On Repertoire Grading

There is an inherent difficulty in assigning difficulty to any piece of music, and this difficulty increases exponentially when dealing with music for an ensemble. While there is little artistic necessity in defining the difficulty of a piece of music, an effective grading system can help educators appraise the educational suitability of music for their students; however, the utility of having grading systems can be undermined by the varying criteria used between institutions to appraise the difficulty of a piece of music.

Not only can grading systems differ in which musical and technical elements are assigned to each grade level in a Wind Band grading system, but the criteria itself that each grading system decides to evaluate can also differ. This potentially high level of variance between systems can lead to confusion and misunderstanding for music educators, ultimately worsening the educational experience for their students. Therefore, it is important that a grading standard is clearly defined which outlines exactly which criteria should be evaluated when deciding on a difficulty grade for a piece of Wind Band music.

Another important caveat is that despite the utility of repertoire grading systems, no single number grade or descriptor, no matter how specific, replaces the knowledge an educator has of their own ensemble's ability, potential, and preferences, and therefore, what music might be suitable for a given ensemble. As composer David Maslanka (2014) wrote:

Most of my wind music has been written beyond the grade system. For the pieces that I have written for younger bands (now a fair number), I have composed them paying careful attention to the specific band for which I was writing, rather than the generalization of a grade number. The grading system can offer some guidelines for conductors who are sorting through music, but the numbers can also lead to the acceptance of a mental limitation: 'My band can only play grade three, can't play grade four.'

Analysis of Wind Band Grading Systems

The following analysis is focused on the structure of each grading system opposed to the content of each system, and seeks to understand how each system assesses difficulty, and what each system decides to evaluate, rather than the specific content in a given difficulty level.

Seven Wind Band grading systems were analysed for this article: The American Band College Music Grading Chart, Alfred Music Submission Guidelines for Concert Band, Carl Fischer Submission Guidelines for Concert Band, Neil A. Kjos Tradition of Excellence Grading Guidelines, Excelcia Music Publishing Concert Band Guidelines, Defining the Wind Band Grading System by David Marlatt (Eighth Note Publications), and the Guidelines for Analysis of Music for Student Performers published by the Canadian Music Education Research Centre, written and edited by Patricia Martin Shand.

Of the seven grading systems, five (Alfred Music, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications) were written by commercial publishers of Wind Band music, and the remaining two (American Band College, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) were written by educational institutions.

Five of the grading systems (American Band College, Alfred Music, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia) were written in the United States, and the two remaining systems (Eighth Note Publications, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) were written in Canada.

Difficulty Levels

Of the seven grading systems, six (American Band College, Alfred Music, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications) assign a numeric grade to each composition; however, the range of numeric grades assigned, and the highest and lowest points of each system, can differ. Additionally, some systems add 0.5 to a grade to create in-between grades while others do not.

The difficulty grading system of the American Band College and Carl Fischer use a scale from 1 to 5 without any in-between grades using decimals.

Alfred Music and Excelcia share the same difficulty levels beginning with 0.5 and increasing by the same increment until the level 4+ (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 3.5, 4+). Neil A. Kjos uses a similar sequence but its difficulty scale finishes at 3 (0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3).

Eighth Note Publications' grading system contains the levels 0.5, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. It is unique among other publishers as grades 0.5 and 1.5 are the only decimal grades in its system, while the other systems continue using half grades up to their respective highest difficulty. Additionally, although it publishes music at the grade 1 level, it is absent from its grading system. A composer presumably has to interpolate which musical elements are acceptable and in what quantity based on what is expected of students in grades 0.5 and 1.

The Canadian Music Education Research Centre places compositions into four different categories (Easy, Medium, Difficulty, Very Difficulty) and provides a general description for the expectations of each level.

