Inspired by the War of 1812 the "POEM" was composed by (Mr.) Francis Scott Key in 1814. Later the poem was used as lyrics for the UNsingable song. NOT our national anthem until 1931 presidency of Herbert Hoover - who obviously preferred UNsingable songs to songs that can actually be sung.

Knights of the round table (We dance when ere we're able,

We do routines and chorus scenes

With footwork impeccable.

We dine well here in Camelot,

We eat ham and jam and spam a lot.

We're Knights of the Round Table,

Our show are formidable,

But many times, we're given rhymes

That are quite unsingable.

We're Opera mad in Camelot,

We sing from the diaphragm

a looooooot.

In war we're tough and able,

Quite indefatigable,

Between our quests we sequin vests,

And impersonate Clark Gable.

It's a busy life in Camelot,

I have to push the pram a lot. http://www.lyricscrawler.com/song/72420.html )

Every songwriter is different, so I can only answer how I typically write a song:

First, I come up with a general idea of what the song is going to be about. I may even come up with a title at this point, I may not.

Then I'll let that idea rattle around in my head for a while, but I will not try to write a song around it. I can't force my creativity, whenever I've tried, the results have always been unsatisfactory.

Eventually a fragment of a melody or lyric, or sometimes both, will pop into my head, and I'll write it down. Then I'll work on expanding that fragment into a song. If I get stuck, I'll take a break from it and do something else, and eventually more fragments will enter my thoughts and I'll work them in.

Some songs can take days, weeks, sometimes even months to write, others come quickly. I once wrote a song called "I Wanna Be a Bad Guy" walking home from the train station. I had the basic idea for the song from something someone had posted on a message board the day before, and I had an introduction I had been toying with for some time before that, and I came up with the whole song in about as much time as it takes to sing it. I kept singing it to myself the rest of the way home so I wouldn't forget it.

As far as the form of the song, most contemporary songs in any genre follow this template, this is by no means the best or only way to write a song, but most songs will end up naturally taking this form:

Verse-Chorus-Verse-Chorus-Bridge-Chorus-Out

The choruses should all be basically the same, you might make a small lyrical tweak here or there, but if you think of most of your favorite songs, the first part you'll probably think of is the chorus, because it's typically repeated 2 or 3 times. I tend to think of the verses as describing the situation, and the choruses describing what I want to do about it.

Every once in a while I'll assemble a new song out of fragments of older, discarded songs. I'll take a melody from the verse of one song and combine it with a new chorus, or a chorus from another song, or some other combination of the above. So save everything you write.

I have to say I can't imagine trying to write a song without knowing how to play an instrument. I've even heard David Foster say to singers and songwriters, "If you don't play an instrument, learn one."

Music theory classes have been immensely helpful to my own songwriting in terms of harmonic and melodic structure. I was in a musical years ago written by someone who had failed music theory, it wasn't pretty (practically unsingable).

As with any artistic endeavor, there is no one right way to do it. What I have written here is what works for me, it may not work for you. I once heard another songwriter, when asked the same question, answer, "I wake up in the morning, make a pot of coffee, sit down at my piano and I write songs. That's my job."

I recommend checking out "Tunesmith" by Jimmy Webb, in which he describes his songwriting process. Your local library should have, or be able to get a copy.

This is not so much a factual question as a matter of opinion or taste. There are many who would argue that the text of "America the Beautiful" would make a better national anthem, or that "The Star-Spangled Banner" should NOT be the national anthem because the range of the piece makes it difficult for ordinary people to sing. Others say the tune's origins make it unsuitable (though see below). But, again, that is a matter of opinion. But it may help to get a few facts straight before trying to FORM your opinion on this question, esp. a few items in FAVOR of the current national anthem. 1) About the tune a)The range is a bit difficult, but not impossible. The fact that the tune to this song was very popular for a whole raft of songs in the early years of the Republic (and most of them, patriotic ones!) suggests it is not all that unsingable, if sung in the right key... and if people are given just a bit of training, including perhaps how to sing PARTS that are in their individual range (both of which were more common in the 19th century with the popularity of "singing schools"). In any case, I'm not entirely sure range is a central matter in choosing a national anthem. b) Contrary to popular belief, the song was not exactly a "bar song" or "drinking song" in the way we typically think of them. In particular, it did not have raunchy lyrics! More than that, almost 20 years before Francis Scott Key wrote his lyrics this tune was widely known and used for a whole variety of other songs, including many patriotic songs. (In fact, Key himself had already used the tune nine years earlier when writing a song as a tribute to returning heroes for the First Tripolitan War [against the Barbary Pirates].) 2) MORE important is the significance of the WORDS. a) The War of 1812, from which the lyrics stem, is often discounted because it was not a major and strategically significant struggle as, say, the American Revolution, or Civil War. But that is misleading. In fact, the war WAS important in the eyes of young America, now confident they could handle any European power that came against them. And, from the other side, after the Battle of New Orleans. European powers, even the mighty British, were hesitant to oppose the U.S. militarily. (It matters little that a treaty ending the war had already been agreed to by this time. Jackson's success at New Orleans still had a great affect on the thinking & policies of America & Europe moving forward.) All of this fueled a period of great growth and westward expansion. In the popular mind this was "the Second Revolution" which REALLY established the full ECONOMIC independence of the country (something the British & French had not been honoring in refusing to acknowledge U.S. shipping rights)and its ability to protect its own interest. Part of this came through the growth of the U.S. Navy (heretofore very weak) during the course of the war. (In fact, immediately after the war ended the U.S. finally settled matters with the Barbary Pirates -- the Second Tripolitan War (1815)-- establishing its ability to protect itself, and even inspiring European powers to finally confront these pirate states.) b) Freedom.. and the Flag! Finally, even if the preceding were not the case, what matters is not the precise historical story of these particular lyrics but the symbolic significance of the WHOLE. The theme of maintaining human liberty and freedom is appropriate to a U.S. national anthem, because it is about an IDEAL, and that suits more the character of the nation & its founding "experiment", setting it apart from other nations which are formed on the basis of land and ethnic history of the people. The central SYMBOL of the song -- the FLAG -- as emblematic of this nation and its 'founding ideals' is also appropriate, and has become historically MORE important since the song was written (esp. since the Civil War). In this song, the failure to destroy the FLAG stands as a symbol for the failure to destroy the NATION and what it STANDS for. This is thoroughly American.