這是前些日子爆出已經被加拿大法院接理對藏傳佛教噶舉派法王的訟訴。(加拿大法院鏈接在此:https://www.bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/21/09/2021BCSC0939cor1.htm?fbclid=IwAR2FLZlzmUIGTBaTuKPVchEqqngcE3Qy6G_C0TWNWVKa2ksbIYkVJVMQ8f8)
這位法王的桃色事件,我是幾年前才聽到。但,藏傳佛教的高層有這些性醜聞,我已經聽了幾十年。我以前的一位前女友也被一些堪布藉故上她的家摟抱過,也有一些活佛跟她表白。(這不只是她,其他地方我也聽過不少)
這是一個藏傳佛教裡面系統式的問題。
很多時候發生這種事情,信徒和教主往往都是說女方得不到寵而報仇,或者說她們也精神病,或者說她們撒謊。
我不排除有這種可能性,但,多過一位,甚至多位出來指證的時候,我是傾向於相信『沒有那麼巧這麼多有精神病的女人要撒謊來報仇』。
大寶法王的桃色事件,最先吹哨的是一位台灣的在家信徒,第二位是香港的女出家人,現在加拿大又多一位公開舉報上法庭。
對大寶法王信徒來說,這一次的比較麻煩,因為是有孩子的。(關於有孩子的,我早在法王的桃色事件曝光時,就有聽聞)
如果法庭勒令要驗證DNA,這對法王和他的信徒來說,會很尷尬和矛盾,因為做或不做,都死。
你若問我,我覺得『人數是有力量的』,同時我也覺得之後有更多的人站出來,是不出奇的。
我也藉此呼籲各方佛教徒,如果你們真的愛佛教,先別說批判,但如鴕鳥般不討論這些爭議,你是間接害了佛教。
(下面是我從加拿大法院鏈接拷貝下來的內容,當中有很多細節。)
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION
BACKGROUND
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
F. Delay / Prejudice
CONCLUSION
INTRODUCTION
[1] The claimant applies to amend her notice of family claim to seek spousal support. At issue is whether the claimant’s allegations give rise to a reasonable claim she lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship, so as to give rise to a potential entitlement to spousal support under the Family Law Act, S.B.C. 2011, c. 25 (“FLA”).
[2] The facts alleged by the claimant do not fit within a traditional concept of marriage. The claimant does not allege that she and the respondent ever lived together. Indeed, she has only met the respondent in person four times: twice very briefly in a public setting; a third time in private, when she alleges the respondent sexually assaulted her; and a fourth and final occasion, when she informed the respondent she was pregnant with his child.
[3] The claimant’s case is that what began as a non-consensual sexual encounter evolved into a loving and affectionate relationship. That relationship occurred almost entirely over private text messages. The parties rarely spoke on the telephone, and never saw one another during the relationship, even over video. The claimant says they could not be together because the respondent is forbidden by his station and religious beliefs from intimate relationships or marriage. Nonetheless, she alleges, they formed a marriage-like relationship that lasted from January 2018 to January 2019.
[4] The respondent denies any romantic relationship with the claimant. While he acknowledges providing emotional and financial support to the claimant, he says it was for the benefit of the child the claimant told him was his daughter.
[5] The claimant’s proposed amendment raises a novel question: can a secret relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world be like a marriage? In my view, that question should be answered by a trial judge after hearing all of the evidence. The alleged facts give rise to a reasonable claim the claimant lived with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship. Accordingly, I grant the claimant leave to amend her notice of family claim.
BACKGROUND
[6] It should be emphasized that this is an application to amend pleadings only. The allegations by the claimant are presumed to be true for the purposes of this application. Those allegations have not been tested in a court of law.
[7] The respondent, Ogyen Trinley Dorje, is a high lama of the Karma Kagyu School of Tibetan Buddhism. He has been recognized and enthroned as His Holiness, the 17th Gyalwang Karmapa. Without meaning any disrespect, I will refer to him as Mr. Dorje in these reasons for judgment.
[8] Mr. Dorje leads a monastic and nomadic lifestyle. His true home is Tibet, but he currently resides in India. He receives followers from around the world at the Gyuto Monetary in India. He also travels the world teaching Tibetan Buddhist Dharma and hosting pujas, ceremonies at which Buddhists express their gratitude and devotion to the Buddha.
[9] The claimant, Vikki Hui Xin Han, is a former nun of Tibetan Buddhism. Ms. Han first encountered Mr. Dorje briefly at a large puja in 2014. The experience of the puja convinced Ms. Han she wanted to become a Buddhist nun. She met briefly with Mr. Dorje, in accordance with Kagyu traditions, to obtain his approval to become a nun.
[10] In October 2016, Ms. Han began a three-year, three-month meditation retreat at a monastery in New York State. Her objective was to learn the practices and teachings of the Kagyu Lineage. Mr. Dorje was present at the retreat twice during the time Ms. Han was at the monastery.
[11] Ms. Han alleges that on October 14, 2017, Mr. Dorje sexually assaulted her in her room at the monastery. She alleges that she became pregnant from the assault.
[12] After she learned that she was pregnant, Ms. Han requested a private audience with Mr. Dorje. In November 2017, in the presence of his bodyguards, Ms. Han informed Mr. Dorje she was pregnant with his child. Mr. Dorje initially denied responsibility; however, he provided Ms. Han with his email address and a cellphone number, and, according to Ms. Han, said he would “prepare some money” for her.
[13] Ms. Han abandoned her plan to become a nun, left the retreat and returned to Canada. She never saw Mr. Dorje again.
[14] After Ms. Han returned to Canada, she and Mr. Dorje began a regular communication over an instant messaging app called Line. They also exchanged emails and occasionally spoke on the telephone.
[15] The parties appear to have expressed care and affection for one another in these communications. I say “appear to” because it is difficult to fully understand the meaning and intentions of another person from brief text messages, especially those originally written in a different language. The parties wrote in a private shorthand, sharing jokes, emojis, cartoon portraits and “hugs” or “kisses”. Ms. Han was the more expressive of the two, writing more frequently and in longer messages. Mr. Dorje generally participated in response to questions or prompting from Ms. Han, sometimes in single word messages.
[16] Ms. Han deposes that she believed Mr. Dorje was in love with her and that, by January 2018, she and Mr. Dorje were living in a “conjugal relationship”.
[17] During their communications, Ms. Han expressed concern that her child would be “illegitimate”. She appears to have asked Mr. Dorje to marry her, and he appears to have responded that he was “not ready”.
[18] Throughout 2018, Mr. Dorje transferred funds in various denominations to Ms. Han through various third parties. Ms. Han deposes that these funds were:
a) $50,000 CDN to deliver the child and for postpartum care she was to receive at a facility in Seattle;
b) $300,000 CDN for the first year of the child’s life;
c) $20,000 USD for a wedding ring, because Ms. Han wrote “Even if we cannot get married, you must buy me a wedding ring”;
d) $400,000 USD to purchase a home for the mother and child.
[19] On June 19, 2018, Ms. Han gave birth to a daughter in Richmond, B.C.
[20] On September 17, 2018, Mr. Dorje wrote, ”Taking care of her and you are my duty for life”.
[21] Ms. Han’s expectation was that the parties would live together in the future. She says they planned to live together. Those plans evolved over time. Initially they involved purchasing a property in Toronto, so that Mr. Dorje could visit when he was in New York. They also discussed purchasing property in Calgary or renting a home in Vancouver for that purpose. Ms. Han eventually purchased a condominium in Richmond using funds provided by Mr. Dorje.
[22] Ms. Han deposes that the parties made plans for Mr. Dorje to visit her and meet the child in Richmond. In October 2018, however, Mr. Dorje wrote that he needed to “disappear” to Europe. He wrote:
I will definitely find a way to meet her
And you
Remember to take care of yourself if something happens
[23] The final plan the parties discussed, according to Ms. Han, was that Mr. Dorje would sponsor Ms. Han and the child to immigrate to the United States and live at the Kagyu retreat centre in New York State.
[24] In January 2019, Ms. Han lost contact with Mr. Dorje.
[25] Ms. Han commenced this family law case on July 17, 2019, seeking child support, a declaration of parentage and a parentage test. She did not seek spousal support.
[26] Ms. Han first proposed a claim for spousal support in October 2020 after a change in her counsel. Following an exchange of correspondence concerning an application for leave to amend the notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s counsel wrote that Ms. Han would not be advancing a spousal support claim. On March 16, 2020, counsel reversed course, and advised that Ms. Han had instructed him to proceed with the application.
[27] When this application came on before me, the trial was set to commence on June 7, 2021. The parties were still in the process of discoveries and obtaining translations for hundreds of pages of documents in Chinese characters.
[28] At a trial management conference on May 6, 2021, noting the parties were not ready to proceed, Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to April 11, 2022.
ANALYSIS
A. The Spousal Support Claim in this Case
[29] To claim spousal support in this case, Ms. Han must plead that she lived with Mr. Dorje in a marriage-like relationship. This is because only “spouses” are entitled to spousal support, and s. 3 of the Family Law Act defines a spouse as a person who is married or has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship:
3 (1) A person is a spouse for the purposes of this Act if the person
(a) is married to another person, or
(b) has lived with another person in a marriage-like relationship, and
(i) has done so for a continuous period of at least 2 years, or
(ii) except in Parts 5 [Property Division] and 6 [Pension Division], has a child with the other person.
[30] Because she alleges she has a child with Mr. Dorje, Ms. Han need not allege that the relationship endured for a continuous period of two years to claim spousal support; but she must allege that she lived in a marriage-like relationship with him at some point in time. Accordingly, she must amend the notice of family claim.
B. The Test to Amend Pleadings
[31] Given that the notice of trial has been served, Ms. Han requires leave of the court to amend the notice of family claim: Supreme Court Family Rule 8-1(1)(b)(i).
