NationStates Jolt Archive

You read that right. In 1919, the US government commissioned a Spanish version of the Star Spangled Banner. (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/spanish-anthem/)


http://thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2006/05/spanishbook.jpg

Now, it wasn't the national anthem until 1931, but it was still an important part of Americana in 1919. Senator Lamar Alexander (R-Idiot) introduced legislation requiring that the Star Spangled Banner only be sung in English--one of the more ludicrous pieces of legislation of late.

Damn straight it should only be sung in English. The language that a song is sung in is as important as the song itself. It's the same way that some jokes don't work across the language barrier.

Damn straight it should only be sung in English. The language that a song is sung in is as important as the song itself. It's the same way that some jokes don't work across the language barrier.

Ah, but some jokes do. Are you saying you've heard the Spanish version and it didn't work or are you just basing that on your penchant for hating anything 'foreign'?

Considering we all came from immigration, there should be a national anthem in all languages, especially native american tongues, because they were here first.

Damn straight it should only be sung in English. The language that a song is sung in is as important as the song itself. It's the same way that some jokes don't work across the language barrier.
Negative. Plenty of songs are fantastic in multiple languages. I'm sure the Star Spangled banner will be the same. It's not the words that are important. It's not the music, or the language the lyrics are sung in. What's important is the message it IMPLIES! That, my friend, cannot be changed no matter what language it is in.

...

Oh dear science I sound like a fjorking patriotic after school special...

You should always attempt to sing a song in the language of its composition since it is very difficult to impossible to reproduce the meter of another language and still have a near-exact translation of the words. Look at English translations of classical Greek music that attempt to recreate dactylic hexameter, they're terrible, and English doesn't have the same stresses on its vowels that Greek does that are essential to how its words are sung.

Every language has sounds that are generally unique to itself and might not be reproducable in the music of other languages while retaining the same basic meaning.

Of course I would also say that you should always learn to read the language in which anything is originally written, but most people aren't willing to do that.

It's not the words that are important. It's not the music, or the language the lyrics are sung in. What's important is the message it IMPLIES!
Absolutely false, the meaning or message of any song is always secondary to the music since it is the arrangement of sounds that creates music in the first place. Meaning/message is subjective after all and depends upon the listener as much as whatever the composer intended, but sound itself is objective in a measurable sense and must be considered as the basis of music, and not all sounds are reproducable by all existing languages or can be arranged in the same manner.

You should always attempt to sing a song in the language of its composition since it is very difficult to impossible to reproduce the meter of another language and still have a near-exact translation of the words. Look at English translations of classical Greek music that attempt to recreate dactylic hexameter, they're terrible, and English doesn't have the same stresses on its vowels that Greek does that are essential to how its words are sung.

Every language has sounds that are generally unique to itself and might not be reproducable in the music of other languages while retaining the same basic meaning.

Of course I would also say that you should always learn to read the language in which anything is originally written, but most people aren't willing to do that.


Absolutely false, the meaning or message of any song is always secondary to the music since it is the arrangement of sounds that creates music in the first place. Meaning/message is subjective after all and depends upon the listener as much as whatever the composer intended, but sound itself is objective in a measurable sense and must be considered as the basis of music, and not all sounds are reproducable by all existing languages or can be arranged in the same manner.
You're taking me literally. I was talking about how it's a song of patriotism that means something to the American people above and beyond what the lyrics are or what the music actually is. I meant what I said metaphorically.

And again, I sound like an after school special. It's annoying.,

You should always attempt to sing a song in the language of its composition since it is very difficult to impossible to reproduce the meter of another language and still have a near-exact translation of the words. Look at English translations of classical Greek music that attempt to recreate dactylic hexameter, they're terrible, and English doesn't have the same stresses on its vowels that Greek does that are essential to how its words are sung.

Every language has sounds that are generally unique to itself and might not be reproducable in the music of other languages while retaining the same basic meaning.

Of course I would also say that you should always learn to read the language in which anything is originally written, but most people aren't willing to do that.


Absolutely false, the meaning or message of any song is always secondary to the music since it is the arrangement of sounds that creates music in the first place. Meaning/message is subjective after all and depends upon the listener as much as whatever the composer intended, but sound itself is objective in a measurable sense and must be considered as the basis of music, and not all sounds are reproducable by all existing languages or can be arranged in the same manner.

You assume the purpose of all songs is the same. Certainly, jingles aren't the same as opera. Many songs are designed more around telling a story than being musically artistic. Other songs are meant to inspire and if they do so, a small change in the words or music is not a big deal. And other songs still are designed be easily translated. Selena did quite well translating her music. Many hispanic singers do exactly that.

You are speaking in generalities but we are talking about a specific song and you cannot possibly make the judgement you are making unless you've heard the song in Spanish. Have you?

You should always attempt to sing a song in the language of its composition since it is very difficult to impossible to reproduce the meter of another language and still have a near-exact translation of the words.

So, instead of singing My Way, Sinatra should have stuck to...

Je me lève/Et je te bouscule/Tu n'te réveilles pas/Comme d'habitude

Sur toi/Je remonte le drap/J'ai peur que tu aies froid/Comme d'habitude

Ma main/Caresse tes cheveux/Presque malgré moi/Comme d'habitude

Mais toi/Tu me tournes le dos/Comme d'habitude

Alors/Je m'habille très vite/Je sors de la chambre/Comme d'habitude


EDIT: to say nothing of La Bamba/Twist & Shout, obviously.

It should be sung in English.
If this goes to Congress, anyone who votes for it needs to be killed.
And I'm not joking.

Considering we stole the tune from an English drinking song...

Do we really have any right to complain?

Considering we stole the tune from an English drinking song...

Do we really have any right to complain?

Exactly the point. I find it amusing that people don't realize that this wasn't some work of art. It was a story that was put to any piece of music that worked. It's the events themself that were inspiring, not the particular words or the melody.

Considering we stole the tune from an English drinking song...

Do we really have any right to complain?
...what? We didn't steal anything. We just adopted the song that Key wrote. If you've got a beef about the song, take it up with him.

Demon 666: Ah yes, that's it! Let's kill anything different from us! After all, individuality is so immoral! Ignorance is knowledge! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! :rolleyes:

You assume the purpose of all songs is the same. Certainly, jingles aren't the same as opera. Many songs are designed more around telling a story than being musically artistic. Other songs are meant to inspire and if they do so, a small change in the words or music is not a big deal. And other songs still are designed be easily translated. Selena did quite well translating her music. Many hispanic singers do exactly that.

You are speaking in generalities but we are talking about a specific song and you cannot possibly make the judgement you are making unless you've heard the song in Spanish. Have you?
I have heard it, and to my ear the singer didn't reproduce the music exactly as it was first written so it's not the same song. That's often the trouble with music that's performed from notation, you have to rely upon the musician to play/sing an exact reproduction of what was intended by the writer otherwise it's not the same song. I don't much care for the Star Spangled Banner anyway though, the poem is kind of interesting but the tune itself is rather boring.

I'll agree though that different music has different uses, and some songs are designed to be fairly universal across its own language genus or even phylum, hence some songs can approach their original tune when sung in a related language. But if you tried to replicate in English the sounds of a song as sung by the Masai it would probably fail horribly.

