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.

Correct Option: 4

Rationale:

The goal of the author over the course of the passage is to defend electronic music from certain common charges. The passage is entirely structured around addressing the two basic questions (charges) leveled against electronic music by traditionalists: (1) Is it music at all? and (2) Is it “inhuman”? The author uses objective definitions (Stravinsky) and detailed descriptions of human involvement (composer manipulating machines) to systematically rebut these criticisms. Therefore, the overarching purpose is defense.

Why other options wrong:

Option 1 (defend the “serious-minded composer” from Lejaren Hill and Stravinsky) is incorrect because Hiller and Stravinsky are cited as supporting authorities, not critics.

Option 2 (differentiate the modern composer from the nineteenth century composer) is a necessary structural step used by the author to achieve the defense (establishing an objective definition of music), but it is not the ultimate goal of the passage.

Option 3 (differentiate between electronic music and other forms of music) is too narrow; the author differentiates electronic music primarily to validate it against the subjective, traditional view of music, making validation (defense) the higher goal.

Difficulty: Easy

Correct Option: 3

Rationale:

The mention of Stravinsky’s objective definition of music is essential to the author’s defense of electronic music, but it does not resolve the issue of identifying musical sounds.

Why Options 1, 2, and 4 are functions of the quote:

• Option 1 (Allow classification): The definition of music as “speculation in terms of sound and time” provides the objective, 20th-century framework necessary for the layman to accept and classify electronic music as music, thereby addressing the first charge against it.
• Option 2 (Complicate notion of communication): The quote directly replaces the simple, subjective 19th-century notion of music as “emotional expression” with a more objective, intellectual, and formal one, thus complicating the popular understanding of what music communicates.
• Option 4 (Respond to and expand upon earlier understandings): The quote is introduced explicitly to contrast with the “nineteenth century” concept of music, showing how the modern view responds to and expands upon that earlier understanding.

Why Option 3 is the EXCEPT function:

The Stravinsky quote establishes the conceptual legitimacy of electronic music based on the composer’s approach, not the auditory test of the sounds themselves. The passage acknowledges that even with this definition, the sounds and forms used by electronic music will still be “of a foreign nature” to the listener, meaning the quote does not instantly resolve the listener’s ability to determine which specific sounds are musical.

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Option: 3

Rationale:

The mention of Stravinsky’s objective definition of music is essential to the author’s defense of electronic music, but it does not resolve the issue of identifying musical sounds.

Why Options 1, 2, and 4 are functions of the quote:

• Option 1 (Allow classification): The definition of music as “speculation in terms of sound and time” provides the objective, 20th-century framework necessary for the layman to accept and classify electronic music as music, thereby addressing the first charge against it.
• Option 2 (Complicate notion of communication): The quote directly replaces the simple, subjective 19th-century notion of music as “emotional expression” with a more objective, intellectual, and formal one, thus complicating the popular understanding of what music communicates.
• Option 4 (Respond to and expand upon earlier understandings): The quote is introduced explicitly to contrast with the “nineteenth century” concept of music, showing how the modern view responds to and expands upon that earlier understanding.

Why Option 3 is the EXCEPT function:

The Stravinsky quote establishes the conceptual legitimacy of electronic music based on the composer’s approach, not the auditory test of the sounds themselves. The passage acknowledges that even with this definition, the sounds and forms used by electronic music will still be “of a foreign nature” to the listener, meaning the quote does not instantly resolve the listener’s ability to determine which specific sounds are musical.

Difficulty: Medium

Correct Option: 2

Rationale:

The Original Answer is 2. However, based strictly on the passage, this option contains an error of interpretation. The passage states that the communication problem is the “principal barrier” (Para 2) to the acceptance of electronic music, meaning it hinders seeing it as music, rather than being what allows it. Furthermore, the passage does not argue that music must be difficult to understand.

The most logically consistent answer supported by the text is Option 1 (Unfamiliar forms and terms might get in the way of our seeing electronic music as music, but this can be overcome). The passage explicitly identifies the “new language of forms” as the “principal barrier” (gets in the way) and states that this barrier “will be removed” once the new procedures are understood (can be overcome).

Why other options wrong:

Option 3 is too definitive; the communication problem is the remaining barrier to full understanding, not a reason why we absolutely cannot see it as music.

Option 4 is incorrect as the communication problem is the direct consequence of the philosophical discussion in the first paragraph.

Difficulty: Easy