Rene Marie's National Anthem Controversy (Good Art Gives -- but Doesn't Always Sell; part 2, by Melvin Bray)
[... continued from part one]
And that is my back door into discussing the recent exploits of Rene Marie, an artist based in Denver, Colorado. (I wanted you to understand my presuppositions and how I define my terms.) Rene Marie was invited by the mayor's office in Denver to sing the "Star-Spangled Banner" at the mayor's State of the City address in June. Her artistic offering turned out to be the words of "Lift Ev'ry Voice and Sing" to the melody of "Star-Spangled Banner" (how's that for a good gut check). Her arrangement is the third movement of a broader, evocative, and elaborate "love song to America." She had debuted the arrangement a month prior, in Denver no less, at the statewide Colorado Prayer Luncheon (for which the mayor was an honorary host), with many of Colorado's political elite in attendance. This second time, however, her contribution was met, days later, with venom and vitriol -- including death threats. Denver's mayor is up in arms and many are seeking to characterize the performance as a cheap publicity stunt. Rene has offered this statement and one interview in response.
Rene Marie was invited to sing precisely because she is a talented artist, and I would wager a guess that no one went out of her/his way to specify that only a specific arrangement be sung. Those who requested her participation just got more than they bargained for. Many have recited the words of the anthem as a poem without music -- and called it the "Star-Spangled Banner." At the Olympics, the music of the anthem is played without words -- and we call it the "Star-Spangled Banner." Marvin Gaye crooned the words of the anthem to an R&B groove at a NBA All-Star game (others from different musical genres have done variations of the same) -- and folks applauded it as the "Star-Spangled Banner." Finally someone has dared to complete the artistic set.
Though some may argue that Rene Marie breached her contract or at the very least showed poor manners, I would suggest that this was, even in the way it was structured by the Denver mayor's office, a "contribution" on Rene's part, not a transaction -- and thus should be understood differently. Rene Marie was solicited to offer her talents as a -- albeit public -- gift. No fee for service exchanged hands. There are no acceptable grounds for consternation concerning gifts given in love. This is the home-training we received every time a birthday rolled around (isn't it?). When we are given a gift, the appropriate response my parents taught me is always, "Thank you." Even if we spent time beforehand coming to terms about what the gift was to be and how it was to be presented (like in our Christmas lists), if we got on a stage and I made a monetary contribution to you, a politician, or charitable organization, it would be considered bad form for you to belittle it afterward on the grounds that it was somehow different than you expected. Why is Rene Marie's contribution any different?
One of the challenges of living in a society that is so fiercely market-driven is that we begin to think of every interaction as a "transaction." And we begin to believe that the appropriate response to interactions that fall short of our expectations is to appeal to the legal reasoning we've set in place to protect our transactions. That is one way of going about it, sure. But I don't see society so much the better for having reduced social interactions (i.e., with spouses, friends, teachers, colleagues -- and yes, even with our political representatives) to economic/legal transactions. Divorce is higher than ever, students certainly aren't learning more just because we now consider school a business, and here we have a mayor acting like a spoiled ingrate, and we don't have the collective good sense to chasten him.
Whatever one may think about what she did, Rene Marie did it in honor of America, not in desecration of her. Intent matters. We can't champion freedom of speech as a national virtue, and then crucify someone for exercising it in honor of our nation -- even if her specific expression of honor may not have been our own. In doing so, we miss the opportunity to see our world in new and living ways and to help shape our world into that beauty.
Those are my thoughts, but I'm open to other respectful points of view. What do you think?
Melvin Bray is a devoted husband, committed father, learner, teacher, writer, storyteller, lover of people, connoisseur of creativity, seeker of justice, purveyor of sustainability, and believer in possibilities. This post is one of a series of essays titled Home-Training.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Comments
Sorry, but I don't buy that in the least. It matters not what her intentions were; what she did represented an abuse of a public/cultural trust in order to make a political statement, which is generally inappropriate. It's the same thing if someone were told to read a certain Scripture in church that corresponds to the message the preacher is delivering but decides to substitute something that may have had nothing to do with it. In the end, she succeeded only in bringing attention to herself, which is never cool.
Posted by: Rick | July 23, 2008 1:19 PM
We need to get rid of the SSB anyway. It's a militaristic song about a flag sung to the tune of an English drinking song named after a pagan god. We can do far better than this--let's replace it with "America the Beautiful."
And right on to Rene Marie!
Posted by: Steve | July 23, 2008 2:22 PM
While I appreciate artistic expression, and grew up singing Lift Every Voice and Sing and love it -- I think she was out of line. She was invited to sing the Star Spangled Banner -- those words and that tune are easily available. She should have even clarified how many verses they wanted her to sing. I don't really see that as a legal transaction, it's more about honoring your commitment.
My mom just passed away -- if a friend offered to bring flowers, I would be grateful and probably not worry about ordering any more. If that friend brought a basket full of cabbages, no matter how neatly arranged or decorative the cabbages, I would be disappointed, because I wanted flowers at my Mom's service. While the cabbages may be a heart-felt expression from my friend, that isn't what I needed, wanted or deemed appropriate for this once in a life-time event.
Event planners of any kind tend to be control freaks -- that's how they get an event without surprises -- so they get the overall message they want said communicated. It's probably the message they are paid to get communicated. The event planner can loose their job over something like that. If she blind-sided the event planner, she probably shouldn't have done it.
What happens successfully at a basketball game, doesn't make it appropriate for a state of the state address. That's like saying a good piece of graffiti should fit into a cathedral.
She probably didn't gain a bunch of gigs by doing it. Again, event planner want to know what they're getting.
Posted by: frankie | July 23, 2008 2:38 PM
The sad thing is that so few people today even know the words of The Star Spangled Banner. It should be played and sung on a daily basis in our government schools.
Although I personally dislike ANY alterations of the National Anthem, I would agree that Ms. Marie has the right to sing whatever she wants.
However, she showed poor judgment and disrespect for the audience (and for the country) by being so arrogant as to commercialize the time reserved for remembering the sacrifices by which God gave us our freedom by instead promoting herself and her latest "art." I'm sure she probably succeeded in her effor and realized a handsome profit from her marketing scheme, but I find it to be in poor taste.
Posted by: Bradley | July 23, 2008 2:48 PM
May the kingdoms of this world become the Kingdom of our Lord and Savior Jesus the Anointed Ruler. Amen.
Duh-----siple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | July 23, 2008 4:26 PM
She was out of line. She admits she didn't ask to change the song because they would have said no. Her logic seems immature. But that anyone would care 24 hours later baffles me.
Melvin, she was asked to sing a specific song not to come and be "artistic"
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 4:31 PM
Yeah, she was out of line. But even more so were those who threatened her with bodily harm. And the mayor could have expressed regret and/or disappointment without getting "up in arms."
Moreover, since the mayor was in attendance the first time she did it and therefore knew that this was now part of her repertoire, he could have (and probably should have) let her know specifically what he expected when he invited her to sing at his address. Responsibility cuts in both directions, IMO.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 23, 2008 4:45 PM
Pretty much everybody knows the Star Spangled Banner, which, at least in the first verse that we almost exclusively hear, doesn't mention God, and deity has to be creatively read into the song to make this something godly. I don't see God being offended because someone sang another song about freedom, unity and pride better known by another race. That's a racist attitude.
Call me unpatriotic -- that doesn't make it true -- but I don't say the Pledge of Allegiance either. "I pledge allegiance to the flag...and to the republic for which it stands...." I don't have to look far at all to find conflicts in which I have to choose allegiance to God or allegiance to country, but cannot do both.
On patriotic holidays, in our worship services, we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Republic", "How Great Thou Art" and other hymns that celebrate the power and grace of the God who contrary to popular belief does not favor the US over all other nations.
My kids don't go to government schools. They go to public schools and these are not the same.
I'm not fond of Rene Marie's reasoning and I'm not fond of the twisting of patriotism and faith into one inseparable chain. This wasn't a once in a lifetime event. The rest of American can sing the song at will without negating the value of others in order to do so.
Posted by: openeyes | July 23, 2008 4:48 PM
I didn't call Ms. Marie or anyone else "unpatriotic." My point was that she was out of line to use false pretenses to commandeer a community forum for shameless self-promotion and commercial purposes. She has every right to re-arrange any song she chooses or refuse to sing any song she doesn't want to sing.
As for the schools, I did not mean to be offensive, but if a school is on government property, funded by the government, managed by the government, run by government employees and uses government curriculum and government text books, I don't think it's a stretch to call it a government school. It is not intended to be derogatory, merely a more accurate description that the euphamistic "public schools."
Posted by: bradley | July 23, 2008 5:27 PM
Wow -- I didn't know we were talking about God with the Star Spangled Banner. However, I do recall a conversation with a British friend who was most shocked at all the patriotic songs in our hymnals. He said that was never the case in England -- that the two didn't mix.
