Indiana bill would outlaw singing national anthem 'inappropriately'

Why do Republicans hate America so much? What ever happened to the Bill of Rights, the Constitution and Free Speech? Do these documents and Rights ever come up when the GOP rally...This goose-stepping has to stop. Vote them out people! They are acting like BOA CONSTRICTORS, and their forked tongue is pointing at YOU. As they promise less,indeed, less intrusive, goverment...

Ah, the endless tranny of the far right loons, such hypocracy, only their brand of government intrusion into our lives matters. Sorry, Tpubs, only your brainwashed contigency will buy this infrigement on their rights. Get over yourselves.

Good morning Love!

Good grief is right, just another fine example of how to keep government out of our lives! Like anyone else our national anthem means a lot to me but, well Good Grief!

Well we are not allowed to buy cars or alcohol on Sunday either.

The right calls it an affront on freedom of speech when anti bully laws include sexual orientation.

But then they call it american, to deny you the freedom of political speech.

Insult to vets? How about what GOP do to vet benefits?

God forbid GOP does something that actually benefits us.

This will hold as much weight as if Texas were to legislate that the Texas governor had the power to appoint the top official of the EPA, none!

I wonder if Jimmy Hendricks' and Marvin Gaye's renditions would be "approved"???

I'd like to see their definition of "inappropriately". I've heard some pretty horrible renditions of the Star Spangled Banner, it's a difficult song to sing and the lyrics are frequently butchered, but inappropriate? I mean would that include, say, Jimi Hendrix? Who determines what's appropriate? It's unconstitutional anyway.

As an active duty service member, I take great offense when people presume to know what my opinion is. Am I insulted by the occasional botching/butchering of the national anthem? Nope! My own personal sense of patriotism tells me that the people of this nation and the rights guaranteed us by our constitution hold far more value than any bit of fabric or song. While I am tremendously offended by needless (emphasis on needless, there is such a thing as prudent legislation, and our laws should reflect the times in which we live) encroachment upon civil liberties and the corporate subversion of our national legislature, I don't care if Christina Aguilera screws up the anthem. Nor do I care if someone wears the flag as a tie or even burns it in the street. Such things are unimportant when compared to the reasons we feel this nation is a place of greatness. I highly doubt that anyone has ever seriously claimed that this nation is great due to our beautiful flag and lovely anthem.

How can a song which already had its lyrics completed changed be protected in the first place? Francis Scott Key wrote that song to the tune of a British drinking song, called "To Anacreon in Heaven".

To Anacreon in heaven, where he sat in full glee
A few sons of harmony sent a petition,
That he their inspirer and patron should be.
When this answer arrived from that jolly old Grecian -
"Voice, fiddle and flute no longer be mute,
I'll lend you my name and inspire you to boot.
And besides I'll instruct you like me to entwine
The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus' vine."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00xKVJ9dQCc

Bonos thanks for getting my day off to a rousing start! That's why I love this site. If you try, you can learn something every day. That's my goal!

I can only assume Rosanne Barr is permanently disallowed from performing in the state.

I agree with disliking badly or intentionally mis-sung versions of the national anthem, but outlawing it? Thanks goodness conservatives are all about less regulation, and staying out of people's lives. if they WERE intent on telling us how to live, Orwell's vision would be frighteningly understated.

I was gonna rail on the GOP/TP regarding the 'jobs, jobs, jobs' platform they ran on, relative to the basic restrictions of rights that characterize the legislation they have produced since being elected. However, when I read this, "Additionally, schools would have to keep recordings of every performance for two years.", I realized that this would produce more jobs than any of their other legislative proposals...

"Additionally, schools would have to keep recordings of every performance for two years.",

This from a party that prides itself for being the champion of less gov't intrusion and less regulation? I guess they really mean that only applies if you are anything but a republican.

IOKIYR!

I would be careful Soph, you just might be breaking some obscure Indiana law just writing about this. Have you considered the repercussions? What if Indiana declares war on Britain? I wonder if this woman is related to Bachman.

I tried to get some contact info for Ms Veneta Baker and the State of Indiana does not make it very easy, but just in case anyone would like to send along their thoughts and loves puzzles, here is the website. www.in.gov/legislative/senate_republicans/5315.htm I did not make it active out of respect and if you choose to go there, you still have to pick which Senator to email.