So, instead of singing My Way, Sinatra should have stuck to...
I've never heard it in French, how does it compare to how Old Blue Eyes sung it in English?

I've never heard it in French, how does it compare to how Old Blue Eyes sung it in English?

Given your earlier absolutist statement surely such aesthetic judgements as this are irrelevant: according to you it should always be sung in French.

I don't see what the big deal is. As long as it holds the same meaning who cares if it is sung in Canadian? Eh? :p

Given your earlier absolutist statement surely such aesthetic judgements as this are irrelevant: according to you it should always be sung in French.
I'm looking for evidence that contradicts my statement, in this case whether the English version replicates the French music. Is that not allowed? If you don't want to answer the question why don't you just say so?

...what? We didn't steal anything. We just adopted the song that Key wrote. If you've got a beef about the song, take it up with him.

Yes. It was taken from another song.

The song was an English one called To Anacreon in Heaven, which was written in the mid-1760s and first published by Longman & Broderip in London in 1778/1779.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Spangled_Banner

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Anacreon_in_Heaven

I have heard it, and to my ear the singer didn't reproduce the music exactly as it was first written so it's not the same song. That's often the trouble with music that's performed from notation, you have to rely upon the musician to play/sing an exact reproduction of what was intended by the writer otherwise it's not the same song. I don't much care for the Star Spangled Banner anyway though, the poem is kind of interesting but the tune itself is rather boring.

That's because the tune isn't the point. People who aren't music snobs know the difference. Music has many purposes. Just because you don't recognize the purpose of the star-spangled banner doesn't mean we should care.

I'll agree though that different music has different uses, and some songs are designed to be fairly universal across its own language genus or even phylum, hence some songs can approach their original tune when sung in a related language. But if you tried to replicate in English the sounds of a song as sung by the Masai it would probably fail horribly.

Unless the purpose of the song was just to relate a story and then if the story was related properly in English it would have been quite successful. Again, you deny the actual purpose and act is if the particular sounds are the only thing.

If I write a song to make people feel patriotic by talking about an event that happened and someone translates my song to Farsi and it makes people feel patriotic and tells that same story, then the words can be completely different, even the tune and it still the song I was trying to create.

I'm looking for evidence that contradicts my statement, in this case whether the English version replicates the French music. Is that not allowed? If you don't want to answer the question why don't you just say so?

As he points out, you made an absolutist statement about how things have to be, because that's how you want them to be. Some peices of music, some songs, some stories cannot change instruments, languages or even dialects, but some can. You made a claim that suggested that it's impossible because the sounds are different but if the sounds are not the point then it doesn't matter.

He doesn't have to contradict your statement because you did it for him. If you statement were true the fact that you haven't heard the song in the original french would not matter. However, when asked you said it did.

I'm looking for evidence that contradicts my statement, in this case whether the English version replicates the French music. Is that not allowed? If you don't want to answer the question why don't you just say so?

http://www.vm-wl.com/default.aspx?RefererId=49&BannerId=1&FicheTitre=100240898

Hit 'Écouter le titre'.

You read that right. In 1919, the US government commissioned a Spanish version of the Star Spangled Banner. (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/spanish-anthem/)

well everyone knows that the u.s. government is anti-american

Unless the purpose of the song was just to relate a story and then if the story was related properly in English it would have been quite successful. Again, you deny the actual purpose and act is if the particular sounds are the only thing.
If you actually read what I wrote in my first post you will notice that I never said that sound is the only thing, I said it's the most important thing since it forms the foundation of music--no tune, no music. Story can always be conveyed through other languages, sure, as can meaning in a general sense, which I acknowledged are important but are secondary in their importance since they do not form the basis of music, the varying arrangements and pitches of sound does, that's what music is by definition.

The Canadian national anthem is sung in both English and French. The song was originally written in French, but it is now most commonly sung in English.

And the lyrics are very different. The French lyrics are far better (probably because the song was written in French, and someone had to come up with English lyrics that fit the meter). That's why English Canadians occasionally suggest changing the anthem to something with more meaning to it (like The Maple Leaf Forever, or The Canadian Railroad Trilogy), but French Canadians don't.

The translation issue is a big one. The meaning of the words matters.

If you actually read what I wrote in my first post you will notice that I never said that sound is the only thing, I said it's the most important thing since it forms the foundation of music--no tune, no music. Story can always be conveyed through other languages, sure, as can meaning in a general sense, which I acknowledged are important but are secondary in their importance since they do not form the basis of music, the varying arrangements and pitches of sound does, that's what music is by definition.

Yes, but that's NOT what a song is. That's the problem. You are looking at music only, and only a particular type at that. Sometimes music is the support for a thing, not the thing itself. This is also true of words. This is also true of a story. It really depends on what piece you're talking about. Except you're content to simply treat all songs, all music as if it is the same. It's simply not true.

Yes, but that's NOT what a song is. That's the problem. You are looking at music only, and only a particular type at that. Sometimes music is the support for a thing, not the thing itself. This is also true of words. This is also true of a story. It really depends on what piece you're talking about. Except you're content to simply treat all songs, all music as if it is the same. It's simply not true.
On the objective level it is true, all songs have music and all music is based on sound. The subjectivity that I was talking about in my first post is all of the other parts that you're emphasizing--story, meaning, etc.--and that is present in many songs including the Star Spangled Banner and for many that's very important, but it's still not a song without sound and not all sounds are interchangeable. If a particular song's music has to be changed in order to accommodate the translation, even if it's as literal a translation as possible and conveys the same meaning, it's still not the same exact song. That's all I'm saying, and if that makes me a music snob so be it.

If you actually read what I wrote in my first post you will notice that I never said that sound is the only thing, I said it's the most important thing since it forms the foundation of music--no tune, no music. Story can always be conveyed through other languages, sure, as can meaning in a general sense, which I acknowledged are important but are secondary in their importance since they do not form the basis of music, the varying arrangements and pitches of sound does, that's what music is by definition.

I'm calling bullshit.

By your logic, a piece which I read as poetry, somehow becomes 'different' if I sing it a capella.... and, one assumes, would again 'transform' with full orchestration.

Absolutely false, the meaning or message of any song is always secondary to the music since it is the arrangement of sounds that creates music in the first place.

So, if I'm singing 'happy birthday to you', the actual message of the lyrics is subsidiary to the beauty (or noticeable lack thereof) with which I croak out the notes?

If you actually read what I wrote in my first post you will notice that I never said that sound is the only thing, I said it's the most important thing since it forms the foundation of music--no tune, no music.

Ergo 4'33" is not music. Thanks for solving that one.

So, if I'm singing 'happy birthday to you', the actual message of the lyrics is subsidiary to the beauty (or noticeable lack thereof) with which I croak out the notes?

Ironic really... what with "Happy Birthday" merely being the English words put to an entirely different German piece of music...

Ironic really... what with "Happy Birthday" merely being the English words put to an entirely different German piece of music...

And more properly being called 'The Birthday Song' and the rights to the piece being owned by Warner Chappell, IIRC.

