This article was part of a Symposium entitled
Trends in Music Teaching.

This discussion intends to convey to our readers current ideas on the newer trends in the teaching of music.

Three of the articlesthis article, along with Teaching Children to Read Music by Charles Heffernan and A New Curriculum for Secondary General Music by Bennett Reimerdeal with aspects of instruction in music pedagogy. The fourth articleSome Observations on Instruction in Music Theory by Robert Moevscomments on the future of conventional theory teaching. The Editor will welcome observations from readers on this subject.

All four articles appear in SYMPOSIUM Volume 6.

Even the casual observer of the contemporary music education scene is struck by the fact that music educators are engaged in strong conflicts in purposes and programs, the ultimate result of which is likely to be a significant transformation of existing practices in public school music. In short, there are definite indications that Music Education in this country is coming of age, and as is to be expected, the process is accompanied by doubts, pain and no little anguish. It is the purpose of this article to review the growing process of what has often been called the "stepchild" of education. One will recognize that, like a human being, this growth has proceeded unevenly by leaps and spurts, has stalled on the inevitable plateaus, but, in the main, has moved inexorably toward a maturity of purposes and programs which augur well for the future.


The true father of Music Education was Lowell Mason, who, in 1838, succeeded in persuading the board of education in the city of Boston to endorse formally an experiment in vocal singing in the Hawes school. So successful were his efforts that, in 1839, the Boston Academy of Music referred to the action of the school board as "the Magna Carta of musical education in this country."1

For nearly seventy years the infant grew. The singing school developed into the music-reading school, which in turn gave way to the child-centered "music is fun" school. The secondary schools added instrumental organizations to their program, albeit as extra-curricular offerings, and soon class instruction in instruments appeared to provide young musicians for bands and orchestras in sufficient quantity. The period of infancy may be considered terminated by the year 1907.


The impressive growth of a national program of public school music education springs largely from the Conference Movement.2 From the modest letter sent by Philip C. Hayden in January 1905, inviting "a dozen of fifteen representative supervisors" to a meeting in Keokuk, Iowa, to observe his rhythm-form system of teaching, there emerged the Keokuk Conference, held in April 1907, and attended by 104 persons from sixteen states. Eventually this group adopted the name of Music Supervisors National Conference, which was changed in 1934 to Music Educators National Conference, to this day the most active and powerful organization of music educators in the country.

This period of adolescent growth, lasting until the 1960's,3 took place in what Kaplan chooses to describe as the "Kilowatt Society," a time in which "(1) the middle class becomes a mass public audience; (2) the common man—and his son and even his daughter—get entrée to the creation of fine art on their own terms rather than at the pleasure of the rich; (3) a new set of devices and institutional forms emerge as middlemen of art—not as patrons but as distributive agencies: the library, the school, the community, the mass-media industry; and (4) new centers of creativity emerge, such as the American university."4 In such a setting, let us review our accomplishments.

In an urbanized, industrialized, and middle-class social order, material values tend to predominate. Therefore, when one reads of the Cultural Explosion, one expects and receives a mass of statistics describing the quantitative aspects of culture. We are told, for example, that one person of every six in this country plays a musical instrument; that there are 69,000 musical organizations in existence;5 that in 1962, we spent 600 million dollars on the sales of musical instruments, sheet music and musical accessories, more than the combined dollar volumes of all spectator sports, still and movie cameras, comic books and playing cards. This represents more than six times the amount spent for musical merchandise in 1942,6 and is an 857 percent increase in dollar volume since 1939.7 We are further informed that since 1939, the number of symphony orchestras in this country has doubled, and all around us we see magnificent temples erected to the performing arts.

