4 ms·

Relevant Reddit thread: "Why can't singers perform the national anthem without changing the melody? It's not just what happened on Sunday night football, it's l

Relevant Reddit thread: "Why can't singers perform the national anthem without changing the melody? It's not just what happened on Sunday night football, it's literally every time someone performs the (American) national anthem. They go off and add their own notes and change the anthem to make it their own personal showcase. Just sing the damn song the way we all learned it." https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/11427z/why_cant_singers_perform_the_national_anthem/ https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/11427z/why_cant_...

charcircuit 3y ago
I've noticed this happens with covers of other songs too and it angers me to no extent when they deviate from the original beyond changing the octave and such.
- munchler 3y ago
  Gotta disagree with you there. The whole point of a good cover is to put your own spin on the song. If it's just a note-for-note redo of the original, why bother? The best covers end up "owning" the song, and the original is sometimes forgotten. Do you think Johnny Cashs's version of "Hurt" would've been better if he tried to sound like Nine Inch Nails?
  - anigbrowl 3y ago
    You can make a song your own without trying to rewrite the whole melody. A particularly dramatic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Cp55MvX54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Cp55MvX54
  - charcircuit 3y ago
    The point of a cover for me is to see someone else sing the same song. >If it's just a note-for-note redo of the original, why bother? People's individual voices are different. It's not like a synthesizer where every note sounds the exact same. >Do you think Johnny Cashs's version of "Hurt" would've been better if he tried to sound like Nine Inch Nails? From a quick look it seems like the main difference is that John doesn't mumble as much. I think it's fine to clearly enunciate the words of a song. I don't think that changes the song.
andy99 3y ago
As a sort of counterpoint, Jimmy Hendrix's version of the national anthem was incredibly popular and influential. The issue is it's easy to try to do some over-the-top thing with the anthem, it's just very hard to do it well so most efforts flop.
- bongodongobob 3y ago
  Yeah that was at a counter culture music festival though. Completely different situation than a football game. It was almost ironic.
- dralley 3y ago
  Whitney Houston did a good job with it too.
dctoedt 3y ago
Edit to my comment above: I have no quarrel with creative covers and often love them. Example: I like Counting Crows' version of "Big Yellow Taxi" better than Joni Mitchell's original. Taylor Swift's "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" at Carole King's RRHOF induction was wonderful. But: Call me a chauvinist — the National Anthem is different.
vunderba 3y ago
I mean... really? For the same reason that instrumentalists and vocalists have been constantly fiddling with the original printed note since the dawn of music by adding vibrato, playing in octaves, etc. Because they want to show off. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the practice of embellishment, but it should be obvious why people do it.

charcircuit 3y ago

I've noticed this happens with covers of other songs too and it angers me to no extent when they deviate from the original beyond changing the octave and such.

munchler 3y ago
Gotta disagree with you there. The whole point of a good cover is to put your own spin on the song. If it's just a note-for-note redo of the original, why bother? The best covers end up "owning" the song, and the original is sometimes forgotten. Do you think Johnny Cashs's version of "Hurt" would've been better if he tried to sound like Nine Inch Nails?
- anigbrowl 3y ago
  You can make a song your own without trying to rewrite the whole melody. A particularly dramatic example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Cp55MvX54 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T5Cp55MvX54
- charcircuit 3y ago
  The point of a cover for me is to see someone else sing the same song. >If it's just a note-for-note redo of the original, why bother? People's individual voices are different. It's not like a synthesizer where every note sounds the exact same. >Do you think Johnny Cashs's version of "Hurt" would've been better if he tried to sound like Nine Inch Nails? From a quick look it seems like the main difference is that John doesn't mumble as much. I think it's fine to clearly enunciate the words of a song. I don't think that changes the song.

andy99 3y ago

As a sort of counterpoint, Jimmy Hendrix's version of the national anthem was incredibly popular and influential. The issue is it's easy to try to do some over-the-top thing with the anthem, it's just very hard to do it well so most efforts flop.

bongodongobob 3y ago
Yeah that was at a counter culture music festival though. Completely different situation than a football game. It was almost ironic.
dralley 3y ago
Whitney Houston did a good job with it too.

dctoedt 3y ago

Edit to my comment above: I have no quarrel with creative covers and often love them. Example: I like Counting Crows' version of "Big Yellow Taxi" better than Joni Mitchell's original. Taylor Swift's "Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow" at Carole King's RRHOF induction was wonderful. But: Call me a chauvinist — the National Anthem is different.

vunderba 3y ago

I mean... really? For the same reason that instrumentalists and vocalists have been constantly fiddling with the original printed note since the dawn of music by adding vibrato, playing in octaves, etc. Because they want to show off. I'm neither condoning nor condemning the practice of embellishment, but it should be obvious why people do it.