Studying listening to recorded popular music: A

methodological overview and some suggestions for

future research

Marta García Quiñones

Independent researcher, Barcelona, Spain
martagq@gmail.com
It is normally taken for granted that popular music fans listen to recorded music,
and that their preferences are mainly shaped by that activity. However, studying
what happens while they are listening appears as a challenging task. In the last
two decades music psychologists, social psychologists, sociologists and popular
music scholars, among others, have proposed different qualitative research strat-
egies to address the complexity of popular music fans’ everyday listening expe-
riences. While these methods are normally sensitive to the diversity of listening
contexts and subjective experiences, and even occasionally deal with situations
where music listening happens alongside other actions (Lilliestam 2013; Kassa-
bian 2013), they may also raise questions of representativeness, and do not al-
ways allow an understanding of the intersubjectivity of listening practices, and of
the ways in which they may be related to musical structures. This paper reviews
some of those empirical methods and aims to contribute to the design of useful
research procedures.

Keywords: music listening, everyday listening, research methods, audio technologies,

listening contexts

Everyday listening
Popular music fans listen to recorded music in their everyday lives, and their
preferences seem to be shaped by that activity at least as much as they are shaped
by attending live performances. Besides, popular music fans, like anyone else,
may be exposed to music in different contexts and spaces, and so they are also
sometimes involuntary listeners. When music psychologists discuss everyday
listening, they normally refer to listening to recorded music, often to recorded
popular music of various kinds. Conversely, everyday listening constitutes the
© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, part of Springer Nature 2019
M. Dumnić Vilotijević und I. Medić (Hrsg.), Contemporary Popular Music Studies,
Systematische Musikwissenschaft, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-25253-3_9

martagq@gmail.com
92 Marta García Quiñones

basis of the social impact of recordings in any form, that is as records, CDs,
mp3s… be they played, broadcast or streamed. While all these explanations may
sound trite, the consumption of recorded music has not received much scholarly
attention, in particular from musicologists, and it has emerged as a strong topic
only in this century. Though I can only mention this in passing here, there are
historical reasons for this relative disinterest, for instance the identification of
popular music audiences mostly with people attending live performances – in
other words, the centrality of the live concert, the gig, as the main experience of
rock and pop musical life. As Arild Bergh and Tia DeNora have pointed out,
listening has been “frequently mistaken for, or more deliberately brushed off as,
a passive activity” (Bergh and DeNora 2009: 106).
On the one hand, the attention accorded to music consumption in this centu-
ry could be seen as a derivation of business-led strategies aimed at identifying
consumption patterns. In fact, unlike music scholars, commercial companies,
media providers, and even governmental bodies have consistently been interest-
ed in gaining knowledge on people’s cultural habits, including everyday music
listening, at least since the mid-twentieth century. Examples of this interest
would be the quantitative surveys conducted periodically by the International
Federation of Phonographic Industries (the “Digital Music Reports”, and now the
“Global Music Reports” (IFPI 2017) or, in Spain, the Survey of Cultural Habits
and Practices, sponsored by the national Ministry of Education and Sport
(MECD 2015) On the other hand, as many authors have pointed out (for in-
stance, Avdeef 2012), attention to everyday music listening is related to the
changes in musical practices brought about by digitization, where “digitization”
encompasses many different aspects, i.e. the diffusion of personal (portable,
mobile) playback technologies, the ease of access and storage of compressed
audio files on the Internet, and – perhaps more importantly, as Steve Jones
(2011: 444) has observed – the availability of news, information and discussion
about all types of music online. Here is an example of how Adrian North, David
Hargreaves and Jon Hargreaves have summarized the situation:

The pace of technological change has accelerated further during the past twenty
years or so, and these fundamental changes in the nature of musical experience and
value have arguably become even more pronounced. Because so much of different
styles and genres is now so widely available via the Walkman, music video, the In-
ternet, and other media, it is arguable that people now actively use it in everyday lis-
tening contexts to a much greater extent than hitherto. They are still exposed to mu-
sic in shops, restaurants, and other commercial environments without active control.
But they also control its use in the home, in the car, while exercising, and in other
everyday environments. [...] Music can now be seen as a resource rather than merely
as a commodity (North, Hargreaves and Hargreaves 2005: 42).

