Appropriately, the evening began with our national anthem. The lights dimmed. A single spotlight shone on a remarkably talented young man who proceeded to give a flawless a cappella rendition of ““The Star-Spangled Banner’’–replete with enough cadenzas, ornaments and gospel licks to do Patti LaBelle proud. As has become the custom at such events, the audience responded with loud cheers, beginning about four bars before the anthem’s end. The applause was clearly for the performance and not for the anthem or its country.
It made me wonder. When did it become acceptable, even required, that our national anthem be customized and performed (preferably by a showbiz celebrity) rather than sung by the masses? When did our focus shift from the purpose of the music to its performer?
It’s gotten so the national anthem is just another part of the show. There’s audience anticipation (““How do you suppose he’s going to do it?’’) as well as the inevitable criticism (““Don’t you think Kathie Lee was a little over the top?’’).
This isn’t a question of taste in musical styles. I enjoy vocal music in all its forms. In the last year I’ve sung madrigals, oratorios and masses; enjoyed rock and gospel concerts alike. My goose bumps are consistently triggered by a properly busted barbershop chord. You’ll even find some country-and-Western radio stations among my stereo’s presets.
The only style, if it can be called one, common to modern performers of ““The Star-Spangled Banner’’ is self-indulgence. One stunning example occurred at a recent World Series game. An obscure sitcom actress (no doubt from a show on the network televising the game) sang the anthem without accompaniment. Not one to waste her moment in the sun, she stretched it to record length with sustained high notes and unnecessary ornaments. At the end (which couldn’t have come soon enough for the home crowd, to judge from its early cheering) the TV camera zoomed in to reveal that she had moved herself to tears. Please.
This is not an issue of style, but one of focus. I’ve always believed that we sing the national anthem at public events to honor our country; that it’s not intended to be part of the show but, rather, a brief pause for reflection and remembrance. Ideally, it should be a shared activity. Attention called to its performer by staging or musical arrangement is attention diverted from the anthem itself.
My first memory of ““The Star-Spangled Banner’’ embellished, and thereby diminished, is Jimi Hendrix’s famous riff at Woodstock. Did anyone at the time see his performance as anything but protest? True, it was both effective and timely, but protest nonetheless–the musical equivalent of flag-on-the-butt jeans. Since then, however, we’ve heard all manner of ““variations on a theme’’ passed off as national tribute. I haven’t heard a baroque or rap version yet, but this year’s winter sports season has hard- ly begun.
I’m afraid that the compulsion to impose distinctive styles on the anthem is symptomatic of the anti-melting-pot, in-your-face attitude of recent years. If Woody Guthrie had composed with this mind-set, his lyrics might have gone:
““This land might be your land,
But it’s definitely my land…''
Perhaps much of the blame goes to television. Producers seem compelled to make the national anthem part of a seamless flow of entertainment, as if to say, ““We have to broadcast it, but if it’s too boring we’ll lose audience share in the first two minutes. Book Madonna.''
At the recent Olympics, instrumental arrangements of the winners’ national anthems were played at each medal ceremony and the countries’ supporters sang along. That was more evocative than any pop star’s performance could have been.
Opinion on the question of whether it’s appropriate to creatively interpret the anthem seems to split along age lines. The 45-and-over crowd, who grew up actually singing the national anthem at public events, usually agrees that when it comes to its performance, less is more. Those who came of age post-Woodstock know no different and, hence, no better. A voice teacher recently heard one of her students refer to it as, ““you know… the Whitney Houston song.''
Some would argue that the problem is not with the performance but with the anthem itself. Many believe that ““America the Beautiful’’ would be a vast improvement, if you could ever get it past the staunch traditionalists. It’s certainly more easily sung. No matter which national anthem were chosen, it should still be presented as an anthem, not a showstopper.
Music intended to venerate a country or deity cannot ““star’’ its performer. Gregorian chant is stylized and fairly predictable, yet it is hauntingly effective as tribute. One does not see monks high- fiving as they leave the sanctuary after Evensong (““Great Kyrie, Brother Timothy! I could hear you above all the others’’). Rather, the genre’s hallmarks are the de-emphasis of performer and the elevation of subject matter.
So it should be with our national anthem. If it’s going to be just another part of a star-studded extravaganza, don’t bother with it. There are several catchier tunes available. But if our objective is to honor the country for which it stands, let’s take time out. Spotlight the flag, not the singer. Save the hot arrangement for the next club gig or television special. Better yet, forget the singer so that the crowd might more easily sing to a straightforward accompaniment.
And applaud if you must–but at least wait till it’s over.
