While covering all commentaries, our response specifically focuses on the following issues: How can the hypothesis of emotional distancing (qua art framing) be compatible with stipulating high levels of felt negative emotions in art reception? Which concept of altogether pleasurable mixed emotions does our model involve? Can mechanisms of predictive coding, social sharing, and immersion enhance the power of our model?

Why are negative emotions so central in art reception far beyond tragedy? Revisiting classical aesthetics in the light of recent psychological research, we present a novel model to explain this much discussed (apparent) paradox. We argue that negative emotions are an important resource for the arts in general, rather than a special license for exceptional art forms only. The underlying rationale is that negative emotions have been shown to be particularly powerful in securing attention, intense emotional involvement, and high memorability, and hence is precisely what artworks strive for. Two groups of processing mechanisms are identified that conjointly adopt the particular powers of negative emotions for art's purposes. The first group consists of psychological distancing mechanisms that are activated along with the cognitive schemata of art, representation, and fiction. These schemata imply personal safety and control over continuing or discontinuing exposure to artworks, thereby preventing negative emotions from becoming outright incompatible with expectations of enjoyment. This distancing sets the stage for a second group of processing components that allow art recipients to positively embrace the experiencing of negative emotions, thereby rendering art reception more intense, more interesting, more emotionally moving, more profound, and occasionally even more beautiful. These components include compositional interplays of positive and negative emotions, the effects of aesthetic virtues of using the media of (re)presentation (musical sound, words/language, color, shapes) on emotion perception, and meaning-making efforts. Moreover, our Distancing-Embracing model proposes that concomitant mixed emotions often help integrate negative emotions into altogether pleasurable trajectories.

We suggest that semantic association may be a further mechanism by which music may elicit emotion. Furthermore, we note that emotional contagion is not always an immediate process requiring little prior information processing; rather, emotional contagion contributing to music processing may constitute a more complex decoding mechanism for information inherent in the music, which may be subject to a time course of activation.

Event-related brain potentials in response to harmonically inappropriate chords were compared for musical experts and novices. Similar to previous studies, these chords elicited an early right anterior negativity (ERAN). The amplitude of the ERAN was clearly larger for musical experts than for novices, presumably because experts had more specific musical expectancies than novices. Chords with a physically deviant timbre elicited a mismatch negativity that did not differentiate the groups, indicating that the larger ERAN in experts was not due to a general enhanced auditory sensitivity. The ERAN reflects fast and automatic neural mechanisms that process complex musical (music-syntactic) irregularities, and the present results indicate that these mechanisms can be modulated by expertise.

During listening to a musical piece, unexpected harmonies may evoke brain responses that are reflected electrically as an early right anterior negativity (ERAN) and a late frontal negativity (N5). In the present study we demonstrate that these components of the event-related potential can be evoked preattentively, that is, even when a musical stimulus is ignored. Both ERAN and N5 differed in amplitude as a function of music-theoretical principles. Participants had no special musical expertise; results thus provide evidence for an automatic processing of musical information in “nonmusicians.”