Ken Burns Baseball on... [Archive] - Net54baseball.com Forums

nebboy

02-12-2010, 08:45 AM

Last nights segment had interviews of Buck Oneil. One of baseball greats story tellers. He had such a great canter to his voice and a smile that never stopped! I glad that Kens series in on MLB TV so we can see how much some of these guy spent there lives to making baseball the best sport of all.
I was luck enough to be a game in KC, when Buck was on field to through out the first pitch. Then retired to his seat behind home plate. I when down to say "HI" and tell him how much I enjoyed is Nigro League Musium in KC. Also asked for an Auto, which he was happy to do.
Now for the great part. As I asked him a couple of leading question to see if he was in the story telling mood, and oh ya he was. He started in with one after another, after another. 20 mintues later he said in mid story said that the chair next to him is not being used that night and I could "rest here for the game". The only time he stopped talking all night was when he was singing (anthem and take me out). He talked about the past, his playing days, guys he played with, traveling in the south, buses, air plains, finding players and signing them to MLB contracts, players on the field that night, everything they did right and wrong (always a scout). See I ramble also. It was an amazing night of just listen, and watching the game with one of lthe games best ambassadors. This was me best baseball memory by far - by far.

Buck for all he did for baseball, he should get some more interest from the Hall of Fame, he already one to me.

donmuth

02-12-2010, 10:08 AM

that was published along with the documentary movie. It's a good read and I am almost done with it now. After this I will probably take a short break from baseball reading before I read The Glory Of Their Times next.

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 11:38 AM

Loved it, and glad for the liberal bias. With the Great Depression all but forgotten now, it's refreshing to see a documentary about America touting unionization as heroic. These last 40 years have broken down the infrastructure of the New Deal to the point where our new diety, the Market, has damaged every piece of industry in this country, including baseball and baseball cards.

Ken Burns is a welcome voice, in my humble opinion.

Jim VB

02-12-2010, 11:49 AM

Rob D.

02-12-2010, 11:52 AM

Why do I think that by the end of the day we'll be aching for yet more discussion about an obviously fake T206 Wagner?

barrysloate

02-12-2010, 12:11 PM

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 12:11 PM

I bow to your condescending wisdom.

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 12:14 PM

Brian- you haven't been on the board that long but in the past, when we've had discussions about the state of the country, this community has generally blown a gasket. So we try to avoid any incendiary comments about unions, about liberals, etc. Those kind of threads never end well. Just a little pointer for future reference.

It's as if I started the rhetoric? C'mon, Barry. If someone is going to knock the film for its "obvious liberal bias," why can't someone come in a defend the film too? Oh, wait, I forgot... I'm new to the board. That's right. Lack of tenure.

Yes, Ken Burns's series had a bias towards labor and civil rights. Big deal. If protecting the working-class and the minority is a bias, then I'll take that bias, thank you very much.

barrysloate

02-12-2010, 12:15 PM

barrysloate

02-12-2010, 12:16 PM

Brian- you are free to express any opinion you want around here...just be prepared for the fallout.;)

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 12:16 PM

Yes... unions will solve the problems caused by the Market. Got it.

Didn't you cause enough trouble yesterday? (LOL) :D

Actually, labor rights and the New Deal DID solve the problems caused by the Markets.

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 12:18 PM

No condescension intended...I often found myself right in the middle of all the political discussions, and usually regretted doing so. Imagine a group of liberals and a group of conservatives simultaneously banging their heads against a brick wall, and that's pretty much they way things went.

I wan't saying you were condescending, Barry. Just the two that commented on me causing trouble and being blind to an obvious T206 fake.

Agreed about political arguments. Just thought someone should posit an antidote opinion to the one which claimed Burns's liberal bias brought the series down.

Rob D.

02-12-2010, 12:27 PM

slidekellyslide

02-12-2010, 12:36 PM

Let's keep all political talk off the main board...there is a watercooler area for general sports talk that I suppose if anyone wants to use it to argue about politics they can take it there. Not here.