We debate on what is the right way to sing the SSB yet few if any do! The words below are the words to the true song.


O say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hail'd at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thro' the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watch'd, were so gallantly streaming?
And the rockets' red glare, the bombs bursting in air,
Gave proof thro' the night that our flag was still there.
O say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?


On the shore dimly seen thro' the mists of the deep,
Where the foe's haughty host in dread silence reposes,
What is that which the breeze, o'er the towering steep,
As it fitfully blows, half conceals, half discloses?
Now it catches the gleam of the morning's first beam,
In full glory reflected, now shines on the stream:
'Tis the star-spangled banner: O, long may it wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!


And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle's confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more?
Their blood has wash'd out their foul footsteps' pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.


O thus be it ever when free-men shall stand
Between their lov'd home 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 preserv'd us a nation!
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: “In God is our trust!”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

Does anyone else see the irony in a nation obcessed with global cultural monopoly objecting to its national anthem being sung in any other language than a predefined one?

Does anyone else see the irony in a nation obcessed with global cultural monopoly objecting to its national anthem being sung in any other language than a predefined one?
See it? It's iike reading an O. Henry story, for crying out loud--it smacks you in the head.

I'm calling bullshit.

By your logic, a piece which I read as poetry, somehow becomes 'different' if I sing it a capella.... and, one assumes, would again 'transform' with full orchestration.
This can't be a serious statement. It's plainly obvious that the sound is different when sung without accompaniment as it is when instruments are added since instruments produce sounds that the human voice cannot. The words may not change, sure, but the sound does and therefore the music does.

So, if I'm singing 'happy birthday to you', the actual message of the lyrics is subsidiary to the beauty (or noticeable lack thereof) with which I croak out the notes?
Who's talking about beauty? Where did I say anything about that, other than the one judgment that I made that I thought the tune for the Star Spangled Banner is boring? What I'm talking about is the essential musical part of song, that it's ridiculous to say that music is unimportant to a song when songs can't exist without music.

Ergo 4'33" is not music. Thanks for solving that one.
Nope, it's not music, no matter what the avant-garde say. Silence is not a tone and so it can have no melody or rhythm, which are the fundamentals of music.

Oh thats kuhl - it would seem that whomever commissioned that back in 1919 were ahead of their time.

I agree that the SSB being sung in another language is a good thing in that the immigrants singing it are probably proudly doing so, which would suggest that they are patriotic and looking out for the best interests of the United States.

I also agree that its the meaning of the words that are the most important thing (along with the feeling that is held in ones heart while singing those words).

Nope, it's not music, no matter what the avant-garde say. Silence is not a tone and so it can have no melody or rhythm, which are the fundamentals of music.

So the silences between notes don't have rhythm either?

So the silences between notes don't have rhythm either?
It's my understanding that there are no notes played in 4'33". Without notes the periods of silence can't be considered stops so they're not part of any rhythm other than counting the passage of time.

This can't be a serious statement. It's plainly obvious that the sound is different when sung without accompaniment as it is when instruments are added since instruments produce sounds that the human voice cannot. The words may not change, sure, but the sound does and therefore the music does.

So what if the sound does change. We are talking about the star-spangled banner. The music is not the point. In many songs, the music is not the point.

The sound being different MAY or MAY NOT change the song.

Who's talking about beauty? Where did I say anything about that, other than the one judgment that I made that I thought the tune for the Star Spangled Banner is boring? What I'm talking about is the essential musical part of song, that it's ridiculous to say that music is unimportant to a song when songs can't exist without music.

No one is saying unimportant, just sometimes not the point, thus changing the music does not necessarily change the song. It's like putting a poem in another language. Sometimes it works great. Sometimes it doesn't work it all because the particular sound was the whole point. It depends.

Nope, it's not music, no matter what the avant-garde say. Silence is not a tone and so it can have no melody or rhythm, which are the fundamentals of music.

Actually, many times silence is very much a part of music. You again make a statement that is made incorrect because of hyperbole.

It's my understanding that there are no notes played in 4'33". Without notes the periods of silence can't be considered stops so they're not part of any rhythm other than counting the passage of time.

Ah, see how much better a statement is when you qualify it rather than making blanket hyperbolous statements.

It's my understanding that there are no notes played in 4'33". Without notes the periods of silence can't be considered stops so they're not part of any rhythm other than counting the passage of time.

The entirity can be considered as an entire stop.

On the objective level it is true, all songs have music and all music is based on sound. The subjectivity that I was talking about in my first post is all of the other parts that you're emphasizing--story, meaning, etc.--and that is present in many songs including the Star Spangled Banner and for many that's very important, but it's still not a song without sound and not all sounds are interchangeable. If a particular song's music has to be changed in order to accommodate the translation, even if it's as literal a translation as possible and conveys the same meaning, it's still not the same exact song. That's all I'm saying, and if that makes me a music snob so be it.

You still miss the point. No one is saying that music doesn't exist as a part of song. We're simply telling you that it's not necessarily the point. You made a blanket and untrue statement that sound is the most important part of all song. By putting ALL in the statement, you made it untrue. It's particularly amusing because we ARE talking about the star-spangled banner which is just a poem set the music. The way the music is played is often very different. Ever heard it played in high school assembly versus the inaugeration of the President. It SOUNDS very different, but it's the same song. You know what never changes, the WORDS. Hell, if you heard Roseanne Barr sing it, the melody isn't even important so long as the words are correct.

A country needs unity, especially one as cosmopolitan as ours. At the head of that unity comes a "national trinity" of sorts: its flag, its national animal (okay, totem) and its anthem. Those, you don't toggle around with.

Now I'm all for diversity, but our flag ain't red, white and green, and our eagle isn't perched on a cactus eating a snake. Sure, the government asked for a Spanish anthem but there's a reason it wasn't implemented, same as we didn't go with Greek as the national language, as proposed by Thomas Jefferson. We're not a colony of Spain: California fought hard to get out from under the Spanish Crown.

None of my ancestors were English but they learned it anyway. If I relocated to another country I'd learn their language, respect their flag and totem, adopt their ways, simply because it's the respectful thing to do.

Ironic really... what with "Happy Birthday" merely being the English words put to an entirely different German piece of music...

The irony is therefore furthered when the German sing happy birthday to their friends in English then...of course there is a German version of happy birthday but I hear the English one sung more when over there.

http://www.vm-wl.com/default.aspx?RefererId=49&BannerId=1&FicheTitre=100240898

Hit 'Écouter le titre'.

Still waiting on comment on the original version of 'my way'.

The entirity can be considered as an entire stop.
Ah, but how can there be a stop without a start? A "stop" means that the sound stops, but if there was no sound how could it stop?

Actually, many times silence is very much a part of music. You again make a statement that is made incorrect because of hyperbole.
There was nothing untrue or even hyperbolic in that statement, I may have needed to clarify what I meant in order for others to understand it but what I said is still true: if a "musical" piece is entirely composed of silence then it cannot be music by any correct definition of the word--no sound, no notes, no arrangement, no rhythm even (and simply counting the passage of seconds and minutes is not rhythm), so no music, and no falsity in my statement.

