Christina Aguilera is -- quite rightly -- getting a lot of grief these days, because she flubbed a line while singing the National Anthem at the start of last weekend's Super Bowl. But while her mangled version of the lyrics was pretty cringe-inducing, to me what was completely indefensible was her mangling of the tune itself. Because this is one song which really shouldn't be open to "interpretation" -- at least not during such a prominent event.

The lyrics-scrambling was bad enough. Instead of singing:

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
O'er the ramparts we watched, were so gallantly streaming?

Aguilera sang:

Oh, say, can you see, by the dawn's early light,
What so proudly we hailed at the twilight's last gleaming?
Whose broad stripes and bright stars, thru the perilous fight,
What so proudly we watched at the twilight's last gleaming?

Whoops. That sound you just heard was Francis Scott Key, turning over in his grave. The question that immediately pops to mind is, of course: Has any bright editor out there already used the headline: "Star-Mangled Banner"? Inquiring minds want to know. Heh.

Snarkiness aside, Aguilera can be forgiven for her goof. It must be pretty nerve-wracking to sing before an audience composed of over one-third the entire country -- even for a pop sensation such as herself. She recovered as best she could, and got the rest of the song out without mishap. It is only human to err, after all, therefore Aguilera deserves the benefit of the doubt for blowing her lines. It was a painful error, but in the end a forgivable one -- since she quite obviously didn't mean to rewrite Key's lyrics as some sort of statement, she just made a mistake.

But what simply cannot be forgiven is what she did to the tune. Because that was no error -- that was planned intentionally beforehand. Now, I realize Aguilera is not the first to venture on this sad road of disrespect for our national song -- not by a long shot. There are more pop icons who had previously decided the tune needed "improvement" than you can shake a stick at.

Which is not to say that they've all done so for the same reason. You can separate performers changing our National Anthem's tune into three distinct categories. The first is as a protest or political statement -- most famously (and most effectively) by the late Jimi Hendrix, at Woodstock. The second is because the person attempting the anthem simply cannot sing -- most famously, by Roseanne Barr at the opening of a baseball game. The third is to "improve" the song by a "new interpretation" of the tune, to a prominent television audience -- most famously by a plethora of self-absorbed divas (of which Aguilera is merely the most recent).

Let's take these one at a time. Hendrix was -- without any sort of doubt -- making a strong political statement by his screeching guitar version of "The Star-Spangled Banner." His instrumental version came complete -- you can actually hear them -- with rockets and bombs bursting in mid-air. This, of course, was during the Vietnam War. Hendrix also wrote a song called "Machine Gun," in case anyone missed the deadly point about the war he was trying to make.

Now, I have no problem with Jimi's version, personally. Firstly, because it's just so downright awesome; and secondly, because I largely agree with the point Jimi was making. But I can fully understand why many other Americans might take issue with the Hendrix version. I would fully support anyone's right to disagree with it, too -- even just on "tasteful" grounds. And I certainly would never expect to hear it used as an opening to a sports event. There's a time and place for everything, in other words.

Roseanne Barr is a comedienne. She is not a musician. This became painfully obvious to the crowd at the baseball game she was invited to open by singing our National Anthem. At the time, there was a minor outcry at how "disgraceful" and "disrespectful" her version was (as well as the whole crotch-grabbing incident). In this case, however, I would join with the sentiment that Roseanne's version was indeed a disgrace and disrespectful (even if it was hilarious, on another level entirely) -- but I would pin pretty much all the blame on whoever booked her, and whoever approved the decision to let her sing. Allowing her to sing was a stunt. It backfired. But Roseanne never presented herself as a competent singer, so there was no misrepresentation on her part. Sure, she could have refused to do it, but the lion's share of the blame went to the faceless folks who decided it would be a good idea. Whenever any venue books someone to sing the National Anthem, the very least they should do is have some sort of audition or screening process -- precisely to avoid such embarrassment. Sure, it's a notoriously hard song to sing (it has a very wide range of notes). All the more reason for holding such auditions in the first place.

Which leaves us with the Aguileras of the entertainment world. The temptation to "make the song your own" appears to be overwhelming to these bubbleheads, because time after time American sports audiences are subjected to horrendous "interpretations" of a song which really needs none.