Easy compositions would be suitable for beginning bands (e.g., players have had less than 2 years of playing experience on their instrument). Medium compositions would be suitable for intermediate level bands (e.g., players have had 2 to 3 years of playing experience on their instrument). Difficult compositions would be demanding for an average high school band (e.g., players have had more than 3 years of instruction). Very difficult compositions would be suitable for university level or professional players. (Shand, 1998, p. 21)

Pitch

Range

Of the seven grading systems, six (American Band College, Alfred Music, Neil A. Kjos Music Company, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) contained specific guidelines concerning the range to be used for each instrument, or like instrument grouping, in each grade.

Of these six, Neil A. Kjos Music's range specifications are unique as it specifies every pitch available, for each instrument, in each grade. The other five systems define a lowest and highest note for each instrument, and the exact notes and accidentals that are available to each instrument in each grade can be deduced from which key signatures are permissible in a given grade. An advantage of the Neil A. Kjos Music's system is that it allows for accidentals from outside a given key.

The six systems with clearly defined requirements for instrument range grouped similar instruments together almost identically.

American Band College, Alfred Music, Excelcia, and Eighth Note Publications all grouped Trombone and Baritone ranges together. Excelcia included Bassoon in the Trombone and Baritone range category. Neil A. Kjos Music and Canadian Music Education Research Centre had separate ranges for Trombone and Baritone.

American Band College and Canadian Music Education Research Centre put all of the saxophones into one category. Alfred Music, Excelcia, and Eighth Note Publications have separate ranges for Alto, Tenor, and Baritone Saxophone. Neil A. Kjos combined the Eb Saxophones (Alto and Baritone) into a single category, with Tenor Saxophone in a separate category.

Each of the six grading systems separated Bass Clarinet into a separate range category than the Clarinet; however, American Band College was the only system to include the Alto Clarinet, which it combined with the range requirements of the Bass Clarinet.

Alfred Music and the Canadian Music Education Research Centre are the only two systems who specified ranges for the piccolo. Alfred Music begins including the piccolo in its grade 4+, where it has a separate range than the flute. Canadian Music Education Research centre begins including the piccolo in its Medium grade, where it shares the same range as the flute, before giving it its own range in its Difficult grade.

Canadian Music Education Research Centre is the only grading system that also included a range for String Bass.

Of the six grading systems, four (Alfred Music, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications) differentiate range between 1st, 2nd, and 3rd chair instrument parts. Alfred Music and Excelcia provide an extended range options for trumpets and clarinets; Neil A. Kjos specifies extended range options only for clarinets.

Carl Fischer's submission guidelines lacked specificity regarding range. In Carl Fischer's Grade 1 level, the only remark regarding instrument range is found in the "What to avoid" section where it says "Clarinets crossing the break". The only other mention of range comes in the Grade 3 What to avoid section that reads "Extreme high and low registers”.

Key Signatures

Of the seven grading systems, six (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications, and Canadian Music Education Research Centre) provide specific guidelines on acceptable key signatures for each grade level. The grading system for Alfred Music writes for each grade level "Keys, meters, and rhythms will be considered when determining the grade level of a piece."

American Band College and Carl Fischer specify a number of sharps and flats rather than specific key signatures.

Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, and Canadian Music Education Research Centre specify the specific concert pitch major and minor keys that are permitted in each grade. Eighth Note Publications only specifies concert pitch major keys that are permitted in each grade; it is presumed that their relative minors are permitted as well.

Neil A. Kjos and Canadian Music Education Research Centre also clarify that the modes of a given key signature are also acceptable in each grade.

Of the six grading systems that provide guidance on key signatures, three (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) outline criteria for key changes.

All three systems comment on the frequency of the key changes that is permitted in each grade, beginning with few, if any, key changes in the lower grades before slowly allowing more frequent key changes as the music gets more difficult. Canadian Music Education Research Centre also has criteria for the relationship between key signatures during key changes. In its Medium grade key changes must be between "closely related keys" while in its Difficult grade key changes can be between "distantly related keys”.