I think most botched versions are the work of idiots who take the job without bothering to learn the words, or those trying to be funny (Roseanne Barr). Other than the late, great Jimi Hendix's beautiful and haunting rendition, I want to be able to sing along with this symbol of our patriotic devotion to our country. For me, this means no extra notes added for "artistic" flourish. That said, until arrogant and clueless become criminal offenses, until we all agree on what constitutes "art", until freedom to protest is taken away, outlawing the botching of the national anthem is just useless grandstanding.

I would like to report from the state of Indiana that we have 100% employment here, crystal-clear air and water, all of our kids are well fed and healthy, and our roads and bridges are in tip-top condition (except for that one, which is not important at all).

This temporary miracle is why we have so much time left over for this inconsequential bull@!$%#.

Bonos thanks for getting my day off to a rousing start! That's why I love this site. If you try, you can learn something every day. That's my goal!

Glad you enjoyed it, Ron! I enjoy learning from Newsviners myself.

As for extra notes for "flourish", music is open for interpretation. Every musician adds his or her own flourishes. Even a Beethoven symphony is interpreted by musicians, who add a little something here and there. If they didn't music wouldn't be an art. It would be a boring technical exercise. Ever listen to purely synthesized music? There's no human expression, rendering it artless and cold.

@thisbusymonster

this info concerning indiana is very interesting, but can you help me understand the confusion of one politician of the past who hailed from indiana, the spelling of tomato and potatoe or was that potato and tomatoe. that strange bird (quail), did he break from indiana's perfection or is this the norm for spelling bee judges in that great state?

In Indiana, English is spelled different. So indeed, it's tomatoe.

And like I said, people should really come here and check out the pristine nature of our state, and our shiny happy people. Obviously this is as good as it gets, which is why our legislature can be so busy with other matters now. We're about to get rid of them all since they've got nothing serious to do anymore.

Wow... Indiana has morphed into Lake Woebegone.... Amazing.

You are absolutely correct. All Indiana school students are at the top of their class now. It's astonishing! Classes with no bottoms! Has to be seen to be believed.

My mom and bro live in Indianapolis. I moved there with them back in my High School days. I left as soon as I could. It's called the circle city because all they do is go around in circles...

All you whining liberals need to shut up and sing the National Anthem with the dignity it deserves. It is about time you realize we are in charge and you will pledge allegiance to the corporations we choose. You have no freedom. If you refuse you will be detained and reeducated.

/sarc

BobbyG beat me to it. Y'all know the neoNazicons hated hearing Hendrix or Frehley's Star Spangled ax solos. Those were and are great!

Anybody who thinks they have the right to corner the market on how pride of country is performed doesn't have an inkling of what true Freedom means! And they have no right pushing their bullsh1t ideals of patriotic duty on others period! So fock you!!!

Next some conservative is going to insist on laws telling people how to worship! Oh that's right! The GOP is already pulling that sh1t by duping evangelicals into thinking Republicans actually have their best interests at heart when all the GOP is doing is taking advantage of evangelical ignorance, innocence of the World and misplaced trust towards a Party that is nothing more than the biggest lobby the World has ever seen!

This is the inappropriate infringement on our Constitutional right to free speech that the government should have no right to inflict on the People in any way. This is why we need more libertarians in government. They would respect our right to free speech! The last concept that the government should be concerned with would be preserving a song's integrity for propaganda purposes.

I'm sure Roseanne is quaking in her Keds !!

While I find intentionally massacring the National Anthem personally offensive, I also believe it is well within an American's right to freely express themselves. This "law" is too Orwellian to me and far closer to Communism than Democracy or the "Constitutional Conservatism" Sen. Becker almost certainly claims in campaign ads and at political events.

Does this mean those of us who can't sing our way out of a paper bag or carry a note to save our lives are now to be considered criminals if we attempt to sing our national anthem?

Well now that just totally freaking bites, doesn't it.

I think these things generally work themselves out without the need for laws. Case in point Rosanne Barr intentionally ruined the anthem and now has to get hit by a log every night on TV.

I wonder if this will also to apply to the cute 5, 6, 7, 12, 15 year olds that also sing the Anthem.

This law is obviously a stupid idea. Let's go back and posthumously arrest Jimi Hendrix or Marvin Gaye just because they didn't follow the sheet music.

