Chopin is beauty epitomized.

All you hear in his music is beauty, all the loveliness that music is. His pieces are not simple. They are intricate and delicate, but they remain accessible, and personal. It’s the sort of music you play alone at home for your personal enjoyment. Yet, it has the level of sophistication for a grand performance in a large concert hall that will leave its audience touched, captivated and spellbound by his ingenuity.

Where on earth did someone find inspiration for music like that?

—

Beethoven is fascinating.

It doesn’t take a lot to realize that he puts his heart and soul into his music. His music is original, because it is him – his thoughts, his emotions, his life. You hear him being angry, or sad, or mischievous. The music changes from moment to moment, exactly like the thoughts in someone’s head. It’s almost as though he thinks in music.

If someone could write a diary in music, it would be Beethoven.

—

Mostly, I love Chopin and Beethoven for their honesty. Their pieces are not elaborately constructed show pieces (like Liszt), arrogantly masterful definitions of music (like Mozart), or hopelessly romantic cliches (like Mendelssohn).

They are brilliant, yet natural, works of art.

Music is larger than life. It is captivating to the point of bewitchery, beautifully wicked, unattainably grand, but in all its grandeur, oddly humbling.

Music humbles the performer, for however superb his technique, he is merely a servant to the composer, an interpreter of another’s ideals and emotions. As he only interprets, he may often find himself awestruck by the ingenuity of its creator. After all, it is the composer who defines music.

Yet, music is also humbling to the composer for despite him writing the most sophisticated passages and beautiful melodies, only a good performer can breathe life into them.

That is probably why music becomes more interesting, albeit frustrating, when the composer and performer is not the same person.

I firmly believe that the integrity of a piece of music must be retained by the performer. A performer must seek first and foremost to showcase the composer’s art, upon which he demonstrates his own virtuosity, in contrast to showcasing his technique by making use of the composer’s art.

Granted, some performers can, while retaining the integrity of the original music, revitalise it by injecting it with his own personality and charm (something like Bruno Pelletier’s jazz rendition of Billy Joel’s Just the Way You Are). Unfortunately, most tries at creative interpretations of the original music defaces it, robbing the composer of his craft.

Recently, I’ve been hunting down versions of Chopin’s Prelude in E Minor on Youtube. I’ve listened to performers from 8-year old kids to acclaimed musicians and even  many amateur exhibitionists. Many of them, including renowned musicians, performed this piece substantially different from the score, playing it in the way they want to hear it (Chopin must have made several turns in his grave). My favorites though, are those who played the piece superbly while keeping to the original score.

I guess we sometimes quickly jump into the trap of making changes for the better simply because it’s easier to do things the way we prefer than to step into another’s shoes and attempt to understand exactly why the music was written in a certain way, and what the composer really wants to express. Sadly, whenever we do that, we deny ourselves of a chance to be awestruck by the ingenuity of the composer and be humbled by music.

“You see, if you have an education, you have many sources of pleasure and intellectual stimulation. Ways of using your time.”

- Burjor Randeria, in Paul Theroux’s Ghost Train to the Eastern Star

This is the perfect reason for working hard on learning – you learn so that you can have more fun!

Certainly, nothing can interest (or sustain your interest) unless you have sufficient knowledge on the subject to appreciate and enjoy it. Everything that you don’t know about or don’t understand is one less source of entertainment. An illiterate man is a bored one.

So, life is dull not because there aren’t sufficient forms of entertainment. You have no hobbies not because nothing interests you. If all you know about is your mundane life, then your life will certainly be mundane because you enjoy little more than unimaginative dramas about lives like yours.

Considering that dance escapes me, and that I have two right feet (which I argue to be worse than having two left feet), I’m missing out on the whole field of dance – all that elegant prancing and sensuous movement. Every language and culture that I do not know is one that prevents me from fully appreciating the nuances and witticisms of a film in that language.

Yet, this begs the question: breadth or depth? There seems to be a tradeoff between enjoying many things a bit and enjoying some things a lot. Now, even figuring out how to enjoy life sounds challenging. We have no excuse to be bored.

