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.
What relation does the “communication problem” mentioned in paragraph 2 have to the questions that the author recounts at the beginning of the passage?
Correct Answer :
Unfamiliar forms and terms might get in the way of our seeing electronic music as music, but this can be overcome
Solution :
The correct option is: Unfamiliar forms and terms might get in the way of our seeing electronic music as music, but this can be overcome.
To understand the relationship between the "communication problem" in paragraph 2 and the questions posed at the beginning of the passage, let's break down the author's argument step-by-step.
First, the author introduces two main questions that people often ask about electronic music in the first paragraph:
1. Is this type of artistic creation actually music?
2. Is this music "inhuman"?
Next, the author suggests that shifting from a 19th-century view of music (as pure emotional expression) to a 20th-century view (as "a form of speculation in terms of sound and time") helps people accept electronic music. However, the second paragraph states that even with this mindset shift, a "communication problem" remains.
The passage explicitly defines this communication problem: composers of electronic music are "employing a new language of forms" and using unfamiliar terms like "densities" or "dynamic serialization" instead of traditional concepts like harmony and melody. This unfamiliar language creates a barrier, making it difficult for the listener to recognize and understand electronic music as "music" (which directly links back to the very first question asked in the passage).
Finally, the author provides a solution to this problem at the end of the second paragraph: "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." This clearly indicates that while the unfamiliar forms and terminology present an initial obstacle to accepting electronic music as music, this barrier is temporary and can be successfully overcome through understanding.
Therefore, the communication problem relates to the initial questions by showing that unfamiliar terms might hinder our ability to see electronic music as music, but this is a hurdle that can be crossed.
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.
