Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
happy tunesday! ("mi yodea madua v'lama loveshet hazevra pijama" by mashina)
One of my favorite songs from Israeli stars, Mashina. The title translates to English as "Who Knows Why the Zebra Wears Pajamas?"
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
it's tunesday! ("let's just start with goodbye" by eytan mirsky)
First of all, some housekeeping: I apologize to my reader for missing Tunesday last week. Work was hella hectic and, well, I didn't blog at all during the week. I will have a similar apology tomorrow when I post for Zmedsday -- I missed that one last week, too.
In the normal course of events I try to avoid featuring the same artist or band in multiple Tunesday posts. And, back in July, I featured Eytan Mirsky's "Happiness" as a Tunesday post. That was here. That was prompted by seeing the movie, Happiness, in my cinema history class. Eytan wrote the theme song for it (and also appeared briefly as a striking worker.
But I'm going with another Eytan Mirsky song, this time "Let's Just Start with Goodbye." The occasion? I met Eytan on the subway last Saturday night. I recognized him waiting on an R train, and horrified Ethan as I approached and asked, "Excuse me, sir...are you Eytan Mirsky?" Ethan was, of course, expecting me to be asking a stranger some random question...He hates when I do things like that. I retreated, ending the conversation because I didn't want to impose on his life. But, thinking about it afterwards (and judging by his resction to my FB friend request), he would have been open to chatting longer.
Anyway, Eytan was very gracious, and we had a little chat about music and the fact that I had never met him before. I also realized that I've gotten woefully behind, and need to get more of his albums. He suggested I can listen on Spotify. And that's true, but I have a thing about wanting to buy the physical media. So I ordered a copy of Everyone's Having Fun Tonight, which is one of Eytan's CDs that I don't have. I picked it since it has "Happiness," which is the song I used for Tunesday back in July. And now this post has come full circle.
This time I went with "Let's Just Start With Goodbye," from the same album. I chose it for its bouncy opening riff that reminds me of The Fabulous Thunderbirds -- and the clever lyrical concept. I'll be buying Eytan's other albums in the foreseeable future, but I've been forcing myself out of the habit of buying a lot of CDs at once.
So it's been a good month or so for the music fan in me. Back in September I met Nick Lowe and Will Birch at a book signing (of course, that was a signing of the biography that Birch wrote about Lowe, so I knew they'd be there).
Add this to other music fan thrills (from past years):
- First seeing a copy of the Milner Brothers' album with one of my songs on it;
- Having Bobtown record a demo of one of my songs;
- Having Wreckless Eric and Amy Rigby record a demo of one of my songs -- they also modified the melody and lyrics enough that I am sharing the songwriting credit with them (in case there's ever any money to be made from it, which there won't be, but still...);
- Sharing a beer with Country Dick Montana (that was when he was still alive);
- Keith floating the idea of my writing a song for his next film -- I have no idea if it'll end up happening, but I have my fingers crossed.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
cinema history class: targets
Session: Karloff in the Age of Aquarius, Week 4
Movie: Targets (1968)
Directed by Peter Bogdanovich
Plot:
Mild-mannered Bobby Thompson is about to go hunting people. Embittered actor Byron Orlock is making one last appearance. Bobby and Byron are on a collision course Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
The interesting backstory here is that the film got made because Boris Karloff owed the studio two days of work. Bogdanovich was told that he could use Karloff for two days to make any movie he liked as long as he stayed under budget and used footage from the Karloff movie, The Terror. Bogdanovich built the Terror footage in as actual movies being shown within this movie, which otherwise had nothing to do with the earlier film's gothic setting.
Even though this was a Boris Karloff movie, Karloff is really not the star. That honor goes to the relatively unknown Tim O'Kelly -- according to Wikipedia, this was his one major film appearance. And O'Kelly was good as the psychopathic murderer. The concern here is that there wasn't a whole lot of character development. We're really left without any kind of understanding of why Thompson snapped. I suppose a good argument can be made that such exposition isn;t needed. Arguably, the idea that this can be anyone is even more frightening. And yet, I would have preferred to have more understanding.
