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?" Washington (by itself) and District of Columbia are two names for the US capital city. The point being: 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 some people say/write, "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 — which is the District of Columbia — they use "Washington DC" which is not the official name. Look it up. It's okay to say DC, the District, or Washington, but not "Washington DC" because that's like saying San Francisco, San Francisco. I've heard political talking heads in the District on YT cater to stupid people — rather than educate them — by changing the name of the 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 that is not the official name of the nation's capital. 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". That piece of shit has lived there how long and he is still saying that? One can't fix stupid so don't bother wasting your time trying.
“It was a very convincing reading.”
Convincing of what? That the performers knew the piece and knew how to play it?
I can’t stand pretentiousness and pretentious people love to go on about, “It was a very convincing reading.” They can’t just say: It was a good performance. Or: It was a superb performance. No, they have to go on about this “reading.” In reality, nobody was “reading” anything other than the score in front of them unless it was a pianist stuck in the silly tradition that they must perform “from memory” per some ludicrous tradition (per god Franz Liszt?). (Related: Pianists: Use your scores).
I have stopped reading comments under classical music video because I can’t take them anymore. Too much conductor-worshipping — idiots act like he was the only musician on stage when the Orchestra and Chorus could have probably performed the piece without him based on their high-skill level and preparation — people using the wrong words, people trying to give the impression they are authorities on music when it’s obvious by the way they write that they’re not and so forth. Too often some nut is going on about “It was a very convincing reading” or “Sublime” – yeah, that’s another one. Every performance is “sublime” with these classical music armchair critics. I think they are the people with no talent who decided to be a self-appointed music critics and knew they couldn’t get into any Conservatory or University School of Music because they couldn’t play any instrument at all or well enough to pass the stringent audition requirements, and it would take too much work and money to do so, so they took the easy way out and became armchair music critics.
As for classical music commenters: Can’t anyone be original and think for themselves rather than regurgitating what someone else has said? No, apparently not.