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 12:42 PM

My comment wasn't so much directed at you being blind to an obvious fake as it was to given a choice between dredging up discourse on the Cobb/Edwards Wagner or having another liberal-vs.-conservative train wreck on a board dedicated to baseball cards, I'd choose the former.

Rob... first off, I wasn't dredging up anything on the Cobb/Edwards card. The thread was started by someone else two days ago. And I told everyone quite clearly that [1] I was not a part of the older thread and [2] I had never seen the card. I was interested more in seeing if we could identify exactly what reprint the card came from, as it looked fake to me from first glance. But having not seen it before that day, nor having been a part of the old conversation, I thought I'd give it the old one-time to see if it held up on any level whatsoever. Alas, it did not, and everyone was right. But I enjoyed the conversation.

As to a liberal-vs.-conservative discussion here... this had nothing to do with political parties. It was said that the Burns series had a "liberal bias," of which I could only see that being from the POV of labor rights and civil rights. In my response to that, I made making no statement about congress or political parties or anything. Just trying to say, when it comes to blacks in baseball and the reserve clause in baseball... if THOSE issues are the so-called "liberal bias," then give me the liberal bias.

I never even said I WAS a liberal.

Jim VB

02-12-2010, 12:49 PM

Actually, labor rights and the New Deal DID solve the problems caused by the Markets.

Brian,

I wasn't being condescending, at all. I am only condescending to one single person on this board and "they" all graduated, Magna Cum Laude, from a top notch Ivy League school. Since you aren't "them", you're in the clear.

The point I was trying to make, with humor, is that it can be argued that just as you claim, that labor rights, the New Deal, and unions, solved problems caused by markets, the other side of the argument is equally valid. Markets, even Market collapses, solve problems caused by some entitlement programs and some unions.

Our auto industry didn't collapse because Americans like foreign cars. It's in collapse because union contracts rendered the US automakers non-competitive v. foreign makers.

About once a year, you read an article about some proposal to import some foreign insect that will solve a problem caused by some other pest. It never seems to work out quite like it's planned.

Edited to add: Here's the latest example. This just sounds like a bad idea to me.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=119787&page=1

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 01:10 PM

Jim,

I disagree that the market is the ultimate arbiter of democracy, but I think we should take this off-board, if you want to continue it. PM me.

Again, my only point way at the beginning of this thread was that, if blacks in baseball and the reserve clause were considered the liberal bias, then that is a bias I will proudly applaud. Because other than those two issues, I can't see what other liberal bias there might have been in the Burns series.

PolarBear

02-12-2010, 01:10 PM

It's as if I started the rhetoric? C'mon, Barry. If someone is going to knock the film for its "obvious liberal bias," why can't someone come in a defend the film too? Oh, wait, I forgot... I'm new to the board. That's right. Lack of tenure.

Yes, Ken Burns's series had a bias towards labor and civil rights. Big deal. If protecting the working-class and the minority is a bias, then I'll take that bias, thank you very much.

It's supposed to be a baseball documentary. I was just pointing out that it sometimes has a biased view of baseball. I didn't say that was bad or good, only that it exists so that anyone unfamiliar with the documentary will know what it's about.

Funny you took that as an "attack" that needed "defended".

Lighten up Francis.

Jim VB

02-12-2010, 01:15 PM

Jim,

I disagree that the market is the ultimate arbiter of democracy...

If only someone had said that, your disagreement would be valid.

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 01:24 PM

It's supposed to be a baseball documentary. I was just pointing out that it sometimes has a biased view of baseball. I didn't say that was bad or good, only that it exists so that anyone unfamiliar with the documentary will know what it's about.

Funny you took that as an "attack" that needed "defended".

Lighten up Francis.

Yes, and professional baseball is a business. It's easy to say, "Hey, man, it's just baseball. Lighten up. Stop trying to intellectualize everything." But the story of baseball is a serious story, and a reflection of our values as a nation.