Karloff plays his role brilliantly. And after the denouement, I think we should be telling jokes about Karloff instead of Chuck Norris. But he just isn't the star here. Actually, it seems that the stories of Thompson Orlock are almost separate movies that finally come together at the end.
I have to wonder whether the Kennedy assassination, which was still a recent event, was at all influential in this film. The shootings are very different, but a couple of the shots did remind me of the footage of Kennedy getting killed. One shot even reminded me of the Zapruder film.
At any rate, the stars of this were good, but it could have benefitted from more fleshing out.
Ratings:
*Joe missed this week, so he didn't see the movie or get to rate it. I'm just assuming he would have given it a 10.
Movie: Targets (1968)
Directed by Peter Bogdanovich
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
Mild-mannered Bobby Thompson is about to go hunting people. Embittered actor Byron Orlock is making one last appearance. Bobby and Byron are on a collision course Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
Even though this was a Boris Karloff movie, Karloff is really not the star. That honor goes to the relatively unknown Tim O'Kelly -- according to Wikipedia, this was his one major film appearance. And O'Kelly was good as the psychopathic murderer. The concern here is that there wasn't a whole lot of character development. We're really left without any kind of understanding of why Thompson snapped. I suppose a good argument can be made that such exposition isn;t needed. Arguably, the idea that this can be anyone is even more frightening. And yet, I would have preferred to have more understanding.
Karloff plays his role brilliantly. And after the denouement, I think we should be telling jokes about Karloff instead of Chuck Norris. But he just isn't the star here. Actually, it seems that the stories of Thompson Orlock are almost separate movies that finally come together at the end.
I have to wonder whether the Kennedy assassination, which was still a recent event, was at all influential in this film. The shootings are very different, but a couple of the shots did remind me of the footage of Kennedy getting killed. One shot even reminded me of the Zapruder film.
At any rate, the stars of this were good, but it could have benefitted from more fleshing out.
Ratings:
Me: 5
Christina: 8
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10*
Rich: 3
Sean: 3 out of 4
Christina: 8
Dave: 9.5
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10*
Rich: 3
Sean: 3 out of 4
*Joe missed this week, so he didn't see the movie or get to rate it. I'm just assuming he would have given it a 10.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
presidential election excitement
Since it's starting to look like Elizabeth Warren will get the Democratic nomination, and assuming that happens, I point out the following:
If Trump wins, it will mark the first time that we have had four consecutive presidents who each got elected twice.
If Warren wins, she will be the first president whose last name is the same as another president's first name.
Let the pigeons loose!
If Trump wins, it will mark the first time that we have had four consecutive presidents who each got elected twice.
If Warren wins, she will be the first president whose last name is the same as another president's first name.
Let the pigeons loose!
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Monday, October 7, 2019
cinema history class: the sorcerers
Session: Karloff in the Age of Aquarius, Week 3
Movie: The Sorcerers (1967)
Directed by Michael Reeves
Plot:
A hypnotist and his wife come up with a way to experience thrills vicariously through someone else's eyes. And they want all the thrills they can get. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
It's not easy to steal the show from Boris Karloff, but that's what Catherine Lacey accomplished. Karloff was good, but Lacey was better. She practically looked like she was orgasming as she experienced Mike's (Ian Ogilvy) thrills. And watching her transform from this lovely gentle old lady into an adrenaline junkie was really fascinating.Karloff was good, don't get that wrong. But he wasn't nearly as interesting as Lacey.
Keith told us that Karloff was responsible for having the script changed in a way that made his character more sympathetic. What's more significant is that the changes he suggested created conflict between him and his wife. That really made the movie work in a way it wouldn't have otherwise.
The only thing I didn;t like about this movie was the annoying psychedelic light sequence as Mike (Ian Ogilvy) underwent the procedure that set events in motion. They could have done it much better without the lights.
I liked this Karloff movie much more than the first two in the session. The story was more creative, and there was more to sink your teeth into.
Ratings:
*Joe missed this week, so he didn;t see the movie or get to rate it. I'm just assuming he would have given it a 10.
Movie: The Sorcerers (1967)
Directed by Michael Reeves
As always, there may be spoilers here. And the trailer may be NSFW and/or NSFL
Plot:
A hypnotist and his wife come up with a way to experience thrills vicariously through someone else's eyes. And they want all the thrills they can get. Hilarity ensues.
