//A Cantopop star publicly supported Hong Kong protesters. So Beijing disappeared his music.
By AUGUST BROWN
The 2 million pro-democracy protesters who have flooded the streets of Hong Kong over the last few months have been tear-gassed, beaten by police and arrested arbitrarily. But many of the territory’s most famous cultural figures have yet to speak up for them. Several prominent musicians, actors and celebrities have even sided with the cops and the government in Beijing.
The protesters are demanding rights to fair elections and judicial reform in the semiautonomous territory. Yet action film star Jackie Chan, Hong Kong-born K-pop star Jackson Wang of the group GOT7 and Cantopop singers Alan Tam and Kenny Bee have supported the police crackdown, calling themselves “flag protectors.” Other Hong Kong cultural figures have stayed silent, fearing for their careers.
The few artists who have spoken out have seen their economic and performing prospects in mainland China annihilated overnight. Their songs have vanished from streaming services, their concert tours canceled. But a few musicians have recently traveled to America to support the protesters against long odds and reprisals from China.
“Pop musicians want to be quiet about controversy, and on this one they’re particularly quiet,” said Anthony Wong Yiu-ming, 57, the singer and cofounder of the pioneering Hong Kong pop group Tat Ming Pair.
Wong is a popular, progressive Cantopop artist — a Hong Kong Bryan Ferry or David Bowie, with lyrics sung in the territory’s distinct dialect. But he, along with such singer-actors as Denise Ho and Deanie Ip, have made democratic reforms the new cause of their careers, even at the expense of their musical futures in China. Wong’s on tour in the U.S. and will perform a solo show in L.A. on Tuesday.
“It’s rebelling against the establishment, and [most artists] just don’t want to,” Wong said. “Of course, I’m very disappointed, but I never expected different from some people. Freedom of speech and civil liberties in Hong Kong are not controversial. It’s basic human rights. But most artists and actors and singers, they don’t stand with Hong Kongers.”
Hong Kong protesters
Hundreds of people form a human chain at Victoria Peak in Hong Kong on Sept. 13.(Marcus Yam/Los Angeles Times)
The protests are an echo — and escalation — of the Occupy Central movement five years ago that turned into a broad pro-democracy effort known as the Umbrella Movement. Those protests, led by teenage activist Joshua Wong (no relation), rebelled against a new policy of Beijing pre-screening candidates for political office in Hong Kong to ensure party loyalty.
Protesters were unsuccessful in stopping those policies, but the movement galvanized a generation of activists.
These latest demonstrations were in response to a proposed policy of extraditing suspected criminals from Hong Kong to mainland China, which activists feared would undermine their territory’s legal independence and put its residents at risk. The protests now encompass a range of reforms — the withdrawal of the extradition bill, secured voting rights, police reform, amnesty for protesters and a public apology for how Beijing and police have portrayed the demonstrations.
Wong, already respected as an activist for LGBT causes in Hong Kong, is one of vanishingly few musicians to have put their futures on the line to push for those goals.
Wong’s group Tat Ming Pair was one of the most progressive Cantonese acts of the ’80s and ’90s (imagine a politically radical Chinese Depeche Mode). When Wong spoke out in favor of the Umbrella Movement at the time, he gained credibility as an activist but paid the price as an artist: His touring and recording career evaporated on the mainland.
The Chinese government often pressures popular services like Tencent (the country’s leading music-streaming service, with 800 million monthly users) to remove artists who criticize the government. Artists can find longstanding relationships with live promoters on ice and lucrative endorsement deals drying up.
“This government will do things to take revenge on you,” Wong said. “If you’re not obedient, you’ll be punished. Since the Umbrella Movement, I’ve been put on a blacklist in China. I anticipated that would happen, but what I did not expect was even local opportunities decreased as well. Most companies have some ties with mainland China, and they didn’t want to make their China partners unhappy, so they might as well stop working with us.”
Censorship is both overt and subtly preemptive, said Victoria Tin-bor Hui, a professor and Hong Kong native who teaches Chinese politics and history at the University of Notre Dame.
“Every time artists or stars say anything even remotely sympathetic to protesters or critical of the government, they get in trouble,” Hui said. “You can literally have your career ruined. Denise Ho, after she joined the Umbrella Movement, everything she had listed online or on shelves was taken off. Companies [including the cosmetics firm Lancôme] told her they would have nothing more to do with her, and she started doing everything on her own.”