I find that a little odd, seeing as there is such a thing as a Church of England, but no such thing as a Church of the USA or anything. We stand for freedom of religion, yet many American Churches seem to think we do have a State Church.
The State of the City Address 2008, is a once in a lifetime event for Mayor Hickenlooper. It's an affair of the city, much like an affair of State, which means it has protocols that should be followed. If the mayor chooses not to follow them, that's his business, but a guest doesn't have that right.
Posted by: frankie | July 23, 2008 6:28 PM
bradley, perhaps the misunderstanding is that you seem to count, "1, 2," then jump to 10. it's not unreasonable to make the jump. i think we just need to allow for the fact that all patterns/sequences that start with 1, 2... do not always in every case lead to or through 10.
for example, even if we allow your use of the term "false pretenses"--which is difficult because at the event in question rene sang the exact same arrangement that prompted them to ask her to perform in the first place (perhaps it would be more accurate to say that she certainly didn't go out her way to be abundantly clear about her plans)--that does not mean she did it "for shameless self-promotion and commercial purposes." she has shunned the majority of the exposure and shared the entire suite with the public (not just the part in question) for free.
the same holds true for your deduction regarding schools. yes, publics schools are "on government property, funded by the government... [and] run by government employees," but as a former public and private school employee, I can assure you that they are not "managed by the government... [using] government curriculum... [or] government text books," any more than private schools are.
in neither case do i take any offense, but it may be the point of disagreement.
thank you, everyone, for the great conversation.
Posted by: melvin bray | July 23, 2008 6:41 PM
btw...
why do we care about the an arrangement of the SSB one way or another (or whether someone puts their hand over their heart while saying the pledge)?
would the offense be any different (for those who would be offended) if it were clear that the mayor's office knew?
does anyone think race had anything to do with her arrangement and performance or in people's response to it? in what way? looking at it from rene's personal experience, is the race factor (if it exists) a bad thing?
how does freedom of speech relate to our sense of propriety?
Posted by: | July 23, 2008 7:04 PM
As Don points out, and then also Melvin, Rene had sung this version before the Denver mayor and many others in the government at an earlier function. To immediately be asked to sing again could easily have been taken as tacit approval.
I listened to her blended version and thought it was beautiful, so maybe I'm prejudiced, though!
Posted by: janible | July 23, 2008 8:01 PM
Janible,
If you read her comments you will see that she did not take the invitation as tacit approval. She clearly says she didn't ask to sing the other version because the answer would be no.
Jeff
Posted by: Jeff | July 23, 2008 10:49 PM
Personally, I prefer the Star Spangled Banner's original musical arrangement.
americanhistory.si.edu/ssb/6_thestory/gfx/song.anac.dsl.ra
Perhaps we should return to singing this, since the song is most often sung at sporting events where beer is served.
Posted by: ds0490 | July 23, 2008 11:30 PM
Let your yes be yes and your no be no. There is too much game playing going on here. It is divisive and I think plays into the hands of those who are questioning the patriotism of many of those I support. The proof that it was a too cute move is in the results. It didn't edify.
I see no problem with the creative expression, I still love to hear Hendrix heavy metal version of the song. She could have asked to do the traditional version and then asked to sing her interpretation or remix.
Posted by: laura b | July 23, 2008 11:59 PM
Hey
I thought "Lift Every Voice" was everyones song. It didn't sound black to me untill someone pointed it out to me that this song had a very important history. Its in our hymnal as a patriotic American hymn. It DOES say EVERY. How was I suppose to know it wasn't for me.
NOt Lift only black voices or Lift only brown voices or lift only white voices. Can some one out there take the blind fold test on this and tell me if it sounds like an ethnic piece of lyric. I just thought it was another suffering biblical saint writing great poetry.
Of course I grew up in the wrong church. I'm a white kid growing up in the UCC. We put every bodies best music in our hymnals.
Now the Star Spangled banner is hard to sing and then it always sounded so violent to me as a child. After Bush's shock and awe stuff it makes me squirm a little to hear us singing about bombs bursting in air. I want to sing a song that wins the hearts and minds of people looking for liberty all around the world.
If we have to sing such a difficult piece of music then at the very least lets make the lyrics more healing.
I didn't know you could sing that old drinking song with Lift Every Voice and Sing.
lol loved the recording of the British version.
Liberty should be about Singing your heart out, not frightening them with bombs. I say Yes. Yes. Yes.
Lets sing about singing and crying together not exploding things.
I say the Mayor's event was too small for this music. It needs to be sung in a much bigger venue.
How about everywhere Americans go out into the world.