How did we reach this apparently remarkable state of affairs? It seems that it could not have been otherwise. The American "Kilowatt Society" is geared to an energetic, aggressive, technological pursuit of success, which is achieved only when material gains have been realized. Music educators are not a breed apart; they are a dedicated, hard-working segment of the society in which they live. To accomplish the basic goal of "Music for Every Child," and to establish a firm place for music in the curriculum of the public schools, positive, aggressive and effective measures were needed. The world of business thrives on effective advertising and public relations, and thus it was with the business of music education. Advertising took the form of educational objectives which appealed to everyone, and could not be denied by anyone. The educational psychologist's theory of "instrumentalism" provided the ideal platform for the campaign. In music, "instrumentalism" can say without fear of contradiction, that music education develops the health of the student, aids in the development of sound work habits, develops the social aspects of life, instills wholesome ideals of conduct, aims to develop good citizenship, and improves home life".8 From such claims emerged such advertising slogans as "the boy who blows a horn will never blow a safe." Backed by equally aggressive instrument manufacturers, the growth of music in the schools was phenomenal indeed, the result of a well-planned and executed advertising program. The truth behind advertising claims has rarely been of major importance with the American public. Neither was it much of an issue with the educational community, for the fact remained that, in many tangible ways, music had become a valuable and powerful force for the well-being of the schools.

Once the advertising campaign proved itself successful, the next step was to capitalize on the presence of the mass audience suddenly available to music. To this end, there was developed one of the most elaborate, expensive, and effective public relations operations ever known. Who can resist the sight of smartly uniformed youngsters playing shiny new instruments, accompanied by a corps of attractive girls in short skirts and, perhaps, an eight year old tot as mascot, parading down the street or football field, flags waving and drums beating? Who can resist the appeal (and the box office profits) of the school musical production, often the major content of the high school music program for the entire year? Who can deny the popularity of the relatively recent "stage band" movement, which provides live music for concerts and dances throughout the year?

Each year, literally dozens of occasions exist for musical entertainers to perform valuable community services: civic club projects; chambers of commerce events; bank, retail outlet and church functions; and municipal agencies. All eagerly seek out the services of the school band and chorus, and respond cheerfully with donations and strong public support for the music program. Recent high school programs, reflecting the contemporary trend in entertainment, are known to include such titles as "1966-A-Go-Go," and feature twirlers and majorettes in the latest dances, the Frug, Watusi, and Jerk, accompanied by a school endorsed dance band.

In terms of giving the public what it wants, we have indeed been successful. Instrumental programs boast of the finest instruments and equipment, splendid uniforms, plumes and flags. Strong public support for these popular programs insures a firm place in the curriculum for many. As a result of effective teaching techniques, our technical standards are undoubtedly the highest in the world for the largest number of young musicians.

Since 1923 when Karl Gehrkens coined the phrase, "Music for every child, every child for music," used ever since as a motto by the Music Educators National Conference,9 the inevitable conflict between quantity and quality has raged, but it is only within the past decade and a half that concerted efforts on behalf of the highest ideals in music education have come to the fore. The youthful exuberance of adolescence, in its pell-mell, often haphazard race toward recognition and approval, came face to face with the more mature, contemplative elements in our educational community, and found it necessary to defend itself.


Slightly over a dozen years ago, there appeared a provocative collection of commentaries on the "common man."10 Members of many agencies of mass media: newspaper men, journalists, Hollywood producers and others, expressed alarm over what was to them a general lowering of standards and values in this country, due to the acceptance of the lowest common denominator in establishing standards. One reads: "In musical taste as in everything else, the common man is divine."11 A more impatient statement suggests: "Give the public what it ought to have and no damned nonsense about what the public wants."12 In more academic terms, Krutch states the issue thusly:

Responsibility for the future rests with the thinkers and the educators whose most important social task at the moment is to define democratic culture in some fashion which will both reserve a place for uncommon excellence, and, even in connection with the largest masses, emphasize the highest rather than the lowest common denominator.13

In the years that followed, we witnessed the explosive remarks of Admiral Rickover,14 and the beginning of a series of critical analyses of the American school system by Conant.15 Concurrently with these critics of the educational scene, there appeared the most significant book of the decade in music education, Basic Concepts in Music Education,16 dedicated to the propositions that the true values in music education lie in education for aesthetic and intellectual growth, that music teachers rather than general classroom teachers should have the responsibility of teaching music, and that only music of great intrinsic worth should be utilized in the teaching process.

The astonishing aspect to the appearance of this book is that it should have been considered remarkable at all. It served as a sad and powerful reminder that music education had been unbelievably misdirected, and would have a long and difficult road to follow to achieve a place of dignity and responsibility in contemporary education.