Now that we are leaving the school, friends and I have been talking about the ways to contribute back to the alma mater, i.e. “class gift” and such. Having received much financial support from the school, I am happy to discuss this, but there is at least one cause I find very difficult to support - I’ve always had issues with the overseas “community service project”.

I have many friends who have organized and participated in these, and have even, sort of, participated in one (a one day home-building in Batam “community service project” not really worth mentioning). My experience led me to think that I won’t participate in such projects for community service, at least definitely not in the way the particular one I went to was organized. I applaud my friends’ courage, determination and commitment to these projects, but really have trouble coming to terms with calling such overseas stints “community service projects” particularly because of the over-publicised manner such initiatives are usually carried out, and the blatant inefficient use of charity money. 

Would you give me $500 if I told you it was going to a fund to pay for the building of schools in a third world country? You might, but I doubt such people are as abundant as those who would pay $500 for an air ticket that will take them to a third world country to personally participate in the building of a school. The reason is obvious – the money is not an altruistic contribution to the well-being of people faraway (whom they probably never really cared about anyway) and their efforts is not plain voluntary goodness. Instead, it is a learning, humbling and self-gratifying experience that they are paying for.

I’m not saying that all community service projects must be altruistic in nature. But for one where altruism is clearly not key – people who have gone for these rave about how it was a humbling experience to see the villagers’ living conditions and know how blessed they are, and the meaningfulness of what they do, how the simple folks showered them with gratitude – why not call it what it really is? It is an “overseas learning experience”, much like “business study missions”, and less of “community service projects”.

More important than the name, why do overseas what you can do at home? Have you exhausted all avenues you could use to help your less fortunate countrymen? Why organize lavish overseas “community service projects” to rural Yunnan and ignore the old lady collecting cardboard boxes and aluminum cans at your local hawker center? What about the kids in Singapore who had to drop out of school to support their families – are their education less important than those living in third world countries?

I concede that such overseas outreach programmes have their merits. After all, we should look beyond our shores when helping. Building a school in a rural area may not be a lot to us, but it could be all that they have. The same amount of money means much more to them than to us. 

Even so, aren’t there better, more efficient ways of managing such outreach projects? Instead of using the charity money to fly 20 undergrads over, house and feed them, while allowing for the higher amount of wastage cause by these inexperienced builders, why not use the money to buy construction materials and hire the locals to build it? Being more suited to the conditions in the area and manual labor, they could build better schools and complete the construction faster – and it pays them! The amount of money used to fly 20 students over instead of just 2 to organize the project may even have allowed more than 1 school to be build. There are plenty of better ways to organize it – say, send an engineer or experienced construction supervisor over to teach them the skills involved in construction, and that would help the villagers in fixing up their houses and may even get them a better job.

Besides, isn’t there a requirement that not more than 30% of charity money be spent on administrative costs for non-profit organizations in Singapore? Do overseas “community service projects” observe such requirements? If the administrative costs of such overseas “community service projects” were spent in Singapore, it could have supplied rice to a block of needy old folks for a year! 

The way I see it, there are plenty of avenues locally for students to participate in community service if they are so keen to do so. Organizing and participating in a lavish overseas “community service project” seems to me to be more like a game for well to do students where they organize a high-profile, sexy and small talk worthy “community service project” to benefit their own learning more so than to benefit the villagers in the rural locations they visit. Of course, the villagers do benefit and I am sure they are sincerely grateful to them. But before these “volunteers” indulge themselves in the warm fuzzy feelings of having helped, they should be aware that the villagers have also paid an opportunity cost in order for the volunteers to benefit from the experience.

Indeed, it can be argued that such projects are well, better than nothing. (At least, better than me sitting in a comfy room making harsh remarks about it.)  Yet it just seems very wrong to me to set out organizing such a project, work hard, complete it successfully and congratulate yourself for doing such good work when if you take a step back, you could have realized how much more you could achieve if you had the welfare of your beneficiaries as top priority.

At the beginning, SMU was different.

