Listen to Igor Stravinsky’s “illegal” arrangement of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’
While some people might not consider themselves the sort to bow to acts of patriotism, there are still a handful of elements of a country’s identity that one might recognise as being sacrilegious to alter in the eyes of the most devoted citizens.
For example, you shouldn’t tamper with a country’s flag, whether that be changing the colours, hanging it the wrong way or defacing it, or you’ll be met with stern criticism that might get you chased out of the area. You probably also shouldn’t criticise their language, cuisine or government unless someone has expressly given you the all-clear, for the fear of being frowned upon or ostracised in a foreign land.
However, one thing that stands out as being more controversial than most is when someone ruins your country’s national anthem. This song, in principle, is meant to represent everything great about a nation, and while they’re often accompanied by lyrics with a rose-tinted perspective that glosses over the uglier side of history, making changes to it is seen as the most heinously insulting thing a person can do to a country.
Now, I’m not going to stand here and defend the British national anthem, ‘God Save the King’, on any level, simply because I don’t feel a single wave of patriotism washing over me when I hear it, and also, because it’s frankly an unimpressive composition.
However, when actor Damian Lewis chose to sing it before the British Grand Prix in 2023 and butchered his rendition of it beyond belief, I couldn’t help but wince at the delivery of every single line. In turn, it made me appreciate just how well-executed and rousing most other performances of it can be. This may well have been a step too far for some, but now, consider how Americans might feel when someone does the same to their national anthem.
The relationship between the US and Russia has always been complex, to put it lightly, so to think that Soviet composer Igor Stravinsky not only chose to take up residence in the US following the outbreak of World War II, but also elected to pay tribute to his adoptive home with a new arrangement of ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ is a frankly ludicrous idea. And, you can only imagine the sort of reception that it would have received during a time of mistrust for all other global superpowers.
The offending version of the song arrived in 1944, five years after his emigration to the US and the outbreak of the war, and while he’d offered the country plenty in the past such as conducting the famous Boston Symphony, the decision to tackle perhaps the most sacrosanct song in the nation’s history was perceived as a step too far. In Stravinsky’s own words, he did it out of “a desire to do my bit in these grievous times toward fostering and preserving the spirit of patriotism in this country”, and somehow, managed to do the exact opposite.
It’s worth noting that Stravinsky’s interpretation isn’t too far removed from the tune that was originally penned by John Stafford Smith, a Briton, in 1773, but the fact that Stravinsky chose to throw in a number of unconventional flourishes that were typical of his work, such as dominant seventh chords, didn’t go down particularly well with Americans. The authorities in Boston gave the composer a slap on the wrist rather than a more stern punishment for his crimes against the song, and fabricated the existence of a law that made it illegal for anyone to make alterations to the national anthem.
While many believe that his punishment was actually harsher, with some urban legends purporting that he was arrested for doing this, all that he was asked to do was remove it from the bill he was scheduled to perform it at. It may have only been a few minor tweaks, but he learned his lesson never to mess with ‘The Star-Spangled Banner’ again, even if it was intended as a gesture of goodwill.
