Just back from morning class. Zzz. So sleepy, especially with the rain and boring lecture.
I stepped into the house and saw last night's chinese newspaper, with the front cover of people critisizing LiuQian (the uber famous magician in Taiwan/China recently), because he performed too much death-defying tricks. Was claimed that he's getting more demonic.
A random thought came across my mine. I remembered this programme on Power 98 where Glenn Ong played all the vocals for The Misfits segment. Was one of my fav segments back when I was still in sec sch. Did a search and came across a news about Glenn Ong seperated with Jamie Yeo. Did yet a further search on Jamie Yeo in general, and I chance upon lots of controversial links about her, particular of an incident long ago where she related her experience of her naturally experiencing orgasm at age 6 and losing her virginity at age 18. Well, apparently lotsa parents are unhappy about it, but she felt that she's not in the wrong.
1 thing common about these 2 people: I don't really like them. I felt that the former is getting arrogant, and is especially frivolous. The latter... well, her segments on the radio are utterly boring, and i heard it gets worse these days. But still, that's not the point of this entry. The thing I wanna talk about is... What is the limit of this society?
About slightly more than a 100 years ago, Harry Houdini impressed the world with his many death-defying magic tricks, including surviving live burial, water torture cell, etc. These tricks continued to inspire modern-day magicians, and some like LiuQian even went on to develop new tricks out of it. How is it possible that people 100 years ago is more open-minded than modern days people? Or perhaps, people these days just can't accept the fact that magicians these days are becoming increasingly more skilled? Then again, it's Singaporeans. Maybe they rather watch magician jump out of bathroom tub? Oh, the thrill!
And about Jamie Yeo. Well, I do expect some people to react to it. Parents, particularly. But using the word "mind-blowing" to just describe her 1st sex wasn't exactly what I would call explicit. The tomyam banmian I had this morning in school was equally mind-blowing in taste! What's with parents shutting up about the concept of sex to their kids? Kids are naturally curious about everything under the sun. And the more they are told to avoid, the more they will venture to what was forewarned. As a kid, i remembered breaking every rules possible. Touching an operating iron, hot kettle, breaking glass, even stealing. Most of the time, my parents would let the cane do the educating, but some things I never understood until I've reached a certain age and start thinking in others' shoes, as well as learning from personal experience. Anyway, I kinda digressed. Bottomline is, safe exposures are fine. I know of a friend who's parents actually watch adult videos in front of their kids. She doesn't seemed to grow up into someone particularly curious about sex or nudity. I suspect nudity to her is probably more like seeing a nude scene on National Geographics. Anyway, the Jamie Yeo incident is also unnecessarily blown up... by paranoid Singaporean parents. I think, she has the freedom of speech, and those stuffs she mentioned about her 1st discovery of masturbation and her 1st sex... well, there are worse things on the net that are hell lot more blantant. Pornography. Live cams. Etc.
People often forget that public figures are also mere mortals, capable of faults and flaws. But as long as they don't do anything that contravenes their duty, what need is there to push blames on them? After all, you can even have religious leaders committing heinous faults like child molest and fund embezzlement.
Come to think of it, why is the monk MingYi jailed for fund embezzlement, while pastor rony tan public assault on buddhism (an offense in singapore punishable by imprisonment... and there was a case law already...) is let off the hook so easily?
Monday, April 26, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Religion and Morality
I have decided to conform to my biological clock: Sleep as much as possible in the day, and be ultra constructive at night. For example, i'm doing accountings now at 3am...
I hope it rains 24/7 everyday. The weather's ridiculous these days. Once the rain stops in the afternoon, the night is unbearably hot. Probably global warming. Speaking of which, I was reading a booklet much earlier. Think some people drop it into our letterbox. It's some self-proclaimed spiritual master trying to promote going vegetarian to lessen contribution to global warming. Btw, here's the wiki on her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Hai
It's worrying what kinda people sprout out from around the world these days. Here, we're looking at a possible philanthropist who self-proclaimed herself as akin to Buddha with supernatural power. And of course, also the setting up of a religious foundation named after herself. And at the same time, being so involved in businesses. Oh. And did i I mention that telling people to chant her name will bring deliverance and aid enlightenment? To promote vegetarian and environmentalism is a good thing. But these surface acts are not indication of a true saint inside... or actually in this case, I actually doubt the sanity of this person itself...
I personally felt that in the present world, people lack healthy skepticism. Religion is a source of spiritual and emotional support. Not alot of people can stand the idea of being unable to explain events happening to them. Not alot of people can live with a "meaningless" life, therefore it must be that God has a plan for us all. Not alot of people dare to take the risk when they are told that they will go to hell if they do not believe. Not many people dare to question their own faith, for fear that it is blasphemy to even doubt. Not many people look beyond the facade (if any), and believed simply because the religion institutes they belong to are doing charitable things.