martagq@gmail.com
Studying listening to recorded popular music 93

As a result of the convergence of these factors, and some others, new opportuni-
ties have been created for music fans to bring their music with them to different
places, to search, store and consume familiar and novel artists, bands, genres etc,
and to share these experiences with others. Thus, when we think of music
listening in everyday life, this notion may include listening experiences at home,
on the streets, on the beach, at the swimming pool, in the office, in the car, in the
train, riding a bicycle, in a shopping mall, in an elevator… People may be
exposed to music willingly or unwillingly, and they may receive it through
various broadcast or playback technologies, via different types of speakers, or
via head-phones or earphones. Recorded music is present in a myriad of
everyday life situations, which may include both private experiences and public,
collective ones, since – as David Hesmondhalgh stressed in the first chapter of
Why Music Matters (2013: 1–2) – both aspects are complementary dimensions of
musical experience in modern societies. Also, these situations may be considered
as “episodes” rather than as “events”, since they do not always have a clear
beginning and an end, and they may not conform to a pre-established structure.
Understandably, one of the main approaches to contemporary forms of mu-
sic listening in the everyday is the technological one, which focuses on the gadg-
ets that are employed for music consumption, and on users’ relationships to
them, underlining the shifts in listening practices brought about by digital audio
technologies. However, discourses about these shifts must be balanced against
the fact that in everyday listening new technologies often coexist with old ones,
notably radio, CD-players, or even record and cassette players, especially if we
think of elder adults (but not only of them). For instance, the 2016 “Share of
Music” report on patterns of music consumption, published by the market com-
pany Edison Research, found that 44% of the total time that US citizens spent
listening to music corresponded to radio (AM/FM) listening (Edison Research
2016). Also, we must also consider that listeners do not normally limit them-
selves to one single technology for habitual music listening, and that connections
between different broadcast and playback technologies are nowadays being re-
configured in everyday usage. In a paper titled How Do People Really Listen to
Music Today? Steffen Lepa and Ann-Kathrin Hoklas (2015) have shown that
German listeners often use different sets consisting in various types of “audio
sources”, “audio devices” and “audio emitters” – that is, different types of “audio
repertoires” – and follow more or less conscious patterns of use. Besides, the
bias of music listening studies toward digital technologies has resulted in an
image of listening as a solipsistic activity, something people do on their own
(mostly through headphones), though this bias is not always based on factual
knowledge of users’ habitudes.

martagq@gmail.com
94 Marta García Quiñones

The list of issues that we may investigate regarding music listening in eve-
ryday life is quite long, and includes not only which broadcast or playback tech-
nologies are employed, but also many other aspects that lay beyond the scope of
the quantitative surveys on music consumption sponsored by commercial com-
panies. For example, we may want to know not only who listens to music and
with whom, but also when do they listen to it? Where? Doing what? If the music
is chosen, not imposed, why do they listen to it? Which emotions does the music
elicit in them? How do these emotions relate to previous experiences, if they do?
What judgments or opinions do users have about music? Logically, these re-
search questions have also changed through time. For instance, the notions of
“uses” or “functions”, which were still going strong at the beginning of this cen-
tury, have currently given way to the “emotions”, which now seem to be the
main focus of the study of music listening. There is also an increasing awareness
among scholars of the importance of bodily action, which may explain the occa-
sional replacement of “listening” with the more general (and less cognitive)
terms “responses”, like in the Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology (Hallam,
Cross and Thaut 2009), or “musical behaviour” (Clarke, Dibben and Pitts 2010:
13). Nevertheless, in this article I will not try to answer any of those questions; I
will offer instead an overview of the methods that have been used so far to study
everyday listening to recorded music empirically.
Among the psychologists that have done research on everyday listening to
recorded music we find John Sloboda (Sloboda, O’Neill and Ivaldi 2001), Adri-
an North and David Hargreaves (North, Hargreaves and Hargreaves 2004),
Patrik Juslin (Juslin and Laukka 2004; Juslin, Liljeström and Västfjäll 2008), or
more recently, Alinka Greasley and Alexandra Lamont (Greasley and Lamont
2011), Ruth Herbert (2011, 2012), Eric Clarke and Nicola Dibben (Clarke, Dib-
ben and Pitts 2013). Sociologists like Tia DeNora (2000), Antoine Hennion
(2001, 2015; Hennion, Maisonneuve and Gomart, 2000), Michael Bull (2000,
2007), or more recently Raphaël Nowak (2015), and communication studies
scholars like Lepa and Hoklas (2015), among others, have also investigated on
the subject. Among musicologists, I would like to bring up the names of Susan
Crafts, Daniel Cavicchi and Charles Keil, who collaborated in the “Music in
Daily Life” project (Crafts, Cavicchi, Keil et al. 1993), Melissa Avdeef (2012),
and Thomas Bossius and Lars Lilliestam, of the Swedish “Music in People’s
Lives” project (Lilliestam 2013). These scholars, and others that I might not be
aware of, have used different strategies to try and bypass the difficulties involved
in studying everyday listening to music. I will focus firstly on the methods pro-
posed by social psychologists and music psychologists.