I get the feeling that with the rest of this discussion we're just repeating ourselves, so I'll just quit by admitting that the initial point I made, while true, was very general and may not apply to everything. Still, if you were to sing the Star-Spangled Banner with the right words but entirely off-key at a public event people probably wouldn't appreciate it any more than singing it with different words. And much of the way that we learn songs is through how they are sung rather than picking up the words themselves--if that weren't the case then there probably wouldn't be so much confusion over what the actual words of many rock songs are. But that's enough out of me on this topic.

Still waiting on comment on the original version of 'my way'.
Well I'm not going to pay the fee for the full download, but from the sample the tune is completely different from Sinatra's version to the point where I would say they're different songs that happen to have the same idea behind the words.

Ah, but how can there be a stop without a start? A "stop" means that the sound stops, but if there was no sound how could it stop?


There was nothing untrue or even hyperbolic in that statement, I may have needed to clarify what I meant in order for others to understand it but what I said is still true: if a "musical" piece is entirely composed of silence then it cannot be music by any correct definition of the word--no sound, no notes, no arrangement, no rhythm even (and simply counting the passage of seconds and minutes is not rhythm), so no music, and no falsity in my statement.

The point was that the point you were tryiing to make was true. The statement you actually made was false.

I get the feeling that with the rest of this discussion we're just repeating ourselves, so I'll just quit by admitting that the initial point I made, while true, was very general and may not apply to everything. Still, if you were to sing the Star-Spangled Banner with the right words but entirely off-key at a public event people probably wouldn't appreciate it any more than singing it with different words. And much of the way that we learn songs is through how they are sung rather than picking up the words themselves--if that weren't the case then there probably wouldn't be so much confusion over what the actual words of many rock songs are.

You're wrong. Most people don't care when it's sung off-key. Hell, if it's sung at the right time being off-key might be endearing. However, if you sing the wrong words people will get very upset.

Well I'm not going to pay the fee for the full download, but from the sample the tune is completely different from Sinatra's version to the point where I would say they're different songs that happen to have the same idea behind the words.

It's pretty much a difference of arrangement. Sinatra tends to have a particular way he like songs to sound. Changes in arrangement when singing another person's song is often times encouraged. Otherwise, you're essentially just singing covers.

Ah, but how can there be a stop without a start? A "stop" means that the sound stops, but if there was no sound how could it stop?

Before the piece starts the musician will have played notes before, and is free to play notes again after it is over: thus there has been a stop.

Well I'm not going to pay the fee for the full download, but from the sample the tune is completely different from Sinatra's version to the point where I would say they're different songs that happen to have the same idea behind the words.

'the tune is completely different'? Are you tone deaf?

Try singing the words...

"Regrets/I've had a few/But then again/Too few to mention,
I did/What I had to do/And saw it through/Without exemption,
I planned/Each chartered course/Each careful step/Along the byway"

...along with the sample and tell me again that the vocal line is completely different.

I don't want to seem like a jerk, but it's nice to see another country having worse language issues that Canada is.

Before the piece starts the musician will have played notes before, and is free to play notes again after it is over: thus there has been a stop.
That's just a little bit too cute an explanation. 4'33" isn't part of whatever songs the musician may have played before or after, it's supposedly its own stand-alone piece.


'the tune is completely different'? Are you tone deaf?

Try singing the words...

"Regrets/I've had a few/But then again/Too few to mention,
I did/What I had to do/And saw it through/Without exemption,
I planned/Each chartered course/Each careful step/Along the byway"

...along with the sample and tell me again that the vocal line is completely different.
Actually I can't hear as well as I used to, I have a doctor's appointment relating to that tomorrow. It's been a long time since I heard Sinatra's My Way so that may have been an overstatement, and it could just be Sinatra's very distinctive vocals or the way it was arranged but the tones sound different to me.

Anyway, you probably want an answer to your initial question, but I don't really have an answer. If Sinatra had sung it in French it might have been closer to the original piece, but he might not have been able to retain the same tonal arrangement as he could with English depending on his skill and what his use of French would have been.

He apparently didn't want to do a reproduction though, which would have meant not keeping his signature vocal style, so that's fine since he was trying to do something different, but if it was an attempt to cover the song then he failed.

Changes in arrangement when singing another person's song is often times encouraged. Otherwise, you're essentially just singing covers.
That's right, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if what you're attempting is a reproduction of an original then you shouldn't rearrange it. Same goes for replicating an original painting or sculpture, if you're making changes then it's not the same work, and that's fine, but the fact that its design has been altered for the new work should be recognized.

That's just a little bit too cute an explanation. 4'33" isn't part of whatever songs the musician may have played before or after, it's supposedly its own stand-alone piece.



Actually I can't hear as well as I used to, I have a doctor's appointment relating to that tomorrow. It's been a long time since I heard Sinatra's My Way so that may have been an overstatement, and it could just be Sinatra's very distinctive vocals or the way it was arranged but the tones sound different to me.

Anyway, you probably want an answer to your initial question, but I don't really have an answer. If Sinatra had sung it in French it might have been closer to the original piece, but he might not have been able to retain the same tonal arrangement as he could with English depending on his skill and what his use of French would have been.

He apparently didn't want to do a reproduction though, which would have meant not keeping his signature vocal style, so that's fine since he was trying to do something different, but if it was an attempt to cover the song then he failed.


That's right, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if what you're attempting is a reproduction of an original then you shouldn't rearrange it. Same goes for replicating an original painting or sculpture, if you're making changes then it's not the same work, and that's fine, but the fact that its design has been altered for the new work should be recognized.

If a different person paints it or a different person sings it or a different person plays it, it's not the same work. In this case, it is the same song however.

Actually I can't hear as well as I used to, I have a doctor's appointment relating to that tomorrow. It's been a long time since I heard Sinatra's My Way so that may have been an overstatement, and it could just be Sinatra's very distinctive vocals or the way it was arranged but the tones sound different to me.

Anyway, you probably want an answer to your initial question, but I don't really have an answer. If Sinatra had sung it in French it might have been closer to the original piece, but he might not have been able to retain the same tonal arrangement as he could with English depending on his skill and his use of French would have been.

He apparently didn't want to do a reproduction though, which would have meant not keeping his signature vocal style, so that's fine since he was trying to do something different, but if it was an attempt to cover the song then he failed.

You are confusing Sinatra's particular vocal performance with the song itself.

Would you similarly describe Whitney's Huston's performance of I Will Always Love You as a different song to Dolly Parton's earlier performance?

That's just a little bit too cute an explanation. 4'33" isn't part of whatever songs the musician may have played before or after, it's supposedly its own stand-alone piece.

Actually I can't hear as well as I used to, I have a doctor's appointment relating to that tomorrow. It's been a long time since I heard Sinatra's My Way so that may have been an overstatement, and it could just be Sinatra's very distinctive vocals or the way it was arranged but the tones sound different to me.

Anyway, you probably want an answer to your initial question, but I don't really have an answer. If Sinatra had sung it in French it might have been closer to the original piece, but he might not have been able to retain the same tonal arrangement as he could with English depending on his skill and what his use of French would have been.

