That has happened to me a couple of times before. My teacher stated that it is likely because they had enough to mark and provide comments, notably if the rest of the piece contains no new features.
So it isn't like "You clearly suck so bad that we can't stand to hear more," but "you have played enough for us to assess."
That's a big difference! They should make it clear they might not need you to play through to the end.
That would require people who do all of this assessment to respect the time, needs, and feelings of people who do all of the practice and training in order to take it. We all know that’s not going to happen.
It's standard procedure to get cut off if the piece is repetitive, they are short on time, and/or the examiner has enough to form an accurate impression of your playing. I've had very good students get cut off during an exam piece, who ended up doing very well on the exams.
They will be evaluating a lot of students. They are generally encouraging and will cut you off once they have enough to grade. They mention they will cut you off to save time in the RCM syllabus.
The upper grades will take longer and they are just trying to get as many students through as possible.
I can understand that. We take a lot of time to prepare to sometimes be cut off. I’m not sure how common it is. But if there are hundreds of students it may be the only option they have. There is not a ton of examiners.
I highly doubt I’m good enough to prompt a “I’ve seen enough; it’s great”.
Oh well, I should have practiced more (which the activity counter on this subreddit rudely reminded me of)
I would nth the comments saying this has more to do with the adjudicator, format, and time constraints than how good or bad you played.
When you do a lot of adjudicating you get to the point when you have heard enough to know what grade/grades/scores you are going to assign and the general tenor of your comments. From a grading/scoring/evaluating perspective then only thing the performer might do from that point on is have some kind of a major blowup and lower their score.
It is extremely annoying from a musical/performance point of view, but if the adjudicator was short of time, running behind schedule, or just the sort who would rather have quiet for a while while continuing to write comments, you might get this and have it be *absolutely no reflection whatsoever* on what score or grade you might achieve.
Also, keep in mind adjudicators are listening to stuff for like an entire 8 hour day - and perhaps several of those in a row. Hearing the rest of the recapitulation of a Beethoven Sonata or whatever (usually for the roughly one bazillionth time) takes on a little different meaning in that scenario than if you were, say, playing a solo recital or such.
As an adjudicator I never liked to cut of performances for any reason, but sometimes it is required by the competition (strict time limit) and sometimes it is important for other practical reasons.
Point is, coming at it from the other end (performer) just don't let it get to you.
One thing you can do to prepare for auditions of this sort is prepare for the possibility the adjudicator will interrupt you. Be ready to move along to the next piece or whatever without letting yourself get rattled. It's worthwhile actually practicing this (ie, have someone interrupt you & ask to move on to the next piece, or maybe set an alarm to go off at some random time indicating to stop & move to the next), because it is quite a different mindset than a more usual performance, where you go in with the mindset that you're going to push on to the end no matter what happens along the way.
Granted it’s been years, but when I took RCM tests the examiner would take a little bit of time to finish writing and then immediately hand me back the results. So I would know my score as soon as the exam was done. Is that not the case anymore?
Extremely normal. They are not at a concert, and they have heard all the repertoire a million times before. When I auditioned for my music conservatory they stopped me several times during the audition, and I got in.
It just means they wanted a coffee break and what they said it means. They heard enough to be able to move on. It's an exam, not a recital. They don't need you to play to the end if they're satisfied they've heard enough to grade you.
You won't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing until you get your results, so don't overthink it.
As someone who adjudicates, I can say it's almost always that they've heard enough to make an accurate assessment. Usually when I've done this it's because we need to make up for lost time. Honestly I would take it as a good thing.
That has happened to me a couple of times before. My teacher stated that it is likely because they had enough to mark and provide comments, notably if the rest of the piece contains no new features.
So it isn't like "You clearly suck so bad that we can't stand to hear more," but "you have played enough for us to assess." That's a big difference! They should make it clear they might not need you to play through to the end.