martagq@gmail.com
Studying listening to recorded popular music 95

Psychological approaches to everyday music listening

Regarding music psychologists, it is important to bear in mind that everyday
music listening was a marginalized, virtually non-existent subject within the
framework of cognitive music psychology in the 1970s and 1980s, when
listening was supposed to take place, by default, under conditions of attention.
More generally, psychological experiments where a variable is manipulated
independently differ greatly from everyday-life situations, where variables are
too numerous and relationships among them may not always clear. With
reference to this methodological problem, Clarke, Dibben and Pitts have argued:

Research in the psychology of music can seem at times to be somewhat removed

from the reality of musical experience, isolating as it does particular phenomena for
systematic investigation. An experiment designed to measure the emotional respons-
es of listeners, for example, may involve participants in listening under artificial
conditions rather than in the concert hall, since data gathered in the “real world”
context would be affected by uncontrollable factors such as the presence of other lis-
teners, the temperature, lighting and acoustics in the hall, and the physical distance
of the listener from the performers. By controlling each of these variables in an ex-
perimental setting, researchers are able to generate data that are easier to interpret
and that produce robust findings, since the range of likely explanations for the re-
sults has been reduced. In addition, the experiment can be replicated and its findings
tested against other results with different listeners or different kinds of music: they
are generalizable beyond the specific instance of one concert-hall setting. The find-
ings are still relevant to real world listening, but the distractions of being in a live
audience are acknowledged in the interpretation rather than the design of the exper-
iment (Clarke, Dibben and Pitts 2010: 10 ̶ 11).

While the need for experiments that are repeatable and generalizable is more
than comprehensible, the authors do not clarify how these two conditions could
be guaranteed in applying the results of an experiment to a real world context.
On the other hand, artificial conditions in a laboratory or other experimental
contexts are usually more similar to the ones that are typical of the concert hall
(their chosen example) than to the great variety of everyday situations were
recorded music is present.
Among the methods employed by psychologists to study everyday music
listening since the 1990s, we find questionnaires, which subjects normally must
answer with reference to retrospective experiences; for example, the question-
naires of the Mass-Observation project, at the University of Sussex, which in
1997 were devoted to music, and in whose elaboration British music psycholo-
gist John Sloboda took part (Sloboda 2005). Other surveys were based instead on
the “uses and gratifications theory”, and the subjects were asked to reflect on

martagq@gmail.com
96 Marta García Quiñones

why they listened to music and which functions music fulfilled in their lives
(North, Hargreaves and O’Neill 2000). Sometimes the results of these question-
naires were subject to multivariate statistical analysis. Qualitative social sciences
methods, like in-depth interviews and field observation have also been em-
ployed, either alone or in conjunction with quantitative ones.
Other, newer methodologies claiming greater “ecological validity” have al-
so been brought forward. This is notably the case of the Experience Sampling
Method (Larson and Csikszentmihalyi 2014), conceived in the 1980s by Hungar-
ian-born psychologist Mihály Csikszentmihalyi. This method consists in sending
random text messages (via pagers or mobile phones, normally) to experimental
subjects, requesting them to give information and to reflect on the music that
they may have been hearing or listening to when the message arrived (Greasley
and Lamont 2011; Juslin, Liljeström, Västfjäll et al. 2008; North, Hargreaves and
Hargreaves 2004; Sloboda, O’Neill and Ivaldi 2001). This method was initially
adopted in 2001 by John Sloboda and his collaborators (Sloboda, O’Neill and
Ivaldi 2001), who engaged only eight experimental subjects (staff and students in
the University of Keele) for seven days, during which the subjects were paged
seven times a days, that is forty nine times. The first aim of this exploratory
study was to decide whether the ESM could be reliable enough to study “the
functions of music in everyday life”. However, the most important study using
ESM was the one conducted by Adrian North, David Hargreaves and Jon Har-
greaves (North, Hargreaves and Hargreaves 2004), which engaged up to 346
participants – although almost 45% of them were university students, which
raises concerns about its representativeness. Other ESM-based studies, like the
one conducted by Alinka Greasley and Alexandra Lamont (2011), were less
impressive in quantitative terms, but combined ESM-question-naires with in-
depth post-study interviews. This allowed the authors to collect more infor-
mation on the different levels of engagement to music, which was their main
research focus. An interesting development of the ESM is the Day Re-
construction Method proposed by Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman and his col-
laborators to study daily life experiences and the emotions associated with them
(Kahneman, Krueger, Schkade et al. 2014). The method is described in this way:

