Mozart: The term is defined from Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, an Austrian composer. He was looked up as the father of Mozart, he was hardly three years old when he learned the Piano and soon developed his skills on all musical forms he created a string of operas, concertos, symphonies and classical music. Being the son of a great composer Leopold, It’s unbelievable how he could compose music at the age of five. The form of music is named after his name which is not surprising because he was the creator of this style of singing. He was the personification of Classical Music; the music style is well balanced and highly technical.
Bass: Bass is typically classified as a type of classical Male singing with a lowest vocal range of all voice types. Culture and individual variations has created a wide range of Quality of Bass singers. In Choral music, Voices are classified into first bass and second bass; there is no distinction between bass and baritone voices in contrast to the three fold (tenor, baritone, bass) categorization of solo voices. Again there are many categories of bass singers like Basso Buffo which means funny lyrical these are comic operas usually. Then we have Lyric Basso Profound which is the lowest bass voice type, The categories of Bass is basically on Regional and Nationality level since ever region in our country has adapted changes based on the communal choices. But it’s really not the voice type very popular today.
Few famous Bass singers like Richard Sterban, J.D Sumner, Paul Robeson and Billy Medley.
Alto: The term Alto means High in Italian and refers to the second highest part of a contrapuntal music texture, and is also associated to vocal range, especially in Choral music.
Technically Alto and Contra alto are not the same since *Alto* is not a voice type but a designated vocal line in choral music based on vocal range, the vocal range if alto in choral music is usually more similar to that of a mezzo-soprano.SO basically in a Choir women are split into sopranos and altos where as men are split into tenors and basses .We can say that tenors are the male equivalents of sopranos and basses are male equivalent of altos.
The success of any society is ultimately determined by how well its population lives and dies. Within this paradigm of “successful population” are two fundamental elements – individual and collective wellness. It embodies the notion that both individuals and the overall population are well, and these two measures are reasonable assessments of the wellness, and hence the success of any given society.
The four scenarios below represent a summary snapshot of healthcare systems currently in existence in the Western Hemisphere. The scenarios are predicated on the reality that the cost of healthcare is (next to purchasing a home) the most expensive cost one will experience during his or her lifetime and that these costs are expected to continue to escalate over time as new technology, treatments, and pharmaceuticals continue to drive costs. These four main approaches to healthcare are:
1. No healthcare programs (other than free market)
2. Universally funded programs
3. Insurance company funded programs
4. Combinations of the above
These four healthcare approaches are summarized below with respect to how well they represent the ability to create a successful society. Remember, a successful society is one that encourages, promotes, and allows for both individual and collective wellness, as measured by population health.
1. No Healthcare Programs: Countries which have no healthcare programs generally have lower than average population health. While some members of the population in these societies (namely the very rich) who are able to afford healthcare may be healthy indeed, the overall population health is often quite low. It is important to note that socioeconomic status is generally a good predictor of population health. In countries where no healthcare programs exist, and the reason for these lack of programs is lack of finances, then population health is usually comparatively low. Using our definitions of societal success, the success of these societies would be low, or unsuccessful.
2. Government Sponsored Programs: Countries with government sponsored and funded universal healthcare programs generally have a collectively higher level of healthcare than other countries. Again, if the one applies the definition of success of the entire population as the sum total of the wellness of all individuals within that system, then countries which offer healthcare programs that collectively confer benefits on the highest number of individuals are, by definition, successful. Since one cannot be more than well, there is no incentive for individuals to access more services than are required in order to be well. Leaving aside preventative programs and social marketing costs as key aspects of overall population health, health and wellness can be accessed within government sponsored programs up to a certain level depending on the aggregate overall need of the population. Therefore, by definition, and in spite of incentives and disincentives within the system, the societies that employ these systems are successful.
3. Insurance Company: Healthcare programs sponsored by insurance corporations can work well, provided that the insurance coverage provides all members of society with at least basic coverage and coverage through catastrophic illness. Nobody plans on getting leukemia, or ALS, or meningitis, or lupus, for instance. If you are well-educated and have a position with health benefits with a corporation or you have been successful in your career or business, then it is likely you will be able to afford the costs of healthcare. However, since healthcare and profit-motive are mixed within the same crucible, there is a strong incentive to cheat or to create environments where profit supersedes care if the two vie for supremacy – much as suggested in Michael Moore’s movie, Sicko. The active removal or denial of healthcare is a logical and inevitable outcome of a for-profit, insurance corporation controlled system of care delivery – particularly where the population is aging. Also, there is no compelling motive for insurance corporations to cover individuals susceptible to high healthcare costs (i.e., those with catastrophic physical illness; mental illness; the frail elderly; new mothers and infants), period. The outcome of such a system would be to spiral into category 1 – No healthcare programs – (mediated by a very few insurance companies) wherein the richest segments of society would be able to access services. The irony is, the richest citizenry often require much less healthcare than others. The upshot is this: there is an increasing disparity in the number of people who are able to access healthcare in the face of age and cost escalations. One needs to question the current and future success of these social systems.
4. Combinations of Above: Combinations of the above become extremely complex and difficult to assess. There are certainly advantages and disadvantages, as well as incentives and disincentives for a hybrid of the above systems. Each of these advantages and incentives (or lack of) are inextricably connected to the socioeconomic class you and your family belong to or are transitioning into as well as a host of external and internal factors. A government funded universal system provides healthcare to everyone, including those who are disadvantaged and could not possibly access care without subsidization. It also provides care to those who are charged by some who would abuse care (though unclear who this group might be as people do not consume unlimited healthcare once they are well). Alternatively, the system dominated by large insurance companies provides very high quality, responsive care to individuals who can pay or who are insured by corporations who in turn can pay. This system works well where individuals insured are reasonably healthy and young. A problem occurs when the population of employees becomes older and insurance premiums are either hiked to cover extraordinarily high costs or removed entirely. Countries in which no healthcare programs exist results in costly but accessible services for the very few. There is no need to get into the obvious personal suffering and strife in this latter healthcare system.