mattalcock.com

· Music

Frisson: why some people feel music in their skin

Why some people feel music in their skin, and what the rest of us have forgotten how to do.

In 2015, in a university psychology lab, a PhD student named Mitchell Colver and a social psychologist named Amani El-Alayli were running a study on volunteers who had come in expecting, as far as they understood, a study about music.

They clamped headphones over the subjects' ears. They stuck electrodes to their fingers to measure the faint electrical change that happens when your skin sweats in response to an emotional event. It's called galvanic skin response, the same signal a polygraph reads. Then they played them a carefully curated series of tracks, with choral builds, soaring violin entries, moments where a soloist takes over an ensemble. And they sat back and watched the meters.

What they saw was that some people went off like fireworks. The trace spiked. Fine hairs lifted visibly on their forearms. They were the ones who, when asked about it afterwards, described the experience in the language of pleasure. A wave, a shiver, a warm current, a small aesthetic detonation somewhere between the shoulder blades. The others sat there politely. The trace stayed flat. The music had, for them, just been music.

Colver had been asking this question, in one form or another, since he was a teenager, which was his own question about himself. He felt that wave. He felt it almost daily. He had assumed, more or less without thinking about it, that everyone did. Now, with the equipment beeping and some of his subjects shrugging, he was being forced to accept a strange fact. Some of the people sitting in front of him had never, in their entire lives, felt what he felt when a song opened up.

The phenomenon has a name. In English we call it the chills, or goosebumps, or, in the term that has lodged itself in the culture, a "skin orgasm." Scientists, who would like a word that doesn't sound like a BuzzFeed headline, prefer the French word, frisson, pronounced free-SAWN.

It feels, as anyone who has had it will tell you, like waves of something (warmth, pleasure, electricity) running across the scalp and down the spine and out along the arms. Sometimes it reaches the legs. Sometimes it stops at the neck. It lasts around two seconds. It is involuntary in the way a sneeze is involuntary, and pleasurable in a way almost nothing else is, and it happens, most reliably, in response to music.

The numbers on how many people get it are all over the place. Depending on the study, somewhere between 55 and 86 percent of the population reports the experience. Which means that between fourteen and forty-five percent of the people you know have never had it, will never have it, and, when you try to explain what you mean by it, will look at you the way a colour-blind friend looks at you when you describe a sunset.

The question the study was trying to answer was why.

The natural guesses, when you first hear the question, tend to be the same three.

It's probably a training thing. Musicians feel music more deeply. They're inside it. It's probably a taste thing. Some genres are just more intense, and some people have simply never encountered the right ones. And it's probably an emotional thing. Some people are more emotionally reactive than others; they cry at adverts and get chills from songs and that is all, in the end, one variable.

All three, it turns out, are wrong. Or rather, shallow. Musical training correlates weakly with frisson at best. There are conservatory graduates who don't get it and lorry drivers who do. Genre is almost a red herring. The online communities of frisson-havers trade triggers that range from Lady Gaga's Super Bowl national anthem to a fan-edited Star Wars trailer to the brass entrance in Sigur Rós's Hoppípolla to, famously, the moment in April 2009 when a frumpy forty-seven-year-old woman from West Lothian opened her mouth on a British talent show and sang the first phrase of I Dreamed a Dream, and a jaded live audience of three thousand people, and in the weeks that followed roughly a hundred million people on YouTube, all felt exactly the same thing in exactly the same place at exactly the same time.

The emotional hypothesis, the most intuitive of the three, is where the study, published with El-Alayli in the journal Psychology of Music, landed its most interesting finding.

Frisson, they found, does track with a personality dimension. But not the one you'd bet on.

The Big Five personality model sorts people along five broad axes, one of which is called Openness to Experience. Openness has two rough halves. One is experiential and emotional. You feel things strongly, you respond to aesthetics, you are moved by art. The other is cognitive. You daydream, you construct mental imagery, you fill in gaps, you predict.

It was the cognitive half, not the emotional half, that predicted who got the chills.

Meaning the people who feel music in their skin are not, as a group, the people who feel the most. They are the people who think the most. While they're listening.

A progressive trance track, any of a thousand of them, runs a long build before its first drop. The build is maybe ninety seconds. It announces itself gradually. A pad widens in the stereo field, a kick drum establishes itself, a filtered lead climbs from the mud of the midrange into somewhere you can hear it, a snare roll accelerates from eighths into sixteenths into thirty-seconds. Somewhere around the eighty-second mark the entire mix ducks (a mask drop, a held breath, a moment of near-silence) and then the track detonates.

If you are the kind of listener who lets music "wash over you," you experience that drop as pleasant. A nice bit.

If you are the kind of listener the study was interested in, you experience the build as a series of bets you are placing that the track is either honouring or violating, and the drop as the resolution of a question you have been asking for a minute and a half, and your autonomic nervous system, wound up by the suspense, discharges. Your skin, literally, reports back.

The shiver is not a reaction to beauty. It is a reaction to having almost guessed right. To having set up an expectation and watched the music either satisfy it with a flourish, or violate it in a way your mind registers as beautifully logical a moment after the fact.

