Chamber Ensemble's "Tyrannical Sourness of Spirit"

[ronniegue]

The beauty of the academe lies in the hands of the idiots.  As the fabulous Montaigne writes about Socrates, “That Socrates always smilingly welcomed the contradictions opposed to his reasoning was due, it might be said, to his strength, and that, since the advantage was certain to be on his side, he accepted them as matter for a new victory.”

It is in this light that I am very much excited to wage this battle against an eager scholar, to show him what real intelligence, something which he can only dream to have, looks like.

With apologies to Plato, who would definitely not want to be involved with such a nincompoop, I shall engage myself in a dialogue with this salivating intellectual named Joseph Ramon Espiritu.  All my words shall be typed in a shade of red to signify love. haha

Source:

http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/dlsumanilachamberensemble/message/1555

From: Joseph Ramon Espiritu
To: dlsumanilachamberensemble@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 11:07:22 PM
Subject: [dlsumanilachamberensemble] [Complete] And I can stay quiet no longer...

I finally finished my reaction to Ronald Gue's comments. Kindly read it for you to realize his/her/its misguidance and unreliabity (which i'm surprised that the Pops Orchestra found so much delight in when every claim he/she/it has made is inconsistent)

To Nao: Don't worry, I'm not gonna use this as a stand of the organization. Just my personal opinion. And a simple "eye-opener" as a lot of people are looking up to Ron's claims when in reality, his claims are really not credible.

To Ramcky: I am neither FOR or AGAINST the merge.. I am but a simple follower. I came to this organization to be able to play my violin, viola, guitar, and bassoon for the sake of music, not for the tuition fee discounts, not the advance enrollment, not the prestige, not for the name, but for the sake of being able to express myself through music.

As for Ronald Gue, I can't say that I agree with you that he is NOT INSULTING Chamber Ensemble and the CAO. If you look at his/her/its comment a little closer, you are going to find that he/she/it's comment is nothing close to a critique and it's more of an insult, a personal rambling of bitterness from a "past" i do not know where I don't find enough reason for him to be doing this.

Thank you also Ramcky for the advice you have given to and I assure you, we will not forget our identity and our heritage. And no, I do not find a reason to comment on your blog as it is not as misguided as this, Ronald Gue's is.

I would also like to clarify that I am not questioning his/her/its musical prowess (I am not even the one who said that "he's just a page turner"), I know very well that a page turner is as good as the soloist. However, he/she/it is in no position for the claims he/she/it has made. He/She/It is a literature professor of the DLSU and is in no authority to give such comments. Those who believe in his/her/its claims is considered to be gullible. Believing in his comments is as similar to believing in Manny Pacquiao when he says that Ateneo is a good school when in fact he hasn't even studied there. Or when he says, the Law of Supply and Demand goes like this and like that, when he is not an economist nor has a degree on it. Or a more concrete example would be "Sleeping with your hair wet can make you blind. That's true! That's what our gardener said!" (Santiago, 2006). This is a fallacy more commonly known as "Argumentum ad Verecundiam" or in short, an argument based on misplaced authority.

To Tampi: I have treated this, Ronald Gue with the utmost respect I can muster. I do not react in violent, insulting ways, the ways Ronald Gue has. I did my best to critique his "blog" in the most logical, rational, and philosophical sense. And I think, since it is here in the network that he has brought the issue at hand, then it is here that we should answer all the questions and the so-called "criticisms" (more of personal insult). I am not backstabbing him, by all means, send this to him if you will, I do not mind.

To Kim: You should know better than to reply undignified. We are semi-professionals. We do not stoop to his/her/its level, nor do we descend below it.

Let me address this part by citing Erasmus’ beautiful line, “Every man’s filth smells sweet to himself” (Stercus cuique suum bene olet).  Thus, he stands in proud admiration of his “logical, rational, and philosophical” arguments after calling me a “he/she/it”.  Aside from the fact that my sexuality has nothing to do whatsoever with the topic being discussed (Argumentum ad Hominem - abusive [I’m sure he doesn’t know there are several kinds]), this failed attempt at sarcasm is as hackneyed as the only few logical fallacies that he can cite in this “critique”.   Hence, I congratulate him for eagerly explaining Argumentum ad Verecundiam to us, which only shows that he deems it necessarily difficult to understand.  Well, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but my former high school students in St. Scho have learned those, and a lot of other fallacies, way earlier than you.  And yes, I taught them.  We have an idiom in Chinese for your arrogant display of fresh learning to me.  We call that Ban Men Nong Fu.  Go figure.

