Background

The Star Spangled Banner, the national anthem of the United States, remains a link binding Americans from one generation to the next. To some extent this is simply due to the fact there is continuity over time. However, there is clearly another factor: content.

(Original version author Francis Scott) Key’s lyrics are stirring, asking the question of if, given the ferocious bombardment of Fort McHenry would the colors stand, or were there a forced surrender, might those colors be struck. Happily the answer then as now is Old Glory still stands.

But there is something deeper as well as that bottom line question. It is posed almost as a prayer, one seeking mercy for a young nation barely exiting its infancy. (It is a worthy connotation of the image of Washington praying on his knees in the snow only decades before during the Revolution.) This is more evident in subsequent verses than the initial one, which highlights the duration of the epic struggle with an interrogatory suggesting God sometimes responds with an answer of yes, as we did win that battle and survive the war.

My banner by bernmeister twice emphasizes the courage of the brave, first with an instrumental bridge, then throughout the lyrics. Again, this verse is to always follow and supplement, never replace, Key’s original.

Lyrics

These copyrighted lyrics are reproduced here by permission of the author who is copyright holder. They may be quoted consistent with non commercial authorized use. Copyright is required for any commercial use, either by license or as may be otherwise granted. Click here for inquiry to obtain permission(s).

Potential Modern Impact

Today there is controversy about should observance of the anthem be extended to include social protest, and if yes, what type. This opinion says conditionally yes, as long as it attempts constructive, thought provoking dialogue. That is, the anthem is for all of the people, not just the rich or the poor, the black or the white, or any other subset. It is in the best U.S. tradition to have a competition of ideas, including those that ask how does the American experiment in democracy, and its grand dream, advance its best ideals? And do so for all the people. How do we build upon our differences, rather than reduce ourselves to squabbling that is counter productive?

Liberty and justice for all is a nice ideal, and a worthy goal. It does take a lot to get there, so we must ever improve and build on the foundation of the founding fathers.

Dissent is appropriate (to the extent the subject complained of is a meritorious gripe), and thus must ever be welcomed, at least as to courtesy of initial review; however, reciprocation commands an appropriate presentation of a given position. For example, someone may take umbrage with certain political choices which promote and extend the widening gap between the wealthiest and poorest. That’s fine. But the correct response is not vapid sensationalism, like bending over to ‘moon’ the flag, an empty gesture, devoid of any gravitas.

Nor should there be a gesture that divides the people rather than unites them. Dissent, yes, but let us not tear our country apart. For this reason, both the (historically Nazi) white power extended arm and the black power fist raised are inappropriate salutes.

What about the taking of the knee, which position has been adopted by many American football players? My vote is no, on two grounds. First while the paused partial genuflect is not so intended, it creates an uncomfortableness which defies established American tradition. That is, ever since the U.S. won its War for Independence, we proudly enjoy a heritage that honors all those who fought and died for America then and since: we do not make gestures, including kneeling, before any person, including monarchs or any head of state. The only time we kneel, for those of us who have faith [and for those who believe, no explanation is necessary and for those who do not, no explanation is possible] is when we kneel in prayer.

I am open to the idea that kneeling during the anthem is a gesture of prayer. However, my first point is we should kneel only for actual prayer [and try to avoid a symbolic substitute for same]; and it is a fine line between an open gesture of prayer for a public demonstration and a defiant act of social disobedience to seek social justice. Prayer at least attempts to be at least reverent if not humble as a consistent quality at its core, which is not always the case with dissent, which may be polite or impolite. While an open mind may, given precise circumstances, consider some possible overlap, it would be preferable to avoid such blurring of the lines. That’s one.

Two, I have a better gesture, thus enabling us “to give unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and give onto God, the things which are God’s”. An alternate to the traditional hand over the heart is to cup both hands together in front of oneself. With hands in the open position, this is simultaneously both a request for help [traditionally alms] and an offer to be open to help. This unified position acknowledges the advanced condition of charity as a form of mercy, whether it is being sought or given.

So much for the important precursor of raising awareness. How then is the follow up achieved? Getting beyond symbolism, can we somehow use the anthem itself to be a galvanizing common denominator [though not the only one, of course] which provides an example that illustrates such a statement? In this opinion, the answer is yes, evidenced as follows.

Key’s original is in the public domain. No one pays for the use of any composed material [his words and a tune some years before accredited to John Stafford Smith]. When one copyrights their version of the Banner, it is as to their performance of it.

However, along with the linking instrumental bridge, my second verse is my intellectual property, and will remain so for the duration of my lifetime plus 70 years under current copyright law. That means were it in 2 verses to supplement Key’s first verse only, someone would have to pay for the right to perform it, and were anyone to broadcast or otherwise use that performance for commercial purposes, that copyright holder (of that [recorded] performance) would earn revenue for that use. Unless the artist performed his effort as a work for hire, the copyright (again as to performance, not composition), upon submission, would be his.

Connecting all those dots, what if major sports leagues adopted my composition as the official and preferred lyrics [again supplementing, not replacing, Key]? The leagues would have to pay for the right to broadcast or similar use. True, no one likes to pay for what is free, setting aside there is a value add here — and sports leagues would benefit from the actual goodwill and positive public relations that come from use of their payment(s). That is, what if I agreed to donate 90% of such earnings to acceptable charity — one designed to address poverty or other issues of social justice? Aha!

I am willing to donate some of certain revenues from my copyrighted material under an initiative called REVTIT, which stands for reverse tithing. This is what you would expect; instead of a tithe or 10% to charity that is a recognized standard for voluntary donation], for these works it will be 90%. This would include the net after expenses of revenues from most applications deriving from my arrangement of The Star Spangled Banner. That would include sales of MP3s or sheet music by the general public, and likely most other applications, though I reserve the right for any exception to this rule, just in case circumstances warrant.

To be clear, this would not only be only any rendition which features a bernmeister performance; it could include earnings from license fees or payment for broadcast rights of other artists using bern’s copyrighted material. As is customary, these artists would command their own fees for their own performance and, paying for such license, what they would decide to do with their earnings would be their business. If the banner by bernmeister arrangement of The Star Spangled Banner is adopted for use at most sporting events, this could be a substantial windfall to charity, beginning with efforts to fight covid.

Concluding, banner by bernmeister creates a final opportunity if it is recognized as America’s preferred version, an honor which should be by Act of Congress only after public support endorses the idea. But why go there at all? For a constructive purpose, not narcissism, I assure you.

The Star Spangled Banner shares a parallel to the Constitution, that other set of words we (Americans) live by. It is a set foundation (the pre-amendment base and F.S. Key’s original, respectively) to which new ideas and modifications may be added (the amendments and bernmeister’s contribution, respectively).

Now extend that imagining to authorship of the anthem. In best American tradition, there is a competition of ideas and their expression. Ever and always is Key’s first verse, but then, yes, bernmeister’s second verse, but carrying that one further, someone may follow me with an even better verse which may replace mine, or, may instead provide a worthy further addition to be a third verse. Traditionally we have almost always cut off performances at the end of Key’s first verse; however, if we lengthen our perspective and consider additional verses, the within benefits are possible. Of course, such additional verses must have sufficient gravitas to command elevation in the public opinion.

GGSSSB — stands for Great Guitars Salute the Star Spangled Banner, which is a standalone project hopefully to get underway in 2023, subject to how quickly it can be facilitated post coronavirus.  For more on the latest with the GGSSSB, click here to access the GGSSSB web site where you will find full details and updates for this topic.

SPECIAL SSB PROJECTS

For a listing of currently planned projects, click here.