So Wong and other artists like Ho have been pushing back where they can.
Wong’s recent single, “Is It a Crime,” questions Beijing crackdowns on all memorials of the Tiananmen Square massacre, especially in Hong Kong, where there was a robust culture of activism and memorials around that tragedy. The single, which feels akin to Pink Floyd’s expansive, ominous electronic rock, has been blacklisted on mainland streaming services and stores.
Wong plans to speak out to commemorate the anniversary of the Umbrella Movement on this tour as well.
“The government is very afraid of art and culture,” Wong said. “If people sing about liberty and freedom of speech, the government is afraid. When I sing about the anniversary of Tiananmen, is it a crime to remember what happened? To express views? I think the Chinese government wants to suppress this side of art and freedom.”
The fallout from his support of the protests has forced him to work with new, more underground promoters and venues. The change may have some silver linings, as bookers are placing his heavy synth-rock in more rebellious club settings than the Chinese casinos he’d often play stateside. (In L.A., he’s playing 1720, a downtown venue that more often hosts underground punk bands.)
“We lost the second biggest market in the world, but because of what we are fighting for, in a way, we gained some new fans. We met new promoters who are interested in promoting us in newer markets. It’s opened new options for people who don’t want to follow” the government’s hard-line approach, Wong said.
Hui agreed that while loyalty from pro-democracy protesters can’t make up for the lost income of the China market, artists should know that Hong Kongers will remember whose side they were on during this moment and turn out or push back accordingly.
“You make less money, but Hong Kong pro-democracy people say, ‘These are our own singers, we have to save them,’” Hui said. “They support their own artists and democracy as part of larger effort to blacklist companies that sell out Hong Kong.”
Ho testified before Congress last week to support Hong Kong’s protesters. “This is not a plea for so-called foreign interference. This is a plea for democracy,” Ho said in her speech. A new bill to ban U.S. exports of crowd-control technology to Hong Kong police has bipartisan support.
No Hong Kong artists are under any illusions that the fight to maintain democracy will be easy. Even the most outspoken protesters know the long odds against a Chinese government with infinite patience for stifling dissent. That’s why support from cultural figures and musicians can be even more meaningful now, Hui said.
“Artists, if they say anything, that cheers people on,” Hui said. “Psychologists say Hong Kong suffers from territory-wide depression. Even minor symbolic gestures from artists really lift people’s morale.”
Pro-democracy artists, like protesters, are more anxious than ever. They’ve never been more invested in these uprisings, but they also fear the worst from the mainland Chinese government. “If you asked me six months ago, I was not very hopeful,” Wong said. “But after what’s happened, even though the oppression is bigger, we are stronger and more determined than before.”
Anthony Wong Yiu-ming
Where: 1720, 1720 E. 16th St.
When: 7 p.m. Tuesday
Tickets: $55-$150
Info: 1720.la //
同時也有2部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過4萬的網紅Zee Avi Music,也在其Youtube影片中提到,Dear all, Eversince KokoKaina days, I'd always look forward to writing the descriptions of a video. In a way, I felt that it was always a little more...
「how to get into an art fair」的推薦目錄:
how to get into an art fair 在 元毓 Facebook 的最讚貼文
根據計算,100萬人遊行隊伍要從維多利亞公園排到廣東;200萬人遊行則要排到泰國。
順道一提香港15~30歲人口約莫100出頭萬人。以照片人群幾乎都是此年齡帶來看,兩個數字都是明顯誇大太多了。
另一個可以參考的是1969年的Woodstock Music & Art Fair,幾天內湧進40萬人次,照片看起來也是滿山滿谷的人。(http://sites.psu.edu/…/upl…/sites/851/2013/01/Woodstock3.jpg)
當年40萬人次引發驚人的大塞車,幾乎花十幾個小時才逐漸清場。
而香港遊行清場速度明顯快得多。
順道一提,因此運動而認定「你的父母不愛你」的白痴論述也如同文化大革命時的「爹親娘親不如毛主席親」般開始出現:
https://www.facebook.com/SaluteToHKPolice/videos/350606498983830/UzpfSTUyNzM2NjA3MzoxMDE1NjMyMTM4NjY3MTA3NA/
EVERY MAJOR NEWS outlet in the world is reporting that two million people, well over a quarter of our population, joined a single protest.
.
It’s an astonishing thought that filled an enthusiastic old marcher like me with pride. Unfortunately, it’s almost certainly not true.