Again, it wasn't some heavy thing to me. Just pointing out that this so-called liberal bias should be explained before people reading your post take your word at it. In this case, Ken Burns's "liberal bias" was the covering of blacks in baseball extensively, as well as the reserve clause and labor rights.

teetwoohsix

02-12-2010, 01:29 PM

Brian-Chidester="He Who Stirreth The Pot With Very Big Stick":D
(it's a joke Brian,don't spiral on me:D)

Chris Counts

02-12-2010, 01:39 PM

I'll stay out of the political debate, but I will confess I'm in the minority in that I have very mixed feelings about the Ken Burns baseball series. First of all, there is way too much camera time alloted to people like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Donald Hall, who as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with baseball's history ... they would have been better off filling up the screen with old ballplayers or simply putting all the voices in the background and show baseball clips when people are talking. And the series is undeniably slanted toward the New York teams, especially during the parts on the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s (my favorite eras). It's makes me wonder how much Burns really understands baseball history. There were 16 teams in the majors during these eras, but Burns focuses mostly on just three of them.

PolarBear

02-12-2010, 01:47 PM

Yes, and professional baseball is a business. It's easy to say, "Hey, man, it's just baseball. Lighten up. Stop trying to intellectualize everything." But the story of baseball is a serious story, and a reflection of our values as a nation.

Again, it wasn't some heavy thing to me. Just pointing out that this so-called liberal bias should be explained before people reading your post take your word at it. In this case, Ken Burns's "liberal bias" was the covering of blacks in baseball extensively, as well as the reserve clause and labor rights.

Thanks for explaining what I meant, considering you couldn't have possibly known.

My reason for stating it has a liberal bias was actually directed at his interviewee list, not his positions on integration or labor.

Nice to watch an interview with Bill Lee about baseball while wearing a CCCP cap. And Mario Cuomo was the best they could come up with to comment on 50's baseball? Apparently Castro wasn't available.

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 01:57 PM

Thanks for explaining what I meant, considering you couldn't have possibly known.

My reason for stating it has a liberal bias was actually directed at his interviewee list, not his positions on integration or labor.

Nice to watch an interview with Bill Lee about baseball while wearing a CCCP cap. And Mario Cuomo was the best they could come up with to comment on 50's baseball? Apparently Castro wasn't available.

Now you've got me spooked, what with the Cold War rhetoric and all. Whooooo.........

bmarlowe1

02-12-2010, 02:08 PM

And the series is undeniably slanted toward the New York teams, especially during the parts on the 20s, 30s, 40s and 50s (my favorite eras). It's makes me wonder how much Burns really understands baseball history. There were 16 teams in the majors during these eras, but Burns focuses mostly on just three of them.

Chris is right. I would add that he also got the 1900's wrong. The Cubs were the best team, the Pirates 2nd, the Giants 3rd. You would never know that from Burns' film.

ErikV

02-12-2010, 02:39 PM

I too have seen the Ken Burns Baseball Documentary. I seemed to
think the documentary started off excellent and ended mediocre.
Race was definitely talked about. (As I recall the later videos were
about Dominican players.) Overall I like Burns storytelling technique -
keeping his viewers interested throughout the entire story.

I recently watched his documentary on Mark Twain and just yesterday
purchased "Unforgivable Blackness: The Jack Johnson Story."

This leads me to my question: There have been countless outstanding
black athletes throught the past century. Of them who do you
consider the best all around? And who paid the biggest price socially?
Athletes such as Jack Johnson, Josh Gibson, Jesse Owens and Jackie
Robinson all come to mind.

deadballera

02-12-2010, 02:44 PM

I keep the Ken Burns on the Ipod Video....

Great documentary !!

Anthony S.

02-12-2010, 03:02 PM

The Seattle Pilots definitely got short shrift.

Robextend

02-12-2010, 03:02 PM

First of all, there is way too much camera time alloted to people like Doris Kearns Goodwin, Stephen Jay Gould and Donald Hall, who as far as I'm concerned, have nothing to do with baseball's history ... they would have been better off filling up the screen with old ballplayers or simply putting all the voices in the background and show baseball clips when people are talking.

