Over a week ago I texted and e-mailed some friends, asking them to respond to the following survey question:
“As a musician / artist / music lover, what is your view on the law, or strict application of it, regarding having to sing or play our National Anthem exactly the way it was composed? Am taking a poll and writing about it — where you may be quoted.”
This was occasioned by a recent meeting I attended where a lawyer proposed that a government agency issue a warning to all television stations regarding the usual playing of our anthem at the start and/or end of a day’s broadcast.
I reacted by saying that I’m actually appalled by recent news on certain legislators even moving to fortify the current restrictions on the matter, which of course gained mileage since that Martin Nievera rendition at Las Vegas. Some solons now want to make the penalties even more severe for “violation” of what I thought is already an unfortunate law governing the required manner of singing and playing the anthem, specifically that it should strictly conform to the original music.
I voiced out my opinion, rather heatedly, that any piece of music may and will be made subject to individual interpretation or adaptation, since as music it is a work of art, and thus open to reinterpretation and variation.
We’ve been through this before. It was former President Fidel V. Ramos who first took umbrage over stylistic variations performed by, if memory serves me right, the Madrigal Singers, for one. FVR said it had to be performed as a march, fast tempo and all.
Yet other artists have since felt free to reinterpret our anthem, in fact as late as in other Pacquiao fights, and no fuss was raised until the unfortunate Nievera rendition, which must have really called attention to itself.
Honestly, I’m surprised over the results of my poll, having expected most artist-friends to say it’s all right to perform a variation. Now I realize I’m on the extreme, nearly libertine end of the equation — as someone who is also most patriotic (hey, a Philippine flag hangs from my balcony, and it wasn’t placed there only for June 12), but thinks little of laws that impinge on freedom of expression, especially the creative kind.
Iexpected some replies to hark back to RJ Jacinto’s rock guitar rendition, for which he received unmerited flak. And of course many would recall Jimi Hendrix’s well-received and now-classic Woodstock version of Star-Spangled Banner.
Certain nationalists would of course argue that we don’t always have to monkey-hear-monkey-do Western manners and mores — vis-a-vis the evidence that the USA anthem almost always lends itself to signature stylistic renditions, especially before sporting events like boxing and basketball.
The oldest national anthem, God Save the Queen (or King), of obscure origin but played since 1745, has also been subject to musical adaptation, in fact even appropriation. Its tune became popular in continental Europe, and was either borrowed or officially adopted as their first national anthems by several other countries such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (which still retains it). Having an official anthem became a trend. Following the British suit was seen to provide concrete national(ist) identity.
Ludwig van Beethoven applied seven variations on its original melody. In the middle of the 18th century, George Frederic Handel appropriated it for his Occasional Oratorio. In 1832, American Samuel F. Smith took the tune and rewrote the lyrics into My Country ‘Tis of Thee — which is still the US’ semi-official or second anthem.
Per Wikipedia, over 140 composers — among these Bach, Haydn, Lizst (with a piano paraphrase), Brahms, Debussy, Paganini, Rossini, Strauss, and Sir Edward Elgar — have “quoted” the tune in their compositions.
In our times, a bootleg Beatles piece has the Fab Four running through the melody in between songs in their 1969 rooftop concert. And again Jimi Hendrix string-picked an impromptu lead-guitar version at the 1970 Isle of Wight festival. Freddie Mercury and Queen have an instrumental version in their 1975 album “A Night at the Opera.” The Sex Pistols released their second single, God Save the Queen, in time for Queen Elizabeth’s silver anniversary in 1977, albeit expressing resentment of the monarchy and championing the working class instead. A version played on kazoos is found in the Madness album “The Business.” And of course football hooligans sing it drunkenly all the time.
Now, one might say, but that’s the privilege of age, or of a former empire. Maybe we should wait till our OCWs colonize the world before musical artists can spin off variations of Lupang Hinirang.
Getting back to our survey, the intent was really to discover how artists and musicians themselves feel about the need for that law, or a harsher one (maybe inclusive of a ban on repainting the Rizal house in Calamba another color).
What I didn’t expect was the vestige of fixation on that particular Nievera rendition. Still and all, the reactions manifest a range of views, from admirable fealty to the sed lex dura lex principle to outright poo-pah-ing of yet another product of our legislators.
I cannot give identifying labels for each respondent, else I get sued or lose a friend. I received over 40 replies, which can’t all be quoted here today. The second half will come out next week, still in the order they were received. Here’s the first batch of 20 responses.
Celine Cristobal: If the artist isn’t as good and true as Aretha or Hendrix, he/she shouldn’t bother to change the anthem. It will sound annoyingly self-serving.
Frank Cimatu: I still believe in the Jimi Hendrix dictum that everything is subjective. The problem with Martin is that he did it in a boxing ring which is no venue for protest or irony. There was one American group that did a hip-hop version of Star-Spangled and they were booed. Should be no jail or fine, however. Millions of Filipinos died for that song to come out and for us to be free.
Abing Tan-Amor: When Martin Nievera sang the anthem, it was fine for me until he sang it as a performer (e.g. change in facial expression), and when he veered from the usual in rhythm (not marching) and note (building up to a sudden transposition). I didn’t know there was a law about how our anthem should be sung, but instinctively I felt there was something not right. Our anthem was best sung by Lea Salonga, in a straightforward manner and with the notes unchanged; no fancy attempts at dramatizing because our National Anthem is already steeped in drama in lyrics alone: “... ang mamatay ng dahil sa ’yo.”
Vic Alcuaz: The law is passé. What matters most is that the hymn is sung with a deep sense of love and reverence for our country and our people.
Ding Reyes: Sing it the way you want to sing it. Is there a rule for Ama Namin?
Annabelle Lee-Adriano: I’m for keeping it the way it is now, solemn and melancholic. Tamper with it now and Lupang Hinirang - the Bossa Nova version can’t be far off.
Billy Bonnevie: As long as it’s creative and musically good, why not? We need to improvise and experiment to go beyond the usual style.
Cookie Chua: As an artist, siempre dapat may freedom ka to interpret kung paano mo nararamdaman. Wala naman sa ganun ang pagiging makabayan, he-he.
Gerry Cornejo: My only real concern regarding our National Anthem is that the lyrics are not changed and the melody is intact. It, however, should not be whistled, danced to, partially played, made into a ringtone or a game show theme song.
Cesare Syjuco: Ramon Jacinto was the first guy I know to have fooled around with the national anthem. I must have been nine or 10 years old. That was many years before Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock, and so it was a big scandal here at the time. Actually, I think there’s a very real difference between improvising on the anthem and desecrating it. As long as it’s done responsibly and in good taste, I don’t think there’s any need to put people in jail for that.
Danny Reyes: I am all for creative expression. Even the prescribed tempo of old-time marches has a range. Following the tempo at its fastest poses an extreme breathing challenge. Lest we all collapse, it should be on the “slower” side, a march that’s meant for comfortable singing.
Wilson Lee Flores: I think there should be a standard way to sing or play the anthem, but I’m okay with artists adjusting sometimes, but only depending on context or circumstances, and most important, there should be no disrespect for the anthem in any way.
BenCab: It should be played as originally composed.
Victor Jose Peñaranda: Making a law will not resolve the issue. People will decide on fresh ways of singing the anthem without being disrespectful.
Amadis Ma. Guerrero: I agree with the law and am irritated when entertainers like Martin Nievera come up with a showy version (at di pa naaabot ang nota!).
Alma Miclat: As a lover of classical and Broadway music, opera, jazz, the Beatles and ballads, I wouldn’t want to be boxed in. Creative and artistic rendering of our National Anthem will only show the dynamism and passion of our nation.
Deanna Ongpin-Recto: However boring it might be for our more creative artists to sing or play the National Anthem exactly the way it was composed, and for us to hear it sung or played always the same way, this is the law and it must be respected. If we’re not happy with it, then we should amend it to allow for different interpretations.
Erlinda E. Panlilio: Actually, I don’t mind an artistic interpretation of our anthem, if done in good taste. But then again, how does one define good taste? De gustibus non est disputandum. Unfortunately, we have a law dictating how the anthem is to be rendered.
Howie Severino: I don’t mind artistic interpretation as long as it’s done with respect. I once heard a head-banging version of Lupang Hinirang in San Francisco done by a white-male heavy metal band at a Filipino music festival. The crowd loved it.
Vim Nadera: If we are quite strict in implementing the lawful interpretation of our National Anthem, then they must have convicted, say, National Artist Prof. Andrea Veneracion and the generations of Philippine Madrigal Singers since 1963 for doing it — romantically — far from the original Julian Felipe’s “incidental version” of Marcha Filipina Magdalo, that became Marcha Nacional Filipina. We should be more or less forgiving since in the past they already were open to changes, as in the shift in time signature to what we now know as 4/4 or in key from C major to G. But what the National Historical Institute ought to put in jail are those who do not stand or stop to respect the singing of our Lupang Hinirang. Or arrest every Juan or Maria who has been Disney-fying our hymn in this post-Flag Law period of American Occupation. That is, in pronouncing fast (meaning, not placing stress on the first syllable) the third stanza’s first line, “Sa dagat...” Instead of the plain and simple “sea,” the metaphor of Mickey Mouse is added.