Another thing, your examples of Argumentum ad Verecundiam are sadly misinformed.  Manny Pacquiao, who will most probably fail the ACET, has the right to say that Ateneo is a good school on the basis that a bad student like himself cannot get into it.  That makes him an authority on the greatness of Ateneo, thus.  While your example regarding the Law of Supply and Demand is another example of your eagerness at pedantry.  This is common knowledge.  We don’t need a scientist to tell anybody that people need oxygen to survive, just as we don’t have to stand in awe of anybody who tries to explain something as elementary as the law of supply and demand.  If you wish to impress us with your attempt at intellectualizing, you better start going beyond your textbooks in elementary.  In the same light, that old wives’ tale about sleeping with wet hair arguably belongs to the realm of the folks, so the gardener has to be the right authority to claim its authenticity as a superstition.  After all, the argument there only claims it’s true, and as far as it exists as a superstitious belief, then the gardener’s claim is perfectly logical.

Montaigne (again) says, “Our reasons and matters of controversy can commonly be turned back upon us, and we wound ourselves with our own weapons.”  Poor suicidal idiot.  My assault has just begun.

[Complete Version]

So, Ronald Gue, apparently a literature professor in DLSU created a blog post that is supposed to be a reaction to the so-called merging. He claims that the merge is an idiocy. Let's put to the test the claims he made (the ones that are italicized are those which are mine):

Ronald Gue posts again

Let me take off from Pat’s allusion to the idiomatic expression in her note (http://www.facebook .com/home.php?#/note. php?note_ id=74152017080&ref=mf), “Curiosity killed the cat.” I think this idiom is very appropriate as a forewarning to the very curiously eager, and eagerly curious, individuals involved in this whole merging issue, that eventually, all these might just lead to the inevitable fate that their hasty decisions will eventually lead: death – death of La Sallian musicianship, if there is any.

Let us take a look at the situation. If you're asked to go to a place you don't know, will you not ask for directions? I know, we are all going to say, "Yes, I'm going to ask for directions" because to not ask would get you lost, that which will get you lost may give you the opportunity to be in danger, to be in danger gives opportunity to death. Curiosity is a natural inclination. If you don't know, you try to know. Not desiring to know would be dumb and stupid. To not be curious is stupid. To be stupid is to not exist as a human being. We are Homo Sapiens ladies and gentlemen, the thinking men, not questioning things is to not think. We are not computers. We are not programmed to do things the way computers are. We are given the free will to think for ourselves. We are given the free will to know, and to desire to know the things we do not know. We attain knowledge of things through queries. We research because of curiosity. The saying "Curiosity killed the cat" is NOT APPLICABLE to us. WE ARE HUMAN BEINGS. To the one who says that the curious should go ahead and die, let us take into account what I have said earlier and reconsider, which among Ronald Gue and the curious is going to die?

First of all, don’t drag us down to your evolutionary delay because we, unlike you, are already classified as Homo Sapiens Sapiens.  As far as evolutionary theories are concerned, we have already moved on from the days of the Neanderthals.  Your own admittance, however, of your being just homo sapiens, explains why you cannot understand what the idiom “Curiosity killed the cat” means.  I don’t have to say anything anymore expect this: you are an ugly moron, Neanderthal.

Now, I am anticipating people to suddenly question my use of the word “hasty” since Pat has already stated that the changes in the structures of the current CAO groups will take a whole year in the process. However, let me emphasize the fact that what is hasty here is not the implementation but the decision. The fact that even Pat herself had to suddenly ask for a meeting with Jill Samodio reveals one vital fact – nobody has been properly informed about it by the CAO people, except probably themselves (probably being the operative word because I know a lot of those who are involved in these CAO groups who are also grappling for explanations to several gray areas in the issue).

If this guy has been spending time inside the organization instead of blabbering his mouth off on the internet through blogging, ranting, and insulting people, he would probably know by now that our organization (DLSU Chamber Ensemble) is properly informed. We were given a soft copy of the Project Feasibility Study in our very own  Yahoo Groups and we have talked about this after rehearsals before. If among the OTHER ORGANIZATIONS exists a problem with the dissemination of information, we place the blame on the Group's Executive Board as the authorities have placed upon them the responsibility of informing their respective organizations. Failure to do so is not the fault of the authority as they have provided ample information for the organization.

