戳麻 (Chock Ma)《自在本性》(2014)

從小便被灌輸一個概念，香港是一個中西文化交集的地方；人大了，漸漸發覺這概念有一點危險，它給我們「三不像」的現象合理化，西方的資本主義配合中國人家天下的裙帶思想，好學唔學，好可怕。 

戳麻(Chock Ma)，就是中西文化染缸下的產物，一群殖民地底下的幸存者。他們的音樂糅合西方重金屬搖滾、中國詩句、佛學思想及中樂器，當中的拼湊與碰撞給予耳朵嶄新體驗。形式上的中西交集，貫穿一切，是戳麻本身的理念，《自在本性》提倡一種向内心追尋的思想，他們的聲音，象徵對現世價值觀的反動。 

開首的＜隨風去＞，顯現戳麻的氣氛建構能力，悠長的二胡聲，畫龍點睛的broken chord，鼓擊與低音恰如其分，為即將到來的＜烏語＞架起著地的搖籃；＜磋跎闕＞開始變得擾人，靜嘈交替，片刻的喘息是之後＜同根生＞，一首包含我們偉大國歌歌詞給予的恩賜；「怒髮衝冠，為何襲我家邦？」出自岳飛《滿江紅》的詩句，結合重金屬節奏，每一下的action 位不是頭顱擺動，相反是赤裸，真實的感受著這城市的可悲；最喜歡的一曲＜下沉＞，長達5分鐘的純音樂，是緩衝，亦是專輯的心思；＜難逃＞再一次開盡馬力，主唱黑鬼每一下發自内心的吼叫，向這城市投下一個又一個的問號，「怎去想象 世界變了樣」是我們的無奈，嘶裂的掙扎；＜鏡花＞以佛學思想再一次帶出自在本性的主題；碟末的＜水晶＞與開首的＜隨風去＞互相呼應，為專輯劃下句號。 

氣氛，是玩音樂最難營造的東西，它有別於物理，心臟上跟隨節奏的跳動；或是神經上對旋律的記憶。氣氛會纏繞著你，死抓不放，戳麻就是這麼討厭，音樂上你可以找到很多值得聽的東西，不同元素組織起來，一句句美麗的句子建構出一幅完整畫面；内容上他們要你反思，猶如在說: 「不要跟著我們的音樂！」《自在本性》只是一個引子，你的工作是向内心追尋，它/他/她，才是唯一的出路，戳麻的依歸。 

《自在本性》不是一張容易消化的專輯，因為裡面的内容跟我們周遭的風景有太大的落差，當「抽水」成為王道，要溝通正經事而不落俗套變得非常困難，太認真的話會顯得沒趣，但當五個人將内心這樣剖開的時候，有趣，已經不是用作量度的單位。 

P.S 筆者看過他們兩次截然不同的現場，一個是全acoustic set，另一個是他們的重金屬版，他們讓我看到戳麻音樂裡面各走兩極的可愛性格。他們現場的感染力，絕對比專輯精彩。 

原文載於 Bitetone: 戳麻 (Chock Ma)《自在本性》(2014)

Track List

1.  隨風去
2.  鳥語
3.  磋跎閥
4.  同根生
5.  滿江紅
6.  下沉
7.  難逃
8.  鏡花
9. 水晶

嘎調(The Gar) -《燈火》(2012)

第一次看嘎調(The Gar)是零九年的香港西灣河蒲吧，當晚還有 Carsick Cars助陣。之前對他們不太認識，但經過當晚的演出，我已經知道他們是一隊「需要跟隨」的樂隊。

