Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Aesthetic experiences arise through interaction with sensory objects. These experiences are shaped into aesthetic judgments using verbal concepts. We explored this process in music by surveying 804 participants who described their favorite music using adjectives, resulting in 94 semantic fields based on 7,388 responses and 1,786 unique terms. Using the Cognitive Salience Index (CSI), we assessed the prominence of these terms, considering frequency, order, and sample size. The results reflect individual preferences rather than objective criteria, emphasizing personal perspectives on aesthetic appreciation. Prominent terms were mainly related to mood and emotions, highlighting the role of emotional engagement in musical experiences. Descriptions also included sound characteristics and style-specific terminology, illustrating how stylistic features influence aesthetic judgments. In contrast, aesthetic terms—such as “beautiful”—were less salient, likely due to the personal framing of the task. This study helps explain how people derive aesthetic value from music by linking personal experiences with structured verbal descriptions.

Keywords

aesthetics musical taste individual differences adjectives verbal concepts

Aesthetic experiences are evoked through the engagement with aesthetic stimuli and often contain an explicit judgment of the perceived quality and value of the stimulus. Recipients listen to music, read literature, and observe visual artwork, and form these experiences into aesthetic judgments, using verbal concepts that seem most suitable to describe their impression of the relevant, meaningful and rewarding characteristics of an object (Knoop et al., 2016; Leder et al., 2004). One prominent method to understand aesthetic judgements in different domains is to ask recipients to verbally describe what makes an object aesthetically appealing. This approach “from below” (Fechner, 1876) takes into account the perspective of the recipients instead of being guided by the opinion of experts or experimenter-based selections of aesthetic descriptors. Several studies identified recipient-based verbal concepts of aesthetics for different object categories including visual art, landscapes, faces, and different design classes (Augustin et al., 2012b; Jacobsen et al., 2004; see also Hager et al., 2012), various materials including leather, metal, and wood (Marschallek et al., 2023), tattoos (Weiler & Jacobsen, 2021), literary genres (Knoop et al., 2016), and music (Istók et al., 2009). Often, the art forms were treated without taking into account the different styles and forms within each class (but see Knoop et al., 2016; Marschallek et al., 2023), or inter-individual preferences. Istók et al. (2009) conducted a study aimed at examining the cognitive, knowledge-based concepts underlying aesthetic responses to music. They requested their participants to provide written expressions of their aesthetic evaluations of music using adjectives. Notably, the adjective “beautiful” emerged as the most frequently mentioned word in the study results. Moreover, adjectives that described emotional or mood states were commonly mentioned, including “touching,” “emotional,” “involving feelings,” “pleasant,” “sad,” and “happy.” The analysis also revealed adjectives that were specifically related to musical elements such as “rhythmic,” “melodic,” and “harmonic.” The findings of this study provide valuable insights into the underlying cognitive and knowledge-based concepts that influence aesthetic responses to music (Istók et al., 2009).

Notably, studies on aesthetic concepts “from below” have typically focused on general descriptions of aesthetic objects. In contrast, our study takes a more differentiated approach by examining personal concepts of music through the lens of individual taste, specifically focusing on music that participants have already evaluated positively—namely, their favorite music. This allows us to access aesthetic experiences that are affectively significant, and personally meaningful. Our approach is grounded in a broad understanding of aesthetics – one that goes beyond formal features, such as beauty, or harmony to encompass emotional, cognitive, functional, and personal responses (e.g., Leder et al., 2004).

When asking for a general aesthetic judgment of an object rather than a personally significant one, the term “beautiful” emerged as the most frequently mentioned (Augustin et al., 2012b; Istók et al., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2004; Knoop et al., 2016; Marschallek et al., 2023; Weiler & Jacobsen, 2021), followed by “ugly” (Augustin et al., 2012b; Jacobsen et al., 2004), and “suspenseful” (Knoop et al., 2016). Further, a substantial number of emotion-related terms such as “touching,” “emotional,” “involving feelings,” “pleasant,” “sad,” and “happy” were identified in studies on music (Augustin et al., 2012a; Istók et al., 2009) and literature (Knoop et al., 2016). In addition, the studies revealed domain-specific descriptive structural features, e.g., music included features such as “rhythmic,” “melodic,” and “harmonic” (Istók et al., 2009), whereas features of patterns were “round” and “symmetric,” visual arts were “colorful,” buildings were “big,” and cars were “fast” (see Tables 1 and 2 in Augustin et al., 2012b). Other terms point to functional reasons of an engagement with art forms, e.g., “soothing” indicates mood regulation, and “inspiring” intellectual stimulation (Augustin et al., 2012a). The latter was named for film, music, and visual arts with a similar likelihood, the first was most dominant for music (Augustin et al., 2012a). Materials were primarily described in a descriptive way and tended to have neutral valence. “Smooth” was the most significant term for describing materials, followed by other key descriptors such as “hard,” “rough,” “soft,” and “glossy.” Additionally, sensorial qualities such as “warm” and “see-through” were central to the aesthetics of materials, with most descriptors relating to haptic qualities such as “cold” and “heavy” (Marschallek et al., 2023).

Models of aesthetic processing include these aspects as well, but differ in their sophistication and specified relations between those aspects (e.g., Bergeron & Lopes, 2012; Graf & Landwehr, 2015; Leder et al., 2004; Pelowski et al., 2017; Silvia & Brown, 2007). For example, Leder et al. (2004) describe aesthetic appreciation as the result of dynamic interactions between multiple modules, including perceptual analysis, implicit memory integration, explicit classification, cognitive mastering, and evaluation, which can lead to aesthetic judgments or affective responses. Silvia and Brown's (2007) appraisal model emphasizes that emotional responses to art are shaped by individual appraisals—cognitive evaluations influenced by traits, values, and expertise—thereby accounting for pronounced inter-individual differences. Similarly, but with a focus on fluency-based processes, Graf and Landwehr (2015) describe aesthetic experiences by stimulus-based properties (e.g., processing affordances) and perceivers’ needs (e.g., cognitive enrichment). Bergeron and Lopes (2012) identify three core dimensions – evaluative, affective, and semantic – but argue that not all need to be involved in every aesthetic experience. Pelowski et al. (2017) extend these perspectives by proposing a multilayered model that encompasses perceptual processing, emotional responses, meaning-making, evaluation, and physiological states. Despite their differences, these models converge in describing aesthetic experiences as complex interactions between stimulus features, emotional reactions, cognitive processes, and individual dispositions. In line with this broader understanding, our use of the term aesthetics moves beyond narrow, formalist conceptions to embrace the full spectrum of ways individuals experience, and emotionally engage with music in everyday life. This is consistent with Herbert's argument that musical affect spans from subtle mood shifts to deeply transformative experiences. Similarly, Behne's concept of Musikerleben underscores that an aesthetic experience includes not only emotional and cognitive dimensions, but also bodily and social components (Behne, 2004). Concepts such as the Geneva Emotional Music Scale (GEMS; Zentner et al., 2008), the Geneva Music-Induced Affect Checklist (GEMIAC; Coutinho & Scherer, 2017), and the Aesthetic Emotions Scale (AESTHEMOS; Schindler et al., 2017) further highlight the nuanced emotional vocabulary used to describe aesthetic experiences, showing how emotions such as awe, nostalgia, or being moved are not merely outcomes, but integral to the aesthetic judgment itself. These perspectives inform our approach by framing the aesthetic experience as a multifaceted process, essential to understanding why music from different genres becomes favorites.