[32] A person seeking to amend a notice of family claim must show that there is a reasonable cause of action. This is a low threshold. What the applicant needs to establish is that, if the facts pleaded are proven at trial, they would support a reasonable claim. The applicant’s allegations of fact are assumed to be true for the purposes of this analysis. Cantelon v. Wall, 2015 BCSC 813, at para. 7-8.
[33] The applicant’s delay, the reasons for the delay, and the prejudice to the responding party are also relevant factors. The ultimate consideration is whether it would be just and convenient to allow the amendment. Cantelon, at para. 6, citing Teal Cedar Products Ltd. v. Dale Intermediaries Ltd. et al (1986), 19 B.C.L.R. (3d) 282.
C. Pleadings in Family Law Cases
[34] Supreme Court Family Rules 3-1(1) and 4-1(1) require that a claim to spousal support be pleaded in a notice of family claim in Form F3. Section 2 of Form F3, “Spousal relationship history”, requires a spousal support claimant to check the boxes that apply to them, according to whether they are or have been married or are or have been in a marriage-like relationship. Where a claimant alleges a marriage-like relationship, Form F3 requires that they provide the date on which they began to live together with the respondent in a marriage-like relationship and, where applicable, the date on which they separated. Form F3 does not require a statement of the factual basis for the claim of spousal support.
[35] In this case, Ms. Han seeks to amend the notice of family claim to allege that she and Mr. Dorje began to live in a marriage-like relationship in or around January 2018, and separated in or around January 2019.
[36] An allegation that a person lived with a claimant in a marriage-like relationship is a conclusion of law, not an allegation of fact. Unlike the rules governing pleadings in civil actions, however, the Supreme Court Family Rules do not expressly require family law claimants to plead the material facts in support of conclusions of law.
[37] In other words, there is no express requirement in the Supreme Court Family Rules that Ms. Han plead the facts on which she relies for the allegation she and Mr. Dorje lived in a marriage-like relationship.
[38] Rule 4-6 authorizes a party to demand particulars, and then apply to the court for an order for further and better particulars, of a matter stated in a pleading. However, unless and until she is granted leave and files the proposed amended notice of family claim, Ms. Han’s allegation of a marriage-like relationship is not a matter stated in a pleading.
[39] Ms. Han filed an affidavit in support of her application to amend the notice of family claim. Normally, evidence would not be required or admissible on an application to amend a pleading. However, in the unusual circumstances of this case, the parties agreed I may look to Ms. Han’s affidavit and exhibits for the facts she pleads in support of the allegation of a marriage-like relationship.
[40] Because this is an application to amend - and Ms. Han’s allegations of fact are presumed to be true - I have not considered Mr. Dorje’s responding affidavit.
[41] Relying on affidavit evidence for an application to amend pleadings is less than ideal. It tends to merge and confuse the material facts with the evidence that would be relied on to prove those facts. In a number of places in her affidavit, for example, Ms. Han describes her feelings, impressions and understandings. A person’s hopes and intentions are not normally material facts unless they are mutual or reasonably held. The facts on which Ms. Han alleges she and Mr. Dorje formed a marriage-like relationship are more important for the present purposes than her belief they entered into a conjugal union.
[42] Somewhat unusually, in this case, almost all of the parties’ relevant communications were in writing. This makes it somewhat easier to separate the facts from the evidence; however, as stated above, it is difficult to understand the intentions and actions of a person from brief text messages.
[43] In my view, it would be a good practice for applicants who seek to amend their pleadings in family law cases to provide opposing counsel and the court with a schedule of the material facts on which they rely for the proposed amendment.
D. The Legal Concept of a Marriage-Like Relationship
[44] As Mr. Justice Myers observed in Mother 1 v. Solus Trust Company, 2019 BCSC 200, the concept of a marriage-like relationship is elastic and difficult to define. This elasticity is illustrated by the following passage from Yakiwchuk v. Oaks, 2003 SKQB 124, quoted by Myers J. at para. 133 of Mother 1:
[10] Spousal relationships are many and varied. Individuals in spousal relationships, whether they are married or not, structure their relationships differently. In some relationships there is a complete blending of finances and property - in others, spouses keep their property and finances totally separate and in still others one spouse may totally control those aspects of the relationship with the other spouse having little or no knowledge or input. For some couples, sexual relations are very important - for others, that aspect may take a back seat to companionship. Some spouses do not share the same bed. There may be a variety of reasons for this such as health or personal choice. Some people are affectionate and demonstrative. They show their feelings for their “spouse” by holding hands, touching and kissing in public. Other individuals are not demonstrative and do not engage in public displays of affection. Some “spouses” do everything together - others do nothing together. Some “spouses” vacation together and some spend their holidays apart. Some “spouses” have children - others do not. It is this variation in the way human beings structure their relationships that make the determination of when a “spousal relationship” exists difficult to determine. With married couples, the relationship is easy to establish. The marriage ceremony is a public declaration of their commitment and intent. Relationships outside marriage are much more difficult to ascertain. Rarely is there any type of “public” declaration of intent. Often people begin cohabiting with little forethought or planning. Their motivation is often nothing more than wanting to “be together”. Some individuals have chosen to enter relationships outside marriage because they did not want the legal obligations imposed by that status. Some individuals have simply given no thought as to how their relationship would operate. Often the date when the cohabitation actually began is blurred because people “ease into” situations, spending more and more time together. Agreements between people verifying when their relationship began and how it will operate often do not exist.
[45] In Mother 1, Mr. Justice Myers referred to a list of 22 factors grouped into seven categories, from Maldowich v. Penttinen, (1980), 17 R.F.L. (2d) 376 (Ont. Dist. Ct.), that have frequently been cited in this and other courts for the purpose of determining whether a relationship was marriage-like, at para. 134 of Mother 1:
1. Shelter:
(a) Did the parties live under the same roof?
(b) What were the sleeping arrangements?
(c) Did anyone else occupy or share the available accommodation?
2. Sexual and Personal Behaviour:
(a) Did the parties have sexual relations? If not, why not?
(b) Did they maintain an attitude of fidelity to each other?
(c) What were their feelings toward each other?
(d) Did they communicate on a personal level?
(e) Did they eat their meals together?
(f) What, if anything, did they do to assist each other with problems or during illness?
(g) Did they buy gifts for each other on special occasions?
3. Services:
What was the conduct and habit of the parties in relation to:
(a) preparation of meals;
(b) washing and mending clothes;
(c) shopping;
(d) household maintenance; and
(e) any other domestic services?
4. Social:
(a) Did they participate together or separately in neighbourhood and community activities?
(b) What was the relationship and conduct of each of them toward members of their respective families and how did such families behave towards the parties?
5. Societal:
What was the attitude and conduct of the community toward each of them and as a couple?
6. Support (economic):
(a) What were the financial arrangements between the parties regarding the provision of or contribution toward the necessaries of life (food, clothing, shelter, recreation, etc.)?
(b) What were the arrangements concerning the acquisition and ownership of property?
(c) Was there any special financial arrangement between them which both agreed would be determinant of their overall relationship?
7. Children:
What was the attitude and conduct of the parties concerning children?
[46] In Austin v. Goerz, 2007 BCCA 586, the Court of Appeal cautioned against a “checklist approach”; rather, a court should "holistically" examine all the relevant factors. Cases like Molodowich provide helpful indicators of the sorts of behaviour that society associates with a marital relationship, the Court of Appeal said; however, “the presence or absence of any particular factor cannot be determinative of whether a relationship is marriage-like” (para. 58).
[47] In Weber v. Leclerc, 2015 BCCA 492, the Court of Appeal again affirmed that there is no checklist of characteristics that will be found in all marriages and then concluded with respect to evidence of intentions:
[23] The parties’ intentions – particularly the expectation that the relationship will be of lengthy, indeterminate duration – may be of importance in determining whether a relationship is “marriage-like”. While the court will consider the evidence expressly describing the parties’ intentions during the relationship, it will also test that evidence by considering whether the objective evidence is consonant with those intentions.
[24] The question of whether a relationship is “marriage-like” will also typically depend on more than just their intentions. Objective evidence of the parties’ lifestyle and interactions will also provide direct guidance on the question of whether the relationship was “marriage-like”.
[48] Significantly for this case, the courts have looked to mutual intent in order to find a marriage-like relationship. See, for example, L.E. v. D.J., 2011 BCSC 671 and Buell v. Unger, 2011 BCSC 35; Davey Estate v. Gruyaert, 2005 CarswellBC 3456 at 13 and 35.
[49] In Mother 1, Myers J. concluded his analysis of the law with the following learned comment:
[143] Having canvassed the law relating to the nature of a marriage-like relationship, I will digress to point out the problematic nature of the concept. It may be apparent from the above that determining whether a marriage-like relationship exists sometimes seems like sand running through one's fingers. Simply put, a marriage-like relationship is akin to a marriage without the formality of a marriage. But as the cases mentioned above have noted, people treat their marriages differently and have different conceptions of what marriage entails.
[50] In short, the determination of whether the parties in this case lived in a marriage-like relationship is a fact-specific inquiry that a trial judge would need to make on a “holistic” basis, having regard to all of the evidence. While the trial judge may consider the various factors listed in the authorities, those factors would not be treated as a checklist and no single factor or category of factors would be treated as being decisive.
E. Is There a Reasonable Claim of a Marriage-Like Relationship?
[51] In this case, many of the Molodowich factors are missing:
a) The parties never lived under the same roof. They never slept together. They were never in the same place at the same time during the relationship. The last time they saw each other in person was in November 2017, before the relationship began.
b) The parties never had consensual sex. They did not hug, kiss or hold hands. With the exception of the alleged sexual assault, they never touched one another physically.
c) The parties expressed care and affection for one another, but they rarely shared personal information or interest in their lives outside of their direct topic of communication. They did not write about their families, their friends, their religious beliefs or their work.
d) They expressed concern and support for one another when the other felt unwell or experienced health issues, but they did not provide any care or assistance during illness or other problems.
e) They did not assist one another with domestic chores.
f) They did not share their relationship with their peers or their community. There is no allegation, for example, that Mr. Dorje told his fellow monks or any of his followers about the relationship. There is no allegation that Ms. Han told her friends or any co-workers. Indeed, there is no allegation that anyone, with the exception of Ms. Han’s mother, knew about the relationship. Although Mr. Dorje gave Ms. Han’s mother a gift, he never met the mother and he never spoke to her.
g) They did not intend to have a child together. The child was conceived as a result of a sexual assault. While Mr. Dorje expressed interest in “meeting” the child, he never followed up. He currently has no relationship with the child. There is no allegation he has sought access or parenting arrangements.
[52] The only Molodowich factor of any real relevance in this case is economic support. Mr. Dorje provided the funds with which Ms. Han purchased a condominium. Mr. Dorje initially wrote that he wanted to buy a property with the money, but, he wrote, “It’s the same thing if you buy [it]”.
[53] Mr. Dorje also provided a significant amount of money for Ms. Han’s postpartum care and the child’s first year of life.
[54] This financial support may have been primarily for the benefit of the child. Even the condominium, Ms. Han wrote, was primarily for the benefit of the child.
[55] However, in my view, a trial judge may attach a broader significance to the financial support from Mr. Dorje than child support alone. A trial judge may find that the money Mr. Dorje provided to Ms. Han at her request was an expression of his commitment to her in circumstances in which he could not commit physically. The money and the gifts may be seen by the trial judge to have been a form of down payment by Mr. Dorje on a promise of continued emotional and financial support for Ms. Han, or, in Mr. Dorje’s own words, “Taking care of her and you are my duty for life” (emphasis added).
[56] On the other hand, I find it difficult to attach any particular significance to the fact that Mr. Dorje agreed to provide funds for Ms. Han to purchase a wedding ring. It appears to me that Ms. Han demanded that Mr. Dorje buy her a wedding ring, not that the ring had any mutual meaning to the parties as a marriage symbol. But it is relevant, in my view, that Mr. Dorje provided $20,000 USD to Ms. Han for something she wanted that was of no benefit to the child.
[57] Further, Ms. Han alleges that the parties intended to live together. At a minimum, a trial judge may find that the discussions about where Ms. Han and the child would live reflected a mutual intention of the parties to see one another and spend time together when they could.
[58] Mr. Dorje argues that an intention to live together at some point in the future is not sufficient to show that an existing relationship was marriage-like. He argues that the question of whether the relationship was marriage-like requires more than just intentions, citing Weber, supra.
[59] In my view, the documentary evidence referred to above provides some objective evidence in this case that the parties progressed beyond mere intentions. As stated, the parties appear to have expressed genuine care and affection for one another. They appear to have discussed marriage, trust, honesty, finances, mutual obligations and acquiring family property. These are not matters one would expect Mr. Dorje to discuss with a friend or a follower, or even with the mother of his child, without a marriage-like element of the relationship.
[60] A trial judge may find on the facts alleged by Ms. Han that the parties loved one another and would have lived together, but were unable to do so because of Mr. Dorje’s religious duties and nomadic lifestyle.
[61] The question I raised in the introduction to these reasons is whether a relationship that began on-line and never moved into the physical world can be marriage-like.
[62] Notably, the definition of a spouse in the Family Law Act does not require that the parties live together, only that they live with another person in a marriage-like relationship.
[63] In Connor Estate, 2017 BCSC 978, Mr. Justice Kent found that a couple that maintained two entirely separate households and never lived under the same roof formed a marriage-like relationship. (Connor Estate was decided under the intestacy provisions of the Wills, Estates and Succession Act, S.B.C. 2009, c. 13 ("WESA"), but courts have relied on cases decided under WESA and the FLA interchangeably for their definitions of a spouse.) Mr. Justice Kent found:
[50] The evidence is overwhelming and I find as a fact that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved and cared deeply about each other, and that they had a loving and intimate relationship for over 20 years that was far more than mere friendship or even so-called "friendship with benefits". I accept Mr. Chambers' evidence that he would have liked to share a home with Ms. Connor after the separation from his wife, but was unable to do so because of Ms. Connor's hoarding illness. The evidence amply supports, and I find as a fact, that Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor loved each other, were faithful to each other, communicated with each other almost every day when they were not together, considered themselves to be (and presented themselves to be) "husband and wife" and were accepted by all who knew them as a couple.
[64] Connor Estate may be distinguishable from this case because Mr. Chambers and Ms. Connor were physically intimate for over 20 years, and presented themselves to the world as a married couple.
[65] Other decisions in which a marriage-like relationship has been found to exist despite the parties not living together have involved circumstances in which the couple lived under the same roof at previous points in the relationship, and the issue was whether they continued to be spouses after they took up separate residences: in Thompson v. Floyd, 2001 BCCA 78, the parties had lived together for a period of at least 11 years; in Roach v. Dutra, 2010 BCCA 264, the parties had lived together for approximately three years.
[66] However, as Mr. Justice Kent noted in Connor Estate:
[48] … [W]hile much guidance might be found in this case law, the simple fact is that no two cases are identical (and indeed they usually vary widely) and it is the assessment of evidence as a whole in this particular case which matters.
[67] Mr. Justice Kent concluded:
[53] Like human beings themselves, marriage-like relationships can come in many and various shapes. In this particular case, I have no doubt that such a relationship existed …
[68] As stated, Ms. Han’s claim is novel. It may even be weak. Almost all of the traditional factors are missing. The fact that Ms. Han and Mr. Dorje never lived under the same roof, never shared a bed and never even spent time together in person will militate against a finding they lived with one another in a marriage-like relationship. However, the traditional factors are not a mandatory check-list that confines the “elastic” concept of a marriage-like relationship. And if the COVID pandemic has taught us nothing else, it is that real relationships can form, blossom and end in virtual worlds.
[69] In my view, the merits of Ms. Han’s claim should be decided on the evidence. Subject to an overriding prejudice to Mr. Dorje, she should have leave to amend the notice of family claim. However, she should also provide meaningful particulars of the alleged marriage-like relationship.
F. Delay / Prejudice
[70] Ms. Han filed her notice of family claim on July 17, 2019. She brought this application to amend approximately one year and nine months after she filed the pleading, just over two months before the original trial date.
[71] Ms. Han’s delay was made all that more remarkable by her change in position from January 19, 2021, when she confirmed, through counsel, that she was not seeking spousal support in this case.
[72] Ms. Han gave notice of her intention to proceed with this application to Mr. Dorje on March 16, 2021. By the time the application was heard, the parties had conducted examinations for discovery without covering the issues that would arise from a claim of spousal support.
[73] Also, in April, Ms. Han produced additional documents, primarily text messages, that may be relevant to her claim of spousal support, but were undecipherable to counsel for Mr. Dorje, who does not read Mandarin.
[74] This application proceeded largely on documents selected and translated by counsel for Ms. Han. I was informed that Mandarin translations of the full materials would take 150 days.
[75] Understandably in the circumstances, Mr. Dorje argued that an amendment two months before trial would be neither just nor convenient. He argued that he would be prejudiced by an adjournment so as to allow Ms. Han to advance a late claim of spousal support.
[76] The circumstances changed on May 6, 2021, when Madam Justice Walkem adjourned the trial to July 2022 and reset it for 25 days. Madam Justice Walkem noted that most of the witnesses live internationally and require translators. She also noted that paternity may be in issue, and Mr. Dorje may amend his pleadings to raise that issue. It seems clear that, altogether apart from the potential spousal support claim, the parties were not ready to proceed to trial on June 7, 2021.
[77] In my view, any remaining prejudice to Mr. Dorje is outweighed by the importance of having all of the issues between the parties decided on their merits.
[78] Ms. Han’s delay and changes of position on spousal support may be a matter to de addressed in a future order of costs; but they are not grounds on which to deny her leave to amend the notice of family claim.
CONCLUSION
[79] Ms. Han is granted leave to amend her notice of family claim in the form attached as Appendix A to the notice of application to include a claim for spousal support.
[80] Within 21 days, or such other deadline as the parties may agree, Ms. Han must provide particulars of the marriage-like relationship alleged in the amended notice of family claim.
[81] Ms. Han is entitled to costs of this application in the cause of the spousal support claim.
