Well-trained musicians instinctually make corrections immediately in pencil on the score and in our playing. It comes from our training. I remember as early as my first piano instruction classes around 8 years old all the way past my Conservatory years and into my Orchestra Chorus years, we make any corrections pointed out to us immediately, or try to.
Attention to details is critical to musicians. The same for the medical and legal fields.
Even in dress rehearsals. When I was on the Kennedy Center Concert Hall stage with the National Symphony Orchestra for a dress rehearsal as a chorister in the Choral Arts Society of Washington, or the University of Maryland Chorus, and in Davies Symphony Hall with the San Francisco Symphony Chorus, we would have to make slight adjustments to the score from the conductor. He would change something than how he had told our Chorus Director to prepare us. (No, the orchestral conductor does not prepare the Chorus, as some people mistakenly think; he or she only makes minor adjustments such as with diction or maybe phrasing). So you had to pay close attention, with pencil in hand and mark the changes in the score. Then the conductor would have the Chorus perform the change to make sure it’s correct and cemented. And not immediately making corrections in one’s playing is a waste of time, and it’s not good to repeat mistakes as they can become cemented in one’s playing very quickly. So, considering that, I’m usually very quick at corrections. I say usually, because I have to have an interest in whatever it is I’m doing.
The Cesspool called Online
Then I go to the cesspool called online, and people operate very differently on here. There is so much disinformation, ignorance, proud-ignorant, incorrect information, lies, rubbish, dishonesty, outdated language, and trash online. With rare exceptions, any corrections — no matter how politely they are made — are rejected. After politely correcting someone, the person corrected will continue to write the mistake they were corrected on, presumably out of spite and to get a rise out of the person who pointed out the mistake. Then other people come along and write the same mistake too, one after the other. An indirect way of trolling the person who made the correction?
With only a rare exception to this, most people aren’t about to correct anything they’re doing or saying, and instead make me (the messenger of the correct information) look like the problem.
I have many topics that are important to me — I’ll call them my “pet topics” for lack of a better term — but I’ve learned that it does no good talking about any of them other than here on this site. My “pet topics” are considered by others to be “it’s a poor issue.” Translation: People are not interested in it so to them “it’s a poor issue.” I wonder how they would feel if I called their “pet topics” a “poor issue?” Each person’s “pet topics” are important to them.
People! Have I told you how much I hate people?! Don’t get me started. I didn’t used to feel that way about people. It’s come from my experience with the cesspool online.
You may be wondering about some of my “pet topics.” I’ll give you one — no need to bore you with the others as I’ve written about them many times — that comes up almost daily.
Here’s one: The US Congress consists of two bodies: 1) The House of Representatives and 2) the Senate. That’s what they’re called. Well, anyone in either body is in the Congress, so therefore — using critical thinking skills — they are all “Congress members.” But that’s not how the language works. Apparently no one can say the word Representative — which is their official title in the House of Representatives — so people parked at microphones such as Amy Goodman refer to “Congress member [name of Representative].” She can’t say Representative [name of person]. It seems to be beyond her. Of course she doesn’t say “Congress member Feinstein” even though Dianne Feinstein is a “congress member” but she’s in the Senate, and for some damn odd convoluted reason, Senators are not called “Congress members.” Why not? They’re in the Congress. More Insanity. One gets the impression that the House of Representatives is now called the “House of Congress members” as often as the term “Congress member(s)” is used. The Century of Insanity. So when I point this out in an online comment, I’m either trolled or the former-progressives and former-liberals ignore the comment entirely because these days the former progressives are for the status quo and for the status quo language even as we move backward to using language of the 1940s and 50s.
Genuine progressives — such as myself and a few other people — oppose the status quo.
One would think that people sitting at microphones would use people’s official titles and official names for places, no? But I’m also seeing Representatives in the House of Representatives refer to themselves as “Congresswoman [name of person].” Even they can’t get their official title correct. Sigh.
I used to get along well with people who thought of themselves as “progressive” or “liberal,” but most have become an empty shell of their former selves, so I can’t relate well to them now. They still live under delusions that they are progressives. They have become more mainstream and sheeple and moved to the right, usually to support the other right-wing war party called the “Democratic” Party. They’re the same group that uses this sloppy language. This inconsistent language I wrote about above is also confusing to people internationally who are not that familiar with our system of governance. They will likely think that Representatives and “Congress members” are two different groups of people.
And another “pet peeve?” I won’t get started on the official name for the US nation’s capital: It’s District of Columbia, not Washington DC. And there is no Washington in DC.
Yesterday, I was on a site and saw a headline involving one of my “pet peeves.” It was so tempting to comment, but I could predict the outcome, so I clicked off.
The cesspool called online has revealed what our world and society really are, unfortunately. A rather sick place.
Who knew there were that many sick and dysfunctional people in the world? And so much ignorance and lies. I think I would rather not have known that, and we didn’t know that when things were simpler, such as when all we had was, “Letters to the Editor” in newspapers. Apparently most editors chose the best of the bunch from the trash they received.
As mi amigo/my friend just said: “The world is full of trash; it’s almost all trash.” I understand why many sites have turned off their comment sections. I wonder why it took them so long? Chau.—el barrio rosa