Shame Stravinsky wasn't around to arrange the Olympic Anthems...
Although according to "urban legend" he was arrested for re-harmonising the Star-Spangled Banner as apparently this was illegal?! I think this may have been his exaggeration though, much like the infamous "Rite of Spring" riot...
MD Redbridge Brass
the bloke is a philastine ! its not the National Anthem without the "Ta da da da"
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.
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.
Gareth J. Green
MD The Egham Band
"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." [Attr. Albert Einstein (1879-1955)]
... which, logically, must make conducting a form of insanity.
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)
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.
My Score Exchange Site
A man once accused of being able to write a melody...
A wise man once said, "Pointing out a fallacy in someone's argument is not the same as pedantically and persistently pushing it down someone's throat whilst completely ignoring other points that are made."
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!