He apparently didn't want to do a reproduction though, which would have meant not keeping his signature vocal style, so that's fine since he was trying to do something different, but if it was an attempt to cover the song then he failed.

That's right, and there's nothing wrong with that, but if what you're attempting is a reproduction of an original then you shouldn't rearrange it. Same goes for replicating an original painting or sculpture, if you're making changes then it's not the same work, and that's fine, but the fact that its design has been altered for the new work should be recognized.

so you are telling us that when you said, in your first post:

You should always attempt to sing a song in the language of its composition since it is very difficult to impossible to reproduce the meter of another language and still have a near-exact translation of the words. Look at English translations of classical Greek music that attempt to recreate dactylic hexameter, they're terrible, and English doesn't have the same stresses on its vowels that Greek does that are essential to how its words are sung.

you were lying?

I don't care if the song is sung in Spanish, but the translation should at least be an honest one.

so you are telling us that when you said, in your first post:



you were lying?
Nope, I'm modifying my initial posit in order to account for arranged versions of original music, which I said nothing of in my first post but in hindsight probably should have what with the way people here seem to react against any statements that lack qualifiers. So you may add to my first statement that if what the performer is attempting is a reproduction of a song then in general they ought to sing it in the language in which it was composed if it's not possible to reproduce that particular song in another language. If that's not what they're trying to do, if they're setting out to change it to a version of their own, then it probably doesn't matter what language in which it's sung.

Would you similarly describe Whitney's Huston's performance of I Will Always Love You as a different song to Dolly Parton's earlier performance?
Those are pretty close approximations of each other from what I recall, apart from the stylistic differences in arrangement that mark out R&B/Soul from Country/Western.

If a different person paints it or a different person sings it or a different person plays it, it's not the same work. In this case, it is the same song however.
You're saying if different people play the same song it's not the same work. So if the London Philharmonic and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra both play Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 they're not the same work even if they're both played as written by the composer?

I don't care if the song is sung in Spanish, but the translation should at least be an honest one.

define an "honest translation"

Nope, I'm modifying my initial posit in order to account for arranged versions of original music, which I said nothing of in my first post but in hindsight probably should have what with the way people here seem to react against any statements that lack qualifiers. So you may add to my first statement that if what the performer is attempting is a reproduction of a song then in general they ought to sing it in the language in which it was composed if it's not possible to reproduce that particular song in another language. If that's not what they're trying to do, if they're setting out to change it to a version of their own, then it probably doesn't matter what language in which it's sung.
Well, in that case you should have no problem with some spanish musician rendering their modified version of the star spangled banner since they are not doing a cover.

You're saying if different people play the same song it's not the same work. So if the London Philharmonic and the Dallas Symphony Orchestra both play Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 they're not the same work even if they're both played as written by the composer?

You said -

Same goes for replicating an original painting or sculpture, if you're making changes then it's not the same work, and that's fine, but the fact that its design has been altered for the new work should be recognized.

It's hard to say the above is true without also stating the obviously implied if you do not change it's design it is the same work. Which of course I don't agree with.

Here comes the point. If I play a Mozart piece or Mozart plays a Mozart piece it's the same musical piece but a different work of art. Changing it doesn't make it not the same musical piece, just not the same work of art. I would argue that even if Mozart played a piece twice they wouldn't the same work of art both times. Things change even in the course of a few minutes. Mozart plays faster or slower. The tuning of the piano has changed slightly. The air may have changed. The number of people in the room so the accoustics are different.

...

Oh dear science I sound like a fjorking patriotic after school special...
Suddenly I want to stop using drugs and beating my girlfriend. I'll use my extra time to take care of my retarded kid brother. And this year, Christmas will be extra special.


Thank you, Kyronea.

If you know all the words to the Star Spangled Banner by heart, I don't care what language you sing it in. You should also get some sort of Nationalistic medal for knowing the song.

This can't be a serious statement. It's plainly obvious that the sound is different when sung without accompaniment as it is when instruments are added since instruments produce sounds that the human voice cannot. The words may not change, sure, but the sound does and therefore the music does.


Of course the sound is different, but music is not a song, and a song is not music - there is a reason why the two concepts have different names.

I have heard a dozen versions of the anthem... some played on full orchestration, some on school band instruments... some on rock guitars.

According to your bizarre definition, all of these are 'different' pieces, somehow.... and you seem to assert a canon of heirarchy.

My point is that - a song is not just the music. Indeed - the music is almost irrelevent. In the case of an anthem - it isn't even the literal WORDS that are important... it is what they represent.

The flag is just a piece of cloth. The White House is just a pile of bricks. The World Trade Centre was just a couple of floors of offices. The anthem is just some words and some music.

IF you choose to view it that way.

I contend that - if you DO choose to view it that way, you have really missed the point.

Ah, but how can there be a stop without a start? A "stop" means that the sound stops, but if there was no sound how could it stop?


Art, my friend, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you listen to the space between two songs, and there is silence... well, maybe it's just silence...

But, once you enter 'into collaboration' with the artist, when he TELLS you that the track has started, and you hear no notes.... well, then - THOSE are the very 'no notes' that were intended for the composition.

It is the very lack of tonal quality, that is the 'music' of the piece... the constant expectation subverted.

You probably don't 'get' Dada, either...

hahaha, bush = teh pwnz0red (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/national-anthem-sung-in-spanish-at-first-bush-inaugural)

hahaha, bush = teh pwnz0red (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/national-anthem-sung-in-spanish-at-first-bush-inaugural)
Bush must be a masochist.

A country needs unity, especially one as cosmopolitan as ours. At the head of that unity comes a "national trinity" of sorts: its flag, its national animal (okay, totem) and its anthem. Those, you don't toggle around with.

Now I'm all for diversity, but our flag ain't red, white and green, and our eagle isn't perched on a cactus eating a snake. Sure, the government asked for a Spanish anthem but there's a reason it wasn't implemented, same as we didn't go with Greek as the national language, as proposed by Thomas Jefferson. We're not a colony of Spain: California fought hard to get out from under the Spanish Crown.

None of my ancestors were English but they learned it anyway. If I relocated to another country I'd learn their language, respect their flag and totem, adopt their ways, simply because it's the respectful thing to do.



So, you're in favour of stamping out all languages, apart from English, within the borders of the United States?

Of course, with English being the unofficial 'official' language, that makes you an English colony, right? Well, welcome back into the fold, pick up your Union Jack at the door! :)

Right, Eradication of non-English languages must logically begin with names, such as cities and such. First to go are such obvious Spanish names as 'San Francisco' and 'Santa Barbera'. :)

I love the Star Spanglish Banner.

I think it more represents that for which this country stands.

Even better that it's to the tune of a British drinking song.