“As a musician / artist / music lover, what is your view on the law, or strict application of it, regarding having to sing or play our National Anthem exactly the way it was composed? Am taking a poll and writing about it — where you may be quoted.”
This was occasioned by a recent meeting I attended where a lawyer proposed that a government agency issue a warning to all television stations regarding the usual playing of our anthem at the start and/or end of a day’s broadcast.
I reacted by saying that I’m actually appalled by recent news on certain legislators even moving to fortify the current restrictions on the matter, which of course gained mileage since that Martin Nievera rendition at Las Vegas. Some solons now want to make the penalties even more severe for “violation” of what I thought is already an unfortunate law governing the required manner of singing and playing the anthem, specifically that it should strictly conform to the original music.
I voiced out my opinion, rather heatedly, that any piece of music may and will be made subject to individual interpretation or adaptation, since as music it is a work of art, and thus open to reinterpretation and variation.
We’ve been through this before. It was former President Fidel V. Ramos who first took umbrage over stylistic variations performed by, if memory serves me right, the Madrigal Singers, for one. FVR said it had to be performed as a march, fast tempo and all.
Yet other artists have since felt free to reinterpret our anthem, in fact as late as in other Pacquiao fights, and no fuss was raised until the unfortunate Nievera rendition, which must have really called attention to itself.
Honestly, I’m surprised over the results of my poll, having expected most artist-friends to say it’s all right to perform a variation. Now I realize I’m on the extreme, nearly libertine end of the equation — as someone who is also most patriotic (hey, a Philippine flag hangs from my balcony, and it wasn’t placed there only for June 12), but thinks little of laws that impinge on freedom of expression, especially the creative kind.
Iexpected some replies to hark back to RJ Jacinto’s rock guitar rendition, for which he received unmerited flak. And of course many would recall Jimi Hendrix’s well-received and now-classic Woodstock version of Star-Spangled Banner.
Certain nationalists would of course argue that we don’t always have to monkey-hear-monkey-do Western manners and mores — vis-a-vis the evidence that the USA anthem almost always lends itself to signature stylistic renditions, especially before sporting events like boxing and basketball.
The oldest national anthem, God Save the Queen (or King), of obscure origin but played since 1745, has also been subject to musical adaptation, in fact even appropriation. Its tune became popular in continental Europe, and was either borrowed or officially adopted as their first national anthems by several other countries such as Germany, Norway, Sweden, Russia, Switzerland and Liechtenstein (which still retains it). Having an official anthem became a trend. Following the British suit was seen to provide concrete national(ist) identity.
Ludwig van Beethoven applied seven variations on its original melody. In the middle of the 18th century, George Frederic Handel appropriated it for his Occasional Oratorio. In 1832, American Samuel F. Smith took the tune and rewrote the lyrics into My Country ‘Tis of Thee — which is still the US’ semi-official or second anthem.
Per Wikipedia, over 140 composers — among these Bach, Haydn, Lizst (with a piano paraphrase), Brahms, Debussy, Paganini, Rossini, Strauss, and Sir Edward Elgar — have “quoted” the tune in their compositions.
In our times, a bootleg Beatles piece has the Fab Four running through the melody in between songs in their 1969 rooftop concert. And again Jimi Hendrix string-picked an impromptu lead-guitar version at the 1970 Isle of Wight festival. Freddie Mercury and Queen have an instrumental version in their 1975 album “A Night at the Opera.” The Sex Pistols released their second single, God Save the Queen, in time for Queen Elizabeth’s silver anniversary in 1977, albeit expressing resentment of the monarchy and championing the working class instead. A version played on kazoos is found in the Madness album “The Business.” And of course football hooligans sing it drunkenly all the time.
Now, one might say, but that’s the privilege of age, or of a former empire. Maybe we should wait till our OCWs colonize the world before musical artists can spin off variations of Lupang Hinirang.
Getting back to our survey, the intent was really to discover how artists and musicians themselves feel about the need for that law, or a harsher one (maybe inclusive of a ban on repainting the Rizal house in Calamba another color).
What I didn’t expect was the vestige of fixation on that particular Nievera rendition. Still and all, the reactions manifest a range of views, from admirable fealty to the sed lex dura lex principle to outright poo-pah-ing of yet another product of our legislators.
I cannot give identifying labels for each respondent, else I get sued or lose a friend. I received over 40 replies, which can’t all be quoted here today. The second half will come out next week, still in the order they were received. Here’s the first batch of 20 responses.
Celine Cristobal: If the artist isn’t as good and true as Aretha or Hendrix, he/she shouldn’t bother to change the anthem. It will sound annoyingly self-serving.
