ABSTRACT This article examines the ethical and methodological challenges inherent in music analysis, framing the field as one caught between the demands of rigorous critique and cultural pressures toward uncritical acclaim. It argues that the analyst's authority is inherently contingent – shaped by subjective biases, methodological choices, and cultural contexts – drawing on philosophical frameworks such as the intentional fallacy (Wimsatt and Beardsley 1946) and the critical theories of Theodor Adorno and Joseph Kerman. Through case studies of the Western canon, jazz and African musical traditions, the study demonstrates how norms of reverence, legacy and social harmony can inhibit critical discourse and foster analytical stagnation. It highlights a central tension: the analyst's ethical responsibility to offer honest assessments is often constrained by fear of professional retaliation or personal offence, especially in environments where criticism is misread as hostility. The essay advocates for an analytical practice grounded in intellectual humility, methodological transparency and respectful dialogue with composers and performers. In it, I conclude that for music analysis to sustain its intellectual integrity and relevance, the discipline must cultivate an academic culture which normalises constructive criticism as a professional standard, balancing scholarly rigour with cultural and ethical awareness.
Alfred Patrick Addaquay (Sun,) studied this question.