Youth tends to rebel when it is challenged and so it was with the advocates of divergent philosophies of music education. The professional journals, notably the Music Educators Journal, opened their pages to the public airing of disputes, a few examples of which follow:

1) Jazz and the Stage Band

Of the 69,000 or more school orchestras and bands reported in existence in 1961, over 6,000 of these were "stage bands," a term loosely used to describe ensembles which specialize in popular music. By 1965 over 8,000 of these ensembles were reported.17 Advocates of the stage band have presented arguments in justification of the program in somewhat the following manner:

"Music is music; any kind of music can be played well or can be played poorly. . . . Approximately 95 percent of the music heard in this country is related to a form of jazz or popular music. The stage bands are definitely here in our schools. It should be our attitude to see to it that the performance of this music be approached with as high standards as any other music."18 The responsibility of the school is expressed in the following question: "Where will students learn about good and bad popular music unless they are exposed through their training?"19

The substance of these arguments seems to be that as long as popular music is a part of our culture, it behooves us as responsible music educators to teach our students to perform it well, and to develop critical judgments about varying kinds of popular music. Might not the same reasoning apply to the production and analysis of comic books, pulp magazines, and other forms of popular entertainment? It would seem so.

Jazz, as literature in the music listening activities of general music and survey of music courses, suffers from the same poverty of ideas in the arguments advanced. Typical statements argue that the need for emotional involvement with the material at hand suggests using Rock 'n Roll and Twist music (currently Frug, etc.) as a base for appreciating Jazz. "Perhaps one of the most important reasons for incorporating jazz in the curriculum is to fill the void in the student's musical experience when he outgrows Rock 'n Roll and Twist music. By listening to and learning about jazz, the teenager's musical discrimination will grow and he will no longer patronize the musical mediocrity of Rock 'n Roll and Twist music."20

This line of reasoning suggests some sort of developmental continuum which starts with the lowest in musical taste and leads to the understanding and enjoyment of the highest form of the musical art through the intermediary of jazz. There is, of course, no evidence whatever to support this point of view, which appears to border on the ridiculous. It is difficult to believe that such arguments are honestly advanced by informed educators.

The rebuttal, while often ignoring the intangible arguments about the development of the aesthetic sensibilities of the student, or the purpose of art as an enriching and ennobling experience, attempts to strike down such activities by establishing an acceptable criteria for the inclusion of music in the school curriculum. As stated by Lehman21 ". . . in the stage band the emphasis is undeniably on entertainment rather than education. . . . despite the popularity of the stage band, it is not and has never been a primary function of the schools to teach 'popular' art." In almost identical words, Feldman22 speaks out against jazz: "A school is not, nor was it ever intended to be, a place to which parents send their children to be entertained." Thus, regardless of the possible merits inherent in the teaching and performing of popular music, if we apply the simple test of entertainment or education to the offerings, we must agree that the place of jazz and the stage band is most tenuous.

2) The Marching Band

Much more deeply rooted in the American culture and in the public schools is the glamorous; exciting and colorful marching band. Its position is being challenged, not so much for what it has accomplished, but for what it has failed to accomplish. Regardless of the changes which may be made in the standards and curriculum of the marching band, it is increasingly evident that it will never again bask in the blind adoration of the school and community to the extent it has enjoyed in the past.

Current arguments for the marching band are reviewed in a recent symposium. After stressing the traditional values of the marching band: physical development and coordination, mental development, responsibility and dependability, and public relations,23 one reads, "the football band . . . is developing into a new art form, which is deeply rooted in American traditions and culture. As people learn to appreciate and understand marches and march music, it stands to reason that this will be the opening wedge for many into the larger, more advanced musical forms to be found in the concert hall."24 Considering the circumstances under which the marching band is heard on the football field and street parade, it is not surprising that this "wedge," has failed to open the door to the concert hall.

Even the proponents of the marching band are not agreed upon the basic position of such an organization in today's society. Schmidt,25 in a middle-of-the-road argument in favor of marching bands, admits that "efforts to call the football band a new art form can only appear ridiculous."

Some critics of the marching band challenge the instrumental values attributed to such activity, and decry the manner in which music is used to further non-musical ends. As stated by Philips:26

I submit that we have joined whole-heartedly with the administrators in establishing one of the most expensive public relations tools known to mankind. The music education of our charges becomes the by-product of the PR program.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

We have rationalized and alibied ourselves until we actually believe that teaching discipline, sportsmanship, and physical control are the reasons for the existence of our art in the public schools.

