A little over two years ago, as part of the British Journal of Music Education silver jubilee celebrations, a symposium was held at the University of Cambridge, Faculty of Education to which all past editors of the journal were invited. It was a particular honour that, although already physically frail, John Paynter, who has recently died aged 79, agreed to make the long journey from York to be present at this event. In a short but perfectly judged speech, he demonstrated that he had lost none of the intellectual acuity and perceptiveness which had made him one of the most respected figures in the world of music education.

News of the death of John Paynter came just as the previous issue of this journal was going to press. Nevertheless we were able to include an appreciation of his life and work by Piers Spencer. In this issue we wish to pay more fulsome tribute to the life and work of one of the founding editors of BJME and one of the most influential and inspirational figures in UK music education in the twentieth century.

This issue falls into three sections, the third of which is the book reviews section which on this occasion focuses on recent publications which resonate strongly with John's beliefs and interests. The first section begins with an extended essay by John Finney which examines the influences on John Paynter's development as a musician and music educator and places his work and beliefs in the context of the wider developments and trends in music education and education in general in the second half of the twentieth century. This essay sets the scene for five shorter reflections on John's work by some of those who knew him personally and worked with him. Common themes emerge from these reflections about the impact of John as a man, as a musician and as an educator: his integrity and unassuming nature; his pioneering work with children and young people, putting classroom composing at the centre of school music curriculum; his promotion of children as composers and his commitment to fostering more positive attitudes to composition, which he preferred to call ‘making up music’ and described as ‘the most natural thing in the world’ (Mills & Paynter, Reference MILLS and PAYNTER2008, p. 187); his conviction about the value of creativity in the music curriculum and his challenge to teachers to trust in their own creativity; but most especially what Bill Salaman describes as his intellectual bravery.

The second section contains articles submitted in the normal way to the journal but selected because in some way they resonate with John Paynter's work. In the first article, ‘Who needs theory anyhow? The relationship between theory and practice of music education in a philosophical outlook’ Westerlund and Vakeva examine one of Paynter's core motivations and interests and one of the key principles underpinning the founding of the British Journal of Music Education: the relationship between philosophy, theory and practice in music education. Strengthening the theoretical base underpinning music education was one of John Paynter's educational resolves. Theory and practice were elaborated in three articles published in the British Journal of Music Education: ‘The form of finality: A context for musical education’ (Reference PAYNTER1997, pp. 5–21), ‘Making progress with composing’ (Reference PAYNTER2000, pp. 5–31) and ‘Music in the school curriculum: why bother?’ (Reference PAYNTER2002, pp. 215–226). John Paynter also examined the work and beliefs of a number of educational theorists, including Herbert Read, Susanne Langer, G.H. Mead, Sarah Glover and John Curwen, amongst many others. Similarly, Heidi Westerlund and Lauri Vakeva (Finland) examine the work and beliefs of a number of contemporary thinkers in music education, noting how John Paynter's belief in the holistic music event resonates with much of the work of later music educationalists. Through an exploration of the distinctiveness of philosophy, theory and practice, Westerlund and Vakeva make a strong case for using ‘theoretical concepts as philosophically loaded pragmatic tools’, (as did John Paynter) for an alternative approach to the improvement of teaching and learning in music education.

Composing was at the centre of John's work as both a musician and teacher and in the second article, ‘Assessment of composing in the lower secondary school in the English National Curriculum’, Martin Fautley and Jonathan Savage (England) examine issues of composing in the classroom particularly in the context of the teachers' use (and misuse) of the English national curriculum's ‘level of attainment’ in music. Their article once again raises the challenge identified by John Paynter back in 1992 (and quoted in John Finney's essay) of using ‘the National Curriculum to define appropriate stages of attainment, but at the same time not to sacrifice the very essence and integrity of the work by forcing it into unsuitable moulds . . .’ (Paynter, 1992, p. 22).

The third article, ‘Multiple teachers: multiple gains?’, looks at instrumental teaching and learning particularly in the context where students have ‘multiple, simultaneous teachers’. Using questionnaire-based methodology Haddon explores students' and teachers' perceptions of the advantages and disadvantages of this approach and the characteristics of those students that appear to benefit most from it. The article concludes with recommendations as to how multiple teacher–student teaching contexts can be best managed in terms of ensuring the best experience for the learner.

Master's and doctoral student research training and academic supervision were further strands of John Paynter's work and legacy at the innovative music department at the University of York, John supervised many research students whose work continues to contribute to our deeper understanding of music teaching and learning. In the final article, an innovative practice-led research doctoral training programme in music is explored by Paul Draper and Scott Harrison (Australia). In ‘Through the eye of a needle’, a strong case is made for developing methodologies that promote artistic research as a distinct kind of knowledge that challenges us to enter a new phase in thinking about what constitutes research; to explore performative and artistic ways to engage in empirical processes; and to share our questions and findings across all of the music education sectors.

We hope that this issue of the British Journal of Music Education provides a suitable and fitting tribute to an exceptional educator whose contribution to music education will continue as long as teachers and researchers in the future continue to concern themselves with the essence of music itself.