Because I, for one, want to hear our National Anthem sung the way it is supposed to be sung. Maybe I'm just a curmudgeon in this respect, I don't know. I do not want to hear five notes where there should be a single, clear note. I do not want to hear frills and tremolo and runs up and down the scales. I don't want to hear "interpretation," I want instead to hear a faithful rendition of our nation's unifying piece of music.

While I'm on the subject (and in full curmudgeon mode), I also have to say that the National Anthem is the only song that requires standing at attention. Baseball, in particular, has started some sort of "modern tradition" (excuse the oxymoron) of also singing "God Bless America" at some point during the game. Whenever I am in attendance, I get some mighty dirty looks when I remain seated, hat on my head, during this song. But to me, giving the same dignified salute required during "The Star-Spangled Banner" to any other song is disrespecting the National Anthem itself. No, I do not remain seated because I don't like other patriotic songs. No, I'm not trying to make some sort of secular point. In the last verse of "The Star-Spangled Banner" (which is almost never sung, by anyone) can be found the line: "And this be our motto: 'In God is our trust'," so it's not the religiosity of "God Bless America" which keeps me seated. I don't stand for "America, The Beautiful" either, and I don't stand when I hear Arlo Guthrie sing his father's song "This Land Is Your Land." In short, I don't stand for any song but the National Anthem. Because it is a mark of honor the other songs simply do not rate. To accord any other song this honor cheapens and dilutes the honor given to "The Star Spangled Banner," at least in my book. So I'll thank you to keep your dirty looks to yourself in the seventh-inning stretch, OK?

Now, I'm not a rabid sports fan, so I can't say here which sports are more guilty of abetting the ruination of our national song than any others. I have heard anecdotal evidence that NASCAR is actually the best, in this regard -- that they don't tolerate any deviation from the sheet music, in other words. If true, more power to them. I'm not going to start watching cars go around in a circle for entertainment any time soon, personally, but I will doff my hat to them if the anecdotal evidence is accurate.

Because some things shouldn't change. Changing them is disrespecting them. And I would include pretty much all of our national symbols in this category. I think it is disrespectful, for instance, for the Fox television network to say that they're going to "read the Declaration of Independence" -- and then edit it down to the parts they like (or approve of). That, to me, is disrespectful. Even if it means removing some language ("Indian Savages," for instance) which is itself disrespectful and offensive today. Either read the entire thing -- embarassing parts and all -- or else content yourself with just quoting the Preamble and leave it at that. I have exactly the same problem with newspapers who print the Declaration of Independence on July Fourth -- and then also see fit to edit it down a bit, for whatever reason. Either print (or read) the whole thing, or don't. But for the sake of our nation's history, resist the urge to "clean it up a bit" and "make it better."

Likewise, when the House of Representatives says it is going to read the Constitution, then for the sake of all our dead revolutionaries, read the entire thing. Yes, there are embarrassing bits in it (some of which have been amended). But that should be part of the point of reading it -- to remind ourselves of our own history, and most decidedly not to make some sort of weak attempt at sweeping it under the rug or chucking it down the memory hole.

And when you sing our national song, please resist the urge to change it. Because by doing so, you are disrespecting it, as far as a lot of Americans are concerned. By putting "your interpretation" on the song, you are making the song about you and your performance of it. You are, to be blunt, putting yourself above our nation. That is where the disrespect comes from. By making it all about you, you are making it less about America.

And that is unforgivable. Forgetting the words is one thing. Not being able to hit the high notes is another thing. Making a political statement is unforgivable to some, and supported by others (depends on the political statement, doesn't it?). But "making the song my own" simply for your own glorification is not forgivable at all. Because it is not "your" song. It belongs to all of us. Deal with it -- or else don't accept the gig of singing it in public.

[Note: Here are the full lyrics of all four verses of "The Star-Spangled Banner," just in case you've never read past the first verse. Provided by your tax dollars at work! Warning -- it comes complete with tinkly musical soundtrack which starts when you open the link (but which you can turn off, if you prefer).]

-- Chris Weigant

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant