49 pages 1-hour read

This Is Your Brain on Music: The Science of a Human Obsession

Nonfiction | Book | Adult | Published in 2006

A modern alternative to SparkNotes and CliffsNotes, SuperSummary offers high-quality Study Guides with detailed chapter summaries and analysis of major themes, characters, and more.

Chapters 8-9Chapter Summaries & Analyses

Chapter 8 Summary: “My Favorite Things: Why Do We Like the Music We Like”

Musical preferences generally develop throughout childhood and solidify in adolescence. Numerous factors contribute to musical preferences, including characteristics of the music itself, metainformation about the music and its creators, and the context in which the listener is exposed to it. Overall, music preference is largely a matter of chance, depending on the events, era, and environment of one’s life.


People have differing preferences regarding rhythm, and complex rhythms (as in Latin dance music) often are a strong deterrent or have a particular appeal. Some people have an antipathy to extremely high or low pitches and are thus unlikely to enjoy music featuring pitch extremes. Someone who uses music to regulate mood is unlikely to prefer pieces that feature a wide dynamic range. Timbre is an increasingly significant factor in music preference due to technological advances in music production and listening equipment, and if a listener associates a song, artist, or genre of music with negative experiences, emotions, or prejudices, they are unlikely to enjoy it. Listeners are more likely to enjoy music when the artist stands for something they believe in. Listening to music involves vulnerability because it requires one to open oneself up emotionally, so musicians must inspire a certain amount of trust. Cults of personality are prevalent in the music industry precisely because musicians often connect with listeners through the perception of shared vulnerability and common experiences.


Exposure leads to familiarity, which is a key prerequisite to preference, and although the brain’s auditory-processing systems take years to fully develop, most exposure to new experiences occurs during early childhood. Experiments have proven that fetuses can hear music while in the womb and that the type of music played influences an infant’s musical preferences even months after birth. Infants can discern the contour of music before all other characteristics, which explains the exaggerated and slowed manner of speech known as “motherese,” or the infant-directed speech that caregivers instinctively adopt when talking to babies. Infants tend to prefer music to which they have had exposure—in the womb or otherwise—and that has consonance and prominent rhythm. Babies begin to prefer their own culture’s music at around two years of age, concurrent to when language specialization occurs due to prolonged exposure to consistent stimuli that establish expectations. The undeveloped frontal lobe in young children means that they struggle to pay attention at the same level as adults, particularly to multiple things at once. Consequently, they tend to first prefer simple and predictable music before moving on to more complex songs later in childhood.


At around age 10, children generally begin to show real interest in music. Adults continue to identify with music they enjoyed at around age 14 throughout their lives, remembering such songs even when afflicted with major memory loss due to Alzheimer’s disease. This critical period in establishing musical preferences likely links to unique neurological developments during the same period and to the fact that the teen years are a key period of self-discovery, when the brain’s neurotransmitters are more likely to tag memories of music as emotionally important. Musical preference is a marker of group and personal identity for teens and has significant social consequences. By the end of one’s teen years, one has generally developed adult levels of auditory processing, and studies show that a person who has not studied music before their twenties has significantly more difficulty learning to play and read music than if they learned to do so while young. This marks the childhood and adolescent years as a key period of development in musical competence, likely because the formation and development of synaptic connections slows after this period and because synaptic pruning begins around the onset of puberty.


Although cognitive schema formed through childhood listening influence preferences, adults can acclimatize themselves to other styles and genres in later life. Structural processing is an important factor in music appreciation; one must be familiar with the rules, forms, and conventions of a genre to fully appreciate it. All people tend to like music at the same perceived level of complexity, as the inverted-U function of a graph represents. People dislike overly simple pieces because they seem trivial but also dislike overly complex pieces because they are unpredictable and incomprehensible. However, the perceived level of complexity of a piece differs from person to person, depending on numerous factors such as age, adventurousness, and willingness to invest time and effort in developing one’s understanding.