The reason politicians are freaked out by the US anthem in Spanish, is that they believe this is a step towards minimimalizing English as the only official langauge in the US. The idea of the sentiment of being proud of your country is not one that seems to be considered by politicians and political activists who are not in favor of hearing the anthem in other languages.
From my point of view, this is a land built by immigrants who all came from different backgrounds. No one is disputing that English is the official language and that all citizens should be able to speak and understand the language. However, if you are a person whose first language isn't English, you would know that your native language often 'feels' more emotional. Therefore, singing your new national anthem in your native language may 'feel' more meaningful to the singer. If Spanish speakers, who are proud to be Americans, want to sing the national anthem in Spanish, then more power to them. No one is asking to change or ammend the anthem to Spanish, and if they like what they're singing, thats great, the US needs patriotism.
Opinions about music are never objective, its a matter of preference. Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one and most people think everyone else's stink.

Art, my friend, is in the eye of the beholder.

If you listen to the space between two songs, and there is silence... well, maybe it's just silence...

But, once you enter 'into collaboration' with the artist, when he TELLS you that the track has started, and you hear no notes.... well, then - THOSE are the very 'no notes' that were intended for the composition.

It is the very lack of tonal quality, that is the 'music' of the piece... the constant expectation subverted.

You probably don't 'get' Dada, either...
In two posts GnI nails it to the wall, this one and the one before it. There is terminology that covers all the bullshit that is being passed around. Musicians are artists in their interpretation of a piece of music, the music is still the music when they play it, even though quite often (and more common among better musicians) they do not play it the same way twice. It is the same piece of music that they play every time.

It is actually why John Cage did not like recorded music, he felt that music had to be 'alive,' that the interaction of audience, performer, and enviroment where important to make the music live. While music might have a mathmatical base, it is not ruled by this ridiculous mathmatical quantity that is being put forth here. Anyone who trully appreciates music understands the difference between different versions, interpretations, and variations of a piece and a different piece all together. By this ridiculous assumption that there is only one pure performance and variation creates a whole new song than each performance would then have to be given its own opus number. Further, why credit composers, I vibratoed that dotted half note in the third bar and really held it for a dotted half with a tied sixteenth, it's a new song and I don't owe no one nuthin'. That won't fly.

4'33" is the aticipation of music that makes everything that happened in that four and half minutes the music. The notes are the squeak of the chair, the nervous cough, the building's creak, the plane overhead, the rustle of the page turner, the change of the pianist's position. The music is raw, it is the enviroment from which music first came.

Your definition does not allow for improvisation, something that has been part of music since the begining and compositionally since the Baroque period.

The music does not change with interpretation, the interpretation changes with the interpretation. It's why we have all these other terms. So we can be specific.

Odd - not one comment about the post about how Canada's national anthem was orgininally written in French, although it is now most commonly sung in English.

If Canada insisted that it's national anthem was only sung in French (the way some Americans feel their anthem should only be sung in English), we'd no longer hear:

Oh Canada
Our home and native land
True patriot love in all thy son's command
With glowing hearts we see thee rise
Our true north strong and free...

But instead:

O Canada!
Terre de nos aïeux,
Ton front est ceint de fleurons glorieux!
Car ton bras sait porter l'épée,
Il sait porter la croix!

And we nasty English Canadians didn't even keep the original meaning of the song!

A rough translation of the French version into English is:

O Canada!
Earth of our ancestors,
Glorious flowers encircle your brow
For your arm knows to carry the sword,
and knows to carry the cross!

Worst of all, we English Canadians keep changing the words. The anthem my generation sings is not the same as the one my parents learned.

Anyway, the point is an anthem is an anthem is an anthem. If some people want to sing the praises of America in Spanish or Vietnamese or Swahili, why would anyone want to stop them? It's a thing of pride and glory, no matter what language it is sung in. The US is multi-cultural; what harm is there if the anthem is too?

So, you're in favour of stamping out all languages, apart from English, within the borders of the United States?

Of course, with English being the unofficial 'official' language, that makes you an English colony, right? Well, welcome back into the fold, pick up your Union Jack at the door! :)

Right, Eradication of non-English languages must logically begin with names, such as cities and such. First to go are such obvious Spanish names as 'San Francisco' and 'Santa Barbera'. :)
Not to mention Baton Rouge.. well after the whole freedom fries thing anyway.
Change it to 'RED STICK"

First to go are such obvious Spanish names as 'San Francisco' and 'Santa Barbera'. :)

Damn! But "Saint Barbara" is so silly sounding. And hey, we shouldn't be naming places after Catholic saints anyway, what is this, Mexico? Name it to something new and sterile and white, like Coastal Town #42. Yeah. :)

The ways I see it is that we shouldn't sing it in other lanugages. It was meant to be sung in english, it was written in english, and it just wont work in any other lanugage.

In two posts GnI nails it to the wall, this one and the one before it. There is terminology that covers all the bullshit that is being passed around. Musicians are artists in their interpretation of a piece of music, the music is still the music when they play it, even though quite often (and more common among better musicians) they do not play it the same way twice. It is the same piece of music that they play every time.

It is actually why John Cage did not like recorded music, he felt that music had to be 'alive,' that the interaction of audience, performer, and enviroment where important to make the music live. While music might have a mathmatical base, it is not ruled by this ridiculous mathmatical quantity that is being put forth here. Anyone who trully appreciates music understands the difference between different versions, interpretations, and variations of a piece and a different piece all together. By this ridiculous assumption that there is only one pure performance and variation creates a whole new song than each performance would then have to be given its own opus number. Further, why credit composers, I vibratoed that dotted half note in the third bar and really held it for a dotted half with a tied sixteenth, it's a new song and I don't owe no one nuthin'. That won't fly.

4'33" is the aticipation of music that makes everything that happened in that four and half minutes the music. The notes are the squeak of the chair, the nervous cough, the building's creak, the plane overhead, the rustle of the page turner, the change of the pianist's position. The music is raw, it is the enviroment from which music first came.

Your definition does not allow for improvisation, something that has been part of music since the begining and compositionally since the Baroque period.

The music does not change with interpretation, the interpretation changes with the interpretation. It's why we have all these other terms. So we can be specific.

And you nail it in one post. Excellent point. (Man, I hate cheerleading).

The ways I see it is that we shouldn't sing it in other lanugages. It was meant to be sung in english, it was written in english, and it just wont work in any other lanugage.
How do you if you don't try?

Show me where it was designed to be sung only in english. Clearly the opening post shows evidence to the contrary.

Odd - not one comment about the post about how Canada's national anthem was orgininally written in French, although it is now most commonly sung in English.

Actually, I did just that back on page 2.

Odd - not one comment about the post about how Canada's national anthem was orgininally written in French, although it is now most commonly sung in English.

actually, my gf heard the idiots on the rightwing talk radio show that her coworkers insist on listening to say something to the effect of "that'd be like rewriting the canadian anthem in french..."


i don't know how she manages to survive working in those conditions

actually, my gf heard the idiots on the rightwing talk radio show that her coworkers insist on listening to say something to the effect of "that'd be like rewriting the canadian anthem in french..."

ROFL

actually, my gf heard the idiots on the rightwing talk radio show that her coworkers insist on listening to say something to the effect of "that'd be like rewriting the canadian anthem in french..."

I insist that it should never have been translated to English. It's a much better song in French.

Part of being an American is speaking English, just like part of being French is speaking French. If you want to show your patriotic sentiments by singing the anthem you can do it in the right fucking language or go home. There. I said it.

