Site Presented By
Friday, Nov 6, 2009
Thanks for posting that. That's hilarious. Stephen Colbert or Jon Stewart should dig up tapes of both the inaugural and the recent statement of "principle."
Oh, great! Another language in which no one can sing the Star Spangled Banner in.
I'd say we switch to Yankee Doodle. It's more associated with our fight for independence, we all know the words, everyone can sing the tune, and no one will ever be able to translate "doodle" into Spanish.
Besides, I like a national anthem that proclaims that how handy we Americans are with the ladies. It drives them cheese eating surrender monkeys up a wall.
Aw, lord, I'm just laughing so hard at the letters here and the whole fiasco in general that it's really hard to remember that there is a reason why some people are so touchy about this particular rendition of our god-awful, ear-splitting, verging-on-the-ludicrous national anthem. See, it was calculated. You gotta connect the dots. You have to bear in mind that a lot of people truly are convinced that the whole thing springs from the recent "Day Without an Immigrant" blowout, during which a lot of people, in very calculated fashion, worked very hard to irritate the bejesus out of blue-collar Americans. After taking all those jobs "Americans won't do", filling up our emergency rooms with snotty-nosed kids and knife wounds on the American taxpayer's dime, after simply being here in violation of the law and then demanding (there's that word again) yet more entitlements, the benificiaries of our largesse are treated to Wyclef and friends releasing a Spanish version of Francis Scot Key's immortal mangling of words and music, a few demonstrators (or whatever they were or were doing) sing the anthem in a language they themselves have barely mastered any better than most Americans have mastered Americanese, and you've got Mrs. O'Leary's cow in the act of kicking over the lantern that eventually reduced Chicago to a burned-out pile of, well, cowhide and charred pizza. It ain't pretty. In any language. Just aks the Presidensity.
I do care about the so called Spanish-language national anthem. Although I must admit that it doesn't bother me so much that it was translated into Spanish, what does bother me is that they took it upon themselves to change the words. That is totally unacceptable. Also Tim, I have another question for you. What is your definition of legal and illegal?
I know I wont get an answer to that one, but I just thought I would ask. JGM
It meant so much more to me in English.
Great! Something new for the right wing to soil themselves over. I was getting tired of the whole "flag burning" debate, and this one is an even more preposterous waste of time and now, thanks to Frist and his buddies, my money. Hey, fellas? We're not talking about changing the National Anthem so that from this point, you'll have to learn it in Spanish if you want to sing along at the ballgame. And the last time I checked, one of the "freedoms" that we've got here was to record whatever the hell we wanted, in whatever language pleased us most.
Only in America do we get our knickers in a knot over the inconsequential symbols of our country. People in other countries don’t worship their flags the way we do, or have pledges of allegiance that take on cosmic importance in federal court. Now it’s the national anthem. Give me a break.
If we got one-tenth as agitated over the REAL essence of our nation as we do over these stupid symbols, this would be a great place to live. How about some national angst over freedom of speech or constitutional checks and balances?
Tim Grieves believes it is stupid to care about what language the national anthem is sung in, and the vast majority of the responses agree. As many have noted Bush hisself has sung it in Spanish, and as Grieves points out State Department's own web site contains the official version in Spanish and other languages.
I agree that most of the objections to singing it in Spanish are demagoguery at play, including by Bush hisself. But Grieves and without exception so far the other responders, miss the main point: The current Spanish version is not a translation but a rewriting of the song, to make a different political statement. Examples: ". . . We are brothers, it's our anthem . . . It's time to break the chains . . ."
G. Sower argues that we should follow the example of the Christians, who translated the bible into multiple languages in order to spread their word. But a more correct analogy would be translating the Koran and labeling it the bible, or vice versa.
What was stupid was the politically tone deaf belief that this ploy, regardless of the merits of the political statement, wouldn't be noticed and backfire.
From talk radio to the presidency agitated Americans have expressed anger over the "desecration" of the Star Spangled Banner when undocumented residents sing it in Spanish. In the past, the anthem's translation into a foreign language was the least of the infamies that dismayed purists.The flap created by the Spanish language version is just another opportunity to bash immigrants who happen to be from the wrong countries.