一向對三人樂隊情有獨鍾，因此對嘎調特別有好感。不是三個人的樂隊便是好，或者三個人以上的便是不好，而是作為一隊trio，他們真的很厲害！嘎調 的技術及默契毋庸置疑，而他們總是在填滿與營造空間感之間拿捏得恰當，編曲變化多端，是一隊知道什麼時候停、什麼時候「踩油」的樂隊，先牽引聽眾的耳朵， 然後給予時間我們消化，最後再一次被帶動。結他有時一下便是一下，清脆利落﹔有時失真，狂怒﹔有時是刺耳的反饋。主唱詹盼歇斯底里，近乎尖叫的唱腔配上時 而跳脫，時而低沉的貝斯，加上富形態的打擊，嘎調現場的感染力的確不同凡響。

嘎調的最新EP《燈火》由兵馬司發行，唱片請來清醒樂隊的鼓手郭一環當監製，而EP中的作品＜愛， 終將把青春遺漏＞、＜火車＞、＜夜盡頭＞和＜空洞＞等，是在原貝司手文傑暫時離隊後，樂隊處於劇變狀態期間創作的。直至麥田守望者貝司手博譞加入後，嘎調 經過近一年的磨合、總結和再創造，終於將這些作品結合在《燈火》中。據嘎調剖釋今次EP 的理念，每一首歌曲中也有「夜晚」的原素在裡面，而歌曲便是黑夜中的方向。

開首的 ＜Intro＞清新可愛，然後拖慢，好像太陽落幕，天空漸漸進入黃昏的景況。聽嘎調時總會聯想起一點點 Yo La Tengo， 記得他們的口頭禪「我們手牽手的走，當世界擴張龐大」，嘎調同樣有這種魅力。第二cut＜愛， 終將把青春遺漏＞便為今次EP開盡馬力，00:17秒的結他聲把我們帶到更廣闊的世界。＜火車＞對我來說是一首很「中國」的歌曲，我想每一隊樂隊都要為自 己國家的「火車」作首歌，那些寂靜的晚上，看著窗外風景的變化，為我們慢慢適應世界上一切人和事的變動而默哀，帶來了傷感，也同時把傷感帶走。＜空洞＞盡 顯嘎調的建構能力，整首歌凝聚力很強，三種樂器已經融為一體。尾曲＜六月＞是一首純音樂，與＜Intro＞互相呼應，全首歌主要分三個段落，這個月份總令 人想起一些我們依然耿耿於懷的東西，同是三個段落，但是我們卻不能像The Beatles一般，唱著Happiness is a warm gun。

原文載於 Bitetone
嘎調(The Gar) – 《燈火》(2012)

如果一些樂隊是good，嘎調便是more than good。

Forget the G - I See You Watching Me While I’m Watching You

 Forget the G是一隊 post rock、experimental 的樂隊。Post rock，便是摒棄傳統流行音樂格式的一群。樂曲不再是正歌-過門-副歌-正歌-副歌的編排，人聲成為了樂器的一部份而不是歌曲的主導，取而代之是更富空 間感的演繹，我喜歡的有Explosions in the sky、Mogwai、Sigur Ros等。Experimental，顧名思義就是實驗 – 就是樂手製造出來的聲音及讓其自由發展與演變 – Sonic Youth的Thurston Moore如是說。

Forget the G新專輯名稱「我看你看我」，便好像一個人走在街上，與每一名陌生人眼神上的接觸，那一剎的交流、互動，不期而遇，那感覺往往是最純粹，可能Forget the G這次便是希望表達這純粹的感覺。

專輯是他們在十個小時之內的一個實驗、嘗試。如果將他們的音樂風格與這次專輯的製作過程結合來看的話，便不難發現其中的一致和呼應。樂隊帶領聆聽者 進入他們的世界後，以幽暗低佪的氣氛把我們留在那兒。開首的＜困＞，平緩的三分半鐘為我們暖身，歌曲遊走在悅耳和突兀之間，擾人耳朵的失真結他塑造長長的 聽距，聲音在你的後腦、耳朵來回不定，緊繃著你。到正正三分半鐘那一擊結他和弦，我暗自說一聲﹕「來了」！那失真的結他聲把我深深地吸引著，low- fi、fuzzy、phaser，相信那是陳述 Forget the G音樂理念最適合的聲音，背後的鍵琴總是在適當的時候出現，為歌曲帶來一份淒美。

