Musical Flavourings

Wow, haven't been here for like.... donkey days... Well, not been having anything interesting going on, and those things that have been interesting, I'd rather not say because I've decided if it's not my business, I'm going to keep shut.

Anyways, by special request, I'm going to blog today (tonight rather) about another of my crap theories, and I call it Musical Flavouring.

Have you ever had a certain feeling when you've heard someone's singing voice? Well, there are just so many different kinds of voices in the world and each voice has a different resulting feeling in the listener.

Okay, there are many flavours in the world. You've got vanilla, strawberry, chocolate, durian (seriously, is it not smelly enough to not be a flavour?) and etc. And everytime you taste a different flavour, you get a different feeling.

Now, somehow this feeling of when I hear a person's voice, I get the same feeling of when I taste a flavour. Sometimes also, when I hear a voice, an image of a cake pops up in my head.

Here's an example. I feel that my voice is like bitter chocolate (which sucks thank you very much). On the surface it looks good, and tastes good on first bite.... until the taste seeps in and you start analyzing it. Only then do you realise that it's disgusting. (That's the sad truth of bitter chocolate) :(

Here's another one. I've got a friend and he's got this sort of headvoice, airy kind of sound, but he's able to mix it with a proper voice and his voice is very nice. Everytime I hear his singing, I think of a coffee cake with caramel whipped cream (due to the semi-airiness of his voice).

For the above two, I've been able to find reason - the link between the voice and the flavouring. However, there are some which I totally have no idea why or where I've deduced their musical flavouring:

One of my friends, everytime I hear her singing voice, I think of a carrot cake. Don't ask why. Another, a lime jelly cake/pudding thingy. Once again, don't ask why.

Also, for Irish band The Script's lead singer Daniel O'Donoghue, I start thinking of some cake with plenty of icing (maybe too much?) and sugar and all that, with the icing being either electric light blue or white (perhaps depending on each song).

Yeah, don't ask me why I feel that way, I just do. Maybe someone else has a different intepretation. Well, that's fine. That's the beauty of music isn't it? Where everyone inteprets it his or her way.

The most common flavour I've seen is chocolate, though there are different kinds of it, bitter chocolate, white chocolate etc.

There's a second part to this theory. Actually, it's more of like a theory within this theory... (R U CONFUZED?) Just like how different flavours can blend together, even if they are miles apart (chocolate banana anyone?), perhaps these voices, based on their flavours, could blend together just like how their flavours would (literally) blend (like in a blending machine). For instance, a chocolate voice would perhaps be able to blend with a strawberry kind of voice... Actually, chocolate almost blends well with any flavour (even chicken), so maybe, just maybe those with chocolate voices are able to blend with quite a lot of other kinds of voices.

Well, that's not to say two distinct flavours/voices will not be able to blend. How about vanilla-grape? Would be an interesting combination, no? You never know until you try.

Oh yes, one more thing. Those who are perhaps tone deaf, sorry but it would be extremely difficult to find the flavour of your voice... It would be extremely difficult to even listen to you sing in the first place!

Advice of the day: So, if chefs are the ones who choose the ingredients and flavours of a cake and mixes them together, that makes a choir master a chef of his choir. Intruiging.

*By the way, if you think this theory is crap, I totally understand. There's a reason why this is classified under 'Crap Theories'.

Why?

How often nowadays do you see many others mindlessly following the crowd? It's like they're not thinking for themselves, and questioning the rationale behind their behaviours.

For instance, take example fashion. Why do people define long hair as being nice? (For guys! Girls without long hair are scary) Okay, I agree that many artistes in Hollywood and many famous people sport long hair. Well, they so happen to look good in those hairstyles. However, one suit does not fit every body, just like one hairstyle does not fit every head.

All it took was a small number of guys who looked good in long hair and fringes/face curtains hanging out together, and then more and more people were influenced into having the same hairstyle.

Sometimes I get sick about people complaining about their fringe. (Not trying to be a wet blanket since I'm unable to grow a long fringe)

Take another action in many people's lives. Waking up late. I personally dislike waking up at 10am or later because I feel like half the day has been wasted away. Then, there will be those who are extremely the opposite of me and they go "I wake up at 10am for school" (Don't ask me how they do it) "1pm is nothing."

Once again, all it took was a few jokers to decide that "Waking up early is for losers" and they rigged in like God knows how many others.

People should really start questioning why they do certain actions. Why is long hair defined as nice? Why is waking up late cool? Honestly, why?

