This theory seems naive, simplistic and flat out wrong. 1) This hand waves away a key part conversations, the process of establishing sufficient shared meaning

This theory seems naive, simplistic and flat out wrong. 1) This hand waves away a key part conversations, the process of establishing sufficient shared meaning to pass information. This process is most obvious in its absence from comedic conversations where two characters talk past eachother (e.g. who's on first.) 4) The percieved "spontaneity" of a statement does not have any fixed relationship with the effort we put into verifying the truth of that statement. It's effects are minimal compared to our perception of the intent of the speaker in making the statement. 5) This is a mandatory part of conversations? I extremely rarely see people respond to statements is such manner. Conversations are diverse and conversationalists follow many different models, sometimes even within a conversation. As far as I can tell, the Author is so set on the "music is a super stimulus of speech" that they have post-hoc invented an unrealistic model to make their hypothesis work. In reality, music, like most art, exploits a wide variety of perceptual and cognitive quirks while referencing a shared set of cultural experiences. Trying to boil this down to "music is a super stimulus of conversational speech" is simplistic and boring. This is just bad pseudo-psychology from someone who wrote a whole "science" book on the topic without actually doing any actual science.