Rhythm

Of the seven grading systems, two (Alfred Music, Eighth Note Publications) do not specifically outline which rhythmic (note and rest) values, rhythmic patterns, or metres are permissible in each grade. As previously stated, the grading system for Alfred Music writes, for each grade level, "Keys, meters, and rhythms will be considered when determining the grade level of a piece."

Eighth Note Publications provides a general comment about rhythm for each grade.

[In grade 0.5 and grade 1] limited rhythms and most are played in large groups...[In grade 2] more complex rhythms are introduced in all parts...[In grade 3] more complex rhythms are introduced most parts have 16th notes...[In grade 4] 16th notes should be expected in all parts with some 32nds in the upper woodwinds and mallet percussion...[In grade 5 and 6] all rhythms, modes and even atonality are elements that can be found in these levels including polyrhythms and extensive shifting metres.

Note and Rest Values

The remaining five grading systems (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) outline which rhythmic values and patterns are permissible in each grade, to varying degrees of specificity.

Of the five grading systems that specify note values, two do not include mention of rest values (Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos). It is assumed that each note values' corresponding rest value is permissible in a given grade in these two systems.

Neil A. Kjos has the most clearly and specifically defined rhythmic grading criteria. For each grade, there is a set of rhythmic values and patterns that are permissible for the wind instruments, and additional rhythmic values and patterns for the percussion section.

American Band College, Carl Fischer, and Canadian Music Education Research Centre begin their beginner level by defining which rhythmic values and patterns are permissible; however, as the difficulty increases the rhythmic criteria for each subsequent grade becomes less defined.

In its medium grade, the rhythmic criteria for Canadian Music Education Research Centre describes "moderately complex rhythmic patterns incorporating basic combinations of eighth and sixteenth note values...occasional use of eighth note triplets". In its difficult grade there should be "considerable use of syncopation with simple polyrhythmic passages". In its very difficult grade there should be "extensive use of polyrhythmic, polymetric, and syncopated passages".

Each of these five grading systems make specific mention of triplet rhythms and specify their acceptable use in a grade to varying degrees of specificity. American Band College and Carl Fischer begin allowing triplets in Grade 2 but do not specify a note value, presumably any note value triplet is permitted. Canadian Music Education Research Centre provides a slightly more specific guideline, allowing "Occasional use of eighth note triplets" in its Medium grade, before "incorporating frequent...triplet figures" in its Difficult grade. Neil A. Kjos allows eighth note triplets beginning in its Grade 2 level, while Excelcia allows both eighth and quarter note triplets starting from its Grade 2 level.

Augmentations

Each of these five grading systems incorporate dotted notes into its rhythmic value criteria; however, four of these systems (Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) specify exactly which dotted rhythmic values are permitted in each grade. While American Band College seemingly allows for dotted rhythms of any type. In Grade 2 American Band College allows "well-prepared dotted rhythms" before simply allowing, presumably all, "dotted rhythms" in Grade 3.

The only grading system to provide guidelines regarding ties is Canadian Music Education Research centre. Its Easy grade allows "Tied notes within a bar" before allowing "Tied notes over the bar line" in its Medium grade.

Metre

Of the seven grading systems, six (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) provide guidelines for which time signatures are permissible in each grade.

Of these six grading systems, three (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) provide guidelines on switching metre within a composition.

In Grade 3, both American Band College and Carl Fischer allow for "easy changing meter". In grade 4 American Band College permits simply "changing meter" before allowing "any meter or combination of meter" in Grade 5.

In Grade 4, Carl Fischer permits "asymmetrical meter changes" before allowing "any meter combination" in Grade 5.

In Canadian Music Education Research Centre's Easy grade, it allows "Few if any metre changes, and then only if the basic pulse remains constant". In the Medium grade, "some use of changing metres if the pulse remains constant" are permitted. In the Difficult grade, "Quite frequent changes of metre, some involving changes in pulse" are allowed before allowing "Any metre, with very frequent metre changes involving complex pulse relationships" in the Very Difficult grade level.

Orchestration

All seven grading systems provide some form of guidance regarding concert band orchestration for each grade level.