.
A march of two million people would fill a street that was 58 kilometers long, starting at Victoria Park in Hong Kong and ending in Tanglangshan Country Park in Guangdong, according to one standard crowd estimation technique.
.
If the two million of us stood in a queue, we’d stretch 914 kilometers (568 miles), from Victoria Park to Thailand. Even if all of us marched in a regiment 25 people abreast, our troop would stretch towards the Chinese border.
.
Yes, there was a very large number of us there. But getting key facts wrong helps nobody. Indeed, it could hurt the protesters more than anyone.
.
For math geeks only, here’s a discussion of the actual numbers that I hope will interest you whatever your political views.
.
.
DO NUMBERS MATTER?
.
People have repeatedly asked me to find out “the real number” of people at the recent mass rallies in Hong Kong.
.
I declined for an obvious reason: There was a huge number of us. What does it matter whether it was hundreds of thousands or a million? That’s not important.
.
But my critics pointed out that the word “million” is right at the top of almost every report about the marches. Clearly it IS important.
.
.
FIRST, THE SCIENCE
.
In the west, drone photography is analyzed to estimate crowd sizes.
.
This reporter apologizes for not having found a comprehensive database of drone images of the Hong Kong protests.
.
But we can still use related methods, such as density checks, crowd-flow data and impact assessments. Universities which have gathered Hong Kong protest march data using scientific methods include Hong Kong Polytechnic University, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology, University of Hong Kong, and Hong Kong Baptist University.
.
.
DENSITY CHECKS
.
Figures gathered in the past by Hong Kong Polytechnic specialists using satellite photo analysis found a density level of one square meter per marcher. Modern analysis suggests this remains roughly accurate.
.
I know from experience that Hong Kong marches feature long periods of normal spacing (one square meter or one and half per person, walking) and shorter periods of tight spacing (half a square meter or less per person, mostly standing).
.
.
JOINERS AND SPEED
.
We need to include people who join halfway. In the past, a Hong Kong University analysis using visual counting methods cross-referenced with one-on-one interviews indicated that estimates should be boosted by 12% to accurately reflect late joiners. These days, we’re much more generous in estimating joiners.
.
As for speed, a Hong Kong Baptist University survey once found a passing rate of 4,000 marchers every ten minutes.
.
Videos of the recent rallies indicates that joiner numbers and stop-start progress were highly erratic and difficult to calculate with any degree of certainty.
.
.
DISTANCE MULTIPLIED BY DENSITY
.
But scientists have other tools. We know the walking distance between Victoria Park and Tamar Park is 2.9 kilometers. Although there was overspill, the bulk of the marchers went along Hennessy Road in Wan Chai, which is about 25 meters (or 82 feet) wide, and similar connected roads, some wider, some narrower.
.
Steve Doig, a specialist in crowd analysis approached by the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), analyzed an image of Hong Kong marchers to find a density level of 7,000 people in a 210-meter space. Although he emphasizes that crowd estimates are never an exact science, that figure means one million Hong Kong marchers would need a street 18.6 miles long – which is 29 kilometers.
.
Extrapolating these figures for the June 16 claim of two million marchers, you’d need a street 58 kilometers long.
.
Could this problem be explained away by the turnover rate of Hong Kong marchers, which likely allowed the main (three kilometer) route to be filled more than once?
.
The answer is yes, to some extent. But the crowd would have to be moving very fast to refill the space a great many times over in a single afternoon and evening. It wasn’t. While I can walk the distance from Victoria Park to Tamar in 41 minutes on a quiet holiday afternoon, doing the same thing during a march takes many hours.
.
More believable: There was a huge number of us, but not a million, and certainly not two million.
.
.
IMPACT MEASUREMENTS
.
A second, parallel way of analyzing the size of the crowd is to seek evidence of the effects of the marchers’ absence from their normal roles in society.
.
If we extract two million people out of a population of 7.4 million, many basic services would be severely affected while many others would grind to a complete halt.
.
Manpower-intensive sectors of society, such as transport, would be badly affected by mass absenteeism. Industries which do their main business on the weekends, such as retail, restaurants, hotels, tourism, coffee shops and so on would be hard hit. Round-the-clock operations such as hospitals and emergency services would be severely troubled, as would under-the-radar jobs such as infrastructure and utility maintenance.
.
There seems to be no evidence that any of that happened in Hong Kong.
.
.
