Skip to main content

That is not an anthem

This is a time of year when music impinges on everyday life rather more than usual. Christmas music is everywhere, and even the most bah humbug atheist (with the possible exception of the Grouch himself, Richard Dawkins) may well admit to a secret enjoyment of belting out a few Christmas favourites, or hearing a children's choir mangle Silent Night.

It's also the time of year when record producers go into overdrive, promoting CDs for people who don't buy music the rest of the year, but know that a CD is an excellent present (almost as good as a book. Have you thought of a science book as a Christmas present? See the Popular Science website for great book and gift ideas. {sound of slapping} Sorry about that. Normal service will now be resumed)

This is a time when the moaners and bleaters who tell us that the CD is dead have to have brief second thoughts, because no one wants to unwrap an MP3 file on Christmas morning. However, one thing about the adverts for CDs that squeeze onto TV and radio fills me with dread.

Every second album advertised will be 'dance anthems' or 'the 20 greatest power anthems' or whatever. According to the dictionary, an anthem is 'a composition in unmeasured prose set to music' (i.e. NOT a versified song). An anthem is a very specific musical form. A well known song is not an anthem. And even more ludicrously, a 'dance anthem' is a total contradiction in terms - an anthem is defined by its use of words, you can't have an instrumental anthem.

The rot set in quite a while ago with the term 'national anthem'. Practically all national anthems are hymns, not anthems. The anthem form contains many of the greatest musical pieces in existence. Stop polluting the term, please. Now.
Labels:

Comments

  1. Rob Egginton3 December 2009 at 18:00

    There is a common second meaning which has nothing to do with antiphonal music or non-metrical songs:
    "a song of praise or gladness esp. a song adopted by a nation to express patriotism or loyalty."

    Language changes. From this second definition we can see why the current draft of the OED includes the following definition for anthem:
    "A popular song with rousing, emotive, qualities, often one identified with a particular subculture, social group, or cause. Chiefly with distinguishing word, denoting either the associated cause or subculture or simply the genre of music, as football anthem, rock anthem, etc. Sometimes mildly derogatory."

    We may rant and rail against "poor" use of English, but if enough people decide that a word means something else, by golly, it does mean something else!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rob Egginton3 December 2009 at 18:05

    You know when you write too much when... you are typing in the living room and need to look up a word, only to find that the shorter Oxford English Dictionary is already next to you on the sofa :)

    Enjoying reading the back-catalogue of your blog, by the way. I love hearing from people who love to think.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Brian Clegg4 December 2009 at 13:59

    It's a fair cop, Rob - I did see the other definition, but exercise my right to disagree with a usage, wherever it is recorded!

    Thanks for the positive remarks.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Why I hate opera

If I'm honest, the title of this post is an exaggeration to make a point. I don't really hate opera. There are a couple of operas - notably Monteverdi's Incoranazione di Poppea and Purcell's Dido & Aeneas - that I quite like. But what I do find truly sickening is the reverence with which opera is treated, as if it were some particularly great art form. Nowhere was this more obvious than in ITV's 2010 gut-wrenchingly awful series Pop Star to Opera Star , where the likes of Alan Tichmarsh treated the real opera singers as if they were fragile pieces on Antiques Roadshow, and the music as if it were a gift of the gods. In my opinion - and I know not everyone agrees - opera is: Mediocre music Melodramatic plots Amateurishly hammy acting A forced and unpleasant singing style Ridiculously over-supported by public funds I won't even bother to go into any detail on the plots and the acting - this is just self-evident. But the other aspects need some exp...
118 comments
Read more

Murder by Candlelight - Ed. Cecily Gayford ***

Nothing seems to suit Christmas reading better than either ghost stories or Christmas-set novels. For some this means a fluffy romance in the snow, but for those of us with darker preferences, it's hard to beat a good Christmas murder. An annual event for me over the last few years has been getting the excellent series of classic murderous Christmas short stories pulled together by Cecily Gayford, starting with the 2016 Murder under the Christmas Tree . This featured seasonal output from the likes of Margery Allingham, Arthur Conan Doyle, Ellis Peters and Dorothy L. Sayers, laced with a few more modern authors such as Ian Rankin and Val McDermid, in some shiny Christmassy twisty tales. I actually thought while purchasing this year's addition 'Surely she is going to run out of classic stories soon' - and sadly, to a degree, Gayford has. The first half of Murder by Candlelight is up to the usual standard with some good seasonal tales from the likes of Catherine Aird, Car...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 5x3 the same as 3x5?

The Internet has gone mildly bonkers over a child in America who was marked down in a test because when asked to work out 5x3 by repeated addition he/she used 5+5+5 instead of 3+3+3+3+3. Those who support the teacher say that 5x3 means 'five lots of 3' where the complainants say that 'times' is commutative (reversible) so the distinction is meaningless as 5x3 and 3x5 are indistinguishable. It's certainly true that not all mathematical operations are commutative. I think we are all comfortable that 5-3 is not the same as 3-5.  However. This not true of multiplication (of numbers). And so if there is to be any distinction, it has to be in the use of English to interpret the 'x' sign. Unfortunately, even here there is no logical way of coming up with a definitive answer. I suspect most primary school teachers would expands 'times' as 'lots of' as mentioned above. So we get 5 x 3 as '5 lots of 3'. Unfortunately that only wor...
25 comments
Read more