A conservative should understand that this is where the free market comes in. If you sing the national anthem in a way that people like, they will ask you to do it again. If you piss people off when you sing the anthem, no one will ever ask you to sing it again. Problem solved.

How does this stuff get past the focus group?

Pat - I'm all for freedom of speech, but children shouldn't be allowed to sing. PERIOD. lol *shudders in rememberance of Kidz Bop...

How does this stuff get past the focus group?

Their glasses are out of focus?

but children shouldn't be allowed to sing. PERIOD.

Other than the fact most can't seem to keep in tune, the lyrics can be hysterically funny.

Kids singing? The younger the better, imo.

*rofl*

Wow, you would think that the state legislature would have something better to do with their time than worry about a song being sung off-key. You know, like: unemployment, deficits, state budgets, the hungry, the poor, the elderly, the needy, the people who have lost their homes or had their utilities shut off, discrimination, law breakers, abusive spouses, thieves, fracking, pollution, fraud, and any number of other issues than singing a song.

I would find it embarrassing to tell the people I represent that I wasted valuable time worrying about the singing abilities (or lack thereof) of any individual.

Don't get me wrong, I respect the national anthem and the flag and veterans, etc. I just don't think it's appropriate to alter the first amendment because someone reinterprets words and music to a song. If those offended are worried about the appropriateness of the singing or the music, then they should take the lead--literally. It really is that simple.

The GOP worry about this @!$%#?
what about jobs???????

Reminds me of this:

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/35maca/

Frankly, I've never liked our warlike bombastic anthem anyway, and I love how god fearing christians defend a song whose tune is an old college frat song written SPECIFICALLY to gauge how drunk you are - the drunker you are the worse (or better sometimes) you can sing the tune.

I've ALWAYS supported American the Beautiful as being a true national anthem representing the BEST of the US

America the Beautiful
Words by Katharine Lee Bates,
Melody by Samuel Ward

O beautiful for spacious skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the fruited plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for pilgrim feet
Whose stern impassioned stress
A thoroughfare of freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God mend thine every flaw,
Confirm thy soul in self-control,
Thy liberty in law!

O beautiful for heroes proved
In liberating strife.
Who more than self their country loved
And mercy more than life!
America! America!
May God thy gold refine
Till all success be nobleness
And every gain divine!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
And crown thy good with brotherhood
From sea to shining sea!

O beautiful for halcyon skies,
For amber waves of grain,
For purple mountain majesties
Above the enameled plain!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till souls wax fair as earth and air
And music-hearted sea!

O beautiful for pilgrims feet,
Whose stem impassioned stress
A thoroughfare for freedom beat
Across the wilderness!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till paths be wrought through
wilds of thought
By pilgrim foot and knee!

O beautiful for glory-tale
Of liberating strife
When once and twice,
for man's avail
Men lavished precious life!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till selfish gain no longer stain
The banner of the free!

O beautiful for patriot dream
That sees beyond the years
Thine alabaster cities gleam
Undimmed by human tears!
America! America!
God shed his grace on thee
Till nobler men keep once again
Thy whiter jubilee!

I especially like the last three lines of the second verse and the last four lines of verse seven, which I marked out in boldface. Now that is an anthem to be prouder of than the hastily scribbled chest thumping ditty set to a drunken frat song that we currently use.

The next up on the agenda is a bill outlawing left handed rock throwing.

What a complete and utter waste of ink. You can't (in general) use the government to mandate respectfulness, truthfulness, or civility. You've got the right to be disdainful, lie, and generally be unpleasant.

Oh wait, this law isn't about outlawing such conduct in general, but only some pretty specific circumstances. Well that would be different.

The government is fully within their power to require that if you are going to sing it at their event you do it according to the music as written and provided by the State. Its a contractual thing and the bill is perfectly fine for what it says.

The general comments here tell me people are commenting without even bothering to read the first sentence of the article. Or they just can't understand the very clear meaning in it.

Legislation introduced to the Indiana Senate would make it a crime to stray from approved lyrical or melodic guidelines while performing the national anthem at any event sponsored by public schools and state universities.

Knee jerk reaction also comes to mind.

See that qualifier is kind of important. It is why free speech is not called into question by the bill.

