What is universal about music, and what varies? We built a corpus of ethnographic text on musical behavior from a representative sample of the world’s societies, as well as a discography of audio recordings. The ethnographic corpus reveals that music (including songs with words) appears in every society observed; that music varies along three dimensions (formality, arousal, religiosity), more within societies than across them; and that music is associated with certain behavioral contexts such as infant care, healing, dance, and love. The discography—analyzed through machine summaries, amateur and expert listener ratings, and manual transcriptions—reveals that acoustic features of songs predict their primary behavioral context; that tonality is widespread, perhaps universal; that music varies in rhythmic and melodic complexity; and that elements of melodies and rhythms found worldwide follow power laws.

One sentence summary: Ethnographic text and audio recordings map out universals and variation in world music. Abstract:What is universal about music, and what varies? We built a corpus of ethnographic text on musical behavior from a representative sample of the world's societies, and a discography of audio recordings. The ethnographic corpus reveals that music appears in every society observed; that music varies along three dimensions (formality, arousal, religiosity), more within societies than across them; and that music is associated with certain behavioral contexts such as infant care, healing, dance, and love. The 2 discography, analyzed through machine summaries, amateur and expert listener ratings, and manual transcriptions, revealed that acoustic features of songs predict their primary behavioral context; that tonality is widespread, perhaps universal; that music varies in rhythmic and melodic complexity; and that melodies and rhythms found worldwide follow power laws. Main Text:At least since Henry Wadsworth Longfellow declared in 1835 that "music is the universal language of mankind" (1) the conventional wisdom among many authors, scholars, and scientists is that music is a human universal, with profound similarities across societies springing from shared features of human psychology (2). On this understanding, musicality is embedded in the biology of Homo sapiens(3), whether as one or more evolutionary adaptations for music (4, 5), the byproducts of adaptations for auditory perception, motor control, language, and affect (6-9), or some amalgam.Music certainly is widespread (10-12), ancient (13), and appealing to almost everyone (14). Yet claims that it is universal or has universal features are commonly made without citation (e.g., (15-17)), and those with the greatest expertise on the topic are skeptical. With a few exceptions (18), most music scholars, particularly ethnomusicologists, suggest there are few if any universals in music (19)(20)(21)(22)(23). They point to variability in the interpretations of a given piece of music (24-26), the importance of natural, political, and economic environments in shaping music (27)(28)(29), the diverse forms of music that can share similar behavioral functions (30), and the methodological difficulty of comparing the music of different societies (12,31,32). Given these criticisms, along with a history of some scholars using comparative work to advance erroneous claims of cultural or racial superiority (33), the common view among music scholars today (34,35) is summarized by the ethnomusicologist George List: "The only universal aspect of music seems to be that most people make it. … I could provide pages of examples of the nonuniversality of music. This is hardly worth the trouble." (36) Are there, in fact, meaningful universals in music? No one doubts that music varies across cultures, but diversity in behavior can shroud regularities emerging from common underlying psychological mechanisms. Beginning with Noam Chomsky's hypothesis that the world's languages 3 ...

No abstract

No abstract

The overall goal of this research was to examine the mechanical, water vapor barrier properties and opacity of films prepared using legume protein concentrates (faba bean, pea, lupin, lentil, and soy) as a function of glycerol concentration (50, 75, or 100% [wt/wt]—relative to the protein weight). Overall, tensile strength (TS) decreased with increasing glycerol concentration, whereas tensile elongation (TE) and water vapor permeability (WVP) increased with increasing glycerol concentration. Film opacity was independent of glycerol concentration. The effect of protein‐type varied considerably depending on the functional property of the film being measured; TS was greatest with faba bean and lowest with lupin, whereas TE was highest for pea, and lowest for soy. Lentil protein films had considerably higher WVP, at the 100% glycerol concentration, as compared to the other protein concentrates. Findings from this study indicate that legume protein concentrates are capable of forming biodegradable, edible films. Overall, pea protein concentrate films showed the most promise for application in terms of strength, elongation, and moisture barrier properties.

For many years, the baking industry has been using chemical improvers as a way for compensating for flour quality variation due to growing conditions or wheat cultivar. However, the replacement of chemical dough improvers with natural ingredients or processing aids (i.e. enzymes) allows for the production of ‘cleaner label’ products. In the present research, dough and bread properties (mixing time, oven rise, loaf volume, crumb firmness and C-cell parameters) were analysed as a function of wheat cultivar (Glenn, Harvest, Lillian, CDC Plentiful and Stettler), additive-type (ascorbic acid, azodicarbonamide, glucose oxidase and fungal xylanase) and concentration. Overall, the cultivar Glenn appeared to have improved baking performance relative to the other cultivars, regardless of the additive and additive concentration. On the other hand, Stettler showed poorer baking quality and performance even with the addition of oxidizers and enzymes in relation to the control. The concentration of additive was found to have little or no effect on improving baking properties within each cultivar. Enzymes had similar or better performance than oxidizers in most cases.

No abstract

No abstract