Eng assignment

Music?
Even though this article is specifically speaking out against the choice of looks over talents, I feel that the root of the problem lies in the values of modern music itself. In the old days, musicians are people who understand and can produce good music, and looks are secondary. Now, musicians are people who are good looking and can produce average music, for some which is their best. Look at the recent campus superstar audition. There is no doubt that all can sing above average at least, but is it not convenient that all of them look cool and hip, instead of the typical music geek? I do wonder how many of them really understand the meaning of music, the cadences, the harmonies, the Italian terms or basically, the time signature. They can sing, they seem to enjoy it, but can they understand it? Perhaps, the answer is no. Next, let’s move on to our musicians of the day! Like I’ve said, in the good old times, looks are secondary. How about now? No way! Our musicians now come from both the runway and the studio. They are the icons of fashion and many of us strive to be like them. We spend money styling our hair after them, buying the clothes they wear etc. The worse is that we no long treat them as musicians but as idols. We follow them primarily due to their looks and not their musical abilities, which some obviously lack. Is music still music? Last time, music is what we now know as classical music. There are perfect harmonies, fantastic solos, the irreplaceable vibrato etc; now, we have random notes (for some forms of music), out-of-tune notes, absurd harmonies etc. The former songs speak of a meaning, of a place; the latter songs speak of suicide, of Satan. Is this still music? I may be a little biased against modern music, especially rock music, but then, is it not true that music has changed much radically? I may be called old-fashioned for refusing to change my ideology about music, but I stand by my principles. Music, to me, is something that is not random, something that can be changed, but must still have its roots in place. A piece of music must have a good harmony, a good balance (the Christmas tree), and of course a good meaning. Musicians should separate fashion from music and pursue music over fashion. REAL fans of music must understand that music is something that is spiritual and not physical. A fat guy may not have the sex appeal, he may not be able to dance, but if he is able to sing well and understand music well, let’s give his talent the credit it deserves. Last and foremost, musicians must love music, but must understand it too. Music can never mix with fame and fortune. If he pursues music for the fame and the fortune, which some are suspected of doing, then he is not a musician.

Source: http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/Music/05/18/music.sexysingers.ap/index.html

ENG ASSIGNMENT

Tony Blair: a disaster? Think again...

Ten years is quite a long time, depending on your profession. For sports players, ten years may be the period between the date they made their debuts and the date they exit the sports scene with bank accounts full of money, or with nothing. To the people of UK, these 10 years was a mixed period. Mr Tony Blair, who rose to the position of Prime Minister in 1997, announced that he would be stepping down on June 27th. Love him or hate him, there is no denying that he has done much for the welfare of his country. As praises from world leaders came in since his announcement, the people of the world, especially those of the UK, should remember that it is this very guy who “united” the country following the recent bomb attacks and the tragic death of Princess Diana. Moreover, the long-standing problem, which has resulted in violent confrontations, between North Ireland and Britain was resolved in Blair’s time as he deftly handled the peace progress. Countless prime ministers of Britain did not manage to do it, yet he did it. So can he still be considered a disaster? Lastly, as the man said it himself, "There is only one government since 1945 that can say all of the following: more jobs, fewer unemployed, better health and education results, lower crime and economic growth in every quarter. Only one government, this one” (quoted from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6639945.stm).
However, not everyone has given positive comments about Blair. Residents of Iraq hope that the stepping down of Blair would signal a withdrawal of British troops while a minister from Zimbabwe hopes that Blair would be haunted by the children of Afghanistan and Iraq who were killed by the British troops. Clearly, the blot on an otherwise perfect record of Blair would be his policies about the war on terror. An irony is that he had won support due to his declaration of war on terror, yet his actions, e.g. war against Iraq, would be remembered by the British for the wrong reasons. The war against Iraq, which so far bore no evidence of peace in the country, much less for weapons of mass destruction, would be the incident that people would remember, or hate, him for. How unfair can we be?
As we are reaching the end of what was thought as a highly-promising period of time for the British, we may feel a tinge of sympathy for Blair. Being the youngest ever Prime Minister to be voted in for more than a century, expectations were high. However, being young would also mean that these expectations would be hard to fulfil. As the man said himself, he was sorry to the people of UK that he could not fulfil their expectations. However, could he have done more? Mistakes like the farce of Iraq could have been avoided, but while it was too costly, isn’t it better than dragging your country into disaster? (Think Hitler)

sdsdsda