Why and how can music really move us?

Here follows a draft of a chapter from Discontinuities: Love, Art, Mind which is about 85% complete and already available for sale on Leanpub, a Canadian ebook store.

---

Why and how can music really move us?

In the previous chapters, I have been concerned with affect in relation to fiction. Music provides a particularly revealing case for examining these issues, because its effects are both familiar and puzzling. Many of us take it for granted that music can move us deeply, yet we have little clarity about why this happens or how it is achieved.

I have been struggling with these questions for years. I have asked musicians, listeners, and psychologists why certain music moves us so powerfully, and how it does so, without receiving answers that were psychologically satisfying. This situation is captured well in a line from Cat Stevens’ Hard-Headed Woman:

I know a lot of fancy dancers…
They move so smooth but have no answers
When you ask them ‘What d’you come here for?’
‘I don’t know.’ ‘Why?’

A musician friend once told me not to expect much insight from musicians when it comes to the psychology of musical experience. This is not an insult to musicians. One can be a great musician without understanding the cognitive or affective mechanisms through which music has its effects. In fact, most psychologists do not have a well-integrated account either. Music tends to expose the limits of our theories of affect more clearly than many other domains.

This chapter takes up music as a case study in affective influence. The focus is not on musical structure as such, nor on cultural interpretation, but on how music affects us: how it alters moods, evokes emotions, shapes attitudes, and is used, deliberately or implicitly, to regulate affect.

Some distinctions

Let’s start with a few key distinctions between conveyed and felt emotions, types of affect produced by music, and affect vs. motivation.

Conveyed vs felt (or induced) emotions

There’s a difference between the affect (mood, emotions, attitudes) conveyed by music and the affect that one feels in response to music. Conveyed affect is the affect we attribute to a piece of music, whereas felt emotions are affective responses to a piece of music.

This distinction is discussed in some detail in Juslin & Laukka (2004), who distinguish between expression, perception, and induction of musical emotions. In this chapter we are concerned with how music affects us (felt affect). Music can induce affect and it can influence or control affect.

Types of affect induced by music

It is common for people to refer to music’s effects on our emotions. However, that is just one category of affect induced or influenced by music. Elsewhere in this book, and in Cognitive Productivity with macOS: 7 Principles for Getting Smarter with Knowledge, I have distinguished types of affect: moods, emotions, and attitudes.

These categories are themselves multi-componential or multi-dimensional. Affective scientists often see moods as two or three dimensional, for example in terms of energy, tension, or impact. Emotions are typically understood as involving coordinated changes across multiple components, such as appraisal, physiology, expression, motivation, and subjective feeling. Attitudes are more stable affective orientations toward objects, activities, or domains, including music itself.

Music can influence all of the above.

Emotion, motivation, and theory-dependence

The distinction between emotion and motivation is not fixed, but depends on the theoretical framework one adopts. This point is especially important in discussions of music, where many effects are routinely described as “emotional” even when they primarily concern goal selection, persistence, or intensity of pursuit.

In Scherer’s Componential Process Model (CPM), motivation plays a dual role. Motivational factors such as concerns, needs, and goals function as inputs to emotion by entering into the appraisal process, particularly through evaluations of motivational relevance and goal or need significance. At the same time, motivation also appears as an output of emotion, in the form of action tendencies generated within the executive system. These action tendencies have clear motivational force, shaping the direction and energy of behavior once an emotional episode has been elicited^[1].

Scherer is explicit that the motivational factor contributing to the elicitation of an emotion (for example, a concern for achievement) is often quite different from the motive produced by the emotion itself (such as anger-driven urges toward a perceived source of failure). He also notes that some of the conceptual confusion surrounding motivation arises from the term itself, and suggests distinguishing between concerns, needs, or goals—states the organism strives for—and activated action tendencies, which reflect the direction and vigor of behavioral systems^[1]. Within CPM, motivation is therefore treated as a corecomponentof emotion, alongside cognitive appraisal, physiological change, expressive behavior, and subjective feeling.

Other frameworks draw the boundaries differently. In Sloman’s architectural account, emotional phenomena arise at multiple levels of control—primary, secondary, and tertiary—depending on the kinds of processes involved and the degree to which executive mechanisms are engaged. On this view, emotions can emerge from conflicts, alarms, or disruptions within control systems, rather than from appraisal processes alone^[2].

From an integrative design-oriented perspective, such as the one developed in my Goal Processing in Autonomous Agents and later work on mental perturbance, motivation is broader still. Motivation is not confined to momentary action tendencies or to scalar intensities attached to goals. Instead, it comprises a large family of processes concerned with generating, activating, prioritizing, suspending, and maintaining motivators—such as goals, concerns, wishes, and commitments—over extended timescales. These motive-processing mechanisms can themselves give rise to emotional phenomena, particularly when highly insistent motivators disrupt executive control, resulting in states of mental perturbance^[3][4].

On this view, the relationship between emotion and motivation is theory-dependent. In CPM, motivation is tightly integrated into the structure of emotion. In integrative design-oriented architectures, motivation is a broader substrate that both shapes and is shaped by emotional episodes, and that can operate independently of them. This distinction becomes especially important when considering the effects of music, which often influence motivational dynamics without fitting neatly into standard emotion categories.