"The fact that even Pat herself had to suddenly ask for a meeting with Jill Samodio reveals one vital fact – nobody has been properly informed about it by the CAO people, except probably themselves" -Ronald Gue
    -if this, uhm, Ronald Gue, claims that this is one vital fact that reveals that no one has been properly informed of the reorganization, let me         give some points that may likely give explanation to Pat's lack of information:
        *Pat is already an alumna of the De La Salle University.
        *Pat may have only heard of this reorganization from a third party and probably wanted first hand information
        *Pat is seldomly around school (let me reiterate, SHE'S AN ALUMNA) and may have just taken the opportunity to clarify some points she         wasn't able to understand from the third party.

Meanwhile, if this pre-cro-magnon has only read my words carefully, he would have understood my “blabbering” instead of continuing with his own.  Which part of the “grappling for explanations to several gray areas in the issue” doesn’t he understand?  What is he talking about information dissemination for?  All I questioned was explanation.  Does he even understand that?  Besides, the fact that this nincompoop dissociates alumni totally from something as vital as a dissolution of two completely different organizations into one says only how utterly clueless he is of his origins.  Let me give him a clue, then.  Maybe he needs to remember Rosa and Martin, and he can re-assess his membership in Chamber.  I’m sure he knows what I am talking about.  If he doesn’t, then I won’t be surprised.  The homo sapiens doesn’t even remember that he’s supposed to dead and extinct by now.

My problem with this lies in the fact that the CAO groups, as I have already stated in my first note, are catered first and foremost to the student body of La Salle, and they are the major stakeholders of these groups. Whether they want to join the groups, or they just enjoy listening to the music, the students have the say to the decision-making with regards to the changes in these groups. Why? Because Cao exists for the students.

With that being said, it is then curious why CAO has not even consulted the student body before implementing these changes. Unless CAO can present a survey result, providing an evidence of the students’ approval of the said changes, CAO should have no business implementing rules that do not necessarily conform to the needs of the La Sallians.

Let me say that the student body has been notified of the reorganization through the school paper (not sure if it's Plaridel or The La Sallian) about the reorganization, and the Pops Orchestra (let me hide their organization no longer) initiated a signature campaign against the reorganization, but sad to say, the students responded with indifference. I may not know the result of the signature campaign, but it doesn't take a genius to figure out that their failure to present the campaign to the authorities was caused by the fact that they were not able to gather enough signatures to prove the student body's resilience against the reorganization. And so, the reorganization pushed through.

“I may not know the result of the signature campaign, but it doesn’t take a genius to figure out that their failure to present the campaign to the authorities was caused by the fact that they were not able to gather enough signatures to prove the student body’s resilience against the reorganization.”  First, what the hell is resilience against the reorganization?  Please go back to high school and review your lessons on word choice (if there were already schools during your eon).  Second, contrary to what you’ve said, it DOES take a genius to understand that the failure to effectuate a signature campaign can be caused by several reasons.  One, one half of the J-Duo has been rendered deaf by her unconsummated desire toward the other half.  Two, the students’ indifference, which doesn’t automatically say anything about their approval either (have you ever heard of argumentum ad ignorantiam?), is not sufficiently patched up by any effort from the CAO for a better information dissemination campaign.  Three, the period for the signature campaign MAY have been too short.  Besides, I don’t know why failed signature campaigns should be blamed for this issue.  The CAO themselves should have mobilized to do a survey, which according to Pam Agaloos, were only sent out to a very limited number of respondents.  Now, how can this homo sapiens defend Jill’s lack of statistical skills?

Again, some people may ask, but isn’t CAO there as an office to actually help the students know what the students need in order to improve on their crafts as artists? Yes, I agree. CAO should be the authority figure of the school, but there is one major problem that Mr. Jed Balsamo has so effectively pointed out in his reaction to my first note: that CAO, just like a lot of other cultural arts offices everywhere in this country, are not headed by musicians. That in itself opens up to a lot of whole new different problems. One, the changes in question involve musical groups. In absence of an expert in the field of music in the CAO office, the CAO director is subjected to ill-informed complaints and suggestions by her favored groups, since she has nobody else to rely on in making vital administrative judgments – not her skills (which she really doesn’t have), not herself (for she is not a musician), not her experience (because really, what polluted body of water does she come from anyway?).

