Contemporary P-12 and collegiate educators in the United States increasingly find themselves working within an authoritarian environment, with political leaders forcibly restraining certain forms of artistic expression (e.g., Grundy, 2025). Curiosity is a central yet often undiscussed aspect of musical creativity. Since curiosity can take different forms, interrogating the nature of curiosity may inform understandings and actions related to teaching musical creativity within this troubling historical moment.I begin this philosophical inquiry by focusing on two of Zurn’s (2019) three complementary models of curiosity: the busybody and the hunter. Zurn explains the busybody as “more interested in everyone else's affairs than their own” (p. 33), adding that they foreground “quick associations” and “loose knowledge webs” (p. 34). The busybody music creator seeks out divergent styles, aiming to reach a broad musical audience. Alternatively, the hunter’s “curiosity is located in the focused, sustained energy of solitary quests” (p. 35). They form “targeted connections, building blocks of information systems, and tightly crafted knowledge networks” (p. 37).Next, I draw on Levitsky and Ziblatt’s (2018) definition of authoritarianism to consider its potential impact on music creators. The busybody’s diffuse output and interests makes them a less significant target for authoritarians, and their social reach may enable more people to hear their provocative compositions. Yet, because they focus on others’ gossip rather than critical thinking and values, their curiosity may forward misinformation. The depth of the hunter’s curiosity puts them in a more dichotomous position. They remain free to pursue creative practices that do not directly challenge authoritarians, but authoritarian leaders typically silence cultural figures “whose popularity or moral standing makes them potential threats” (Levitsky & Blatt, 2018, p. 86).Finally, I offer that Zurn’s (2019) dancer model of curiosity may have particular promise for teaching in authoritarian times. Zurn explains the curious dancer as thriving on leaps, breaks, and boundary-pushing possibilities. The dancer’s discontinuity “can put everything—from concepts to customs—into radical question” (p. 41). Similarly, Lerman (2012) describes dance choreography as an act of “hiking the horizontal” between personally expressive creativity characterized by uselessness and “art so embedded in its culture,” such as rituals and ceremonies, “that no one thinks to call it art” (p. xv). The dancer avoids the busybody’s superficiality and lack of criticality, but their breaks and variability make them more difficult to censure than the hunter, and their connections to the everyday advance their reach and impact.