Minggu, 21 April 2013

Kenapa nggak boleh bawain lagu sendiri di acara tribute?

Gue lagi mempersiapkan #1YearLarukuJKT, tribute event buat L'Arc~en~Ciel yang bakal diadain bertepatan dengan momentum satu tahun konser #LarukuJKT, seperti mungkin udah lo duga dari namanya. Waktu diskusi soal sistematika pemilihan lagu, gue dan Macan, partner gue dalam bikin acara ini, sedikit berselisih paham. Menurut gue, dalam acara tribute, menyelipkan--berarti minoritas--lagu orisinil milik performer itu oke-oke aja, tapi menurut Macan, ini mungkin melawan ekspektasi penonton. Dan memang, waktu gue melempar pertanyaan ke timeline, menurut sebagian besar yang jawab, ini ganggu, bahkan ada yang bilang terkesan aji mumpung. Karena ini, gue memutuskan untuk nurut sentimen mayoritas--performer #1YearLarukuJKT hanya boleh membawakan lagu Laruku.

Tapi, terus terang jawaban itu bikin gue mengernyitkan dahi. Memang dalam acara tribute, yang berarti persembahan, sudah pasti nafasnya adalah musik dari band yang menjadi headline (bukan headliner) acara tersebut, entah itu L'Arc~en~Ciel atau siapa pun. Tapi jika lalu dikatakan satu atau dua lagu yang bukan berasal dari mereka itu merusak suasana, rasanya agak berlebihan.

Begini. Penonton dan performer sama-sama datang di acara tersebut untuk melakukan satu hal: memberi penghormatan kepada sebuah band. Hanya saja, performer melakukannya dengan membawakan lagu-lagu band tersebut, sedangkan penonton dengan, um, menonton performer. Kalo gue datang ke acara tribute, yang gue inginkan bukan menonton sekelompok musisi peniru, tapi sebuah interpretasi akan musik yang sudah menginspirasi banyak orang. Dan untuk melakukan interpretasi, lo harus punya karakter sendiri. Individualitas. Atau, ya, lo cuma sekedar jadi musisi peniru aja.

Gue bukan ingin mengharuskan semua band menyelipkan lagu mereka sendiri di sebuah acara tribute. Gue cuma mau bilang, kalo satu lagu dari, say, empat atau lima lagu tribute dibilang merusak suasana, itu berlebihan. Dengan adanya lagu orisinil, sebagai penonton gue bisa mengapresiasi karakter sebenarnya dari performer bersangkutan--orang yang mengagumi band yang sama dengan gue. Dari lagu orisinil, gue bahkan berkesempatan melihat seberapa besar pengaruh, misalnya, L'Arc~en~Ciel, dalam  musik mereka. Toh lo seharusnya hanya main di acara tribute untuk musisi yang elo suka aja, kan?

Bayangin ini. Sekelompok orang suka band tertentu. Elo juga. Mereka mencoba ngebawain musik--tentunya pake latihan dan usaha--dari idola mereka, yang juga idola elo. Mereka lalu bilang, "gue main di acara ini karena gue hormat sama band ini, dan musik mereka adalah salah satu inspirasi gue buat berkarya." Masa sih elo nggak mau denger karya temen satu fandom? Yang aji mumpung sebenernya mereka, yang lo anggep nyusupin lagu, atau elo, yang cuma mau denger musik yang elo suka dibawain sama banyak orang sekaligus?

Selasa, 02 April 2013

Marriage: what people seem to fail to notice

One of the reasons why I cringe everytime someone tells me to date someone is not because I'm against the idea of dating and romance, but because the kind of relationship that's considered normal here.

I mean, a lot of people I know are dating with the mindset of getting married with each other as soon as they started dating. And both parties don't seem to think that it's a big deal. It's the way it's supposed to be, right? You date people, and then you marry them.

Well, to me, it's not. And to be blunt, it terrifies me.

