During the 1980s, the International Journal of Music Education (IJME) ran a series of articles under the general heading ‘Personalities in World Music Education’. Each article was written by an author who was well acquainted with the distinguished personality upon whom the editors, Jack Dobbs and Anthony Kemp, wished to focus. I was privileged to be asked to interview John Paynter whose influence upon musical education in the UK and in many other countries was profound. Among his many positions he was co-editor of the British Journal of Music Education (BJME) at that time. The article about him was published in the IJME number 12 (pp. 28–32) in 1988.

When the current editors of the BJME decided to mark the 25th anniversary of the foundation of the BJME with an issue in which all of the articles would be written by past and present editors, John Paynter proposed that his contribution as a founding co-editor might be built upon another interview with me. I was delighted to be asked, and spent a most agreeable day reminiscing and learning in John's welcoming Yorkshire home. The main focus of our discussion was the journal itself: its origin, purpose and influence. Inevitably, our discourse extended further, in particular around Paynter's current thoughts about education in general and musical education in particular. This short article reflects some of the essence of our conversations.

The BJME is now so well established, so much ‘part of the furniture’, it is difficult to remember a time when its valuable commentary on developments in musical education did not exist. One wonders how new ideas were disseminated in the UK, and how research activity in musical education was reported before the BJME appeared. John Paynter recalls the sequence of events clearly. Thanks largely to his own considerable influence upon music in schools during the 1970s and 1980s, a wealth of new ideas and innovative practice was apparent, especially in secondary schools. Some of the newest developments were reported in magazines such as Music Teacher and Music in Education but the specific subject of music in schools and colleges (as opposed to music in general) had no British outlet for refereed articles on research and practice in classrooms. Although this lacuna could be discerned, no-one active in the field during the 1970s and 80s had suggested a way of rectifying what might be regarded as a shortfall.

At that time, John Paynter was Professor of Music at the University of York. Brian Loane and Joanna Glover, both practising music teachers, ex-alumni of the university and current research students at York, visited him with a proposal. They felt that the time was appropriate for new thinking to be disseminated and that the conclusions of research in musical education should be shared more widely. They suggested that a specialised journal could, inter alia, acquaint British practitioners with developments overseas and, concurrently, inform subscribers in other countries of developments in Britain. John Paynter now regards that meeting with Loane and Glover as a defining moment. With characteristic modesty, he gives the credit to Loane and Glover, but his own contribution towards making the idea a reality was crucial on two levels: the practicalities of production; the editorial ‘vision’ for the journal. Each is discussed briefly in this article, and some of Paynter's current thoughts about musical education are summarised by way of a coda.

Paynter had been the General Editor of the Resources of Music published by Cambridge University Press since 1969. This lively collection of music and writing about music enjoyed the respect and gratitude of music teachers in the UK and overseas. Paynter judged that Cambridge University Press would be the ideal publishing house to launch a journal of the kind suggested by Loane and Glover. The Press had (and still has) a peerless reputation for its journals, its well-established mechanisms for production and distribution, and its long-term view that allows enough time for a new journal to take root. Thanks to John Paynter's advocacy, the proposal was greeted positively by Cambridge University Press, and the preliminary work began. This consisted of many meetings between Paynter and staff at Cambridge University Press to decide on the format, the frequency of production and the creation of an Editorial Board. To give added strength to the international dimension of the journal, an International Advisory Board was appointed as well. Two crucial further appointments had to be made: a co-editor and a book review editor. The appointment of Keith Swanwick as co-editor was greeted warmly by all in the profession because Paynter and Swanwick were the most prominent leaders in British musical education, by far. Swanwick was Professor of Music Education at the University of London Institute of Education. Both co-editors were innovative thinkers and prolific authors. A new journal under their editorship would help to create a broad range of discussion and research reflecting their contrasting (but not conflicting) philosophies of music's contribution to children's education. To add further strength, Andrew Peggie was appointed book review editor.

The fortuitous chain of events, outlined above, continued. The seed had been planted and the journal was certain to have punch. More plainly, John Paynter and Keith Swanwick forged an editorial policy over glasses of Planter's Punch in Jamaica, where each was presenting at a conference. The working arrangements and the broad philosophy of the journal were visionary and effective, so much so, the mechanisms still flourish today. Anyone wishing to launch a similarly successful venture should learn that Planter's Punch comprises Jamaican rum, lime juice (or lemon juice) and sugar.

Paynter sees the editorial policy of the BJME as being neither prescriptive nor proscriptive. Put another way, it does not spell out in detail what authors should write, and it presents no bar to articles expressing views on musical education with which the editors disagree. The editors do not argue with their contributors! Having said that, the journal has never tried to be ‘all things to all people’. When discussing its aims, John Paynter is clear. The articles should ‘. . . reflect what people are thinking. The journal should allow, above all, for people to write about practice’.

Although the BJME might be described as a ‘learned journal’, the articles rarely follow a dry, statistic-strewn path. Paynter and Swanwick encouraged a more reflective style of writing during the fourteen years of their co-editorship. John Paynter believes that artistic activity cannot and should not be assessed, evaluated, measured, marked, graded etc. He suggests that ‘. . . a lot of what we do in the arts is not susceptible to this kind of thing’. He believes that schoolchildren and adults behave and think musically more effectively without the accretion of marks or grades. Indeed, the award of marks and grades can steer the musical experience along paths that have no place for the arts, nor the arts for them. Similarly, the BJME has been enlivened by articles that describe musical practice in schools and colleges rather than articles that lumber readers with dry, statistic-laden conclusions. This open-ended approach to research has been a strength rather than a weakness of the BJME. The vision of the first editors and the rigorous peer-reviewing by members of the editorial board have ensured that the journal provides legitimate accounts of research, and well-considered reflections on music in schools and colleges.

When asked what influence the BJME has had on musical education over the past twenty-five years, Paynter suggested that it reflected change rather than influenced change. He recognises the inevitability of change in all things. That is not to suggest that change is always welcome. He is aware of a tendency for advancing age to be linked with a distrust of the new, but his wisdom and optimism remain firmly rooted. For example, he is comfortable with the way that the journal has developed over the years, and he still delights in styles of teaching that are innovative, imaginative and, above all, musical. His reservations about the BJME are largely cosmetic, for example he would prefer that the colour of the cover could change yearly (as it used to) so that a particular issue would be easier to locate on the shelf. He also prefers the original style of indexing, appearing as it did in a separate volume rather than as an annex to an issue every now and again.

A more weighty concern is the shape and prescription of the national curriculum in England. He suggests that ‘. . . the curriculum is fixed in such a way that there isn't much room for the very imaginative child’. This reinforces a consistency in his thinking over the years. He has always valued musical sensitivity and imagination above technical skill; he firmly believes that pupils in schools benefit from making their own musical decisions and discoveries; without wavering, he has championed the practice of creative music-making in schools. His influence on the attitudes and methodology of teachers of music flourishes long after he retired as editor of the BJME. In conversation, John Paynter expressed a preference for ‘speculative’ articles, articles that provide stimulating questions rather than predictable answers, indeed, articles that reflect the kind of music-making that he has advocated throughout his distinguished and productive career.