I totally agree with Chris. Hearing those guys talk about how they reacted to a certain World Series outcome and so on and so forth got a little tiring. I'd rather hear more from the likes of Buck O'Neil, Bob Feller, etc...

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 03:08 PM

PolarBear

02-12-2010, 03:25 PM

I liked hearing from the fans, the sportswriters and the poets. If it was just professional baseball players, you wouldn't have gotten the voice of the people who filled the seats and made the players heroes.

The bias comes in because they're all of a particular political stripe, and not only that, but many are activists.

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

I'm sure you'd be less than impressed with Burns historical objectivity if his interviewee list included Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley among other conservatives, then allowed Doris Goodwin on as long as she described herself as a bitter liberal.

mintacular

02-12-2010, 03:37 PM

The bias comes in because they're all of a particular political stripe, and not only that, but many are activists.

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

I'm sure you'd be less than impressed with Burns historical objectivity if his interviewee list included Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley among other conservatives, then allowed Doris Goodwin on as long as she described herself as a bitter liberal.

I think you are overplaying the "liberal bias" just a bit. Most of the movie avoids politicking and there are some great interviews and raw footage. In terms of the issue race, while it may have been a bit over the top, racism in baseball is a legitimate and important topic to delve into--better that than be glossed over IMO.

Racism is not a liberal vs. conservative issue. My parents are die-hard conservative Evangelical Republicans yet serve as missionaries in Africa. Abe Lincoln after all was a Republican. So drop the b.s. "liberal" posturing...

E93

02-12-2010, 03:49 PM

My reason for stating it has a liberal bias was actually directed at his interviewee list, not his positions on integration or labor.

George F. Will ?? ;)

PolarBear

02-12-2010, 03:49 PM

[I] So drop the b.s. "liberal" posturing...

I agree with you on the race issue not necessarily being a liberal/conservative thing.

As far as pointing out who Ken Burns is, and the fact that his political views bleed over into his his documentaries at times, it is what it is.

If you don't want to know what people think about a topic, then you probably shouldn't start threads asking for opinions.

E93

02-12-2010, 03:50 PM

Sorry, I did not read beyond the quote above once I saw it.
JimB

E93

02-12-2010, 03:51 PM

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

My guess is he interviewed him because he knows a ton about baseball.
JimB

PolarBear

02-12-2010, 04:00 PM

My guess is he interviewed him because he knows a ton about baseball.
JimB

I don't really doubt that, but it's funny that the only conservative interviewee describes himself as a bitter conservative and all his friends as happy liberals.

It was played tongue-in-cheek, and you probably wouldn't think much about it unless you notice, as I did, his other interviewees we're mostly activist liberals. I don't recall Mario Cuomo saying he became a bitter liberal when he failed at baseball.

Look, it not a big deal, and I like the documentary overall, and in fact, I think Burns Civil War documentary is one of the best ever, but the fact remains, Burns does let his political bias bleed into his documentaries, and it's not over the top or unreasonable to point that out.

E93

02-12-2010, 04:14 PM

I don't really doubt that, but it's funny that the only conservative interviewee describes himself as a bitter conservative and all his friends as happy liberals.

It was played tongue-in-cheek, and you probably wouldn't think much about it unless you notice, as I did, his other interviewees we're mostly activist liberals. I don't recall Mario Cuomo saying he became a bitter liberal when he failed at baseball.

Look, it not a big deal, and I like the documentary overall, and in fact, I think Burns Civil War documentary is one of the best ever, but the fact remains, Burns does let his political bias bleed into his documentaries, and it's not over the top or unreasonable to point that out.

I agree. And in Brian's defense, he noticed your perspective in a seemingly innocuous comment. We all have our perspectives and issues for which we are particularly sensitive.
Have a good weekend.
JimB

PolarBear

02-12-2010, 04:32 PM

I agree. And in Brian's defense, he noticed your perspective in a seemingly innocuous comment. We all have our perspectives and issues for which we are particularly sensitive.
Have a good weekend.
JimB

Thanks, and it was meant as an innocuous comment. I felt I had to defend it however after Brian went rabid.