To me, a romantic relationship is always as simple as being with someone that you like. I admit that I'm employing this word in the broadest sense. You enjoy each other's companion, you relate with each other, you care about each other, you respect each other, whatever it is that make both parties feel like they need to be with each other. 

Marriage is a different thing. There is a reason why it is called an institution. Relationship has commitments, but the commitment between two people in a relationship rarely affects things beyond the relationship itself, and the kind of commitments between two dating people are very different in shape and power compared to the ones exist in a marriage. These commitments can range from financial to cultural, and they are often formed not by the couple themselves but by the expectations of people around them, even by the states. So often it involves not evolved and improved kinds of commitment that existed in a relationship, but it changes/replaces these commitments and adds new and different ones altogether (while of course, this is not to say all the previous commitments are erased at all).

I'm not saying that marriage is a bad thing, but clearly it is not just "a step forward" from a relationship. Yet, it's baffling how so many people think of marriage as something that will come to them and their partners naturally. I suspect this is also one of the reasons why divorces happen, because people "forget" to check whether they or their partners are suitable for the kind of commitment awaiting them post-wedding vow, as they only think 'hey we're so great together let's get married ehehehe'.

Aside from all the seriousness, I also blame this kind of mindset--taking the decision to get married for granted--for making the kind of relationship we have around here not as appealing as the ones in the rom-coms. We don't see two people getting engaged as something special, because for all we know, if they were dating each other and not breaking up, that's going to happen sooner or later. I mean, where's the fun in that?

What I can say after all this is that I'm not terrified of what marriage is per se, even though I am not interested in getting institutionalized anytime soon (pun totally intended). I am terrified by how many people seeing marriage as something that just happens anyway, and that how ready they are for it is always measured by financial capabilities, while it is rarely the factor that decides whether a marriage works or fails.

One might argue that there are many people, especially in my generation, that think the same way I do when it comes to marriage, so it doesn't have to deter me from dating anyone I like. But the society always seems obsessed with this concept, that even though the one I date doesn't think about it, the pressure will definitely come from both of our families, and let's just say I am not eager to tend to such nagging.

Minggu, 24 Maret 2013

Kenapa spoiler dalam review film nggak (selalu) salah


Okay.

Gue bukan orang yang suka sama spoiler, bahkan gue termasuk golongan anti-spoiler yang bakal langsung unfollow orang kalo dia ngetwit spoiler di timeline twitter gue, gak peduli siapa. I don’t care—to me, one of the joy in crafting or being an audience of a story is the secrets, the unsuspected developments that come as the plot goes. Kecuali penulisnya sendiri, gue rasa ga ada yang berhak ngerusak kesenangan ini.

Tapi prinsip di atas berlaku cuma dalam konteks sehari-hari aja, ketika ngobrol sama temen atau dalam suasana kasual. Ada kondisi di mana spoiler bisa dibenarkan, bahkan dalam beberapa kasus diharuskan. Salah satunya adalah ketika kita lagi nulis review dari sebuah cerita, baik itu berbentuk buku, film, atau apa pun. Makanya gue heran karena kenapa dalam komentar terhadap artikel yang mengkritisi film Hasduk Berpola ini, pembuat film dan para pendukungnya berusaha untuk menjatuhkan kredibilitas penulis artikel tersebut dengan mengatakan bahwa nggak seharusnya sebuah review mengandung spoiler cerita.

Kenapa gue bilang spoiler dalam review bisa dibenarkan?

Coba kita liat dulu definisi kata tersebut. Menurut Oxford Dictionaries, review adalah “a critical appraisal of a book, play, movie, exhibition, etc., published in a newspaper or magazine. Menurut dictionary.com, “a critical article or report, as in a periodical, on a book, play, recital, or the like; critique; evaluation”.