The anthem for over a century has been cheapened, insulted and even besmirched by well intentioned but misguided Americans who think they can improve on the melody. Such conduct - except when it touches the immigration question - is now generally ignored, sometimes encouraged.
Although President George Bush argues that the national anthem should only be sung in English, performing it in a foreign language isn't novel. Wikipedia, that all-knowing Internet site, reports that German and Latin translations appeared in the 1860s, followed by Yiddish and French versions. The U. S. Bureau of Education printed it in Spanish in 1919 for widespread use. In those more idyllic days immigrants demonstrated their love for their new home by joyfully singing the anthem in their native tongue.
Other versions of the anthem left the words alone but altered the melody, in one case so drastically that it got the composer/conductor in trouble. When Igor Stravinsky raised his baton in Boston in 1944 you would have thought he was Roseanne Barr. A dutiful audience began to sing but, according to one report, as the strange and dissonant notes continued "eyebrows lifted, voices fluttered and the singing stopped."
Boston authorities warned Stravinsky that he was afoul of a state law that forbade rearrangement of the anthem. Music critic Albert Goldberg noted Stravinsky's version was banned in Boston and booed in Baltimore, but he escaped sanctions.
But not Karl Muck, who also conducted in Boston. His sin was not that he wrote a discordant arrangement of the tune. He didn't play it at all.
In 1918 the German native allegedly refused to lead the orchestra in a rendition of the Star Spangled Banner. Muck claimed that the piece was left off the program because musically it was not in accord with the serious compositions scheduled. The popular feeling was that he was pro-German. Arrest and deportation followed.
Despite the danger, Stravinsky's arrangement paved the way for a multitude of variations. Today the web holds hundreds of anthem recordings, many of them unorthodox versions of the traditional melody.
The "Star-Mangled Banner" website spotlights Jimi Hendrix' Woodstock electric guitar version, Jose Feliciano's "slow, bluesy" World Series rendition, and Marvin Gaye's 1983 NBA All-Star "soul and funk interpretation." And who can forget Roseanne Barr's interpretation at a San Diego baseball game, complete with off-key screeching and mannerisms mocking ball players?
Fortunately, Charles Ives confined his genius to variations on "America." But Carla Bley's "National Anthem" runs on for over 20 minutes, with bits of the original melody fading in and out. Talk radio is undisturbed by her blasphemy.
So how should it be played and sung? William Santelmann, long-time director of the Marine Corps Band, insisted that it be performed as written, without embellishments. Edwin Franko Goldman called for an official, government approved arrangement, played without frills from written notes. Both insisted on a uniform tempo, a plea almost universally ignored.
Their way was tried - once. In 1918, before Congress had made the anthem our official hymn, a committee approved the B flat arrangement that has plagued nearly everyone who ever tried to sing "the rockets red glare." It was adopted by the military and became standard sheet music for school bands. The War Department's Bureau of Public Relations issued a statement that "extraneous notes and florid embellishments are not necessary, nor in good taste."
But the difficulty with the B flat version persisted, and daring singers continued to add higher, unwritten notes ending "land of the free." During WWII the military officially accepted the A flat version, erroneously referred to as the "easy-to-sing" arrangement.
The next time a would-be singer desecrates the Star Spangled Banner on amateur night at the local ball park, will those who today express outrage at the audacity of a Spanish language version be as incensed? At least the Spanish version has kept the original tune and in fact has resulted in a more melodic quality utilizing the beauty of the language to create a pleasurable listening experience which many modern English versions fail to accomplish. It's shameful that the anti-immigrant crowd uses the nation's anthem to promote its xenophobic agenda.
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
Even when government officials purposely subject an innocent person to brutal torture, they enjoy full immunity.
The Maine fight was supposed to be the dress rehearsal for repealing California's Prop. 8 -- but gay marriage lost
Once one obtains Seriousness credentials in the Washington media, they are irrevocable no matter one's conduct.
Salon headlines in your mailbox