＜困＞這長達十一分鐘的「片頭」，已足夠讓我跌入無盡的黑洞內。及後的＜尋＞、＜看＞、＜想＞、＜別＞、＜路＞、＜迴＞、＜葬＞及＜終＞，都銳意營 造一環境空間讓聽者自由發揮想像。含糊的主唱、不能再慢的拍子、鍵盤一路向下的音階，時間的長廊讓人愈跌愈下，塑造孤立、抽離。如果旋律是橫向的前進，他 們便是放棄了這步伐的音樂，令人不禁向上望，找尋那光的盡頭。

曾聽說過，所有post的音樂類型也是比其原先音樂類型出色，對此我不會百分百認同，始終喜好沒有高低之分。但可以證明的是，每個post的音樂 類型都給予聆聽者更多自主的空間。以post rock為例，他們的音樂就是不想帶領聽者到特定的方向，藝術家希望的是我們接近他們陳述的世界。記著，只是接近。然而裡面的詮釋，他們都放手給我們。正 如《我看你看我》裡面很多首歌曲我也聽到主唱Eric的提問，或是控訴。但是他卻沒有嘗試找尋答案，同樣的我也是，因為不規則的樂句，當中不對稱的和諧已 經令提問本身得到意義。

The answer is blowing in the wind.

原文載於 Bitetone
Forget the G - I See You Watching Me While I’m Watching You

22Cats – 《22Cats》

22cats的第三張專輯樂隊名稱為題，象徵樂隊回到開初，當中帶有對自我再一次探訪的意味。據樂隊形容，新專輯「回到基本，以純潔的結他indie-pop展現新我，結他演奏上紛亂噪音減退，更多的美聲勾線在歌曲中提供，旋律的著重是三張專輯之冠」。

在首曲〈笑聲救地球大合唱〉已經感受到22cats新專輯的一個聲明，「這一撞發生以後，流行曲不再有」，旋律 就是流行曲的骨幹，如果依他們自己對專輯理念的剖白，我們可以想像這次專輯是他們對流行曲新的定義和理解的挑戰，當主音阿波唱出「去等待你的勝利，流行曲 的變奏」，隨後即以結他作出回應，可見他們在新專輯嘗試在獨立與流行之間找出一道完美的中線。

獨立精神往往是拒絕被定型的一群，他們要的不是一個鮮明的形象去改變世界，他們害羞得很，骨子裡卻對世界非常關心，他們不會幹得明顯，因為這樣便不 cool了，然而，在字裡行間你卻會深深體會到他們對音樂、對社會的承擔。他們希望改變的是我們一點點的想法，由下而上，內而外的轉變。22cats給我的印象便是這樣。

〈1978〉第一時間便想到Smashing Pumpkins的〈1979〉。很喜歡它的結他intro，再看他們的music video，辛辣的結他與鼓在過門的安排，配上影像，充滿心思，於城市中穿插的感覺應渾而生。節奏明快的〈如果就這樣離開這世界好嗎？〉表現樂隊的灑脫， 結尾各人加強馬力，與主題呼應；很laid back的〈電影人生〉，相信唱出不少在這個城市堅持自己，努力一群的人的心弦處。最心儀的〈性句號〉背後的聲效非常點題，而〈Be True To Your Heart〉用了英文唱出來，這群措辭巧妙的獨立搖滾客真的有趣詼諧，當中那夾band的心態，點滴共嗚。我聽到Grungy、點點的Dinosaur J.R，同時間帶有Built to Spill的悅耳。