Others place the marching band in the same category as the stage band and advance the familiar argument: "The marching band exists for the sole purpose of entertainment. In this respect, it differs little from musical comedy, television, or dance music. That is, it offers a temporary entertainment to the senses, a temporary diversion."27

The public airing of these conflicts has already produced tangible results. In addition to the long standing Code of Ethics adopted in an effort to control some of the excesses of school performing groups,28 state organizations are beginning to encourage limitations on the kind and number of public performances of bands. McMannus29 reports the position of the Oregon Music Educators Association, and indicates that many school systems are voluntarily reducing band entertainment by (1) eliminating marching entirely and having half-time entertainment provided by dancing groups, drill teams, tumbling teams and others; or (2) having bands perform only for home games, with marching shows limited to one, or at most two different productions per season. (3) The number of pep assemblies are being greatly reduced in many schools, and (4) the junior high schools are eliminating pep assemblies and game assignments.

The central issue in all the heated arguments regarding various musical offerings revolves around one's belief in the ultimate value of a musical education. There dearly emerges from these battles a growing commitment to the academic, aesthetic and cultural values of music and rejection of the idea that entertainment can be a controlling purpose in the music education of the future. Evidence of the search for fundamental values suggests the arrival of maturity. And the evidence does exist.


1) Young Composers Project

The involvement of the practicing, professional composer in the work of the public schools was given its first impetus through the creation of the Ford Foundation—National Music Council Young Composers Project in 1958. In 1963, under the new title "Contemporary Music Project for Creativity in Music Education," the grant was awarded to the Music Educators National Conference to administer, and Norman Dello Joio was appointed chairman of the joint committee. The purpose of this six year grant was to place young, talented composers in selected public schools throughout the country to develop a new body of fine quality contemporary music for school age students, and to foster creativity. Thus, for the first time, the serious composer was drawn wholeheartedly into the problems of public school music.

2) National Cultural Center

As evidence of federal interest in the encouragement of the arts, the Congress, in 1958, passed the National Cultural Center Act which provided for the erection of a showcase for the performing arts in Washington, D.C. However, of much more significance to music educators is the educational support of the federal government.

3) Federal Education Program in the Arts and Humanities

Since 1962, the United States Office of Education has maintained a Cultural Affairs Branch, based on the conviction that the arts are increasingly important in education. In 1964 the staff and the scope of this Office were greatly enlarged, and the name changed to the Arts and Humanities Branch. Through the financial resources from various Public Laws that are administered through this office, a wide variety of research and development projects have been launched.30 One of the most significant of these to music education was the Yale Seminar on Music Education, and its sequel, the Juilliard Repertory Project, all the more meaningful because of the involvement of university, college and conservatory professors in a project of mutual concern to all music educators.

The National Council on the Arts, established by legislation passed in 1964, was followed, in March of the following year, by the introduction by President Johnson of a bill "to provide for the establishment of the National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities to promote progress and scholarship in the humanities and the arts in the United States. . . ."31 In September of 1965 the bill was passed, and there now exists a Foundation on the Arts and Humanities, an independent agency in the Executive Branch of the government. It is interesting to note that, under the definitions given for arts and for humanities, music falls into both categories.

4) State Support for the Arts and Humanities

The New York State Council on the Arts, established in 1960, was the impetus for a meeting of all states interested in such a council. Since that time twenty eight states have already taken the initial steps toward the creation of state-wide cultural programs.

5) The Rockefeller Report

Released in March 1965, this Report32 presented an assessment of the place of the performing arts in our national life, and identified some impediments to their greater welfare and to their wider enjoyment. After reviewing a wealth of statistical data, the panel addressed itself to the lack of a suitable environment for nourishing the performing arts, a situation which can be overcome only through the cultivation of "a sizable public prepared through education, both formal and informal, to receive aesthetic pleasure from their efforts and eager to join in the attempt to enhance the nation's cultural life."33 This is an obvious reference to the need for quality general music courses in schools, and a criticism of the over-emphasis on performance for its own sake. The panel also decried the concept of the self-contained classroom, pleading, as has been done before, that the music teacher must be responsible for the teaching of music, an obvious, yet by no means accepted position.