Idj, michelle-1073610, CPOSharkey, flounderface, Polka14, xrayspex, ryan-244815, StevieGee, bonos_rama, zapper45701- No one is interfering with your private life, or your free speech with this bill. You are free to perform the song however you like, but if you are doing it for the state they want you promise to do it according to their music, not your own personal rendition.

How do any of you think it is an infringement on your right as a private citizen to say that when done at a government event as part of the official ceremonies it is done by certain terms?

If you, or the state, contracted with me to perform a color guard ceremony at some event, and to do it in accordance and following the procedures set forth in the field manuals of the united states army would it be a violation of my rights of free speech and expression to penalize me by the terms of that contract for breaking into a stomp routine in the middle of the ceremony?

Once the government pays for it, at a government event, it is no longer your speech. Want to sing the R. Barr version at the event, go for it, but they State has no desire for you to be the official performer then. But by all means, sing it however you like on your own dime, at your own event, and not as a representative of the government. But busting out your own personal version in the middle of another event might qualify as disturbing the peace.

This is actually pretty basic stuff when it come to contract law. Free speech does not enter into the equation at all. Your right to free speech doesn't trump their right to hold you to your promise.

My personal opinion is that there are far more people who think they have Whitney's pipes than even come close. I do wonder if Sen. Vaneta Becker didn't like her rendition of it, which starts off a very traditional rendition (well with just a tad more vibrato).

Many performers seem to take what she does in a few parts of it and decide to transform the entire song into a stylized interpretation. If they had her ability maybe people wouldn't mind as much.

Oh Oh

I can sing it

Jose, can you see

My eyes

if you can

than my hair's too long

Sorry couldn't help myself

If they had her ability maybe people wouldn't mind as much.

That's the problem with the law, isn't it?

Recruitdad1992

Not at all. Even if Whitney Houston was an average singer (that everyone else was raised to her level) the law would still be fine.

As I indicated, and the video shows, Whitney Houston's rendition is almost entirely a traditional rendition. It generally follows the sheet music, there are relatively minor changes to it. Other renditions have been only remotely similar.

There are some performers who don't even seem to try and follow the music at all.

I loved Jimi's rendition, still do (but I'm biased, I love rock, funk, and fusion). It was a wonderful expression of free speech and artistic endeavor. But a part of that was because we have a base to compare it to. The common culture of knowing the original matters. The government can play a role in ensuring his rendition has that value. By actually implementing this law the state does work to ensure that common culture, that base with which to compare his rendition. By similarly and simultaneously enshrining the rights of free expression of private individuals and entities. But one right does not trump all others.

And I'm sorry, the comments about free speech being destroyed and walked all over are simply knee-jerk reactions by people who didn't read or didn't understand the article or free speech or the most utterly basic facets of contracts.

GOOD!...hahaha...another bold step in the face of libby neo-communist ideology and stupidity...

typical libby ideology: "you can say anything you want!...unless it's about my mom!...or Hussein...or a gay person...or a hispanic...or a brown person (no actual 'black' person ever walked the earth)etc. etc. etc." , well , you get the idea

isn't it cool?

Can't Sen. Vaneta Becker (R) do something about unemployment, instead?

GOOD!...hahaha...another bold step in the face of libby neo-communist ideology and stupidity...

Yaaaaaaayyyyyyy!!!!!!!! Let's support an unconstitutional law because I'm so irrational that I think it's a slap at liberals!!!!!!!

@ Jake-413451

The common culture of knowing the original matters

I agree, but are fines and contracts the best way to create that culture?

As a musician, I often cringe at some of the renditions of our National Anthem. The intent of performing it is not to showcase ones chops, but this can be taught without laws, contracts and fines.

As a musician, I'll be damned if I want a LAW dictating how I or anyone else should perform it.

We can do better.

That's the trouble with our lawmakers now- they waste their time passing idiotic, meaningless laws like this so they won't have to focus on the REAL issues.

unconstitutional?...did the United States Supreme Court vote that way?...more libby diatribe and "my opinion is the right one" pablum...isn't it cool?

unconstitutional?...did the United States Supreme Court vote that way?

It violates the freedom of speech. The government has no right to regulate the ability to sing.

did the United States Supreme Court vote that way?

Some things are so obvious it doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to recognize. At least I'm commenting on the subject at hand rather than wandering of on some dumbassed tangent like you are.

