This content analysis examines how philosophy and advocacy articles published between 2005 and 2010 were influenced by current neuroscience research. The contents of twelve journals were explored, resulting in the inclusion of forty-five articles in this analysis. Recently, there has been a growing interest in neuroscientific research on music. Articles were coded for latent content and emerging themes to determine if this interest has begun to be expressed in philosophy and advocacy writings. The educational implications and issues of using neuroscientific findings are addressed, and recommendations are offered for using future research for advocacy purposes.In recent years, major advances have been made in understanding the brain, especially regarding its relation to music. Technology such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission topography (PET) scans have begun to expose the human brain's inner workings, providing new knowledge about what occurs while persons are engaged in a variety of activities. Interdisciplinary researchers in fields such as biology, neuroscience, and cognitive science have begun to study the interaction between the brain and music. These findings have potentially important implications for music education. Depending on the rigor of these studies, scientific information could be a useful tool as music educators advocate for the study of music and communicate its importance. As musicians and music educators, we know the value of music, but evidence from recent research could further strengthen our convictions (Mark 2005).Researchers studying music and the brain have not only published numerous research articles but have also produced material for public consumption to meet the growing general interest in brain functioning. Much of this material is research-based and communicated by the researchers themselves. However, other research has been misinterpreted, misstated, or misunderstood, and subsequently developed into enthusiastically accepted pedagogies (Geake 2008;Varma, McCandliss, and Schwartz 2008). Confusion over what is Correspondence should be sent to Amber