District of Columbia: That's the official name of the US nation's capital and the Federal District. Locals and local media call it the District or DC. What about the name "Washington?" Well, Washington and District of Columbia are two names for the US capital city. There is no Washington in the District of Columbia. They mean the same thing. That's why it's repetitive to say, "Washington DC." So why do the corporate media and others say, "Washington DC?" To cater to stupid people in the US who don't know what the District of Columbia is or where it is. So rather than educate people and consistently use the official name of the US nation's capital — which is the District of Columbia — they use "Washington DC" which is not the official name. It's okay to say DC, the District, or Washington, but not "Washington DC" because that's like saying San Francisco, San Francisco. That's how it was explained to me when I moved there. It's redundant since, again, they are two names for the same place, the same city. District residents care very deeply about this topic. It's a pet peeve of many District residents, including myself as a former District resident. I've heard political talking heads in DC on YT cater to stupid people — rather than educate them — by changing the name of the judicial courts in DC. For example: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit gets changed to the Appeals Court for Washington DC. There is no such court with that name in the District. The same for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. No court in the District ends with the language "Washington DC" because, again, that is not the official name of the nation's capital. Also, they use the acronym DMV which stands for District, Maryland and Virginia. It is this site's goal to educate, and not cater to stupid. Not surprisingly, the 34-count convicted felon and now US dictator from the Epstein Class always says, "Washington DC". This nut has lived there how long and he is still saying that? One can't fix stupid so don't bother wasting your time trying. Yet I've heard his staffers say to guests "Welcome to DC."
Arvo Pärt – Magnificat – The Queen’s College Chapel Choir – Choral Evensong (Church of England/Anglican)
Pärt has been very influenced by Gregorian Chant. For the Magnificat, go to 12.10 in the video. The anthem is also particularly gorgeous. It’s the Parsons’s Ave Maria at 27.55 in the video. (I found the camera work particularly annoying. When you want to see the choristers who are performing at the moment — so they are the topic at the moment — the camera crew is off looking at windows! Nobody in the Chapel is gawking up at the windows; they’re watching the Choir. Why should the video viewers be any different?) I should also mention that their Director of Music is Dr Owen Rees. I like him very much and his conducting style. He’s a Professor of Music at the University of Oxford, Fellow, Tutor and Organist of The Queen’s College. And The Queen’s College is one of the 43 Colleges of the esteemed University of Oxford, UK.
1 thought on “Arvo Pärt – Magnificat – The Queen’s College Chapel Choir – Choral Evensong (Church of England/Anglican)”
pink-barrio
This has happened before with other pieces. The topic of perfect intonation. I played part of the Parsons for my choral friend who admittedly doesn’t have my training or experience but he knows what’s good and what’s bad when he hears it and he trained his choral ear from listening to Robert Shaw’s outstanding Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus when I would play them. Listening to the Parsons, he asked, “Where is the soprano soloist?” (I get a little annoyed when he asks this.) I said: There is no soprano soloist; that’s the soprano section you’re hearing. It’s called perfect intonation (the perfect blending of voices). He said, “Well that’s pretty good.” But that’s what perfect intonation is: Where the soprano section sounds like one voice, and in this case he mistakes the soprano section for being a “soprano soloist” singing without any noticeable vibrato. Then he asked where the soprano section was seated. I said: The first row on each side. He also said, “The men sound superb too.” I said: Yes, they all do. They are Choral Scholars in The Queen’s College of Oxford University.
This has happened before with other pieces. The topic of perfect intonation. I played part of the Parsons for my choral friend who admittedly doesn’t have my training or experience but he knows what’s good and what’s bad when he hears it and he trained his choral ear from listening to Robert Shaw’s outstanding Atlanta Symphony Orchestra Chorus when I would play them. Listening to the Parsons, he asked, “Where is the soprano soloist?” (I get a little annoyed when he asks this.) I said: There is no soprano soloist; that’s the soprano section you’re hearing. It’s called perfect intonation (the perfect blending of voices). He said, “Well that’s pretty good.” But that’s what perfect intonation is: Where the soprano section sounds like one voice, and in this case he mistakes the soprano section for being a “soprano soloist” singing without any noticeable vibrato. Then he asked where the soprano section was seated. I said: The first row on each side. He also said, “The men sound superb too.” I said: Yes, they all do. They are Choral Scholars in The Queen’s College of Oxford University.