A newspaper study claimed that listening to just 10 minutes of Mozart could make someone more intelligent. Levitin is critical of this study, both because of its serious methodological flaws and because it implies that only the ancillary benefits of music are valuable. Long-term music listening causes some changes in the brain, including increased density and concentration of gray matter and enlargement of the cerebellum, although the corresponding benefit of these changes remains unclear. Exposure to music can have some long-term benefits, particularly regarding the role of music listening and music therapy in helping people overcome psychological problems. Additionally, infants who listen to music typically develop more authentic dynamic and pitch range in their pre-speech babble.

Chapter 9 Summary: “The Music Instinct: Evolution’s #1 Hit”

When Charles Darwin (1809-1882) pioneered his theory of evolution in 1859, he proposed that music evolved in humans as a means of sexual selection. The idea that evolution means “survival of the fittest” is an oversimplification; natural selection requires only that an organism live long enough to produce offspring (the more the better) and that those offspring in turn live long enough to produce their own offspring. The discovery of DNA advanced evolutionary theory, showing how the genotype (sequence of DNA), which passes down from the parent organism through reproduction, gives rise to the phenotype (or physical manifestation of a trait) in offspring. Sexual selection is an evolutionary mechanism whereby members of the same sex compete to mate by manifesting characteristics that make them desirable to potential mates. This desirability is a purely instinctive and sexual attraction outside conscious control and does not necessarily equate to appeal as a long-term partner or co-parent.


Little research was done on the evolutionary origin of music until famed linguist Steven Pinker asserted in the 1990s (most notably in his 1997 book How the Mind Works) that music was merely an evolutionary “spandrel” of speech, a side effect of the useful adaptation of language that was purely hedonistic—like “evolutionary cheesecake,” enduring only because of its capacity for eliciting pleasure. Levitin and many of his colleagues disagreed with Pinker’s assessment, agreeing instead with Darwin that music is an evolutionary adaptation linking to sexual selection. Levitin believes that musical ability is akin to a peacock’s tail, a trait indicating that the organism had a surplus of resources sufficient enough to allow it to develop something purely ornamental that has no survival benefit.


In humans, evolutionary lag—the time it takes for a variant to propagate from a small population to become widespread—is around 50,000 years, so one must consider the psychological and social evolution of music within that context. Musical skill in ancient humans showed that they had the time and security to dedicate significant resources to mastering a nonessential task. Additionally, until quite recently in history, humans inextricably intertwined dance and music, and tribal performances were thus also displays of physical fitness and endurance. Music making was a highly social activity for past generations, and social cohesion was vital to the continuation of the human species. The link between sociality and musical ability is evident in the contrasting characteristics of people with Williams syndrome (who are generally outgoing and musical) and those with autism spectrum disorder (who are generally nonmusical and asocial).


Levitin argues that even in the modern day, famous musicians like rock stars have far more sexual partners than the average man and seem attractive to women regardless of their other characteristics. Before modern birth control methods, such high numbers of sexual encounters would have resulted in far more offsprings than the norm. Male interest in music peaks around the same time as fertility in women, during the teen years. Meanwhile, women find creative characteristics in men most attractive when they are at peak fertility in their ovulation cycle, and music is undeniably a display of creativity. Analogous music-making behavior occurs in animals, particularly birds, some species of which produce complex generative and learned songs. In such bird species, a male’s attractiveness corresponds to the song’s complexity.


Levitin notes that no human cultures in the world exist without music and that significant evidence—such as bone flutes dating from tens of thousands of years ago—shows that music making in primitive humans could well have predated speech. According to Noam Chomsky’s generative theory of language, which proposes that learners develop grammatical rules for their first language that enable them to intuit and generate new utterances, listening to music promotes the cognitive development that babies need to learn language. Music acclimatizes them to pattern recognition, tracking and recalling sequences, and developing schema. Music may have similarly primed prelingual hominids to develop language. That music has existed for so long is another argument for it being an evolutionary adaptation in its own right since disadvantageous developments typically lack staying power. Additionally, the brain specifically dedicates some structures to music, and backup systems allow the brain to compensate and retain that function if those sections are damaged. Such fail-safes generally evolve only to protect vital functions.

