(Part 2)
Here’s the second batch of responses to our poll question on the law prescribing the correct singing of our national anthem. The first group of 20 replies appeared last week. Pandy Aviado: Our National Anthem should be sung according to what is prescribed. Of course every singer will sing it with a touch of individuality, but singing it is all about the song, not about the singer.
John L. Silva: We see songs remade in every generation, and oftentimes the current generation isn’t even aware of the history behind the song they think is an original — the very rich meaning that’s the whole point of the song. Laws on singing the anthem a certain way are a step away from patriotic fascism. Love for country and the respect accorded to its manifestations, like the anthem, can’t be legislated.
Where I was appalled like many was that Martin Nievera sang the song pretty badly, in a crooner style that turned me off and was off-key in the end. Had Martin sung it in a way that was musical, with the reverence he is allowed to interpret, then there wouldn’t have been a row about it. But he sang it badly, that was the bottom line. I actually cringed when he sang it. It felt forced, hollow. A pop song can inspire me, can lead me to tears, so rendition is important rather than some sort of patriotic tone (by whose definition?)
And most importantly, having been in social movements that disrespected flags and disfigured anthems during the Vietnam War, for example, I will not have people go to jail for their differences with the country’s etiquette. That would be succumbing to fascism. Look at the stupid legislators now!
Gémino H. Abad: Let the artist have his/her way. What matters is the spirit of reverence for one’s country, as signified by one’s placing of one’s hand on one’s chest.
Lifestyle Feature ( Article MRec ), pagematch: 1, sectionmatch:
Boy Yuchengco: Funny that — the National Nievera Anthem. Truth is, the very first day that Ambeth bitched/wrote about it, I immediately texted BenCab (as the two are close) to say, “Mali si Ambeth...” Bottom line should be: Was there malice? Insult? Was it, at the very least, done a la heavy metal? Was he made up as a member of KISS when he sang it? No. Did Martin treat, sing it with reverence? With passion and respect? Did he do the song, the anthem, with “Sincerity,” i.e., was it heartfelt? Yes. But, since Hayden Sick was still around the corner, this issue became an opportunity, an excuse, for the usual dumb pol-jerks to be the usual dumb pol-jerks.
Ever heard the Jimi Hendrix instrumental version of the US anthem? It is a classic! Probably the best alt-version ever created (composed) and played. Not to mention all the other versions done by countless American musicians. Hendrix, for one, was roundly applauded, standing ovation and all. Tune topped charts. Album a bestseller worldwide. No complaints at all then, or ever, from anyone in the audience, any of the fans, the media. No “hot-air” espousing of any raison d’ Nat-Ant Commission (if the US even has one). And Def No stupid media-driven political holier-than-thou bible-thumping anal-ysis.
Pete Lacaba: Nagdadalawang-loob ako sa isyu na ito. In principle, hindi naman ako tutol sa pagpasok ng variation sa tempo at arrangement ng orihinal na pambansang awit, pero aaminin ko na tumaas ang kilay ko at balahibo nang marinig ko ang version ni Martin Nievera. Parang masyado akong naartehan sa ending niya, masyadong nagpapakitang-gilas, masyadong itinutuon ang pansin ko sa galing niyang kumanta. Parang hindi ko na tuloy maramdaman ang kahandaang “mamatay nang dahil sa iyo” pag may mang-aapi. Personal na pakiramdam lang iyan. Iba naman yata ang dating sa ibang tao.
Reli German: We should give artists some elbow room in singing Lupang Hinirang. However, they shouldn’t stray too far from the original melody, tempo or beat. Huwag naman sanang gawing parang hip-hop, rock or jazzy ang pag-interpret nila.
Maribel Garcia: In law, when there is conflict as to its interpretation, experts go back to the original spirit, how the framers intended that law to mean. We should go back to the spirit of the National Anthem when we get confused. We could stretch it in some ways — in harmonics, arrangement or even style — but we should always preserve the clarity of the lyrics and the power it was infused with in tone and tempo. The National Anthem is the song from collective memory that we carry and pass on — a meme — another lullaby for the courageous and perhaps hopeless romantics of an archipelago that still surprisingly stands, in spite of ourselves. Except that this one ends with “... ang mamatay ng dahil sayo.” That line, as the ones that come before it, should not, I think, rest under the heavy shade of metal music or even the grandest birit of the most agile vocal physiology, even by the most celebrated artists.
