One can distinguish a culturally valued aesthetic response to music's intrinsic syntax from a culturally devalued aesthetic response to music's more extrinsic meaning. Experts probably hold a highly syntactic aesthetic ideal. By some accounts, novice listeners hold a less syntactic, more romantic ideal. If so, two aesthetic styles would coexist in musical culture, with experts broadcasting their syntactic ideal to the culture and listeners echoing it in their ideas of musical greatness. However, novices would have a musical split personality—with romantic preference at odds with the expert ideal, but a syntactic ideal of greatness congruent with it. An analysis of American classical music culture of the 1940s (using preference, eminence, space allocation, and musical performance data on Western composers collected by Farnsworth, Hevner-Mueller, etc.) confirmed these predictions. The results indicate the importance of nonsyntactic responses to listeners and suggest further research on these aesthetic dimensions which the culture's syntactic focus has orphaned. Such research might illuminate another cultural phenomenon—the rejection of contemporary music by audiences.

References

References
Bell, C. Art. New York: Capricorn, 1958.
Berlyne, D. E. The new experimental aesthetics. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics, pp. 1-26. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1974.
Cage, J. Silence. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1961.
Crozier, J. B. Verbal and exploratory responses to sound sequences varying in uncertainty level. In D. E. Berlyne (Ed.), Studies in the new experimental aesthetics, pp. 27-90. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere, 1974.
Dowling, W. J. Melodic information processing and its development. In D. Deutsch (Ed.), The Psychology of music, pp. 413-429. New York: Academic Press, 1983.
Farnsworth, P. R. Stereotypes in the field of musical eminence. Genetic Psychology Mono- vratohs. 1941. XXIV. 347-381.
Farnsworth, P. R. Musical taste: Its measurement and cultural nature. Stanford, CA: Stan- ford University Press, 1950.
Farnsworth, P. R. Language aspects of music. In P. R. Farnsworth, The Social psychology of music, pp. 84-115. New York: Dryden Press, 1958.
Foglmann, E. E. An experimental study of composer-preference of four outstanding sym- phony orchestras. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1933, XVI, 709-724.
Frankenstein, A. What people think they should think. San Francisco Chronicle, February 2, 1941.
Hanslick, E. The Beautiful in music. New York: The Liberal Arts Press, 1957.
Hedden, S. K. Listeners' responses to music in relation to autochthonous and experiential factors. Journal of Research in Music Education, 1973, 21, 225-238.
Hedden, S. K. Music listening responses of groups differing in listening achievement. Psy- chomusicology, 1981, 1(2), 52-58.
Hevner, K. The affective character of the major and minor modes in music. American Jour- nal of Psychology, 1935, 47, 103-118.
Hevner, K. Experimental studies of the elements of expression in music. American Journal of Psychology, 1936, 48, 246-268.
Hevner Mueller, K. Twenty Seven Major American Symphony Orchestras. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1973.
Humphrey, N. K. The illusion of beauty. Perception, 1973, 2, 429-439.
Jones, M. R. Music as a stimulus for psychological motion: Part I: Some determinants of expectancies. Psychomusicology, 1981, 1(2), 34-51.
Jones, M. R. Music as a stimulus for psychological motion: Part II: An expectancy model. Psychomusicology, 1982,2(1), 1-13.
Kreitler, H., & Kreitler, S. Psychology of the arts. Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1972.
Krumhansl, C. L., & Castellano, M. A. Dynamic processes in music perception. Memory and Cognition, 1983, 11(4), 325-334.
Langer, S. K. Feeling and form: A theory of art. New York: Scribner, 1953.
Lee, V. The varieties of musical experience. North American Review, 1918, 207, 748-757.
Lerdahl, F., & Jackendoff, R. A Generative theory of tonal music. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1983.
Meyer, L. B. Emotion and meaning in music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956.
Meyer, L. B. Music, the arts, and ideas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1967.
Meyer, L. B. Explaining music. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973.
Mueller, J. H. The American symphony orchestra: A social history of musical taste. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1951.
Mueller, J. H., & Hevner, K. Trends in musical taste. Indiana University Publications, 1942 Humanity Series, 8.
Narmour, E. Beyond Schenker ism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1977.
Ortmann, O. Types of listeners: genetic considerations. In M. Schoen (Ed.), The Effects of music, pp. 38-77. New York: Harcourt, Brace, & Company, 1927.
Piston, W. Harmony (end ed.). London: Norton, 1948.
Pratt, C. C. Music as the language of emotion. Library of Congress Lecture, December 21, 1950. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952.
Rameau, J. Treatise on harmony (P. Gossett, Trans.). New York: Dover, 1971.
Schenker, H. Harmony (E. M. Borghese, Trans.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1954.
Smith, J. D., & Melara, R. J. Aesthetic preference and syntactic prototypicality in music: Tis the gift to be simple. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1986a.
Smith, J. D., & Melara, R. J. (1986). Aesthetic profiles for eighty Western composers. Un- published manuscript, 1986b.
Smith, J. D., & Witt, J. Two sources for the rejection of contemporary music. Manuscript in preparation.
Vernon, P. E. Auditory perception: I. The Gestalt approach. British Journal of Psychology, 1934, 25, 123-139.
Weber, C. O. Esthetics of rectangles and theories of affect. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1931,15,310-318.
Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.
Yingling, R. W. Classification of reaction patterns in listening to music. Journal of Research in Music Education, 1962, 10, 105-120.
This content is only available via PDF.