The National Anthem - a rant

[vaskidmark]

Had the nooze on when they broadcast the opening ceremony of the JFK memorial service in Dallas.  I have much sweeping up of broken items ahead of me.

The National Anthem has not only words but music prescribed.  It is an anthem, not a vehicle for one's personal interpretation.  Glissands and trills do not appear anywhere in the score.

If the band can stick to the music why can not/will not the singer do so as well?  Is there a prize for how badly one can perform?  How much one can deviate from the "official" version?

Can we pass a law that banishes the imbelishers and interpreters to kereoke bars, never to come out again?

Thank you.  I do not feel any better, but appreciate your allowing me to vent.

stay safe.

[SADShooter]

Thank you for expressing a sentiment I share all too often

[RocketMan]

My wife and I feel the same way.  We generally mute/fast forward through the anthem on recorded sporting events because of these 'interpretations'.  Once in a while we watch one in the hope it will be a well rendered traditional version.  We get lucky sometimes and catch a gem.

[freakazoid]

I don't see much wrong with people who "interpret" the song. While I generally prefer the traditional version, sometimes someone can do it right by doing it non-traditional, as long as the person has talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3cYpFLJiM

[Marnoot]

I used to feel more strongly about the anthem than I do now, but currently (aside being annoyed at said alterations from an aesthetic perspective) I just don't revere it as some sacred thing to be left untouched, unaltered, and pure. It's only been the anthem since 1931, and frankly there were other choices I'd like better.

I guess the current state of the government and our "represent"atives, and in turn the mindset of the people of the country, has just reduced my overall traditional-patriotic fervor some.

The above said, as freakazoid mentions, most alterations to it just plain don't sound appealing. The ones that do don't bother me a whit.

[AZRedhawk44]

Seems to me that hockey games very rarely feature anyone riffing on the anthem.  More or less spot-on with tempo and melody.

[SADShooter]

The aesthetic interpretation is less bothersome to me than the spirit/intent of the rendition. If your plan is to:

-grab your crotch and screech tunelessly a la Roseanne
-ululate & glissando as if you're calling coyotes to demonstrate your vocal range
-change/botch the lyrics to make a political point

then you shouldn't be in front of the microphone. Want to offer a heartfelt presentation that veers a little from the sheet music? Knock yourself out.

The Hendrix guitar piece is a good illustration. It gets to me, insofar as it makes me consider the meaning and significance of the song, while being an unconventional, innovative rendering. If his intent was to trash the song and disrespect its ideals, it didn't work on me. Roseanne, OTOH, can smoke stinky excrement in Hades...

[vaskidmark]

Seems to me that hockey games very rarely feature anyone riffing on the anthem.  More or less spot-on with tempo and melody.

Kind of hard to do to "Oh, Canada".

That and the the fact that most fans are as willing as the players to throw a few fists.

stay safe.

[Azrael256]

You guys must be a blast at baseball games.  If you take time out of your busy schedule to stop yelling at kids on your lawn.  

But seriously.  I didn't watch the thing today, but for a presidential memorial, I would expect the USMC band or something similar doing it straight.  At a baseball game, short of Roseanne or Miley Cyrus, I don't mind some "interpretation."

[Hawkmoon]

I don't see much wrong with people who "interpret" the song. While I generally prefer the traditional version, sometimes someone can do it right by doing it non-traditional, as long as the person has talent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt3cYpFLJiM

And you consider THAT to be an example of what you described?

That wasn't even music, let alone the National Anthem.

[freakazoid]

And you consider THAT to be an example of what you described?

That wasn't even music, let alone the National Anthem.

[Phantom Warrior]

The aesthetic interpretation is less bothersome to me than the spirit/intent of the rendition. If your plan is to:

-grab your crotch and screech tunelessly a la Roseanne
-ululate & glissando as if you're calling coyotes to demonstrate your vocal range
-change/botch the lyrics to make a political point

then you shouldn't be in front of the microphone. Want to offer a heartfelt presentation that veers a little from the sheet music? Knock yourself out.

The Hendrix guitar piece is a good illustration. It gets to me, insofar as it makes me consider the meaning and significance of the song, while being an unconventional, innovative rendering. If his intent was to trash the song and disrespect its ideals, it didn't work on me. Roseanne, OTOH, can smoke stinky excrement in Hades...

I think you summed it up pretty well.  Though the Hendrix cover sort of struck me as the guitar equivalent over your point #2.  Maybe a little over the top.  For an unconventional cover of the National Anthem I've always liked the Madison Rising cover.  If you prefer something more conventional and don't mind middle school age girls this is pretty good too.

[SADShooter]

Fair point re: Hendrix, except to say that he's just applying his style. It's not as if his other recordings were sedate and he goes of the rails with the Anthem. I don't necessarily equate that to a vocalist straining to herniate themselves before an audience.

Regardless, my curmudgeon cred pales next to Hawkmoon's, so YMMV, etc.