Reaction:
Keith told us that Karloff was responsible for having the script changed in a way that made his character more sympathetic. What's more significant is that the changes he suggested created conflict between him and his wife. That really made the movie work in a way it wouldn't have otherwise.
The only thing I didn;t like about this movie was the annoying psychedelic light sequence as Mike (Ian Ogilvy) underwent the procedure that set events in motion. They could have done it much better without the lights.
I liked this Karloff movie much more than the first two in the session. The story was more creative, and there was more to sink your teeth into.
Ratings:
Me: 7
Dave: 9.5-9.6
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10*
Sean: 3 out of 4
Dave: 9.5-9.6
Ethan: 7
Joe: 10*
Sean: 3 out of 4
*Joe missed this week, so he didn;t see the movie or get to rate it. I'm just assuming he would have given it a 10.
Saturday, October 5, 2019
stoopidstats 2019 ranking by wins
And now that the baseball season is over, I can go back to looking at how the various Major League franchises rank in terms of all-time win total. And how things look if you group teams by location or by state (or state-like political unit) or nickname.
'
The file (complete with neato graphs!) is here.
At any rate, some congratulations are in order.
The Braves passed the Cardinals to become the 4th-winningest franchise.
The Braves went 97-65, moving their win-total from 10,825 to 10,922.
The Cardinals went 91-71, moving their win-total from 10,828 to 10,919.
The Brewers passed the Royals to become the 22nd-winningest franchise.
The Brewers went 89-73, moving their win-total from 3,824 to 3,913.
The Royals went 59-103, moving their win-total from 3,842 to 3,901.
Washington (home of the Nationals) passed Baltimore (home of the Orioles) to become the 11th-winningest location.
The Nationals went 93-69, moving Washington's win-total from 6,755 to 6,848.
The Orioles went 54-108, moving Baltimore's win-total from 6,770 to 6,824.
Miami (home of the Marlins) passed Buffalo (not currently a home location) to become the 33rd-winningest location.
The Marlins went 57-105, moving Miami's win-total from 498 to 555.
Buffalo's win total stayed at 504.
The District of Columbia (home state-like entity of the Nationals) passed Maryland (home state of the Orioles) to become the 10th-winningest state or ste-like entity.
The Nationals went 93-69, moving DC's win-total from 6,755 to 6,848.
The Orioles went 54-108, moving Maryland's win-total from 6,770 to 6,824.
"Brewers" passed "Royals" to become the 21st-winningest team name.
The Brewers went 89-73, moving their name's win-total from 3,837 to 3,926.
The Royals went 59-103, moving their name's win-total from 3,842 to 3,901.
"Diamondbacks" passed "Beaneaters" to become the 31st-winningest team name.
The Diamondbacks went 85-77, moving their name's win-total from 1,678 to 1,763.
There is, at present, no franchise using the name "Beaneaters," so that name's win-total stayed at 1,742.
"Nationals" passed "Robins" to become the 33rd-winningest team name.
The Nationals went 93-69, moving their name's win-total from 1,356 to 1,449.
There is, at present, no franchise using the name "Robins," so that name's win-total stayed at 1,375.
Congratulations to franchises, locations state-like entities and names that moved up in the ranks! Well played!
Also, congratulations to the name, "Rays." That name celebrated its 1,000th win this year. And congratulations to the name, "Reds" on celebrating its 10,000th win.
Finally, a note about team names. A colleague at work* asked about the Athletics. He said that during our childhood (his age is reasonably close to mine) they went back and forth between "A's" and "Athletics." He wanted to make sure that I am capturing that correctly. For the record, I am using baseballreference.com as my source for such things. They list that franchise as having always used the name "Athletics." Wikipedia indicates that they were the "A's" from 1968-1986. But I need to have one source and stick with it. So, for better or worse, I am treating the franchise as having always been the "Athletics." Relatedly, I know that team names weren't the subject of as much formality 100 and more years ago. There are probably a lot of cases where one can make a reasonable argument in favor of names other than what I am using. But, again, I need to have one source of truth, and that is baseballreference.com.**
*To protect my colleague's anonymity I won't reveal his name. Suffice to say he wears glasses or doesn't.
