Create a playlist to promote your own personal health – either physical or mental health. To do this, you will carefully choose music that suits the purpose of the playlist and draw on concepts and theory, strategically organize the order of songs. Actively listen to the music you choose for your playlist to test that it meets your intended purpose. Choose either physical or mental health, draw any literature relevant to explain the health benefits. In the introduction, describe your selected purpose for the playlist and summarise key theories about how music could be used to promote the desired outcome. Clearly describe the process you used to create the playlist, stating how you went about selecting the songs and the order. In the body of the assignment, list the order of the 10 pieces of music included in the playlist. Discuss your experience of each track and use the literature to explain how it either contributed to your identified health purpose or how and why it was unsuccessful. Include descriptions of the musical aspects (the beat, harmonies etc) and non-musical aspects (associations etc) of the track, depending on which was more relevant for each particular one. You must use the literature throughout the assignment to justify your claims about the benefits of music for this purpose. Dedicate approximately 120 words per song and include the song title and reference details as the subheading for each song (these titles are not included in the word count). In the conclusion, reflect on any potential mental or physical health benefits that may result for others through the construction of a playlist similar to yours, including any ideas you have about the use of music to promote health in the community. Use the songs as Headings for the body of the assignment. Include reference to each song as the subheadings including Track Title, Performing Artist and year of publication, with information about the Composer and Record Company if the information is relevant. Assessment criteria: Integration of the literature into the explanations about the choice of each song. Capacity to critically reflect upon the potential use and challenges associated with songs and playlists. Why was it successful or not successful, and how does that confirm or contrast the literature?
Irreconcilable circumstances: in what manner can the arrangement of counseling and warning administrations be reliable with the prerequisites of reviewer autonomy? One of the key issues distinguished as a reason for the Enron outrage is that the organization figured out how to give deluding money related data to financial specialists and investigators over a time of quite a long while, showing around $100 billion of yearly incomes. Notwithstanding, once the precise numbers developed demonstrating the condition of the organization's asset report, loan specialists pulled back their financing; the SEC expanded the weight on the organization; and the organization went bankrupt in under two months. Sloan et al (2002) contend that the best way to maintain a strategic distance from such episodes happening is to demoralize organizations from delivering unscrupulous numbers, while making reviewers apprehensive of ensuring anything which could be viewed as deceiving. As a rule, the standard of evaluator autonomy should imply that examiners are lively and tenacious in their check of bookkeeping information. In any case, on account of Enron, the examiners: Arthur Andersen, were closing down critical measures of bookkeeping information from their very own counseling arm, who were furnishing Enron with counseling and warning administrations. All things considered, there was likely physical proof that Arthur Andersen's reviewers disregarded a few material bookkeeping infringement caused by both Enron and Arthur Andersen's advisors. Shockingly, it is hard to demonstrate this proof given that all reports identified with Enron were destroyed by the examiners when the embarrassment became exposed, making it hard to be sure around the degree of the complicity or the contentions caused by Arthur Andersen giving Enron generous measures of counseling administrations, in the meantime as closing down organization accounts which were later observed to be totally off base (Sloan et al, 2002). Thus, the enactment overseeing openly recorded organizations in the United States was quickly fixed through the Sarbanes-Oxley, or SOX, Act; which was expected to help financial specialist certainty. This enactment depended on the contention that a securities exchange is shaped from a gathering of offer issuing firms; individual and institutional financial specialists; and a collection of bookkeepers, legal advisors and investigators. All things considered, the SOX Act was proposed to guarantee that every one of these gatherings recovered their very own trust in the framework, and furthermore trust in one another. All things considered, the Act concentrated on advancing straightforwardness and reasonable information from the perspective of the last clients of bookkeeping information, rather that the supplier (Kalafut, 2003). The fundamental technique by which SOX endeavors to limit and dodge irreconcilable situations inside the firm is by expecting companies to set up corporate inspecting boards; which are in charge of managing the evaluators. This is on the grounds that, already, if evaluators had any questions around the substance of the money related explanations, they needed to search out the administration work force in charge of producing the information. This implied the administrators could possibly shape the evaluator's understanding of the data, especially if the examining organization were likewise giving counseling or warning administrations as happened at Enron. In such an occurrence, the warning staff may well themselves have applied impact over their very own examiners to guarantee that the data was treated in a way that is positive to the advisors, and not in a way that gave a genuine portrayal of the real circumstance and information. The review board of trustees should keep away from this by guaranteeing that the examiners just speak with the council individuals, who are altogether free from the administration of the firm, and henceforth can take a gander at any warning administrations furnished by the evaluator with an autonomous and basic eye (Lansing and Grgunch, 2004). Accordingly, the demonstration likewise suggests that one of the review panel individuals ought to be a monetary master with a decent learning of bookkeeping standards and money related proclamations from a firm or firms