Video shows Obama during National Anthem, page 1
Pages:
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times
Topic started on 8-1-2008 @ 08:07 PM by spyder207


Not sure what is worse, the singing or the display. What's your opinion, did he do anything wrong?


reply posted on 8-1-2008 @ 08:12 PM by spyder207
Thanks, I tried searching but couldn't find it posted previously.



reply posted on 8-1-2008 @ 08:22 PM by spyder207
reply to post by DocMoreau



Nope, no confusion here. Came across a debate on another site pertaining to this issue and wanted to get some opinions from here. As mentioned in my post I think the singing was worse and can't understand why folks try to make the song their own instead of just singing it the way it was written.


reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 12:18 PM by DocMoreau
reply to post by spyder207



That is an interesting question. Why artists 'try' to make the song their own.
It appears that the phenomena started in 1968. I find it interesting that Feliciano's version started the 'controversy', but Hendrix's version has become iconic.
DocMoreau

From the same Star Spangled Banner Wikipedia page
Modern history
The first "pop" performance of the anthem heard by mainstream America was by Puerto Rican singer and guitarist Jose Feliciano. He shocked the crowd at Tiger Stadium in Detroit and the rest of America when he strummed a slow, bluesy rendition of the national anthem before Game Five of the 1968 World Series between Detroit and St. Louis. This rendition started contemporary "Star-Spangled Banner" controversies. The response from many in Vietnam-era America was generally negative, given that 1968 was a tumultuous year for the United States. Despite the controversy, Feliciano's performance opened the door for the countless interpretations of the "Star-Spangled Banner" we hear today.[4]
In fact, many "interpretative" versions of the anthem are held in high regard by modern critics[citation needed], such as Marvin Gaye's funk-influenced performance at the 1983 NBA All-Star Game, and Whitney Houston's soulful, spine-chilling rendition before Super Bowl XXV in 1991, which when released as a single charted at number 20 in 1991 and number 6 in 2001—the only time the anthem has been on the Billboard Hot 100. Another famous instrumental interpretation is Jimi Hendrix's version which was a setlist staple from autumn 1968 until his death in September 1970. Incorporating sonic effects to emphasize the "rockets' red glare", "machine guns", "bombs bursting in air", it became a late-1960s emblem.



reply posted on 10-1-2008 @ 12:43 PM by ncbrian211
reply to post by Cuhail



Why he should cover his heart, it is US code, LAW! He is running to become a presidential candidate!

So lets give no respect to our anthem....

What is this country coming to... no respect anymore
this should be something everyone does in respect for there country, not the gov. but the country... the people.... our founders... your family!

Title 36 Subtitle I chapter 3 section 301 states all present except those in uniform should stand at attention with there right hand over there heart

US Title 36 National anthem


this is the truth, think about it!



reply posted on 11-1-2008 @ 02:49 PM by Buck Division
reply to post by spyder207


When you take an oath, you are supposed to put your hand on something sacred, such as a Holy Bible. Or your heart. Placing your hand over your heart is making a pledge on your life. You pledge your life to the flag, and the republic for which it stands.

When you hear the national anthem, you are supposed to stand, and remove your hat. It is a sign of respect, such as at a funeral or a wedding. You stand for the same reason you stand and clap for something you really respect, i.e. give a special "standing" ovation.

This is what I was taught in High School, and it is what I do today.

I actually think placing your hand over your heart cheapens the whole "oath" process in a small (and what difference does it really make?) sort of way. Obviously so – people now think that hearing a piece of music is equivalent to making a sacred oath!

Wikipedia, and US Title 36 aside – I think the above info is true. Go ahead and arrest me.


reply posted on 12-1-2008 @ 10:45 AM by ncbrian211
reply to post by Sestias



Sestias, I believe you need to read a little more, US code is in fact law.

Just because there is no penalty for not abiding by the code, does not mean it is not a law.

Certain titles of the [United States] Code have been enacted into positive law, and pursuant to section 204 of title 1 of the Code, the text of those titles is legal evidence of the law contained in those titles. The other titles of the Code are prima facie evidence of the laws contained in those titles. The following titles of the Code have been enacted into positive law: 1, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18, 23, 28, 31, 32, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 46, and 49.

en.wikipedia.org...

The truth and only the truth.
Pages:     ^^TOP^^



Truth, Lies, Oil and Scotland
  Posted 19 days ago with 8 member flags
Russian cops mistake nationalist rally for gay pride parade
  Posted 17 days ago with 4 member flags
Republicans in Arizona plan to nearly wipe out public unions
  Posted 9 days ago with 4 member flags
Tennessee threatens suit against man building boat with his son.
  Posted 0 days ago with 4 member flags
The CULT of Ron Paul
  Posted 13 days ago with 1 member flags

Newest topics getting replies, in real-time:

Santorum wants more fracking!!!
  US Political Madness, Posted 13 hours ago, 53 replies
Pass Me My Rifle
  World War Three, Posted 9 hours ago, 52 replies