HOW DID WE GET INTO THIS MESS?
.
To understand that, a bit of historical context is necessary.
.
In 2003, a very large number of us walked from Victoria Park to Central. The next day, newspapers gave several estimates of crowd size.
.
The differences were small. Academics said it was 350,000 plus. The police counted 466,000. The organizers, a group called the Civil Rights Front, rounded it up to 500,000.
.
No controversy there. But there was trouble ahead.
.
.
THINGS FALL APART
.
At a repeat march the following year, it was obvious to all of us that our numbers were far lower that the previous year. The people counting agreed: the academics said 194,000 and the police said 200,000.
.
But the Civil Rights Front insisted that there were MORE than the previous year’s march: 530,000 people.
.
The organizers lost credibility even with us, their own supporters. To this day, we all quote the 2003 figure as the high point of that period, ignoring their 2004 invention.
.
.
THE TRUTH COUNTS
.
The organizers had embarrassed the marchers. The following year several organizations decided to serve us better, with detailed, scientific counts.
.
After the 2005 march, the academics said the headcount was between 60,000 and 80,000 and the police said 63,000. Separate accounts by other independent groups agreed that it was below 100,000.
.
But the organizers? The Civil Rights Front came out with the awkward claim that it was a quarter of a million. Ouch. (This data is easily confirmed from multiple sources in newspaper archives.)
.
.
AN UNEXPECTED TWIST
.
But then came a twist. Some in the Western media chose to present ONLY the organizer’s “outlier” claim.
.
“Dressed in black and chanting ‘one man, one vote’, a quarter of a million people marched through Hong Kong yesterday,” said the Times of London in 2005.
.
“A quarter of a million protesters marched through Hong Kong yesterday to demand full democracy from their rulers in Beijing,” reported the UK Independent.
.
It became obvious that international media outlets were committed to emphasizing whichever claim made the Hong Kong government (and by extension, China) look as bad as possible. Accuracy was nowhere in the equation.
.
.
STRATEGICALLY CHOSEN
.
At universities in Hong Kong, there were passionate discussions about the apparent decision to pump up the numbers as a strategy, with the international media in mind. Activists saw two likely positive outcomes.
.
First, anyone who actually wanted the truth would choose a middle point as the “real” number: thus it was worth making the organizers’ number as high as possible. (The police could be presented as corrupt puppets of Beijing.)
.
Second, international reporters always favored the largest number, since it implicitly criticized China. Once the inflated figure was established in the Western media, it would become the generally accepted figure in all publications.
.
Both of the activists’ predictions turned out to be bang on target. In the following years, headcounts by social scientists and police were close or even impressively confirmed the other—but were ignored by the agenda-driven international media, who usually printed only the organizers’ claims.
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION
.
Skip this section unless you want additional examples to reinforce the point.
.
In 2011, researchers and police said that between 63,000 and 95,000 of us marched. Our delightfully imaginative organizers multiplied by four to claim there were 400,000 of us.
.
In 2012, researchers and police produced headcounts similar to the previous year: between 66,000 and 97,000. But the organizers claimed that it was 430,000. (These data can also be easily confirmed in any newspaper archive.)
.
.
SKIP THIS SECTION TOO
.
Unless you’re interested in the police angle. Why are police figures seen as lower than others? On reviewing data, two points emerge.
.
First, police estimates rise and fall with those of independent researchers, suggesting that they function correctly: they are not invented. Many are slightly lower, but some match closely and others are slightly higher. This suggests that the police simply have a different counting method.
.
Second, police sources explain that live estimates of attendance are used for “effective deployment” of staff. The number of police assigned to work on the scene is a direct reflection of the number of marchers counted. Thus officers have strong motivation to avoid deliberately under-estimating numbers.
.
.
RECENT MASS RALLIES
.
Now back to the present: this hot, uncomfortable summer.
.
Academics put the 2019 June 9 rally at 199,500, and police at 240,000. Some people said the numbers should be raised or even doubled to reflect late joiners or people walking on parallel roads. Taking the most generous view, this gave us total estimates of 400,000 to 480,000.
.
But the organizers, God bless them, claimed that 1.03 million marched: this was four times the researchers’ conservative view and more than double the generous view.
.
The addition of the “.03m” caused a bit of mirth among social scientists. Even an academic writing in the rabidly pro-activist Hong Kong Free Press struggled to accept it. “Undoubtedly, the anti-amendment group added the extra .03 onto the exact one million figure in order to give their estimate a veneer of accuracy,” wrote Paul Stapleton.
