Discussion in 'The Rehearsal Room' started by trumpetmike, Aug 5, 2012.
I'm so glad that we've got a crappy old box telly with dodgy sound then!
You know what?
I think the bloke deserves a bit of credit for trying to do something original.
Let's face it, God Save The Queen is not the most musically interesting anthem ever written - (the Russians probably have a big shout for that one) and was well overdue a bit of a looking at. We don't mind when an arranger inverts a few chords and puts a couple of clever harmonies in hymn tunes to we?
OK, I'd agree it isn't the best example of a re-interpretation.... in fact, it really ain't a brilliant arrangement by any stretch if I'm being blunt... but I'm not going to object to a re-working of the anthem on principle. Least of all one as dirgey as GSTQ.
And I for one REALLY don't miss the 'first four notes to eastenders' now they've gone. Good riddance to them. From what I recall, they're a later addition to the original tune anyway, so it seems a bit of an over-reaction that people are protesting about what amounts to the same thing.
I appear to be in a minority....I quite like it.
No, not when the basic rules of 4-part harmony are adhered to. But that's not the case here, is it?
My objections to Mr. Shephard's reworking are not based on taste, or subjectivity; my objective assessment is that it's harmonically unsound, (although, as I said before, not as unsound as the US anthem) if not downright incompetent.
It's grown on me. I quite like it.
Although that's not an open invitation for bands to start recording it with us. I don't like it that much
There was a programme on the telly which explored this in more detail than the Foreign Office Vid on you tube.
It stated that the Queen is the copyright holder for God save the Queen - so any changes had to have her approval and , apparently, she's never liked the 'missing' bar.
Also the fact that all the arrangements are different to the 'official' versions means LOCOG don't have to pay royalties on them (not that Australia would have made much money anyway)
So will mould, eventually
The problem is brass banders always utter the same unimaginative, terrified squeaks of dismay when faced with anything different (or most of the time, something new), be it Vinter, McCabe, Bourgeois, Bingham or a variation on the national anthem. It's not my favourite but I'd rather listen to this than the turgid hymn book version.
But, Simon, the complaints this time appear to be that this arrangement is bad, not that it is new. Incidentally, if MDs take it slightly quicker than normal, at circa 90 bpm, (which according the Irish Guards is HM's preference) and actually play number 61 rather than sleep walk through it, it comes across a lot better.
generalise much Simon?
I think you're missing the point a bit here - its not just banders objecting to this new version of the anthem, and its not just about 4 missing notes, its about the weird and unfamiliar harmonies that (in the opinion of many musicians whose views and knowledge I respect) have been poorly done.
I've got nothing against modern sounds if they're well written; what I don't like is change for the sake of it, and poor quality. Each to their own I guess!
"Also the fact that all the arrangements are different to the 'official' versions means LOCOG don't have to pay royalties on them"
This can't be true. Just how many composers of National Anthems have died less than seventy years ago?! And the Queen doesn't have the copyright to 'God Save the Queen'! No composer has been attributed to it but it could be by John Bull in the early 1600s or most probably German Hymn from the 1700s!
I think each host country has to record the anthems, so I don't think they'll be used again in Rio.
Our delight at hearing the National Anthem so often during the Olympic Games is enhanced by some subtle tweaking of its conventional harmony. The forward impetus of an interrupted cadence halfway through matches the unstoppable determination of our athletes, while two unexpected major (submediant) chords lift the harmonic spirit as Team GB's performance lifts the spirits of us all.
Those are not my views, but those of an Emeritus Professor of Music which appear in today's Times. His name is George Pratt. You can all supply your own punchlines.
Nope, again, according to Philip Sheppard during the interview with Chris Evans on the Radio 2 breakfast show, the recordings have been given to the Olympic Movement so they do not have to be recorded again in four years time.
(Unless monarchs/presidents/beloved leaders complain, in which case indivisual ones might be!)
i liked the slow, solemn Hungarian anthem played after a swimming and gymnastics ceremony
The Dominican Republic's was a bit non-descript last night folowing Felix Sanchez's victory in the 400 hurdles?
And, the new, all bland version of the Star Spangled Banner wasnt a patch on that conducted live by John Williams at LA games in 1984
At least some of the new arrangements seem to give the brass something to do...
Meh I don't see what's wrong with it, think i prefer it actually! Problem is most of you are just too used to the origional to like it, it's not wrong, just seems slightly odd to some people. No Philip isn't a professor of composition at the academy I don't think (might be wrong), but he's still a professor at the academy and he studied there, so probably knows what he's doing Maybe re arrangements of the anthems shouldn't have been done, maybe was a bad idea and people would rather stick with older arrangements, but his musical ability shouldn't really be questioned, not here anyway.
Why not? ... you think four consecutive parallel 5ths between melody and bass isn't cause for question ... ?
... and don't patronise me by suggesting I'm unable to distinguish between "different" and "technically incorrect, and therefore weak" harmony. If people had wanted "different", they could have used the Gordon Jacob harmonisation ...
Hm didn't see that what bar and I'll listen again? I suppose that would be a little out of place
It's inept, incompetent and appalling. Of that there is no doubt!
Separate names with a comma.