57-1 CME Journal Final:Layout 1 2015-11-11 6:02 PM Page 15
creative ideas for the music classroom
The Music Box: Education Out of a Little Chaos
Douglas S. Friesen
It is in fact nothing short of a miracle that the modern methods
of instruction have not yet entirely strangled the holy curiousity
of inquiry: for this delicate little plant aside from stimulation
stands mainly in need of freedom; without this, it goes to wrack
and ruin, without fail.
-Albert Einstein
If one is going to invent a kit for the modern classroom, the first
thing it ought to be is a cunning mess. The human being is fun-
damentally anti-entropic, that is, a random-to-orderly arranger.
Thus if we wish the idea of order to occur in the mind of the
child, we should start with a little chaos.
-R. Murray Schafer
Why the ‘Music Box’?
In his book The Thinking Ear (originally published as five
separate booklets beginning in 1965), R. Murray Schafer in-
cludes a chapter called ‘Music Box’ that describes an educa-
tional kit he had part in creating (1993). In 1969, under the
direction of his brother Paul Schafer and Linda Zwicker, the
Ontario arts council invited him, Harry Somers, and Henry
Freedman to participate in the creation of this multi-media
kit for the music classroom.
Schafer’s chapter describes the kit as having six general cat-
egories: 1) instruments and sound-makers, 2) tapes and records,
3) musical scores, 4) articles, pamphlets and booklets, 5) idea
cards, and 6) lead-out items (to suggest connections with other
subject areas). The box contained almost 300 items, of which
Schafer gives a partial list. The teacher was to essentially open up
the box and allow students to experiment, explore, play, and dis-
cuss. As Schafer reports, this occurred with four initial test teach-
ers. If desired, the students would plan any assignments or
activities after some initial exploration. Of the five contributors
listed above, three have passed on. To the author’s present knowl-
edge, after much search, no complete example of this kit exists.
This project is a shining example of Canada’s experimentation
with arts education in the sixties and seventies and is in danger of
disappearing from our records along with the spirit of exploration
that fueled its creation and existed in its implementation.
The Music Box’s initial success led to its publication by the
University of Toronto Press. It was distributed by Gage Educa-
tional Publishing, but then all but disappeared in the early sev-
enties. It is not the author’s intention to document this project
in order that its contents may be replicated. Schafer suggests,
“the measure of a good kit is the distance separating the origi-
nal contents, which may be modest, from the imaginative
outsweep they suggest to the kit’s users.” The creators involved
did make it known that the box was to be more a process
involving student and teacher contributions rather than an ar-
tifact. The importance of illuminating this almost forgotten
project lies in its example of the empowering qualities of stu-
dent driven exploration and discovery. It is a successful exam-
ple of allowing students to use their creative energy in
ownership of their learning.
This seemingly free-for-all model of teaching is as far, if not
further, from most educational contexts today as it was in the
late sixties. Educators buzz about inductive, student led learn-
ing, but will not commit to allowing the occasional ‘chaos’ that
ensues when students are given complete freedom with materi-
als. A desire to counterbalance the formal and standardized cur-
riculum of this time period led to many experiments with the
education of creativity. Schafer recalls other similar projects as
“a few sparks of energy” in The Thinking Ear; “the early work
of Peter Maxwell Davies, John Paynter and George Self in Eng-
land, that of the Manhattanville Project people in the United
States, and by no means least, the work of uncelebrated ‘origi-
nals’ in out-of-the-way places everywhere.” The Manhattanville
Music Curriculum Project (MMCP) and John Paynter’s work
in the United Kingdom are two important examples of projects
very similar and contemporary to the Music Box. These exper-
imentations, particularly the Music Box, involve what Wayne
Bowman would describe as truly educational and ethical en-
counters that don’t have pre-prescribed outcomes, allowing stu-
dents the time for self-exploration and self-directed study that
is often robbed from them in the still predominant performance
based model of music education (2002).
Through interviewing John Franks, one of the first four
teachers to use the Music Box, and Paul Schafer, the instigator
of the project at the Ontario Arts Council (OAC), along with
informal talks with R. Murray Schafer, a major contributor, the
impact of the music box will become readily apparent. Paul
Schafer, director of the Centre for Arts Research and Education
at the Ontario Arts Council provides invaluable information re-
garding the context of this project, whereas John Franks pro-
vides information regarding initial reactions towards the project
from students, administration and other teachers. An interview
protocol was prepared, however, questions often sparked con-
versation about the project. These questions often led to lengthy
discussions that addressed many of the other concerns initially
put forth. Besides note taking during interviews, a recording
device was used during the John Franks and Paul Schafer inter-
views. Other than the small amount of existing documentation,
it is understood that these interviews can only provide the mem-
ories and opinions of those contacted. However, it is felt by the
author that these three people provide a valid, consistent pic-
ture of this project, addressing the context of how it came to be,
its success, the emergent educational philosophy, and how it
eventually began to disappear.
CANADIAN MUSIC EDUCATOR / MUSICIEN ÉDUCATEUR AU CANADA 15 |