I would be skeptical of OS-level memory measurements. At the OS level, memory management is surprisingly complex, and for various reasons Task Manager can report memory shared with other processes as part of the memory usage of a single process, resulting in inflated numbers or double- or triple-counting the same memory allocations. Also if you have loads of RAM, from the OS's point of view it's like a big really fast cache space, and not using that is a waste. So as long as you are not actually running out of memory, then the OS will use as much RAM as possible, to make best use of that. Often OSs like Windows are accused of "wasting memory", but thinking the OS should keep RAM as empty as possible is similar to thinking that your CPU should keep its L1 cache as empty as possible, just in case you suddenly need to put lots of stuff there, whereas it actually performs far better to fill it up completely and evict unused things if you run out. So if Windows sees you have gigabytes of space free it's going to start filling it up with file caches and stuff to maximise performance. There is a whole cascade of other effects too - like Chrome might decide, why waste CPU time running a GC now if it has room to make several gigabytes of further allocations? There's no pressure at all there.
So overall the task manager reported numbers are pretty misleading. If you see it using 1 GB RAM there, that does not at all mean it is actually using, or requires, 1 GB of RAM.
Music is not held decompressed in memory, but sound is. You can easily test the memory impact by turning off 'Preload sounds' and comparing the startup memory use. If you don't preload sounds though, you have to have a whole system of determining when to preload and when to unload the sound effect, and mistakes mean high latency on the sound playback, so I don't really think it's worth the bother.