We did away with large lectures in favor of seminar groups where students directly interacted with each other and the professors. We put less emphasis on exams and included group projects, presentations and class participation into the assessment requirements. We selected students who can fit into this culture, and who are able to add to the vibrancy of the school.

Because SMU was new, it was the dumping ground. Our first batch of students were admirable risk takers who bought into the idea that SMU is different, and that university education should be different. (Nevermind the contradiction of having risk takers dumped into the dumping ground.)

But now, all that has changed. After some initial success where SMU graduates were preferred to their peers from NUS and NTU, SMU is no longer the dumping ground, but the fresh upstart with the biggest potential.

Worst of all, we started attracting the wrong crowd. Now, we have academically oriented students who are competitive and care to work hard for grades. They came to SMU because they thought it would prepare them well for a job. This has completely undermined the SMU culture. We are no longer different.

Now, SMU is just another school full of muggers, just like the other 2 universities in Singapore. Imagine the horrors of seeing a university where students fill the library studying for exams, especially students who already could get A- but were aiming for A+. Can you resist not gagging at students who buy textbooks and read up before classes?

How terrible.

Such is the general idea of some of the laments of SMU students which someone has kindly collated in a brightsparks forum, a portal for students to choose universities and scholarships for their tertiary education.

This leads me to wonder, what expectations did the students who wrote these posts had of university education? Why did they even want to go to an university? What do they want the university to do for them?

Let me begin by stating my expectations of an university education. I decided to go to university because I wanted to further my studies, to learn and prepare myself for a particular area of work. I expect my university to facilitate my learning by providing lecturers I can learn from and the peers whom I can learn with. I expect that the university knows the type of training I require, and is able to objectively and accurately assess my abilities.

Besides that, I want an university that is able to encourage and accomodate my interests outside academics. I wish to build friendships and form bonds with the people I study and play with during these years in my university. Although the non-academic area is important, I will not choose to go to an university that has all that vibrant culture but is unable to provide me with the professional training and tertiary education I need from an university education.

My expectations are simple. I thought they were exactly what most people who chose to go to university expect too.

So imagine my shock, when I repeatedly read and hear what my peers lament about SMU, especially the studying (mugging) which seemed so problematic and repulsive to them.

Did they think that getting a degree, which is largely an academic business, was possible without any studying? Did they think that learning can be entirely done through class discussions in which students ask questions and form opinions when they have never read any materials before class?

Or better, did they expect that SMU was different, because they could get a good degree and learn everything they needed to know about their course of study, without needing to put in the hard work of studying? I would love to go to such a school too, but last I heard, this seemed only possible in the Matrix movie where knowledge can be downloaded.

If they find studying so repulsive, why did they choose to do a degree in an university? Sure, academic courses can be restructured to include projects and class debates, but to know the technical knowledge, you do need to put in the long hours poring over books to memorise and understand some theories. If you’ve never studied or understood anything, then there is nothing to think or discuss about. Maybe they should have chosen a course of study like art, music or dance, in which painting, playing and dancing will be their form of (perhaps less repulsive) mugging.

What bewilders me the most though, is the question of what could be their main purpose for coming to university when they place so much importance on non-academic activities? Did they choose to go to an university solely because they wanted to participate in extra-curricular activities? Then why didn’t they just skip university and join those activities outside of school instead?

Maybe they do want a degree after all. Maybe they do want to be prepared for a future career. And (oh the horrors!), maybe they do want a better job. But no, they don’t want the studying, they want a degree from plain class discussions and doing co-curricular activities in school.

As far as I understand, SMU has fulfilled most of what it promised to me to be different from the other universities. (Maybe my expectations were too low) I expect SMU to teach me the soft skills I need in addition to academics, and I have indeed been trained in the soft skills. We do have seminar-style studying where we closely interact with professors. We do have many many projects (perhaps too many even) where we learn to work with others on practical business cases and present our ideas to the class. Student life is not any less vibrant when taking into consideration the smaller student population compared to NUS and NTU.

