Explore the vast range of titles available.

Creativity is defined as the ability to generate something new and valuable. From a biological point of view this can be seen as an adaptation in response to environmental challenges. Although music is such a diverse phenomenon, all people possess a set of abilities that are claimed to be the products of biological evolution, which allow us to produce and listen to music according to both universal and culture-specific rules. On the one hand, musical creativity is restricted by the tacit rules that reflect the developmental interplay between genetic, epigenetic and cultural information. On the other hand, musical innovations seem to be desirable elements present in every musical culture which suggests some biological importance. If our musical activity is driven by biological needs, then it is important for us to understand the function of musical creativity in satisfying those needs, and also how human beings have become so creative in the domain of music. The aim of this paper is to propose that musical creativity has become an indispensable part of the gene-culture coevolution of our musicality. It is suggested that the two main forces of canalization and plasticity have been crucial in this process. Canalization is an evolutionary process in which phenotypes take relatively constant forms regardless of environmental and genetic perturbations. Plasticity is defined as the ability of a phenotype to generate an adaptive response to environmental challenges. It is proposed that human musicality is composed of evolutionary innovations generated by the gradual canalization of developmental pathways leading to musical behavior. Within this process, the unstable cultural environment serves as the selective pressure for musical creativity. It is hypothesized that the connections between cortical and subcortical areas, which constitute cortico-subcortical circuits involved in music processing, are the products of canalization, whereas plasticity is achieved by the means of neurological variability. This variability is present both at the level of an individual structure’s enlargement in response to practicing (e.g., the planum temporale) and within the involvement of neurological structures that are not music-specific (e.g., the default mode network) in music processing.

From the biological perspective human musicality is the term referred to as a set of abilities which enable the recognition and production of music. Since music is a complex phenomenon which consists of features that represent different stages of the evolution of human auditory abilities, the question concerning the evolutionary origin of music must focus mainly on music specific properties and their possible biological function or functions. What usually differentiates music from other forms of human sound expressions is a syntactically organized structure based on pitch classes and rhythmic units measured in reference to musical pulse. This structure is an auditory (not acoustical) phenomenon, meaning that it is a human-specific interpretation of sounds achieved thanks to certain characteristics of the nervous system. There is historical and cross-cultural diversity of this structure which indicates that learning is an important part of the development of human musicality. However, the fact that there is no culture without music, the syntax of which is implicitly learned and easily recognizable, suggests that human musicality may be an adaptive phenomenon. If the use of syntactically organized structure as a communicative phenomenon were adaptive it would be only in circumstances in which this structure is recognizable by more than one individual. Therefore, there is a problem to explain the adaptive value of an ability to recognize a syntactically organized structure that appeared accidentally as the result of mutation or recombination in an environment without a syntactically organized structure. The possible solution could be explained by the Baldwin effect in which a culturally invented trait is transformed into an instinctive trait by the means of natural selection. It is proposed that in the beginning musical structure was invented and learned thanks to neural plasticity. Because structurally organized music appeared adaptive (phenotypic adaptation) e.g., as a tool of social consolidation, our predecessors started to spend a lot of time and energy on music. In such circumstances, accidentally one individual was born with the genetically controlled development of new neural circuitry which allowed him or her to learn music faster and with less energy use.

Listening to music can span a continuum from passive consumption to active exploration, relying on processes of coping with the sounds as well as higher-level processes of sense-making. Revolving around the major questions of “what” and “how” to explore, this paper takes a naturalistic stance toward music listening, providing tools to objectively describe the underlying mechanisms of musical sense-making by weakening the distinction between music and non-music. Starting from a non-exclusionary conception of “coping” with the sounds, it stresses the exploratory approach of treating music as a sound environment to be discovered by an attentive listener. Exploratory listening, in this view, is an open-minded and active process, not dependent on simply recalling pre-existing knowledge or information that reduces cognitive processing efforts but having a high cognitive load due to the need for highly focused attention and perceptual readiness. Music, explored in this way, is valued for its complexity, surprisingness, novelty, incongruity, puzzlingness, and patterns, relying on processes of selection, differentiation, discrimination, and identification.

Coping is a survival mechanism of living organisms. It is not merely reactive, but also involves making sense of the environment by rendering sensory information into percepts that have meaning in the context of an organism’s cognitions. Music listening, on the other hand, is a complex task that embraces sensory, physiological, behavioral, and cognitive levels of processing. Being both a dispositional process that relies on our evolutionary toolkit for coping with the world and a more elaborated skill for sense-making, it goes beyond primitive action–reaction couplings by the introduction of higher-order intermediary variables between sensory input and effector reactions. Consideration of music-listening from the perspective of coping treats music as a sound environment and listening as a process that involves exploration of this environment as well as interactions with the sounds. Several issues are considered in this regard such as the conception of music as a possible stressor, the role of adaptive listening, the relation between coping and reward, the importance of self-regulation strategies in the selection of music, and the instrumental meaning of music in the sense that it can be used to modify the internal and external environment of the listener.