We present a new hybrid approach, the DRM, which combines a time-use study
with a technique for recovering affective experiences. DRM respondents first revive
memories of the previous day by constructing a diary consisting of a sequence of ep-
isodes. Then they describe each episode by answering questions about the situation
and about the feelings that they experienced, as in experience sampling. The goal is
to provide an accurate picture of the experience associated with activities (e.g.
commuting) and circumstances (e.g. a job with time pressure). Evoking the context
of the previous day is intended to elicit specific and recent memories, thereby reduc-

martagq@gmail.com
Studying listening to recorded popular music 97

ing errors and biases of recall […]. Experience sampling is the gold standard to
which DRM results must be compared; the DRM is intended to reproduce the in-
formation that would be collected by probing experiences in real time. The new
method is more efficient than ESM: it imposes less respondent burden; does not dis-
rupt normal activities; and provides an assessment of contiguous episodes over a full
day, rather than a sampling of moments. Finally, the DRM provides time-budget in-
formation, which is not collected effectively in experience sampling (Kahneman,
Krueger, Schkade et al. 2014: 1776 ̶ 1777).

The DRM has been applied to the study of everyday music listening by Swedish
psychologist Marie Helsing (2012), who investigates the effects of everyday
music listening in health and wellbeing. DRM is not the only method employing
listening diaries; unstructured listening diaries are a common resource for
practitioners of Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis, like Ruth Herbert,
author of a book-length study on forms of absorption and dissociation in
everyday music listening (Herbert 2011, 2012).
Even if it has not been applied to research into music listening yet, another
intriguing development of ESM is the Context-Aware Experience Sampling,
which uses sensing technologies to automatically detect events that can trigger
sampling and data collection. This method was conceived by the MIT Home of
the Future Project, led by Stephen Intille at the beginning of this century (Intille,
Kukla and Ma 2002), but it seems to have been abandoned.
Other methodological approaches
Since the 1990s music sociologists have studied listening in everyday life using
such methods as questionnaires and qualitative interviews, like the ones con-
ducted as part of the “Music in Daily Life Project”, edited by Susan Crafts, Dani-
el Cavicchi and Charles Keil and published in 1993 under the title My Music:
Explorations of Music in Daily Life. The case studies presented by Tia DeNora
in Music in Everyday Life (2000) feature mainly women in different everyday
life situations where music is present. Though DeNora conducted semistructured
interviews with some of them, she combined this method with participant-
observation techniques, and in some particular cases with recordings of ambient
sounds and comments by the experimental subjects. As she argues elsewhere:

The great advantage of this kind of ethnographic observation is its ability to illumi-
nate the nondiscursive dimensions of action (such as emotions and embodiment) –
the very dimensions overlooked by survey questionnaires and quasi-formal inter-
view techniques (and also the dimensions of human existence most closely associat-
ed with music and musical response). Because of its aims, ethnography is conducted
in real time and on the social territories germane to the research subjects themselves
(DeNora 2004: 46).