And once they start asking these questions, we would definitely bid farewell to those failblog videos/fail pics.

Advice of the day: Start asking why... before you appear on failblog.

Well, Well, Well...

The World is painted Red, Blue and Gold today. No, not because God suddenly became colour blind, but because of THAT match last night. No, not that Airtricity League match between Shamrock Rovers against Dundalk (though Shamrock won 4 - 0), but THAT match, between Spain and Holland. Tiki-taka vs total football.

Prior to that World Cup final, I had been going around trying to arouse World Cup small-talk by mindlessly asking "Spain or Holland?", and whenever I heard the latter, I would reply by "Holland are a two man team."

Pretty true. All they've got are Wesley Sneijder and Arjen (it's pronounced Arhen btw) Robben. Dirk Kuyt, Robin van Persie, John Heitinga (?) my foot.

Anyways, I was predicting a Spanish victory and yeah, I'm happy that I got one. To be honest, I can't understand why anyone in the right mind would support Holland.

I think I'm one of the few who actually did NOT watch the match last night, and I'm happy I didn't. I heard it was quite the stinker, like Emaths class + News 5 tonite all rolled into one.

And Spanish goalkeeper cum captain Iker Casillas' TV kiss with his girlfriend was sure to break quite a few tiny hearts out there who had been watching the World Cup just for the faces. I'm sorry ladies, football is about your feet and not your fantastic hairstyle/perfect eyebrows.

Well, congrats to Espanyol, my condolences to Oranje and boo to that boring match (which I was lucky enough to miss :D). Come to think of it, maybe that Shamrock v Dundalk had been much more exciting...

It would be a whole different timing to the next World Cup though, which would be staged in Brazil. The final match of the 2014 installation of the 'Greatest Show on Earth' would be maybe 9am for us here in Singapore.

Advice of the day: If you want to be happy, all you need to do is win the World Cup. That's all. Life isn't so hard is it?

Worst World Cup, Ever

I'm disappointed by this year's World Cup finals. Truly, did I wait four years for this?

First of all, there's been so much controversy off the pitch, which goes to show that football isn't the main course at this year's finals, especially with France's affair d'etat, which even included the French Prime Minister having a chat with Thierry Henry on the incident (or accident rather).

Well, the on-pitch action hasn't been great either. The average goals per game in this year's World Cup is 2.20. The lowest ever was 2.21 in Italia '90, which goes to show that this may be the most boring World Cup ever.

The World Cup has also lost quite a few of the star players who are the reason for high ticket prices. (Admit it, you've only come to see Ronaldo!) Rooney, Ronaldo, Ribery, Drogba have all been dumped out, not to mention current world champions (FACT) Italy finishing bottom of their group (yes, even behind New Zealand).

Also, take a look at the quater finalists: four out of the eight are from South America. It seems very much like the Copa America this year. I agree, this does show the strength of these South American nations, but come on, it's always much more fun if you spice things up with Japan, or Mexico or heck, even North Korea! Admit it, you love those nuclear missile jokes don't you! For e.g. "Lisbon is going to be wiped off the map thanks to 7 nukes." I'm sure you know what I'm talking about!

Also, take a look at the ball. The Jabulani, otherwise known as the supermarket ball, or quite simply the adidas piece of rubber junk, is sh*t. You can see the fear and lack of confidence players have in the ball, especially when they retrieve it at a fast pace. You can see that they are unable to control it, and that's how so many fluke goals have been scored.

Imagine this scenario: Team A midfielder receives pass from Team A defender but fails to control it and turn at the same time and the ball rolls towards Team B defender. Team B defender hits a long pass first time. Ball bounces over Team A defender and Team B striker collects the ball behind him and scores.

Now cut, copy and replay, and that's what the World Cup looks like.

Yes, you may say something like "therefore, the one who controls the Jabulani wins", but come on, since when was football ever about the ball? It has always been about the skills and teamwork of players.

And lastly, the final nail on the coffin, the vuvuzelas. I think the word vuvuzela should be considered vulgar. It's totally destroyed the atmosphere of the crowd.

It's like if you take an English crowd and a Brazilian crowd, you can truly appreciate and admire the fans' passion. The English will be singing songs like Steve Gerrard to Que Sera, Wayne Rooney to Tom Hank (at least I think that's where the tune comes from) and maybe even Football's Coming Home. The Brazilians would be playing their drums and dancing to the samba rhythm. It's all so beautiful, a spectacle for the eyes, ears and heart... until the vuvuzelas come into play.

No more 'Steve Gerrard Gerrard Gerrard', now its mindless buzzing at 130 decibals per vuvuzela.

There you have it, 3 factions of suckage: off-pitch, on-pitch and stadium atmosphere.

South Africa has 8 games and 11 days left to save it's butt from being officially branded the Worst World Cup Finals of All Time.

Brazil 2014 will definitely do better, it's not too difficult to improve from failure.

Advice of the day: Go into a deep deep sleep, and wake up 4 years from now.

What You Really Learn in School

Well, secondary school that is. You don't learn much in primary school, it's all about having fun and making your teachers do all the work...

Anyways, I'm sure many of you have heard the line "But I don't need this when I'm working what" when it comes to certain subjects like chemistry, physics and etc, and that the only ones which are useful are your languages and E-Math.

Well, I beg to differ... Yes, I can't believe I'm saying this as well.

The subjects which seem like they have no use are structured such that they build up skills which you can use when you're older. I'm not talking about skills like painting a picture, playing an instrument or playing a sport (although you can learn those in school), I'm more on the lines of skills such as memorisation and quick thinking.

Your sciences, especially biology requires you to memorise many many facts and details. You need to know your physics formulas and have your chemical equations at your fingertips. These subjects are like half memorisation, half understanding, thus they also train your ability to link different topics under a large chapter. For instance, light, sound and EM waves are under a large chapter of Waves, while Qualitative Analysis, metals, ions are all closely linked under Acids, Bases and Salts.

Then, there's geography, which is probably maybe 80% memorisation, 20% understanding. You need to write the facts on your exam paper, then link them to their consequences (although it is possible to memorise these linking statements).

A-Math. I'm sure there are many people who are thinking why the heck would they need to know about sine and cosine if they were to grow up and work in the... I don't know, food industry or financial sector. Well, A-Math is really about your understanding again, and also about quick thinking. The one who uses the most efficient method gets the highest marks.

It also tests you on your ability to see patterns and think out of the box. How many times have you seen a trigo question where they make you "show that LHS = RHS" and you feel like you're running into a brick wall because you can't answer, and then finally when your teacher shows you the solution, you go "cheh" or "meh". And your mind gets blown away and you're pissed off that you couldn't see that and you.... *blah blah*

Then, there's social studies and history. Yes it is important to a certain extent (this sounds a lot like an SEQ!) because it gives you an idea of what governments around the world, and of now and before have done or are doing. At least your world view is broadened up a little.

However, the main challenge of these subjects is your ability to link factors. That's why if there are no linking statements, or your linking statement is not really good, you don't get the marks.

After all that's been said, there are actually subjects in school which teaches you some skills (like wow I totally did not know that!). Computer Studies - your ability to program computer softwares etc, POA - accounting, DnT - designing and creative thinking.

There are also your languages, which are always important.

Finally, there are those shoot-and-try-to-hit subjects like music and arts. They try to capture the interest of the students, and may or may not fail in doing so. If they fail, then it's not too bad, the student who rejects it just has one less thing to enjoy and appreciate, that's all.

Advice of the day: Oh yes the things you learn in school are important, but once you have all these, school's not important anymore.

Personalities

Personalities, the mental and emotional bodies of people. Many have been trying to crack this tough nut; psychologists, socialists etc, and many have come up with tests/surveys to categorize people into their seperate personalities.

I did one particular test, the Myers Briggs Type Indicator. It was quite an enlightening experience. It was pretty accurate most of the time, however there were those way-off ones like people, whom you've never ever heard their voice before, coming up as extroverts, or people usually late coming up as judgemental people, or assholes coming up as feelers.

Well, there are the the E's - Extroverts, and the I's - Introverts. The S's - Sensers, and the N's - iNtuitioners (S's tend to look at the cold evidence while N's try to look abit further). The F's - Feelers and the T's - Thinkers (F's usually let their emotions decide for them while T's use their brain to make decisions). And finally, the J's - Judgemental and the P's - Perceivers (J people usually plan their schedules, P people usually just wait and see).

I especially like N. The S's see the glass as half full of water. The N's see it as half empty, but it doesn't stop there. Their next line is "What can I fill it up with?"

So, the different types are joined together and thus there are 16 different types in total. So, for example there are the ISFP's, the ESTP's and etc...

So here are some personality types I'm guessing for certain people (of course I may be severely inaccurate):

P.S., no offence if you happen to be any of these types!