The motivational effects of music

When motivation is understood in a more traditional and restricted sense—concerning the selection of goals, the intensity of their pursuit, and persistence over time—there is substantial evidence that music can exert direct motivational effects. These effects are especially well documented in the literature on music in exercise and sport, where motivation can be measured behaviorally rather than inferred from self-reported mood.

Across multiple reviews and meta-analyses, music has been shown to increase work output, enhance persistence, improve adherence, and support sustained performance in endurance and repetitive tasks^[5],[6],[7]. These effects are strongest when music is self-selected or chosen for its motivational qualities, and when it accompanies task performance rather than merely preceding it. Notably, music often improves performance without reducing perceived exertion, suggesting that it does not simply make tasks feel easier, but increases willingness to continue despite effort and fatigue.

Experimental studies further show that music, both with and without lyrics, can increase self-reported motivation, arousal, and positive affect during physical activity relative to no-music conditions^[8]. In such studies, motivation is measured directly in terms of readiness to act, engagement, and persistence, rather than being treated as a secondary consequence of emotional valence alone. This supports the claim that music can modulate motivational state independently of how emotions are categorized or labeled.

From an integrative design-oriented standpoint, these findings are best interpreted as music influencing motivational control systems. Music can help sustain goal activation, stabilize engagement in the face of competing signals, and buffer against internal cues that would otherwise trigger disengagement. Rhythm, familiarity, associative meaning, and cultural context all contribute, but the outcome is not merely an emotion; it is a change in how strongly a goal is pursued and how long it is maintained.

Seen in this light, the motivational effects of music observed in exercise settings are not a special case. They provide a clear and experimentally tractable illustration of a more general phenomenon: music’s capacity to modulate insistence, persistence, and executive allocation of resources. The same capacity helps explain why music can also potentiate mental perturbance—amplifying longing, rumination, or grief—when it interacts with pre-existing concerns, even though the music itself is not the primary cause of those states.

Distinguishing motivational effects from emotional effects does not deny that music can elicit emotions. Rather, it clarifies that many of music’s most consequential influences operate through motivational systems, shaping what we pursue, how intensely we pursue it, and how difficult it is to disengage. This distinction is essential for understanding both the beneficial and the potentially harmful roles music can play in human life.

Need for a design-oriented model of agency (including cognition, affect and motivation)

Questions about how music affects us cannot be answered without some working model of individual information processing. Lists of effects or correlations are not enough. We need a model that specifies what kinds of processes exist, how they interact, and what functions they serve.

Earlier chapters introduced the design-oriented stance adopted throughout this book, in which psychological phenomena are understood in terms of the mechanisms and architectures required for an autonomous agent to function. That general stance provides the organizing framework for what follows here. This chapter does not introduce a new theory of mind; it applies the existing architectural perspective to a particular domain.

Within such a framework, any adequate account of music’s effects must be compatible with a general model of cognition, affect, and motivation, while also specifying how music recruits and configures those mechanisms in distinctive ways.

A Multi-Component Model of Musical “Emotions”: BREC-VE-MACC

One influential attempt to specify the mechanisms by which music can influence affect is due to Patrik Juslin and colleagues. Their work identifies a set of partially independent mechanisms through which musical events may engage listeners’ affective and motivational systems^[9],[10]. In this book, I refer to this framework as the BREC-VE-MACC model, a chunked acronym intended to support memorability and reflective use.

From a cognitive productivity perspective, memorability matters. Frameworks that cannot be easily recalled or mentally reconstructed are unlikely to be applied outside specialist contexts. The chunked form BREC-VE-MACC can be rehearsed by imagining breakfast (BREC), a vehicle (VE), and Mac computers (MACC), helping to stabilize an otherwise complex inventory in memory.

The model distinguishes the following mechanisms, which may operate singly or in combination:

1. Brain stem reflexes: Sudden, loud, or acoustically salient musical events can trigger automatic physiological responses rooted in basic sensory and motor systems.

2. Rhythmic entrainment: Musical pulse and rhythm can draw bodily, attentional, or motor processes into temporal alignment, influencing arousal and readiness for action.

3. Evaluative conditioning: Music can acquire affective significance through repeated association with positive or negative experiences, independently of its musical structure.

4. Contagion (emotional mimicry): Listeners may internally simulate the expressive character conveyed by music, leading to corresponding affective states.

5. Visual imagery: Music can evoke visual scenes or imagined situations, which themselves carry emotional and motivational consequences.

6. Episodic memory: Musical cues can reactivate autobiographical memories, along with the affective tone originally associated with those experiences.

7. Musical expectancy: Affective responses can arise from the confirmation, delay, or violation of learned expectations about musical progression and structure.

8. Aesthetic judgment: Listeners may experience affective responses grounded in evaluative judgments about beauty, coherence, expressiveness, or skill.

9. Cognitive appraisal: In some contexts, music may evoke emotion because it is interpreted as having implications for a listener’s goals, concerns, or plans.

10. Cultural expectations: Culturally learned associations between musical features and meanings can shape how music is interpreted and experienced within a given social context.

The ordering is not arbitrary. The early mechanisms are largely automatic and fast, involving reflexive responses and bodily synchronization. Mid-range mechanisms increasingly involve learned associations, imagery, memory, and expectation. The later mechanisms are explicitly interpretive, drawing on judgment, goal relevance, and enculturation. This progression matters when considering not only whether music moves us, but how deeply it penetrates into cognition and control.

An important feature of this approach is that it does not posit special “musical emotions.” Instead, music recruits mind–brain processes that evolved or developed for other purposes. Different musical experiences engage different combinations of these mechanisms, which helps explain the diversity and variability of musical responses^[10].

Importantly, the BREC-VE-MACC model is not a self-contained theory of mind or emotion. It is better understood as a domain-specific catalogue of routes through which music can influence affective systems already assumed by a broader agent architecture. What it does not attempt to specify is how these influences interact with motivator generators and activators, affective filters, or executive functions over time. To understand why music sometimes supports learning and regulation, and sometimes becomes entangling or destabilizing, we need to situate these mechanisms within a more global control architecture. This leads naturally to the concept of mental perturbance.

An evolutionary perspective on music and affect

Any attempt to understand why music can so powerfully influence affect, attention, and motivation invites at least a brief evolutionary perspective. While evolutionary explanations cannot replace architectural accounts of how music works in the mind, they can help constrain what kinds of mechanisms are plausible and why such a potent cultural technology exists at all.

A longstanding debate concerns whether music should be understood as an evolutionary adaptation or as a byproduct of other evolved capacities. Steven Pinker famously characterized music as “auditory cheesecake,” suggesting that it exploits perceptual and emotional systems that evolved for other purposes. By contrast, scholars such as Brian Boyd have argued that music, like storytelling and play, plausibly contributed to human social coordination, attention regulation, and affective alignment, even if it did not evolve as a narrowly specialized module.

From this latter perspective, music can be seen as a culturally elaborated technology for capturing attention, shaping affect, and coordinating experience across individuals. Rhythmic entrainment, shared expectation, emotional resonance, and collective participation would all have supported social bonding, group cohesion, and the transmission of values and norms. Such functions need not imply a single evolutionary origin or function for music; rather, they suggest that music reliably engaged—and was selected through cultural evolution to exploit—general-purpose cognitive and affective systems. Musical production and appreciation, like storytelling and story understanding, made our ancestors smarter, providing an adaptive edge.

Work by Merlin Donald is also relevant here. Donald’s account of cultural–cognitive evolution emphasizes the emergence of increasingly powerful representational systems, culminating in mythic and narrative forms that structure shared meaning. Music, especially when integrated with ritual, story, and dance, plausibly participated in these developments by providing a non-propositional medium for organizing emotion, memory, and attention across time and individuals. Music augmented by song provided all the advantages of mythic consciousness that Merlin Donald describes.

Importantly, none of these accounts requires that music be understood primarily in emotional terms. From an integrative design-oriented perspective, what matters is that music reliably interacts with mechanisms for attention, valuation, learning, and coordination. If music evolved—or was culturally selected—as a technology for capturing attention and coordinating affect, it is unsurprising that it can later function as a powerful medium for learning, rehearsal, and perturbance.

This evolutionary backdrop helps explain both the benefits and the risks of music. The same properties that make music effective for bonding, motivation, and transmission also make it capable of amplifying insistence, stabilizing maladaptive concern structures, and potentiating loss of executive control under certain conditions. Evolutionary considerations thus do not explain music’s effects on their own, but they help make sense of why music is such a potent lever within the broader cognitive architecture described in this chapter.

Music-Potentiated Mental Perturbance

Mental perturbance refers to a class of states in which control over attention, thought, or action is partially compromised. Such states typically involve the generation or activation of motivators—concerns, goals, or commitments—that are assigned unusually high insistence. Insistence is the propensity of mental content, especially motivators, to disrupt or capture executive functions such as planning, scheduling, remembering, and decision making. When insistence is high, certain concerns repeatedly intrude, biasing cognition even when they are no longer instrumentally helpful.

Seen against the BREC-VE-MACC progression, perturbance is not tied to any single mechanism. Rather, it emerges when activity originating at any level of the sequence—reflexive, associative, mnemonic, expectational, or interpretive—feeds into motivator activation and overwhelms executive control. Music is particularly effective at this because it can engage multiple mechanisms simultaneously, sometimes reinforcing the same concern from different angles.

Music rarely causes perturbance on its own. More often, it potentiates perturbance that is already present, amplifying concern structures that are active for independent reasons. This is why it is more accurate to speak of music-potentiated rather than music-induced perturbance.

A simple example is the earworm: a repetitive musical fragment that recurs despite deliberate attempts to suppress it. This involves a localized loss of control over mental content that cannot be adequately explained by any single BREC-VE-MACC mechanism, but is readily understood in terms of insistence and executive disruption.

More consequential cases involve motivational perturbance. Romantic limerence is a prototypical example, characterized by intrusive thought, attentional capture, and exaggerated valuation of a particular person. Music associated with love, longing, or idealization can intensify such states by increasing the insistence of already-active motivators, further reducing executive control. The music does not create the limerence; it deepens and stabilizes it.

A similar dynamic occurs in romantic grief, whether following bereavement, rejection, or prolonged separation. Music can repeatedly reactivate concern structures tied to loss, sustaining rumination and delaying recovery. In such cases, listening may feel meaningful or even necessary, while simultaneously undermining regulation and well-being.

From an integrative design-oriented perspective, music affects not only affective tone but the stability of control itself. Extending the framework to BREC-VE-MACC-P makes explicit that music can influence how strongly certain concerns press on executive systems. This extension will matter later, when we consider cases in which habitual musical engagement is not merely unhelpful, but actively harmful.

About aesthetic emotions

Summary. Aesthetic emotions are evaluative responses to music experienced as an aesthetic artifact, rather than as a cue for action, memory, or personal concern. They involve intuitive assessments of perceived aesthetic virtues or failures—such as beauty, expressiveness, or novelty—and correspond most closely, in the BREC-VE-MACC framework, to the mechanism of aesthetic judgment. Although these are often the emotions people have in mind when they think of music and emotion, they represent only one route by which music can move us.^[11]

When people speak about emotions elicited by music, they are often referring—implicitly or explicitly—to aesthetic emotions. These are emotions that arise when music is attended to and evaluated as an aesthetic artifact. In this respect, aesthetic emotions occupy an important but limited place in the broader landscape of music-related affect.

Following Menninghaus and colleagues, aesthetic emotions can be understood as being tuned to differentiable perceived aesthetic appeals or virtues. These include qualities such as beauty, harmony, expressiveness, and novelty. Such qualities are not defined abstractly but are manifest in the ordinary language people use to describe how music strikes them aesthetically—terms like moving, fascinating, boring, or powerful. What is being evaluated here is not an action or a life event, but the perceived success or failure of the musical artifact itself.^[11]

Empirical work extending this framework suggests that aesthetic emotions can be organized along a small number of broad dimensions, analogous to the description of mood and core affect discussed above. One is valence, reflecting the intrinsic pleasantness or unpleasantness of the aesthetic experience. A second is power, which concerns the felt impact or dominance of the experience, ranging from being overwhelmed or humbled to feeling invigorated or elevated. A third dimension is arousal, distinguishing high-activation responses such as excitement or agitation from low-activation states such as calmness or relaxation. A fourth is novelty, capturing the perceived newness or unexpectedness of the stimulus, as opposed to familiarity or predictability. Together, these dimensions offer a compact way of characterizing variation in aesthetic emotions without reducing them to a single scale.^[12]

Within this space, particular aesthetic emotions align with characteristic perceived virtues or failures of the artifact. Descriptors such as fascinating, surprising, shocking, or suspenseful illustrate how listeners register specific kinds of aesthetic appeal that tend to predict liking or disliking. These terms function less as labels for internal feeling states than as evaluations of what the music is doing, or how it is experienced, as an aesthetic object.^[11]

Aesthetic emotions are not limited to music. Comparable evaluative responses arise in relation to visual art, literature, theater, film, and even natural scenes. What unifies these cases is not the medium but the stance of aesthetic attention and evaluation.^[11]

A further feature emphasized in this work is that aesthetic emotions differ in important ways from everyday, pragmatically oriented emotions. Contrary to the negativity bias common in many emotion taxonomies, the vocabulary of aesthetic evaluation is dominated by positive emotions, even though many of these include negative or mixed ingredients. Appraisals of intrinsic pleasantness, familiarity, and novelty are especially important, whereas appraisals of goal relevance or coping potential are largely irrelevant from a practical standpoint, though they may matter for cognitive or affective coping in some cases. Aesthetic emotions are often sought and savored for their own sake, with felt intensity or arousal functioning as part of the reward rather than as a signal to act.^[11]

Within the framework developed in this chapter, aesthetic emotions correspond most directly to aesthetic judgment in the BREC-VE-MACC model. They represent one important mechanism by which music can move us, but they are only one mechanism among many. Music can also engage bodily, mnemonic, motivational, and perturbance-related processes that extend well beyond aesthetic appraisal. Recognizing the role of aesthetic emotions—without mistaking them for the whole story—is essential for understanding both the power and the limits of music’s emotional effects.

Individual differences

Music does not affect everyone in the same way. Differences in learning history, cultural background, personality, attentional habits, and affective sensitivity all matter. From a design-oriented perspective, individual differences are not treated as noise but as systematic variations in mechanisms, parameters, and learned associations. This can be manifest in different states and processes of the BREC-VE-MACC mechanisms.

These differences help explain why the same piece of music can leave one listener unmoved and profoundly affect another.

The Case Against Emotions

Although music is often discussed in emotional terms, there is substantial disagreement about whether emotions are central to musical understanding or experience. On some accounts, music is best understood independently of emotion, with emotional responses treated as contingent features of listening rather than core explanatory elements. This position has been articulated most clearly by Nick Zangwill, whose formalist view argues that emotions are neither constitutive of music nor essential to musical understanding; emotional descriptions of music are therefore regarded as metaphorical, projective, or at best incidental to genuine musical value^[13],[14]. One can, on this view, understand and appreciate music fully without feeling anything in particular.

This position has genuine appeal. It resists sentimentalism, avoids crude stimulus–response models, and rightly criticizes the looseness of everyday emotion talk in musical contexts. Zangwill is also correct that much music does not reliably move us at all, and that even attentive listening often proceeds without salient emotional episodes. Emotional labels such as sad, angry, or joyfulare frequently coarse-grained, unstable across listeners, and underdetermined by musical structure. However, the argument ultimately fails—not because emotions are ubiquitous or constitutive of music, but because Zangwill relies on an overly narrow conception of what emotions are and how they function.

Zangwill treats emotions primarily as private, episodic feelings, sharply separable from perception, cognition, motivation, and action. From an integrative design-oriented perspective, this is a category mistake. Emotions are better understood as functionally integrated patterns of appraisal, valuation, readiness, and concern that modulate control within autonomous agents. They are not always present, not always salient, and not always relevant—but neither are they merely incidental when they occur.

Empirical work on music-induced emotion, particularly Juslin’s multi-mechanism framework, clarifies this point^[10]. Music does not have a single emotional effect, nor does it reliably induce emotion at all. Rather, music can engage different affective and cognitive systems under different conditions: expectation, episodic memory, evaluative appraisal, rhythmic entrainment, contagion, or associative conditioning. Which, if any, of these mechanisms are triggered depends on the listener, the context, the music, and the listening stance. As a result, most music leaves us largely unmoved, some music moves us weakly or transiently, and some music moves us powerfully—but in different ways and through different routes.

This perspective also aligns naturally with an architectural account of perturbance and control. When music strongly engages affective systems, it can temporarily dominate attention, bias appraisal, or stabilize or destabilize executive control. Such effects are neither mysterious nor universal; they are conditional consequences of how control systems interact. Music can amplify perturbance, but it can also scaffold regulation, coherence, or recovery, depending on which mechanisms are engaged and how.

Zangwill is therefore right to warn against reducing music to emotion labels. But it does not follow that emotions are peripheral to musical explanation. Rather, emotions are sometimes part of how music does its work—not always, not uniformly, and not exhaustively. When they occur, they do so as components of an integrated control architecture, shaping how agents interpret, value, and respond to situations. Denying this role does not protect musical autonomy; it obscures one of the ways music can matter to human agents.

Why do we listen to music?

People listen to music for many reasons: to relax, pass the time, get energized, influence their feelings, evoke memories, create imagery, attend to lyrics, because they think it’s good for their health, or simply to have company.^[15]

These uses presuppose that listeners have learned, implicitly or explicitly, that music can reliably influence their affective states.

Understanding why we listen to music therefore depends on understanding how music functions as a tool for affective regulation within an agent’s broader economy of goals, activities, and states.

Why is some sad music pleasurable?

There’s a bit of a parodox in that people sometimes pursue negative emotions such as fear and sadness: going on a roller coaster, watching scary movies, and listening to sad people. BREC-VE-MACC helps explain why people report that sad music is pleasurable. One influential explanation is appeals to Juslin’s BREC-VE-MACC model. It appeals to the interaction of multiple mechanisms. Music with a sad expression can induce genuine sadness via emotional contagion, while simultaneously eliciting pleasure through aesthetic judgment, through the perceived beauty, coherence, or expressive power of the music.

The result is a complex affective experience in which sadness and pleasure coexist without contradiction.

Learning from Songs: Overcoming Adversity

Consider the case of overcoming adversity—situations involving failure, loss, humiliation, or prolonged difficulty, where the question is not merely how to feel, but how to continue.

Stan Rogers’ The Mary Ellen Carter is a paradigmatic example. The song does not merely express resilience; it models it. The central lesson is not optimism, but recommitment: after catastrophe, one can choose to rise again, rebuild, and refuse the finality of defeat. Many listeners report that this song comes to mind precisely in moments of being knocked down, not because it induces a pleasant emotion, but because it articulates a stance toward adversity that can be retrieved and enacted.

Two related songs illuminate the same situation from different angles. Gloria Gaynor’s I Will Survive frames adversity as a threat to self-respect and agency, emphasizing the reclaiming of autonomy after injury or rejection. Bruce Springsteen’s Badlands approaches adversity through endurance and defiance, insisting on continuing to stand and act despite constrained circumstances. Together, these songs form a small family: distinct in style and affect, but united in offering ways of orienting oneself when persistence is required.

Seen as a truzzle, the question is not “What do these songs have in common?” in the abstract, but: What song is most relevant when you have been seriously challenged and must decide how to go on? Learning occurs when a listener can answer that question in context, and when the answer influences how they interpret and respond to the situation.

What matters here is not agreement with a song’s message, nor emotional intensity, but availability for transfer. These songs are learned when they become part of a person’s repertoire for dealing with adversity—when they come to mind unbidden at the right moment, shaping appraisal, motivation, and action.

This way of thinking about songs prepares the ground for a closely related category: Songs of Conditional Interdependence. Some situations call not for solitary resilience, but for negotiated support—cases where one needs help without surrendering agency, or commitment without self-erasure. As we will see, certain songs articulate how to depend on others conditionally, preserving dignity and mutual respect. These songs, too, can be learned—or mislearned—depending on how they are engaged.

Example: Songs of Conditional Interdependence

Songs of Conditional Interdependence articulate how people can support one another in the face of difficulty without relinquishing agency, dignity, or direction. They are songs about reliance that is neither self-sufficient isolation nor self-erasing devotion, but coordinated adjustment under strain.

This category matters because many significant life situations involve asymmetry rather than balance. Partners may face illness, loss, burnout, depression, or external crises at different times. In such cases, the challenge is not simply to feel sympathy, but to know how to respond: how to help without rescuing, how to wait without abandoning, and how to remain committed without demanding equality of strength or progress.

Bruce Springsteen’s If I Should Fall Behind is exemplary in this respect. The song anticipates difficulty rather than reacting to it. Its central idea is that commitment can involve adjusting pace while preserving shared direction. Support is explicitly mutual and conditional: if either partner falters, the other waits. The self is neither erased nor elevated; it remains present and intact within a joint commitment.

Billy Idol’s Catch My Fall addresses a related situation from a different angle. Here the focus is on requesting support during a moment of instability. Vulnerability is acknowledged, but bounded. The appeal for help does not entail surrender of agency or identity. The song models how one might ask for assistance without collapsing into dependence.

Stan Rogers’ The Mary Ellen Carter completes the picture by emphasizing recommitment in the aftermath of serious adversity. While not a relationship song in a narrow sense, it offers a stance toward recovery that is directly relevant to supporting others: rising again is possible, but it requires resolve, patience, and collective effort. When a partner is deeply challenged, this song prepares one to support persistence rather than rescue or despair.

Taken together, these songs form a small family. They prepare listeners not for emotional catharsis, but for relational readiness. They articulate patterns of response that can be drawn upon when difficulty arises, shaping how one interprets the situation and how one chooses to act.

In this sense, Songs of Conditional Interdependence exemplify how learning from song can work at its best: not by prescribing rules, but by stabilizing stances that can be retrieved and enacted when circumstances demand them.

Productive Practice Question

Q: What songs are most relevant to prepare oneself for situations in which a partner encounters a major difficulty and needs support—situations where the challenge is to help without rescuing, waiting without abandoning, and caring without surrendering one’s own agency?

A:

• If I Should Fall Behind — Bruce Springsteen

• Catch My Fall — Billy Idol

• The Mary Ellen Carter — Stan Rogers

Learning the Wrong Lessons from Song: How pop music can be very harmful

If songs can function as resources for orientation and action, they can also function as resources for misorientation. Learning from song is not intrinsically beneficial. In some cases, listeners acquire unhelpful attitudes, emotions, and habits that undermine agency, self-respect, or long-term well-being. This section is concerned with how such negative learning can occur, particularly in contemporary popular music.

From an integrative design-oriented perspective, the key issue is not emotional intensity but insistence. Songs can activate or reinforce motivators—concerns, longings, fears—that are assigned high insistence and therefore exert disproportionate influence over attention, memory, and decision making. When such songs are repeatedly rehearsed, they can potentiate mental perturbance by stabilizing maladaptive concern structures and reducing executive flexibility. What is learned is not simply an emotion, but a pattern of return.

A striking example is If You Go Away, the English version of Jacques Brel’s Ne me quitte pas. The song is often celebrated as one of the greatest love songs ever written. Yet Brel himself rejected this interpretation. When the song was awarded a major prize as the greatest love song of the decade, he responded that it was not a love song at all, but “the song of a man who lies prostrate before a woman.” The speaker offers total self-abnegation, promising to erase himself and accept any terms in exchange for proximity. What is being rehearsed is not love, but the destruction of self-respect.

When such a song is repeatedly listened to in a receptive or vulnerable state, it can quietly train a stance toward relationships in which dignity is conditional and dependence is absolute. The danger lies not in conscious endorsement, but in availability: in moments of insecurity or loss, the song may come to mind and feel appropriate, even though it prepares the listener poorly for agency, recovery, or mutuality.

It is important to note that this song can be reclaimed in a different way. If listened to with a reversed attitude—one of recognition and even disgust—it can function as a warning rather than a model. In that case, the listener rehearses refusal rather than submission. This illustrates a general point: songs do not teach automatically; they teach through the stance adopted while engaging with them.

A similar ambiguity appears in Leonard Cohen’s I’m Your Man. The song is often admired for its wit and intimacy, yet it too revolves around unconditional availability and self-subordination. Taken at face value and rehearsed uncritically, it can reinforce a pattern in which devotion is expressed through self-erasure. Over time, such rehearsal can become self-destructive, particularly when combined with existing perturbance or low self-regard.

There are countless songs along these lines. One that was popular when I was a child was the song from the movie Grease, Hopelessly Devoted to You. Here the stance is presented without irony or distance: devotion is framed as hopeless, inevitable, and identity-defining. What is rehearsed is not commitment under conditions, but surrender without reserve. For a young listener, such songs can quietly normalize the idea that love involves the suspension of self-respect and the acceptance of asymmetry as fate.

Seen developmentally, this matters. Songs like these are often encountered early, repeatedly, and without critical framing. Long before listeners have reflective tools for evaluating relationships, they may already have rehearsed patterns of insistence in which attachment overwhelms agency. In this way, popular music can contribute to the early stabilization of motivational habits that later interact with perturbance rather than supporting regulation or recovery.

These songs stand in sharp contrast to Songs of Conditional Interdependence. In those songs, support is negotiated rather than surrendered, commitment persists without annihilating the self, and vulnerability does not escalate insistence to the point of executive capture. The difference is not aesthetic but functional: one set of songs prepares listeners for coordination under strain, while the other prepares them for collapse or submission.

Seen this way, pop music can be very harmful—not because it is emotional, but because it can quietly train patterns of concern that narrow the space of possible action. When such songs dominate a listening repertoire, they can stabilize perturbance rather than resolve it. Taking music seriously as a force in human life therefore requires not only appreciation, but discernment: attention to what is being rehearsed, what is being stabilized, and what kinds of selves and relationships our musical habits are quietly helping to construct.

Music, motivation, mood, and learning: lessons from Huberman

A widely accessible account of how music can influence motivation, mood, and learning is provided by Andrew Huberman in his podcast episode How to Use Music to Boost Motivation, Mood & Improve Learning.. The episode provides a clear, empirically grounded overview of how music can be used deliberately to influence physiological state, motivation, and learning. While the episode is not framed as a theory of mind or agency, it usefully illustrates how music operates as a powerful intervention on brain–body systems that are central to self-regulation.

I asked AI to generate the following summary for me followed by productive practice questions:

Drawing on neuroscience and physiology, Huberman emphasizes that music operates not only through conscious experience, but via low-level brain–body mechanisms involving rhythm, motor timing, breathing, autonomic regulation, prediction, and reward. Music, on this view, is a powerful tool for shaping physiological and motivational state.

Rather than treating music primarily as a vehicle for emotional expression, Huberman emphasizes its capacity to bias neural, bodily, and motivational systems in predictable ways. Many of the effects he describes are best understood as changes in readiness for action, persistence, and state transitions, rather than as discrete emotions. The episode is therefore particularly relevant to discussions of music and motivation, and to the broader claim that music’s most consequential effects often unfold over time.

Key takeaways from the episode include the following:

• Music engages widespread brain networks, including auditory, motor, premotor, basal ganglia, cerebellar, limbic, and autonomic systems.

• Listening to music entrains neural firing and bodily rhythms, effectively turning the listener’s brain and body into part of the instrument.

• Faster music (roughly 140–150 BPM or higher) reliably increases readiness for action and motivational drive.

• Brief exposure to fast music before work can increase motivation and persistence during subsequent tasks.

• Music can increase motivation even without lyrics; tempo and rhythm alone are sufficient to bias action systems.

• Slower music tends to promote parasympathetic activity and physiological calm, largely through effects on breathing.

• Music reliably alters heart rate variability via changes in breathing patterns, often outside conscious awareness.

• The brain continuously generates predictions while listening to music; pleasurable violations of expectation are associated with dopamine release.

• Novelty and surprise contribute strongly to musical enjoyment and engagement.

• Music powerfully engages episodic and autobiographical memory systems.

• Familiar music can strongly reactivate associated memories, concerns, and states.

• Silence is generally optimal for demanding cognitive work involving language or complex reasoning. Listening to music, even instrumental music, but particularly music with known lyrics, while doing cognitive work tends to interfere with cognitive work.

• However, listening to music between work sessions can enhance subsequent focus, motivation, and learning.

• Music can be used deliberately to regulate state transitions—preparing for action, recovery, or emotional processing—rather than as constant background stimulation.

Taken together, these points support the view that music functions as a controllable tool for shaping motivation, physiological state, and learning conditions. At the same time, they also help explain why music can sometimes have unintended consequences when repeatedly used in ways that reinforce already-insistent concerns.

Productive practice: using music deliberately

The following questions and answers are intended as productive-practice prompts for learning from Huberman’s podcast. They illustrate the productive practice concept which also applies to learn from stories (including lyrical songs). Each question is designed to be retrieved after study, in situ, when deciding how—or whether—to use music, rather than as a retrospective reflection or rote learning task.

1. Q: When motivation is low but focus will soon be required, when should music be used?
   A: Briefly before starting the task, not during it, to increase readiness for action without competing with cognition.

2. Q: What musical feature most reliably increases motivational drive, independent of lyrics?
   A: Tempo—particularly fast rhythms around 140–150 BPM or higher.

3. Q: Why can music increase persistence without reducing perceived effort?
   A: Because it biases motor and motivational systems toward engagement rather than altering task difficulty.

4. Q: What kind of music is least disruptive during demanding cognitive or verbal work?
   A: Silence, followed by instrumental music; music with lyrics is generally most disruptive.

5. Q: When is music most useful for supporting learning rather than impairing it?
   A: During breaks between study sessions, to regulate state transitions and restore motivation.

6. Q: How does music reduce anxiety at a physiological level?
   A: Primarily by shaping breathing patterns, which regulate heart rate variability and autonomic balance.

7. Q: Why can unfamiliar music sometimes be more effective than familiar music for motivation?
   A: Because it provides rhythmic and arousal benefits without strongly activating memory or semantic associations.

8. Q: What role does prediction play in musical enjoyment and engagement?
   A: The brain generates expectations about what comes next; rewarding violations of those expectations trigger dopamine release.

9. Q: Why is constant background music often counterproductive for sustained intellectual work?
   A: Because it interferes with internal speech and attentional control, even when subjectively pleasant.

10. Q: How can music be used to prepare for physical or effortful activity?
    A: By listening to fast, rhythmically driving music shortly beforehand to bias motor systems toward action.

11. Q: What question should you ask before using music as a self-regulation tool?
    A: “What state is this music likely to induce or stabilize, and is that the state I want right now?”

12. Q: What risk arises from repeatedly using the same music to manage mood or motivation?
    A: It may repeatedly reactivate the same memories or concerns, potentially reinforcing patterns of overthinking or difficulty disengaging.

Using the productive practice framework I described in my two Cognitive Productivity books, these questions, or similar ones, can be moved into Anki (which is free) or Remnote. Those are two wildly popular flashcard apps. My Cognitive Productivity books show you how to use flashcards for productive practice, going well beyond the traditional use of flashcards for rote learning.

Concluding note

This chapter has argued that music can influence us through multiple mechanisms, that we can learn from songs in ways that shape orientation and action, and that we can also mislearn from them. Songs are not neutral. They can function as cognitive tools, rehearsal spaces, or perturbance amplifiers, depending on how they are engaged. Taking music seriously as a force in human life therefore requires not only appreciation, but discernment: attention to what is being rehearsed, what is being stabilized, and what kinds of selves and relationships our musical habits are quietly helping to construct.

---

1. Scherer, K. R. (2001). Appraisal considered as a process of multilevel sequential checking. In K. R. Scherer, A. Schorr, & T. Johnstone (Eds.), Appraisal processes in emotion. Oxford University Press. ↩

2. Sloman, A. (2001). Beyond shallow models of emotion. Cognitive Processing, 2, 177–198. ↩

3. Beaudoin, L. P. (1994). Goal Processing in Autonomous Agents. PhD thesis, University of Birmingham. ↩

4. Beaudoin, L. P., Pudło, M., & Hyniewska, S. (2020). Mental perturbance: An integrative design-oriented concept for understanding repetitive thought, emotions and related phenomena involving a loss of control of executive functions. Simon Fraser University Educational Review, 13(1). ↩

5. Karageorghis, C. I., & Priest, D.-L. (2012). Music in the exercise domain: A review and synthesis (Part I). International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(1), 44–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2011.631026 ↩

6. Karageorghis, C. I., & Priest, D.-L. (2012). Music in the exercise domain: A review and synthesis (Part II). International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 5(1), 67–84. https://doi.org/10.1080/1750984X.2011.631027 ↩

7. Terry, P. C., Karageorghis, C. I., Curran, M. L., Martin, O. V., & Parsons-Smith, R. L. (2020). Effects of music in exercise and sport: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 146(2), 91–117. ↩

8. Marshall, D. N. (2017). Music with and without lyrics increases motivation, affect, and arousal during moderate-intensity cycling. University of North Texas. ↩

9. Juslin, P. N., & Västfjäll, D. (2008). Emotional responses to music: The need to consider underlying mechanisms. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 31(5), 559–575. doi://10.1017/S0140525X08005293 ↩

10. Juslin, P. N. (2013). From everyday emotions to aesthetic emotions: Towards a unified theory of musical emotions. Physics of Life Reviews. ↩

11. Menninghaus, W., Wagner, V., Wassiliwizky, E., Schindler, I., Hanich, J., Jacobsen, T., & Koelsch, S. (2019). What are aesthetic emotions?Psychological Review, 126(2), 171–195. doi://10.1037/rev0000135 ↩

12. Beermann, U., Hosoya, G., Schindler, I., Scherer, K. R., Eid, M., Wagner, V., & Menninghaus, W. (2021). Dimensions and clusters of aesthetic emotions: A semantic profile analysis. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 667173. doi://10.3389/fpsyg.2021.667173 ↩

13. Zangwill, N. (2004). Against emotion: Hanslick was right about music. British Journal of Aesthetics. ↩

14. Zangwill, N. (2015). Music and aesthetic reality: Formalism and the limits of description. In Music and Aesthetic Reality. ↩

15. An experience sampling study of emotional reactions to music: listener, music, and situation - PubMed. ↩