Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T13:09:50.964Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Creativity and tradition: Music and bifocal stance theory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2022

Psyche Loui Open the ORCID record for Psyche Loui [Opens in a new window]  and
Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis Open the ORCID record for Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis [Opens in a new window]
Psyche Loui
Affiliation:
Department of Music, Northeastern University and Princeton University, Boston, MA 02115, USA [email protected] www.psycheloui.com Woolworth Center of Musical Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA [email protected] www.elizabethmargulis.com
Elizabeth Hellmuth Margulis
Affiliation:
Department of Music, Northeastern University and Princeton University, Boston, MA 02115, USA [email protected] www.psycheloui.com Woolworth Center of Musical Studies, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ 08544, USA [email protected] www.elizabethmargulis.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We argue that music can serve as a time-sensitive lens into the interplay between instrumental and ritual stances in cultural evolution. Over various timescales, music can switch between pursuing an end goal or not, and between presenting a causal opacity that is resolvable, or not. With these fluctuations come changes in the motivational structures that drive innovation versus copying.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 45 , 2022 , e262
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Cirelli, L. K., Einarson, K. M., & Trainor, L. J. (2014). Interpersonal synchrony increases prosocial behavior in infants. Developmental Science, 17(6), 1003–1011.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hove, M. J., & Risen, J. L. (2009). It's all in the timing: Interpersonal synchrony increases affiliation. Social Cognition, 27(6), 949–960.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirschner, S., & Tomasello, M. (2010). Joint music making promotes prosocial behavior in 4-year-old children. Evolution and Human Behavior, 31(5), 354–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loui, P. (2018). Rapid and flexible creativity in musical improvisation: Review and a model. Annuals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1423(1), 138–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Margulis, E. H. (2014). On repeat: How music plays the mind. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Rabinowitch, T. C., & Meltzoff, A. N. (2017). Synchronized movement experience enhances peer cooperation in preschool children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 160, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salimpoor, V. N., Zald, D. H., Zatorre, R. J., Dagher, A., & McIntosh, A. R. (2015). Predictions and the brain: How musical sounds become rewarding. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 19(2), 86–91.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Savage, P. E., Loui, P., Tarr, B., Schachner, A., Glowacki, L., Mithen, S., & Fitch, W. T. (2021). Music as a coevolved system for social bonding. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 44, e59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stupacher, J., Witek, M. A. G., Vuoskoski, J. K., & Vuust, P. (2020). Cultural familiarity and individual musical taste differently affect social bonding when moving to music. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 10015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tarr, B., Launay, J., & Dunbar, R. I. (2016). Silent disco: Dancing in synchrony leads to elevated pain thresholds and social closeness. Evolution and Human Behavior, 37(5), 343–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Temperley, D. (2004). Communicative pressure and the evolution of musical styles. Music Perception, 21(3), 313–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vuust, P., Heggli, O. A., Friston, K. J., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2022). Music in the brain. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 23(5), 287–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar