Orchestration of a song? What is this 3-minute murmuring thing with a hint of Berliozian colour and (much to the Inkpot Sibelius Nutcase's surprise) Sibelian string-writing got to do with being "Singaporean"? That rattling woodblock in the background? I heard no shore, no lion and certainly no deer (not that I should, but you get my point); curious I am indeed - what is this "Silent Meditation"? - something certain people should do more instead of writing pastiche in the name of another culture?

The fourth movement is called "Orchid Paradise" - a "musical homage to the orchid", a plant for whom the composer claims to admire. OK, the music is like somewhat assymetrical (or if you prefer: murmuring purposelessly), full of short half-themes which never actually turn into anything melodically substantial (read that again, it's going to be my best compliment about the composer). But overall, Schweizer's mumbling use of the orchestral timbral and registral range is deliberately limited - everyone's playing near the safety net of the staff. Flat, flat, flat.

The final movement is a "potpourri on four Singaporean songs", including Stand Up for Singapore (which deservingly remains one of the most popular among many re-arrangers). So what do you do with a melody that everyone already knows very well? You break it up using a "variation technique" - that's right, just like an exercise. The result: brass intoning intermittent belches of the familiar tune supported below by string ostinati, the obligatory percussion tappity-tap and some countermelody here and there. All very pretty yes, but I still see nothing "Singaporean" about it. In fact, there were even snatches of Leroy Anderson and English folkishness.

Overall the predominance of the main "tunes" in the winds gave the impression that the work was a band composition superimposed over a string orchestra. Schweizer does demonstrate a degree of symphonic thinking, especially with regards to the smooth angularity of the score's architecture occuring throughout the three movements, but it is at best thin, too timid to attempt development. But there we have it - so what? What in empty technique conveys "Singaporean-ness"? The end result is no more than a well-wrought pastiche, except that very few of the individual elements were recognisable to this reviewer. Faceless like a Shenton Way crowd.

Even if the composer appears to own some skill in handling his material, the fact that he has allowed the work to be played incomplete (3rd-5th movements, lasting 15 minutes total) speaks of a disregard for the concept of a (multi-movement) symphony. (The first two movements have been performed here before, and apparently involve traditional Asian instruments). A symphony, being an argument, is meaningless if presented half-baked. Either this, or Schweizer's work is not really a symphony - it is at best a suite of ideas not necessarily comprising a symphonic argument (see next paragraph). In fact, come to think of it, nowhere is it said that the fifth movement is the last (what a horrible thought).

"SingaporeAN"? If Mr Schweizer had perhaps called this a "Suite - Impressions of Singapore", I would not be so scathing about it. But to call it "Singaporean" is either convenient name-labelling without trying to really get to the essence of our culture (if this can be done), or that we Singaporeans are empty vessels unresistant to any cheapskate and patronising attempt to portray us in music and poetry. This is not only arrogant, but presumptious to the extreme. Just watch the composer stride onto stage at the first hint of applause (I refused to clap) as if he had already expected and planned the ovation and bouquet. Pathetic. We should not allow anyone, composer or philosopher, with no "credentials" as a Singaporean to think he can just nonchalantly tell us (musically, poetically or otherwise) who we are (or ought to be). This is no different from colonisation - cultural imperialism. Music may be a universal language, but no one said that language is a universal music.

Well, I say it now (if you haven't got my drift), employing my right as a full-time Singaporean with all my abbreviations, certificates, culinary biases and completed NS: I hate this piece; for a symphony, it fails; for a work claiming to be "The Singaporean", it sucks; for a work attempting to depict "The Singaporean" people, it is an utter insult to us.

"The idiom of Schweizer's music is fundamentally tonal and intentionally meant to be very approachable for the audience." So we're too dumb to appreciate deep art? Are our standards of living so high now we can no longer feel, or need, passion or pain? I'd trade all the tonality Mr Schweizer intends to write for one dissonant chord by Beethoven. (By the way, I was still playing with the NUS Symphony Orchestra when we premiered his Alphorn Concerto some years back. Boy, maybe this guy has problems selling his cheese back home?).

The irony of it all is this: the overwhelmingly unfavourable reaction at this piece (I'm no longer just talking about my opinion) actually made me (us) feel more "Singaporean", in a defensive way, like when Ang Mos come down here and say we dress like barbarians. Meanwhile, I continue to wait for our Shostakovich, Gershwin, Sibelius and/or Elgar. Preferably with a pink IC.

After listening to two-thirds of a "symphony", we went on to another half... Schubert's "Unfinished" has been the target of more than a few jokes, often as disguises for criticism against its many "weaknesses". Chief of these is probably its alleged repetitiveness (or as we say, being too lor sor), and resulting difficulty to sustain either symphonic development - or audience attention.

The SSO was generally in good form; indeed, I don't recall ever hearing the wind choir "so much" in tune (as opposed to the same performers' rendition of Mendelssohn's Midsummer recently). Associate Conductor Bart Folse took a very "quiet" (or perhaps "musing") view of the work. In moments of serenity, the result is very beautiful. The reverse side of this is reflected in the lack of weight throughout the symphony, sounding at worst emaciated, at best delicate. This then is a very daring view of the work, and Folse deserves credit for convincing the SSO to go through with such an interpretation.

The dangers are still there: everything gets a little draggy, even drowsy. The accusation of the "Unfinished" as "boring" becomes pretty real. Momentum is not always achieved, and where it is felt, it comes in spurts and is not sustained. This is partly the result, I think, of Folse's style of conducting - disciplined and simple, not indulgent, but with contrasting episodes of hard, almost punishing drama; pushing, but not impulsive. Overall he comes across as orderly (perhaps also a little monochrome), with passages of energy, but not flashy.

On the other hand, he holds the tutti pauses uncomfortably long, like sighing until one has no more breath and sighing some more. Also, Folse's direction of the SSO has so far been consistent in one thing: it can be delicate, but it lacks that last touch of refinement. I get the impression that Folse's musical intentions are not matched by his physical conducting capabilities. As a result, the SSO doesn't quite fully respond to him; hence, refinement is limited.

The second movement was similar - long, with moments of grace and sweetness (Folse should perhaps also try Mozart's 39th or 40th, or even Beethoven's "Pastoral"). But again, the movement turned out much more "Andante" than "con moto", and between someone in the audience sighing in boredom and another who actually yawned aloud, I felt bored to death by a fine performance.

The Tchaikovsky did not escape this long drawn-out style. Nevertheless, the first movement is fairly well-done, though potentially tiring. What is rather unexceptable was the flat but bright tone of the SSO strings, often turning metallic and colourless. Tchaikovsky's darkest symphony should be intense, dark and delirious. Worse, Folse's phrasing borders on over-deliberation, the Romantic architecture becoming almost Classical, and the contrasts within the music made too stark. The SSO lacked weight at the top range of the music - including in terms of dynamics. I didn't hear much of the famous "fortissississimo". Forte bits were more "sharp"-sounding than weighty.

Unfortunately, the push-pull pulse of the 5/4 rhythm in the Allegro con grazia was not exploited. The SSO could have "swung" this delicious waltz more, and their feel for the triplet in the main theme was non-existent. Basically, this movement (like the Poco allegretto of Brahms's Third) has an ungraspable ebb-and-flow rhythm which to me always makes a good test of the conductor. I'm afraid to say that Folse didn't quite pass. It is a pity, for again the beautiful quiet moments suggest very strongly that the SSO-Folse partnership has potential.

The wild march of the third movement was undercut by the muffled lower brass, as they were seated at stage-level. Their usual platforms had been removed to draw attention to the useless row of orchids prettifying the pipe organ ledge (a solo Swiss effort, if you get my meaning). Anyway, the main fault of this movement was simply a lack of power at the wildest points. The string swirling (before the march bursts out in full) so characteristic of Tchaikovsky was reduced to a mere eddy, the woodwind behind the strings barely audible. Even the tuba had trouble being heard. To compound this, I think the timpani was out of tune, thudding flatly to the end. This gave me the idea that this "triumphant" movement can perhaps be interpreted as a carnivalesque march - jubilant to the point of insanity.

All the more then the utter misery of the Adagio lamentoso. Except that instead of continuing straight into this finale, Folse took a break to wipe off perspiration. Bbut I can't really blame that, perspiration can be a big hindrance to conductors. Nevertheless, to me, the pause disrupted the musical atmosphere and unity. By the time the SSO started again, the stark contrast between the two movements were gone. Anyway, the strings were richer sounding now, the SSO playing with (at last) some measure of palpable angst. But now, the brilliance of the string tone robbed again the doom-laden darkness of the movement. We needed a Russian sound. For me, the ending was a total disaster - NOT the fault of the SSO - but some idiot behind me who chose to pack up her plastic bags and drop her programme booklet noisily on the floor as the celli and basses breathed their very last chord. I rolled my eyes in utter disgust. Overall, this "Pathétique" lacks unity. It has its elegant moments but not much feeling. Too many of the music's seams were made too obvious.

For an encore, Folse (left) chose the Intermezzo from Sibelius' Karelia Suite. Again, very daring I must say! You'd expect the Orchestra to be too tired by now to handle the near-minimalist string parts and the brassy march. Still, I found the horns, handling the faraway calls (and those last high notes as the procession marches away) well. But other than this, the trumpets lacked tonal and rhythmic focus (which makes the whole thing lack focus) and the oom-pah of the trombones were submerged behind the strings, again.