50 total posts
(Page 1 of 2)
I have been puzzled about how long the talk
about it went on.
Ok, I'd expect a mention or two for a a few days if there was a disagreement about did she or didn't she.
But almost every newscast for over 2 weeks? It's like what is wrong with these people?
First I heard of it
You get what you pay for except
when it comes to this administration.......we paid for the inauguration and all its pomp and circumstance......we should have at least gotten our money's worth, which includes truth and realism instead of the falsehoods that have been the norm over the last four years and continue.
OMG, making this an Obama admin rant?
Wasn't Minnelli vilified for the same thing?
Somebody gave her the okay to fake it (Schumer? since he was in charge of the festivities).........was she that afraid that she would perform badly 'live' or was she flat out too lazy to bother? I'm not the only who blames politics for this.......some comments made by others in the blogs........
>>>Another fake performance. Why should she sing live? The POTUS can't give a speech without a teleprompter. This entire administration lacks authenticity. I say the blame lies with Schumer. Wasn't he in charge of the festiivities? I think he needs to call a press conference. Too bad her arrogance reflects badly on the band. They were up for the task, even if she wasn't.>>>
>>>Everyone gave Britney Spears hell for lip syncing.. why should Beyonce be treated differently?
Next time, leave the performer at home and play a freaking record instead if we can't get REAL for our money.
I don't know why the media has only seized on the
lip sync and not by the butchery of the song. The SBB isn't about the singer and it's not necessarily a performance. This wasn't the Super Bowl but the installation of a US president so it's not even about Obama but the office he's taking. The song is said to be difficult anyway but surely there are thousands of people out there who could have done it justice. I wonder who gets to choose the singer. We know from the campaign that Beyonce and her husband are big Obama contributors and role models for their daughters but I hope that had nothing to do with her selection. There simply are some people who shouldn't attempt certain musical genres. Every year pop stars put out absolutely horrible Christmas albums and people buy them. Who want to by a recording of Don Ho or Wayne Newton singing "Kumbaya" or "We Shall Overcome" Some things don't fit and pop singers who prance on stage in glitter or nighties don't seem like the right choices to be singing songs which need to be done with dignity and believability. Beyonce altered the tune, the meter and the words of the SBB. I'd think that should be a no-no...at least at a US government official event. If it was a lip sync, that makes it worse because someone would have had an opportunity to determine it's suitability for the event. Here's a little more about the song and how it's actually taught to be properly done.
And from the link:
"This unit is designed to introduce fourth graders to chorus and to sing "The Star-Spangled Banner" correctly"
The interpretation is certainly more worthy of debate than
maybe she should have just whistled "Dixie" instead?
Butchering the Star Spangled Banner.....
......has become a bit of a contest of late. It's one thing to get creative with it (e.g. the Jimi Hendrix version). It's another thing entirely to try to jazz it up with repeated melisma substituting for real singing.
Lip syncing has also become quite the thing. Yo-Yo-Ma also had a backing track at the previous inauguration.
I'd be pretty angry if I had paid money to see someone in concert and found out they were just miming to a pre-recorded vocal track.
If you would get angry over
paying somebody for a live concert who lip-synced then why aren't you angry over spending taxpayer money for Beyonce's LIVE performance and got ripped off since it wasn't LIVE? They could have just played her recording studio tape and gotten the same thing a whole lot cheaper, right?
.......it's not something to be angry about. Disappointed, perhaps, because she's a better singer than that and shouldn't need to lip-sync. But angry? In the scheme of things it's not that important, and only you could find a way to blame the president for it and get "angry." I suppose it was Obama's fault it snowed in DC the other day too?
I've also been annoyed by performers
who, after I've paid good money to hear them sing and play, use the audience to spread their politics in between the tunes.
Like Ted Nugent?
You go see Ted Nugent?
He's sort of a known quality for that anyway. It's not like it comes out of the blue unexpectedly.
Thank you...I learned a new word today
I'd never heard of melisma. It sounds so more gentile than caterwaul.
It's a vocal technique that can be very effective....
.....when used well, but many of today's "singers" use it the way a bad dancer fakes steps.
I call it yodeling or crutch singing.
A crutch for people who can't hold a note.
I think anyone could do that
if they just try and sing during a colonoscopy.
you mean "genteel"?