.
.
MIND-BOGGLING ESTIMATE
.
But the vast majority of international media and social media printed ONLY the organizers’ eyebrow-raising claim of a million plus—and their version soon fed back into the system and because the “accepted” number. (Some mentioned other estimates in early reports and then dropped them.)
.
The same process was repeated for the following Sunday, June 16, when the organizers’ frankly unbelievable claim of “about two million” was taken as gospel in the majority of international media.
.
“Two million people in Hong Kong protest China's growing influence,” reported Fox News.
.
“A record two million people – over a quarter of the city’s population” joined the protest, said the Guardian this morning.
.
“Hong Kong leader apologizes as TWO MILLION take to the streets,” said the Sun newspaper in the UK.
.
Friends, colleagues, fellow journalists—what happened to fact-checking? What happened to healthy skepticism? What happened to attempts at balance?
.
.
CONCLUSIONS?
.
I offer none. I prefer that you do your own research and draw your own conclusions. This is just a rough overview of the scientific and historical data by a single old-school citizen-journalist working in a university coffee shop.
.
I may well have made errors on individual data points, although the overall message, I hope, is clear.
.
Hong Kong people like to march.
.
We deserve better data.
.
We need better journalism. Easily debunked claims like “more than a quarter of the population hit the streets” help nobody.
.
International media, your hostile agendas are showing. Raise your game.
.
Organizers, stop working against the scientists and start working with them.
.
Hong Kong people value truth.
.
We’re not stupid. (And we’re not scared of math!)
how to get into an art fair 在 玳瑚師父 Master Dai Hu Facebook 的最佳貼文
【玳瑚師父玄悟語】 不要忘了你手上的戒指
Don't forget the ring on your finger (English version below)
有男客人向我埋怨太太如何不賢淑,家裏老是打理不好。也有女客人投訴先生錢賺不多又不體恤她的辛勞。 有客人雇用我的服務, 因爲想知道破裂的婚姻是否能挽回。 也有男客人在深夜播電向我哭訴太太無法原諒他的婚外情而遭逐出家門。 更有夫妻各自‘精彩’後,來問我如何是好。
我的副業,仿佛就是家庭輔導官。
結婚前,要想清楚,最好能夠請個專業可靠的師父來分析彼此的八字是否匹配。 結婚了,就不要貪戀外頭的‘風景’。 不要以為有很多仰慕者就很有面子, 一不謹慎,叫你賠了夫人又折兵。 有客人問我為什麽某某某那麽風流,卻還那麽有錢。 試問凡夫怎麽看得懂因果呢?他家裏有問題,難道會告訴你嗎?孽障之事不是不報,只是時辰未到。
人非聖賢,確實難免會犯錯。 最重要是不要重倒覆轍。 當對方犯錯時,你要去想想他/她過去怎樣對你好,試著去包容原諒。 夫妻之間如果沒有縫,第三者怎麽進的來?有時,需要檢討的是自己的過失。
人爲什麽會做錯事? 因爲心裏沒有主。 我常鼓勵客人給自己生命一個機會。如果夫妻之間能有共同的信仰,那更好。 宗教讓我們深刻地明瞭對與錯、是與非,並給予我們智慧和定力去面對人間的種種誘惑。
有些夫妻本來是恩恩愛愛的,但一搬進新家後,問題就來了,總是為了一些小事便吵起來,孩子越來越難教,之間的距離越來越大,導致一發不可收拾。 這是家居風水嚴重出了問題。 無奈現代夫妻寧可花萬元在新穎的屋内設計和名牌包飾,也不願投資千元百元在優秀的風水以保障他們的未來。 有客人說伴侶不信玄學,但沒有研究就說不信,不也是迷著於不信嗎?
我常告訴客人,當你們吵架時,要想到你們手上的戒指。 當初爲什麽要戴? 你曾經給過對方的一個承若,爲什麽現在會這樣? 結婚是自己選的, 能夠在一起,就該好好地相處,不要成天吵吵鬧鬧的,利用在一起的緣份去做一些有意義的事情,不是更好嗎? 當下就惜緣惜福吧!
祝願所有的夫妻家庭圓滿、共同推廣菩提事業、利己利他、快樂吉祥!