In the context of our study it is important to address the potential concern that aesthetic experience might be conflated with general or functional uses of music. It is argued here that such conflation is avoided through the specific framing of the present study, which asked participants to describe their favorite music. The act of selecting music as a favorite implies that an aesthetic judgment has already been made – one informed by emotional resonance, perceived value, and meaningful personal experience. Even in cases where favorite music is used functionally (e.g., to enhance motivation during exercise), such uses often rely on aesthetic and affective qualities that were previously recognized and appreciated. In this way, functional uses can be seen not as distinct from aesthetic experience, but as shaped by and dependent on it (Behne, 2004; Leder et al., 2004; Pelowski et al., 2017). Accordingly, the free descriptions provided by participants are interpreted as expressions of aesthetic judgment from the recipients’ perspective – reflecting not only formal or stylistic appraisals, but also emotionally and personally meaningful engagements with music.

In research on musical taste, aesthetic concepts have not been in the focus of studies. But studies are related, when investigating the underlying reasons for listening to specific music, such as musical attributes, personality issues, or functions of music listening (Finnäs, 1989; Flannery & Woolhouse, 2021; Greb et al., 2017; North, 2010; Parzer, 2011; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003, 2006; Rentfrow et al., 2011; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). These functional aspects of music listening – such as mood regulation, social bonding, or intellectual stimulation – can be understood as integral components of the aesthetic judgment, rather than separate or purely utilitarian motivations. When individuals evaluate music as their favorite, they often do so because it fulfills personal functions that are emotionally, and cognitively rewarding, thereby becoming part of the broader aesthetic experience. The most important functions are mood regulation, arousal, and intellectual stimulation, which are partially matching preference factors. While favorite music overall puts the listener in a good mood, electronic music energizes and motivates dancing, and classical music is intellectually stimulating (Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). These styles also differ with regard to musical attributes. For electronic music the emphasis is on rhythm, while classical music is complex in structure (e.g., Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003, based on preference factors, that pertain specific musical styles). However, relations between preferences, musical features, and music-specific functions are usually shown by correlations (Greb et al., 2017; e.g., North, 2010; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Rentfrow et al., 2011; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). Interpretation of genre labels are often based on stereotypical descriptions of particular styles of music (e.g., rock as intense and rebellious, Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003), but there are also approaches to related preferences of musical styles with evaluated, style-dependent, characteristic acoustic and musical features (Finnäs, 1989; Flannery & Woolhouse, 2021; Rentfrow & Gosling, 2006; Rentfrow et al., 2011). While there is basic agreement, some interpretations differ when looking into details. For instance, some studies portray electronic music as energetic and rhythmic (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003), while others describe it as emotionally engaging and useful for mind wandering (Greb et al., 2017; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009; see also Parzer, 2011). In the mentioned studies, musical styles were assigned specific functions based on their characteristics. However, inconsistencies arise from the use of stereotypical labels for these styles, as they lack differentiation. We can achieve this by closely examining the aesthetic concepts listeners attribute to their favorite music.

In the current study on individual aesthetic concepts of music, we collected detailed information on musical preferences on the one hand, and asked participants to generate adjectives describing their favorite music. By bridging preferences and the exploration of aesthetic descriptions, our study contributes to the comprehension of why individuals engage with and derive aesthetic pleasure from their favorite music. This nuanced approach is integral to unraveling the intricate relationships between aesthetic preferences, emotional experiences, and the multifunctionality of music in listeners’ lives. It is decidedly an approach “from below,” to put weight on the individual perspectives of the recipients.

Methodologically, an important difference is that we included all responses in our analyses, whereas earlier studies decided to analyze the most frequent terms only (Augustin et al., 2012b; Istók et al., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2004; Knoop et al., 2016; Marschallek et al., 2023). Four studies examined terms mentioned by at least 5% of participants (Istók et al., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2004; Knoop et al., 2016; Marschallek et al., 2023), while the other study analyzed terms mentioned by a minimum of two participants (Augustin et al., 2012b). This procedure results in a dramatic reduction of information. For example, Jacobsen et al. (2004) collected 2,948 responses from 311 participants, resulting in a pool of 590 different terms, of which 38 items were analyzed. Istók et al. (2009) collected 3,565 from 290 participants, resulting in a pool of 1,084 different terms, of which 43 items were analyzed. The reduction of analyzed terms was a methodologically sound decision. Infrequent terms were not analyzed further because of their potential unimportance. In contrast, we assembled all responses into semantic fields to capture the full information in our data set. For example, singular expressions that would not be analyzed by the 5% cutoff, might belong to the same semantic field. With our method, those expressions are fully captured and analyzed in terms of their salience in the data set. However, we included steps of semantic interpretation in the preprocessing of the data, which is time consuming and naturally adds subjectivity. For the measure of musical taste, we asked for liking ratings on 15 musical styles, as well as on a broad selection of substyles that were further defined by representative musicians and artists.

Methods

Participants

Participants were recruited via Facebook postings, websites, newsletters, and Email lists of university students. A total of N = 804 participants took part in the study, consisting of n = 429 females, and n = 356 males (n = 19 no answer), with a mean age of 27 years (SD = 9), spanning an age range of 15 to 72 years.¹ The majority of participants held either a German Abitur (A-levels diploma, n = 354), or a university degree (n = 343) as the highest degree, and a large group identified as students (n = 569). Among the participants, 291 individuals had over eight years of instrumental or vocal training, while 162 had not received any musical instruction. Furthermore, 172 participants self-identified as musicians, and 49 individuals reported studying music or being professionally involved with music. The latter group had actively played and practiced a musical instrument, including singing, for an average of 4.6 years. In terms of music consumption habits, the participants reported spending an average of 1.1 h per day listening to music with focus and concentration, and 2.1 h per day listening casually (for detailed information on the sample, see Supplemental Material Tables S1A-F). Based on browser information, 69% of the participants were logged in in Germany, 2% in The Netherlands, and others in Switzerland, Austria, and spread across the globe. In Germany, most participants came from Berlin (6.1%), followed by Frankfurt a.M. (4%), Mainz (3.5%), Munich (2.7%), and Hamburg (1.9%).