[Perd Hapley]

I used to feel more strongly about the anthem than I do now, but currently (aside being annoyed at said alterations from an aesthetic perspective) I just don't revere it as some sacred thing to be left untouched, unaltered, and pure. It's only been the anthem since 1931, and frankly there were other choices I'd like better.

That's not the point. What matters is that it is sung to honor one's country, or express patriotism. It should not be sung with a view to awing everyone with your individuality, or your virtuosity, or the cool new way you found to sing it. It should not be a showcase for how many notes you can hit. It's just not about you. ("You" being the vocalist; not you specifically.)

Now, don't get me started on how my pastor can't lead Amazing Grace anymore, without vamping. Yuck.

[vaskidmark]

You guys must be a blast at baseball games.  If you take time out of your busy schedule to stop yelling at kids on your lawn.  

But seriously.  I didn't watch the thing today, but for a presidential memorial, I would expect the USMC band or something similar doing it straight.  At a baseball game, short of Roseanne or Miley Cyrus, I don't mind some "interpretation."

I have always wondered why folks at baseball games are convinced the last 2 words of The Star Spangled Banner are "Play Ball!"

And I do not just yell at kids to get off my lawn - dogs, cats, and the stray evangalist are fair game as well. 

stay safe.

[BlueStarLizzard]

The local country music station plays the national anthem done by various country artists everyday around noon.
Some versions are better then others.

I find the bad ones are usually bad in the same way other traditional songs are done badly. It's overly altered without any real creativity and/or some idiot showboating their voice instead of expressing meaning.

I love the Hendrix version. The rawness and the rage combined with melody and purity of sound relates well to the expression of the conudrums facing the youth in that time period, and is still relatable now.

[Hawkmoon]

Regardless, my curmudgeon cred pales next to Hawkmoon's, so YMMV, etc.

At last -- RECOGNITION!

[RoadKingLarry]

I have always wondered why folks at baseball games are convinced the last 2 words of The Star Spangled Banner are "Play Ball!"
And I do not just yell at kids to get off my lawn - dogs, cats, and the stray evangalist are fair game as well. 

stay safe.

When did they change it from "Drivers, start your engines"?

[freakazoid]

What matters is that it is sung to honor one's country, or express patriotism.

I think that that is exactly what most are doing.

[BlueStarLizzard]

I think that that is exactly what most are doing.

Really? Because having a wardrobe that can malfuction in a ratings debacal sort of way isn't exactly nessasery to express honor or patriatism.

[freakazoid]

Really? Because having a wardrobe that can malfuction in a ratings debacal sort of way isn't exactly nessasery to express honor or patriatism.

That was a half-time show, not the National Anthem.

[Marnoot]

That's not the point. What matters is that it is sung to honor one's country, or express patriotism. It should not be sung with a view to awing everyone with your individuality, or your virtuosity, or the cool new way you found to sing it. It should not be a showcase for how many notes you can hit. It's just not about you. ("You" being the vocalist; not you specifically.)

Don't disagree with any of that. Those that sing it to awe/etc people are indeed missing the point of the anthem. My point is that I just can't muster any outrage as a result of them doing it. I just see idiots being idiots, the fact that they're doing it via the national anthem doesn't rate much higher on my give-a-crap scale. A bit higher perhaps, but not much.

[freakazoid]

For some people that's just how they sing.
http://www.boreme.com/posting.php?id=9177

[Perd Hapley]

I think that that is exactly what most are doing.

    No.

Don't agree with any of that. Those that sing it to awe/etc people are indeed missing the point of the anthem. My point is that I just can't muster any outrage as a result of them doing it. I just see idiots being idiots, the fact that they're doing it via the national anthem doesn't rate much higher on my give-a-crap scale. A bit higher perhaps, but not much.

You're missing a whole lot. The idiots are singing on TV because other idiots invited them to sing, for the masses that accept it, and clap for it, and think it's OK to disrespect the anthem.

It doesn't keep me awake at night, and it's pretty far down on the list of problems, but it does "outrage" me to the extent that it angers me and I seek to avoid such things. If you can call that outrage.

[Marnoot]

Sorry, my post's first sentence was supposed to say I don't disagree with any of that, I've corrected it.

The real root of the problem is "the masses" that you mention, not necessarily the idiots singing or the idiots inviting them to sing. If the masses weren't idiots, they wouldn't stand for it.

I have pride in the intents and values behind the founding of our country, I have pride in the values the country then and has since, at times, stood for, I have pride in those of my countrymen that still uphold those values and seek to return the country to those core values.

I'm just losing hope we're ever going to steer the country in that direction again, and I find it hard to get angry at affronts to a nation that I'm starting to see as the nation of the idiotic masses. The nation I have pride in may no longer exist. When I hear some dumb pop star belt out some horrible rendition of The Star Spangled Banner, to me he/she is singing the national anthem of "the masses", of this new nation I don't have much pride in. Vapid, irresponsible, hollow, meaningless singing for the vapid, irresponsible, hollow masses.

It is a shame they plagiarized the words and music from the old nation's anthem.