CAO IS the authority figure of the school regarding the Arts. I don't know how it can be much clearer being that it is the only Office concerned with the Arts with a Mandate from the University. Now, I do not know who this Jed Balsamo is, but we cannot deny that there is some truth in his claim that a problem lies in the cultural arts offices everywhere in this country are not headed by musicians. However, there also exists reasons why cultural arts offices are not headed by musicians. First and foremost, we cannot let a violinist play the bassoon in a concert, just as we cannot let a pianist play the french horn. Same with the claim that a cultural arts office must be headed by a musician. Arts is not only about music, there exists, literature, film, architecture, dancing, fashion design, visual arts, as well. If a cultural arts office is headed by a musician, what does s/he know about literature, or let's say, film, architecture, etc? On the next claim made by Ronald Gue, that there is no expert in the field of music in the Cultural Arts Office of DLSU, we could clearly say that he/she/it's wrong. Mr. Eliezar San Felipe is a graduate of the UP Conservatory of Music, and so is Mr. German M. De Ramos Jr., a graduate of the UST Conservatory of Music. I do not say however, that such degrees provide enough credibility for us to say that they are "experts" in music. However, if that is not what dictates who are experts and who are not, then, what does? Granted that they are that which separates who the experts are from those who are not, then we can say that we do have experts in music that guides our CAO director regarding the said concerns. I think that the CAO director has sufficient management skills in order to have run the office for years now. If she had lacked in her capabilities, then the administration would have fired her already.

Against this, uh, Ronald Gue's, harmful comments, I would just like to add that no truth is found in attacking a person. It is a fallacy called "Argumentum ad Hominem". Such insults against the director proves nothing.

The know-it-all just proves his ignorance yet again.  He cites German M. De Ramos, Jr. and Mr. Eliezar San Felipe as authorities for this issue when, precisely, the two groups under these two conductors are the very problem of this whole talk.  And when he attacks me by undermining my demand for a music authority in the admin, maybe he forgets that there are other administrative positions aside from the director.  Assistant directors, for example, may come from the different fields of art, and the two conductors are definitely NOT occupying administrative positions.  But then again, there were probably no such organizations in the heydays of the homo sapiens.  Of course I limited my concern to having musicians in the admin because we are not talking about the Dance Troupes or the Harlequin Theater Guild here.  There are some things which don’t have to be said, like these other groups should also be represented in the admin by respective authorities in their fields, but of course the Neanderthal had to wait for me to spell it out for him.  Oh, and isn’t funny that one who dwells in caves shall invoke Ad Hominem again and again?  Oh right.  It is new to him.

It is in this light that I question how this CAO director has come up with the following solutions to what she thinks are the problems of the CAO groups:

“- It is an orchestra first and does not focus on one specific genre of music.
- The Classics, Pop/Rock, Jazz names are only identified to help in marketing the group and speaks of the variety of music the orchestra can play.
- The Jazz part will be developed at a later time.
- Streamline training to ensure that both beginners and more advanced players will progress. (A more classical approach will be taken to teach everyone the basics.)
- Two concerts needed for the year- one classical & another contemporary (other than the Art in action show)”

Let me discuss these points one by one in order that we see how these “reasons” for forming the La Sallian Youth Orchestra are just plain unreasonable.

“- It is an orchestra first and does not focus on one specific genre of music.”

This statement clearly highlights a bias against pops orchestra. The “does not focus on one specific genre of music” already makes the obvious statement that Pops Orchestra, being a pops orchestra that it is, is already problematic because itsupposedly focuses only on pops. Now, the problem here is simple; since when has focusing on one specific genre of music been a problem? In fact, to place my question on a different note, do they even know what genres are? They are assuming that when one plays “classical”, “pop”, or “Jazz”, they are already going across all genres. That is too simplistic because one, pop is not a genre. In the most technical sense of the term, pop only means popular, which explains nothing but the wide range of audience it influences. Two, “Classical” too is not a genre because it only refers to one particular era of music, and there are other eras like Modernist, Romantic, Baroque, Medieval, etc. “Jazz” is probably the nearest they can get to a genre.