INFP - emo people. Keeping their sorrows to themselves (I), allowing their minds to wander and think of all the negatives (N), cannot overpower their hearts with their minds (F), and well, as for the P, I doubt they're J's right, I mean, nobody sets aside a timeslot on their timetable to start emo-ing right?

ESTP - assholes! Love making a lot of noise (E), look at all your bad points and use them against you (S), only think about being bad to you and not considering your feelings (T), and well, same reason as the emo people for the P. (An asshole is an asshole 24/7 right?)

ENFP - flirts. Usually very sociable (especially to his target) (E), thinks of the most creative ways to get a girl's number (N), only goes for those he has feelings for (F), and yes, same reason as the above two for P.

Hold on, that can't be right... All of these are negative. Hmm...

INFP - listener. Let's you pour your troubles onto him (I), looks for potential positives which can be taken from a bad experience (N), knows and understands how you feel (F), and well, let's face it, if one can listen to his friend's problems at 12pm, why can't he do it at 1pm (although the best time to have trouble sharing sessions are in the night. FACT!)? (P)

ESTP - debators/lawyers. Fights your accusers with words (E), sighting out all the evidences which point to your innocence (S), does not get personal in the debate/verbal-battle/bitching about (T), and are pretty good at arguing 24 hours a day (P), although it would be good if lawyers were J's and so, able to manage their time better.

ENFP - best friend. Reaches out to you (E), sees you beyond the outermost layer (N), always takes your feelings into consideration (F), and forever available, any time of the day (P).

Yeah, that's better...

Anyway, my point is, there is no good or bad personality type. Just because you got an ESFJ or ISTP doesn't make you any better or worse than anyone else. It's what you do with your personality and how you mould and improve upon it.

As I've stated above, the same personality type could be people with distinct attitudes. It truly boils down to a person's character.

Thus being said, perhaps character and morals are the most important things, and personality is merely sort of like the clothes which a person's character puts on. The way this person shows his character to his surroundings, and the way he acts out his morals.

Hold on, this just came to my head...

ENTJ - O level 6 pointer. Able to speak up for himself and protect what is his (E), able to see the possibilities, what's not there, instead of the straight evidence (N), decisive in his actions, deciding on the most effective method (T), and able to plan his time well to finish projects and still have time to do other activies that the government would 'Become a Fan' of if the government had facebook (J).

Advice of the day: Let's all be ENTJ's!

Instrumental Intimacy

School's out (yeah, like finally), and so I've got some spare time (yes I actually do). I've been spending those spare minutes (hours more like it) having some intimate moments with my guitar.

Yes, I do call those moments intimate!

The definition of intimate (in my dictionary anyways) is when two bodies come together and are close to each other physically, mentally and emotionally (sometimes spiritually... but guitars won't go to heaven) in a surrounding which is quiet. Sounds a lot like physics right? That's because I haven't been having intimacy with my physics books and so now I'm grasping this chance to touch up on it. :D

Oh and by the way, my guitar is 30 years old. Yes. Around the same age as my piano, and double my age. It was passed from my mother's friend, to my mother, and now to me. Still has my mother's friend's nametag on it.

Since they're about the same age, maybe I should matchmake my piano and my guitar together. Perhaps I'll get baby keytars or something.

Then, I'll put my ten year old recorder into the scene and make it the third party.

My piano is having an affair! Then, I'll get baby church organs. Imagine that...

Anyway, yeah I've been playing my/mother's/mother's friend's guitar more often as of late. I've actually tried plucking instead of just mindless strumming. Never thought I'd ever find out how to read tabs, but realised I was right the first time I tried (at least it sounds right).

And I never knew that just mindless practice on the plucking sequence would allow you to be able to play a song without that much thinking. Well, I knew that basis stood for piano, just didn't realise how true it was for guitar as well. Finger muscle memory is a beautiful thing.

If there is muscle memory in the fingers, could it mean that there is muscle memory in other parts of your body?

Let's say your feet. (By the way it's the world cup now, in case you've been living under a rock... or you're a girl) Sometimes when you kick a ball, not thinking about how you're going to is sometimes better than concentrating on the kick. It's like letting your mind relax while your muscles do the work by remebering the right technique, the right strength and etc. And often, thinking with your brain too much about how you're going to take a kick may result in you scoffing your shot.

Alright, now let's look at other parts of your body. Let's say your arms. Basketballers know the height of the ball's bounce everytime they dribble. Perhaps it's because their arms are used to the ball bouncing to that height, or rather have 'memorised' the height of the ball. Thus, some can even dribble blindfolded. Muscle memory at work again!

Advice of the day: Muscles have brains!