**There is one exception. There was one team that moved during the season. Baseballreference.com doesn't have enough information to correctly ascribe the wins to the two locations. To do that I had to supplement with information from Wikipedia.
'
The file (complete with neato graphs!) is here.
At any rate, some congratulations are in order.The Braves passed the Cardinals to become the 4th-winningest franchise.
The Braves went 97-65, moving their win-total from 10,825 to 10,922.
The Cardinals went 91-71, moving their win-total from 10,828 to 10,919.
The Brewers passed the Royals to become the 22nd-winningest franchise.
The Brewers went 89-73, moving their win-total from 3,824 to 3,913.
The Royals went 59-103, moving their win-total from 3,842 to 3,901.
Washington (home of the Nationals) passed Baltimore (home of the Orioles) to become the 11th-winningest location.
The Nationals went 93-69, moving Washington's win-total from 6,755 to 6,848.
The Orioles went 54-108, moving Baltimore's win-total from 6,770 to 6,824.
Miami (home of the Marlins) passed Buffalo (not currently a home location) to become the 33rd-winningest location.
The Marlins went 57-105, moving Miami's win-total from 498 to 555.
Buffalo's win total stayed at 504.
The District of Columbia (home state-like entity of the Nationals) passed Maryland (home state of the Orioles) to become the 10th-winningest state or ste-like entity.
The Nationals went 93-69, moving DC's win-total from 6,755 to 6,848.
The Orioles went 54-108, moving Maryland's win-total from 6,770 to 6,824.
"Brewers" passed "Royals" to become the 21st-winningest team name.
The Brewers went 89-73, moving their name's win-total from 3,837 to 3,926.
The Royals went 59-103, moving their name's win-total from 3,842 to 3,901.
"Diamondbacks" passed "Beaneaters" to become the 31st-winningest team name.
The Diamondbacks went 85-77, moving their name's win-total from 1,678 to 1,763.
There is, at present, no franchise using the name "Beaneaters," so that name's win-total stayed at 1,742.
"Nationals" passed "Robins" to become the 33rd-winningest team name.
The Nationals went 93-69, moving their name's win-total from 1,356 to 1,449.
There is, at present, no franchise using the name "Robins," so that name's win-total stayed at 1,375.
Congratulations to franchises, locations state-like entities and names that moved up in the ranks! Well played!
Also, congratulations to the name, "Rays." That name celebrated its 1,000th win this year. And congratulations to the name, "Reds" on celebrating its 10,000th win.
Finally, a note about team names. A colleague at work* asked about the Athletics. He said that during our childhood (his age is reasonably close to mine) they went back and forth between "A's" and "Athletics." He wanted to make sure that I am capturing that correctly. For the record, I am using baseballreference.com as my source for such things. They list that franchise as having always used the name "Athletics." Wikipedia indicates that they were the "A's" from 1968-1986. But I need to have one source and stick with it. So, for better or worse, I am treating the franchise as having always been the "Athletics." Relatedly, I know that team names weren't the subject of as much formality 100 and more years ago. There are probably a lot of cases where one can make a reasonable argument in favor of names other than what I am using. But, again, I need to have one source of truth, and that is baseballreference.com.**
*To protect my colleague's anonymity I won't reveal his name. Suffice to say he wears glasses or doesn't.
**There is one exception. There was one team that moved during the season. Baseballreference.com doesn't have enough information to correctly ascribe the wins to the two locations. To do that I had to supplement with information from Wikipedia.
Wednesday, October 2, 2019
Tuesday, October 1, 2019
stoopidstats 2019: most homers in an n-year span
The baseball season over. Which means it's time for StoopidStats.
One of the stats (or, I guess, set of stats) I've been tracking for a while now is the set of records for most home runs in a span of N seasons for positive integers N. This year, using a downloadable database, I went back and looked at how these records progressed from year to year. Meaning, I was looking at the records for most home runs in a span of N seasons, as of year Y (for positive integers N and years (Y) starting with 1871.
My final file is here. Sadly, it's not the most transparent -- If I were a whiz with Access, I'd be able to share a good Access database. In the event, I ended up putting together a new file for each year. The final file (linked above) includes tables for each year, as well as a couple of overall tables. And two graphs which are pretty but not really helpful from a data visualization perspective.