I argue here then to Ronald Gue's claim that they are not genres. What then are genres in music? "Kindly enlighten me.". This is probably one of the lowest possible comment he has to give, to deny the existence of "Classical", "Pop", and "Jazz" as genres. Ronald Gue is sinking to a level I think, that a professor is not supposed to sink into. I also think that the director is not aiming to summarize all the genres in those three so-called genres. Also, I do not think that the genre is an issue here, as stated in Pat's blog, "Classical, Pop, and Jazz" are only identified to market the group.. If a common person (namely, not a musical expert) were to hear music, those are the only genres that would cross their minds. And where do we cater the music we are playing? To those people. This is not an attack on the Pops Orchestra, nor to the Chamber Ensemble. This so-called "Attack" is just a paranoia brought about by the history of rivalry between the two groups.. Therefore, the reorganization aims to end this rivalry.

Caveman, there is such a thing as transition in our society now.  When we place two things right after each other in an enumeration, they must be related to each other.  Of course, you think that since Pat talked about “Pops, Classical, and Jazz” as a marketing group, and it was right next to the item on “different genres”, your prehistoric brain got confused, so I understand.  But please have mercy on me, too.  I cannot embark on something too heavy a task as explaining to you what we homo sapiens sapiens already consider as simple knowledge, i.e. genres.  If you don’t get it until now, you will never get what it is.  Why don’t you just grab your club and hit you toes until the itch dies out?  Maybe then, you can concentrate on planning your next hunting scheme.

Just from here, we can already see that the CAO director does not know what she is talking about in proposing all these changes. Nobody, not even classical (in the loose sense of that term) musicians stick to only one genre. For instance, a “classical” pianist may perform a sonata, a suite, a duet, a polonaise, etc., without having to resort to “pop.” And even several “classical” music are popular, technically speaking, like Fur Elise, Moonlight Sonata, etc.

Hence, what orchestra, even pops orchestra, can be accused so conveniently of just focusing on one specific genre?

Let us remember here that we were not the ones, nor the CAO director, who put the "specific" genre on the said group, but their present Company Manager who admitted that, that genre is the only genre they can play, and they CAN'T play any other.

Aww… Really?  Then why does Chamber, who claims to be an ensemble, keep on hiring so many orchestra members from outside, if sticking to what their claim is what you’re arguing?  Chamber ENSEMBLE and ORCHESTRA are two different things, too.

“- The Classics, Pop/Rock, Jazz names are only identified to help in marketing the group and speaks of the variety of music the orchestra can play.”

Well, if they are going to merge all the CAO musical groups into one orchestra, I don’t think that their marketing the groups according to the “genres” of music will stop anyway. As a proof, the last point says it all: “- Two concerts needed for the year- one classical & another contemporary (other than the Art in action show).” What will happen is that the label will just move from the name of the orchestra to the name of the concert. I am anticipating titles like: “A Sojourn to the Romantic Days of Yore” or “A Defamiliarization of Contemporary Music: Pop with a Twist”.

In relation to this, the orchestra members will inevitably be divided into “pop” and “classical” anyway. The ideal is that these members have to be flexible, but just take guitarists for instance. How many people who play the guitar can go beyond the usual chord accompaniment?

And again, Ronald Gue fails to get the point of further development and trainings, and the vision of ONE orchestra. He/She/It has the mentality of the old conventional Chamber Ensemble member, that we are inevitably divided into two groups. And yet he/she/it forgets the fact that other orchestras have been able to fulfill this.

What?

“- Streamline training to ensure that both beginners and more advanced players will progress. (A more classical approach will be taken to teach everyone the basics.)”

First, it is just plainly pathetic to talk about streamlining musical training for both beginners and advanced. Music is not algebra where you can only solve a problem in so many ways. This is just another evidence of how simplistic this non-musician looks into the lack of musicianship of the members. Nobody progresses in instrument playing with a streamlined training. The best instrumentalists have gone through rigorous individual trainings and practices just so they can thoroughly understand and execute their craft. The homogeneity of the proposed training only reveals one thing: the CAO director has received none.

And our antagonist on this paper chooses to side again with the close-minded, that there exists no possibility of having individual trainings and development. It's not like we HAVE individual trainings now anyway, do we? I think not. It's better to have streamline training than no training at all. As everyone probably knows, we do not have a conservatory of music here in La Salle and our musicians are trained non-formally, the only way our instrumentalists get better is by enrolling at music tutorials in St. Scho or Yamaha, or Lyric, etc. individually. It is up to the individuals then if they want to pursue further training but as the CAO states, we musicians, are not forced into doing anything.

Ah, so it is better to be taught ay-pol for apple, than not be taught how to spell or read at all.  Well, I was merely concerned about their welfare as individual musicians.  After all, I’ve already stated clearly time and again that these students need to sent by the school to reliable music teachers outside (OOOHHH!!! WE DON’T HAVE A CONSERVATORY OF MUSIC IN LASALLE!?!  WHAT A SURPRISE!!!).  If this hunter is against that, then o well.  It’s their loss.  After all, I can afford a very famous piano teacher.

“- The Jazz part will be developed at a later time.”

This is obviously an ambitious copy of the UST Conservatory’s gearing toward the genre. Plagiarism is all I can say about this proposal.

Even if the Wright Brothers were the first to invent the plane, it wasn't them who developed it to a 747 now. Haven't this Ronald Gue, ever heard of the word 'Innovation' ? And, if he/she/it is a good professor (as he probably claims as he has the guts to do all this which is not even in his field of expertise), Plagiarism is done by copying the exact same thing, or even paraphrasing it without citing the resource. If he had read the paper and had heard of Ms. Jill Samodio talk herself, he/she/it would probably realize that UST is not the only source and that nothing has been plaigarised, there are sources that have been cited.

Wow!!! Jill Samodio, who is not a musician, will innovate Jazz!!!!! What happened to his Argumentum ad Verecundiam?  Forgot his lesson this term so soon?  And no comment on the plagiarism.   I don’t talk about academics to an ape.

On this issue:

3) The conductor:
- Sir Eli will remain as the full-time conductor and Sir Jheng as assistant conductor until 2011.
- In accordance with the rules of DLSU, he will have to retire at the age of 60 just like past faculty, staff, and administration that have reached that age during their stay in DLSU.

I find it fake that Jheng is pretending to not be interested in taking over. After all, that Pops conductor applied in La Salle to conduct a pops orchestra. If he wanted to conduct in a non-pops orchestra, why did he stay too long with the group. And it is obvious with the emphasis on Mr. Eli’s (sorry I don’t know his name) retirement that Jheng is really poised to take over. How cheap.

Another thing, the fact that they are requiring the proposed new orchestra to have two concerts – pop and classical – every year just defeats the purpose of the merging. As I have already mentioned again and again, it is ridiculous to force a monkey to glide on water like a swan, just as it is idiotic to impose difficult music on those who don’t even have the initiative (why the hell did they join the Pops Orchestra to begin with) and the talent in it. So I can more or less foresee again that Jheng will just end up with his usual herd of ignorant sycophants along with sporadic pops orchestra members, and then, he will spend most of the funds of the group again to pay for his impoverished friends from the MSO or USTSO to supply the missing sound (not even music yet) during the “classical” concert, and during the pops, everyone plays. So double whammy for the pops orchestra members. And then they will remedy this with streamlined training! May God forgive these idiots!

I think this is just a really cheap attack on German de Ramos Jr.'s position. Of course, someone has to take over the job that Eliezar San Felipe is leaving behind. Who else is more qualified than another conductor staying here in La Salle? German de Ramos Jr.'s a well-rounded conductor and I think he has enough knowledge and expertise to run this organization. Is Ronald Gue expecting the CAO to let another audition for another conductor to take place? Will it be better to have a non-informed, less experienced conductor run the organization that is as fresh as he/she is? As for the attack on the MSO and the USTSO, I don't see them as impoverished when you see their lifestyle (everyone of them has a PSP, and they play it while waiting for the concert, their instruments cost as much as a brand new car, and most of them have permanent jobs outside the MSO and USTSO as well). As the present Asst. Company Manager of the DLSU Chamber Ensemble, I do think that hiring them is really a waste of money but think about this: Have you tried listening to an orchestra piece without an orchestra (or with an incomplete orchestra)? Have you tried listening to Beethoven's 5th Symphony without the brass section? Failure to see these things, I am able to deduce that this, Ronald Gue, is not at all a credible individual when it comes to music. The only thing he is able to perceive is that one negative aspect (waste of money).

First, thank you for calling me “fresh”.  Your brain, on the other hand, is its state of atrophy.  Jheng has enough knowledge and expertise to run your organization?  Then someone tell me why your organization is suddenly running on a budget deficit.  Then someone tell me why your music does not sound good.  Someone tell me why you still need to gather more members from outsider orchestras.

On the issue of the lifestyle of these MSO and USTSO members who join your concerts FOR PAY, yey for their PSP!

And for your complaint about my credibility in music, then why don’t you look up my first note in facebook which has already clearly lifted a music book’s definition of ENSEMBLE and see if Beethoven’s 5th Symphony fits right into the supposed repertoire of a chamber ENSEMBLE.  I may not be a credible source of knowledge on music, but you on the other hand are a homo sapiens and are incapable of higher thinking, so stop pretending.

On the issue of
4) The members:
- No one will be removed from all groups.
- The students are given the chance to learn new instruments, but are not forced to do so.
- There are talks that brass players and students willing to learn brass instruments will get higher tuition discount because it is rare to find such instrumentalists.
- A talk of a recollection will be held to help strengthen the relationships of the members.

So the issue of scholarship is based on instrument, not merit. Anybody who plays brass, even if it sounds like snapping bras, will get higher tuition discounts! How utterly intelligent is that! And recollection to strengthen the relationships of the members? Huh?

Please read the proposal again (or if he/she/it has not, he/she/it should) as it may enlighten a lot of misconceptions about the tuition fee discounts. Or if he/she/it is as lazy as he/she/it refused to read the proposal before making his/her/its hasty judgments, then let me say this right now. The allocation of tuition fee discounts still follow the mechanics of the old tuition fee discount allocation based on seniority, membership (if you're an officer or not, and the rank of the position you hold), attitude, and performance. The only difference is that the critical instrument players will be able to get an additional tuition discount.

Again, must we all take the antagonist side of things? If recollection (slash-teambuilding + rehearsals) is not a way of strengthening the relationships of the members, then what will? Does this Ronald Gue has no common sense at all?

Ah.  So probably in the extinct days of the Neanderthals, no friendship was made outside a recollection.  Maybe, he finds it difficult to understand why people can just normally develop a relationship in a natural everyday environment.  If only he’d start acting like a homo sapiens sapiens and avail of Calayan’s services, maybe people would not be too afraid to befriend him outside a recollection.  Plus, he needs to define common sense for me because as common as sense can get, recollection and teambuilding are not slash-able.  They are two different things.

By the way, I am bothered.  “Does this Ronald Gue [HAVE]…”

Then on the issue of tuition fee, please blame Pat for limiting her information so carelessly.  After all, she claims to have resolved some issues through a sit-down talk with Jill Samodio, which she good-heartedly shared in the hopes of clearing things up.    Apparently, she didn’t.

On the following issues:
5) Suggestions we made to fine-tune the project:
- A sort of advisory board other than an executive board (EB) (we'll be happy to explain this to you)
- More specialized training available (teacher for each section)
- Investing in a greater library of pieces (of all genres)
- More exposure to different kinds of music (ie: sit-ins in professional orchestras, fieldtrips, film-viewing, concerts) all in the hopes of improving musicality.
- Another election for officers
- More feedback and suggestions from the groups and experts in the music industry

There is no need for a merging for these to be done, really.

This is not the point of the merge, these are, but fine-tunings to the project (or does Ronald Gue forget the main point of what he/she/it is arguing on [as an individual with a title of professor MUST NOT OVERLOOK])

Who says that they are the point?  Does this non-reader have any evidence to show that I claimed them to be THE POINT of the merge?  I said the merge is unnecessary for these to be done.  Since when has that been similar to: THESE ARE THE POINTS OF THE MERGE?  IDIOT.

On
6) Other concerns:
- Being humble and the importance of being able to take in criticisms.
- Asking questions and talking about issues
- Respect

Again, the merging will not do anything to develop these. Puhlease.

Again, these are not the points of the merge. See comment above.

If only you had consulted Pat before commenting, you would have known that she herself has apologized for her unclear statement.  Will you please die already, cavema… something!

So CAO and Chamber people, I have already exhausted all my remaining concerns for you, which remained not because of the people but because of what the people are pretending to advocate, i.e. music. I don’t even know why I am wasting time answering these issues despite the fact that I know how my pieces of advice will, as always, fall on barren minds anyway.

Let us look at the etymological definition of "advocate"

"Ad" is a prefix in Latin which means "Through, or To"
"Voco, Vocare, Vocavi, Vocatus" the root in Latin of the remaining "vocate" from "advocate", means "to speak, or to say"

Therefore, "Advocate" means "Through speaking, or through saying" and if applied to music, "through performing, through playing music"

I can't fathom the thought that we are simply "pretending" to advocate music, when in actuality, we really are advocating music. Ronald Gue's claim that we are simply "pretenders" , I think, is because of the fact that we do not conform to his/her/its idea of what "advocacy of music" is. But just because we do not conform to his/her/its idea of what music is or what advocating is, doesn't mean that we are no longer "true" advocates of music. One man's (or woman's or thing's) opinion is not enough to tear down an institution such as the DLSU Chamber Ensemble or the DLSU Pops Orchestra.

And, let me add, to his/her/its melodramatic phrase that his/her/its comments will fall on barren minds, I say, it falls on the barren minds because he/she/it speaks barren words.

First, if my words were barren, how come they have given birth to such a long and idiotic response from you?  But dare I return your insult by saying that the real melodrama here lies in your phrase: tear down an institution such as the DLSU Chamber Ensemble or the DLSU Pops Orchestra.  Reality check: nobody outside lasalle, except probably your parents and their pet worms, knows DLSU Chamber Ensemble.  Melodrama?  Hype?  False sense of grandeur?  Simply state: idiots.

On your wikipedia search on the etymology of advocacy.  Hoorah! The Neanderthal knows how to use a computer!

And while we are at the issue of loyalty, may I remind the Chamber Ensemble people never again to use me in promoting for your shows, if you come into my future classes again. Let me remind your cracking memories that your former conductor, with his ugly face and stinky breath, rudely made me LEAVE Chamber when I was still a helpless student of La Salle, so I don’t really care if the trashy leftovers that I have left behind whispered behind my back how I was such a traitor because I left Chamber weeks before their major concert that year. I am done and over with you already. My achievements in music, to be really conceited about this, exceed far beyond anyone of you could have ever imagined I could achieve. So again, I shall leave the death of music into your hands.

Ah! And so the plot thickens as the true reason of the bitterness and hostility is revealed.

And I am sorry, Mike. I don’t believe in the so-called musicianship that you claim them to have. I have attended several presentations of Chamber this year and last, and I didn’t hear it. As simple as that. Now I challenge them to individual recitals. Maybe then we can talk about this again.

I can only say that a recital will prove nothing. If he/she/it is as bitter as he/she/it is now, a recital, if we do play well, I think, will not be well enough for him as even the MSO and the USTSO is not enough of a "musician" for him but mere "money hoarders". If that is his/her/its opinion on the MSO and USTSO, then let us take into consideration that even the professionals do not even look good for him/her/it. Who are we then to par with the professionals in music?

Of course the recital will prove nothing.  None of you can play well! It will only reinforce what is already so obvious anyway.  On the issues of money, let me just explain to this still-evolving-mammal that I was referring to the selected friends of Jheng, your beloved conductor who shamelessly spends the money on ORCHESTRA members to from the outside to play in an ENSEMBLE.  Now, if you still don’t know what is the difference between orchestra and ensemble, die.  And don’t misquote me because I will never use the phrase “money hoarders” because I am fully aware of banks, and we know what banks do to keep our money well.  We don’t hoard money, simpleton.  Maybe this new civilization is confusing that verisimilitude of a brain in between your ears.  *pats your head with my gloves on*

So curious cats, I can only kindly wish that your curiosity kills you fast.

And to Ronald Gue I reply, FUCK YOU (the only reply that I write that's out of place).

Yes, and while I fuck (fortunately not with you), just sod off.  And maybe you can ask Reginald Espiritu (who claims that “baka pag nabasa to ni Ron totohanin niya”) to lend you an extra hand.  You two seem fit for each other in all aspects: skin tone, ugly face, ill breeding, musical poverty, and sheer idiocy.  And while we’re at it, maybe you can both listen to me and my partner’s moans and see how much more musical they sound than your farty music.  And when you come, eat your own sperm.  That should give you enough protein for evolution.

And to the other Chamber Ensemble members who claim that they will hit me with a Stradivarius when they see me, well first, afford one.  If you can’t, why don’t you ask the USTSO and MSO members, who this Neanderthal here claims are not impoverished, buy you one?  Second, when Alexandru Tomescu comes to the Philippines again, I’ll introduce you to him.  Maybe he can inform you what a violin, which you scratch with your bow the way you scratch your loins, is for.