------------------------
I get some male clients complaining about their better half. They grumble that their wives are not virtuous enough, with their homes poorly kept. My female clients also have their fair shares of grouses on their partners too. Be it the low income of the husband, or the lack of appreciation on the effort put into the marriage and home by the wife. There are clients who engaged my services to see if their broken marriages can be salvaged; I received calls from male clients in the middle of the night, weeping that they got booted out of the house because of their infidelity. There were even cases of both partners committing infidelities, and asked me how to keep their marriage from there on.
I seem to have unknowingly became a family counsellor on the sideline.
I urge everyone to have a serious think-through before committing yourself to marriage. It is in the best interest of both parties to engage a professional geomancer to determine the degree of compatibility based on the birth charts of the couple. Once married, steer clear from external temptations. Having lots of admirers may make you feel good but a single missed step will result in an ugly ending for you. A common question I get from clients is regarding the law of karma. They are puzzled as to why some people are committing acts of sexual misconduct yet still enjoying great wealth. My answer will be: The universal law of karma is always fair, we just need patience for the time and conditions to ripen.
Human is by no means a saint, thus to err is definitely human. Importantly, we should not repeat our mistakes. When we face our loved ones whose misdeed has hurt us, think of the good that they have done for us. Empathize with their own weaknesses and seek to forgive them. In self-retrospect, if there were no fault lines or cracks in a marriage, a third party would not appear.
Why do human beings make mistakes? Because of the lack of a guiding light. If a couple share the same faith, it is most beneficial as they will share a deep and common understanding on the definition of right and wrong, providing the wisdom and conviction to face the many temptations of the world.
A lot of couples started out very lovingly, but things take a turn for the worse when they move into a new house. Little things become unbearable, sparking quarrels. The kids became 'monsters' and everyone in the family drift apart. This is obviously a huge issue with the new house and its Feng Shui. It is such a pity to see that couples who will not think twice about splurging tens of thousands on the renovation & branded bags & watches, but flinch at the thought of investing a thousand or hundreds on good Feng Shui to secure their family future. Some clients say their partners give the excuse of not being superstitious and do not wish to believe in Feng Shui. In my humble opinion, writing off the art & science of Feng Shui without doing proper study into this field strikes me as the truly superstitious ones!
I frequently advised my clients, that when they get into quarrels with their partner, take a step back and think of THE RING on your finger. Remember you chose your own marriage. Go back to the time when it all began, and remember the purity of the promise you made. It is affinity that brings 2 persons together and you should make good use of the definite period of time together. Instead of shouting and fighting all day long, make a change. Isn't it better to do something meaningful together and make the world a better place? Let's start by cherishing being together!
It's my ardent wish for all couples to have a blessed & happy marriage and together embark on a meaningful journey of contributing to the common good of humanity!
how to get into an art fair 在 Zee Avi Music Youtube 的精選貼文
Dear all,
Eversince KokoKaina days, I'd always look forward to writing the descriptions of a video. In a way, I felt that it was always a little more peek behind the song, and of me, to you.
It's been awhile since I've written in it, though I feel now is the time to so...
This song was a joint creation with my friend and former guitarist, David Hurwitz (dAvid sTrange) when he showed me some of the poems he'd had, many years ago. He is quite a prolific writer and this one in particular just spoke to me. So we worked on the song and melodies that day, as the words were already written by David.
It was quite an elevated feeling we had, after we were done, as I think we both knew how much this meant to us, and to everyone who will listen to it. Medicine.
It then took a few more years to be able to record it to its full form that you now hear. I recorded this in Los Angeles, where it was produced by one my dear friends and musical partners, Andre DeSantanna. I would like that this chance to thank him and the musicians, Rafa and Daniel for bringing it further to life.
Dear all,
We are now going through such a strange time, where we are all experiencing the same force, where no one is pardoned from it...
But I, just like the rest of you, feel uncertain, but coping and most of all, hopeful, that we can get out of this.
Once we do, we must remember, that even though, this grave situation may leave a large dent on our world and ways of living, we absolutely MUST rise wisely, do things fair and accordingly, and steadily, and not go into the extremes, as we must remind ourselves, that ALL OF US ARE/WERE IN IT TOGETHER!
Lets all do the right thing as citizens, humans, friends, family, and stay home, for the love of yourself, your family and all your loved ones.
Til then, just a gentle reminder to all that...
'Good Things Come To Those Who Wait.'
Many blessings, stay safe,
Zee xx
................................................................