Four grading systems (Alfred Music, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications) list exactly which instruments may be used in each grade; however, the two grading systems that do not (American Band College, Carl Fischer), provide guidelines on using divisi within a part. While American Band College does not specify which wind instruments may be used by grade, it does outline which percussion instruments are allowed in each grade.

Six grading systems (American Band College, Alfred Music, Carl Fischer, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) provide guidelines on incorporating solos into a composition.

Five grading systems (Alfred Music, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) provide guidelines on doubling instrumentation to varying degrees of specificity.

Canadian Music Education Research Centre provides guidelines on how much polyphony should occur in each grade.

Length

Of the seven grading systems, six grading systems (American Band College, Alfred Music, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications) provide guidelines regarding the length a composition should be in each grade.

Four of these six grading systems (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Eighth Note Publications) determine the length of a composition for each grade by approximate performance time. The remaining two grading systems (Alfred Music, Excelcia) determine the length of a composition for each grade by the number of measures. Furthermore, these two systems also recommend page counts for the instrument parts in each grade. Alfred Music and Excelcia require one-page parts from grade 0.5 to 1.5. From grade 2 onwards, Alfred Music no longer has this requirement; Excelcia asks for one-page parts in grade 2 and 2.5 or "adequate time for [page] turns", before allowing two page parts in grade 3.

Three grading systems (Alfred Music, Excelcia, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) also note that a player's endurance should be considered when writing parts, and adequate rest should be given with respect to student embouchure development, though what constitutes adequate rest in each grade is undefined. Canadian Music Education Research centre further specifies that phrase lengths in each grade with consideration to the breathing demands of each part.

Instrument-Specific Concerns

Clarinet

Of the seven grading systems, six (American Band College, Carl Fischer, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Eighth Note Publications, Canadian Music Research Education Centre) provide specific guidelines regarding the clarinets playing across the break i.e. in the clarion register.

American Band College and Carl Fischer ask that "crossing the break" should be avoided in Grade 1. Although this is slightly redundant for American Band College, as the range specified in Grade 1 does not include any of the notes across the break, the grading system for Carl Fischer does not include specific ranges for instruments, and benefits from this clarification.

Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, and Eighth Note Publications provide specific guidelines as to when each clarinet part can begin crossing the break. Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, and Eighth Note Publications allow clarinet 1 to cross the break beginning in grade 1.5. Neil A. Kjos allows clarinet 2 to cross the break in grade 2.5, and clarinet 3 to cross the break in grade 3. Excelcia and Eighth Note Publications allow clarinet 2 & 3 to cross the break starting from grade 3 unconditionally; however, in grade 2 Eighth Note Publications states "clarinet 1 is expected to cross the break but clarinet 2 may not be."

Canadian Music Research Education Centre does not mention the break in its Easy grade, as the range that is permitted for the clarinets does not include the break. In its Medium grade, when clarinets can play above B-flat, it mentions that this must be done "with limited break crossings".

Alfred Music does not specifically mention the break; however, similar to American Band College, the range that is permitted for the clarinet in each system tacitly recognizes the challenge of the break. From grades 0.5 to grade 1.5, Alfred Music does not permit the clarinets to play beyond a B-flat in the staff. In grade 2 it allows clarinet 1 to play across the break, while clarinet 2 cannot. It then allows all clarinet parts to cross the break in grade 3.

Percussion

Of the seven grading systems, four (Alfred Music, Neil A. Kjos, Excelcia, Canadian Music Education Research Centre) provide extra grading criteria for percussion instruments beyond listing which percussion instruments are permitted in each grade.

Canadian Music Education Research Centre has the most detailed percussion criteria. It covers possible sticking patterns, rolls and rudiments, ornamentation, extended techniques, drum kit difficulty, and melodic patterns and voicing on mallet instruments in each grade.

Neil A. Kjos provides extra rhythmic patterns for percussion in each grade, as well as specifying which rudiments can be used.