6) Other Support for the Arts

There is much more which could be reported at this time: for example, the rich funds available through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 for research, training, and the bringing in of arts resources hitherto unavailable to most school systems; the appointment of a President's Special Assistant on the Arts; the work of the National Commission on the Humanities, and the 160 million dollar Lincoln Center for the Performing Arts in New York City.

7) Leadership by Music Educators

America's growing awareness of its cultural needs has not been ignored by the nation's music educators. While busy with the mundane chores of carrying on established routines, more and more practicing music educators are becoming involved in the larger issues. The Music Educators National Conference has provided leadership of the highest order and, as may be seen from a brief look at the National Conventions of the past several years, has led a determined effort to move from general considerations of philosophy and policy to new and effective programs and practices.

a) The 1960 Biennial Meeting. The theme of this convention was "The Contemporary Scene in Music Education." Of particular concern was an appraisal of the existing curricula in the elementary and secondary schools, colleges and universities. Great interest was also expressed in the Ford Foundation project for young composers; and plans were made to give special consideration for the gifted child in the music program.34 Some of the tangible results of this conference were immediate. The place of music in general education was re-examined and found wanting in many respects. Academic respectability and excellence were concepts which needed strong emphasis in school music programs, and the program of popular entertainment so often found in the schools came under increasing attack. Hartshorn's book on music for the talented student was a major contribution of the time,35 and the usually unpopular general music program was affirmed to hold the key to the future of a literate and aesthetically sensitive public.

The seeds of the present emphasis on music in the humanities were sown in remarks such as the following by Karl D. Ernst, then first vice-president of the Music Educators National Conference:

What of the potential for developing combined types of courses which unite the humanities—literature, poetry, the fine arts, and music? Though the individual techniques may differ, the creative spark which kindles each of these fields is common to all. We have an obligation to bring these several disciplines into a new, many-dimensional focus.36

Soon after, music as an academic discipline was to receive the attention of music educators everywhere,37 and humanities courses began to spring up all over the country.38

b) The 1964 Biennial Convention. Entitled "The Universality of Music," special emphasis was placed on the role of music in general education, and upon developing creativity in the young. Some of the results of this Convention are apparent in the research projects now under way to develop meaningful general music courses at the junior and senior high school levels.39

c) The 1966 Biennial Convention. Finally, in recognition of the urgent need to translate emerging philosophy and needs into programs, the latest Conference chose as its theme, "The Changing Curriculum in Music Education," rounding out a decade of immersion in the identification and illumination of the problems with practical plans and programs for implementation. That the old ways are no longer defensible is no longer a moot point. In the words of Paul Van Bodegraven, current President of the Music Educators National Conference:

Yesterday's curriculum no longer suffices for today. If music is to play a more vital role in society, music education must redefine its proper place and function in education. It is imperative that music educators be aware of new developments on every educational front, and that they provide informed leadership in rebuilding their own curriculum.40

The 1966 Convention reaffirmed the faith of music educators in the practical necessity of transforming music education into a mature and defensible curricular offering. Of particular significance was the evidence of increased cooperative effort by professional performers and composers, musicologists, and music educators in the planning and implementation of significant curriculum proposals. Intellectual and aesthetic growth have finally emerged as the basic goals of the school music program; a mature point of view has finally been accepted.


Only a qualified soothsayer would dare predict the course of the future and the author claims no such distinction. However, on the basis of the evidence reviewed in this article, it is obvious that the next decade will see increased emphasis on the study of music as great literature, and, as a correlative effect, a de-emphasis on performance of the trite and the trivial. As has occurred in the past, the pendulum of change, once it begins to swing, tends to swing too far, and one suspects that the performance of music may suffer before regaining a position of proper importance in the curriculum. The first signals of alarm have already been sounded, and the writer closes this story of the never-ending search for lasting values in music education with the provocative statement of William Schuman, delivered at the dedication of the Hopkins Center for the Creative and Performing Arts at Dartmouth College:

Too much of academic pursuit of the arts is concerned with talk or writing about art—talk about form, talk about expression, talk about execution, talk about talk and writing about other writing but not with art in direct experience, not with performing a great play or symphony, not with making a poem, a dance, a painting. We best come to know the arts not by prodigious feats of reading and talking, but by not so simple acts of trying to create and perform works of art, and by cultivating the techniques of penetrative criticism.