Procedure

All procedures were approved by the Ethics Council of the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics. The online data collection was conducted via the software QuestBack Unipark (https://www.unipark.com). The language of the survey was German. The survey was conducted in two phases: the first phase took place from May 10 to July 11, 2016, and the second phase was extended until May 3, 2017. Before starting the survey, participants were informed about the scientific background of the study and the anonymized data collection. In the first part, participants rated 15 different musical styles on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from “don't like at all” to “like very much.” Additionally, they were given the option to choose “I don't know”, if they were unfamiliar with any particular style. In the second part, participants evaluated likewise a total of 100 substyles, 3 to 11 for each style. For each substyle, three artists or bands were given as examples in order to define the substyle as clearly as possible. To define the styles included in the questionnaire, a list was compiled based on style labels used by 20 record shops, streaming services, music magazines, and websites (e.g., Saturn, last.fm). Styles that appeared on at least half of the lists were selected: blues, classical, country, electronica, folk, hip-hop/rap, jazz, metal, pop, reggae, rock, and soul. Techno, house, and German traditional music were added due to their growing popularity, and “alternative” was excluded as standalone genre label, resulting in 15 final styles. Note that we included “alternative” in substyles for music from more independant labels, or for more experimental developments, as suggested by the experts, e.g., folk included the substyle “alternative folk (folk punk, anti-folk, indie folk).” The experts were music producers, musicians, and musicologists with expertise in popular music, who were asked to assemble hierarchically nested substyles to represent the breadth of each style with minimal redundancy. Up to three representative musicians were identified for each substyle. Feedback was gathered via questionnaires and focus groups. Additional focus groups were used to compare and refine the selection of substyles and musicians. For example, soul included classic RnB (e.g., Aretha Franklin), soul-funk (e.g., James Brown), 60s soul (e.g., The Temptations), 70s soul (e.g., Curtis Mayfield), pop RnB (e.g., Alicia Keys), and neo-soul (e.g., D’Angelo; see Supplemental Material Table S2 for a complete list of styles, substyles, and artists). In the third part, participants were requested to “please list up to 20 adjectives that best describe the qualities and characteristics of your favorite music.”

We further assessed evaluations (7-point scales) on 24 musical functions (22 from Greb et al., 2017 and two items indicating no specific function), and a 15-item big-five personality inventory (Dehne & Schupp, 2007). Both scales are not in the focus of the current study. The last part consisted of questions on musical expertise and behavior (8 items), and demographic information (10 items; see Participant section).

Preprocessing of the Free Responses

From the 804 participants, two did not give sensible responses (i.e., “oh, no idea”, “asdf”), resulting in responses from 802 participants. Those generated a total of 7,388 verbal descriptions regarding their most favorite music, resulting in 1,786 distinct responses after spelling corrections. Our goal was to include as many responses as possible in our analyses. To do so, we harmonized the responses in a multi-step procedure. A first simple transformation was to turn nouns into adjectives or transitive verbs, e.g., “expression” to “expressive.” Another transformation was to reduce phrases to one word, if possible, e.g., “catchy and easy to remember melody” to “catchy,” but we kept the multi-word expressions “fitting the mood,” “enhancing concentration,” and “evoking memories.” Further, we looked into rare responses and subsumed those under terms that were mentioned often. Taking responses with the highest frequency (mentioned by at least 10 participants) as the basis, the semantically closest term was chosen. All remaining low frequent responses were assigned. That is, the final units of analyses were semantic fields. For example, “calming down”/”loosening”/”laid-back”/”reducing stress”/”minimizing tension” were mapped onto “relaxing.” We obtained the essence of each verbal expression, even the creative ones, such as in “getting goosebumps” to “moving.” These preprocessing steps were done by the first author (EG), followed by discussive evaluations and consensus-based decisions by two authors (EG, EL). To ensure accuracy and consistency, the remaining author (JM), not involved in the initial processes, reviewed the decisions, and validated the categorizations. The final set of 94 semantic fields (Table S3–S6 in the Supplemental Material), was translated into English by the first author with the help of DeepL and reviewed by a native English speaker fluent in German.

Additionally, the sematic fields were grouped into aesthetic categories. Firstly, we compiled them through consensus-based discussions within the team of authors. Secondly, to validate this categorization and reduce the subjectivity of the categorization, we decided to use artificial intelligence in a second step. ChatGPT is a powerful Large Language Model-chatbot (Meyer et al., 2024) and particularly well suited for analyzing language (Bang et al., 2023; Wu et al., 2023). ChatGPT was prompted with: “Please categorize the following words into music-aesthetic related categories” (date: 02.11.2023; OpenAI, 2023). All authors agreed that the found solution was meaningful and appropriate. Consequently, this process resulted in the following categories: Mood and Emotion (including 28 terms), Sound Characteristics (15 terms), Style and Genre (15 terms), Social and Relational (10 terms), Aesthetic and Sensory Qualities (26 terms; Table S3 in the Supplemental Material). The titles of the categories correspond very well with dimensions contained in models of aesthetic experiences (e.g., Bergeron & Lopes, 2012; Leder et al., 2004; Pelowski et al., 2017; Silvia & Brown, 2007).

Analyses

All quantitative analysis was done in R (Core Team, 2024). All scripts and data are publicly available on osf (see Data Availability). In our analyses, we related the verbal descriptions of one's favorite music to the individual's musical preferences. We defined the musical taste of the participants by their liking rating for the musical style plus the mean of the liking ratings across substyles related to the style. Participants rated their liking for a list of styles first, and then listed adjectives to describe their favorite music. Consequently, the description of favorite music might have been broader than just specific to one style. However, the aim was exactly that: to collect descriptions of favorite music and not style-specific descriptions, where participants describe the features of a specific style.

This procedure allowed us to identify the most favorite musical style for 761 participants. We excluded data from 41 participants for whom we could not identify one most favorite style but who had two or more favorites (see Table 1 for the frequencies of responses of all 15 styles). For the style-dependent analyses, we excluded the data of the styles country and German traditional music, because the participant groups were small, resulting in a final set of 6895 observations from 747 participants. A small group size will decrease the reliability of the analyses of semantic fields. We defined as cutoff the mean group size minus the standard deviation of the group sizes, which resulted in a minimum of twelve participants as representatives for the style.

Table 1.
Overview of Frequencies of Participants and Responses for the 15 Styles.

Style No. of participants No. of responses

Blues 40 382

Classical 111 1060

Country 11 68

Electronica 15 128

Folk 58 589

Rap 57 443

House 31 245

Jazz 42 435

Metal 112 1028

Pop 47 362

Reggae 43 420

Rock 134 1214

Soul 39 413

Techno 18 176

German traditional music 3 27

Sum 761 6990

Note. Number of participants, with favorite musical style identified by liking ratings on style and related substyles. Number of responses for each style. The preprocessing steps resulted in 94 different response categories (semantic fields) and the occurrences of these responses are counted here.

For all styles together as well as for each style separately, we analyzed the frequency of the semantic fields and the Cognitive Salience Index (CSI). The CSI considers how often one and the same response is given by different participants, and whether it came to mind early on or later in the list of responses. It can be interpreted as a measure of importance or prototypicality of a response. More specifically, the CSI relates the frequency of a term (freq) to the frequency of all different terms within a subset (n), and the mean position of a term within the list of free responses of the participant CSI = (mpos): frequ/(nmpos) (Sutrop, 2001).

Note that we chose to interpret only the top ten most salient terms for each style. Since ten is an arbitrary cutoff, it is evident that terms appearing further down the list increasingly overlap with other styles. Methodologically, we checked the discussed terms even beyond this cutoff, before making claims about the salience. It is also worth noting that the large variety of terms found for each style also highlights the variability and breadth of descriptions associated with musical styles, pointing to the large individual differences on a perceptual level: Not everybody enjoys the same music for the same reason. For the interested reader, we added an exploratory, non-metric multidimensional scaling approach in the Supplemental Material.

