Baseball might be my fourth favorite sport, but with the playoffs in full swing (hah!), I thought I’d post a few baseball stories I’ve been saving up.
Check out this picture:
(photo via National Park Service)
After the War of 1812 – when the British notoriously burned Washington DC – President Madison had a fit of “closing the barn door after the cow escaped” and decided it might be a good idea to build a system of defensive forts on the east coast. Construction on several forts started, including, in 1829, a fort on Cockspur Island, Georgia, between Savannah and Tybee Island.
Major General Babcock was put in charge of the project, but was later replaced by second lieutenant Robert E. Lee. (yes, THAT Robert E. Lee). By 1833, the fort was far enough along to get a name: Fort Pulaski, in honor of Kazimierz Pulaski, a Polish soldier who fought alongside George Washington in the American Revolution.
The fort was finally completed in 1847, after 18 long years of construction. It took such a long time partly because that’s how long it took to build a fort in a swamp in the 19th century. It also took so long because the fort was made out of brick – like, a lot of bricks, like, 25,000,000 bricks – and Savannah just didn’t have the infrastructure to quickly make so many damn bricks.
Then, of course, the Civil War broke out. Georgia governor Joseph Brown ordered the state militia to seize the fort, which became a Confederate stronghold. Meanwhile, Confederate military leaders thought nearby Tybee Island was too remote to be useful for anything, so troops were withdrawn from there. And thus, Union troops moved in.
One of the reasons American sharpshooters were so successful in the Revolutionary War was that they used rifles, not muskets. At their most basic, both guns are metal tubes that one packs with explosives and a projectile, like a bullet or musket ball. You aim the tube at an enemy and set off the explosives. This causes the projectile to travel down the tube at a high rate of speed and (hopefully) hit the enemy.
But rifles were far more accurate than muskets, and that’s because of curved ridges carved into the inner barrel of the gun. Those ridges are called rifling, and that’s why they’re called rifles. The grooves cause the projectile to spin, which greatly increases accuracy. It’s the same reason a quarterback wants to throw a football in a tight spiral rather than just heaving it down the field. Muskets, on the other hand, lack such grooves inside the barrels, which is why they’re sometimes called smooth-bore weapons. That’s also why muskets were inaccurate, like a quarterback under pressure just tossing the football away.
Although the benefits of rifled vs. smooth-bore guns were known to American military personnel as far back as the 1780s, no one had ever thought to build a cannon with a rifled barrel. Until the Civil War. Union soldiers now stationed on Tybee Island were equipped with a brand-new weapon called the James Rifled Cannon. And they unleashed it for the first time ever on Fort Pulaski.
If there’s one thing I see over and over again in TV message boards, it’s this: “why does [US network] have to remake [some foreign show]? Why can’t they just air the original??”
The answer to that question is the answer to almost every question: money.
As you may know, viewership of the Big Four broadcast networks is down. Waaaay down. Part of this is due to the exploding number of TV channels. Where ABC, CBS, Fox and NBC once had viewers all to themselves, they now have to compete with USA, FX, AMC and others. Another part of it is DVRs: Neilsen counts people who watch shows within three days of it airing (called “Live Plus 3”, or L3) and those who watch it within seven days (called “Live Plus 7”, or L7). But networks only care about the L3 ratings, so if you DVR a show on Monday but watch it on Friday, you may as well not watch it at all… from a ratings perspective. And, of course, you have the younger generation, who are more likely to pass the time watching YouTube videos over network TV.
Point is, the days of the Big Four networks having a captive audience of 300 million people are long over. Networks need as many eyeballs as possible, and foreign shows don’t help. A certain percentage of Americans simply won’t watch a show where people have foreign accents, no matter how great the show might be. I don’t know what that percentage is, but even if it’s a little as 10%, that’d cripple a show out of the gate. It’s like… atheist politicians. In several surveys, 53% of Americans have said that they would have “major reservations” about voting for an atheist presidential candidate. So, a hypothetical atheist candidate would have to win almost 100% of the remaining 47% of the vote, which is almost impossible. So you don’t see foreign shows on US networks for the same reason you don’t see a lot of atheist presidential candidates: they’re set up to lose.
Then there are cultural issues. Perhaps African-American and Hispanic viewers think a show like Downton Abbey isn’t relevant to them. But if you were to take almost exactly the same scripts, but set it in a rich American’s house… then maybe that’s something they’d watch.
And all of us, even those of us who like foreign shows, have almost certainly come across references and jokes in foreign shows that go over our heads… kind of like the Grey Poupon joke in Wayne’s World.
