Passage 9
I have been told that there are many people who read the newspapers on the day
after they have attended a concert or operatic representation for the purpose
of finding out whether or not the performance gave them proper or sufficient
enjoyment…Certain it is that some men who write about music for the newspapers
believe, or affect to believe, that criticism is worthless, and I shall not escape the
charge of inconsistency, if, after I have condemned the blunders of literary men,
who are laymen in music, and separated the majority of professional writers on the
art into pedants and rhapsodists, I nevertheless venture to discuss the nature and
value of musical criticism. Yet, surely, there must be a right and wrong in this as in
every other thing, and just as surely the present structure of society, which rests
on the newspaper, invites attention to the existing relationship between musician,
critic, and public…
I lay down the proposition that the relationship between the three factors
enumerated is so intimate and so strict that the world over they rise and fall
together; which means that where the people dwell who have reached the highest
plane of excellence, there also are to be found the highest types of the musician
and critic; and that in the degree in which the three factors, which united make up
the sum of musical activity, labor harmoniously, conscientiously, and unselfishly,
each striving to fulfil its mission, they advance music and further themselves, each
bearing off an equal share of the good derived from the common effort... In this
collaboration, as in so many others, it is conflict that brings life. Only by a surrender
of their functions, one to the other, could the three apparently dissonant yet
essentially harmonious factors be brought into a state of complacency; but such
complacency would mean stagnation…
The complacency of the musician and the indifference, not to say ignorance,
of the public ordinarily combine to make them allies, and the critic is, therefore,
placed between two millstones, where he is vigorously rasped on both sides, and
whence, being angular and hard of outer shell, he frequently requites the treatment
received with complete and energetic reciprocity. Is he therefore to be pitied? Not
a bit; for in this position he is performing one of the most significant and useful of
his functions, and disclosing one of his most precious virtues. While musician and
public must perforce remain in the positions in which they have been placed with
relation to each other it must be apparent at half a glance that it would be the
simplest matter in the world for the critic to extricate himself from his predicament.
He would only need to take his cue from the public, measuring his commendation
by the intensity of their applause, his dispraise by their signs of displeasure, and
all would be well with him. We all know this to be true, that people like to read that
which flatters them by echoing their own thoughts. The more delightfully it is put
by the writer the more the reader is pleased, for has he not had the same idea? Are
they not his? Is not their appearance in a public print proof of the shrewdness and
soundness of his judgment?...
As a rule, however, the critic is not guilty of the wrong of speaking out the thought
of others, but publishes what there is of his own mind, and this I laud in him as a
virtue, which is praiseworthy in the degree that it springs from loftiness of aim,
depth of knowledge, and sincerity and unselfishness of purpose…
Krehbiel, H. E. (2006). How to listen to music (7th ed.). Project Gutenberg. (Original
work published 1896)
Suppose we were to learn that most musical critics cared little about their work,
and were more interested in others’ perceptions of them than the integrity of their
criticism. How would this change the author’s argument?
A) It would significantly alter the scope of the passage’s claim
B) It would minimally reduce the generalizability of the author’s opinions
C) It would drastically change the evidence the author uses to support his main
claim
D) It would not substantially affect the author’s overall conclusions
Correct answer is D
One of the author’s main claims throughout the passage is that true musical
critics do their work with integrity and virtue, meaning that they are not primarily
interested in providing opinions and criticisms that they know others will agree with
or support. True musical critics value their work, and do not dishonor it by watering
down their criticism or giving into the demands of others. If information were
provided suggesting that most musical critics were found to care little about their
work, and were more interested in others’ perceptions of them than the integrity
of their criticism, this would not substantially affect the author’s overall conclusion.
The author clearly recognizes that not all so-called musical critics exemplify the
virtues he lauds, for he writes that a goal of this passage is to “condemn…the
blunders of literary men, who are laymen in music, and separate…the majority of
professional writers on the art into pedants and rhapsodists.” The author’s overall
claim does not rest on whether musical critics actually adhere to the standards he
sets out, and, in fact, he recognizes that many musical critics are ones who care
little about their work. For this reason, Answer D is correct.
.svg)