Results

We first report the analyses of the free responses on a style-independent level, that is based on all responses, irrespective of the specific favorite music of the participants. These analyses give a general overview, and invite a comparison to an earlier study on the aesthetics of music (Istók et al., 2009). Then, we report the findings on a style-dependent level, that is, important terms for the description of favorite music based on the evaluated musical styles.

Aesthetic Concepts of Music in General

The top 43 terms are listed in Table 2 (pertaining to the number of terms reported by Istók et al. (2009)), containing the mean position, frequency, and CSI. In line with previous studies, the focus of the report is on the CSI. The term “relaxing” exhibited the highest CSI (0.062), followed by “touching” (0.060), “emotional” (0.059), “melodic” (0.053), “stimulating” (0.050), “soulful” (0.047), “stylistic” (0.046), “rousing” (0.043), “diversified” (0.042), and “interesting” (0.037) (see Figure 1 “General”).

Figure 1.
Top Ten CSI Values from the Style-independent Analysis (“General”) and for Each Musical Style. Note.* The Colors Denote the Assigned Aesthetic Categories: White Background/black Letters = Mood and Emotion, Light Grey/black = Sound Characteristics, Dark Grey/black = Style and Genre, Dark Grey/white = Social and Relational, Black/white = Aesthetic and Sensorial Qualities (see Supplemental Material Tables S4 and S6 for a complete list of frequencies and CSI split by style).

Table 2.
Top 43 Terms Based on the CSI.

Term Mean position Frequency CSI

1 relaxing 5.12 254 0.062

2 touching 6.98 337 0.06

3 emotional 4.98 234 0.059

4 melodic 4.19 178 0.053

5 stimulating 7.02 284 0.05

6 soulful 6.42 240 0.047

7 stylistic 6.94 257 0.046

8 rousing 6.15 213 0.043

9 diversified 5.37 182 0.042

10 rhythmic 5.05 149 0.037

11 interesting 6.56 176 0.033

12 encouraging 5.97 149 0.031

13 soothing 5.31 130 0.031

14 energetic 5.72 139 0.03

15 versatile 6.64 149 0.028

16 danceable 5.96 131 0.027

17 beautiful 7.92 172 0.027

18 intelligent 7.05 152 0.027

19 special 8.44 182 0.027

20 powerful 6.63 134 0.025

21 melancholic 7.45 142 0.024

22 complex 5.61 104 0.023

23 catchy 5.56 102 0.023

24 demanding 6.89 126 0.023

25 harmonic 5.13 93 0.023

26 expressive 7.26 131 0.023

27 loud 6.12 110 0.022

28 lyrics 5.7 98 0.021

29 joyful 6.44 108 0.021

30 motivating 6.24 90 0.018

31 hard 6.99 100 0.018

32 calm 6.85 96 0.017

33 authentic 6.36 85 0.017

34 dreamy 7.68 102 0.017

35 fast 5.96 74 0.015

36 inspiring 7.71 93 0.015

37 moving 6.23 75 0.015

38 exciting 6.83 69 0.013

39 clear 6.92 64 0.012

40 aggressive 6.62 61 0.011

41 instrumentation 6 54 0.011

42 funny 8.2 70 0.011

43 atmospheric 6.12 50 0.01

Note. Frequency, that is absolute number of occurrences; CSI = cognitive salience index (Sutrop, 2001), taking into account the frequency and mean position in the free response output.

Aesthetic Concepts of Music from Different Styles

To investigate the style-dependent level, participants were split into groups based on their most favorite style. Importantly, there was quite some overlap between groups, with the terms “touching,” “relaxing,” “emotional,” “melodic”, and “stimulating” being most prominent (see Figure 1: General). “Touching,” “relaxing,” and “stimulating” together occurred for listeners of blues, classical, electronica, folk, rap, jazz, pop, rock, soul, techno. “Emotional” and “melodic” were both notable for blues, rap, metal, pop, rock, and soul. For all styles, at least two of those five terms were mentioned in the top ten. In addition, style-specific terms occurred for one but no other style in the top ten, such as “demanding,” and “clear” for classical, “inspiring” for electronica, “calm” for folk, “lyrics” for rap, “positive” for house, “loud” for metal, “catchy” for pop, “exciting,” and “honest” for techno. Interestingly, the term “beautiful” emerged only once in the top ten, which was for jazz.

To reduce the data, the terms were grouped into the five aesthetic categories: (1) Mood and Emotion, (2) Sound Characteristics, (3) Style and Genre, (4) Social and Relational, (5) Aesthetic and Sensory Qualities. Figure 1 color-codes the five categories, and the mean CSIs across the semantic fields are visualized in Figure 2. From all five categories, Mood and Emotion played a major role across all styles when describing favorite music: most fields were coloured white in Figure 1, and it was the left-most category with the highest overall mean CSI (0.0230) in Figure 2. Interestingly, Aesthetic and Sensory Qualities played the least important role (lowest overall mean CSI = 0.0116). Sound Characteristics (mean CSI = 0.0190), Style and Genre (mean CSI = 0.0169), and Social and Relational (mean CSI = 0.0122) ranked in between. The gradient from styles within each of the five categories was for some categories steep (e.g., Sound Characteristics), for others more shallow (e.g., Style and Genre). A steep gradient indicates stronger differences in importance across styles. For example, for Sound Characteristics, the mean CSI differed strongly between metal and house (Figure 2). The high importance of Sound Characteristics for metal was based on the high salience of terms such as “melodic,” “loud,” “powerful,” and “hard” (Figure 1), whereas there was not a single term from Sound Characteristics in the top ten descriptions of house (Figure 1), which was predominantly described by Mood and Emotion items (Figure 1), such as “relaxing,” “stimulating,” “rousing,” “motivating,” “positive,” and “soulful”. As terms from Mood and Emotion were most prevalent in all styles (Figure 1), the gradient across Mood and Emotion is not very steep (Figure 2), with metal having the lowest mean CSI from all styles in Mood and Emotion (Figure 2), because Sound Characteristics were of higher importance (Figures 1 and 2).

Figure 2.
Importance of the Five Aesthetic Categories for each Style. Note. Mean CSI (y-axis) Across the Terms Belonging to the Five Aesthetic Categories (x-axis), Split by 13 Musical Styles (Labeled, Different Filling Color). Data are Ordered from the Style with Highest to Lowest Mean CSI within Each Category.

Discussion

We investigated the verbal concepts of music aesthetics by asking 804 participants to describe their favorite music using adjectives. Through an analysis designed to retain as many participant-used terms as possible, 94 semantic fields were created, for which we calculated the CSI, serving as a measure of the salience, or, in other words, importance and prototypicality of these terms. The task of describing one's favorite music focused on individual tastes rather than objective criteria, which is reflected in the current findings.

The evaluated terms highlight the importance of individual perspectives on aesthetic appreciation and follow the multifarious processes involved in art perception as outlined in models of aesthetic processing (e.g., Pelowski et al., 2017). Indeed, the most salient terms describing mood and emotions underscore the significant role of emotional engagement with music (Bergeron & Lopes, 2012; Graf & Landwehr, 2015; Leder et al., 2004; Pelowski et al., 2017; Silvia & Brown, 2007). Descriptions of sound characteristics and terms related to style and genre indicate that the quality of the aesthetic object is evaluated based on the specific musical style, reflecting diverse aesthetic perspectives. Aesthetic and sensory qualities, particularly the term “beautiful,” showed the lowest salience in the current study. This particular result is remarkable and stands in contrast with other studies (Augustin et al., 2012a, 2012b; Istók et al., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2004; Knoop et al., 2016), for which “beautiful” was the most important term. Hence, we succeeded with our goal to explore the individual and experience-based aesthetic judgements rather than the more general usage of terms related to “aesthetics.”