Polka14

It violates the freedom of speech.

No, it doesn't. The freedom of speech does not free you of contractual obligations if you undertake them.

There is nothing unconstitutional with this law.

The government is under no obligation to allow each and every person who so desires to be the person to sing the national anthem in an official capacity to do so. The government actually gets to pick and choose who does it, and is certainly free to require the performance be done in a particular manner since they are funding it. This law in no way affects your right to sing the national anthem in whatever manner you choose on your own dime, the government is under no obligation to give you the venue of your choosing to exercise your rights.

Recruitdad1992

I agree, but are fines and contracts the best way to create that culture?

Ensuring people are familiar with it is, but no one tool is going to do that. This can simply be one tool of many to help do that. Do we require teachers to cover certain particular subjects in a history class. Could a teacher be obligated to present material in a particular manner? Say a biology teacher wanted to cover evolution in a manner inconsistent with the scientific consensus, could they be prohibited from doing so? Could one include penalties for doing so? The fine isn't what creates the culture, its exposing people to a standard, the fine is there to help ensure the performer does what they have said they are going to do. Perform the national Anthem in a manner consistent with the provided sheet music, not their own personal version.

Whether or not it is the best way is an interesting question. Not all actions are done with a singular strike. A silversmith makes many tiny impressions with many different tools to craft a work of beauty. If you told them they can only have this one tool (because it's "the best"), or just can't use those tools (because you don't think they are "the best"), your going to get a different product.

I'll be damned if I want a LAW dictating how I or anyone else should perform it.

But you're under no obligation to perform it that way, you are entirely free not to. No one is being pressed into service.

But your desire to perform it in a certain way in no way can obligate someone to provide a particular venue for you to do so.

Those who have been trying to say this is such an affront to free speech/artistic expression would have to believe something along those lines.

Now, as a singer (first tenor when I was in my early 20's, second tenor today) I will say I would never want someone to be able to dictate how I would perform either, but I recognize that if I was to perform for a particular person, group, or the government in a particular place they are free to have some requirements attached to it, and I am still free not to undertake the gig. My right to artistic expression is not assaulted by that.

But lets explore a hypothetical for a moment. Some people mentioned political speech. Singer Smith decides they want to make a political statement, and they have the best place for it, they've been approached about singing the national anthem at the Hoosier's first basketball game of the year.

It is projected that it will be a packed house, all 17,000+ seats looking to be filled. Singer Smith is presented a contract, it has the clause he has to faithfully perform the National Anthem as indicated in the attached sheet music else pay a $25 penalty.

Singer Smith has a tough decision to make if he signs the contract. Sing the song as they promised to do, or break their promise send out their message to 17,000 people and pay the $25 penalty.

• Could they have rented that Hall for $25?
• Could they have provided the entertainment they are there to watch (the basketball game) for $25?
• Could they have even gotten those 17,000 people there to hear his message for $25?

Sounds like even if it had first amendment issues at stake (and it doesn't) they are getting one hell of a bargain.

The fourth stanza, a pious hope for the future, should be sung more slowly than the other three and with even deeper feeling.

Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation,
Blest with vict'ry and peace, may the Heav'n - rescued land
Praise the Pow'r that hath made and preserved us a nation.

Then conquer we must, for our cause is just,
And this be our motto--"In God is our trust." And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

I hope you will look at the national anthem with new eyes. Listen to it, the next time you have a chance, with new ears.

And don't let them ever take it away.

--Isaac Asimov, March 1991

http://www.purewatergazette.net/asimov.htm

You are sooooooo misusing that quote from Isaac Asimov. He was talking about FREEDOM, not just the song.

If you think Asimov would support something silly like this, you don't know Isaac Asimov.

As well as being a gifted scientist and writer, Isaac Asimov was a compassionate life long liberal, a vocal opponent of the Vietnam war, abhored violence and bigotry in all its forms, a self described feminist, and a staunch supporter of environmental activism.

Asimov is one of my personal heroes. I didn't know him personally, but I've read every word he's ever published in popular literature.

You are clearly only hearing what you want to hear.

Chris, what you describe in your last line is C4P in a nutshell. Welcome to newsvine.