The tune, an 18th C British drinking song called the "Hymn
to Anacreon", or "To Anacreon in Heaven", requires a singing range exceeding an octave and a half. Most of us could manage that in our youth, but by now at our age it has declined to under an octave. If you listen to the first 3 notes, she descended to an uncharacteristically low but necessary note on the word "say" and then had to work her way back up to "the land of the free" which is usually where people lose voice quality and tonality and above all accuracy. Professional singers of the operatic sort can do an octave jump above "free". The rest of us are just left panting. It also requires very precise use of breath, since both low notes and high notes require considerably more breath volume to produce notes of the same loudness than those notes in a person's "sweet spot".
As you are aware, singing was a recreational entertainment in the days before recording, and there were singing clubs everywhere for whom well known composers would compose songs so that amateurs could sing them. Pills to Purge Melancholy published by the Catch Club, a group of amateurs in London in the late 17th Century has songs composed by Henry Purcell. The songs were uniformly about sex and/or drinking, some of them quite explicit, as was the repertoire of the Anacreontic Society.
"The Anacreonticks were basically a bunch of young rakehells, endowed with far more money than was good for them, who liked to sit around and engage in such cultural pursuits as provided good excuses for getting filthy drunk, hence the emphasis on the more boisterous of the Greek gods."
For a more scholarly discussion see http://www.colonialmusic.org/Resource/Anacreon.htm
"William Lichtenwanger, "The Music of 'The Star-Spangled Banner,' From Ludgate Hill to Capitol Hill" The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress 34/3 (July 1977), 136-170. The song images are from The Nightingale, A Collection of the Most Popular, Ancient, & Modern Songs, Set to Music (Portsmouth, NH: William and Daniel Treadwell, 1804), pp.188-191, courtesy of Arthur F. Schrader
Ludgate Hill is the hill upon which St. Paul's cathedral in London, Eng. is built, and the road named Ludgate Hill was the home of many better class drinking places in the 1600s and 1700s.
they werent the ones on the cd
it's a entirely different thing from selling someone elses voice as your own and recording your own performance to lip sync to.
I think a few people would be surprised if they ever knew how many public appearances were lip sync.
Hell, it doesn't compare to recording using software that automatically corrects off pitch notes and that's pretty common the last decade.
You wouldn't give a damn if it wasn't Obama's inaugration. Your hatred for him is scary.
I voted for the other guy both elections, but I can't imagine being as consumed as you are by emotion for any of them.
Yes, I detest him
Never have done anything to deny that.......and I detest him because HE scares the hell out of ME with what he has been doing deliberately to this country.
I hope you don't actually lose any sleep over him.
HE scares YOU....the more you think about people/events...the more they can scare you, Stop reading/listening/posting stories about Obama, just a suggestion.
However, IF venting here helps, We're here for you Toni, the main thing is don't ever lose faith.
You have to look forward Toni, things WILL get better, He'll be gone in FOUR years, You'll still be kicking and ready to Rebuild America, and after 6 Tea Party Presidents have each served their maximum of 8 years each (which works out to 56 years) the country will be back to BO (Before Obama).
Keep your chin up and your stick on the ice.
>>>HE scares YOU....the more you think about people/events...the more they can scare you, Stop reading/listening/posting stories about Obama, just a suggestion.>>>>>>>
is exactly the reason our country is where it's at, JP.......it's called APATHY.....and it will kill a country faster than anything. IF people don't get concerned, upset, involved, and informed, bad things happen all around you and you aren't even aware of it because you didn't care enough to stop it before it got a toe-hold.
And I seriously doubt you are serious when you say 'we're here for you, Toni'....your posts to me reflect otherwise as do some of the others that have been derogatory and sneering on a personal level so I have to take that comment as nothing more than sarcasm.
And, I AM looking forward.......that isn't going to stop me from telling/posting about CURRENT issues regarding this administration in order to make some of you aware of the hidden, and sometimes actually dangerous, things they are doing. You can call me someone looking for a conspiracy as has been insinuated at times; however, I personally call what's happening a 'COLLECTIVE' agenda.....(BO's favorite word).....more than a few people in high positions with identical agendas all coming together at this particular time in history in order to get their agendas pushed thru no matter how damaging the end result will be because they are idealogues with narrow vision that have been looking for an opportunity like the one they have right now for nearly 100 years. They have perfected their strategy over time and as BO kept saying "now is the time" to "fundamentally change America" because they know that if they get beat back this time, their time is over and they will never get this opportunity again. They are no longer happy with small inroads that just chips away a little at a time.....they want it all, and they want it now.
RE: And I seriously doubt you are serious
And I seriously doubt you are serious when you say 'we're here for you, Toni'.