Aesthetic Concepts of Favorite Music in General

When examining all terms without taking musical style into account, within the top ten of the CSI, terms describing emotions as well as musical and stylistic aspects were found. The word forms of “relaxing” (top one), “touching,” “stimulating,” and “rousing” are participles and are used as adverbial adjectives. When used as adjectives, participles represent performed action. In our case, music is perceived to perform this action, inducing a change in the listeners’ state. As such, these word forms strongly refer to the functions of music. All these words fall within the spectrum of emotions, suggesting that participants deliberately use their favorite music for mood regulation on the valence and/or arousal level. The terms establish a clear connection to the multifaceted functions that music can fulfill (Campbell et al., 2007; Greb et al., 2017; Hargreaves & North, 1999; Hennion, 2001; Lamont & Webb, 2010; Lonsdale & North, 2011; North et al., 2000; Tarrant et al., 2000). Notably, “relaxing” and “rousing” represent seemingly opposite descriptions, pointing to the diversity of functions music can serve (Greb et al., 2017; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). The importance of the emotional impact of music is also shown by the high salience of the terms “emotional” and “soulful.” This aligns with the findings of Kuehnast et al. (2014), who demonstrated that the emotional experience of being moved or touched is often associated with the experience of art, such as film and music (Kuehnast et al., 2014).

Terms describing musical features also rank among the top ten, that is “melodic” (rank four), “rhythmic” (rank ten), a result similar to Istók et al. (2009). This suggests that melody and rhythm are key parameters in preference evaluations, a finding also supported by Amazon music reviews (von Appen, 2007).

Additionally, the CSI analysis underscores the importance of stylistic diversity with adjectives such as “stylistic” and “diversified” ranking among the top ten, supporting the idea that participants value stylistic diversity. This aligns with research suggesting substyles differentiate specific musical preferences within broad categories (Parzer, 2011). The importance of 'stylistic' in our study stands in contrast to its absence in other aesthetic studies—a difference likely due to our method of combining infrequent style-specific responses, whereas other studies typically exclude low-frequency terms. Or results highlight music's particular differentiation into substyles compared to objects, art, or literature. While functional descriptions of music are common, stylistic diversity also signifies fans’ emphasis on uniqueness and the importance of substyle differentiation within their preferred music category.

To sum, the style-independent analysis reveals that mood regulation (from “relaxing” to “rousing”), along with specific musical parameters such as melody, rhythm, and stylistic uniqueness, is highly important for describing the aesthetic appeal of favorite music. Models of aesthetic processes highlight cognitive and emotional aspects, stimulus features, and individual differences in appraisal and needs (Bergeron & Lopes, 2012; Graf & Landwehr, 2015; Leder et al., 2004; Pelowski et al., 2017; Silvia & Brown, 2007), which are confirmed by our study “from below.” Musical functions play a significant role, aligning with experimenter-based research (Hargreaves & North, 1999; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009; Schäfer et al., 2012; Sloboda et al., 2001; Van Goethem & Sloboda, 2011).

Aesthetic Concepts of Favorite Musical Styles

Extending previous studies, the current study design allowed for a differentiation of aesthetic judgments of subgroups within an aesthetic domain, that is musical styles. The findings show an overlap between style aesthetics in many aspects, possibly united by the aspect of being favorite music, and not just descriptions of musical attributes. Nonetheless, some styles show pronounced differences to others. To capture these differences in detail, we will discuss the top ten CSI values for each musical style, within each of the aesthetic categories. We will start with the most salient category (Mood and Emotion) and end with the least salient one (Aesthetic and Sensory Qualities).

Mood and Emotion

Terms from the Mood and Emotion category were most salient for the styles soul, techno, pop, and house (Figure 2). The prevalent terms (Figure 1: General) included “relaxing,” “touching,” “emotional,” “stimulating,” “soulful,” and “rousing.” “Touching” and “emotional” are closely related, with “touching” denoting felt quality and “emotional” referring to perceived quality. These descriptors appear in the top ten for all styles except electronica, folk, and techno (missing “emotional”), and house (missing both), underscoring the emotional impact of music (Menninghaus et al., 2015) across styles. The arousal components of emotion were also included, with styles being “relaxing” and “stimulating” (“rousing,” “energetic”) at the same time, with the exception of metal, for which “relaxing” is not among the top ten descriptors. Arousal is important for music preference (Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2011). As shown, music can relieve tension and stress (North et al., 2000). Further, mentioning “relaxing” together with “touching” suggests that listeners feel touched by the music's calming effect. Music being characterized as “energetic” indicates that listeners value physical stimulation, prevalent in metal and rap. The importance of “rhythmic” for electronica (top one) mirrors studies showing that electronica encourages dancing due to its rhythm (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009). Interestingly, almost all styles showed high salience values for both “stimulating” and “relaxing.” For example, in rap, these terms ranked first and second. This suggests that music can be both relaxing and stimulating, resonating with listeners through diverse emotional functions. Furthermore, musical styles are diverse, not only in their categorization into substyles but also on a song-specific level. Music of a particular style often includes some pieces or substyles that are more relaxing, and others that are more stimulating. This confirms earlier criticism regarding attributing clear functions to musical styles based on their characteristics. Instead, it highlights that favorite music can serve a variety of functions (Greb et al., 2017). In addition, the semantic field “stimulating” included both physical (“pushing,” “vitalizing”) and intellectual components (“makes me think,” “horizon expanding”), indicating that music can be “relaxing” and “stimulating” at the same time, thus resolving potential conflicts of opposite arousal levels.

In sum, our results align with studies suggesting that emotions are crucial for music listening (Campbell et al., 2007; Greb et al., 2017; Hargreaves & North, 1999; Hennion, 2001; Lamont & Webb, 2010; Lonsdale & North, 2011; North et al., 2000; Tarrant et al., 2000). In contrast to other studies, listeners did not focus on the positive and negative poles of valence, but on the general term “emotional.” “Joyful” and “sad” were shown to be important for music in general (Istók et al., 2009), and are key emotional ingredients of being moved (Kuehnast et al., 2014). High arousal is particularly significant for styles such as rap, soul/funk, and electronica/dance (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003) or beat/folk/country (Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2009), partially overlapping with our findings. Our finding of associating favorite musical styles with high, and at the same time low, arousal is novel.

