DIRECTIONS for questions 17-20: The passage below is accompanied by four questions. Based on the passage, choose the best answer for each question.
Often the well intentioned music lover or the traditionally-minded professional composer asks two basic questions when faced with the electronic music phenomena: (1) . . . is this type of artistic creation music at all? and, (2) given that the product is accepted as music of a new type or order, is not such music “inhuman”? . . . As Lejaren Hiller points out in his book Experimental Music (co-author Leonard M. Isaacson), two questions which often arise when music is discussed are: (a) the substance of musical communication and its symbolic and semantic significance, if any, and (b) the particular processes, both mental and technical, which are involved in creating and responding to musical composition. The ever-present popular concept of music as a direct, open, emotional expression and as a subjective form of communication from the composer, is, of course still that of the nineteenth century, when composers themselves spoke of music in those terms . . . But since the third decade of our century many composers have preferred more objective definitions of music, epitomized in Stravinsky’s description of it as “a form of speculation in terms of sound and time”. An acceptance of this more characteristic twentieth-century view of the art of musical composition will of course immediately bring the layman closer to an understanding of, and sympathetic response to, electronic music, even if the forms, sounds and approaches it uses will still be of a foreign nature to him.
A communication problem however will still remain. The principal barrier that electronic music presents at large, in relation to the communication process, is that composers in this medium are employing a new language of forms . . . where terms like ‘densities’, ‘indefinite pitch relations’, ‘dynamic serialization’, ‘permutation’, etc., are substitutes (or remote equivalents) for the traditional concepts of harmony, melody, rhythm, etc. . . . When the new structural procedures of electronic music are at last fully understood by the listener the barriers between him and the work he faces will be removed. . . .
The medium of electronic music has of course tempted many kinds of composers to try their hand at it . . . But the serious-minded composer approaches the world of electronic music with a more sophisticated and profound concept of creation. Although he knows that he can reproduce and employ melodic, rhythmic patterns and timbres of a traditional nature, he feels that it is in the exploration of sui generis languages and forms that the aesthetic magic of the new medium lies. And, conscientiously, he plunges into this search.
The second objection usually levelled against electronic music is much more innocent in nature. When people speak—sometimes very vehemently—of the ‘inhuman’ quality of this music they seem to forget that the composer is the one who fires the machines, collects the sounds, manipulates them, pushes the buttons, programs the computer, filters the sounds, establishes pitches and scales, splices tape, thinks of forms, and rounds up the over-all structure of the piece, as well as every detail of it.
The mention of Stravinsky’s description of music in the first paragraph does all the following EXCEPT:
Correct Answer :
allow us to classify electronic music as music.
Solution :
The correct answer is allow us to classify electronic music as music.
To understand why this is the correct answer to the "EXCEPT" question, we need to analyze what Stravinsky's description of music actually accomplishes in the context of the first paragraph, and identify the one function it does not serve.
In the first paragraph, the author quotes Stravinsky, who describes music as "a form of speculation in terms of sound and time." The author uses this quote to contrast the 20th-century "objective definition" of music with the 19th-century view of music as a "direct, open, emotional expression." By introducing Stravinsky's perspective, the passage successfully accomplishes three things:
1. It complicates our notion of what is communicated through music: By shifting the definition of music away from straightforward emotional expression toward an objective "speculation," it challenges and adds complexity to how we view musical communication.
2. It responds to and expands upon earlier understandings of music: The quote acts as a direct evolution and response to the traditional, subjective 19th-century views, offering a broader, modern perspective.
3. It helps us determine which sounds are musical and which are not: By defining music broadly as "speculation in terms of sound and time," Stravinsky provides a new framework. It suggests that the intentional organization of sounds in time—rather than traditional melodies—is what makes something musical.
However, Stravinsky's quote does not explicitly allow us to classify electronic music as music. According to the passage, accepting Stravinsky's broader view will "immediately bring the layman closer to an understanding of, and sympathetic response to, electronic music." It helps bridge an empathy and comprehension gap, but it does not serve as a definitive tool for classification. In fact, the passage treats the classification of electronic music as an accepted premise (as seen when the author poses the question: "given that the product is accepted as music of a new type or order..."). Stravinsky's definition helps the audience relate to the objective nature of electronic music, but it is not the mechanism used to officially categorize it as music.
Access expert-curated educational resources and study materials—completely free.
Create, conduct, and manage professional online assessments with Mindyard. Perfect for teachers and institutes.
Copyright © 2026 Mindyard. All Rights Reserved.