in comparative ventures. This enables the board of trustees to precisely observe the genuine idea of any money related instruments, for example, the cockeyed sheet financing and other extraordinary reason elements utilized by Enron to conceal its monetary troubles. This will likewise be essential if a reviewing firm is giving noteworthy non inspecting administrations, as they may well utilize their examining background to exhort their customer on how best to structure their business to display it all the more positively from a bookkeeping perspective. Money related specialists on the review panel will have comparative experience, and henceforth will have the capacity to enable the evaluators to make a reasonable appraisal of the genuine idea of any innovative bookkeeping. The other fundamental piece of the SOX Act which is intended to limit any contentions between the arrangement of counseling administrations and warning administrations is that the punishments for being gotten have been expanded significantly. Specifically, the Act has expanded the punishments which any CEOs and CFOs discovered liable of damaging any arrangements of the Act would confront. As a major aspect of this, CEOs and CFOs currently need to approve the examined accounts and different explanations that their organizations document with the SEC, and will therefore be considered mindful in the event that they confirm articulations which contain any false or deceiving data. Presidents and CFOs who do as such could confront fines of up to $5,000,000 and possibly detainment for up to 20 years. All things considered, this places a noteworthy obligation on CEOs and CFOs, who are ordinarily the board individuals in charge of delegating examiners and any warning administrations, to guarantee that there is no irreconcilable situation between the reviewing and warning administrations gave. With this direction, one would expect that the weaknesses of examiners furnishing their review customers with different administrations would be great to the point that numerous organizations would not by any means think about it. Nonetheless, it is essential to take note of that there are a few advantages which can be gotten inside the current legitimate and administrative structure. For one, Marks (2007) contends that evaluators' inside and out information of their customers' and similar firms' records can enable them to prompt firms on their administration procedures, productivity and different parts of their budgetary execution and how to enhance them. What's more, review firms will be better ready to encourage firms how to legitimately stay away from however much duty as could reasonably be expected, while abstaining from anything which could be viewed as tax avoidance. This is especially imperative in the cutting edge business world, where the evacuation of trade controls and exchange hindrances makes assess evasion more conceivable than any other time in recent memory, yet in addition gives critical potential to organizations to fall foul of at least one of the expense administrations in which they work (Sikka and Hampton, 2005). This clarifies why numerous reviewing firms additionally have expansive assessment hones, and also warning administrations. Conversely, the main genuine drawback of an organization giving both review and different administrations is the potential for administrative infringement and irreconcilable circumstances. Of these, the potential administrative infringement were instantly seized on by the US Congress following the Enron outrage, as it developed that Enron paid Arthur Andersen $25 million in reviewing expenses, yet a further $23 million in charges for other counseling work. In any case, it was the potential for irreconcilable situations which rose as the most grounded impediment, with numerous corporate sheets stressing that proceeding to purchase counseling administrations and reviewing administrations from similar firms would harm financial specialist certainty, and prompt a drop in offer costs (Kahn, 2002). Therefore, of the Big Four bookkeeping firms right now in the market: Deloitte, Ernst and Young, PWC and KPMG; PWC quit giving counseling administrations to review customers; Ernst and Young sold it counseling business and KPMG and Deloitte both stripped of their counseling organizations all through 2001 and 2002 (Kahn, 2002). This implied none of the Big Four evaluators, which together inspected around 90% of the significant organizations in the US and UK, gave any considerable counseling administrations following the Enron embarrassment, despite the fact that they continueed to give expense and a few exchanges warning administrations. Nonetheless, by 2003 Deloitte had turned around its choice, and brought the counseling business once again into the general business, which at that point involved inspecting, impose bookkeeping, corporate back and counseling. This choice was taken regardless of industry worry around irreconcilable circumstances and the arrangements of the SOX Act, in the conviction that Deloitte could furnish its customers with the benefits of coordinated proficient and bookkeeping administrations, while keeping away from any of the potential administrative concerns (Bryan-Low, 2003). For sure, five years after the Enron outrage, Accountancy (2006) revealed that the larger part of bookkeeping firms, especially the Big Four firms, have started offering a more extensive scope of administrations, and that the limits between these administrations are obscured, with conflicting levels of revelation. For instance, PWC points of interest particular incomes for review, bookkeeping and assessment; anyway it likewise incorporates 'warning administrations' in its incomes as an umbrella term for consultancy, corporate fund, and corporate recuperation administrations. Additionally, while KPMG points of interest separate classifications including corporate back, measurable bookkeeping, exchange administrations and hazard warning administrations, the 'chance warning' administrations are adequately the equivalent as the counseling work offered by other bookkeeping firms (Accountancy, 2006). This demonstrates, regardless of whether the administrative clashes can be totally settled, it will be troublesome for investors to survey the genuine idea of their examiner's incomes, and thus the potential for any harming irreconcilable situations. Shockingly, future strides to address any issues because of this are probably going to be hampered by the way that SOX is now demonstrating a noteworthy administrative weight to openly recorded com>GET ANSWER