The article itself doubts that the assumption postulated here is correct.
Quoting the article: "Previous research on how music affects zoo-housed gorillas produced mixed results. One study found adult gorillas were more agitated and aroused by rainforest sounds. Another paper found that the animals appeared more relaxed in response to music – whether classical or forest tunes – than when no music was played to them."
“I don’t think it’s as simple as classical vs. rock vs. natural sounds,” Margulis explains. “It probably has more to do with [differences in] the rhythm or tempo.”
There are many factors to be taken into account: the choice of music, the accoustics, the quality and frequency of the broadcasting, ambient noise, the individual tested gorilla specimens and their social group (personally, I'm neither a fan of Chopin or Muse, and probably wouldn't enjoy listening to them again and again, while others would) etc. And how should captive-bred gorillas know what their original habitat sounds like? The "natural rainforest" sound tapes I've heard in zoos and elsewhere are usually a wild mix from all corners of the world and designed for human ears, with the occasional screaming piha thrown in.
I recall a report from SD Zoo that in some birds in the tropical aviary, playing taped recordings from the wild triggered mating. However, I doubt that the very different hearing abilities of the various animal species kept will allow for concluding results. Personally, I find some of the "natural sounds" played at or in some exhibits rather annoying, and would probably show "signs of hair-plucking and regurgitating and re-ingesting food" if having to listen to them for too long...
