#6 - Concept Reference, Must Be True, Author's Perspective

[avengingangel]

How is A the correct answer ?? I chose C. First, he starts with shifting harmonies (late-romantic), then, he pushed those unstable harmonies even further (A natural progression / "the next inevitable step"), but THEN he stabilized, "bringing a new system of ORDER" to nontonal music. That seems like a pretty opposite jump from 2nd step. And I found it difficult to find support elsewhere in the passage for Answer A. All it says is that Shoen "worked in a constantly changing & evolving musical style" -- that doesn't mean it has to be a natural evolution. Any guidance is helpful !! Thanks.

[nicholaspavic]

Hi avengingangel,

Remember that this is a Must Be True question, so you must find support in the text for your answer. Answer Option (C) calls Shoenberger's third style "inexplicable" but the author states at around line 40:

"Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it."

So the author is explaining it and not characterizing it as inexplicable. That's why (C) does not work here.

In Answer (A), the author is explaining how it's a natural progression with sentences like this to be found starting at around line 35: "He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music, and he felt he was a man of destiny; he also did it because he needed to in order to express what he was compelled to express." Accordingly, there is support for Answer (A) in the text and it passes our Fact Test.

Thanks for the question.

[CommodoreDave]

Hello there!

The previous explanation was helpful, but I was wondering if you could speak a bit about answer choice (D). This obviously means I was in agreement that there was a more natural progression from the second style to the third, but I guess I have a bit of trouble seeing how the progression from the first style to the second was "a natural progression." I say that in the sense that the passage states, "Schoenberg later pushed those unstable harmonies until they no longer had a tonal basis." That seemed like a fairly unnatural/avant-garde thing to do? I guess I was of the mindset that, wasn't it inexplicable that not only did Schoenberg continue to push unstable harmonies, he pushed them so far as to go off the cliff of tonal music as we know it?

The rest of the 5th paragraph (lines 33-38) do speak to it being a natural progression for Schoenberg, but I guess I was taking the perspective of the musical era in which he composed rather than the artist himself?

Any insight would be much appreciated! Thanks.

[Rachael Wilkenfeld]

Hi Dave,

The key in any must be true answer is that it must be completely supported by the information in the passage. When we look at answer choice (D) it states that the move from the first to the second style was "inexplicable." That would suggest that there's no explanation given or possible for the evolution between styles 1 and 2. But the passage does describe how he evolved between styles 1 and 2. It gives an explanation by pushing the harmonies until they had no tonal basis. That's not a fully unrelated move---it isn't like shifting from writing Baroque music to suddenly writing a country ballad. It had more of an explainable flow, per the passage. So while he might have been doing something new, he wasn't doing something that wasn't able to be explained.

Hope that helps!

[ataraxia10]

Where is the textual support for the natural progression from the 2nd style to the 12-tone technique? In my opinion, the closest textual support that it was a natural progression is in lines 49-50 about the seeds of which appearing in Mozart's music. But I feel like I had to make unwarranted assumptions in order to arrive at that conclusion from such weak support. If anything, I thought lines 43-45 provided better support for the answer C, that the transition from 2nd to 3rd style was inexplicable.

[Adam Tyson]

I find support for the idea of natural progression in a few places, ataraxia10. First, at lines 22-25:

This is true of the three different musical styles through which Schoenberg’s music evolved

"Evolved" sounds like it was a natural progression, as opposed to something unnatural or revolutionary. Here, the author refers to all three styles, not just the first two.

Then, this at lines 33-35:

He did this in part because in his view it was the next inevitable step in the historical development of music

"Inevitable" sounds like it was natural, too. These are Schoenberg's views, of course, but our author seems to be in complete agreement with him. He certainly admires and approves of Schoenberg, right?

Third, lines 39-41:

Finally, he developed the 12-tone technique as a means of bringing a new system of order to nontonal music and stabilizing it.

To me, "stabilizing" something sounds like a natural step, as opposed to a radical or unnatural one. The author presents these steps as being evolutionary, which is natural. It all makes sense to the author, and each style flows from the one before it in an orderly fashion without any sudden shifts and departures (compared to, say, the passage about Miles Davis from the October 1996 test, where Miles made several radical shifts in his style over his long career, zig-zagging from one style to the next).

Looking at the lines you cited now for a moment:

As his career progressed, his music became more condensed, more violent in its contrasts, and therefore more difficult to follow.

Even here, the author refers to Schoenberg's music as a progression. It got difficult to follow, sure, but did it do so naturally, or in some revolutionary, disorganized and unexpected way? To me, this sounds a lot like the natural progression of a child into a teenager! We might not like it, but it's still "natural."

Tough passage, and tough question, but if you look for it you can find the evidence for the right answer. To support answer C, we would need some evidence that the change to the third style was "inexplicable". Not just a description of what that style was, but words to indicate why the author found the change surprising, unexpected, or unnatural. I'm not finding anything like that here, are you?

Give it another look and see if that all makes sense now. Keep up the good work!

[ataraxia10]

Hi Adam,

I looked at the passage again and I can recognize the correct answer! Thanks for the help.

[cornflakes]

Have read this one probably 5x - I think it's not so much that the support is great for A - it's more so that "inexplicable" is such a strong word to describe what's going on. Natural or unnatural, we can debate, but the transition from no-tonal basis to 12-tone technique cannot be described as inexplicable if they provided a reason for the transition

I think what's happening for many people here, including me, we are sensing that the change to something "stabilized" seems to run against the grain to what he was doing in the 1->2 transition, where he pushed for thing to have "no tonal basis." So we naturally look for something that may describe this change - but inexplicable is not the right way to describe it. Because "natural" can mean so many things, it can work here even though there's this shift from seemingly less order to more order, because there are reasons for it that allow it to be "natural"

Kind of a round about way of saying that I think this is one where if I saw it on the test, I would hopefully keep A around and then methodically cross of B thru D because they all commit the same error with "inexplicable."

[Robert Carroll]

corn,

I think you have diagnosed the psychology of people's choice of answers here well. "Natural" in answer choice (A) is uncomfortable. But it's not wrong. "Inexplicable" is totally nonsensical - the author purports to explain the transitions! So the author certainly wouldn't think them inexplicable. But because something about the transitions looks weird, test-takers may overlook the fact that "inexplicable" is exactly wrong and stick with it because, maybe, to a reader the transitions look inexplicable. But the author sure thinks they can be explained. So that's why answer choice (B) is totally wrong.

Robert Carroll