Sound Characteristics

The Sound Characteristics category is most salient for metal, electronica, and blues. For metal and electronica, Sound Characteristics are more important based on the mean CSI than the Mood and Emotion category. Key terms for Sound Characteristics from the top ten CSIs (Figure 1) are “melodic,” “rhythmic,” “harmonic,” “loud,” “powerful,” and “clear.” The prominence of “melodic,” “rhythmic,” and “harmonic” suggests that listeners highly value these features in their favorite music. Istók et al. (2009) report similar musical features, supporting the notion that musical parameters, particularly melody, are relevant in musical value judgments (von Appen, 2007). While “melodic” appears in the top ten CSI for many styles, “rhythmic” is crucial for only a selection of styles such as blues, electronica, rap, jazz, and pop, as well as “harmonic,” which is salient for soul and jazz. The specific appeal of electronic music, for example, lies in its rhythmic aspects (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003), with its energizing and stimulating rhythmic structures enhancing the relevance of “rhythmic” (Jerrentrup, 2008; Papenburg, 2001; Wicke, 2015). The terms “powerful” and “loud” are indicative of metal's defining characteristics (e.g., Ackermann & Merrill, 2022), distinctly differentiating the aesthetic concepts of metal enthusiasts from other styles. This suggests that metal listeners maintain well-defined perceptions of their preferred style, emphasizing a clear distinction from other musical styles and underscoring their identification with metal.

Style and Genre

The Style and Genre category is represented by terms describing style specifics, such as “diversified,” “stylistic,” and “versatile,” often without going into the specifics (which are arguably partly described in more detail within the Sound Characteristics category). These terms highlight the appreciation of the musical variety and diversity inherent in various styles which are prominent in the top ten CSIs of many styles (Figure 1). The highest salience of this category was found for jazz, and techno (Figure 2). Together with the prominence of the terms “diversified” and “stylistic” for jazz, and “versatile” for techno, this indicates that these styles exhibit a difference in their separation into substyles (Brackett, 2014; Dayal, 2013; Tucker & Jackson, 2020). The low importance of this category for rap and metal (Figure 2) indicates that listeners of these styles prioritize other aesthetic concepts, focusing more on sound characteristics as well as on mood and emotion. Distinction into substyles is significant for listeners of many styles, as evidenced by the prominence of the terms of “diversified” and “stylistic” in styles but rap and pop. This supports literature advocating for a more detailed differentiation of taste at the substyle level (Parzer, 2011; Siebrasse & Wald-Fuhrmann, 2023). Finally, “lyrics” is a prominent style-specific term for rap, emphasizing the style's focus on wordplay, storytelling, and rhyming, which are central and highly valued aspects of rap culture (Toop, 2012). And the style-specific term “catchy” mentioned for pop aligns with the reported catchiness of its melodies, rhythms, and harmonies (Warwick, 2014).

Social and Relational

In the Social and Relational category, the terms “interesting” (blues, classical, electronica, jazz), and “encouraging” (electronica, house, pop, rock) emerged in the top ten most salient terms (Figure 1). However, comparing the mean CSI across terms for each category, many styles showed low values (Figure 2), suggesting that social and relational factors are less relevant in describing one's favorite music. For example, terms such as “identifying,” “connecting,” and “situational” were mentioned but did not show high saliences (Figure 1). This finding contrasts with other studies that suggest social components are highly important in defining favorite music (e.g., included in the communication and self-reflection factor in Schäfer & Sedlmeier, 2010). Hence, this category might be non-specific in its application to favorite styles overall.

We observed low salience for social and relational terms, despite other studies clearly demonstrating the social reasons for musical appreciation. When asked to describe their favorite music, participants apparently did not focus on these aspects, possibly because they are unaware of them at that moment. This discrepancy can be attributed to the method and analysis used in the current study. Although social and relational aspects are present in the current study, they rarely appear in the top ten salient terms.

Aesthetic and Sensory Qualities

The Aesthetic and Sensory Qualities category exhibited rather low mean CSI values across musical styles. Within this category, folk, metal, jazz, and classical had the highest mean CSI (Figure 2). Between the categories, however, it was the least prominent for many styles (e.g., blues, classical, electronica, house, pop, rock), behind the mean CSIs for Social and Relational (Figure 2). Salient adjectives were found in connection with classical, electronica, folk, rap, jazz, metal, reggae, and techno (Figure 1). “Intelligent” turned up in the top ten for folk, rap, and reggae, “demanding” for classical, “complex” for techno, suggesting that these listeners expect cognitive stimulation, likely achieved through musical complexity (Campbell et al., 2007; Hargreaves & North, 1999; Hennion, 2001; Lamont & Webb, 2010; Lonsdale & North, 2011; North et al., 2000; Tarrant et al., 2000), or through meaningful lyrics in rap (as discussed in Style and Genre).

Notably, “beautiful” occurs only on rank ten in jazz, and is on rank 12 for soul and rap, rank 14 for electronica, rank 16 for house, and rank 18 for classical, pop, and reggae, and above rank 24 for rock, blues, folk, techno, and metal. Overall, “beautiful” was at rank 17 with regard to the CSI and frequency (mentioned 172 times, representing 2.14% of all response). Hence, the term “beautiful” is a descriptor for favorite music but not nearly as important as it was seen in previous studies, when asking for qualities of aesthetic objects in general (Augustin et al., 2012b; Istók et al., 2009; Jacobsen et al., 2004; Knoop et al., 2016). This disparity can probably be attributed to methodological differences in the task. Our study specifically focused on describing favorite music while intentionally omitting the term “aesthetics” in the instruction. Therefore, it can be assumed that previous instructions including the term “aesthetics” triggered the mention of “beautiful” much more than our instruction on favorite music. In the same vein, the bipolarity of “beautiful” and “ugly” observed by (Jacobsen et al., 2004) is absent in our data, with negative descriptors being rare. References to “ugly” in the context of favorite music seem improbable, likely being more relevant to visual elements. Participants in our study also used negatively connotated features such as “hateful,” “evil,” “inhuman,” “satanic,” “insulting,” “unpleasant,” and “difficult” to describe favorite music. However, these terms were infrequent and summarized under the term “negative,” which ranked highest for rap (35th rank), followed by metal (41st rank). Much more prevalent in the current study were adjectives with a positive valence related to positive emotions (“touching,” “joyful”), aesthetic attributes (“good,” “funny”), or social qualities (“connecting”), suggesting that individuals associate favorite music with positive feelings and descriptions.

Our study bridges the gap between personal preferences and aesthetic descriptions, differentiating aesthetic concepts across varying listener profiles, and enhancing our understanding of why people derive pleasure from their favorite music. By analyzing the adjectives listeners use to describe their favorite music, we found that distinct musical characteristics are attributed to different styles (e.g., metal is described as “loud” and “powerful,” pop is described as “catchy”). Emotional descriptors such as “touching” and “stimulating” are common across all styles, indicating that these emotions can be evoked by various styles of music. These emotional descriptors highlight the diverse functions that favorite music can serve, such as being “relaxing” or “rousing,” regardless of style. This suggests that listeners of different musical styles can experience similar emotions through different musical characteristics. Future research should therefore explore not only the emotional effects and functions of music on listeners but also the specific musical characteristics and parameters. This will help uncover why different musical characteristics can elicit the same emotions by its listeners, and therefore, help to map out the aesthetic judgements of affectively significant, and personally meaningful aesthetic experiences.