成軍十年，這一次他們野心勃勃的要我們窺探一下他們對流行的理解。在22cats 可以找到很多富本土以及流行文化的蛛絲馬跡，很多首歌也聽到相當有香港社會色彩的歌詞，令人不禁會心微笑。此外，在很多微細地方也聽到他們對自己喜歡的事的承諾，你會喜歡他們說故事的方式、極富心思但不拘泥於小節的音樂佈置。

願大家也像22cats，找到流行裡面的不同。

電影人生



原文載於 Bitetone
22Cats –《22Cats》

刺猬 (Hedgehog) –《Sun Fun Gun》

搖滾樂與青春期往往有著不可分割的關連。音樂與青春期成長產生一種科學也解釋不到的化學作用。搖滾樂代表著我們很多的第一次：第一口酒精、第一口香 煙、第一次的性行為、第一次的分手、與父母的吵架，跟朋友的兄弟情義也從我們接觸搖滾樂的同時一併帶來。每一個音樂浪潮也是樂手與聆聽者在青蔥年華盛放的 光芒。他們是搖滾樂歷史洪流中重要的一員，目的只有一個，就是要對青春給予一個交代。

你有過這樣的感覺嗎﹖一種與樂隊和他們聲音之間的連繫，認為你跟他們的感應無人能及﹖筆者成長在九十年代外國音樂的懷抱中，熟悉的是 Nirvana、Sonic Youth、Dinosaur J.R，還有英國的 Brit-pop 大軍。青春期對自身內在那忐忑不安、時而自信、時而懷疑的心情，當中寂寞、無聊、失敗、自閉、痛苦、哭笑，搖滾樂成為了打破一切障礙的力量。

刺猬(Hedgehog) 給予我就是這麼的一種力量，他們代表刺猬針刺的外型，同時有著溫柔，可愛的個性，剛柔 並濟。他們必定更明白我們的需要，背負著五星國旗、烏黑的頭髮、黃皮膚；音樂上帶動著辛辣的結他音牆、受制於專制統治下的歌詞控訴，然而輕快的節奏、跳脫 的 bassline、悅耳的旋律，就是這樣他們抓著一個平衡點，成為了我心目中華語搖滾 noise-pop 的表表者。

經歷前作《甜蜜與殺害》，博宣(前低音結他手)退出了樂隊，《甜》是一張比較幽暗的專輯，當中對青春不害羞的表達也顯得內斂起來，把新作《Sun Fun Gun》形容為刺猬重新出發的一張專輯絕不為過。現任低音結他手何一帆為樂隊注入新的原素，fun本身也是一帆的併音，可能子健(主唱兼結他手)和阿童木 (鼓手)都希望表達對一帆的感激，他不多也不少，跳脫的低音結他把樂隊青蔥，活力和尖鋒的一面連繫起來。高興的是他們回歸《白日夢藍》時期那快樂，同時重 拾那毫不吝啬地去表達自己的激情。開始＜燃燒的心＞已經讓人的腎上腺素不斷提升，「燒，不停地燒，我想燒光小人與無賴，背後捅刀與政治腐敗」，那是中國搖 滾獨有的味道，是紅太陽賜給孩子們的聲音；＜和鯊魚一起衝浪＞的自我諷刺，自諷為壞孩子，生錯了地方，當中非常 grungy的結他十分對味；＜黑吻＞表現了阿童木對自身樂器 – 敲擊音樂的了解，富形態的打擊，配合搖鈴把整首歌都襯托起來，末段的悠長結他音牆把歌曲拉闊了，營造一貫spacy、shoegaze、 psychedelic的效果。

最喜歡還是＜夥計們真搖滾，那天我也在 D22＞，說穿了實為舊作＜２４小時搖滾聚會＞，這首記述的是已成歷史遺跡的北京獨立音樂表演場地D22，每次聽我也會聯想起紐約的 CBGB，它代表著紐約朋克與電子音樂的發源地。 LCD Soundsystem在 ＜Losing my edge＞也唱道︰「I was the first guy playing Daft Punk to the rock kids，I played it at CBGB。」而刺猬的＜24小時搖滾聚會＞已經成為一首屬於北京獨立音樂的史詩，他們裝載著音樂浪潮的歷史，讓我感受人與人之間只有亳米般的距離，那是搖 滾樂最原始的激情。