My point is, things might not appear as it is. There are many religions who claimed themselves as the one true faith. Then my question is, what gives them the right to claim so, as over all other faiths? What exact is "true faith"? Is it so important that it takes priority over humanity altogether? It is so important that you must defend them, even if it means killing/harassing/debasing/(insert negative verbs) the people who also live on this planet with you? My next question is, assuming that this "only true faith" is found, how realistic is it that the preachers of this faith be flawless? Look at the recent child sex scandal in Roman Catholic Church... or rather the whole strings of child sexual abuses in history. Those in religious authority are not necessary flawless. Who is to correct them? The believers? And if the err is less eye-catching, such as misinterpretation of the scriptures/bible, who has to authority to correct them? The proclaimed God? Last I remember, "God" haven't sent a bolt of lightening down to fire the Pope, which explain why he's still sitting comfortably in his office now.
Conclusion: Be realistic. Do what is good for others and ourselves without the need to heed all the talks about supernaturals and God. My point here is not to advocate a disbelief in God, but rather more of discourage a need to be "God-centered". If you can behave like a saint in action because you are already a saint inside you, it doesn't matter what your religion is, because (I believe that) God can't fault a saint for not believing in the incomprehensible supernatural. Of cos, all these talks assuming that God exists in the 1st place. But even if God and afterlife justices does not exist, it shouldn't make contributing meaningfully to the people around you any less important.
There was a rather pessimistic theory that without religion in this world, there would be no morality. I say... even if there's religions, doing what your religions tell you to do doesn't make you any more moral, since you're only bargaining for entry to heaven. For example in Singapore, people give seats to elderly because it's a social norm which if you don't conform, people will look at you as an inconsiderate person. So the very act of giving up seats to the elderly is not an accurate gauge that you are a considerate towards the elderly, but could be that you just don't want to feel embarrassed. At the end of the day, is Singapore a considerate society as compared to other countries? Not necessarily so.
Feedbacks are welcomed. =D
I hope it rains 24/7 everyday. The weather's ridiculous these days. Once the rain stops in the afternoon, the night is unbearably hot. Probably global warming. Speaking of which, I was reading a booklet much earlier. Think some people drop it into our letterbox. It's some self-proclaimed spiritual master trying to promote going vegetarian to lessen contribution to global warming. Btw, here's the wiki on her:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ching_Hai
It's worrying what kinda people sprout out from around the world these days. Here, we're looking at a possible philanthropist who self-proclaimed herself as akin to Buddha with supernatural power. And of course, also the setting up of a religious foundation named after herself. And at the same time, being so involved in businesses. Oh. And did i I mention that telling people to chant her name will bring deliverance and aid enlightenment? To promote vegetarian and environmentalism is a good thing. But these surface acts are not indication of a true saint inside... or actually in this case, I actually doubt the sanity of this person itself...
I personally felt that in the present world, people lack healthy skepticism. Religion is a source of spiritual and emotional support. Not alot of people can stand the idea of being unable to explain events happening to them. Not alot of people can live with a "meaningless" life, therefore it must be that God has a plan for us all. Not alot of people dare to take the risk when they are told that they will go to hell if they do not believe. Not many people dare to question their own faith, for fear that it is blasphemy to even doubt. Not many people look beyond the facade (if any), and believed simply because the religion institutes they belong to are doing charitable things.
My point is, things might not appear as it is. There are many religions who claimed themselves as the one true faith. Then my question is, what gives them the right to claim so, as over all other faiths? What exact is "true faith"? Is it so important that it takes priority over humanity altogether? It is so important that you must defend them, even if it means killing/harassing/debasing/(insert negative verbs) the people who also live on this planet with you? My next question is, assuming that this "only true faith" is found, how realistic is it that the preachers of this faith be flawless? Look at the recent child sex scandal in Roman Catholic Church... or rather the whole strings of child sexual abuses in history. Those in religious authority are not necessary flawless. Who is to correct them? The believers? And if the err is less eye-catching, such as misinterpretation of the scriptures/bible, who has to authority to correct them? The proclaimed God? Last I remember, "God" haven't sent a bolt of lightening down to fire the Pope, which explain why he's still sitting comfortably in his office now.
Conclusion: Be realistic. Do what is good for others and ourselves without the need to heed all the talks about supernaturals and God. My point here is not to advocate a disbelief in God, but rather more of discourage a need to be "God-centered". If you can behave like a saint in action because you are already a saint inside you, it doesn't matter what your religion is, because (I believe that) God can't fault a saint for not believing in the incomprehensible supernatural. Of cos, all these talks assuming that God exists in the 1st place. But even if God and afterlife justices does not exist, it shouldn't make contributing meaningfully to the people around you any less important.
There was a rather pessimistic theory that without religion in this world, there would be no morality. I say... even if there's religions, doing what your religions tell you to do doesn't make you any more moral, since you're only bargaining for entry to heaven. For example in Singapore, people give seats to elderly because it's a social norm which if you don't conform, people will look at you as an inconsiderate person. So the very act of giving up seats to the elderly is not an accurate gauge that you are a considerate towards the elderly, but could be that you just don't want to feel embarrassed. At the end of the day, is Singapore a considerate society as compared to other countries? Not necessarily so.