martagq@gmail.com
98 Marta García Quiñones

Interviews were also the core of Michael Bull’s research into the users of
Walkmans (“personal stereos”) and iPods (2000, 2007), and were also gathered
by the researchers of the Swedish “Music in People’s Lives” project (Lilliestam
2013), and more recently by Raphäel Nowak (2015). Yet, what researchers
obtain in all these cases are obviously the words of their subjects: their
statements, opinions, evaluations, memories, expressions of feelings, etc. As
some of them have acknowledged, it is impossible to know to what extent
people’s linguistic elaborations of their listening experiences correspond to their
“real” experiences (Lilliestam 2013: 17).
As Arild Bergh and Tia DeNora have observed, certain listening practices
develop from the conjunction of music with other elements, creating values,
meanings and emotions, and influencing tastes, moods, and generally the biog-
raphies of those involved (Bergh and DeNora 2009: 107). However, it is precise-
ly the link between those different elements, and particularly the link between
them and the music that seems to be absent in many studies. While many ques-
tionnaires include questions about the music genres to which subjects are fre-
quently or occasionally exposed to, as Melissa Avdeeff has observed, partici-
pants must select “from a small, select, pre-determined list of genres in order to
determine musical taste”, and consumer-driven genre definitions (“folk-
sonomies”) are not even considered (Avdeeff 2012: 267). Thus, using a combi-
nation of surveys and interviews (1243 completed surveys and 216 interviews),
from forty four different countries, and including ages from thirteen to eighty
two, Avdeeff has drawn some interesting links between the use of particular
playback technologies, levels of listening engagement and musical tastes, leading
her to formulate a theory of contemporary musical eclecticism that goes beyond
mere aesthetic taste. In my opinion, studies combining attention to music (as
experienced by users) and to other aspects of everyday listening experiences,
especially spaces (locations), technologies, actions or routines, and moments in
time, open many possibilities for future research into this wide field; and some of
the methods developed by psychologists that I have presented here are worth
considering in order to accomplish this task.
References
Avdeef, M. 2012. Technological Engagement and Musical Eclecticism: An Examination
of Contemporary Listening Practices. Participations: Journal of Audience and Recep-
tion Studies 9 (2): 265–285.
Bergh, A. and DeNora, T. 2009. From Wind-Up to iPod: Techno-Culture of Listening. In
N. Cook, E. Clarke, D. Leech-Wilkinson and J. Rink Eds. The Cambridge Companion
to Recorded Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press: 102 ̶ 115.
Bull, M. ̶

martagq@gmail.com
Studying listening to recorded popular music 99

2000. Sounding Out the City: Personal Stereos and the Management of Everyday Life.
Oxford: Berg Publishers.
2007. Sound Moves: iPod Culture and Urban Experience. London: Routledge.
Clarke, E, Dibben, N. and Pitts, S. 2010. Music and Mind in Everyday Life. Oxford: Ox-
ford University Press.
Crafts, S. D, Cavicchi, D, Keil, C. et al. 1993. My Music: Explorations of Music in Daily
Life. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press.
DeNora, T. ̶
2000. Music in Everyday Life. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
2004. Musical Practice and Social Structure: A Toolkit. In E. Clarke and N. Cook Eds.
Empirical Musicology: Aims, Methods, Prospects. New York: Oxford University
Press: 35 ̶ 36.
Edison Research. 2016. Share of Music: A Share of Ear Report. https://app.custom-
show.com/viewer?s=g7uv3y. Accessed: 21 December 2017.
Greasley, A. E. and Lamont, A. 2011. Exploring Engagement with Music in Everyday
Life using Experience Sampling Methodology. Musicae Scientiae 15 (1): 45 ̶ 71.
Hallam, S, Cross, I. and Thaut, M. Eds. 2009. Oxford Handbook of Music Psychology.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Helsing, M. 2012. Everyday Music Listening: The importance of Individual and Situa-
tional Factors for Musical Emotions and Stress Reduction. In E. Cambouropoulos, C.
Tsourgas, P. Mavromatis and C. Pastiadis Eds. Proceedings of the 12th International
Conference on Music Perception and Cognition (ICMPC) and the 8th Triennial Con-
ference of the European Society for the Cognitive Sciences of Music (ESCOM), Thes-
saloniki, Greece, 23 ̶ 28 June, 2012. http://icmpc-escom2012.web.auth.gr/?q=node/67.
Accessed: 21 December 2017.
Hennion, A. ̶
2001. Music Lovers: Taste as Performance. Theory, Culture and Society 18 (5): 1 ̶ 21.
2015. The Passion for Music: A Sociology of Mediation. Farnham: Ashgate.
Hennion, A, Maisonneuve, S. and Gomart, É. 2000. Figures de l’amateur. Formes, objets,
pratiques de l’amour de la musique aujourd’hui. Paris: La Documentation française.
Herbert, R. ̶
2011. Everyday Music Listening: Absorption, Dissociation and Trancing. Aldershot:
Ashgate.
2012. Modes of Music Listening and Modes of Subjectivity in Everyday Life. Journal of
Sonic Studies 2 (1). http://journal.sonicstudies.org/vol02/nr01/a05. Accessed: 21 De-
cember 2017.
Hesmondhalgh, D. 2013. Why Music Matters. Oxford ̶ Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell.
IFPI – International Federation of Phonographic Industries. 2017. http://www.ifpi.org/.
Accessed: 21 December 2017.
Intille, S, Kukla, C. and Ma, X. 2002. Eliciting User Preferences Using Image-Based
Experience Sampling and Reflection. CHI’02 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors
in Computing Systems. New York: ACM: 738 ̶ 739.
Jones, S. 2011. Music and the Internet. In M. Consalvo and C. Ess Eds. The Handbook of
Internet Studies. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Blackwell: 440 ̶ 451.