把青蔥歲月無限量綻放，燃燒青春，鵬湃的生命力，一切都像無懼，是搖滾樂給予我們特有的權力。刺猬，便是這些東西的代名詞。

24小時搖滾聚會

Here is a room full of cool bands
If you want to see them please come in
Here are groups without rules
Here has what you want ,please join in
This time load this time out
You feel good you feel so well
Why you come here to see us?
What will we show you?
We will show you a jam



原文載於 Bitetone
刺猬 (Hedgehog) –《Sun Fun Gun》

Feist - Metals (2011)

第一眼看見 Feist, 便令我聯想到 Patti Smith, 她們的樣子相像, 那是一種女性化的美麗, 卻帶有男性剛強的味道. 如果要我說明那感覺的話, 她們散發著一股很 edgy 的美. 流行音樂, 其中一個作用就是去表達, 連接我們心裡所想, 如我們很多也不擅其辭, 這時候, 一首歌曲便正正把我的感覺訴說出來. 而 Feist 的美麗與音樂上的天賦, 細緻地打破兩性的界限, 深深的進入每一位聆聽者的心內.

首次認識 Feist, 是從加拿大樂團 Broken Social Scene 找到她的足跡, 當時 Feist 是這十多人大團的其中一人, 但是她那獨特的嗓音已經突出非常. 後來她離開 BBS 過著單飛的日子. 分別於 Interscope 推出了三張大碟, Let it die (2004), Open season (2006) 及 Reminder (2007). 2007年 Reminder 裡的單曲 “1234" 為她帶來商業的成功. Feist 的名字在獨立音樂界裡也開始打出名堂.

當世人漸漸認識她的時候, 她在新的專輯 Metals 裡卻銳意推翻那形象, 與其說推翻, 倒不如說 Feist 只是做回自己. 誠然, "1234” 不是一首很 Feist 的歌曲 (甚至歌曲的原創者是 Sally Seltmann, 而不是她本人, “1234” 也是 Reminder 裡唯一一首不是出自 Feist 本人手筆, 諷刺吧?) 我們也不能忘記 Feist 在 BBS 之前是 punk 樂團 Peaches 的成員 ( 歌曲有 bitch lap lap, lovertits, 可想而知吧), 她也是 By Divine right 的結他手. 儘管她個人發展後音樂風格傾向 jazz, blues 及 eclectic. 然而態度, 相信是一個人不會改變的東西.    

Feist 的新專輯 Metals 便正好證明她如何將她那天賦的美與特質表現出來, 以及打破音樂工業一路以來給她的框架. Feist 接受 Uncut 雜誌訪問時說, " 1234 isn’t on my setlists anymore. There’s no reason for it to be – it doesn’t belong, so it’s not invited to the party”. 可見 Feist 已厭倦了製作另一首 easy-listening, chess-sy 的單曲. 開首的 The bad in each other, Feist 滲透出她的浪漫, 灑脫, 唱出The good man and good woman/ can’t find the good in each other, 好像只有 Feist 她那擁有女性的細膩觸感, 同時男性的剛烈, 才可以把這種複雜的感覺輕易道出來; Graveyard 淡淡表現了全碟暗鬱的一面, 因為 Metals 大部份的歌曲也是 Feist 在 2010年間, 她的祖母去世其間作的; Feist 也承認把專輯名為 Metals 是因她 “feeling grave”; 我最喜愛的是 The circle married the line, 這首歌將 Feist 獨特的嗓音表露無遺, 那搖搖欲墜, 甜蜜, 帶有活力, 生氣而且強而有力的聲線, 是自己一路對她鍾愛的主要原因. 相信 Feist 是現今甚少可以準確把個人的音樂理念用自己的聲線表達出來的女藝術家之一, 同時, 這聲線很難會令人聽得腻.