“Master Elwood”
同時也有3部Youtube影片,追蹤數超過21萬的網紅Xiaofei小飛,也在其Youtube影片中提到,2020美國總統大選~! 快跟老闆說你明天會無法專心上班,因為小飛要來開直播啦! 美國總統大選的投票時間將會在台灣時間11月4號早上8點結束,我會在那時開始跟大家一起看開票,並且回答來自你們的問題:這場選舉的結果將會如何影響台灣呢?哪一個候選人比較好,拜登還是川普?為什麼?接下來會花生省魔術? 這...
we11done台灣 在 DJ荳子 Facebook 的最佳解答
唯一支持🍍 #台灣鳯梨 🍍刷起來
3月歌單【好事自在Latte】
03/31星期三
14:05:10Don't Stop The Music/Dream Girls
14:08:56Nobody's Perfect/Miley Cyrus
14:12:11Be Strong/派偉俊
14:17:29誰/李友廷
14:21:31流浪地圖/蕭賀碩
14:25:45再一次,ok?/天上智喜
14:33:27Bang Bang/Jessie J/Ariana
14:36:42化蝶飛/花兒樂隊
14:41:00復刻回憶/薛凱琪/方大同
14:47:59第一個想到你/韋禮安
14:54:00落櫻繽紛的夜/Aimyon
15:04:14寶島曼波/洪榮宏/阿信
15:07:33Higher/Shawn Mendes
15:10:08119/大嘴巴
15:15:27你是我最愛的人/王菀之
15:18:47Somewhere Someday/成始境
15:23:11當你想著我/品冠/李心潔
15:32:43Stars Align/R3HAB/蔡依林
15:35:22WOW/羅志祥/蕭亞軒
15:39:40那年的情書/江美琪
15:47:43徐志摩/Chick en Chicks
15:53:03It's Just Love/MISIA
16:03:57放一顆心/杜德偉
16:08:31Back At One/Brian McKnight
16:12:45我沒錯/吳汶芳
16:18:12Red Dress/Red Velvet
16:21:11Happy Loving/王心凌
16:24:18JIGGY/F.CUZ/郭書瑤
16:32:15不缺/光良
16:37:58Stop Stop Stop/Nu Virgos
16:48:12貧民百萬歌星/MC HotDog
16:51:57Garden of Love/Makai
03/30星期二
14:05:01Mr.Tough/Yo La Tengo
14:09:02Car Wash/Christina Aguilera
14:12:47起床歌/曹格
14:18:41窗外/伍思凱
14:22:40路痴/楊乃文
14:27:39Talk/少女時代-Tiffany
14:35:14Unlonely/Jason Mraz
14:39:45陪著你/魏如萱
14:48:58先生/旺福
14:53:45就在今夜要為你做點對的事/Awesome City Club
15:04:51叫爸爸/黃昺翔
15:08:23管他什麼音樂/范曉萱/百分百樂團
15:11:54Rudebox/Robbie William
15:17:49好朋友只是朋友/郁可唯
15:22:01U/MC THE MAX
15:26:08愛上現在的我/閻奕格/高爾宣
15:34:15House Party/SUPER JUNIOR
15:39:08因為你愛我/王若琳
15:50:48玫瑰少年/五月天
15:55:18Cool/Gwen Stefani
16:05:09夢田/齊豫/潘越雲
16:08:05我愛你/S.H.E
16:11:50Play/Years & Years
16:16:58I'm Not A Little Girl/李芷婷
16:20:20雙節棍/周杰倫
16:23:34LADY-GO-ROUND/B'z
16:32:00愛到瘋癲/動力火車
16:35:48對不起 我太幸福/DAVICHI
16:42:27紅紗線/玟靈
16:49:17Candyman/吳佩慈
16:53:27Gone/Nsync
16:57:52Pretty/六樂弦
03/29星期一
14:04:00Crystal Ball/Keane
14:07:43花痴/利得彙
14:11:54快樂男生/陳奕迅
14:17:16有人在等我/韋禮安
14:21:33我常常想起你/棉花糖
14:24:47Because of You/After School
14:32:59Turn Up The Radio/Madonna
14:36:38Get Out/MP 魔幻力量
14:41:11小清新/四葉草
14:50:20傳奇/鹿洐人
14:55:04make it happen/安室奈美惠/Afte School
15:04:14袂見笑/董事長
15:07:26無形的靈魂/柴崎幸
15:11:20La La La La/梁靜茹
15:19:21回去吧/方炯鑌
15:22:53Close Your Eyes/Meghan Trainor
15:26:31你要去哪裡/陳珊妮/許正泰
15:34:53心靈的冒險/王心凌
15:38:30就是你 It's You/SUPER JUNIOR
15:43:25勉強幸福/林宥嘉
15:50:17平凡天使/鄧紫棋
15:54:50She Looks So Perfect/5 Seconds Of Summer
16:03:57我期待/張雨生/陶晶瑩
16:09:36自戀的自虐/柯泯薰
16:14:38Somebody Loves Somebody/Celine Dion
16:20:58接下來是什麼/白安
16:24:03Music Life/FT ISLAND
16:26:39無樂不作/范逸臣
16:34:01走散/曹楊
16:38:16我的愛/孫燕姿
16:43:39Stars Dance/Selena Gomez
16:51:30快快愛/安心亞/MC HotDog
16:55:23白蝶森巴/島谷瞳
03/26星期五
14:04:06Shake It/Sistar
14:07:32我要飛/草蜢
14:11:07我最搖擺/庾澄慶
14:17:10猜心/萬芳
14:21:56別再想見我/許光漢
14:26:19Stressed Out/Twenty One Pilot
14:34:25你要不要吃哈密瓜/告五人
14:38:51看見什麼吃什麼/林宥嘉
14:41:58Fanfare/GReeeeN
14:46:13抱著你/張震嶽
14:50:15珊瑚海/周杰倫/Lara
14:54:43Crazy In Love/Emeli Sande
15:04:09你聽我說/草爺
15:09:00世界末日/信樂團
15:13:34REAL LOVE/Jess Glynne
15:19:27有點甜/汪蘇瀧/By2
15:23:15甜蜜花園/林依晨
15:26:51Hey Mama/Porno Graffitti
15:32:29不完美/李玖哲
15:35:53太陽如常升起/梁靜茹
15:38:38Anything Goes/Tony Bennett
15:42:55Follow You Down/Zedd/Bright Lig
15:49:48沒有雨聲的日子/四分衛
15:54:23Blind Love/CNBLUE
16:04:03無情的情書/動力火車
16:09:07我就是喜歡這樣/丁噹
16:12:58On My Mind/Ellie Goulding
16:18:30我們都寂寞/陳奕迅
16:23:16對的自己/鄭心慈
16:27:07戀愛假期/W
16:34:30Keep On Running/菅田將暉
16:38:18想要得不到/Tizzy Bac
16:44:03長大/張涵雅
16:53:10Boyfriend/Tegan & Sara
16:55:52唇唇欲動/蔡依林
03/25星期四
14:04:46你說那 C 和弦就是.../五月天
14:06:57魚罐頭/自然捲
14:10:15Ob-La-Di Ob-La-Da/The Beatles
14:15:29擁抱我/柯以敏
14:20:02我還相信我/黃偉晉
14:24:05CALL ME BABY/EXO
14:31:49大師講/蕭亞軒
14:34:51Give Me Everything/Pitbull/Ne-Yo
14:39:25大齡女子/彭佳慧
14:46:35情書/一青窈
14:52:33牽掛/伍佰
15:04:07寫故事的人/許富凱
15:08:39For The First Time/John Legend
15:13:44低調人生/陳珊妮
15:20:41我戀愛了/張韶涵
15:23:59Power Up/Red Velvet
15:31:56我回來了/手島葵
15:37:09記得是最好的遺忘/張智成
15:44:04先分開/采子
15:51:20於是長大了以後/謝和弦
15:55:11El Anillo/Jennifer Lopez
16:04:04天使/黃舒駿
16:08:36There's Nothing Holdin'on/Shawn Mendes
16:11:49愛人錯過/告五人
16:18:51即使沒有永遠/ROY KIM
16:22:44愛我好嗎?/卓文萱
16:27:03Radio/黃文星
16:33:37最後一次/高爾宣
16:36:1634+35/Ariana Grande
16:40:15心的距離/陳奕迅
16:48:15愛錯/李心潔
16:53:31Picture Perfect Love/M-Flo
03/24星期三
2:03:59 Lovefool/Cardigans
2:07:12好好聊天/葉瑋庭
2:10:15怪物/小人
2:15:13水災 Water Disaster/Matzka
2:19:39 Moment/2AM-李昶旻
2:23:36安和/蘇慧倫
2:31:56 SexyBack/Justin Timberlack
2:35:45走跳/頑童MJ116
2:40:50懂得雨天/郁可唯
2:49:07 Why Oh! Why/范曉萱
2:52:15了愛 ~march-tronik sty/上戶彩
3:04:16人生的歌/黃乙玲
3:09:58小心翻閱/孫盛希
3:13:57 Somewhere Only We Know/Keane
3:19:53 Red n' hot/Bii畢書盡
3:24:11 Falling in Love/2NE1
3:27:55痛快/S.H.E
3:36:23 Beautiful Mistakes/Maroon 5
3:40:44大風吹/曾沛慈
3:44:57雖然我願意/伍家輝
3:50:33不開燈俱樂部/YELLOW 黃宣
3:54:57帕妃侖巴/Puffy 帕妃
4:03:57內山姑娘要出嫁/趙傳
4:07:39猴喜翻/庾澄慶
4:11:38 Breathless/The Corrs
4:17:07回家吧/萬芳
4:22:20如果你還愛我/光良
4:26:51佔據我的心/燦多(B1A4)
4:34:43 Talk About Love/Zara Larsson
4:38:01 SOSO/徐若瑄/李玖哲
4:42:43沒那麼脆弱/李玉璽
4:49:10上帝的幫助/江美琪
4:53:32捉迷藏/平井堅
03/23星期二
14:04:52綠光/孫燕姿
14:07:58Pompeii/Bastille
14:11:26亞特蘭提斯/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
14:16:16你的出現完整了我的世界/TANK
14:20:58和你一起/許茹芸
14:25:45Wedding dress/BIGBANG-太陽
14:33:48All dressed in love/Jennifer Hudson
14:37:09我該得到/戴愛玲
14:41:44一個人/韋禮安
14:47:34朋友朋友/leo王
14:51:53Diamonds/Rihanna
15:04:51最後一條歌/蘇明淵
15:09:56藏不住/利綺
15:13:44Everything At Once/Lenka
15:18:13Hello Bye Bye/9m88
15:21:10Fun, Fun, Fun/Pharrell William
15:24:12濫情歌/糯米糰
15:33:48WHY DON'T WE/Rain/請夏
15:37:51眷戀/順子
15:43:42獨佔/蔡旻佑
15:50:08貪心鬼/葛仲珊
15:55:10名為妳的遊樂設施/Hey! Say! JUMP
16:04:04千紙鶴/邰正宵
16:07:54More Days with You /SUPER JUNIOR
16:11:59Chillaxing/安心亞
16:17:27愛琴海/李玟
16:20:30Can't take my eyes off youModels
16:24:34癡情玫瑰花/Under Lover
16:33:28少年/周華健
16:37:36This i promise you/Richard Marx
16:44:59桃花旗袍/By2
16:51:03Deja vu/Crispy脆樂團/熊仔
16:54:54Charlie Brown/Coldplay
03/22星期一
14:04:36你冷得像風/張學友
14:09:05Treat You Better/Shawn Mendes
14:12:09靜止/楊乃文
14:17:06如何忘記你/張若凡
14:21:52愛笑的眼睛/林俊傑
14:25:501 2 3~開始戀愛~/生物股長
14:34:42Ah/After School
14:37:46第三類接觸/潘瑋柏
14:42:04演員/薛之謙
14:48:34海鷗/鄭興/?泯薰
14:54:43I Don't Wanna Live ForevweTaylor
15:04:16舞台/蕭煌?/潘麗麗
15:09:41刺眼/佛跳牆
15:13:57Rock Me 搖滾我/One Direction
15:21:06要不要/林憶蓮
15:25:10天菜/J.Sheon
15:28:23So Cold/SUPER JUNIOR
15:37:00#還是睡不著/守夜人
15:41:22Work it/Missy Elliott
15:47:34煙火/陳綺貞
15:54:03四季/w-inds.
16:03:57連回憶都不給我嗎?/彭羚
16:07:58不完美的我/蕭敬騰
16:12:24Wild/Jessie J
16:17:56全放空/文慧如/鼓鼓
16:21:31Hunting for you/Robbie Williams
16:24:53百年孤寂/胖虎樂團
16:33:28Rainism/Rain
16:38:09拋物線/蔡健雅
16:43:13最難的是相遇/吳青峰
16:49:39水手怕水/周杰倫
16:52:14Throwback Love/Meghan Trainor
16:55:36Whoo/林明禎
03/19星期五
14:04:28幸福下載/元衛覺醒
14:08:22She Looks So Perfect/5 Seconds Of Summer
14:11:41日不落/蔡依林
14:17:18沒那麼簡單/黃小琥
14:22:18在這座城市遺失了你/告五人
14:28:08Around The World/MONKEY MAJIK
14:34:34大特醉/呂士軒
14:37:31OMG/Usher/Will.i.am
14:42:43旋轉門/蘇慧倫
14:49:44Rainbow Falling/車銀優
14:54:19別找我麻煩/蔡健雅
15:04:07紅線/江蕙
15:09:16突然好想你/徐佳瑩
15:13:40是什麼/Standing Egg
15:19:41一分之二/孫盛希/HUSH
15:24:15迷途羔羊/兄弟本色
15:28:40Fresh Feelings/Benjamin Kheng
15:35:59我的歌聲裡/曲婉婷
15:40:30I Don't Feel Like Dancing/Scissor Sisters
15:44:35半個海洋/B.A.D
15:51:10搞笑/星野 源
15:55:36成績單/胖虎樂團
16:04:04你的樣子/羅大佑
16:07:20Rolling In The Deep/Adele
16:11:04現代的男女你如何看待/茄子蛋
16:16:391.2.3.4/李遐怡 (LEE HI)
16:20:09Da Da Da/王心凌
16:23:54愛的鼓勵/林俊傑
16:30:15Sign Of The Times/Harry Styles
16:35:52塵埃/家家
16:41:51浮世繪/李幸倪
16:47:57愛情萬歲/五月天
16:53:54乾杯‧曲/嵐
03/18星期四
2:04:36美麗新世界/S.H.E
2:08:58 Addicted/Sweetbox
2:11:43一起走吧/Energy/羅志祥
2:16:50 Is Yo/Ailee
2:21:07就懂了/張信哲
2:25:24愛妳越來越多/伍佰
2:34:54慢走不送/J.Sheon/艾怡良
2:39:00 I Don't Care/Ricky Martin
2:43:28天使的指紋/孫燕姿
2:49:46我是比較幽默/PIA吳蓓雅
2:53:59火箭帆布鞋/大塚 愛
3:04:43後世人的查某囝/楊肅浩
3:07:55唯一寫過的情書/周予天
3:11:55 I Love Me/Meghan Trainor
3:18:03 Catch Your Double Eye/Bii畢書盡
3:21:15 Sour Candy/Lady Gaga
3:23:50愛琴海/李玟
3:29:51 TOKYO/Nulbarich
3:33:15這幾天/小宇-宋念宇
3:38:03美小鴨/Lulu黃路梓茵
3:41:16 Red Queen/IU/Zion.T
3:46:44對面男生的房間/劉若英
3:51:53她沒在看我/瘦子E.SO
3:54:47 Nothing really matters/David Guetta
4:04:27拯救地球/杜德偉
4:08:18 Kiss/Prince
4:12:06謝謝你愛過/MFM
4:18:24談心/蔡淳佳/游鴻明
4:21:50 Remember Me/ROY KIM
4:25:06能不能/李友廷/林孟辰
4:32:04殘廢/吳克群
4:37:17不想懂得/張韶涵
4:42:57 Beautiful/Jessica Mauboy
4:48:30離開/逃走鮑伯
4:50:12一萬個不回頭的方法/魏如萱
4:54:39 ultra soul/B'z
03/17星期三
14:04:59愛情黑皮書/庾澄慶
14:08:57Sing It Out Loud/OMI
14:12:30Honey/郭書瑤
14:17:31愛我的時候/周興哲/單依純
14:21:08Piano/范逸臣
14:25:29Only You/安室奈美惠
14:32:06愛你娘/大支
14:36:27ON/BTS 防彈少年團
14:41:18我最親愛的/張惠妹
14:48:44Crazy/Aerosmith
14:54:50一步成詩/王詩安
15:04:40多情花/孫淑媚
15:09:03棋子/方炯鑌
15:13:01LIFE FOR ME/Lily Allen
15:19:01太空警察/宇宙人
15:22:54I Wanna Dance With Somebody/Whitney Houston
15:33:03Leave The Door Open/Silk Sonic
15:36:32小鎮姑娘/陶吉吉
15:42:24BOOM BOOM/葛仲珊
15:48:19親愛的朋友/棉花糖
15:50:47路/AKMU 樂童音樂家
15:53:52翻滾吧/亂彈阿翔
16:03:57夜夜夜夜/齊秦
16:08:32愛你/尹美來
16:12:30星期三/蕭敬騰/老高
16:16:57Beautiful/AKon
16:22:06誰是mvp/潘瑋柏
16:25:54我是你的誰/吳映潔
16:31:26雨愛/楊丞琳
16:35:40想見你、想見你、卻見不到/KinKi Kids
16:41:38玩遊戲/韋禮安
16:48:28王老先生有塊地/來吧!焙焙
16:51:32太空瑪莉的偵探愛情電影/許哲珮
16:53:54火星人派對/小野麗莎
03/16星期二
14:04:06早午餐/陳熙
14:08:03為自己開心/慢慢說樂團
14:12:20Treat Me Right/Backstreet Boys
14:18:22深邃與甜蜜/張清芳
14:21:38就懂了/張信哲
14:25:55Satisfaction/FT ISLAND
14:33:54ATTENTION/Charlie Puth
14:37:18樂高 Lego/鼓鼓
14:41:47淚崩了/亦帆
14:48:57鯨落/林采欣
14:54:17絕妙好滋味/MONKEY MAJIK
15:04:09舞台/蕭煌奇/潘麗麗
15:09:33飛行部落/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
15:13:43Shape Of You/Ed Sheeran
15:19:37唯一寫過的情書/周予天
15:23:41不難/徐佳瑩
15:28:12All Rise/BLUE
15:35:23Don't Call Me/SHINee
15:38:59滿出來/呂薔
15:43:34守候/5566
15:49:46喜歡/Dreams Come True
15:54:23沒在怕的/小春Kenzy
16:04:04愛你十分淚七分/裘海正
16:08:12I'm in love/田亞霍
16:11:23你的我的/AOA
16:16:59Sacrifice/Bebe Rexha
16:19:32看我七十二變/蔡依林
16:23:13東區東區/八三夭
16:30:35單人房雙人床/莫文蔚
16:35:11不是因為天氣晴朗才愛你/理想混蛋
16:40:10Love Makes The World Go Around/Santana/Ronald
16:46:42搖阿搖/羊毛與千葉花
16:51:11歐拉拉呼呼/盧廣仲
16:54:35三個字/魏如萱
03/15星期一
14:04:00Happy Hours/蘇慧倫
14:08:25Hey Boy/Take That
14:11:57跳舞到天明/蔡佩軒/Kurt Hug
14:16:32愛我的時候/周興哲/單依純
14:20:07分手需要練習的/A-Lin
14:24:59Wont Go Home Without You/Maroon 5
14:31:17恰北北/黃右年/陳瑾緗
14:34:11Hollywood/Madonna
14:39:33一直給/嚴爵
14:47:18How can I love the heartbreak that the one I love/AKMU 樂童音樂家
14:53:09好無聊/MC HotDog
15:04:14叭噗叭噗/張三李四
15:09:02Brighter Than The Sun/Colbie Caillat
15:12:50好想放假/蔡健雅
15:20:19純真/五月天
15:24:26我不需要/邱振哲
15:28:52About Love/Red Velvet
15:37:23一個人/王嘉爾
15:40:23Good Time/Owl City
15:44:51我不是天使/那英
15:51:06被愛妄想症/麻吉弟弟/文慧如
15:54:45Let You Love Me/Rita Ora
16:03:57愛情多惱河/熊天平
16:08:03回不去的回憶/小男孩樂團
16:12:18Stars/Simply Red
16:18:21ihateyou1000/Karencici
16:20:16關你屁事啊/彭佳慧/熊仔
16:23:44Live It Up/Jennifer Lopez
16:30:00天天天天/旺福
16:33:33世界地圖/東京事變
16:39:18太空人/吳青峰
16:46:43一杯茶的時間/利綺
16:51:19捲捲頭/10CM
16:53:58自然捲/自然捲
03/12星期五
14:04:06You Smile/Sweetbox
14:07:44在你左右/吳莫愁
14:11:11CTO/C.T.O
14:16:23一千遍我愛妳/伊能靜
14:20:47如果海能夠/動力火車
14:25:46i'M THE TREND/(G)I-DLE
14:31:54好愛你。/大塚 愛
14:36:23我知道你愛我/JS
14:41:37不吃早餐才是一件很嘻哈的事/MC HotDog
14:48:13這城市有愛/周華健
14:53:17Green Light/少女時代
14:56:04Chill嗨嗨/noovy
15:04:09林森北路/七月半
15:09:04黑色柳丁/陶吉吉
15:13:19Bring Me To Life/Evanescence