Supplemental Material

sj-docx-1-art-10.1177_02762374251365160 - Supplemental material for What Elevates Music to a ‘Favorite’? On the Aesthetics of Music from the Perspective of Musical Taste

Supplemental material, sj-docx-1-art-10.1177_02762374251365160 for What Elevates Music to a ‘Favorite’? On the Aesthetics of Music from the Perspective of Musical Taste by Emily Gernandt, Elke B. Lange and Julia Merrill in Empirical Studies of the Arts

Style	No. of participants	No. of responses
Blues	40	382
Classical	111	1060
Country	11	68
Electronica	15	128
Folk	58	589
Rap	57	443
House	31	245
Jazz	42	435
Metal	112	1028
Pop	47	362
Reggae	43	420
Rock	134	1214
Soul	39	413
Techno	18	176
German traditional music	3	27
Sum	761	6990

	Term	Mean position	Frequency	CSI
1	relaxing	5.12	254	0.062
2	touching	6.98	337	0.06
3	emotional	4.98	234	0.059
4	melodic	4.19	178	0.053
5	stimulating	7.02	284	0.05
6	soulful	6.42	240	0.047
7	stylistic	6.94	257	0.046
8	rousing	6.15	213	0.043
9	diversified	5.37	182	0.042
10	rhythmic	5.05	149	0.037
11	interesting	6.56	176	0.033
12	encouraging	5.97	149	0.031
13	soothing	5.31	130	0.031
14	energetic	5.72	139	0.03
15	versatile	6.64	149	0.028
16	danceable	5.96	131	0.027
17	beautiful	7.92	172	0.027
18	intelligent	7.05	152	0.027
19	special	8.44	182	0.027
20	powerful	6.63	134	0.025
21	melancholic	7.45	142	0.024
22	complex	5.61	104	0.023
23	catchy	5.56	102	0.023
24	demanding	6.89	126	0.023
25	harmonic	5.13	93	0.023
26	expressive	7.26	131	0.023
27	loud	6.12	110	0.022
28	lyrics	5.7	98	0.021
29	joyful	6.44	108	0.021
30	motivating	6.24	90	0.018
31	hard	6.99	100	0.018
32	calm	6.85	96	0.017
33	authentic	6.36	85	0.017
34	dreamy	7.68	102	0.017
35	fast	5.96	74	0.015
36	inspiring	7.71	93	0.015
37	moving	6.23	75	0.015
38	exciting	6.83	69	0.013
39	clear	6.92	64	0.012
40	aggressive	6.62	61	0.011
41	instrumentation	6	54	0.011
42	funny	8.2	70	0.011
43	atmospheric	6.12	50	0.01

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Emily Gernandt

Elke B. Lange

Julia Merrill

Ethical Considerations

All procedures were approved by the Ethics Council of the Max Planck Institute for Empirical Aesthetics.

Consent to Participate

Before starting the survey, participants were informed about the scientific background of the study and the anonymized data collection. They gave consent by proceeding with the questionnaire after the information page.

Consent for Publication

Not applicable.

Authors’ Contributions

EL designed the research and collected the data. All authors conceived and designed the analyses. EG and EL analyzed the data. All authors interpreted the results. EG wrote the first draft of the manuscript. EL and JM revised the initial draft. All authors revised, read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Open Access funding enabled by the Max Planck Society. This research was supported by the Max Planck Society and did not receive any grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Data Availability

All primary data and the analyses script are available at .

Supplemental Material

Supplemental material for this article is available online and on https://osf.io/hqpdz.

Notes

Author Biographies

Emily Gernandt is a doctoral candidate in musicology. Her area of research is musical taste focusing on the dimensions of style-specific preferences.

Elke B. Lange is a doctor in psychology. Her area of research is experimental aesthetics focusing on models and methods of research on working memory to better understand music perception, cognition, and aesthetic experience.

Julia Merrill is a professor in musicology. Her area of research is musical taste focusing on musical dislikes, concert research, music/song and speech, vocal expression, and voice aesthetics.

References

Ackermann

T.-I.

Merrill

(2022). Rationales and functions of disliked music: An in-depth interview study. PLOS ONE, 17(2), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0263384

Augustin

M. D.

Carbon

C.-C.

Wagemans

(2012a). Artful terms: A study on aesthetic word usage for visual art versus film and music. I-Perception, 3(5), 319–337. https://doi.org/10.1068/i0511aap

Augustin

M. D.

Wagemans

Carbon

C.-C.

(2012b). All is beautiful? Generality vs. specificity of word usage in visual aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 139(1), 187–201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2011.10.004

Bang

Cahyawijaya

Lee

Dai

Wilie

, …, Fung

(2023). A Multitask, Multilingual, Multimodal Evaluation of ChatGPT on Reasoning, Hallucination, and Interactivity (No. arXiv:2302.04023). arXiv. http://arxiv.org/abs/2302.04023

Behne

K.-E.

(2004). Musical experience, musikerleben and music appreciation. In Deliège

Sloboda

(Eds.), Perception And Cognition Of Music (pp. 134–140). Psychology Press.

Bergeron

Lopes

D. M.

(2012). Aesthetic theory and aesthetic science: Prospects for integration. In Shimamura

A. P.

Palmer

S. E.

(Eds.), Aesthetic science: Connecting minds, brains, and experience (pp. S. 63–79). New York: Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199732142.001.0001

Brackett

(2014). Soul music. In Brackett

(Ed.), Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2257344

Campbell

P. S.

Connell

Beegle

(2007). Adolescents’ expressed meanings of music in and out of school. Journal of Research in Music Education, 55(3), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242940705500304

Coutinho

Scherer

K. R.

(2017). Introducing the Geneva music-induced affect checklist (GEMIAC). Music Perception, 34(4), 371–386. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2017.34.4.371

10.

Dayal

(2013). House. In Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2249796

11.

Dehne

Schupp

(2007). Persönlichkeitsmerkmale im Sozio-oekonomischen Panel (SOEP)-Konzept, Umsetzung und empirische Eigenschaften. Research Notes, 26(1), 7–61.

12.

Fechner

G. T.

(1876). Vorschule der Ästhetik [Preliminary school of aesthetics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.

13.

Finnäs

(1989). How can musical preferences be modified? A research review. Bulletin of the Council for Research in Music Education, 102, 1–58. JSTOR.

14.

Flannery

M. B.

Woolhouse

M. H.

(2021). Musical preference: Role of personality and music-related acoustic features. Music & Science, 4, 205920432110140. https://doi.org/10.1177/20592043211014014

15.

Graf

L. K. M.

Landwehr

J. R.

(2015). A dual-process perspective on fluency-based aesthetics: The pleasure-interest model of aesthetic liking. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(4), 395–410. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315574978

16.

Greb

Schlotz

Steffens

(2017). Personal and situational influences on the functions of music listening. Psychology of Music, 46(6), 763–794. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735617724883

17.

Hager

Hagemann

Danner

Schankin

(2012). Assessing aesthetic appreciation of visual artworks—the construction of the art reception survey (ARS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 320–333. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028776

18.

Hargreaves

D. J.

North

A. C.

(1999). The functions of music in everyday life: Redefining the social in music psychology. Psychology of Music, 27(1), 71–83. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735699271007

19.

Hennion

(2001). Music lovers: Taste as performance. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/02632760122051940

20.

Istók

Brattico

Jacobsen

Krohn

Müller

Tervaniemi

(2009). Aesthetic responses to music: A questionnaire study. Musicae Scientiae, 13(2), 183–206. https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490901300201

21.

Jacobsen

Buchta

Köhler

Schröger

(2004). The primacy of beauty in judging the aesthetics of objects. Psychological Reports, 94(3_suppl), 1253–1260. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.94.3c.1253-1260

22.