What we should lament about, is perhaps the lack of intellectually curious students in SMU, not the influx of studious, hardworking students. Maybe in our quest for “good students”, we have failed to distinguish the intellectually curious ones from the merely exam-smart and hardworking ones.

We now have students who actually cared about studying and about grades. Now, we actually have competitive students who seriously want to do well academically, not just muddle through university and skipping classes for the too many commitments they put onto themselves. It is not perfect or idealistic, but what is so wrong about that?

In fact, I wish SMU could be much heavier and challenging academically. I wish there were more students and professors who cared about teaching academic knowledge so that we can have more meaningful class discussions. As much as the lack of training in communication skills is a disadvantage for the “old school” educated students of NUS and NTU, not being equipped with an adequate amount of technical knowledge is a disadvantage for all us eloquent graduates of the enlightened SMU regime.

SMU has the infrastructure (the seminar rooms and culture of presentations and class participation), and we are now getting good students who cared about studying the technical knowledge and doing well academically. That means we’re making progress and getting closer to becoming a university, not just a vocational school preparing us for work in the business world.

Maybe our marketing efforts have fooled even ourselves. It should never really be about being “different”, like what the slogan conveniently says (well, it’s a slogan). What we really should focus on, is being better.

I just watched an episode of what has become a Singaporean TV staple – those “you can be beautiful too” variety shows. This one is fantastic, awe-inspiring even.

The episode showed reenactments of the distress a girl’s skin problem caused her, including being reprimanded outright by her boss because she had failed as “a representative of the company” (there was no mention of her job scope, which left me wondering…). It troubled her so much that she could no longer go out with friends and was, very literally, plagued by loneliness and a nonexistent self esteem.

I’m sure even the most stone-hearted of viewers could feel the pain and anguish that her superficial problem caused her. But fear not, there was a happy ending to this tragic story. She sought help from the chain beauty parlor which sponsered this TV programme, and regained her self-confidence as her skin problem vanished after they explained at length the cause of her problem (substantiated by a Chinese physician’s comment, mind you) and the application of some goop on her face.

Hallelujah! There is hope in life.

These shows are so inspiring. Why haven’t the various tuition centers, abacus classes and child talent development educators sponsered similar programmes?

We could have a dumb kid relate his story about how he had never passed any examination, got snubbed by teachers and eventually lost all feelings of self-worth. His inadequacy in scholarly subjects troubled his parents (whose greatest fear is that their son ends up in an Institute of Technical Education) so much that they could no longer face their relatives during Chinese New Year gatherings. Thankfully, they discovered X tuition center and Y abacus class and the son became infinitely smarter and instantly more filial.

Oh yeah, and that wonderful line they love to use in such shows – “there are no ugly women, only lazy women”. We could adapt that for the tuition center one too –  ”there are no stupid people, only lazy ones”, no?

Why is our obsession with beauty (or rather, predefined notions of beauty) frequently brought on national TV, while other obsessions like that of good grades and smart kids only spoken as satire on Jack Neo’s films? It seems that we have not fully convinced ourselves that our policy of elitism is acceptable, but we have gladly accepted our warped notion that a lack of “beauty” is a bane in life and that it even constitutes a character flaw as serious as laziness.

Affluenza by Oliver James is another book I picked up this holidays. Sadly, it’s a huge disappointment, at least that first half I’ve read.

Maybe it’s the topic. When you write about “why we are better off now but not as happy and what we can do about it”, it’s pretty tough to come out with some insights on why we are so screwed up and let all us unhappy “virus-striken” (as James calls it) poor souls in on that great secret – assuming there is a secret, and assuming you know about it.

I began reading this book expecting it to be something good because in James’ prologue, he mentioned how he was paid a sum upfront to travel many places and interview many people for his book. He did mention a detailed report of his research published somewhere else (and I noticed some correlation statistics in the appendix), but rigorous research is not to be found in this book.

In fact, there were many times when I thought I just have to read this book as an opinion piece about something the author passionately believes in, instead of a well-researched book aimed at informing.