Part of being an American is speaking English, just like part of being French is speaking French. If you want to show your patriotic sentiments by singing the anthem you can do it in the right fucking language or go home. There. I said it.

Congratulations. But it's already been said. Oddly enough we tend to have the "faux-patriotic paranoid xenophobe" angle covered pretty well on this forum.

Part of being an American is speaking English, just like part of being French is speaking French. If you want to show your patriotic sentiments by singing the anthem you can do it in the right fucking language or go home. There. I said it.

unfortunately part of being an american also apparently entails being a xenophobic jerk.

let's try it this way - free fucking speech, deal with it.

me, i never sing stupid nationalist bullshit. except for occasionally singing the first line of "o canada!"

Hey, all those rabid wingers who got twisted over the national anthem being sung in a language other than English--guess who you ought to be pissed at (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/national-anthem-sung-in-spanish-at-first-bush-inaugural/).

On Friday, President Bush blasted the idea of singing the Star Spangled Banner in Spanish. But Bush’s highly-scripted 2001 inaugural ceremony actually featured a rendition of the national anthem sung in Spanish by Jon Secada. From Cox News Service, 1/18/01:

The opening ceremony reflected that sentiment. A racially diverse string of famous and once famous performers entertained Bush, soon-to-be First Lady Laura Bush, Vice President-elect Richard B. Cheney and his wife, Lynne, who watched on stage from a special viewing area.

Pop star Jon Secada sang the national anthem in English and Spanish.

Apparently, Secada singing the anthem in Spanish was a regular feature of the Bush campaign. From the 8/3/00 Miami Herald:

The nominee, his wife Laura, erstwhile rival John McCain and his wife Cindy joined Bush on a platform where children sang the national anthem - in “Spanglish,” Secada explained.

This morning, ThinkProgress revealed that, according to Kevin Phillip’s book American Dynasty, Bush himself sang the national anthem in Spanish. Looks like Bush’s conviction that “the national anthem ought to be sung in English” was something he acquired very recently.
Ouchies. I guess IOKIYAR really is in effect.
It's O K If You're A Republican

Part of being an American is speaking English, just like part of being French is speaking French. If you want to show your patriotic sentiments by singing the anthem you can do it in the right fucking language or go home. There. I said it.

How is that even possible when English isn't even the official language of the United States?

(And what a cruel blow to all the non-English-speaking people who helped settle your country. Do their contributions count for so little?)

Part of being an American is speaking English, just like part of being French is speaking French. If you want to show your patriotic sentiments by singing the anthem you can do it in the right fucking language or go home. There. I said it.
Hmmm... interesting. I'll tell you what. When the country decides that we should declare an official language I'll stop thinking you have no basis for your claim. Until then, I'll be over here giggling.

I don't see what the big issue is. I don't care if they sing it in Spanish. Why can't the U.S. have a duel language system like Canada? Yes, we should encourage people to speak English, but we should also be open minded...god forbide.

Actually, I did just that back on page 2. Your post was the one I was referring to. Everyone ignored it. My post was intended to draw attention to your post. It's just that I didn't want to go back several pages to find the quote (and your name).

Sorry. My bad for being lazy.

I don't see what the big issue is. I don't care if they sing it in Spanish. Why can't the U.S. have a duel language system like Canada? Yes, we should encourage people to speak English, but we should also be open minded...god forbide.Hey, I'm with you. It's the xenophobes who got twisted over this issue, and the Republicans were playing to them. I'm just noting the most recent hypocrisy.

"Superstition, idoltary, and hypocrisy have ample wages, but truth goes a-begging"

-Martin Luther

The sad truth...

"Oh no! It's illegal immigrants and they have a Spanish translated verion of the Star-Spangled Banner, run away!!"

"Luckily the right-wing has us covered, they'll keep those damn spics out of our nation"

"My god, it'll bring America to its' knees!!"

someone should translate the anthem into Cherokee or Navajo. Then we'll see who the immigrants are...

That's a good one :D

...what? We didn't steal anything. We just adopted the song that Key wrote. If you've got a beef about the song, take it up with him.

Demon 666: Ah yes, that's it! Let's kill anything different from us! After all, individuality is so immoral! Ignorance is knowledge! War is peace! Freedom is slavery! :rolleyes:


Key wrote the words; the music for "To Anacreon in Heaven" existed before The Star Spangled Banner. And yes, it was a drinking song.

Visit Ft. McHenry, why dontcha? ;) Learn a little history!

someone should translate the anthem into Cherokee or Navajo. Then we'll see who the immigrants are...
I'd certainly buy that cd.

(And what a cruel blow to all the non-English-speaking people who helped settle your country. Do their contributions count for so little?)

They all learned how to speak English. Back when all the Italians and Eastern europeans immigrated here the only place you would find signs and newspapers in foreign languages was inside ethnic neighborhoods. They all learned English and incorporated themselves into the rest of society. Is it too much to ask all the new immigrants from Latin America to do the same?

They all learned how to speak English. Back when all the Italians and Eastern europeans immigrated here the only place you would find signs and newspapers in foreign languages was inside ethnic neighborhoods. They all learned English and incorporated themselves into the rest of society. Is it too much to ask all the new immigrants from Latin America to do the same?You want to know something? They do.

The one thing that almost all immigrant communities have in common is that it takes three generations to assimilate--the original immigrants almost never fully assimilate, the second generation holds onto characteristics of both cultures, and the third usually fully integrates, often losing most of the use of the family language as well.

Anti-Mexican immigration people make it sound like Mexican immigrants never assimilate. They do, all the time. The thing is that Mexican immigration has been going on for the last, oh, two hundred years or so and isn't stopping anytime soon, so there will always be an unassimilated community.

You want to know something? They do.

The one thing that almost all immigrant communities have in common is that it takes three generations to assimilate--the original immigrants almost never fully assimilate, the second generation holds onto characteristics of both cultures, and the third usually fully integrates, often losing most of the use of the family language as well.

Anti-Mexican immigration people make it sound like Mexican immigrants never assimilate. They do, all the time. The thing is that Mexican immigration has been going on for the last, oh, two hundred years or so and isn't stopping anytime soon, so there will always be an unassimilated community.

The thing is, people are going out of their way to acommodate these immigrants, giving them less of an incentive to assimilate. It used to be if you wanted a job you had to speak English. No one was going to go out of his way to help you. The first generation might not speak English very well but their children sure as hell did. These days you see schools offering ESOL programs and department stores with signs in two languages. The Spanish language is spreading in America because people are too worried about political correctness (and corporations are too interested in making money) to force these people to learn English.

The Spanish language is spreading in America because people are too worried about political correctness (and corporations are too interested in making money) to force these people to learn English.

And why should they? If companies feel they can make more money by advertising in Spanish in order to attract more Spanish-speaking customers, why is that wrong? Why do you oppose companies seeking to earn a profit? Commie.

Hey, all those rabid wingers who got twisted over the national anthem being sung in a language other than English--guess who you ought to be pissed at (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/national-anthem-sung-in-spanish-at-first-bush-inaugural/).


Ouchies. I guess IOKIYAR really is in effect.
It's O K If You're A Republican
Ouch.