There were a series of commercials for Grey Poupon mustard in the 80s where a rich man in a Rolls-Royce would be eating in the back of his car, and another rich guy would pull up at a light and ask if he had any Grey Poupon, ‘cos I guess Grey Poupon is mustard for rich people:
In Wayne’s World, Wayne and his gang pull up to a stoplight in their piece of crap car next to a Rolls-Royce and ask for Grey Poupon:
Thing is, those commercials never aired in France, so when Wayne’s World was dubbed into French, Wayne says “you… you would look good in a Fiat Uno”, parodying a then-popular series of French ads for an inexpensive car.
* * *
But when I said it all comes down to money, I really mean it all comes down to money.
If NBC had chosen to buy the rights to the original British version of The Office, the only money NBC could have earned would be from running commercials during the show.
If, however, NBC chose to buy the rights to remake the original (which is much cheaper than buying the rights to the finished product, by the way), then NBC could elect to have its own production company – Universal – to make the show. In this way, NBC would make money from:
– Selling commercials that run during the show.
– Off-network syndication sales.
– Foreign sales.
– Licensing to airlines and cruise ships.
– Licensing to cable companies for OnDemand viewing.
– Licensing to streaming services like Netflix and Hulu.
– Selling commercials for NBC.com streaming.
– Home video sales (DVD\Blu-Ray).
– Merchandise sales.
– (Possible) licensing for spin-offs and movies.
For NBC, the difference between airing the original Office and making their own was literally a billion dollars. Plus, most British shows only have 6-8 episodes per season. Americans are used to much more than that. Despite its legendary status in the comedy world, there were only 12 episodes of the original Office (plus two specials). That’s less than single US season! When the US version turned out to be a hit, NBC was able to make 201 episodes, something they wouldn’t be able to do with the original.
I agree that many of these remakes suck. Two of my favorite shows of the 2000s – the British Life on Mars and the Australian Rake – were dismal failures as American remakes. But I’m not sure how much of that was due just to them being remade, or to them being remade by broadcast networks. If you’ve ever seen the original Rake, you know there’s way too much sex and drugs and swearing for a US network. Had HBO or Showtime – or even FX – remade it, then it could have been much, much better. And while the British Life On Mars wasn’t afraid to show people smoking and drinking to excess… like people did back in the early 70s… the US network seemed to shy away from that, lending the whole thing an inauthentic, Disneyfied air.
But really, folks… it’s just TV. The reason I posted this today was because some folks on a message board were ranting about Gracepoint, the new Fox remake of the British show Broadchurch. Yes, Broadchurch is a really great show. But it’s not some priceless, immutable cultural icon. I’m sure the British version will go down in history as the better of the two… but there’s no need to get your panties in a wad about it.
I’ve been with Virgin Mobile for almost 4 years now. They have decent coverage and nice data speeds, but what actually keeps me coming back is their $25/month plan: 300 minutes, unlimited texts and “unlimited” data (2.5GB) for the low, low price of $25/month.
What I don’t like about Virgin is the phones. My folks got me a Samsung Intercept for Christmas one year, and the phone locked up and required battery pulls several times a week. Virgin sent me a new Intercept, which locked up just as much. I kept a log of all my issues, and when I contacted them again a couple months later, they offered to replace the Intercept with the Motorola Triumph.
On paper, the Triumph was a nice phone for its time. It had a decent processor and nice large screen. But while it didn’t have major issues, like the Intercept, it had dozens of minor issues, most notably the GPS taking up to 10 minutes to get a lock. Time passed, and I got tired of all these issues. I also tired of having a phone with Gingerbread when the release of Kit Kat was imminent.
About that time, Virgin released a new phone, the Reef, which was a water-resistant version of the Triumph running a newer version of Jelly Bean. There were Internet rumors that this phone was made by Foxconn, not Huawei, and that several of the hardware issues had been fixed. It was (supposedly) everything great about the Triumph with none of the bad stuff!
So I went looking for one locally. But I couldn’t find one. What I did find was the Samsung Galaxy Ring. It looked just like an S3 or S4, only smaller. It ran Jelly Bean. And Walmart had it for $50 off: $129! I went to some other stores, but they didn’t have the Reef, and their Galaxy Rings were still $179. So I went back to WM and bought the Ring.
This is why impulse purchases can be a bad thing. When I got home, I went to Virgin’s site and read the reviews for the Ring, which talked about constant spontaneous reboots, and stock apps crashing. I ignored this at first, since my phone seemed to be OK. But within a few weeks… reboots happened. 3-4 a week. Sometimes I’d be in the middle of using the phone and it would reboot. But sometimes I’d wake up, check my email on it, then put it down on my desk and not touch it for two hours… and BOOM! Reboot out of the blue.
The Gay Dolphin Gift Cove is a very cheesy gift store in Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I made my first visit there in 2009 with some friends – read my review here.
While there, we discovered this ugly-ass pillow:
We went back in 2011, and the pillow was still there:
(click to embiggen)
And the pillow was still there when Lisa and I went in 2012:
The Saddest Pillow
My friend William went there earlier this year and reported that the ugly pillow was nowhere to be found. Our hearts sank. How could the ugly pillow be gone? Who would have bought it?
