Here in the U.S., it's my favorite time of the year–baseball season. Ah, the wonderful sounds of baseball, the crack of the bat, the cheering of the crowd. But there is one sound that isn't always “music to my ears”–the playing of our national anthem. Don't misunderstand, I'm as patriotic as the next person. What irks me is not that it is played, but rather “how” it's played. First, you should know that playing of the national anthem before sporting events in the U.S. is not mandated by law. It has nevertheless achieved a quasi-sacred, ritual-like status over the years. Unfortunately, what has also become something of a ritual is a musician who walks onto the playing field and feels he or she needs to outperform the musician (most often a singer) from the previous day by adding all sorts of ornamental twists and turns that have nothing to do with the music! So here's a note to performers: ladies and gentlemen, the competition starts after you stop singing. This is a baseball game, not Star Search or American Idol. Indeed, the arrogance of some performers who believe their “star power“ is more important than the stars on our American flag. But “freedom of speech, freedom of speech,” they will claim. “America was build upon a rugged individualism and that is what we add to our performances.” A specious argument, and here is why: the “speech” is already written. The speech is the music itself. It is therefore up to the performers to faithfully deliver that message. Is there room for interpretation? Of course, I won‘t dent that. No two performances will ever be the same. As a composer, I appreciate when performers offer interpretations that enhance my original meaning. Yet on the other hand, I must reject when a performer so distorts my music as to evoke a sentiment directly opposite to my original meaning. Try this yourself at home. Take just about any sentence and speak it in such a way that it evokes the opposite of its original intent. It's possible, yes? But it's not right. In any case, what does a national anthem “say” and how can this message be muddled? I will not get into the finer points of a national anthem being bold or majestic or poignant. Naturally it can be all of these. But at its most basic, a national anthem represents the people of its country. People can only be well-represented, musically, by a clear rendering of their anthem. When a performer renders an idiosyncratic, self-indulgent performance, he or she only calls attention to him or herself. He or she honors neither country nor countrymen. As an aside, too often, I feel, performers add their own complicated additions to music to cover up a lack of ability to simply play clearly, elegantly, accurately. Unless I am at a jazz festival, or other such venue where spontaneity and individuality is not only appropriate but highly prized, a simple, elegant rendering will always impress me more than all the flying fingers or vocal gymnastics in the world. I've used a national anthem here as the point of departure for this discussion. But obviously it has meaning outside of the ballpark as well. I remember well what my music teachers always told me as an aspiring composer and clarinetist: “First learn how to play by the rules before you break the rules.” There are so many choices to make in life as in art. Yes, I love freedom. But paradoxically, what good is freedom if one doesn't also respect boundaries? BM
