To further elucidate the basis of aesthetic success in classical music, data on 8992 themes were aggregated into 1935 compositions by 172 composers from the Renaissance to the present day. Aesthetic success was gauged via compositional popularity and ratings of aesthetic significance and audience accessibility, while aesthetic attributes were assessed by melodic originality and originality variation as determined by a computer content analysis of melodic structure. The results demonstrate that the probability of a work being performed and recorded is a function of aesthetic attributes and melodic content, with direct and indirect effects of artistic, biographical, and historical conditions. Aesthetic taste is thus not arbitrary but lawful, for it is grounded in the intrinsic qualities of a piece which in turn reflect the state of the composer at the time of composition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BerlyneD. E., Aesthetics and Psychobiology, Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1971.
2.
SimontonD. K., Genius, Creativity, and Leadership, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1984.
3.
SimontonD. K., Dramatic Greatness and Content: A Quantitative Study of Eighty-One Athenian and Shakespearean Plays, Empirical Studies of the Arts, 1, pp. 109–123, 1983.
4.
SimontonD. K., Thematic Fame and Melodic Originality: A Multivariate Computer-Content Analysis, Journal of Personality, 39, pp. 206–219, 1980.
5.
SimontonD. K., Thematic Fame, Melodic Originality, and Musical Zeitgeist: A Biographical and Transhistorical Content Analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, pp. 972–983, 1980.
6.
FarnsworthP. R., The Social Psychology of Music (2nd edition), Iowa State University Press, Ames, 1969.
7.
PaisleyW. J., Identifying the Unknown Communicator in Painting, Literature, and Music: The Significance of Minor Encoding Habits, Journal of Communication, 14, pp. 219–237, 1964.
8.
SimontonD. K., Esthetics, Biography, and History in Musical Creativity, Documentary Report of the Ann Arbor Symposium (Session 3), Music Educators National Conference, Reston, Virginia, pp. 41–48, 1983.
9.
SimontonD. K., Melodic Structure and Note Transition Probabilities: A Content Analysis of 15,618 Classical Themes, Psychology of Music, 12, pp. 3–16, 1984.
10.
BarlowH. and MorgensternS., A Dictionary of Musical Themes, Crown, New York, 1948.
11.
BarlowH. and MorgensternS., A Dictionary of Opera and Song Themes (revised edition), Crown, New York, 1976.
12.
HeydukR. G., Rated Preference for Musical Compositions as it Relates to Complexity and Exposure Frequency, Perception and Psychophysics, 17, pp. 84–91, 1975.
13.
SteckL. and MachotkaP., Preference for Musical Complexity: Effects of Context, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 104, pp. 170–174, 1975.
14.
ApelW., Harvard Dictionary of Music (2nd revised edition), Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1969.
15.
HalseyR. S., Classical Music Recordings for Home and Library, American Library Association, Chicago, 1976.
16.
SimontonD. K., Eminence, Creativity, and Geographic Marginality: A Recursive Structural Equation Model, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 805–816, 1977.
17.
SimontonD. K., Artistic Creativity and Interpersonal Relationships Across and Within Generations, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, pp. 1273–1286, 1984.
18.
CeruloK. A., Social Disruption and its Effects on Music: An Empirical Analysis, Social Forces, 62, pp. 885–904, 1984.
19.
MolesA., Information Theory and Esthetic Perception (CohenJ. E., Trans.), University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1966.
20.
MartindaleC. and UemuraA., Stylistic Evolution in European Music, Leonardo, 16, pp. 225–228, 1983.
21.
SimontonD. K., Creative Productivity, Age, and Stress: A Biographical Time-Series Analysis of 10 Classical Composers, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, pp. 791–804, 1977.
22.
SimontonD. K., Creative Productivity and Age: A Mathematical Model Based on a Two-Step Cognitive Process, Developmental Review, 4, pp. 77–111, 1984.
23.
SimontonD. K., Generational Time-Series Analysis, in Historical Social Psychology, GergenK. and GergenM. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1984.
24.
SimontonD. K., Techno-Scientific Activity and War: A Yearly Time-Series Analysis, 1500–1903, A.D., Scientometrics, 2, pp. 251–255, 1980.
25.
WrightQ., A Study of War (2nd edition), University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1965.
26.
VitzP. C., Preferences for Rates of Information Presented by Sequences of Tones, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 68, pp. 176–183, 1964.
27.
SimontonD. K., Socioculturel Context of Individual Creativity: A Transhistorical Time-Series Analysis, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32, pp. 1119–1133, 1975.
28.
SimontonD. K., Biographical Determinants of Achieved Eminence: A Multivariate Approach to the Cox Data, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, pp. 133–144,1976.
29.
LehmanH. C., The Longevity of the Eminent, Science, 98, pp. 270–273, 1943.
30.
MillsC. A., What Price Glory?, Science, 96, pp. 380–387, 1942.
31.
MartindaleC., Evolutionary Trends in Poetic Style: The Case of English Metaphysical Poetry, Computers in the Humanities, 18, pp. 3–21, 1984.
32.
MartindaleC., The Evolution of Aesthetic Taste, in Historical Social Psychology, GergenK. and GergenM. (eds.), Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 1984.
33.
SimontonD. K., Is the Marginality Effect All That Marginal?, Social Studies of Science, 14, pp. 621–622, 1984.
34.
ChildI. L., Esthetics, Annual Review of Psychology, 23, pp. 669–694, 1972.