Frank Cimatu: I still believe in the Jimi Hendrix dictum that everything is subjective. The problem with Martin is that he did it in a boxing ring which is no venue for protest or irony. There was one American group that did a hip-hop version of Star-Spangled and they were booed. Should be no jail or fine, however. Millions of Filipinos died for that song to come out and for us to be free.
Abing Tan-Amor: When Martin Nievera sang the anthem, it was fine for me until he sang it as a performer (e.g. change in facial expression), and when he veered from the usual in rhythm (not marching) and note (building up to a sudden transposition). I didn’t know there was a law about how our anthem should be sung, but instinctively I felt there was something not right. Our anthem was best sung by Lea Salonga, in a straightforward manner and with the notes unchanged; no fancy attempts at dramatizing because our National Anthem is already steeped in drama in lyrics alone: “... ang mamatay ng dahil sa ’yo.”
Vic Alcuaz: The law is passé. What matters most is that the hymn is sung with a deep sense of love and reverence for our country and our people.
Ding Reyes: Sing it the way you want to sing it. Is there a rule for Ama Namin?
Annabelle Lee-Adriano: I’m for keeping it the way it is now, solemn and melancholic. Tamper with it now and Lupang Hinirang - the Bossa Nova version can’t be far off.
Billy Bonnevie: As long as it’s creative and musically good, why not? We need to improvise and experiment to go beyond the usual style.
Cookie Chua: As an artist, siempre dapat may freedom ka to interpret kung paano mo nararamdaman. Wala naman sa ganun ang pagiging makabayan, he-he.
Gerry Cornejo: My only real concern regarding our National Anthem is that the lyrics are not changed and the melody is intact. It, however, should not be whistled, danced to, partially played, made into a ringtone or a game show theme song.
Cesare Syjuco: Ramon Jacinto was the first guy I know to have fooled around with the national anthem. I must have been nine or 10 years old. That was many years before Jimi Hendrix at Woodstock, and so it was a big scandal here at the time. Actually, I think there’s a very real difference between improvising on the anthem and desecrating it. As long as it’s done responsibly and in good taste, I don’t think there’s any need to put people in jail for that.
Danny Reyes: I am all for creative expression. Even the prescribed tempo of old-time marches has a range. Following the tempo at its fastest poses an extreme breathing challenge. Lest we all collapse, it should be on the “slower” side, a march that’s meant for comfortable singing.
Wilson Lee Flores: I think there should be a standard way to sing or play the anthem, but I’m okay with artists adjusting sometimes, but only depending on context or circumstances, and most important, there should be no disrespect for the anthem in any way.
BenCab: It should be played as originally composed.
Victor Jose Peñaranda: Making a law will not resolve the issue. People will decide on fresh ways of singing the anthem without being disrespectful.
Amadis Ma. Guerrero: I agree with the law and am irritated when entertainers like Martin Nievera come up with a showy version (at di pa naaabot ang nota!).
Alma Miclat: As a lover of classical and Broadway music, opera, jazz, the Beatles and ballads, I wouldn’t want to be boxed in. Creative and artistic rendering of our National Anthem will only show the dynamism and passion of our nation.
Deanna Ongpin-Recto: However boring it might be for our more creative artists to sing or play the National Anthem exactly the way it was composed, and for us to hear it sung or played always the same way, this is the law and it must be respected. If we’re not happy with it, then we should amend it to allow for different interpretations.
Erlinda E. Panlilio: Actually, I don’t mind an artistic interpretation of our anthem, if done in good taste. But then again, how does one define good taste? De gustibus non est disputandum. Unfortunately, we have a law dictating how the anthem is to be rendered.
Howie Severino: I don’t mind artistic interpretation as long as it’s done with respect. I once heard a head-banging version of Lupang Hinirang in San Francisco done by a white-male heavy metal band at a Filipino music festival. The crowd loved it.
Vim Nadera: If we are quite strict in implementing the lawful interpretation of our National Anthem, then they must have convicted, say, National Artist Prof. Andrea Veneracion and the generations of Philippine Madrigal Singers since 1963 for doing it — romantically — far from the original Julian Felipe’s “incidental version” of Marcha Filipina Magdalo, that became Marcha Nacional Filipina. We should be more or less forgiving since in the past they already were open to changes, as in the shift in time signature to what we now know as 4/4 or in key from C major to G. But what the National Historical Institute ought to put in jail are those who do not stand or stop to respect the singing of our Lupang Hinirang. Or arrest every Juan or Maria who has been Disney-fying our hymn in this post-Flag Law period of American Occupation. That is, in pronouncing fast (meaning, not placing stress on the first syllable) the third stanza’s first line, “Sa dagat...” Instead of the plain and simple “sea,” the metaphor of Mickey Mouse is added.