martagq@gmail.com
100 Marta García Quiñones

Juslin, P. N. and Laukka, P. 2004. Expression, Perception, and Induction of Musical

Emotions: A Review and a Questionnaire Study of Everyday Listening. Journal of
New Music Research 33 (3): 217 ̶ 238.
Juslin, P. N, Liljeström, S, Västfjäll, D. et al. 2008. An Experience Sampling Study of
Emotional Reactions to Music: Listener, Music, and Situation. Emotion 8 (5): 668 ̶
683.
Kahneman, D, Krueger, A. B, Schkade, D. et al. 2004. A Survey Method for Characteriz-
ing Daily Life Experience: The Day Reconstruction Method”. Science 306 (5702):
1776 ̶ 1780.
Kassabian, A. 2013. Ubiquitous Listening: Affect, Attention, and Distributed Subjectivity.
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Larson, R. and Csikszentmihalyi, M. 2014. The Experience Sampling Method. In M.
Csikszentmihalyi Ed. Flow and the Foundations of Positive Psychology: The Collect-
ed Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht ̶ Heidelberg ̶ New York ̶ London:
Springer: 21 ̶ 34.
Lepa, S. and Hoklas, A.-K. 2015. How Do People Really Listen to Music Today? Con-
ventionalities and Major Turnovers in German Audio Repertoires. Information, Com-
munication and Society 18 (10): 1253 ̶ 1268.
Lilliestam, L. 2013. Research on Music Listening: From Tipologies to Interviews with
Real People, Volume! 10 (1). http://volume.revues.org/3733. Accessed: 21 December
2017.
MECD – Ministerio de Educación, Cultura y Deporte. 2015. Encuesta de hábitos y prác-
ticas culturales 2014-2015. Madrid: MECD. http://www.mecd.gob.es/da-
m/jcr:ad12b73a-57c7-406c-9147-117f39a594a3/encuesta-de-habitos-y-practicas-
culturales-2014-2015.pdf. Accessed: 21 December 2017.
North, A. C. and Hargreaves, D. J. 2009. The Power of Music. The Psychologist 22: 1012 ̶
1015.
North, A. C, Hargreaves, D. J. and Hargreaves, J. J. 2004. Uses of Music in Everyday
Life. Music Perception 22 (1): 41 ̶ 77.
North, A. C, Hargreaves, D. J. and O’Neill, S. 2000. The Importance of Music to Adoles-
cents. British Journal of Educational Psychology 70: 255 ̶ 272.
Nowak, R. 2015. Consuming Music in the Digital Age: Technologies, Roles, and Every-
day Life. Houndmills, Basingstoke̶ Hampshire, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Sloboda, J. 2005. Everyday Uses of Music Listening: A Preliminary Study. In Exploring
the Musical Mind. Oxford: Oxford University Press: 319 ̶ 332.
Sloboda, J, O’Neill, S. A. and Ivaldi, A. 2001. Functions of Music in Everyday Life: An
Exploratory Study Using the Experience Sampling Method. Musicae Scientiae 5 (1):
9 ̶ 32.
Västfjäll, D, Juslin, P. N. and Hartig, T. 2012. Music, Subjective Wellbeing and Health:
The Role of Everyday Emotions. In R. A. R. MacDonald, G. Kreuz and L. Mitchell
Eds. Music, Health and Wellbeing. Oxford-New York: Oxford University Press: 405 ̶
423.

martagq@gmail.com