Jimi Hendrix plays the Star Spangled Banner.

As close to a homeless man as you'll ever see playing the Star Spangled Banner on a cello on the street at a democratic protest... making a statement, I presume.

I hadn't thought of just how hard it is to notice that you've got the Union Jack upside down.

Obviously it'd make flying it upside down as a sign of distress less effective than when you do the same with the Star Spangled Banner...

She flubbed the lyrics to the Star Spangled Banner live, so that kills it for me. Not so much the song she flubbed, but she's a professional singer. Learn the lyrics, Macy. And stop shooting heroin.

>> ^Aniatario:
Pfft, My lil cousin can sing better than that. Any of you guys hockey fans?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtof93SsypQ&feature=related


Her melody and words were WAY off. That isn't even close to "the star-spangled banner"

You have been awarded 1 Power Point for fixing the embed code for Dead Pool video Stephen Colbert & Woody Harrelson - The Star Spangled Banner. Thank you for helping maintain VideoSift's reliability.

No, "Puff, the Magic Dragon" is not about marijuana, or any other type of drug. It is what its writers have always claimed it to be: a song about the innocence of childhood lost.


The poem that formed the basis of the song "Puff, the Magic Dragon" was written in 1959 by Leonard Lipton, a nineteen-year-old Cornell student. Lipton was inspired by an Ogden Nash rhyme about a "Really-O Truly-O Dragon," and, using a dragon as the central figure, he came up with a poem about the end of childhood innocence. Lipton passed his work along to a friend, fellow Cornell student (and folk music enthusiast) Peter Yarrow, who put a melody to the words and wrote additional lyrics to create the song "Puff, the Magic Dragon." After Yarrow teamed up with Mary Travers and Paul Stookey in 1961 to form Peter, Paul & Mary, the trio performed the song in live shows; their 1962 recording of "Puff" reached #2 on the Billboard charts in early 1963.


The 1960s being what they were, however, any song based on oblique or allegorical lyrics was subject to reinterpretation as a "drug song," and so it was with "Puff." (For Peter, Paul & Mary, at least, the revelation that their song was "really" about marijuana came after the song had finished its chart run; other groups were not so fortunate, and accusations of "drug lyrics" caused some radio stations to ban songs such as the Byrds' "Eight Miles High" from their playlists.) "Puff" was an obvious name for a song about smoking pot; little Jackie Paper's surname referred to rolling papers; "autumn mist" was either clouds of marijuana smoke or a drug-induced state; the land of "Hanah Lee" was really the Hawaiian village of Hanalei, known for its particularly potent marijuana plants; and so on. As Peter Yarrow has demonstrated in countless concert performances, any song — even "The Star-Spangled Banner" — can be interpreted as a "drug song."


http://www.snopes.com/music/songs/puff.asp

Your video, Colbert sings 'O Canada' to tune of 'Star Spangled Banner', has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Yeah, that'll be because they couldn't hook him up to his auto-tune.
>> ^FlowersInHisHair:
Was it me, or was Bublé curiously inaudible?

and if you want the performance to continue... here's the rest of purple haze http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIvs4j4IniA

or
http://www.videosift.com/video/Jimi-Hendrix-The-Star-Spangled-Banner


http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=39c_1246725474
wwII vet tells stories.

Happy Fourth!!!

Nothing wrong with someone making some money for a good or product. Nothing wrong with a creator or inventor making a living for doing the same.

Much of the hype about all this is due to some wealthy people being upset that their way of life - making money for NOT producing goods, products or services - is threatened. The people who have the most to lose are the companies who have a huge number of copyrights, many quite old, and basically make money by squatting on them.

You want to sing "Happy Birthday to You" in an independent film you're making, or to patrons at your restaurant, then get prepared to fork over THOUSANDS of dollars to someone who didn't write the words, melody, or make it famous through public performances. Your money will go to someone who simply had enough money to purchase the rights to exclude you from sharing in a musical poem over 100 years old. It is comparable to someone purchasing The Star Spangled Banner and charging a fee to elementary schools to allow students to sing the song.

In this case, the owner of the copyright has produced nothing. No service provided. No product to use. Yet they continue to make an income simply for ownership of the "intellectual property."

The only thing created by protection of copyrights like this one is criminals. More specifically, it places the label of "criminal" on otherwise upstanding citizens, and passes the cost of enforcing such laws on to you, the taxpayer.


>> ^Wingoguy:
It seems like there's not a lot of fans of capitalism in this sift. If that's not your thing, that's fine by me.
I personally believe:
1. Companies should be allowed to profit from good products and services.
2. Creators deserved to be paid for their quality work.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'cactus, cuties, texas, tech, star, spangled, banner' to 'cactus, cuties, texas, tech, star, spangled, banner, singing' - edited by calvados

Feller did the 1st personal version of star spangled banner
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpdld0RBAk4

Great guitarist no doubt

This one time, I farted The Star-Spangled Banner, but I only got as far as "Oh".

Tags for this video have been changed from 'star spangled banner, soul' to 'star spangled banner, soul, 80s, 1983, anthem, basketball' - edited by Deano