Lo boleh cari definisi lain, gue rasa jatuhnya nggak akan beda jauh. Buat pembanding, kalo lo cari di thesaurus.com, yang akan keluar sebagai definisi dari review adalah “examination, study” dan sinonimnya antara lain analysis, audit, check, inspection, blawrghearngahga—ya ngerti lah kurang lebihnya, kalo nggak go to school, you motherfu… sori, agak kebawa suasana.

Nah, setelah tau artinya, gue mau tanya: gimana lo bisa melakukan satu evaluasi, analisis, inspeksi, penilaian menyeluruh terhadap sesuatu, kalo lo nggak memeriksa dengan seksama setiap elemennya? Dan bagaimana lo bisa mempertanggungjawabkan kesimpulan dari evaluasi lo itu kalo lo nggak mencantumkan setiap argumennya? 

Review bukan sekedar kesan dan pesan, lo harus punya argumentasi kenapa lo suka atau nggak suka sama sesuatu. Seringkali, beberapa unsur cerita jadi alasan kenapa lo suka atau nggak suka, sehingga spoiler nggak bisa dihindari dalam rangka menulis review. Ini nggak masalah, karena lo memang harus mempertanggungjawabkan statement lo, penilaian lo. Masa iya lo mau bilang, “menurut gue film ini nggak bagus karena nggak masuk akal, tapi gue ga mau spoiler, jadi lo tonton sendiri aja biar tau nggak masuk akalnya di mana.” Kalo itu temen gue sih, ga masalah. Tapi kalo jurnalis film nulis kaya gitu di rubrik review, ya mending gue gebukin aja. Buang-buang waktu, nyet.

Terus terang dulu gue juga sempet nggak suka sama spoiler di rubrik review, tapi sekarang gue mikir, mungkin itu karena gue dulu, dan banyak orang lainnya, terlalu nggak acuh sama terminologi. Kalo mau ulasan bebas spoiler, mungkin nama rubrik tersebut harusnya rekomendasi, bukan review. Selama ini kita nggak bisa membedakan review dan rekomendasi, jadi ekspektasi kita akan sebuah review ya rancu juga.

Begitulah. Gue nulis ini bukan in defense of Adrian Jonathan, orang yang nulis kritik ke film Hasduk Berpola, sih. Gue rasa dia nggak butuh defense, karena kalimat 'jurnalis film kok nulis review pake spoiler' itu ditujukan untuk semata-mata menjatuhkan kredibilitas dia. Intinya, si sutradara dan temen-temennya mau ngomong 'gue gak terima', dan desperate cari cara biar si kritikus keliatan nggak signifikan. Gue nulis ini karena ada beberapa orang yang masih nggak bisa bedain yang mana spoiler yang dibenarkan dibutuhkan dan yang mana yang nggak.

So, yeah, I still hate spoilers, tapi nggak berarti spoiler itu selalu dosa.

Rabu, 20 Maret 2013

The Girl Who Wore Her Own


We never had money. All I had to wear was a heart, so I wore it on my sleeves. It did not take long before even that started to dim.

It was not much of a jewelry, it didn't shine the way jewels are supposed to, but I guess that's exactly why everyone noticed it.

The pendants, the rings the girls in my school wore, they only take money to own. But to wear a heart, they say, it takes bravery.

But I did not put that on because I was being brave. I wanted something to show, something that shines. I was desperate not to be different.

I thought, I'd shine the way they did. Then I' be one of them. One thing I did not know, a heart does not shine because it reflects light.

A heart shines because it burns.

I didn't understand why back then everyone tried to snuff it out. Some hated it, some tried to protect it. I didn't know what was happening.

Sure enough, soon after, the fire died on its own. At first it grew dimmer, and then it became cold.

It took a while before I finally noticed it. By then, it was already a dry, charred piece of charcoal.

So I took it off my sleeve, and put it back where it used to be. I thought it would return to what it was, but it didn't.

I still have no money. And I no longer have a heart to wear.


Twitter, March 17, 2PM