The thing is, people are going out of their way to acommodate these immigrants, giving them less of an incentive to assimilate. It used to be if you wanted a job you had to speak English. No one was going to go out of his way to help you. The first generation might not speak English very well but their children sure as hell did. These days you see schools offering ESOL programs and department stores with signs in two languages. The Spanish language is spreading in America because people are too worried about political correctness (and corporations are too interested in making money) to force these people to learn English.
You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and that's clear from this and your previous post.

It never ceases to amaze me just what bollocks upsets the USian mind. Your national anthem - *oh noes!* - in Spanish? What'll be next - your precious bodily fluids? For crying out loud... stop... just stop... stop coming off like such a willfull pack of... God, the words actually fail me. I have no words to adequately describe my emotional or intellectual response to any of this.

*throws hands up, eyes glancing at the ceiling - guttural grunt of incredulousity choked off into silence*

:(

It never ceases to amaze me just what bollocks upsets the USian mind. Your national anthem - *oh noes!* - in Spanish? What'll be next - your precious bodily fluids? For crying out loud... stop... just stop... stop coming off like such a willfull pack of... God, the words actually fail me. I have no words to adequately describe my emotional or intellectual response to any of this.

*throws hands up, eyes glancing at the ceiling - guttural grunt of incredulousity choked off into silence*

:(
What's really scary is that we control the world's largest nuclear arsenal.

Hey, all those rabid wingers who got twisted over the national anthem being sung in a language other than English--guess who you ought to be pissed at (http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/02/national-anthem-sung-in-spanish-at-first-bush-inaugural/).


Ouchies. I guess IOKIYAR really is in effect.
It's O K If You're A Republican

Critical blow. Nice work, Nazz.

Well, if we're doing it in Spanish, can we do it in German? German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the United States.

Well, if we're doing it in Spanish, can we do it in German? German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the United States.
Sure. Why not? We constantly talk about our immigrant past, so why not celebrate that?

What's really scary is that we control the world's largest nuclear arsenal.
Don't get me started. But Hell, at least there's something worthwhile discussing regarding your controlling the World's largest nuclear arsenal. This is, let's face it, truly a non-issue, and that such a non-issue is being treated as though it is a dire matter of grave concern, while simultaneously being seemingly widely used as an avenue for airing truly awful and dispiriting points-of-view that contribute nothing, save serving to confirm for a broad international audience the very worst aspects - the contempt, the mean-spiritedness, the xenophobic knee-jerk reactionary face - of what was once popularly regarded as being quite a marvellous place, America.

This is really something quite saddening. Really.

Well, if we're doing it in Spanish, can we do it in German? German-Americans are the largest ethnic group in the United States.

I am so not surprised by that...:rolleyes:

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about, and that's clear from this and your previous post.

Would you like to explain why? Or maybe I should get my head examined, because I'm prety sure they didn't used to have signs in Spanish all over the place until just a while ago. And I'm pretty sure I've never seen an ingredients list in Italian or German on the back of a bag of potato chips before. But maybe I'm just crazy.

But they didnt f with the words and make it Hispanicy...the new one is so simplified(for simple minds :p ). It should only be in English though.

Would you like to explain why? Or maybe I should get my head examined, because I'm prety sure they didn't used to have signs in Spanish all over the place until just a while ago. And I'm pretty sure I've never seen an ingredients list in Italian or German on the back of a bag of potato chips before. But maybe I'm just crazy.
Well as far as the signs are concerned, you're either just ignorant or you've never been to a city of any size. Any city of any size has a large enough immigrant population that it has little cities filled with signs over businesses in the native languages of the residents. Often, there's more than one. Hell, I live on the border of Little Haiti here in Fort Lauderdale, and I spent a lot of my time in San Francisco in Chinatown and JapanTown, and my neighborhood was more Latino, Filipino and Asian than it was white. I bought my produce at El Chico's and I ate once a week at the Pho Tam, where I had to point at a picture on the menu to order because I couldn't read the Vietnamese. And when I bought my groceries in those shops, the ingredients were indeed in the language of the locals because the products themselves were often made just for them.

Get out and live, man. There's a huge fucking world out there, just waiting to be experienced.

Would you like to explain why? Or maybe I should get my head examined, because I'm prety sure they didn't used to have signs in Spanish all over the place until just a while ago. And I'm pretty sure I've never seen an ingredients list in Italian or German on the back of a bag of potato chips before. But maybe I'm just crazy.

Well... *picks up a packet of TeeVee Snacks*

Most of it's English. There a little French, Chinese (two types) and Arabic. Then again, this is a exported product.

You know I could have sworn I mentioned ethnic neighborhoods but maybe I'm just stupid. I'm not talking about Little Havana, I'm talking about the nation-wide school programs to teach children in Spanish instead of making them learn English. I'm talking about the Spanish nutritional facts panel on the back of every Pringles can in the country. People in Europe can probably speak English better than the average McDonalds employee.

Damn straight it should only be sung in English. The language that a song is sung in is as important as the song itself. It's the same way that some jokes don't work across the language barrier.
On the contrary. The anthem sounded wonderful when Bush had it sung in spanish dring his inaguration in 2001. Beautiful, you souldve seen it.

You know I could have sworn I mentioned ethnic neighborhoods but maybe I'm just stupid. I'm not talking about Little Havana, I'm talking about the nation-wide school programs to teach children in Spanish instead of making them learn English. I'm talking about the Spanish nutritional facts panel on the back of every Pringles can in the country. People in Europe can probably speak English better than the average McDonalds employee.
Nationwide program? Interesting as we don't HAVE a nationwide educational system.

The other issue being that Latinos have been doing something a bit different, they have been migrating throughout the country instead of staying in ethinic ghettos, mainly because the US FINALLY passed laws that forbid that. You did know about that right? Chinatown and Little Italy wasn't due to choice, but by laws and bigotry.

And for all your bitching, it's free market forces (remember them? You conservative types seem to like them). If a company can make more money by getting a Spanish speaker to buy their product by slapping a Spanish subtitle on it, that's what they're gonna do.

The other issue being that Latinos have been doing something a bit different, they have been migrating throughout the country instead of staying in ethinic ghettos, mainly because the US FINALLY passed laws that forbid that. You did know about that right? Chinatown and Little Italy wasn't due to choice, but by laws and bigotry.


And this means they shouldn't have to learn English?

And this means they shouldn't have to learn English?
Should has jack shit to do with it--they will, because that's the nature of immigrants to the US. Jeez--are you brain-damaged or something?

And this means they shouldn't have to learn English?
*sighs* What part of they are learning English are you not understanding here? The fact that they are speading through the country explains why the ethnic language isn't confined to a city neighborhood but has spread.

As a group, they are doing what all previous immigrants have done, the first generation may pick up a funtional command of English, or may not (and Believe you me, getting a working command of ANY language is hard. If you don't believe me, I invite you to come visit me in Japan. I'll drop you off in the middle of Nagano and let you have fun trying to find your way back to Narita). The second generation will be bilingual, and the third will addopt the national language and either drop or have a poor command of the immgrant language.

That's what's going on right now, it hasn't changed.