是態度, 使人百聽不厭. 其他的不多說了, 就如 Feist 所講, “ Let the songs speak for itself.”

The circle married the line


Graveyard

23, is it original? if not for Michael Jordan

We have the so called Internet Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 which shall be (and will be) regulated very soon. I want to ask one thing first, “What is completely original?”

Starting from the late 60’s, there was a scene, which came across between art scene and pop music. For instance, Andy Warhol and Rolling Stones, Velvet Underground; The Beatles and Richard Hamilton, Peter Blake; Gustav Metzger and The Who; Malcolm McLaren and the Sex Pistols, just to name a few. The most popular one should be the “Campbell soups”, “Mao Zedong portraits”, which were produced by Andy Warhol’s production line “Factory”. Nowadays people call it “cross-over”, in popular sense, it is “appropriation”. It sparked creativity since artists from both fields, the visual and musical side, could exchange ideas and thoughts. I propose to quote one of my previous work to illustrate how “appropriation” works by using the representation of the album – Sgt. Pepper Lonely Heart Club Band in 1967. The album was a great outcome from The Beatles and the artist Peter Blake. 

We do not need to talk about who is The Beatles I guess, and Peter Blake, he studied at the Royal College of Art from 1953–1956. He was typically interested in rhythm and blues music as a pop fan. Compare with most of the Pop Art artist in the sixties, he was not interested in commercial techniques, or idioms; nor the supercharged style of the Hollywood show business world. He was a folk artist, with traditional sense, infused with a degree of both nostalgia and sentimentalism - as befits his English heritage. 

Quote starts:

One of the significant phenomena inside the 1960’s pop music, was that the artists in art and music scene came together. They influenced each other from the collaboration. Sgt. Pepper was designed by Blake with the help of his then wife Jann Haworth. According to a book ‘Summer of love: psychedelic art, social crisis and counterculture in the 1960s’ (2005), the album’s sleeve was supposed to be a Dutch collective’s design known as The Fool. This would have been a psychedelic design. Yet, Robert Fraser, an art dealer and friend of The Fab Four, recommended that the group did not take the psychedelic approach, and instead, introduced them to Blake for the design. The final version was emblematic of the close personal connections among the artists: art dealers (Robert Fraser); photographers (Michael Cooper); designers (Peter Blake); musicians (The Beatles). As an artist, both The Fab Four (John Lennon) and Blake shared the same background. They had a common direction towards the album’s concept: Appropriation. The format of the sleeve Sgt. Pepper was a collage - a technique of putting materials together to create a new scene. In order to give a quick understanding between appropriation and collage, it was worth quoting Blake’s own words: ‘collage can encompass anything where something is attached to something else. It is a very board definition that includes work in both two and three dimensions: embroidery, books, furniture and clothing, even television and music’ The technique signified a concept of appropriation. The album cover evoked another world which consisted of the cultural heroes, mentors and friends of The Beatles, Blake and Fraser: such as Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Max Miller, Dion and the Belmonts, Bob Dylan, etc. This kind of Surrealist image making, was commonly adopted by the art school students during the 1960’s. Blake applied it on the album sleeves successfully. As a result, it explored a new horizon towards the aesthetics of album cover. 

George Melly, a jazz musician as well as a critic stated that the previous album sleeves before Sgt. Peppers had ‘no life on their own’. George Martin, a classical music composer as well as producer of The Fab Four also asserted that, ‘the art of the vinyl album did not have much a life before the Beatles’. It did not aim to argue that album sleeves before Sgt. Peppers are trivial, but it was believed that the Sgt. Peppers cover sleeves created a new aesthetics value of an album as a whole. It was the first cover to specify itself as an object for overt investigation ad analysis by identifying the figures. The album sleeves offered a dynamic communication between musicians and listeners (Inside the record’s sleeve a separate sheet of card was supplied featuring a picture of the fictional Sgt. Peppers, plus moustaches, badges and stripes. All the items could be cut out). Given that the basic roles of an album cover was to protect, to advertise the record, as well as serving a function of accompaniment (including lyrics and proper information about the artists and crews), the album sleeve of Sgt. Pepper, not only served the above functions but also stood as a work of art on its own.  