All Four Stanzas

By Isaac Asimov

Introductory Note. Unless you're already well acquainted with our "national anthem," this interesting piece by the late Isaac Asimov will be an eye-opener. It was for me. It's especially appropriate at a time when there is much talk of tossing out this difficult-to-sing and difficult-to-comprehend old song in favor of something that better suits Ray Charles' voice. You'll understand the song much better after you read Mr. Asimov's explanation.--Hardly Waite, Gazette Senior Editor.

I have a weakness--I am crazy, absolutely nuts, about our national anthem.

The words are difficult and the tune is almost impossible, but frequently when I'm taking a shower I sing it with as much power and emotion as I can. It shakes me up every time.

I was once asked to speak at a luncheon. Taking my life in my hands, I announced I was going to sing our national anthem--all four stanzas.

This was greeted with loud groans. One man closed the door to the kitchen, where the noise of dishes and cutlery was loud and distracting. "Thanks, Herb," I said.

"That's all right," he said. "It was at the request of the kitchen staff."

I explained the background of the anthem and then sang all four stanzas.

Let me tell you, those people had never heard it before--or had never really listened. I got a standing ovation. But it was not me; it was the anthem.

More recently, while conducting a seminar, I told my students the story of the anthem and sang all four stanzas. Again there was a wild ovation and prolonged applause. And again, it was the anthem and not me.

So now let me tell you how it came to be written.

You were saying? Is he less a hero to you now that you know this about him?

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2006/09/23/asimovs-tribute-to-the-national-anthem/

To the surprise of some, Asimov was quite a patriot. His short piece on the four stanzas of the "Star-spangled Banner" demonstrate his patriotism and his love of history, while offering a bit of humor to make it all stick in your mind. I post a complete copy below the fold.

http://keepamericansfree.wordpress.com/2010/07/05/isaac-asimov-on-the-national-anthem/ http://www.onejerusalem.org/2007/07/isaac-asimov-and-the-star-span.php

As well as being a gifted scientist and writer, Isaac Asimov was a compassionate life long liberal, a vocal opponent of the Vietnam war, abhored violence and bigotry in all its forms, a self described feminist, and a staunch supporter of environmental activism.

And that is expected to affect his love of country, patriotism, and of our national anthem exactly how? Is there supposed to be a partisan or ideological divide on those three loves?

Is there supposed to be a partisan or ideological divide on those three loves?

As there should be no partisan divide over loss of basic constitutional freedoms, which a bill like this examples. All are affected regardless of ideology.

Wow, you would think that the state legislature would have something better to do with their time than worry about a song being sung off-key. You know, like: unemployment, deficits, state budgets, the hungry, the poor, the elderly, the needy, the people who have lost their homes or had their utilities shut off, discrimination, law breakers, abusive spouses, thieves, fracking, pollution, fraud, and any number of other issues than singing a song.

Why yes. All of these problems and more have been solved and are a thing of the past. That's why we have so much time to spend on complete and utter silliness.

Rats, you must have missed it. It was right there a minute ago.....
Okay, who moved the "All the problems are solved" box? *taps foot*

@C4P: Liking the national anthem and making a law that people have to sing it in just one way OR ELSE, are two entirely different things.

Plus, I'm well aware of Asimov's un-abashed love of all things uniquely American. He loved the country because it gave him something that his birthplace in Soviet Russia did not: freedom and prosperity.

The song to him symbolized his ability to have a voice to encourage people to be better and smarter. Yes, Asimov was crazy about the song, but its still not just the song to him; it was that the song held a deeply personal meaning sentiment of freedom.

Look, I love pecan pie, but I'm not going to pass a law that says only one kind of pecan pie can ever be sung.

If you think its unpatriotic to sing the Anthem in an unorthodox way, to quote the dude, "that's just, like, your opinion man." Asimov never said anything about forcing people to be "patriotic" by force of law, and clearly, as demonstrated in "The Foundation" series as well in multiple other interviews and opinion pieces, he's more than a little against it.

The man hated everything to do with authoritarianism. Making a law that says the song just has to be sung only one way for the state's approval has nothing to do with the beliefs of Isaac Asimov.

He said he loved the song, he didn't say, "now let's make a law that everyone has to sing it my way or ELSE!"

But lets explore a hypothetical for a moment

OK, but let's define it a bit further. Let's say that "Singer Smith" is actually Carrie Underwood delivering a performance identical to the one linked in post 26.4.