I began finding it difficult to take him seriously when he repeatedly refer to Lee Kuan Yew as “Lee Kuan” in his book. Has Mr. Lee gotten a new nickname, or is James, despite all his credentials and travels, completely misinformed about Chinese naming conventions?

The part that had me attempting a non-voluntary single eyebrow raise in a public bus was when he tried to explain the difference between the level of emotional distress between Shanghainese and Singaporeans. He wrote, “This cannot be down to genes, because 70 percent of Singaporeans are of Chinese genetic stock.” By that argument, it would also mean that obesity cannot be down to genes because people who have easy access to food are more prone to obesity than people from the same race located in a famine-striken place. Right, so genetic causes (or any other causation factor) can always be ruled out if there are other reasons, especially if that other reason is obvious.

In most of his book, he explains and supports his arguments by bringing out excerpts of what people he interviewed told him, and psychoanalyzing what they say so it supports what he wants to explain. And then he generalizes it to the population. I hope the detailed research report he has is different.

In short, what James argues for in his book is this: People in developed nations are less happy because they are often hankering for material goods that enhance their social status. There is an obsession with “having” rather than “being”. If we can be self-motivated and align our reasons for obtaining material goods with intrinsic beliefs and personal satisfaction, we will happy and contented instead of being depressed and screwed up while busy keeping up with the Joneses.

That is a convincing argument. If all you ever cared about is whether other people (especially unimportant people) like what you wear and where you live, you must be very unhappy if someone is unimpressed or if someone has something better. Now if you start doing only the things that please you without a care in the world about what other people think, then you will be a very happy soul.

That has to be the case, because you are only as happy as your expectations - you think your dress looks good, so you feel happy wearing it. If you start realizing that what you think is wrong, and you start noticing the flaws and imperfections, then you will be sorely disappointed and very very unhappy unless all that imperfection is rectified.

This reminds me of another Calvin & Hobbes quote. “So the secret to good self-esteem is to lower your expectations to the point where they’re already met?”

The truth is, we live in a society. And in a society where we are not alone, we compare with each other and we are influenced by social values and social norms. I don’t think it takes a sociologist to tell us that.

It is extremely difficult to keep to our own ideals and values, and it is impossible to tell which of these ideals and values are self-induced or planted into our heads by our upbringing, education and the general environment we live in.

Besides, where’s the fun in stubbornly sticking to our own ideas? We live to compare, compete and to bounce ideas off each other. I may say, “I think this dress is good enough.” And then someone will tell me, “No, the patterns don’t match across the seams. That’s bad workmanship. Look at my dress, isn’t it much better?” Sure, my ego takes a hit. How could I have been so happy with it when the problem is so blatant? I would be extremely unhappy knowing that I could have something better.

James would probably say, who says the patterns must match across the seams? What if I do like that mismatched pattern which you call bad workmanship, and it does make me very happy to have something different? Well then, I can’t argue against that. You can stick with it.

It’s just me and my warped belief that I cannot be ignorantly and ambitionless-ly happy. Yes, that means that even if I do like that mismatched pattern on my dress, but if it was merely a fortunate mistake in the tailor’s bad workmanship, I would rather be unhappy with that knowledge and a thirst for something better, than be mindlessly happy about something that intrinsically appeals to me.

I say, happiness is overrated. Go ahead James, psychoanalyze me. I’m a Singaporean too, by the way.

Sure, I don’t want to be unhappy all the time. (James’ examples often involve people who seemed clinically depressed.) But I’m sure all of us can live with some unhappiness. That’s what makes the upside sweet.

Besides, like I’ve written before, it’s too easy to be happy. Listening to a good piece of music makes me happy, achieving something new makes me happy, giving and receiving a small favor makes me happy. Oh yes, there are plenty of secular pleasures too. Indulging myself with a new item I don’t exactly need makes me very happy and I am very much entertained by mindless commercial flicks, including “Sex and the City” which James seems to dislike a lot. Reading James’ book also leaves me quite amused, and so I would say, rather happy.

On the other hand, being unhappy is a challenge. It means sticking your neck out of the comfortable box you’re in and putting your ideas and values out to be compared, discussed and possibly trampled on.

