“A pocket of possibility”: Silence in creative Australian music teaching and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Silence defines sound, framing it and giving it meaning. Contemporary music engagements with silence have infiltrated Australian school music education practices through the work of three seminal composer-educators. This selective historical sweep is infused by the personal. I was an inspired early adopter of exploratory creative approaches permeated by silence. I adopt an autoethnographical approach punctuating history with first-hand vignettes. In 1939 provocative American modernist composer John Cage (1912-1992) published Silence, an extended manifesto. In 1952, he created and performed the iconic work “4’33” in which performers are instructed not to play. Twenty-years later, I was one such performer. Silence became the focus of listener experience. Once legitimised, intentional silence infiltrated composition and music education. In 1967 George Self (1921-2001) devised ensemble improvisations suitable for schools, the first being “Sound/silence.” In 1970 another prolific British composer/educator John Paynter (1931-2010) published (with Peter Aston) the revolutionary Sound and Silence, which comprised increasingly complex classroom projects in creative music. The first attends to instrumental sounds punctuated by deep silences. Canadian composer/educator R. Murray Schafer (1933-2021) asserted the silence is a container for musical events, it is valuable, increasingly lost, and a focus of modern composers. Evocatively he described silence as “a pocket of possibility.” As a young music educator, I embraced these provocative, inspirational ideas. Murray Schafer toured Australia, speaking charismatically to a crowd including me. His ideas, bolstered by those of Cage, Self and Paynter, gradually permeated Australian school music practice. I was a witness to this, becoming a disciple and practitioner of creative compositional approaches to music teaching and learning.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.029 | 0.059 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".