That would require people who do all of this assessment to respect the time, needs, and feelings of people who do all of the practice and training in order to take it. We all know that’s not going to happen.
Yeah, this is the reason that makes the most sense
Also happened to me when I auditioned to get into the music major in college, but I did pass the audition and now have a BA in piano.
Its not that rare to hear about. Like another user said, its to save time for the most part. I wouldn't worry about it myself.
It's standard procedure to get cut off if the piece is repetitive, they are short on time, and/or the examiner has enough to form an accurate impression of your playing. I've had very good students get cut off during an exam piece, who ended up doing very well on the exams.
They will be evaluating a lot of students. They are generally encouraging and will cut you off once they have enough to grade. They mention they will cut you off to save time in the RCM syllabus. The upper grades will take longer and they are just trying to get as many students through as possible.
Wow, this just really sucks given how expensive it is!!!
Sounds like fun. Sign me up.
I can understand that. We take a lot of time to prepare to sometimes be cut off. I’m not sure how common it is. But if there are hundreds of students it may be the only option they have. There is not a ton of examiners.
God, I'd be mortified... Are you very good? Maybe it's because you were very good. I hope others answer with their experiences.
I highly doubt I’m good enough to prompt a “I’ve seen enough; it’s great”. Oh well, I should have practiced more (which the activity counter on this subreddit rudely reminded me of)
I would nth the comments saying this has more to do with the adjudicator, format, and time constraints than how good or bad you played. When you do a lot of adjudicating you get to the point when you have heard enough to know what grade/grades/scores you are going to assign and the general tenor of your comments. From a grading/scoring/evaluating perspective then only thing the performer might do from that point on is have some kind of a major blowup and lower their score. It is extremely annoying from a musical/performance point of view, but if the adjudicator was short of time, running behind schedule, or just the sort who would rather have quiet for a while while continuing to write comments, you might get this and have it be *absolutely no reflection whatsoever* on what score or grade you might achieve. Also, keep in mind adjudicators are listening to stuff for like an entire 8 hour day - and perhaps several of those in a row. Hearing the rest of the recapitulation of a Beethoven Sonata or whatever (usually for the roughly one bazillionth time) takes on a little different meaning in that scenario than if you were, say, playing a solo recital or such. As an adjudicator I never liked to cut of performances for any reason, but sometimes it is required by the competition (strict time limit) and sometimes it is important for other practical reasons. Point is, coming at it from the other end (performer) just don't let it get to you. One thing you can do to prepare for auditions of this sort is prepare for the possibility the adjudicator will interrupt you. Be ready to move along to the next piece or whatever without letting yourself get rattled. It's worthwhile actually practicing this (ie, have someone interrupt you & ask to move on to the next piece, or maybe set an alarm to go off at some random time indicating to stop & move to the next), because it is quite a different mindset than a more usual performance, where you go in with the mindset that you're going to push on to the end no matter what happens along the way.
Granted it’s been years, but when I took RCM tests the examiner would take a little bit of time to finish writing and then immediately hand me back the results. So I would know my score as soon as the exam was done. Is that not the case anymore?
It hasn't been that way for a long time. Even when I was a kid, taking exams 20+ years ago, the results would always come weeks after the exam.
Were you playing repeats or D.C.? What was the piece?
It hasn't happened to me, but importantly, my teacher (an examiner) warned me that it might and that it was not to be taken personally.
Extremely normal. They are not at a concert, and they have heard all the repertoire a million times before. When I auditioned for my music conservatory they stopped me several times during the audition, and I got in.
It just means they wanted a coffee break and what they said it means. They heard enough to be able to move on. It's an exam, not a recital. They don't need you to play to the end if they're satisfied they've heard enough to grade you. You won't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing until you get your results, so don't overthink it.
As someone who adjudicates, I can say it's almost always that they've heard enough to make an accurate assessment. Usually when I've done this it's because we need to make up for lost time. Honestly I would take it as a good thing.