More than a century ago, the composer and bandleader John Philip Sousa warned that technol

More than a century ago, the composer and bandleader John Philip Sousa warned that technology would destroy music, who said, “These talking machines are going to ruin the artistic development of music in this country. When I was a boy … in front of every house in the summer evenings you would find young people together singing the songs of the day or the old songs. Today you hear these terrible machines going night and day. We will not have a vocal cord (声带) left.”
Music has greatly changed in the past hundred years, which has been everywhere in our world: rivers of digital melody flow on the Internet or on disc; MP3 players with forty thousand songs can be put in a back pocket or a purse. Yet, for most of us, music is no longer something we do ourselves, or even watch other people do in front of us. It has become a radically virtual medium, an art without a face.
Ever since Edison invented the phonograph cylinder(留声机), people have been assessing what the medium of recording has done for and to the art of music. Sousa was a spokesman for the party of doom; in the opposite corner are the utopians(乌托邦), who argue that technology has not imprisoned music but liberated it. Before Edison came along, Beethoven’s symphonies could be heard only in select concert halls. Now the recordings carry the man from Bonn to the corners of the earth. Glenn Gould, after renouncing live performance in 1964, predicted that within the century the public concert would disappear into the electronic air.
Having discovered much of my favorite music through LPs and CDs, I am not about to join Sousa’s party. Modern urban environments are often so soulless or ugly that I’m grateful for the humanizing touch of electronic sound. But neither can I accept Gould’s slashing futurism. I want to be aware of technology’s effects, positive and negative. Fortunately, scholars and critics have been methodically exploring this terrain for many decades, trying to figure out exactly what happens when we listen to music with no musicians in the room.
【小题1】The first paragraph is intended to .A．defend an argumentB．make a predictionC．criticize an attitudeD．summarized a viewpoint【小题2】The author’s attitude towards the recorded music may best be described as .A．dissatisfiedB．defensiveC．optimisticD．objective【小题3】The underlined word “terrain” in the last paragraph most nearly means .A．regionB．subjectC．landD．distinction【小题4】The primary purpose of the passage is to .A．explain different attitudes of scholars and criticsB．defend the view of one group from the criticism of anotherC．advocate an unexpected solution to a pressing problemD．present the key issues in an ongoing debateD

(答案→)D 解析：John Philip Sousa警告科技会破坏音乐，人们对这个话题也有不同的观点，作者陈述不同的观点和自己的看法。【小题1】段落大意题：从第一段的句子: More than a century ago, the composer and bandleader John Philip Sousa warned that technology would destroy music,作曲人和乐队队长 John Philip Sousa警告科技会破坏音乐，可知这段是总结一个观点，选D【小题2】作者态度题：从文章第四段的内容：But neither can I accept Gould’s slashing futurism. I want to be aware of technology’s effects, positive and negative.所以作者对于录音音乐的态度是客观的，选D【小题3】猜词题：从最后一段的句子：Fortunately, scholars and critics have been methodically exploring this terrain for many decades,可知“terrain” 的意思是“subject”，选B【小题4】主旨题：从文章第三段和第四段的内容：可知这篇文章的主要目的是陈述现在的正在进行的辩论的一个关键的问题，选D

哦，回答的不错