15:19:15我不知道愛是什麼/艾怡良
15:24:05Angel/Westlife
15:28:25不知好歹/林曉培
15:34:18天天想你/陳綺貞
15:38:15thank you/鄧福如
15:40:38比較大的大提琴/周杰倫/梁心頤
15:46:46Bad/Michael Jackson
15:50:51暫時停止呼吸/鼓鼓
15:55:45惡作劇/王藍茵
16:04:04忘了時間的鐘/古巨基
16:07:22Lucky/Jason Mraz
16:10:28我的左耳/舒米恩
16:15:30溫柔時空/陳立農
16:19:43我不再怕/梁心頤
16:24:02Not Today_Feat_Eve/Mary J. Blige
16:32:34愛的動名片/安心亞
16:35:46Luv Me/AOA
16:39:33機場/曹楊
16:46:39Hop in/嚴正化/華莎
16:50:15戰神/MP 魔幻力量
16:54:10獨一無二 Only You/羅志祥
03/11星期四
14:04:07數字戀愛/范曉萱
14:08:07Sugar/Maroon 5
14:11:58Good-Boy/呂薔/仔仔
14:17:22雲的距離/宋柏緯/吳獻
14:20:31放膽就愛/黃小琥
14:24:13Cupid/Amy Winehouse
14:30:24Mr.Mr./少女時代
14:34:12BOOGIE/吳建豪
14:39:25同手同腳/林宜融
14:45:45Superwoman/曹格
14:50:42One Last Kiss/宇多田光
14:54:43Hey Boy/王詩安
15:04:07我的我的/浩子
15:06:51初戀粉色系/南拳媽媽
15:10:26Red 紅色/Taylor Swift
15:17:17Levitating/Dua Lipa/Madonna/Missy Elliott
15:21:12脫掉/杜德偉
15:24:51Bubble Pop!/泫雅
15:33:24湛藍的華爾滋/Eve
15:38:05一輩子的孤單/劉若英
15:43:40反正我好看/五堅情
15:48:37她的生活/黃玠/NABOWA
15:53:41I'm Gonna Getcha Good!/Shania Twain
16:04:04一生愛你千百回/梅艷芳
16:08:38Look Up At The Stars/Shawn Mendes
16:12:04等著你回來/小男孩樂團
16:17:48Tempo/EXO
16:21:27我跟你卡好/玖壹壹/羅志祥
16:25:00愛的叮咚/徐懷鈺
16:31:09火燒的寂寞/信
16:35:40Oasis 綠洲/Do As Infinity
16:41:25問號/黃右年/屁孩
16:46:55偶然的春天/Loco/GFRIEND-Yu
16:50:13心願便利貼/元若藍/吳忠明
16:54:20Broke my heart/李宇希
03/10星期三
2:04:54 PM離開動物園/楊丞琳
2:08:09 PMBig Girl/Mika 米卡
2:12:08 PM好好玩/阿喜
2:16:35 PMMy Love/Sia
2:21:39 PM你就像個小孩/阿杜
2:26:06 PM親愛的為什麼/廖文強/壞神經樂團
2:33:14 PMBlack Suit/SUPER JUNIOR
2:36:30 PM辦不到/張靚穎/大嘴巴
2:40:27 PM不為誰而做的歌/林俊傑
2:46:36 PM你的可愛人兒/吉田美和
2:50:47 PMCHEERIO/蔡佩軒
2:55:29 PM你是唯一/五月天
3:05:20 PM黑白舞/張文綺
3:08:58 PMDream on the street/Da Pump
3:12:48 PM頭號甜心/張韶涵
3:18:08 PM吾愛無愛/白安
3:22:26 PMClose Your Eyes/Michael Buble
3:25:50 PM你很好/小宇-宋念宇
3:33:13 PMLook What You've Done/Zara Larsson
3:36:12 PMMR.RIGHT/潘瑋柏
3:40:44 PM葉子/阿桑
3:47:33 PM斷/太妃堂TOFFEE
3:50:50 PM如果海能夠/動力火車
3:56:40 PMCandy Boy/TWICE
4:03:57 PM炫耀/陳潔儀
4:08:38 PM唯一/告五人
4:12:57 PMKeep it clean/Camera Obscura
4:17:36 PM我就是我/田亞霍
4:21:21 PMLoved You First/One Direction
4:24:22 PM決定愛你/徐若瑄
4:31:01 PM不敢聽的歌/李千那
4:35:20 PM讓人瘋狂/Sistar-孝琳
4:40:53 PM羞羞男/李英宏
4:47:58 PM當我來到這裡/蛋堡/葛仲珊
4:52:34 PMDo It/Tuxedo
4:56:01 PMTroubling You, Troubling/王艷薇
03/09星期二
14:04:33你在歐洲 我在蘆洲/旺福
14:09:02Photograph Of You/Sugar Ray
14:12:46渴了/八三夭
14:17:20每每/陳大天
14:21:10我不怕/丁噹
14:24:45灌籃/NCT DREAM
14:30:53Joker/張藝興
14:33:09B-Day Song 生日歌/Madonna
14:37:23嘿 親愛的/陳勢安
14:42:38忽然之間/莫文蔚
14:47:47不可思議愛上你/化學猴子
14:51:08Hug Yourself/郭修彧
14:54:59Smile For Me/河合奈保子
15:04:09難渡情關/詹雅雯
15:07:28日出!!/張惠妹
15:11:44Into The Night/Santana
15:17:22今天晚上害怕漆黑/10CM
15:20:41錯覺/蘇慧倫
15:24:38杯子/渣泥
15:30:48Sunny/SURAN
15:35:45Just believe/頑童MJ116
15:40:39夜太黑/林憶蓮
15:46:46空白鍵/許書豪
15:50:13有沒有/By2
15:54:05Wild Ones/Flo Rida
16:04:04日光機場/許茹芸
16:09:10來日方長/朱俐靜
16:14:08Two Hearts/Phil Collins
16:19:10遠距離/蔣卓嘉
16:22:44Look What You've Done/Zara Larsson
16:25:43寂寞包廂/周定緯
16:33:03心酸的浪漫/那英
16:37:55容顏/徐哲緯
16:42:28Fool/Red Velvet
16:48:16甜蜜的家/阿爆&Brandy
16:50:28Ki mi ni mu chu 為你著迷/EXILE 放浪兄弟
16:54:21More/Popu Lady
03/08星期一
14:04:00Love In The First Degree/Bananarama
14:07:19飛起來/徐懷鈺
14:10:46音樂超氣派/庾澄慶/蕭敬騰
14:15:46不缺/光良
14:20:14my all.../小柳由紀
14:25:07迷幻/蔡依林
14:30:46Green Light/Lorde
14:34:36我的時代/MC HotDog/張震嶽
14:39:03愛我的時候/周興哲/單依純
14:44:38愛情萬歲/魏如萱
14:49:12Sunday Morning/Maroon 5
14:53:05他夏了夏天/蘇打綠
15:04:16暝那會這呢長/許富凱
15:08:32Sometimes When We Touch/Rod Stewart
15:12:46猜猜/張語噥/Barry Chan
15:19:17為你而活/神木與瞳
15:23:53Sing/Travis
15:30:16時間 ‧ 時間/陳零九
15:35:07夜的詩人/江美琪
15:40:24Nu ABO/f(x)
15:45:59MURMURSHOW/慢慢說樂團
15:48:49搖阿搖/羊毛與千葉花
15:54:25LOVE MORE/Bii畢書盡
16:03:57望春風/陶吉吉
16:06:51不安室的奈美惠/炎亞綸/吳卓源
16:10:32We've Got Love/Babyface
16:16:57Melevlev 瑪勒芙勒芙/Matzka
16:21:44PROBLEMA/Daddy Yankee
16:24:45真情人/李玟
16:32:45執迷不悔/彭佳慧
16:37:46順著海流/安懂
16:42:23True Baby True –Extended/Dreams Come True
16:50:26最親的擁抱/大嘴巴
16:55:04Growl/EXO
03/05星期五
14:04:50迷你裙/旺福
14:08:51STRAY HEART/Green Day
14:12:33分享愛/郭富城
14:17:54阿拉斯加海灣/蔡恩雨
14:21:48Total Eclipse Of The Heart/Westlife
14:26:17永遠不回頭/動力火車
14:33:50辣台妹/頑童MJ116
14:38:13BOOMBAYAH/BLACKPINK
14:42:59藍天/黃小琥
14:50:11香吉士之歌/四枝筆樂團
14:53:52Look For The Good/Jason Mraz
15:04:07感謝無情人/黃乙玲
15:08:17Freak/Doja Cat
15:12:36就是我/林俊傑
15:17:37鞋貓夫人,Madame/Tizzy Bac
15:23:02Papa Don't Preach/Kelly Osbourne
15:26:22浪潮/拾參樂團
15:33:23七月/曹楊
15:37:36鄰居的耳朵/柯以敏
15:43:17Romance/SHINee
15:48:44五千塊/leo王/春艷
15:51:41Blurred Lines/Robin Thicke
15:55:51別廢話/袁婭維
16:04:04出境入境/歐陽菲菲
16:09:44總是會好的/彭佳慧
16:13:31戀愛巴士之歌/直也
16:19:22FLOW/方大同/王力宏
16:23:08Physical/Dua Lipa
16:26:18女力/溫嵐
16:32:44還是要幸福/田馥甄
16:37:15千年之戀/信樂團/戴愛玲
16:43:21Dancing King/EXO/劉在錫
16:49:26醜人多作怪/告五人
16:53:37Lifted Up/Passion Pit
03/04星期四
14:04:47These Days/Take That