Posted by: Ms. Cynthia | July 24, 2008 7:36 AM
I think what she did was beautiful.
The reaction demonstrates that in fact we do have a state religion. By deviating from it, Rene Marie came under attack.
The national anthem and the pledge of allegiance are part of a state religion, not officially declared as such but operationally such - and many politicians want to put this state religion into the Constitution with their flag desecration amendment. As Christians, we should not participate in this idolatry.
The Star Spangled Banner was written during a U.S. war of aggression to celebrate militarism. Unfortunately, it does reflect America, but we should be working to change this country so that it has better values. The values reflected by the song are Satan's values.
Posted by: Bill Samuel | July 24, 2008 9:38 AM
I think Americans who get up in arms about singing words to one song in the tune of another song have too much time on their hands. There are certainly more important things to get upset about. But I guess that's what happens when your nation becomes your god.
Posted by: I and I | July 24, 2008 9:53 AM
"Let your yes be yes and your no be no. There is too much game playing going on here. It is divisive and I think plays into the hands of those who are questioning the patriotism of many of those I support. The proof that it was a too cute move is in the results. It didn't edify."
This is exactly right.
Posted by: kevin s. | July 24, 2008 10:06 AM
I think most people agree even Rene Marie said that as an artists she go overboard when giving the opportunity to make an artistic statement. Agreeing to sing one song and singing another was inappropriate, period.
With that said there is a racial component here. Would people care much if she song God Bless America to the same tune, most likely not. It would have blown over quickly.
Let's not blow this thing out of proportion. She sang a beautiful song in a beautiful way at the wrong time, but I for one can appreciate the beauty and artistic expression of it all. I don't think it was meant to be divisive and tear the nation apart, so let's learn to appreciate our differences rather than use them to divide while accepting that this was a bad choice.
Posted by: The Happy Rock | July 24, 2008 11:21 AM
The Star Spangled Banner was written during a U.S. war of aggression...
I'm not sure that this is completely right, but I don't know all that much about the history of the War of 1812. Certainly aggression was present on both sides--Britain had imposed a blockade and trade restrictions, and they had been raiding US ships on the high seas and conscripting American sailors into their navy. Britain was also providing arms to native American tribes that were hostile to Americans.
Of course, the US declared war first, and began the war with a failed invasion of Canada.
I certainly agree that the words of the SSB do celebrate one of the primary values of our nation--militarism, and that Christians should be working to change those values.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 24, 2008 12:41 PM
After 70 years on this earth having studied the birth of America, the meaning of freedom and the purpose of Christianity I think for Rene to not do what she was asked to do was extremely disrespectful on her part and should be responded to as such.
If Rene planned to sing something other than what she was asked to singe she should have had the respect for the Mayors office to have stated what she intended to sing so the Mayor's office could be tested. Rene is dishonest in this case and owes many an apology that. I am not surprised she refuses to do in defianace of authority which is basically really what she did.
When we broke free from British oppression on average only 1/3 of the population wanted to do so, another third was committed to the British Crown and the other third didn't give a hoot.
The Star Spangled Banner reminds us of what the cost of freedom can cost in any generation. But who cares what I say? probably about a third of the population would agree with me, another third are always defying whatever authority they can defy and the other third don't give a hoot.
In God's politics I say Semper Fi, God Bless America! Jim Wallis will probably disagree!
Broadheart
Posted by: Broadheart | July 24, 2008 12:59 PM
Hey Broadheart,
Thanks for your comments.
One of my ancestors was a colleague of Mr. Key as he composed the words to the SSB. So I guess he (Mr. Skinner) was a member of the 1/3 who wanted to break from the Crown.
In your 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 equation, where do the African slaves fit into the "we" in the "we broke free"?
Also, thinking as a Christian, should not "God bless American" always include the phrase "and keep all nations under your care" since following Jesus is not a national practice but a global one? After all, we pray "our Father in heaven" and that includes Americans and people from every nation and language.
Glad to hear that you have a broad heart and trust that you will receive my questions in a friendly (over against attacking) manner.
Peace,
Duh----sciple
Posted by: Duh-sciple | July 24, 2008 3:00 PM
Just for the record, the "bombs bursting in air"
which Mr. Key wrote about were actually just
firecrackers. As for Ms. Marie, she accepted
an offer and then didn't deliver what she was
asked to do. But then, there have been some
rather awful renditions of the SSB over the years,
both in terms of musicality and comportment while
delivering it (Rosanne Barr, anyone?). Personally,
I'd opt for getting a good marching band to do
it almost every time!