This is why, in the fMRI work that has accumulated since the late 2000s, frisson is associated not with one brain region but with two. The first is the caudate, which lights up in the seconds before the chill arrives, during the anticipation. The second is the nucleus accumbens, which fires at the moment of release. Both are dopaminergic. Both are parts of the reward circuit that also handles food, sex and cocaine.

The musicologist David Huron wrote a whole book, Sweet Anticipation, around the argument that musical pleasure is essentially an economy of expectations. Composers set them up. Listeners place silent internal bets. The tension between the bet and the payoff is the thing we are actually listening for. A satisfying modulation is a satisfying guess. A surprising key change is a guess that missed in an interesting direction. The drop is the payout.

It's the same machinery behind variable reward, the pull of one more scroll of a feed, or one more hand at the blackjack table. You don't know whether this one will pay, and the not knowing is the hook. Slot machines and social apps are built on it. A great build is too. The difference is that the track makes you wait, and then it pays.

Which means the reason the non-frisson listener doesn't feel the drop is not that their skin is faulty. It is that they are not, in any meaningful sense, betting.

Is neurodivergence a factor? Probably, though the science hasn't caught up. Nobody has run Colver's experiment properly on autistic, dyslexic or ADHD listeners. But the pieces point that way. ADHD is, among other things, a difference in how the brain handles dopamine, anticipation and reward, the same system the caudate and nucleus accumbens belong to. Some autistic people describe music as intensely physical, and are unusually tuned to pattern, like the exact moment a chord resolves, the snare roll that arrives a bar early. Dyslexia is a more interesting case. Usha Goswami's research at Cambridge suggests many dyslexic people process rhythm and timing differently, which could change how a build lands either way. And in online frisson communities, a lot of the people describing frequent, intense chills say they're neurodivergent.

If the shiver belongs to the listener who is predicting, it would make sense that brains built to hunt for patterns and chase reward feel it hardest. For now that's a hypothesis, not a finding. It's one I'd love someone to test.

This should probably bother us more than it does.

A whole generation is now listening to music at a lower resolution than any generation before it. Not in terms of bitrate. Streaming handles that. In terms of attention. Background music has become the default condition of listening. Spotify's most commercially successful product category, by some measures, is the playlist that is explicitly designed not to be attended to. Lo-fi beats to study to, focus mixes, coffee-shop ambient, sleep. These are playlists whose literal job description is do not reward listening.

Algorithmic recommendation completes the picture. An algorithm trained on your skip rate will learn, over time, to hand you tracks that don't demand anything of you, because demanding tracks get skipped more often. It will converge, in the long run, on music designed not to be predicted, because prediction requires attention, and attention is the one thing the interface is not asking you to give.

If Colver and El-Alayli are right, and the shiver belongs to the listener who leans forward, then a whole economy of music is being optimised against it.

None of which is a complaint about lo-fi beats, which do a different and useful job. It is a complaint about the idea that the way we listen now is a neutral fact of modern life. It isn't. It is a learned habit, and like any learned habit, it has an opportunity cost. What we are losing is the ninety-second build. The mask drop. The feeling of being seventy seconds into a track and realising, with a small somatic click, that the track knows something about you.

Colver thinks that frisson is partly trainable. You can't hand someone the disposition for it (there may not even be a gene for it), but you can, he suspects, teach a person to listen in the way that produces it. Put the headphones on. Choose a track you already half-know. Turn the lights down. Predict. Wait to be surprised.

This is how people used to listen to records, sitting in front of the speakers with the sleeve in their hands, doing nothing else. That behaviour is now strange enough that describing it sounds quaint, like describing people reading novels in one sitting.

Back in the lab, the subject whose trace spiked peeled the electrodes off her fingers and went home and possibly never thought about the experiment again. But in that room she had demonstrated something extraordinary about her own nervous system. It had been taught, by some combination of disposition and practice, to treat a piece of music as a thing worth guessing at. And when the music did what she had been betting it would do, her skin reported back, unbidden, in a language older than the music.

So here's where I've landed. Music does two different jobs. One is to let you switch off. Lo-fi, a focus mix, the album you've played a hundred times. It asks nothing of you, and that's the point. It helps you tune out, get into flow and stop thinking. I love it for that.

The other job is the bet. You lean in, you guess, and the track either pays out or surprises you. Frisson is the reward for that kind of listening, and like most rewards it goes to the people who place the bet. The feed and the blackjack table run on the same circuitry, but they hand out the payout without the build. Music makes you wait, then pays you back. And when those bets land on a dancefloor, with your friends around you all calling the same drop at the same moment, the feeling is incredible.

Some of the flat-trace listeners may be built that way. But I think a lot of us have simply stopped listening the second way. Music is on all day now, in the background while we work, travel and cook, and we rarely sit down and give a track our full attention. Both ways of listening are good. But if it's been a while since a song gave you the chills, put one on properly. One track, headphones on, nothing else, and a guess about what happens next. Or better still, a dancefloor and some friends.

Other writing in this space

← All writingRSS