Official 4 Set 2

做题结果 0/6 | 用时 40s
分享小红书,免费领会员
Font Size: 默认
  • Font Size:默认
  • Font Size:14px
  • Font Size:20px
  • Font Size:16px
  • Font Size:18px
Speed: Normal
  • Slow:0.8倍
  • Normal:1.0倍
  • Fast:1.2倍
  • Rush:1.5倍
听力原文
精听文本

Question 4 of 6

Why does the professor mention the composer Mozart?

. To illustrate one way that the patronage system benefited musicians

. To show that it was possible for an eighteenth-century musician to succeed without relying on patronage

. To point out an exception to the standard system of musical training in the eighteenth century

. To explain why musicians were required to live in a patrons household

我的答案 正确答案

本题用时0s

我的笔记 编辑笔记

  • 官方解析
  • 网友贡献解析
  • 题目讨论
  • 本题对应音频:
    0 感谢 0 不懂
    音频1
    解析

    【题型】组织结构题(根据Why...mention判断)

    【思路分析】问为什么教授要提到作曲家 Mozart(莫扎特);考查目的,而非具体细节信息,需结合上下文作答

    Of course, for musicians, the downside of these changes had to do with job security. Under patronage musicians had a lot of job security. I mean, not only did an individual musician have job security, and basically life-long since musicians often lived in their patron’s household, but a musician’s family would have security, too. You'd often have sort of a legacy type training situation where musicians would pass their craft from parent to child. In the 18th century, for example, Mozart was, without a doubt, a musical genius and incredibly gifted composer. But he also became a musician thanks to the continuation of the family business. Mozart father was a composer and a musician for a royal court.

    【选项分析】

    A ✔️: 提到Mozart之前说到了赞助体系下,音乐家本人及其家人终生享有工作保障,所以音乐家一般会传承其音乐技能,这就是赞助体系好处的体现,然后就举例提到Mozart就是因为其父亲为皇室工作,传承了技能才得以成为音乐家,举例就是为了说明前面的论点,找到论点进行同义替换即可

    B ×: 原文说了Mozart就是依靠赞助体系才得以成功的,B与原文相反,排除

    C ×: 不是为了讲培训标准体系的例外,本段重点在讲patronage system带来的job security,排除

    D ×: 没有讲为什么音乐家需要住在赞助人家里,与本段论点无关,排除

    【题目难度】中

    标签
  • 题目讨论

    如果对题目有疑问,欢迎来提出你的问题,热心的小伙伴会帮你解答。

译文

(male professor) As we begin discussing the music of 19th century Europe, we should first acknowledge that leading up to that century, there was a major shift in how music was produced.Now, for most of the history of the arts in Europe, musicians and other artists had always worked in the patronage system.Under the patronage system, musicians and artists were in the direct employ of someone wealthy enough to pay them. What we call a patron. A patron was generally either someone royal or someone of nobility.All the arts had at one time been tied to the patronage system, but especially music, because music was so expensive to produce.A musical performance required a lot of people, a lot of performers. And you had to purchase instruments and copy out sheet music by hand, it could really add up.But by the 19th century, society had a new structure with important implications for music.Because by then, you really have a more expanded middle class than ever before. People who are not actually, you know, wealthy enough to single handedly support a musician the way a patron would have.But people who did have some money to support the arts and wanted to imitate the taste of the nobility by seeing performances or learning to play music themselves.One sign of this change was that opera houses became widely successful. Anyone who could afford a ticket could attend.And this was, in contrast to before when the patron, for example, would pay for a performance, just for themselves and their friends.And it wasn\'t only opera. Public concerts of instrumental music increased as well.And because so many people were becoming interested, not only in hearing music, but also playing it themselves.There started to be widespread purchase of instruments like pianos and guitars.A new, less expensive printing method meant that cheap sheet music could be produced to meet public demand.And even music magazines were published, magazines containing things like reviews of musical performances, advertisements for musical events.So, there were new ways for musicians to make money outside the patronage system.Of course, for musicians, the downside of these changes had to do with job security.Under patronage, musicians had a lot of job security. I mean, not only did an individual musician have job security, and basically life-long since musicians often lived in their patron’s household, but a musician’s family would have security, too.You\'d often have sort of a legacy type training situation where musicians would pass their craft from parent to child.In the 18th century, for example, Mozart was, without a doubt, a musical genius and incredibly gifted composer.But he also became a musician thanks to the continuation of the family business. Mozart father was a composer and a musician for a royal court.And that security is nice, of course, but well, if we take a very contemporary view of what it means to be an artist, it\'s also nice when someone can become a musician because they want to, because they\'re following their passion.And with the decline of both patronage and legacy training, you start seeing more and more musicians who followed their own less secure paths.There\'s this great story about the 19th century French composer, Hector Berlioz.Berlioz’s family was absolutely set on him becoming a doctor like his father was and Berlioz did go to medical school, but the whole time he wanted to be a musician, a composer.The story goes that at some point, and he wrote this in his memoirs, right in the middle of one of his medical classes, he couldn\'t take it anymore and he actually jumped out the classroom window and ran off to become a composer.Another nice thing is that musicians now had more freedom to compose what they wanted instead of just what a patron wanted them to compose.Patrons often had specific tastes. They wanted the music to fit certain expectations.But when you take patrons out of the picture, then people like to check composer, Antonin Dvorak can become popular.Dvorak’s works sometimes incorporate elements of folk music, the music of the people, folk rhythms and such. Now a wealthy patron might not have welcomed this.So, under patronage, these pieces might never have seen the light of day, and almost certainly would not have been particularly successful or well received.