Posted by: John G. | July 24, 2008 8:15 PM
I grew up in the whitest of white congregations - A Church of Christ in a small West Texas town - and we sang "Lift Every Voice and Sing" at least once a week.
Posted by: DC | July 25, 2008 2:36 AM
Instead of debating whether or not she was "out of line" re: breaking her contract (which she apparently did) - what can we learn from this?
"Lift" may have been invented as a "black" song (James Weldon Johnson), but look at the lyrics - they are not specifically "black." They are universal. Why?
As a white person, I read this performance as a black person's attempt to have her struggles and joys resonate with other people, who may not look like her or share her history, but nonetheless have struggles and joys of their own - all in the context of loving this country (the SSB) that, despite its flaws, gives us a chance to experience struggles and joys and share them with other people (you can't do that everywhere!).
To me, this is more interesting, fulfilling, and insightful that debating "scandal." Did she force her point on us? Yes. But, in this instance, I appreciate it. I feel she added to, rather than took away from, the event. I don't mind having a good message forced on me sometimes - wasn't this often Jesus' MO?
Posted by: alex | July 25, 2008 11:15 AM
Just for the record, the "bombs bursting in air"
which Mr. Key wrote about were actually just
firecrackers.
Uh, no they weren't.
Francis Scott Key was on board a British warship in Baltimore Harbor as part of an American delegation to negotiate the release of a prisoner. While they were on board, the British decided to detain the delegation because of their plans to attack Baltimore. So they had to remain on board under guard during the British bombardment of Fort McHenry, which is situated in Baltimore Harbor.
After the bombardment ended in the early dawn and the smoke cleared, Key clearly saw the American flag still flying over the fort. This was his inspiration for writing "The Star-Spangled Banner."
Those bombs were quite real.
Peace,
Posted by: Don | July 25, 2008 11:44 AM
Wow! Melvin, you have sparked quite a discussion. Sadly, my friend, you are mistaken in your judgment, though you have your right to your opinion. Art? I disagree. Singing as an Art form? Absolutely. However she agreed to sing the "Star-Spangled Banner", not "Lift Ev'ry Voice". This was blatant attempt of instigation.
I would love to see how the NAACP would react if they invited a white person to sing "Life Ev'ry Voice" and instead, that white person sang "The Star Spangled Banner". That white person would be ostracized from society for the rest of their lives!
Lastly, if we are truly one nation under God, why do we need separate national anthems for African Americans? They are not a separate nation from the rest of us - they are just Americans. Why not a separate National Anthem for my Native Americans people or Hispanics or Scandinavian immigrants. Or Irish immigrants. Or...
This is all divisive, as was the intent of the "artist", in my opinion. She even admitted to not viewing herself as an American anyway...
Posted by: Armed2Win | July 25, 2008 10:22 PM
You are dead on about people only being able to think in capitalist transaction terms. This is the logic of the market economy infiltrating every other aspect of our lives. Truly, is anything not "for sale" anymore? I think that most people have difficulty with her rendition because it was a unapologetically Black rendition. Some have said, "she was there to do a job, not give a performance." They miss the point that all art is performative (even when it is a paid 'job') and that all artists leave their artistic fingerprints on their recreations. People just happen to dislike these fingerprints.
The deeper issue that Ms. Marie raised is the question of why the symbols of "national unity" are primarily derived from our country's era of Black slavery and Native American genocide. Why must minority groups always "be American" or "unite" on White people's terms and by way of White people's symbols? When was the last time a White person in power adopted Black, Native, or Mexican-American cultural symbols rather than White ones, in the name of national unity?
Posted by: Jeremy | July 26, 2008 9:02 AM
Armed2Win: "Lastly, if we are truly one nation under God, why do we need separate national anthems for African Americans?"
If we are truly one nation under God, why do we need a national anthem that worships a flag?
Posted by: I and I | July 28, 2008 12:18 PM
I and I - The national anthem doesn't "worship" a flag, it's simply a song about a flag. There's a big difference.
Jeremy - In general, you're right about art. It is performance and an artist can add their own touches to any performance. But if I invited you to come and paint a picture of my house and you, instead, painted a picture of a bowl of fruit, I'd have reason to be irritated with you.
When singers are invited to sing the national anthem that's what they should do out of respect for the inviter. They can add their own touches and flourishes (and many do), but changing the words isn't just adding a different touch, it's singing a different song.
Posted by: Eric | July 28, 2008 1:18 PM
Post a Comment
Are you aware of our Rules of Conduct?