answer to a question on school music, wrote: ‘Some of the best vocal exercises are to be found in Handel's Creation, Mendelssohn's Messiah and several other works by Haydn’ (McNaught in Stainer, 1886, p. 484).

A possible reason for some of this ignorance was poor teaching technique. In 1887 Barrett commented (Barrett in Stainer, 1887, p. 532) that there was some evidence to suggest that there was too much teaching by talk alone. In the students’ answers, the word metronome was variously given as metrome, monotome, mentonome and mentrometer. Similarly its inventor was said to be Malzer, Metzler, Meezles and Marzials. Barrett commented ‘mistakes and misunderstandings might be cleared in future by a greater use of the blackboard in teaching so that eye and ear might be instructed simultaneously’. The examination was not intended to make great demands on the students. It was, however, important that the little that was taught was learnt accurately.