Alfred Music and Excelcia specify how many pitches the timpani can be used in a grade. Excelcia also provides guidance on whether a timpani's pitch can change during a piece, and how much time should be left to allow for tuning during a piece.

Other Instruments

All seven grading systems make some mention of the challenges that students playing other instruments might face, and should be accounted for when composing educational music.

American Band College asks composers to avoid "divisi tbn or horn parts" in Grade 1 and to avoid "Difficult oboe or bassoon solos" in Grade 3. In Grades 0.5 to 1.5, Alfred Music asks for composers to "Be considerate...[of] 6th position for trombone". In Grade 1, Carl Fischer recommends avoiding "2 horn parts", then "extensive use of 2 horn parts" in Grade 2. In Grade 3, it asks to avoid "Difficult double reed solos". Neil A. Kjos mentions in every grade that composers should "Assume the following instruments may not be present or are very weak in performance: oboe, alto clarinet, bass clarinet, tenor sax, bari sax, French horn, baritone, and tuba." Excelcia provides a modified range for French horn and trombone through grade 0.5 to 1.5 which allows omits C in 6th position for trombone, and provides an alternate low range for French horn players. Excelcia also advises that "Oboe, Horn and Timpani must be written as optional parts. Double Horn in F with Tenor Sax to place both in better range at this level."

Other Considerations

American Band College, Carl Fischer, and Canadian Music Education Research Centre specify which dynamic markings and articulations are acceptable in each grade, as well as specifying a range of tempi and tempo markings that can be used. American Band College and Canadian Music Education Research Centre specify which kinds of ornamentation are allowed in each grade. Canadian Music Education Research Centre provides guidelines on what kinds of extended techniques, harmonic progressions, melodic contour, and forms can be used in each grade.

Redefining the System

The following is an example of what a more specifically defined Grade 3 for Wind Band would look like, amalgamating some of the best practices from each of the analysed grading systems. While aspects of this new grading system are very familiar, no Wind Band grading system incorporates all of these factors into one system. Furthermore, there are some features of this system that do not exist in the other grading system such as listing the note and rest values that are permissible by time signature; denoting how often key and time signatures can change in addition to how distant those changes can be; which melodic intervals can be used, and considerations for their use with respect to melodic contour; guidelines for the relationship between rhythm and pitch; and a specific formula for determining the amount of rest appropriate in a given part.

Grade 3

Range

Tonality

Melody

Metre

Note and Rest Values

Rhythm and Pitch

Reference List

• Alfred Music. (n.d.). Alfred Music Submission Guidelines for Concert Band. Alfred. https://images.alfred.com/submissions/band-guidelines-updated.pdf
• American Band College. (n.d.). American Band College Music Grading Chart. Bandworld. https://www.bandworld.org/pdfs/GradingChart.pdf
• Carl Fischer Submission Guidelines. (n.d.). Retrieved March 10, 2026, from https://www.carlfischer.com/submission-guidelines
• Excelcia Music. (n.d.). Concert Band Guidelines. Excelcia Music Publishing. https://media.excelciamusic.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/16152528/Concert-Band-Guidelines-Rev-2024-25.pdf
• Marlatt, D. (2015). Defining the Wind Band Grading System. Canadian Winds: The Journal of the Canadian Band Association, 14(1), 44-47. https://www.proquest.com/docview/1806233289/citation/3A87197752D64AE5PQ/1
• Maslanka, D. (2014, February 5). About difficulty. David Maslanka. https://davidmaslanka.com/about-difficulty/
• Neil A. Kjos Music Company. (n.d.). Excellence in Performance — Grading Guidelines. Neil A. Kjos Music Company. https://media.kjos.com/kjos/global.mt.lldns.net/kjos/charts/EIP_Guidlines.pdf
• Shand, P. M., Eleanor V, S., & Walter, C. (1998). Guidelines for Analysis of Music for Student Performers. Canadian Music Education Research Centre. http://hdl.handle.net/1807/18037