Chapters 8-9 Analysis

The final two chapters expand the book’s scope to show how the information provided in previous chapters applies to theoretical questions about humanity’s relationship with music. Levitin delves into some of the questions that initially motivated him to study psychology and addresses some of the topics he touched on in the Introduction. Specifically, he explores what it is about certain pieces of music that make them more popular or esteemed than others and why music is such a big part of human culture and behavior. The earliest chapters introduced basic information on music theory and cognitive science so that the main bulk of the text could explore the research areas where the two disciplines intersect. In the final chapters of the book, Levitin draws on that research and on theories from both fields to provide answers to more theoretical and complex questions about the nature of music. This progressive structure ensures that each chapter coherently follows the one preceding it, guiding readers through new topics gradually so that they are neither overwhelmed nor bogged down in reiteration or detail. In addition, Levitin’s approach creates a satisfying sense of closure to the end of the final chapter as the application of information draws the book to a natural conclusion.


The title of Chapter 8 (“My Favorite Things”) references a song in the popular Rogers and Hammerstein musical The Sound of Music (1959). The innocence and childishness of the referenced song and the simply worded question of the subtitle, “Why Do We Like the Music We Like?,” deliberately create the impression of childlike curiosity. Reminiscent of the common childhood tendency to question everything, this emphasizes Levitin’s assertions in the Introduction that learning the science behind musical enjoyment in no way diminishes the childlike enjoyment and wonder associated with listening to music and discovering more about it. In addition, he adds a note of humor in juxtaposing the simplicity of the childlike question with the complexity of the chapter addressing it, given the technical nature of its technical scientific information and jargon. This chapter directly addresses The Neurological Underpinnings of Musical Enjoyment as a theme by explaining the root causes of musical enjoyment from social, neurological, and psychological perspectives. Levitin underscores the importance of music during childhood development in particular and thus criticizes the cuts in funding music programs in elementary school through high school: “Music has often been the poor stepchild of public schools, […] and people frequently try to justify it in terms of its collateral benefits, rather than letting music exist for its own rewards” (226).


The title of Chapter 9 (“The Music Instinct”) humorously subverts the title of linguist Steven Pinker’s seminal work The Language Instinct (1994), which references Levitin’s disagreement with Pinker’s dismissive view of music as a “spandrel” of speech. The theme of Music as a Universal Aspect of Human Civilizations is prominent in this chapter as Levitin details the widespread and long-standing nature of music making in humans. This chapter is unique because it functions almost as a persuasive essay rather than an account of factual information and personal anecdotes. Levitin uses the chapter to present an argument for one of two competing schools of thought about the evolutionary basis of music. He uses many of the same techniques and stylistic choices as he does throughout the rest of the book, including personal anecdotes, specific examples, and an informal tone, but he also uses rhetorical techniques, including quotes, numbered points, and repetition, to construct a persuasive argument. Although proponents of Pinker’s “spandrel” theory might find this unbalanced treatment of a contested topic off-putting, it is unlikely to alienate readers of the popular science genre, given that Levitin’s purpose is to provide a layperson’s introductory text to the neuropsychology of music. Indeed, Levitin’s unapologetic and spirited conviction only highlights his confidence as an academic authority, indirectly lending further weight to his arguments. Levitin’s alignment with Charles Darwin on the evolutionary similarities between humans and other species in the use of music provides additional weight to his views, and his closing remarks reveal his knowledge, his thought process, and his conviction:


The multiple reinforcing cues of a good song—rhythm, melody, contour—cause music to stick in our heads. That is the reason that many ancient myths, epics, and even the Old Testament were set to music in preparation for being passed down by oral tradition across the generations. As a tool for activation of specific thoughts, music is not as good as language. As a tool for arousing feelings and emotions, music is better than language. The combination of the two—as best exemplified in a love song—is the best courtship display of all (267).
blurred text
blurred text
blurred text

Unlock all 49 pages of this Study Guide

Get in-depth, chapter-by-chapter summaries and analysis from our literary experts.

  • Grasp challenging concepts with clear, comprehensive explanations
  • Revisit key plot points and ideas without rereading the book
  • Share impressive insights in classes and book clubs