Now, to anyone at the Hoosier ball game(who are finally kicking ass again BTW) this was a powerful performance that made grown men weep.....however, she did deviate from the sheet music with her modulation of the word "free". Do they let it slide because it was a 99% faithful to the sheet music and very moving? How many deviations are acceptable, if any? How is the headline: "Carrie Underwood gets slapped with fine after taking artistic liscence with the word "free" while singing National Anthem" going to play-out in middle America?

25 bucks is nothing to Ms Underwood. But, to the people who were moved by her performance, this becomes a WTF moment, a BIG one. It completely changes the aesthetic of the ceremony.

The law has more to do with Roseanne versions wilfully tormented than a mistake or flairing a word or two for dramatic effect.

The law has more to do with Roseanne versions wilfully tormented than a mistake or flairing a word or two for dramatic effect.

Then enforcement will be subject to someones taste. I love me a good National Anthem performance, but this is a matter of auditioning and selection rather than law enforcement and fines.

Asimov was a man of restraint.

He would undoubtedly find gross emotional displays like an intentional slurring of the song distasteful, indeed disrespectful, but if you read "The Foundation" series, you can clearly see that he loathed authoritarian governance; especially petty rules governing daily behavior or rules that target political descent.

You can also find a few interviews of his on the subject of the political turmoil of the 60's and 70's where he clearly displays his dislike of authoritarian governance.

It was the same way with what he saw as the emotion-driven nature of the "hippy" peace movement. He felt they were trying to do the right thing, but also that they were mostly riding a wave of emotional highs. He saw them as unorganized, often intentionally so, and eventually when the wave finally broke, it left them drifting without a rudder to steer by. They had been living in a Dionysian revel, and when the party was over, it left a whole lot of them without any kind of internal compass to tell them which way to go.

This is a thing that you don't need a law for. It's way too easily abused and no good can come from it.

Recruitdad1992

Then enforcement will be subject to someones taste...this is a matter of auditioning and selection rather than law enforcement and fines.

I missed where arrest was a possibility, which is kind of implied with the law enforcement idea. Only that it was a penalty in the contract, which would make it a civil matter, not criminal. So unless you mean law enforcement in the broadest possible way including all civil matters it seems a stretch.

Many laws are subject to selective enforcement. Contract breaches are commonly subjective in nature. If you promise to deliver photos of a wedding it isn't, but if you promise to deliver good photos of the wedding you just created a very subjective standard. Being subjective does not make it invalid, only that it will not always be an obvious answer.

By the way, the further defining you've offered isn't an extension of what I offered, it ignores it to make it's own. It is a separate hypothetical entirely by a reasonable reading that extra modulation in the word free is going to send a political message in any but the most extreme cases. Say in modulating it to actually be different words entirely.

I missed where arrest was a possibility, which is kind of implied with the law enforcement idea.

? Who said anything about arrest? I'm sure you can think of a variety of laws that are enforceable by fines.

Anyway......

I am interested to see what you think this law would look like in writing. Does it deal with deviations of pitch, tempo, lyrics, instrumentation, composition, tone, timbre? All the above? None of the above?

I agree, there are laws that deal with issues that are subjective, but they still have defined parameters. This law would have to have some parameters, wouldn't it? What would they be?

The law has more to do with Roseanne versions wilfully tormented than a mistake or flairing a word or two for dramatic effect.

Actually no. The Senator thought it would be a good idea after getting an email from ONE 'concerned citizen' who was offended by a rendition they heard. This bill is only about school and state sponsored events. Neither of which was Ms. Barr involved with, to the best of my knowledge.

Be that as it may, it will affect ALL renditions not sung exactly as written. So yes, even a flared word would be a fine-able offence.

Except exteding a note doesn't change what was written. One can't change the words to other than those written. Flairng or extending a note on an existing word would not change the anthem.

Cornhusker4who?

I think I can change any word that I choose to.

You could do it but then wouldn't be the nationnal anthem anymore, would it?

So Cornhusker,

Since you seem to be a purist and seem to feel the Anthem is unchangable, does that mean we can go back to the original unchanged version of the pledge...you know the original that didn't have under god in it until the wacked out righties of the McCarthy era???

"Some things are so obvious it doesn't take a SCOTUS ruling to recognize"

haha...sorry redphish , you don't get to make the decisions