Feedbacks are welcomed. =D
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Change, we(I) can
Think it's time to call a break on all those entertainments, like Naruto/Pokemon/Dragon Age/singing/etc. Well... Maybe not singing. But anyway, it's time to make some changes to lifestyle pattern before the exam comes. Change, I can. =D
At least for now, I'll target to revise a significant amount of things each day. Whether I do manage to finish my revision by the exam deadline is another thing, I guess. But putting the deadline in my head isn't one of the more motivational thing to do when studying is already a drag by itself. Hmm... Each day, be better than I am yesterday.
Back to studies then.
At least for now, I'll target to revise a significant amount of things each day. Whether I do manage to finish my revision by the exam deadline is another thing, I guess. But putting the deadline in my head isn't one of the more motivational thing to do when studying is already a drag by itself. Hmm... Each day, be better than I am yesterday.
Back to studies then.
Saturday, April 10, 2010
Music
I've been so caught up by the sloth monster these days that I can't function properly like a person who's supposed to have my exams in less than a month time. Sigh... I think I'll wake up early tomorrow for a run.
Just watched a video on this taiwanese guy with a vocal range of whitney houston.
Reminds me of many singers and sing enthusiasts out there these days. The quality of music seems to be deteriorating. Plenty of people out there seems to like songs without realising that sometimes the lyrics are totally nonsensical. There's also alot of people out there who desired to learn singing cos they wanna be well-known. And there are also some who idolises and try to follow in footsteps of people who execute very difficult vocal techniques.
Music, is a form of expression. The producer of music (ie. Singer, music producer, lyricist, instrumentalist, etc) adds meanings to a song, produce a combination and sequence of music notes, decides on the arrangement of various instruments, and decide on the appropriate usage of vocal techniques. The final product is something that appeals to people, because people can understand the song on the level of meanings, both understood from the lyrics, and the instrumental arrangements that brings out the mood. The listener could be touched/excited/inspired/energised/depressed/angry, depending on what the song wants to bring out.
When the lyrics make no sense, listeners are only listening to the music arrangement, which the singer might as well be absent from. As for people who's into the music industry or learned singing only for fame's sake... the music they typically tried to reproduce typically would lack a touch of meanings. A copycat. Watch youtube, and it shouldn't be hard to find many wannabes like these. Amazingly, some of these people have excellent vocal techniques, but somehow the songs seem to leave their vocal chords lacking sincerity.
With regards to vocal techniques, more does not equate good. It's like... cooking. You don't add too much pepper if you'll just trying to flavor a broth. If you're making curry, you should be adding substantially more spices than what a broth would need. Also, people ought to consider if their voice suits using certain vocal techniques. I know of some guy friends who seems to think that anything that is sung as high as possible with skill sounds good. The fact isn't. Everyone is unique in one way or another, even their voice. Being able to do the same, doesn't means being good in the same way. I think that people have to find their own voice, rather than living in others' shadow. There are singers out there, male or female, who have very small vocal range and belongs to the lower range of the scale, or that they use very little vocal techniques, but their music still inspires/touches people. Eg. Amy Winehouse, Norah Jones, Eason Chen, etc.
I've said my 2-cents worth on what I think good music is. Time to get back to the fight with the sloth demon!
Just watched a video on this taiwanese guy with a vocal range of whitney houston.
Reminds me of many singers and sing enthusiasts out there these days. The quality of music seems to be deteriorating. Plenty of people out there seems to like songs without realising that sometimes the lyrics are totally nonsensical. There's also alot of people out there who desired to learn singing cos they wanna be well-known. And there are also some who idolises and try to follow in footsteps of people who execute very difficult vocal techniques.
Music, is a form of expression. The producer of music (ie. Singer, music producer, lyricist, instrumentalist, etc) adds meanings to a song, produce a combination and sequence of music notes, decides on the arrangement of various instruments, and decide on the appropriate usage of vocal techniques. The final product is something that appeals to people, because people can understand the song on the level of meanings, both understood from the lyrics, and the instrumental arrangements that brings out the mood. The listener could be touched/excited/inspired/energised/depressed/angry, depending on what the song wants to bring out.
When the lyrics make no sense, listeners are only listening to the music arrangement, which the singer might as well be absent from. As for people who's into the music industry or learned singing only for fame's sake... the music they typically tried to reproduce typically would lack a touch of meanings. A copycat. Watch youtube, and it shouldn't be hard to find many wannabes like these. Amazingly, some of these people have excellent vocal techniques, but somehow the songs seem to leave their vocal chords lacking sincerity.
With regards to vocal techniques, more does not equate good. It's like... cooking. You don't add too much pepper if you'll just trying to flavor a broth. If you're making curry, you should be adding substantially more spices than what a broth would need. Also, people ought to consider if their voice suits using certain vocal techniques. I know of some guy friends who seems to think that anything that is sung as high as possible with skill sounds good. The fact isn't. Everyone is unique in one way or another, even their voice. Being able to do the same, doesn't means being good in the same way. I think that people have to find their own voice, rather than living in others' shadow. There are singers out there, male or female, who have very small vocal range and belongs to the lower range of the scale, or that they use very little vocal techniques, but their music still inspires/touches people. Eg. Amy Winehouse, Norah Jones, Eason Chen, etc.
I've said my 2-cents worth on what I think good music is. Time to get back to the fight with the sloth demon!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