This paper explores the importance of preconceptual meaning in speech and music, stressing the role of affective vocalizations as a common ancestral instrument in communicative interactions. Speech and music are sensory rich stimuli, both at the level of production and perception, which involve different body channels, mainly the face and the voice. However, this bimodal approach has been challenged as being too restrictive. A broader conception argues for an action-oriented embodied approach that stresses the reciprocity between multisensory processing and articulatory-motor routines. There is, however, a distinction between language and music, with the latter being largely unable to function referentially. Contrary to the centrifugal tendency of language to direct the attention of the receiver away from the text or speech proper, music is centripetal in directing the listener’s attention to the auditory material itself. Sound, therefore, can be considered as the meeting point between speech and music and the question can be raised as to the shared components between the interpretation of sound in the domain of speech and music. In order to answer these questions, this paper elaborates on the following topics: (i) The relationship between speech and music with a special focus on early vocalizations in humans and non-human primates; (ii) the transition from sound to meaning in speech and music; (iii) the role of emotion and affect in early sound processing; (iv) vocalizations and nonverbal affect burst in communicative sound comprehension; and (v) the acoustic features of affective sound with a special emphasis on temporal and spectrographic cues as parts of speech prosody and musical expressiveness.

This paper argues for a biological conception of music listening as an evolutionary achievement that is related to a long history of cognitive and affective-emotional functions, which are grounded in basic homeostatic regulation. Starting from the three levels of description, the acoustic description of sounds, the neurological level of processing, and the psychological correlates of neural stimulation, it conceives of listeners as open systems that are in continuous interaction with the sonic world. By monitoring and altering their current state, they can try to stay within the limits of operating set points in the pursuit of a controlled state of dynamic equilibrium, which is fueled by interoceptive and exteroceptive sources of information. Listening, in this homeostatic view, can be adaptive and goal-directed with the aim of maintaining the internal physiology and directing behavior towards conditions that make it possible to thrive by seeking out stimuli that are valued as beneficial and worthy, or by attempting to avoid those that are annoying and harmful. This calls forth the mechanisms of pleasure and reward, the distinction between pleasure and enjoyment, the twin notions of valence and arousal, the affect-related consequences of music listening, the role of affective regulation and visceral reactions to the sounds, and the distinction between adaptive and maladaptive listening.

The sound environment and music intersect in several ways and the same holds true for the soundscape and our internal response to listening to music. Music may be part of a sound environment or take on some aspects of environmental sound, and therefore some of the soundscape response may be experienced alongside the response to the music. At a deeper level, coping with music, spoken language, and the sound environment may all have influenced our evolution, and the cognitive-emotional structures and responses evoked by all three sources of acoustic information may be, to some extent, the same. This paper distinguishes and defines the extent of our understanding about the interplay of external sound and our internal response to it in both musical and real-world environments. It takes a naturalistic approach to music/sound and music-listening/soundscapes to describe in objective terms some mechanisms of sense-making and interactions with the sounds. It starts from a definition of sound as vibrational and transferable energy that impinges on our body and our senses, with a dynamic tension between lower-level coping mechanisms and higher-level affective and cognitive functioning. In this way, we establish both commonalities and differences between musical responses and soundscapes. Future research will allow this understanding to grow and be refined further.

In the world of Western musicology music is regarded as possessing two main divisions. The first being performance features which consist of traits such as dynamics, and tempo, and a second known as structural features such as the arrangement of notes in time. The main differences between these divisions is that performance features are evolutionarily ancient, indiscrete and present in many sound expressions, whereas structural features are evolutionarily younger, discrete and music-specific. Performance features are tightly connected with motor activity and emotional processing. Despite the fact that performance features carry information about emotional states, they can also be used as tools of manipulation. It has been proposed that one biological function of these tools is to affect the minds of other animals in order to arouse the need for cooperation in them. It has also been suggested that music performance features are homologous with some prosodic features of speech which evolved as a communicative tool before language and music.

Tonality is understood by musicologists and musicians in many different, often mutually exclusive senses. Sometimes it is regarded as a distinctive characteristic of solely Western music (e.g. Dahlhaus, 1988), but sometimes this understanding is applied to the features of non-Western music too (e.g. Krumhansl, 1990). Even as a term restricted to the features of Western music it is assigned a variety of meanings such as an aspect of melodic relations (Thomson, 1999) or an exclusive trait of harmonic organization (Lowinsky, 1990). Also in the psychological sense,tonalityis defined by scholars both as the hierarchical arrangements of pitch phenomena in

Human musical aesthetic preferences differ significantly. People vary in this respect depending on culture in which they were brought up and on their individual experiences. The awareness of this differentiation was one of the reasons for which these aesthetic preferences were considered as conditioned only by culture. After cognitive science became interested in art, the aesthetic preferences have been explained by seeing the aesthetic assessment of stimuli as related to the evolutionary sources of human aesthetic tendencies. The contemporary knowledge of music processing by the nervous system and of musical skills development indicates that there are also some ubiquitous tendencies in the aesthetic assessment of music. The purpose of the current paper is to present preferences for tonal music and to explain their origin.