s="" history="" and="" way="" of="" life.="" similarly,="" research="" into="" the="" material="" culture="" music="" can="" help="" us="" to="" understand="" music-culture.="" most="" viv body="" “things”="" in="" it,="" course,="" are="" musical="" instrument.="" we="" cannot="" hear="" for="" ourselves="" actual="" sound="" any="" performance="" before="" 1870s="" when="" phonograph="" was="" invented,="" so="" rely="" on="" instruments="" important="" information="" about="" music-cultures="" remote="" past="" their="" development.="" here="" have="" two="" kinds="" evidence:="" well="" preserved="" instruments,="" pictured="" 'in="" art.="" through="" study="" as="" paintings,="" written="" documents,="" on,="" explore="" movement="" from="" near="" east="" china="" over="" a="" thousand="" years="" ago,="" or="" outline="" spread="" eastern="" influence="" europe="" that="" resulted="" development="" symphony="" orchestra. Sheet music or printed music, too, is material culture. Scholars once defined folk music-cultures as those in which people learn and sing music by ear rather than from print, but research show mutual influence among oral and written sources during the past few centuries in Europe, Britain and America. Printed versions limit variety because they tend to standardize any song, yet they stimulate people to create new and different songs. Besides, the ability to read music notation has a far-reaching effect on musicians and, when it becomes widespread, on the music-culture as a whole. Music is deep-rooted in the cultural background that fosters it. We now pay more and more attention to traditional or ethnic features in folk music and are willing to preserve the folk music as we do with many traditional cultural heritages. Musicians all over the world are busy with recording classic music in their country for the sake of their unique culture. As always, people's aspiration will always focus on their individuality rather than universal features that are shared by all cultures alike. One more important part of music’s material culture should be singled out: the influence of the electronic media-radio, record player, tape recorder, and television, with the future promising talking and singing computers and other developments. This is all part of the "information-revolution", a twentieth century phenomenon as important as the industrial revolution in the nineteenth. These electronic media are not just limited to modem nations; they have affected music-cultures all over the globe.1.Which of the following does not belong to material culture?2.The word "phonograph" (Line 6, Paragraph 1) most probably means （ ）.3.The main idea of the first paragraph is （ ）.4.Which of the following is NOT an advantage of printed music?5.From the third paragraph, we may infer that（ ）.'>

Material culture refers to the touchable, material “things’’-physical objects that can be seen, held, felt, used-that a culture produces. Examining a culture’s tools and technology can tell us about the group's history and way of life. Similarly, research into the material culture of music can help us to understand the music-culture. The most vivid body of “things” in it, of course, are musical instrument. We cannot hear for ourselves the actual sound of any musical performance before the 1870s when the phonograph was invented, so we rely on instruments for important information about music-cultures in the remote past and their development. Here we have two kinds of evidence: instruments well preserved and instruments, pictured 'in art. Through the study of instruments, as well as paintings, written documents, and so on, we can explore the movement of music from the Near East to China over a thousand years ago, or we can outline the spread of Near Eastern influence to Europe that resulted in the development of most of the instruments on the symphony orchestra.Sheet music or printed music, too, is material culture. Scholars once defined folk music-cultures as those in which people learn and sing music by ea

It is necessary that he（ ）the assignment without delay.

The New York male and the London male: two species of dude so similar, in many respects they seem to have been separated at birth. Both stomp triumphantly around financial and media capitals. Both feel they live at the centre of the known universe. And both spend far too much time on their hair. But there are marked differences between these tribes, from confidence and sense of humour to mating rituals and dress sense.So who’s best? There’s only one way to find out: wholly unscientific means of anecdotes from people who have lived in both cities.MasculinityAlexander T., a British-born doctor living in Harlem, thinks that “maleness” is a much more consciously performed thing in Manhattan than in London. “Your clothes, what you order in a restaurant, your ability to deliver a sincere patter about your goals and passions—these are things that will help get you laid in New York. Sometimes the London approach of just relying on being funny and self-deprecating will fail to impress.” But only sometimes, Alexander stresses. “For every woman who judges you harshly for your lack of a five-year plan, there will be others driven so mad with trauma by wretched and disgusting New York males that a few hours of you listening and being a nice guy will make you seem like the catch of the century.”AppearancesJulia B. is a fundraiser in London, who lived in New York for seven years. “London men dress better in general, and look a million miles better in suits. For some reason, New Yorkers are obsessed with boxy, ill-fitting suit jackets, Wall Street types being the worst offenders. New York men are probably more muscular, and more image-conscious in general.” New Yorkers seem much more reluctant to grow up, she thinks. “New York men try and retain their youth for longer. There are more 45 year olds with skateboards in Williamsburg, Brooklyn than there are in Hackney. London men will want to settle down sooner than New Yorkers. As a woman, there’s more danger of being single in New York since men want to stay 20 in their minds forever, so women don’t want to commit either, because they see all these immature dudes around. In London, men understand women’s biological clocks a little better."HumourThe commonplace New Yorker has an annoying reputation, but graphic designer Michael L. says the two years he spent in London upended that stereotype for him. “London guys wear a grim, unpleasant face a lot of the time. People in New York were a lot more willing to be friendly. And that’s what English people will describe as fake. They think the New York niceness is not genuine. So there you have it. Are you a London man seeking fun? You should definitely spend a few weeks in New York. Your superior wardrobe, mature behavior and refreshing self-deprecation will land in fertile, man-boy traumatized soil in the City That Never Sleeps. But London women? Avoid the siren song of the New York male. No matter how ill-tempered your London fellow is, he’s a better overall package than the flashy New Yorker. Yes, that charming Manhattanite just romantically asked you out in the middle of the street. But, a) he asks out every woman with a pulse, and, b) he probably works at a discount shoe store.What’s your take on the differences between New York and London men? Who would you rather be stuck in a lift, on a road trip, or in the bar?1.Which of the following can be the best title for the passage?2.Which of the following statements is TRUE according to the passage?3.Women in New York are more likely to stay single because （ ）.4.What is the author’s warning to London women?5.The underlined word dude may mean a man who is（ ）.

In an effort to （ ）religious devotion, the officials ordered that the school day begin with the singing of a hymn.

The poor old man was （ ）with diabetes and without proper medical treatment he would lose his eyesight and become crippled very soon.

The robbers broke into the bank, （ ）the clerks with revolvers and forced them to give money just as they were about to knock off.