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 goal of the author over the course of this passage is to:
Correct Answer :
defend electronic music from certain common charges.
Solution :
The correct option is defend electronic music from certain common charges.
To determine the author's primary goal, let's analyze the structure and core arguments presented in the passage.
In the very first paragraph, the author explicitly introduces two major questions or objections that are frequently directed at electronic music: "(1) . . . is this type of artistic creation music at all?" and "(2) . . . is not such music 'inhuman'?" The remainder of the passage is dedicated to addressing, explaining, and ultimately refuting these specific charges.
The first charge (whether electronic music is actually music) is countered by explaining how the definition of music has evolved. The author points out that while the nineteenth-century view focused heavily on direct emotional expression, the twentieth-century view sees music more objectively as "a form of speculation in terms of sound and time." The author argues that accepting this modern definition helps listeners understand that electronic music is indeed a valid form of musical composition. Even though it uses a new "language of forms" (which is elaborated upon in the second and third paragraphs), it remains fundamentally musical.
The second charge (that electronic music is "inhuman") is directly and forcefully addressed in the final paragraph. The author describes this objection as "innocent in nature" and defends the human element of electronic music by highlighting the extensive human effort and creativity required. The author reminds the reader that "the composer is the one who fires the machines, collects the sounds, manipulates them, pushes the buttons, programs the computer... and rounds up the over-all structure of the piece, as well as every detail of it."
Because the entire passage is structured around presenting these two criticisms and then providing counterarguments to show why they are misguided, the overarching purpose of the text is to defend electronic music against these common objections. Therefore, the option "defend electronic music from certain common charges." is the correct answer.
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.