So would I “trade up” that knowledge of the imperfections, the fun in competition and the drive for something better for a contented and happy life? Hell no.

Before attending a women’s leadership conference, I was under the impression that it is some sort of women’s support group with the focus of giving women equal opportunities at leadership by participating in community projects. Such projects also prove women’s ability to contribute to society and recognize women leadership styles. In short, the conference brings to mind a group of women struggling to succeed in a man’s world banding together to support each other.

Many attendees like me might have shared what I imagined the group to be, which is perhaps why many came to the dialogue prepared with questions relating to women juggling work and family, and women needing to have masculine characteristics to succeed in a leadership position. After all, the objectives for a women’s group like this works under the premise that there is some form of workplace discrimation or unequal opportunities of leadership positions for women.

Strangely enough, the speakers at the dialogue sessions who are outstanding women leaders replied that it is not as much of a male-dominated world as many of us attendees suggested in the questions. It was an interesting and insightful discussion where the speakers shared that the key to success was related to understanding oneself and developing oneself. One speaker even ventured to say that diversity involves more than accepting women’s leadership style, but rather, diversity is extended to every individual.

As I was getting confused about the purpose of such a women’s group, the man in the room (ironically) brought to light the most important take away in the discussion – Inequality continues to exist in society and in many forms too. What will eventually lead to success is capability and drive as what is demonstrated by the outstanding women leaders in the panel of discussants. Whining about inequality and blaming any failure on discrimination will not take you anywhere.

As I see it, this is no longer the 1950s. Women already have pretty much equal work opportunities, which most of the discussants concur. Sure, there might still be some remnants of discrimination due to the long male-dominating history which makes it difficult for women to be in leadership positions. But capable women who work hard and prove themselves can make it, and as more women prove their capabilities, there would be little reason for any discrimination to remain.

Then why do we need a women’s group to teach women leadership skills and give women opportunities at leadership? If the purpose is to better equip women with leadership skills and networking opportunities, why is an all women group necessary? Women can mentor and be mentored by women and men alike, network with women and men alike and lead women and men alike. (Especially since the discussants do not believe that there is serious discrimination against women.) Then why are we discriminating ourselves, putting ourselves in a “safe” group with only us so that we can all have “equal” leadership opportunities?

The intention of the group is good, but I’m not sure what their purpose is and what they do. Network among women – why do we limit ourselves? After all, if we ever need to prove our capabilities to overcome any remaining discrimination, it won’t be to women, but to men. Just like a networking session among Asians or Asians support group would be a moot point, I believe women has gone beyond this. It’s time to just move on and claim the leadership positions in the real workplace. Then the world will know our individual leadership style. Diversity programmes need to make clear the relevance of their objectives in today’s world.

On another note, one speaker had some really sensible advice for us folks entering the workforce in these turbulent times.

1. Diversify your skills to be prepared for the good times – any job can give you experience, so internships or contract work should not go unconsidered. While applying for jobs, enrol in courses of your interest or engage in voluntary work. It is during such turbulent times that more help is needed. It is also such experiences that will distinguish you and help prepare you for the good times.
2. Stay true to yourself – there is no need to adopt others’ characteristics. Do not lose yourself while being reactive to change.
3. Remain calm during a storm - calmness is what is valued when there is uncertainty. During turbulent times, it’s a leader who can stay calm enough to plan that will be looked up to.
4. “Work for a better life, not more stuff.”

Exhausted after a full day of classes and meeting, I planned on sleeping on the bus ride home. But I made the wrong choice of album to listen to. When it’s been a long while since you last heard an album you previously liked, everything you liked about it gushes back at double the intensity, and you often have some new understanding of the songs.

Tonight’s album is Switchfoot’s Nothing is Sound. It’s an old album, which I needed to play a bit of Jenga with my CD stack to pull out from near the bottom of the pile. (I need to get a proper CD rack and develop some indexing system, or I should stop buying CDs.)