To call it a work of art, it has to be discussed from the original concept of the album - appropriation. The ‘cross over’ between The Fab Four (John Lennon), and Blake was reflected, not only on the visual side, but also on the musical side. Both the music and the record sleeve, worked under the concept of appropriation. They resonated with each other, in that the musical approach taken by The Beatles on the album, was echoed visually on the cover. The two shared a coherent thought, like the collaboration among the artists. With the assistance of the multi tracks recording techniques, The Fab Four sampled a range of sounds such as church bell, looping, clock alarm, etc. The layers of sounds and the visual collage signified each other. The recording techniques became part of the instruments inside the studio. The interpretation of studio worked as an artistic endeavor became more focused following the Sgt. Pepper album. 

It had been mentioned that the record’s sleeve created another world by Surrealism collage, The Beatles invited listeners to participate in order to match the theme. The Beatles reinvented and introduced themselves on the album’s opening track not as The Beatles, but the members of Sgt. Pepper Lonely Heart Club Band. The cover art confirmed the new identities. Both the album sleeves and music invited audiences to re-evaluate their assumptions about who they are. The cover weaved together images from nostalgia, psychedelic and popular culture. The album sleeves encouraged listeners to take part into imagination of the scenario in which The Beatles and Blake created. In addition, psychedelic elements inside ‘Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds’ and ‘A Day in the Life’; and the mystical Eastern elements in, ‘Within You, Without You’, echoed the magical world Blake had created through the cover. All in all, the album sleeve served as the semblance of sounds, and vice versa. The record’s sleeves and the music required audiences to adopt sophisticated skills to understand the symbolism. It involved a more active participation on the reception side, and thus the communication between them was enhanced. Also, Sgt. Pepper worked as a vehicle to deliver art to the public. It transcended the boundaries between pop and art, making art reach a broader audiences inside the commercial world. 

As Melly said, ‘1960s has always been the mark time of the popular culture’ The British art schools played a decisive role inside the decade. Institutionally speaking, they gave birth to an artistic atmosphere, whilst the individuals who emerged from them brought what they had learnt to the music industry when they became professional musicians. They explored new horizons towards visual representation and music making since both artforms resonated with each other. To examine it in a deeper sense, they transcended the boundaries between them as an artist and the listeners as an audience. It was the moment when art met pop, as well as a diminishing of the gap between the two.

Quote ends.

We have a brief picture now on how appropriations worked. OK, I think no one denies the fact that The Beatles work is popular art, Andy Warhol T-shirt you wear is popular art, but for the Hong Kong government’s way of thinking (notice I said here is “thinking”, but not “practical” implementation, or laws or whatever, that is the "system" we need to challenge, but no any person), all the things we do, the music, the graphic, the image, the video, the words… everything, on the Internet, could be and would be a copyright issue. Internet should be something that makes mind and matter become more open. Why do we degenerate now? Messing up concept between appropriation and copyright really scares me. The things annoying me is that being a Chinese, is always being etherized on one hand, being a “perfect” person; on the other hand, for political use. That is stupid. The government advertisements told us “knowledge is power”, but they never show the implication is that, “knowledge is never outside power”. We always call for truth, but we are only within the “regime of truth”. The knowledge we acquire is not “independent” enough. Like what we were taught inside an ancient Chinese culture, study hard, and then be an official. The premise is wrong, what do you expect at the next?

What is completely original? May I ask again.