1Edward B. Birge, History of Public School Music in the United States (Philadelphia: Oliver Ditson Co., 1937), p. 55. In spite of its age, this text remains the classic of its field, and is enthusiastically recommended to the reader.

2Birge, op. cit., pp. 243-300.

3Max Kaplan, Foundations and Frontiers of Music Education (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1966), p. 2.

4Ibid., p. 7.

5"Amateur Music Makers in the USA," National Music Council Bulletin XXII (1962-63), 32-33.

6"Music Sales Reach Record," The Instrumentalist XVII (1963), 21.

7BMI: The Many Worlds of Music, February 1966, p. 4.

8Charles Leonhard and Robert W. House, Foundations and Principles of Music Education (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959), p. 97. The statements cited are not the authors' views, rather a synthesis of the claims made under the theory of "instrumentalism."

9Allen P. Britten, "Music Education: An American Specialty," Music Educators Journal XLVIII (1962), 27.

10Joseph W. Krutch, ed., Is the Common Man too Common? (Norman, Oklahoma: University of Oklahoma Press, 1954).

11Ibid., p. 26.

12Ibid., p. 47.

13Ibid., p. 30.

14 Hyman G. Rickover, Education and Freedom (New York: Dutton, 1959).

15James B. Conant, The American High School Today (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959).

16Nelson B. Henry, ed., Basic Concepts in Music Education (Part I of the Fifty-Seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958]).

17Paul O.W. Tanner, "The Musical Values of the Stage Band," Music Educators Journal LI (1965), 83.

18Ibid., pp. 83-84.

19Walter L. Anslinger, ''The Stage Band: A Defense and an Answer," Music Educators Journal LI (1965), 84.

20Albert L. Zeiger, "A Case for Jazz in the Classroom," Music Educators Journal XLIX (1963), 138-139.

21Paul R. Lehman, "The Stage Band: A Critical Evaluation," Music Educators Journal LI (1964), 55.

22Harry A. Feldman, "Jazz: A Place in Music Education," Music Educators Journal L (1964), 60.

23Lamar K. Jensen, "A Marching Band Symposium," Music Educators Journal LII (1966), 65.

24William E. Bissell, "A Marching Band Symposium," ibid., p. 66.

25Lloyd Schmidt, "The Role of the Band in Music Education," Music Educators Journal XLVII (1961), 81.

26Stephen Philips, "The Challenge to the Marching Band," Music Educators Journal LI (1965), 97.

27David Whitwell, "A Marching Band Symposium," Music Educators Journal LII (1966), 64.

28"For Understanding and Cooperation Between School and Professional Musicians: A Code Adopted by the American Federation of Musicians, Music Educators National Conference, and American Association of School Administrators." (Washington, D.C.: Music Educators National Conference, 1947).

29John McMannus, "The Limits of Band Entertainment," Music Educators Journal LII (1966), 121.

30Kathryn Bloom, "A New Federal Educational Program in the Arts and Humanities," Music Educators Journal LI (1965), 37.

31"Legislation and the Arts," ibid., 41.

32The Performing Arts: Problems and Prospects, a Rockefeller Panel Report (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965).

33Emile H. Serposs, "The Rockefeller Report: Its Implications for Music Educators," Music Educators Journal LII (1965), 93.

34"The Contemporary Scene in Music Education," Music Educators Journal XLVI (1960), 24.

35William C. Hartshorn, ed., Music for the Academically Talented Student in the Secondary School (Washington: Music Educators National Conference, 1961).

36Karl D. Ernst, "Music in the Schools," Music Educators Journal XLVIII (1962), 50.

37William C. Hartshorn, "The Study of Music as an Academic Discipline," Music Educators Journal XLIX (1963), 25.

38Charles R. Keller, "An Age of the Humanities Too?," The English Leaflet LXIII (1964), 4.

39Bennett Reimer, "A New Curriculum for Secondary General Music," Council for Research in Music Education, Bulletin No. 4 (Winter 1965) p. 11 and Kenneth L. Wendrich, "An Approach to Musical Understanding for Secondary School Students: A Curriculum Development Project," Council for Research in Music Education, Bulletin No. 6 (Fall 1965) p. 9.

40Paul Van Bodegraven, "The Changing Curriculum in Music Education," Music Educators Journal LII (1965), 45.

3141 Last modified on November 14, 2018