Jerrentrup

(2008). Techno: Vom Reiz einer reizlosen Musik. In Rösing

(Ed.), Stationen populärer Musik: Vom Rock’n’Roll zum Techno (pp. S. 46–84). Gießen: CODA-Verlag. http://geb.uni-giessen.de/geb/volltexte/2008/5338

23.

Knoop

C. A.

Wagner

Jacobsen

Menninghaus

(2016). Mapping the aesthetic space of literature “from below”. Poetics, 56, 35–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.poetic.2016.02.001

24.

Kuehnast

Wagner

Wassiliwizky

Jacobsen

Menninghaus

(2014). Being moved: Linguistic representation and conceptual structure. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01242

25.

Lamont

Webb

(2010). Short- and long-term musical preferences: What makes a favourite piece of music? Psychology of Music, 38(2), 222–241. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735609339471

26.

Leder

Belke

Oeberst

Augustin

(2004). A model of aesthetic appreciation and aesthetic judgments. British Journal of Psychology, 95(4), 489–508. https://doi.org/10.1348/0007126042369811

27.

Lonsdale

A. J.

North

A. C.

(2011). Why do we listen to music? A uses and gratifications analysis: Music uses and gratifications. British Journal of Psychology, 102(1), 108–134. https://doi.org/10.1348/000712610X506831

28.

Marschallek

B. E.

Wagner

Jacobsen

(2023). Smooth as glass and hard as stone? On the conceptual structure of the aesthetics of materials. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 17(5), 632–644. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000437

29.

Menninghaus

Wagner

Hanich

Wassiliwizky

Kuehnast

Jacobsen

(2015). Towards a psychological construct of being moved. PLOS ONE, 10(6), e0128451. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128451

30.

Meyer

L.-P.

Stadler

Frey

Radtke

Junghanns

Meissner

, …, Martin

(2024). LLM-assisted Knowledge graph engineering: Experiments with ChatGPT. In Zinke-Wehlmann

Friedrich

(Eds.), First working conference on artificial intelligence development for a resilient and sustainable tomorrow, AI tomorrow 2023 (pp. S. 103–115). Wiesbaden: Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-658-43705-3_8

31.

North

A. C.

(2010). Individual differences in musical taste. The American Journal of Psychology, 123(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.5406/amerjpsyc.123.2.0199

32.

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

O’Neill

S. A.

(2000). The importance of music to adolescents. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 70(2), 255–272. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709900158083

33.

OpenAI. (2023, November 2). Response generated by ChatGPT to the prompt “Please categorize the following words into music-aesthetic related categories” [Large language model]. https://chat.openai.com/

34.

Papenburg

J. G.

(2001). Techno-Ethik. https://doi.org/10.18452/20270

35.

Parzer

(2011). Der gute Musikgeschmack: Zur sozialen Praxis ästhetischer Bewertung in der Popularkultur. Frankfurt am Main, Berlin, Bern, Bruxelles, New York, Oxford, Wien: Peter Lang.

36.

Pelowski

Markey

P. S.

Forster

Gerger

Leder

(2017). Move me, astonish me … delight my eyes and brain: The Vienna integrated model of top-down and bottom-up processes in art perception (VIMAP) and corresponding affective, evaluative, and neurophysiological correlates. Physics of Life Reviews, 21, 80–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plrev.2017.02.003

37.

R Core Team . (2020). R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. https://www.R-project.org/

38.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Goldberg

L. R.

Levitin

D. J.

(2011). The structure of musical preferences: A five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1139–1157. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0022406

39.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Gosling

S. D.

(2003). The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), 1236–1256. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1236

40.

Rentfrow

P. J.

Gosling

S. D.

(2006). Message in a ballad: The role of music preferences in interpersonal perception. Psychological Science, 17(3), 236–242. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01691.x

41.

Schäfer

Sedlmeier

(2009). From the functions of music to music preference. Psychology of Music, 37(3), 279–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735608097247

42.

Schäfer

Sedlmeier

(2010). What makes us like music? Determinants of music preference. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4(4), 223–234. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018374

43.

Schäfer

Sedlmeier

(2011). Does the body move the soul? The impact of arousal on music preference. Music Perception, 29(1), 37–50. https://doi.org/10.1525/mp.2011.29.1.37

44.

Schäfer

Tipandjan

Sedlmeier

(2012). The functions of music and their relationship to music preference in India and Germany. International Journal of Psychology, 47(5), 370–380. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207594.2012.688133

45.

Schindler

Hosoya

Menninghaus

Beermann

Wagner

Eid

Scherer

(2017). Measuring aesthetic emotions: A review of the literature and a new assessment tool. PLoS ONE, 12, 1–45. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0178899

46.

Siebrasse

Wald-Fuhrmann

(2023). You don’t know a person(’s taste) when you only know which genre they like: Taste differences within five popular music genres based on sub-genres and sub-styles. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1062146. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1062146

47.

Silvia

P. J.

Brown

E. M.

(2007). Anger, disgust, and the negative aesthetic emotions: Expanding an appraisal model of aesthetic experience. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 1(2), 100–106. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.100

48.

Sloboda

J. A.

O’Neill

S. A.

Ivaldi

(2001). Functions of music in everyday life: An exploratory study using the experience sampling method. Musicae Scientiae, 5(1), 9–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/102986490100500102

49.

Sutrop

(2001). List task and a cognitive salience Index. Field Methods, 13(3), 263–276. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X0101300303

50.

Tarrant

North

A. C.

Hargreaves

D. J.

(2000). English And American Adolescents’ reasons for listening to music. Psychology of Music, 28(2), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1177/0305735600282005

51.

Toop

(2012). Rap. In Cheney

Kajikawa

(Hrsg.), Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2225387

52.

Tucker

Jackson

T. A.

(2020). Jazz. In Tucker

Jackson

T. A.

, Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/omo/9781561592630.013.90000358106

53.

Van Goethem

Sloboda

(2011). The functions of music for affect regulation. Musicae Scientiae, 15(2), 208–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/1029864911401174

54.

von Appen

(2007). Der Wert der Musik: Zur Ästhetik des Populären [Dissertation]. Universität Giessen.

55.

Warwick

(2014). Pop. In Warwick

(Ed.), Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/gmo/9781561592630.article.A2259112

56.

Weiler

S. M.

Jacobsen

(2021). “I’m getting too old for this stuff”: The conceptual structure of tattoo aesthetics. Acta Psychologica, 219, 103390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103390

57.

Wicke

(2015). Techno. In Die Musik in Geschichte und Gegenwart, MGG online (Bd. 2). Bärenreiter/Metzler/RILM. https://www.mgg-online.com/mgg/stable/11841

58.

Liu

Sun

Liu

Han

Q.-L.

Tang

(2023). A brief overview of ChatGPT: The history, Status quo and potential future development. IEEE/CAA Journal of Automatica Sinica, 10(5), 1122–1136. https://doi.org/10.1109/jas.2023.123618

59.

Zentner

Grandjean

Scherer

(2008). Emotions evoked by the sound of music: Characterization, classification, and measurement. Emotion, 8, 494–521. https://doi.org/10.1037/1528-3542.8.4.494

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.65 MB