Lourd de Veyra: Ayala Land has a mid-to-lower-class subdivision in Antipolo. Nice place, with one exception: you can’t do your own front decor. Plus, bawal ang videoke. Maybe the developers were expecting an eventual onslaught of bad taste — from tacky gates to fake pinewood doors. The National Anthem law is kind of like that restriction. My beef against the Nievera rendition is not moral but aesthetic. I’m all for artistic freedom pero ang baduy nung version niya.
Mario Taguiwalo: Our National Anthem is both a historical fact as well as an expression of our cultural identity. As history, it should be rendered the way it was originally designed. As cultural expression of identity, it may be rendered according to the sense, sensibility and setting of its performance.
Here is my way of resolving this duality. Any official performance of the anthem, such as those rendered by government orchestras, choirs and government-employed performers, should follow the original composition. Any performance by private individuals and groups should be free to render it in the way they feel it should be done for the occasion.
It is pretty stupid and ultimately futile to adopt a Talibanic approach to its performance by attempting to enforce a specific rendering at any and all occasions. Yet, a disciplined approach to its performance would be one way of demonstrating good governance among those within the power and authority of government.
Edd Aragon: In a democratic country, there’s always free expression of oneself; however, re-expressing another’s original expression shall surely invite unsolicited opinions (often based on comparative analysis, e.g. kung hindi plakado, panget, kung plakado naman, unimaginative!). The anthem, like a pair of old marching boots, is a dignified museum piece not to be resoled (or the anthem re-souled). So let the anthem be, it is unique; and let it be sung solo by each unique voice of succeeding generations.
Salvador Arellano: I quote: “The use of swear words by ignorant people is quite excusable, because they have not the wit to use, or the knowledge of, the words that would express what they want to say. They throw in some expression of alien association calculated to give shock, which gives them the satisfaction of having made a forceful remark.” Ahem. From Harold Speed, English painter and teacher, comparing “modern” art to traditional painting. No, leave some things well enough alone.
Bobby Muldong: Since I was a kid singing the anthem I always change one word: “Ang PUMATAY” instead of “Ang MAMATAY ng dahil sa iyo.” Better to kill the enemies than be killed by the enemies.
Boy Hilvano: Ang modification na narinig ko naman ay “... sa dagat at bundok maraming Huk kasama si Taruc ...”
Jake Paredes: If the law will not allow an artist to do his own rendition of the anthem, then the government should produce a CD with the law-abiding rendition and play that CD at all functions where the anthem will be played or sung. An artist is such that he/she has his/her interpretation and expression of any art or song. Asking an artist to sing the anthem under restriction of expression is not fair to the artist. The Philippines has strange and weird lawmakers.
Peque Gallaga: I think that in official functions of State — when the State is speaking and acting as the State — the National Anthem should be performed as the law dictates. But I agree with most of the artists who responded to you. The anthem as song, as expression, should be open to artistic and patriotic impulse. For every idiot that might “desecrate” it, we’ll have a Jimi Hendrix who’ll perform the anthem on electrical feedback and we’ll be the richer for it. But chances are, most of the interpretations are going to end up as ABS-CBN-type pap — predictable and mediocre.
Susan Lara: This is just one of our many laws that seem unimplementable. Out of the seven singers who sang the anthem during Pacman’s fights since 2006 (at bakit napapansin lang ang rendition during Pacman’s fights?), only two were judged to have sung it correctly: Kyla and Ciara Sotto. The others daw were off-key, nakakaantok, or sang it like a kundiman or a funeral march.
I think the law should be amended to give more room for variations in pace or tempo or arrangement, as long as the lyrics and basic melody remain the same and the song is performed with reverence. Otherwise, the time will come when people would be too scared to sing the National Anthem in public for fear of violating the law.