In short, the album is dark, desperate, critical and much too loaded with complex questions and guitar riffs. The stuff I like, despite it being very Christian.

The lyrics brought out real issues in the band’s raw and opinionated way, which is perhaps the type too honest for radio. Again, the stuff I like. Bands should stay real and write about issues that matter to them, not mindless love ballads with vague lyrics and catchy tunes to feed the consumers and rake in millions with. Although honestly, having millions would be very nice.

This brings me to Happy Is A Yuppie Word, which (according to some readings online) was inspired by Bob Dylan’s 1991 interview with the Rolling Stone. When asked if he was happy, Dylan replied, “Those are yuppie words, happiness and unhappiness. Its not happiness or unhappiness, its blessed or unblessed.”

That is a pretty impressive statement. Whenever I think of happiness, it somehow relates to a selfish enjoyment or some sort. While you can make someone else happy, the concept of happiness suggests some sort of personal enjoyment that everyone has a right to. But how do you really be “happy” when there is much to be “unhappy” about in this world? Somehow there has to be a trade-off with the amount of information you wish to assimilate – ignorance is bliss.

Yet, when Dylan mentioned “blessed or unblessed”, the context changes. It is no longer plain enjoyment, but rather, it is a humble recognition that you are simply “luckier” or that you simply have more than other people. Sure, you can be the yuppie who worked hard to get what you have, but happiness is not a right simply because you worked hard and earned more. There is too much to be unhappy about because there are too many ways in which things can become better. You can only recognize that you are “blessed” with so much.

What I see is that Switchfoot expresses their interpretation of the quote in a yearning for something that is more than superficial; something that doesn’t break and is long lasting,

“Happy is a Yuppie word,

Blessed is the man who lose it all.

Looking for an orphanage,

I’m looking for a bridge I can’t burn down.

I don’t believe the emptiness,

I’m looking for the kingdom coming down.

Everything is meaningless,

I want more than simple cash can buy.”

Nice, except that “blessed is the man who lose it all“ is too much of a leap of faith. Blessed with nothing?

Other great songs in the album include Lonely Nation, which is again a critical (and grim) take on the emptiness of modern culture,

“We are the target market,

We set the corporate target.

We are slaves of what we want.

We’re just numb and amused and we’re just used to bad news and,

We are slaves of what we want.”

But my all-time favorite in this album is Easier than Love, which has biting comments on modern notions of promiscuity and how sex sells in media. Even though I’m not offended by media portrayal of “love”, I’m very much attracted to the bluntness of these lyrics,

It’s easier leave
It’s easier to lie
It’s harder to face ourselves at night,
Feeling alone
What have we done?
What is the monster we’ve become?

I have my head firmly buried under ground now. The more they tell me the job market is bad, the more lethargic I feel towards applying for jobs. Rejections are too much for my heart to take.

With a lot of help from Chopin, believing that heaven exists on earth is easy. His music, especially the nocturnes, can convince any non-believer that life is beautiful. So I have them on loop now.

Sometimes I feel that I’m abusing music to some extent, which is what I complain the most about mainstream music. I hate hip hop because it does nothing except set your heart thumping to the heavy African drum beats, repeat nonsensical but catchy lyrics and have you all hyped up about nothing. Yet I’m also abusing music myself, using it as an escape of some sort.

Music should never be used merely for ambience creation, because music that does nothing except evoke emotions, paint a scene, imitate sounds or generally be descriptive about things are very much limited in its value (and very crude). I don’t know how right this view is, but I believe that there is an objective aesthetic standard for music, somehow. This standard that transcends genres, cultures and personal music preferences. That is, a good piece of music will leave an impression and be appreciated even if it’s not the type of music you like. Music is NOT personal.

I can’t evaluate music aesthetically yet, and so I abuse it based on how well it supports my mood. Feel-good lyrics and songs that agree with my emotions are a guilty pleasure. Good music is enjoyed because it is expressive, emotive and just so very pretty. Enjoying is easy, but getting to understanding is so difficult. I may never be able to understand, and that’s why music intrigues me.

I’m still abusing Chopin.