14:08:32BOOM BOOM BOOM/好大一團
14:12:05愛無赦/蔡依林
14:17:38陪著我的時候想著她/郭靜
14:21:57我愛妳/Rain
14:25:57寂寞之上/宇宙人
14:32:31伯父/瘦子E.SO
14:35:31Dance For Me/Sisgo
14:39:54離開我/陶晶瑩
14:47:23雨傘先生/羊毛與千葉花
14:51:36劉德華/品冠
14:54:42轉圈圈/Crispy脆樂團
15:04:53借問一下/曹雅雯
15:08:53Quando Quando Quando/Michael Buble
15:13:29飛飛飛飛飛/周華健
15:20:32Faded/Alan Walker
15:23:55把最甜的都給妳/兄弟本色
15:32:32空與青/家入里歐
15:36:38我們的愛/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
15:42:24我們怎麼Love/伍家輝
15:48:29HAVE A NICE DAY/魏如萱
15:52:41RE-BYE/AKMU 樂童音樂家
15:55:40裙擺搖搖/李心潔
16:04:04健康歌/范曉萱/楊峻榮
16:06:55假的假的/胖球/斯拉
16:09:59Kira Kira Killer/卡莉怪妞
16:15:57抱著你/岑寧兒
16:18:50壞人/方炯鑌
16:23:40LIFE FOR ME/Lily Allen
16:30:09For You/Liam Payne/Rita
16:34:07摩天動物園/鄧紫棋
16:39:42我不壞你不愛/鼓鼓
16:46:35孩子的大冒險/廖文強
16:50:00Anything But Ordinary/Avril Lavigne
16:54:00Body Sing/楊乃文
03/03星期三
14:04:00摩登原始人/炎亞綸
14:07:37Get Lucky/Daft Punk
14:11:36Funky那個女孩/大嘴巴/藍心湄
14:16:24明天愛誰/容祖兒
14:20:58You Are My Everything/Gummy
14:24:51浪子回頭/黃崇旭/關彥淳
14:32:21從此過著幸福快樂的日子/閻奕格/J.Sheon
14:35:14SPARK/Hilary Duff
14:39:23Everyday/嚴爵
14:46:08Calling/B'z
14:51:51自由靈魂/梁心頤
14:54:27我想你的快樂是因為我/洛客班
15:04:14不通將阮放/孫淑媚
15:08:18曾諾的永遠/B.T.O.D
15:12:21Look What You Made Me Do/Taylor Swift
15:17:22Darling U/g.o.d-金泰宇
15:20:25哈你歌/庾澄慶/小S
15:24:25SKYWALKER/怕胖團
15:31:10Black Magic/Kelly Rowland
15:35:04三人舞Triangle/孫盛希
15:40:16缺口/齊秦
15:47:16華麗的冒險/陳綺貞
15:52:40戀心/可苦可樂
16:03:57謝謝你的愛/劉德華
16:08:29想啊,想著你/吳汶芳
16:12:01I'm Every Woman/Chaka Khan
16:17:44Lips Are Moving/Meghan Trainor
16:20:41我想買可樂/Erika 劉艾立
16:23:12狐狸精/羅志祥
16:29:52完美孤獨/莫文蔚
16:34:38Here I Am Again/白藝潾
16:39:31一人一半/張三李四/林柏昇
16:46:58燭光晚餐/曹格
16:50:19浪費時間/9m88
16:54:28Rehab/Amy Winehouse
03/02星期二
14:04:34雨和太陽/戴佩妮
14:07:52Staring At The Stars/Passenger
14:10:51大睡之歌/旺福
14:16:32說好不哭/周杰倫/阿信
14:20:04Dream/李遐怡
14:24:43UUU/潘瑋柏
14:28:25Don't be cruel/Elvis Presley
14:35:08壞女孩/Tension
14:39:07這不是愛情/韋禮安
14:42:38Doop Doo De Doop/羊毛與千葉花
14:46:44Love Is Over /青山黛瑪
14:50:46好的一天/丁世光
14:54:36No More Cryin'/李玖哲
15:04:10天公疼憨人/許富凱
15:08:45HAVE A NICE DAY/魏如萱
15:12:58la la la thats how it go/HONNE
15:18:31Kiss You 親吻你/One Direction
15:21:33給自己的歌/小男孩樂團
15:25:20你的微笑/F.I.R.飛兒樂團
15:32:44自由/SE SO NEON
15:37:36聽說愛情回來過/蔡依林
15:42:25死心了沒有/蕭煌奇
15:49:07Just my imatination/Craig David
15:53:43旋轉門/謝沛恩
16:04:04人間/王菲
16:08:43Suddenly/Billy Ocean
16:12:27十分鐘戀愛/展榮/展瑞
16:17:37Something About LA/周興哲
16:20:22Let Me Love You/Ne-Yo
16:24:28Hip Hop Tonight/李玟
16:30:08忍不住原諒/溫嵐
16:34:16橘子汽水/南拳媽媽
16:38:53Radio/CNBLUE
16:45:02愛情怎麼了嗎/盧廣仲
16:48:59給被世界吞噬的你/鹿洐人
16:54:22就在你身邊/MISIA
03/01星期一
14:04:07觸電/S.H.E
14:08:25乖乖壞女孩/梁文音
14:12:19交換世界最甜蜜的吻/風味堂
14:18:07瘋了/阿桑
14:20:53走遠了/連晨翔
14:25:55Pompeii/Bastille
14:31:44摩托車/兄弟本色
14:35:19柏拉圖式的愛情/陳綺貞
14:38:33Coming home/John Legend
14:45:33Material Girl/Madonna
14:49:50Get Out/MP 魔幻力量
14:53:46我沒有用, 沒辦法給你想要的生活/怕胖團
15:04:07寶島有神/浩子/臭寶
15:07:45C'mon, C'mon 來吧 來吧/One Direction
15:10:29Bubble Pop!/泫雅
15:17:30黃金年代/劉若英
15:21:26差一點/阿杜
15:25:33TAKE ME AWAY/Janet Jackson
15:33:11起飛了/NAT 健豪
15:37:37Han Bok Ha Se Yeo 要幸福/夏宇童
15:41:11野獸與薔薇/Hey! Say! JUMP
15:47:59格林成人童話/Spark
15:51:45Part-Time Lover/Stevie Wonder
15:55:19愛你在心口難開/周蕙
16:04:04玫瑰香/林憶蓮
16:07:52吻我吧/蕭敬騰
16:12:13Telefone/Sheena Easton
16:17:34i'M THE TREND/(G)I-DLE
16:20:57ABC/自由發揮
16:23:58Sexy Bitch/David Guetta
16:31:07睡美人/古巨基
16:35:15雪花/中島美嘉
16:41:18China Reggaeton/黃明志/黃秋生
16:46:39All The Lovers戀人們/Kylie Minogue
16:49:57不解釋親吻/蕭亞軒
16:54:00半點心/B.A.D Danny
#鳳梨 #旺旺來
#歌單 #DJ荳子
we11done台灣 在 Follow XiaoFei 跟著小飛玩 Facebook 的最佳解答
2020美國總統大選~! 你賭誰會贏呢?
快跟老闆說你明天會無法專心上班,因為小飛要來開直播啦!
美國總統大選的投票時間將會在台灣時間11月4號早上8點結束,我會在那時開始跟大家一起看開票,並且回答來自你們的問題:這場選舉的結果將會如何影響台灣呢?哪一個候選人比較好,拜登還是川普?為什麼?接下來會花生省魔術?
這絕不是一般搏版面蹭熱度灑狗血的政論節目,我們將會直指核心問題,並且對於你們的提問知無不答。這場直播將會以中英雙語進行,現場將會有即時中文翻譯唷!
總之,11月4號,早上八點,千萬別錯過!我們不見不散!
Election 2020~! Tell your boss that you aren’t getting work done tomorrow morning, because you’ll be watching Xiaofei’s live stream! Polls will close at 8am 11/4 Taiwan time, and I will be there counting the votes with you and answering all your questions. How will the outcome of this election affect Taiwan? Who would be better, Joe Biden or Donald Trump? Why? What will happen next? We will get into the real heart of the issues and take questions from the audience. This will be in both Chinese and English, with professional real-time translation. 11/4, at 8 am, don’t miss it.
we11done台灣 在 Xiaofei小飛 Youtube 的最佳解答
2020美國總統大選~!
快跟老闆說你明天會無法專心上班,因為小飛要來開直播啦!
美國總統大選的投票時間將會在台灣時間11月4號早上8點結束,我會在那時開始跟大家一起看開票,並且回答來自你們的問題:這場選舉的結果將會如何影響台灣呢?哪一個候選人比較好,拜登還是川普?為什麼?接下來會花生省魔術?
這絕不是一般搏版面蹭熱度灑狗血的政論節目,我們將會直指核心問題,並且對於你們的提問知無不答。這場直播將會以中英雙語進行,現場將會有即時中文翻譯唷!
總之,11月4號,早上八點,千萬別錯過!我們不見不散!