Author: Zee Avi & dAvid sTrange
Composer: Zee Avi & dAvid sTrange
Vocals: Zee Avi
Drums/ Percussion: Rafa Pereira
Keys: Daniel Mandelman
Bass/Programming: André de Santanna
Produced by André de Santanna
Recorded at DeSantanna Studios, Los Angeles
Engineered and Mixed by André de Santanna
Mastered by Dave Locke
LYRIC VIDEO
................................................................
This video was a passion project between my friend Curly and I, and a small crew of 5, one camera, Curly and I co-directing, as he creative directed (he wears many hats). We shot this back in January, in Johor, Malaysia, near the beach, where it was very very warm. I insisted on having very minimal makeup, as you can tell, but most of that melted off as well.
I kept true to my vision and wore a turtleneck anyway because i was told, you gotta suffer for the art. ;)
I would like to thank the land of Johor for providing us with such beautiful weather that day though. And to Yiwen, Curly, Yunus, Masbro and Azrol. Terima kasih to you guys for making my vision come through. 100% Made in Malaysia, by Malaysians.
Creative Producer: Curly
DOP: Masbro
Prod Assists: Yunus
Editor: Monameqa
Translations: Kent Lee
WARDROBE:
Jimmy Lim
................................................................
Connect with Zee Avi
INSTAGRAM: https://www.instagram.com/zee.avi/
FACEBOOK: https://www.facebook.com/zeeavi/
TWITTER: https://twitter.com/zeeavi
SPOTIFY: https://open.spotify.com/artist/6zGcYBjlNOMSVVrl7ZoGsH?si=ShYe4TH9TaevhNr7QMJynA
how to get into an art fair 在 Wendy Vaz Youtube 的最佳解答
This month at #GirlbossChat with Wendy, I get to sit down and have a chat with Malaysia's very own singer songwriter Beverly Matujal. We had a nice, cosy chat about her music, how she get to where she is today, and life as a Malaysian singer songwriter.
As someone who started off in YouTube with singing as well, it's inspiring to see how someone as talented as her make it into the industry and is doing so well. There are so many hurdles when it comes to growing a music career and Beverly had her fair share of struggles, so I think this video would be extra inspirational for those of you who are thinking of growing in the art/music scene. Share it with a friend who needs this!
As usual, because it's a long video, I've included a timestamp below for those of you who want to skip to specific questions, although you really should watch till the end for our singing collab! ? This video definitely doubles as a "podcast" style audio that you can listen to in the background while doing something else!
Love,
Wendy
TIMESTAMP:
0:45 What’s your story?
2:57 What're your songs usually inspired by?
3:16 What's your genre of music?
3:48 How does your day look like as a singer/songwriter?
5:54 How does your creative space look like?
6:35 What are your sources of income right now?
8:26 What is the process of creating an album like?
13:28 How did you take "the leap" and how was life when you started off?
16:45 How does the pressure from the public affect you?
19:09 What are some tips you have for aspiring singer/songwriters out there?
20:58 Where can you connect with other local musicians?
23:43 How has social media played a role in your music career?
26:13 Who do you dream to collaborate with?
28:25 What are some of your upcoming projects?
FOLLOW BEVERLY MATUJAL ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/beverlymatujal/
Spotify - https://open.spotify.com/artist/7n9umQQApOj5RLAdJlTR4P?si=U58wMk23TZ2gkENuyYVXGg
Nadir Music - https://www.instagram.com/nadirmusicofficial/
#SingerSongwriter #MalaysianSinger #AsianGirlboss #EmpoweredWomenEmpowerWomen
WATCH OTHER #GIRLBOSSCHAT VIDEOS:
? SHE BECAME AN ARTIST BECAUSE OF INSTAGRAM (feat. Fayfay Xiao Ting) - https://youtu.be/CyK-oR4mWdU
? BEST AND WORST ABOUT BEING A DJ (feat. DJ Melissa Jo) - https://youtu.be/6LJtXqYRPho
? How does a Digital Nomad Make Money in 2019 (feat. littlechefvivi) - https://youtu.be/VmPJzy7RTdo
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
? Instagram - https://www.instagram.com/wendyvazzy/
**********
WENDY VAZ is a Personal Branding and Business Coach who helps aspiring content creators build AUTHENTIC Personal Brand, become BOSS content creator, and start a PROFITABLE online business.
APPLY TODAY: https://www.wendyvaz.com/1-1-coaching/