OK...I can't speak for the others...I'm here for you...Vent away Toni..
Just don't lose sleep or weight or friends over Obama....it's not worth it.
I personally call what's happening a 'COLLECTIVE' agenda..
A COLLECTIVE of the majority?....
Democracy ya' gotta' love it OR hate it.
A collective of radicals, JP
all in high government positions at this time in history.......all with the same agenda........I don't know what 'majority' you are speaking of unless you mean the people who elected this particular president. If that's who you mean, it's easy to sway people's votes when you are giving them (literally) other people's money and have the ability to completely divide an entire country by class warfare (remember that BO did not get a sweeping majority like JFK or Reagan...he won by a mere 51% of the votes). When you can get that response from those voters by making sweeping statements like BO did during his inaugural speech, such as 'WE don't believe (fill in the blanks for the rest of the statements he made), and make it APPEAR with those statements that the Republicans DO believe whatever, you are subliminally putting the thought into those listening who don't hear anything other than what you inferred.
The only thing transparent about this administration is the fact that they are dangerous and bad for the health of this country because of their long-held agendas.
Take the current gun-control bill Feinstein just put out. Did you know that REAL assault weapons have been banned for tens of years already? Did you know that liberals have over time decided that 'assault' weapons are now redefined to include MOST guns? Did you know that her bill allows waivers for 'government officials' but that those 'officials' aren't specified in the bill? Did you know that Coumo in NY neglected to include police officers in HIS bill and they had to scramble to make an amendment to it so police officers wouldn't be breaking the law by having more than 7 bullets in THEIR guns? Did you know that the original Coumo bill he wanted passed included CONFISCATION (that bill was leaked to the media on official government stationary)? Did you know that Feinstein's bill grandfathers in every single 'assault' weapon on her list so if you already own them, the law wouldn't pertain to you........EXCEPT, it will become harder and harder to find ammunition and clips for them, effectively banning them by making them useless? Did you know that NO bill that Feinstein or any other liberal writes would have stopped Newtown from happening because the MOTHER legally purchased her guns and her son STOLE them? Did you know that criminals will NOT obey ANY law so it won't stop THEM? Did you know that there was just a statement made yesterday by Homeland Security that actually says that the AR15 rifle is the 'best weapon for self-defense in close quarters' you can own, and yet this administration doesn't want a legal citizen to own one to protect themselves with?
NOTHING they are doing is about saving kids at an elementary school........it has everything to do with this is an on-going agenda that liberals have had for years. Just as in 'control their money, and you control the people', it is also 'control their guns, and you control the population'........THAT was the thinking of Hitler and it worked. He disarmed the entire country except for his military and he controlled the entire country.
RE: I don't know what 'majority' you are speaking of
I don't know what 'majority' you are speaking of unless you mean the people who elected this particular president.
Give the lady a Kewpie doll.
Did you know that there was just a statement made yesterday by Homeland Security that actually says that the AR15 rifle is the 'best weapon for self-defense in close quarters' you can own,
Self-defense in close quarters for police/homeland security? What's wrong with that?
So, I take it you think civilians should be capable of fending off civilian authorities. You want to commit a crime...you should be as heavily armed as the response to YOUR crime?
Why stop at AR-15...how bout civilian Drones? RPG's? I could go on....and on
Did you actually read
what you wrote here: So, I take it you think civilians should be capable of fending off civilian authorities. You want to commit a crime...you should be as heavily armed as the response to YOUR crime?
I never suggested that civilians use their weapons against civilian authorities.......and YOU brought committing a crime into the same level of thought. The criminals ALREADY have fire power equal to or better than the response teams, JP........
I am saying that the civilians who lawfully own weapons that are capable of fending off CRIMINALS should be allowed to do that, according to our 2nd Amendment to the Constitution, and NOT be in a position placed upon them by our Federal or State governments that disallows them to defend themselves. And yet, that's exactly what our current Fed government and some State governments want.
And, in case you are interested.......the 2nd Amendment was actually written the way that is (referring to the population as 'militia') because the country had just fended off a war against GOVERNMENT tyranny, and the right to keep and bear arms was to allow that 'militia' to again, if need be, fight against ANOTHER government tyranny in order to protect themselves from it happening again.
RE: the 2nd Amendment was actually written
the 2nd Amendment was actually written
Was written "when" they couldn't imagine what the world would be like today.
A question for you
Isn't your National Guard your "militia"?
Are they armed?
Back to Speakeasy forum
(Page 1 of 2)