Election 2020~! Tell your boss that you aren’t getting work done tomorrow morning, because you’ll be watching Xiaofei’s live stream! Polls will close at 8am 11/4 Taiwan time, and I will be there counting the votes with you and answering all your questions. How will the outcome of this election affect Taiwan? Who would be better, Joe Biden or Donald Trump? Why? What will happen next? We will get into the real heart of the issues and take questions from the audience. This will be in both Chinese and English, with professional real-time translation. 11/4, at 8 am, don’t miss it.
For non-election related stuff:
跟著小飛玩
台灣黑熊衣這裏買: https://followxiaofei.com/store
IG: https://www.instagram.com/followxiaofei/
FB: https://www.facebook.com/followxiaofei/
募資平臺:https://www.patreon.com/xiaofei
YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/followxiaofei
地圖部落格:https://tw.followxiaofei.com/
we11done台灣 在 Lisa hui 許靜雯 Youtube 的最讚貼文
心滿意足
作词作曲&和音:许静雯Lisa Hui 编曲混合:Awesome Studio
Lisa 的創作心靈:
經過漫長有如地獄般的愛情歷練,無論終點是什麼風景,我們都應該懂得"心滿意足"。
寫這首歌曲的時候真的是心力交碎,而且碎得一塌糊塗,那種對愛情失望而破碎的心靈,你有感受過嗎?
錄製這首歌曲時候,進了三次錄音室,都是淚流滿面的走出來,沒有一次成功的完成錄音。到第四次時候更是崩潰嚎哭,我不斷問自己應該怎麼辦? 那時候加拿大已經不能再給我停留,要準備回香港了,事情已經不能再拖延,不錄完就真的前功盡廢了,每次都哭得停不了,怎麼可以完成呢?
於是再次豁出去,在錄音室一邊哭一邊錄,錄了好多個小時,直到凌晨4點多。才錄完主音旋律。錄完了之後又感覺少了些壓迫力,畢竟這首歌真的讓Lisa迷失在崩潰邊緣,那種疑幻疑真,徘徊得失之間的情感邊緣,迷幻而不實在的感覺,令Lisa決定在最後段的副歌部分多加幾重和聲。Lisa當刻隨心即興的和唱讓這個原本R&B的歌曲有了自己的靈魂。
「 心滿意足」告訴我們,懂得當刻的放下才能領匯心滿意足。
等待一個人回到妳的身邊,那種漫漫長夜的痛苦煎熬,日夜顛倒,自己卻逐漸失去了照顧自己的本能,每日心裡痛苦糾纏,歲月與時光同步逐漸逝去。
要努力的放下心裡唯一掛念和信任的那個「他」,近乎不可能,你能懂嗎?可是現實的一切一切,都太殘酷了...
當醒覺的那刻倒過來想,只要愛過,擁有過,自問真心愛過,享受過浪漫熱戀的時段,我們都應該「心滿意足」了吧。
雖然寫這首歌和錄唱的時候,Lisa還是處於沒放下糾纏的心態。可是面對現實的殘酷,壓抑著的情感是無法控制,激發了無可奈何的「心滿意足」的出現。
这首是繼"沒關係"之後寫的第二首歌曲,雖然說“沒關係”,可是心裡還是放不下, 也得說服自己要“心滿意足”。
這首歌有在「A1 Chinese Radio Toronto Canada」有播放過,,與商業電台 嘅《馬路的事 我哋的事》, 還有台灣電台「獨立音樂講堂 -第二十八集」(DJ罐頭)。
Satisfied-
An Original Song from Lisa's song mind
When I wrote this song I was completely heart broken and had a really hard time recording it. Have you ever felt broken hearted and disappointed by love?
I entered the recording studio three times trying to record this song but each time I left in tears. I couldn't complete the recording. By the forth time I kept crying and crying. I kept asking myself what should I do? At that time I was no longer able to stay in Canada. I was ready to return to Hong Kong and my departure could not be delayed. How could I finish recording if I couldn't stop crying? So I tried again no matter how exhausted I was. I was crying in the studio and I recorded for many hours until it was 4 am. The main melody was recorded and I still felt it was not enough... something was still missing. So I added a few more harmonies to the last chorus to make it sound more full. When the harmonies in the last chorus were done, I felt relieved and was sure this is what I wanted. It gives a perfect “soul” addition to this R and B style of song. I always improvise, sing and record as many tracks as possible to make my original songs as best as they can be .
After all, this song was really about Lisa on the verge of collapse. On the emotional edge between wondering and loss. The psychedelic and unrealistic feeling that made Lisa 's impromptu chorus gives the song it's soul.
"Satisfied" tells us we don't need to be down to be satisfied.
Waiting for someone to come back to you, the long nights of pain and suffering. But gradually she had lost her instinct to take care of herself, the pain had entangled her heart everyday and time gradually passed away.
It is almost impossible to let go of the only "he" in your heart that you care about and trust. Can you understand?
But everything is reality and it is cruel. When we wake up and think about it, as long as we have loved, owned, sincerely loved and enjoyed the romantic times we should be "Satisfied".
Throughout writing and recording this song Lisa was in a state of mind that couldn't let go of the entanglement. However, in the face of cruel reality and suppressed emotions that cannot be controlled the inspiration for 'Satisfied" crystallized.
This is the second song written after "It Doesn't Matter". Although it says "it doesn't matter", I still can't let go of it in my heart, and I have to convince myself to be "Satisfied".
This song has been played on stations such as "A1 Chinese Radio Toronto" ,”Industrial Radio station "The Road and us", "Taiwan Radio's Independent Music Lecture eps.28"and shown live on Fairchild Television
Photo taken by potato
VIdeo edit by Lisa Hui
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LisaHui1994/
Instagram : https://www.instagram.com/lisahui94/
we11done台灣 在 OOC Youtube 的最佳貼文
Planet OOC - Planet OutOfControl
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/OOCpages
Website: http://www.ooc.com.tw
DJGround from Taiwan getting it done dubstep style as the impeccable vocal of ASH emancipated with the instrumental perfectly.
DJ GROUND
DJ資歷11年
OMNI駐場DJ
Redbull Thre3 Style 台灣兩屆亞軍(2015/2016)
2011 DMC台灣 季軍
2013年創立原創數位音樂工作室致力推行DJ教學以及數位編曲創作
創作起源
DJ GROUND 在職業DJ舞台已經揮灑十年了。深受自己的偶像Skrillex影響,因此開始創造屬於自己的電子音樂。在電子音樂接受度越來越高的這個世代想創造出屬於台灣製作人的電子音樂作品而成就了這首Dubstep曲風的作品 “Hold Me Down”
製作甘苦談
這首單曲從編曲、錄音、混音、後製甚至到封面設計到MV拍攝,全部都是一人包辦獨立發行。在沒有唱片公司及製作團隊的狀況下大概籌備了快一年之久。在DEMO完成後也曾因為四處尋找合適的女聲Vocal碰壁,直到遇到了歌手ASH/艾許。
ASH是也是個非常熱愛創作的歌手,聽到我的想法之後願意支持我創作的想法。這是她第一次嘗試與DJ合作,也是第一次嘗試這種曲風。我也讓她在我的音樂裡盡情揮灑詞曲。在Vocal填完詞曲後甚至一次都沒有修改就進錄音室了。她充滿靈魂的歌聲為這首歌注入最重要的旋律。
在影像部份,遇到了導演IZO。在聽完我DEMO之後也願意支持我接下拍攝。我也讓他在MV中發揮創意不受限腳本、 風格,讓他盡情發揮。在三個月的討論後,他也幫我找來了演員以及整個攝影團隊,耗時12小時的連續工事完成了這個影像,注入視覺的靈魂。
製作人 DJ Ground
演唱 Ash/艾許
演員 Lin Jia / Fen Yu
導演 程紹宸 (Izo Cheng)
製片 謝焜宏
製片助理 楊俐容
攝影指導 鍾庭勛
攝助 廖俊凱
燈光指導 曾威浩
燈助 蔡維陽
梳畫 Bonnie Hsu
劇照 連得恩
Follow DJ GROUND
✚https://www.facebook.com/deejground/
✚https://www.mixcloud.com/deejayground/
✚https://soundcloud.com/djground
數位平台
KKBOX:https://www.kkbox.com/play/artist/ugE...
Spotifly:https://play.spotify.com/artist/6cvYn...
Indievox:https://www.indievox.com/song/116115
OFFICIAL MUSIC VIDEO LINK:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BieWTJ7jmRc
If you're a musician of any genre, please contact oocplanet@gmail.com with your song/demo/remix ,etc. and your masterpiece will be in queue on our channel!
If you'd like to submit a picture or moving background, you can send it here with OOC giving you full credit: oocplanet@gmail.com
Copyright Infringements please contact oocplanet@gmail.com and we will respond and cooperate immediately.
we11done台灣 在 welldone - 優惠推薦- 2021年11月| 蝦皮購物台灣 的相關結果
買welldone立即上蝦皮台灣商品專區享超低折扣優惠與運費補助,搭配賣家評價安心網購超 ... ㊣❧we11done長袖秋冬新款彩虹字母彈幕welldone寬松連帽衛衣男女潮牌14372. ... <看更多>
we11done台灣 在 你聽過We11done嗎?連怪奇比莉都被圈粉的韓國品牌再次亮相 ... 的相關結果
由權達美和好友鄭惠珍在2015年共同創立的韓國品牌We11done,深受眾多名人喜愛,楊冪、Angelababy、凱莉珍娜Kylie Jenner、小賈斯汀Justin Bieber和權 ... ... <看更多>
we11done台灣 在 台灣也可以買到!GD親姊姊權達美自創時髦潮牌"We11Done ... 的相關結果
穿搭總是引領潮流的GD權志龍,相信許多人對他親姊姊Dami權達美也不陌生,不但在首爾開設超時髦的選品店,更擁有自己的服裝品牌,重點是這牌子台灣也能買到了! ... <看更多>