E.G. Hizon: With all the strident reactions to Nievera and other singers, baka matakot na’ng kumanta ng Lupang Hinirang ang mga susunod! Singing the national anthem should be a joyous, not an intimidating, experience. As long as the interpretation does not substantially stray from the original, we should let it be. The value of the national anthem is in how it can inspire the listener and evoke positive feelings about his homeland.
Butch Perez: Don’t quote me, quote Samuel Johnson: “Patriotism is the last refuge of scoundrels.”
Igan D’Bayan: Jimi Hendrix’s radical reinterpretation of Star-Spangled Banner with dive-bombs and feedback didn’t make him any less American (or less patriotic). His snarling six-string version at Woodstock was, in fact, both inspired and inspiring. Heck, Martin Nievera’s rendition of Lupang Hinirang was a bit schmaltzy, but you couldn’t say it wasn’t heartfelt. And to give him hell for that is too much. With something as dismissible as Martin reinterpreting the National Anthem or Joey Mead posing with the body-painted colors of the Philippine flag, people’s nostrils start flaring and their guns are all ablaze. But when politicians start mangling the Constitution to maintain their overstaying asses on the thrones of power, the moral majority is awfully quiet. We Filipinos seem to get the doom we deserve.
Mitzi P. Borromeo: I’m all for creative expression. But when it comes to remaking original works, such as music, I’m also a firm believer in preserving meaning. When re-interpreting music with so much history, meaning, and identity attached to it, such as our National Anthem, I think it’s important to keep the song’s integrity a priority over the image of the artist or person singing. Some people seem to do more grandstanding in executing their own unique touch with the anthem, wanting to impress the crowd rather than lead the crowd in paying tribute to our country.
How come we never hear alma mater songs being artistically reinterpreted? Maybe a new twist to the Ateneo and La Salle school “anthems” at UAAP games? Let’s see what the Jesuits and the La Salle brothers say when singers/musicians add heavy metal, rap, R&B or house beats to the school anthems.
Aya Yuson: Let a thousand flowers bloom. Though for aesthetic reasons I disagree with how Martin sang the anthem, I would fight to protect his right to sing it as he sees fit.
Cesar Ruiz Aquino: I am for restricting creative departure from the composer’s original vision to a minimum. Keep it formal. Because anthems are essentially didactic, a call to patriotism. Therefore straight to the point a la West Point is the name of the exercise. Or the song, not the singer.
Ed Maranan: I am for keeping to the original tempo of the march, as composed by Julian Felipe, mainly because the intention of the composer was to express the revolutionary, martial spirit of a nation emerging from centuries of colonial rule. Felipe’s Marcha Nacional Filipina only became a “hymn” when Spanish lyrics were written for it more than a year later, and an “anthem” 20 years later with the English free translation by Camilo Osias. It would be another 20 years before the appearance of the Tagalog lyrics by Ildefonso Santos and Julian Cruz Balmaceda — the version that we sing today. These lyrics insist on being sung to the original tempo.
I try to imagine myself as a participant in, or a witness to, the historic event unfolding in 1898: Having defeated Spain, but with the specter of a new imperialist power taking over, the newly independent Filipino nation is proudly raising the national flag, while the San Francisco de Malabon band is playing the national march. There are no lyrics yet, but the martial tempo makes my spirit soar, my blood race and my heartbeat like a drum. The effect on me would be different, I guess, if it were played like a jazzed-up pasakalye to a boxing bout, or if it were sung after the fashion of American song stylists who belt out Star-Spangled Banner as if it were Whitney Houston’s “I will always love you, hoohoo-hoohoo-ohyeah.” I only wish Aguinaldo had also commissioned a Filipino poet to write the lyrics in time for the celebration of Philippine Independence. We might have been doubly inspired in our war of resistance against the Americans, who knows?
Alfredo “Ding” Roces: The word “exactly” leaves no room for interpretation, and I think music requires a “third person” to play the composer’s piece and that third person is not a machine but an artist in his/her own right. I would rather tolerate the simple yardstick that the National Anthem should be treated with respect and leave it at that.
http://www.philstar.com:8080/arts-and-culture/483663/artists-our-anthem