In my heart of hearts, I knew the pillow was still there… William just didn’t look hard enough. So when we went back to Myrtle this week, I searched the store high and low for it, but the ugly pillow was gone. Lisa thinks the store put it in one of their infamous “grab bags”, and she’s probably right. But I want to think that the sad pillow is still there, waiting on a sucker someone to buy it.
* * *
On a happier note, the Atlanta Braves Nacho Cheese Gift Pack is STILL THERE:
(click to enlarge)
I’m 99% certain this is the exact same gift pack I referred to in my original review from 2009, and pictured in this post. It has the same “best by” date of 08/31/2008, and has the same 12/06 date code on the price tag:
(Click to enlarge: you know you want to!)
Meaning, of course, that this “gift” pack has been sitting on the shelf at Gay Dolphin for almost 8 YEARS!
With the vote for Scottish independence coming very soon, I thought this little tale was timely.
In 1707, the parliaments of England and Scotland voted to dissolve themselves and create a new parliament made up of members from both countries. “England” and “Scotland” effectively ceased to exist, and a new country was born: the “United Kingdom”.
Which is really odd if you think about it. Hadn’t they been at war with each other off and on for, like, 800 years? Why the sudden change of heart? Why would England and Scotland – two longtime foes – suddenly become friends?
Image via historytoday.com
* * *
By the late 1600s, most of Europe’s maritime powers had founded colonies. Spain controlled much of South America. Portugal had Brazil, parts of India as well as a bunch of economically important islands. The Dutch had New Amsterdam in North America and most of the Spice Islands. And the English had North America and a few outposts in the Caribbean.
Many in Scotland wondered why they didn’t have a colony of their own. But it wasn’t as simple as just getting in a boat and putting up a flag somewhere. There was little point in having a colony just to have one. The Spanish made millions off South American silver, while the Dutch made money off spices and tea, and the English money from tobacco and sugar. What the Scots needed was a colony that could provide some sort of economic gain.
European Colonization by 1660 (map by Andrei Nacu)
And gain was sorely needed in Scotland. Economically it was a pipsqueak compared to England, an advantage the English used at every level to keep Scotland subjugated. England’s Navigation Acts kept independent Scottish trade to a minimum, not that it really mattered, since Scotland’s navy was tiny compared to England’s. Most imported goods therefore had to be bought from England, and England required the use of pounds sterling, not Scottish money, which drained the economy even more. A couple of civil wars had squandered a lot of human and financial capital, and several years of crop failures pushed Scotland’s economy to the brink.
The “Company of Scotland Trading to Africa and the Indies” was created by the Scottish parliament in 1695. Capital was raised for the venture in Amsterdam, Hamburg and London. But not really. England’s East India Company complained to the crown they they, not some Scottish upstart, had been given a monopoly on trade to the Indies. And the East India Company was one company you did not mess with. At the apex of its power, the Company ruled much of India – an area much larger than the United Kingdom, with several times as many people. It ruled other places – the East India Company created modern Singapore, for instance. The Company had an army of 200,000 men, its own church, currency and government, and accounted for over half the trade in the entire world. What the East India Company wanted, the East India Company got.
Immense pressure from King William III and East India investors caused Company of Scotland investors in London, then Amsterdam, and finally Hamburg to abandon their pledges. The Company of Scotland tried looking elsewhere for money, but Europe’s other banks and investment centers got the hint from London, and no one stepped up to the plate.
So the plan to trade with Africa and India was abandoned, and a new idea was formed: a Scottish banker named William Paterson wanted to create a “gateway” between the Atlantic and Pacific oceans. He noticed that the land in what is now Panama was very thin. Just as people later got the idea to build the Panama Canal, Patterson’s plan was to built a seaport on the Atlantic side of the coast, another on the Pacific side, and build a road connecting the two. Goods could therefore be sent safely by land instead of ships having to navigate the treacherous waters around Cape Horn or the Strait of Magellan. This would shave weeks off shipping times for goods, and for this merchants would pay a small fee, which would earn money for Scotland. Easy, right?
In his day, Johann Pachelbel (1653-1706) was a respected and popular composer of “Southern German” baroque music. He left a large body of secular and sacred work, such as this pretty Chaconne in F Minor:
Sadly, though, Pachelbel’s work was almost completely forgotten. Oh sure, some of his music would be played from time to time, especially his organ works. But for a couple hundred years, his name was lost in the sea of Bachs, Händels, Telemanns and Scarlattis. Few classical music scholars knew much about him or his work, to say nothing of the general public.
All that changed in 1970, when French conductor Jean-François Paillard recorded a slow, majestic version of Pachelbel’s Canon in D:
Just for fun, contrast Paillard’s overwrought, saccharine version with what many music scholars think the piece actually sounded like in Pachelbel’s day:
In any case, the piece became popular with classical music fans almost overnight, and went mainstream when it was prominently featured in the 1980 film Ordinary People. Since then, the work has become a staple of weddings and 100 Most Beautiful Pieces of Music box sets you see at stores like Bed, Bath & Beyond.
Pachelbel married twice. His first marriage ended when his wife and first son died in a plague outbreak in 1683. Pachelbel remarried a year later, and had two daughters and five sons with his new wife. Two of those sons – Wilhelm Hieronymus and Karl Theodor – became composers like their dad. But history remembers the second son as “Charles Theodore Pachelbel”, not Karl Theodor. And that’s because Charles became one of the first European composers – certainly the first European composer with name recognition – to move to the American colonies.
Exactly why Charles made the move is a complete mystery. We know for sure that he moved to Gotha when he was two, and Nuremberg when he was five. After his father died in 1706, the historical record falls almost silent, except that Charles probably lived in England for a time: his name appears on a list of subscribers to a volume of harpsichord music published in London. And how weird is it that customs or parish records from the time have been lost, but a list of magazine subscribers has survived?
We know that Charles Pachelbel was living in Boston by 1733 because he was asked to consult on the installation of a new pipe organ at Trinity Church in Newport, Rhode Island (the oldest Episcopal church in the state, by the way). Pachelbel lived there for approximately two years, having been hired as church organist. In 1736, he performed two concerts in New York City.
He moved to Charleston some time after March 9, 1736 (the second New York City concert) and February 16, 1737, when he married a woman named Hanna Poitevin at St. Philip’s Church, the oldest Anglican church in South Carolina. This was probably Pachelbel’s second marriage, as there are records which indicate that he already had a daughter. But what happened to her (or a possible wife) is unknown.
Charles Pachelbel lived in “Charles Towne”, as it was known, for the rest of his life. He held what is thought to be the very first public concert in the city on November 22, 1737. He became organist at St. Philip’s in 1740, and opened a singing school, probably the first music school in South Carolina, a year before his death. In 1750 he contracted a disease – recorded as a “lameness of the hands” – and died shortly thereafter. His wife lived on for 19 years, dying on September 6, 1769. He had at least one son – Charles, born on September 10, 1739 – but absolutely nothing is known about him or any of his descendants.
Very little of Charles Pachelbel’s music survives. One of the few pieces is this beautiful Magnificat:
Still, it’s amazing to think that Pachelbel’s son lived just a few hours away from me. I know full well that Johann Pachelbel existed at the same time the American colonies existed… but I’ve just never put 2 and 2 together on this one.
I sent an email to the good people at St. Philip’s in Charleston asking for any additional information they may have about Pachelbel, and will update this article if they reply with anything interesting. I specifically asked if they knew where he was buried, because the current St. Phillip’s isn’t the one Pachelbel knew. The first building was built in 1680 but was destroyed by a hurricane in 1710. A new building – the one Pachelbel knew – was built by 1723, but burned to the ground in 1835. The current building was completed in 1836.
* * *
There is (or was) a music group from New York City called “Anonymous 4”. I always assumed that the group got its name because they specialized in medieval and early Renaissance music written by unknown authors… and there were four of them, Hence, Anonymous 4:
By the way, that chant is in 15th century ENGLISH:
Edi beo thu, hevene quene, Folkes froure and engles blis, Moder unwemmed and maiden clene, Swich in world non other nis. On thee hit is wel eth sene, Of all wimmen thu havest thet pris; Mi swete levedi, her mi bene And reu of me yif thi wille is.
Come to find out, however, Anonymous IV was a real person, and a very important one, too.
Anonymous IV wrote a treatise about the Notre Dame School of Polyphony, at the time the epicenter of European music:
As the name suggests, no one knows who Anonymous IV was. He was almost certainly male, and almost certainly a student at Notre Dame in Paris. He was very likely English, because his works were discovered at Bury St Edmunds in England. Because of historical references in his work, they can be dated to the 1270s or 1280s.
It’s through Anonymous IV that we know Léonin and Pérotin, the two earliest European composers known by name. Anonymous even helpfully named specific works by them, greatly helping music scholars assign authorship to previously anonymous works. Although Léonin and Pérotin had both been dead for decades by the time Anonymous IV wrote about them, his description seems to indicate that they were still popular at the time, not unlike Elvis is today.
But there’s more than that. Anonymous IV mentions early music theorist Franco of Cologne, and describes several types of chants in detail, like organum and discant. He talks about the rules of music – why things were written they way they were – as well as how notation worked, and various genres that were popular in his day.
It’s all breathtakingly interesting stuff, and you can read a copy of his work (or download it in PDF, EPUB, Kindle and other formats) for free here.