In the first graph I'm showing here, each series represents the progression of the record for most home runs in an N-year span for some N. This only goes up to 23 -- for all N>23, the series would be the same as for N=23. The huge increases in these records starting in 1919 represent Babe Ruth's contribution to history. This period followed the more-modest increases by Gavvy Cravath. The next notable changes were in the early and mid 1970's as Hank Aaron set records for spans of length 20 and greater. After Assron, things were again stable for about 20 years. Then the steroid era hit in the 1990's, and lots of the records were broken. That ended with Barry Bonds' retirement after the 2007 season.
These same data can be seen in the second graph. But here each series represents all the records for a given year. There are only series for years in which a new record was set.
One of the stats (or, I guess, set of stats) I've been tracking for a while now is the set of records for most home runs in a span of N seasons for positive integers N. This year, using a downloadable database, I went back and looked at how these records progressed from year to year. Meaning, I was looking at the records for most home runs in a span of N seasons, as of year Y (for positive integers N and years (Y) starting with 1871.
My final file is here. Sadly, it's not the most transparent -- If I were a whiz with Access, I'd be able to share a good Access database. In the event, I ended up putting together a new file for each year. The final file (linked above) includes tables for each year, as well as a couple of overall tables. And two graphs which are pretty but not really helpful from a data visualization perspective.
In the first graph I'm showing here, each series represents the progression of the record for most home runs in an N-year span for some N. This only goes up to 23 -- for all N>23, the series would be the same as for N=23. The huge increases in these records starting in 1919 represent Babe Ruth's contribution to history. This period followed the more-modest increases by Gavvy Cravath. The next notable changes were in the early and mid 1970's as Hank Aaron set records for spans of length 20 and greater. After Assron, things were again stable for about 20 years. Then the steroid era hit in the 1990's, and lots of the records were broken. That ended with Barry Bonds' retirement after the 2007 season.
These same data can be seen in the second graph. But here each series represents all the records for a given year. There are only series for years in which a new record was set.
Here are some fun facts about these records:
- There are 23 players who have at one time held at least one of the records. Six of them are in the HAll of Fame. They are listed below in order of their first holding such a record (with Hall of Famers indicated as such):
- Levi Meyerle
- Lip Pike
- Fred Treacey
- Jim O'Rourke
- Charley Jones
- Dan Brouthers (HOF)
- Harry Stovey
- Ned Williamson
- Abner Dalrymple
- Cap Anson (HOF)
- Fred Pfeffer
- Roger Connor (HOF)
- Jimmy Ryan
- Bill Joyce
- Sam Thompson (HOF)
- Buck Freeman
- Gavvy Cravath
- Babe Ruth (HOF)
- Roger Maris
- Hank Aaron (HOF)
- Mark McGwire
- Barry Bonds
- Sammy Sosa
- At the end of the 1871 season, which is the first recognized Major League season, there was a three-way tie for most homers. Meyerle, Pike and Treacey each hit 4. The only other time that there was a three-way tie was at the end of the 1918 season, when Cravath, Stovey and Connor shared the record for most home runs in a nine-year span (with 104). That, interestingly enough, was the last time there was any tie.
- The following people each at some point held the record for an N year span, and not for an N+1 year span, but did hold it for some X>N
- Charley Jones
- Lip Pike
- Harry Stovey
- Roger Connor
- Babe Ruth
- Hank Aaron
- As I was finishing this up, I started wondering how things would look if I removed the condition that I look at spans. Who holds the records for most home runs in N (not necesarily consecutive) seasons? If a number of my reader express interest in seeing such an anlysis* I'll work on it. Thinking it through, I think it will be easier than when I impose the consecutivity condition.
- In writing this up, I had to resist the urge to pluralize home run as "homes run." That's just one of those little word games I like to play with myself. Problem is, if anyone who doesn't know me sees it, they just assume I'm an idiot.
*I note that zero is a number.
it's tunesday! ("b'rosh hashanah" by shokolad, menta mastik)
In honor of Rosh Hashanah, here's an Israeli pop song from several decades ago.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)