No harm though. Have a good weekend as well!

Brian-Chidester

02-12-2010, 05:34 PM

The bias comes in because they're all of a particular political stripe, and not only that, but many are activists.

Probably the only reason he let George Will on the program is because he agreed to describe himself as a bitter conservative.

I'm sure you'd be less than impressed with Burns historical objectivity if his interviewee list included Pat Buchanan, Barry Goldwater, and William F. Buckley among other conservatives, then allowed Doris Goodwin on as long as she described herself as a bitter liberal.

Barry Goldwater and William F. Buckley... both of them I respect, even if I disagreed with much of their politics. I don't personally care for much of anything from Buchanan politically, but I have no idea how he feels about baseball. And since most of the people in Burns's documentary talked exclusively about baseball, to me that was all that mattered.

FrankWakefield

02-12-2010, 05:36 PM

Rob D.

02-12-2010, 05:39 PM

The quoting, and the bickering, sure managed to detract from a nice start for a thread... golly, maybe folks who quote so much do so because they think no one reading at the end read what went before... and why would they think that, because they themselves didn't read it. I know quoting was discussed a bit some time ago. Seems to me that there's no need to quote something unless it was in some OTHER thread. Otherwise, do completely away with threads and let's just have a mass of posts.

Thank you for trying to get the thread back on track.

FrankWakefield

02-12-2010, 06:00 PM

Rob D.

02-12-2010, 06:13 PM

I obviously didn't, from looking at your post.

Nevertheless, the effort was appreciated.

tbob

02-12-2010, 08:37 PM

Speaking of documentaries, I think the three greatest documentaries I have ever seen were:
3. Ken Burns' Baseball
2. Ken Burns' Civil War and
1. The Great War and the Shaping of the 20th Century

All three were outstanding and heartily recommended. According to many blogs, websites and writers, President Bush felt the World War I documentary was actually a veiled pacifistic effort and had an anti-war bent and did his part to see that it was pulled from production on VCR tape and never released on DVD. The reason given for this is that we were involved in a war in the Middle East and viewing this film series was counter-productive to the attitude toward the war effort. In 1996 when it was released on PBS, it won two Emmys including one for Best informational Series and in 1997 won a Peabody. To this date, it has never been released on DVD and is extremely difficult to find. I have seen copies of the 4 VCR tape set go for $500 on ebay when they are available. I haven't checked lately but over the last 7-8 years I have watched their sales, they were extremely rare. Regardless of your political leanings, this is an incredible series and should be watched.
Amazingly you can go to the PBS web site and order any of their past documentaries and shows on VCR or DVD, but this one is glaringly absent.
http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/

Peter_Spaeth

02-12-2010, 09:00 PM

http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Great-War-and-the-Shaping-of-the-20th-Century_W0QQitemZ120525271255QQcmdZViewItemQQptZVH S?hash=item1c0fddb0d7

bmarlowe1

02-12-2010, 09:44 PM

Theoldprofessor

02-13-2010, 09:00 PM

Overall, of course, it's a grand documentary. But too much of the time Burns seems to think that baeball was invented somewhere between White Plains NY and Brocton MASS, and that anything played outside of the Boston NYC corridor really doesn't count as major league at all.

Another small but, I think, important observation. In covering the 1960 Series (whose outcome is lamented by NY born and bred author and part-time plagiarist Doris Kearns Goodwin), Burns uses Chuck Thompson's exciting and excited voice-over of the bottom of the ninth. On the whole, Thomson's call was absolutely dead on the money, except for a few minor errors. I think I can recall the way it ran pretty clearly.

Thompson: "Well, a little while ago, when we mentioned that this one, in typical fashion, was going right to the wire, little did we know. Art Ditmar throws .. THERE'S A SWING AND A HIGH FLY BALL GOING DEEP TO LEFT ... THIS MAY DO IT ... BACK TO THE WALL GOES BERRA. IT .. IS .. OVER THE FENCE, HOME RUN THE PIRATES WIN!"

Except Art Ditmar wasn't on the field -- he was warming up in the bullpen. Ralph Terry threw that pitch. So the thompson voice-ever has been doctored to have him say "Ralph Terry throws ... " There was also an error in Thompson's call of the final score, though I can't remember it as clearly. But the new "call" gets everything exactly right.

So what's the big deal? Doctor a few tapes. So what? (I think I'll just leave that alone and let it stink for a while.) So what is that Historian Burns should know lots better. You know he wouldn't have thrown in a few faked Brady photographs in "The Civil War." Why do it here?

tbob

02-13-2010, 10:12 PM

tbob says:
President Bush felt the World War I documentary was actually a veiled pacifistic effort and had an anti-war bent and did his part to see that it was pulled from production on VCR tape and never released on DVD.

Paranoid and delusional beyond comprehension. Peter - you better watch out, they're gonna come and get you for posting that subversive info.

Released in 2005:

Peter- wow, that is incredible! I can not believe a set went for that cheap. I saw one a few months ago sell on either Amazon or Half.com for around $250.

BMarlowe- that picture you posted is not the same documentary as the one I mentioned. I didn't say that I had any specific and first hand knowledge of George and the boys getting in the way of the film's release, only that I had seen many articles attributing the documentary's strange disappearance and failure to be available on VCR or DVD to the Prez and his attitudes toward the film. Maybe akin to his not wanting the nightly news showing coffins coming back, wanting to orchestrate the war effort for the news, etc.
I guess it may be paranoid and delusional to some but what's the old saying, "I may be paranoid but that doesn't mean someone isn't following me." :D

mintacular

02-13-2010, 10:44 PM

But too much of the time Burns seems to think that baeball was invented somewhere between White Plains NY and Brocton MASS, and that anything played outside of the Boston NYC corridor really doesn't count as major league at all.

History is an interpretive and selective presentation of facts and a historian will no doubt choose a narrative and build a story around this. To think that every farmtown minor league team should be covered as equally to the big city NY/Boston squads is very boring history in my book...Ironically, many progressives think a scrappy minimum wage steel-worker in Homestead PA deserves equal coverage to the Titans of Industry Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, et al., well I don't. But now I digress.

As for the minor points about "doctored tapes", and Doris Kearns Goodwin I think those are ticky-tacky criticism....If these criticisms underline a pervasive manipulation of tape/footage then they are worthwhile topics of discussion. If not, then so what? They are minor asterisks in the big scheme of things.

bmarlowe1

02-14-2010, 12:48 AM

tbob - you are right - the DVD is a different program.

However the VHS version of the correct program is easily found, and anyway - if any governmental agency tried to stifle PBS content, they would scream bloody murder - you wouldn't have to comb non-mainstream sources to find out. The daily newshour program and the weekly presentations of Frontline and Bill Moyers attest to their independence and get far more viewership (though not alot) than would a WWI documentary on DVD. Hence, giving credence to such an attempt is not rational. :)

jlynch1960

02-14-2010, 04:49 AM

Strange thread to say the least, but here are a few thoughts.

It's been awhile since I watched the entire series (Baseball), but it seems clear that Burns was trying to demonstrate how baseball plays a larger role in American life than simply as a game - in many ways attempting to bring an intellectual bearing to our understanding of the game by placing it in a larger context of who we are as a people.

Since most intellectuals tend to be liberals (Geo. Will notwithstanding) and many conservatives tend to be anti-intellectual (another George comes to mind), it's only natural that the non baseball playing interviewees would have a more liberal bent. In fact, George Will plays into this perfectly because he is one of the few conservatives who has been able to bring some form of higher analysis to the table (e.g., "Men at Work"). I'd be hard pressed to name another conservative commentator who fits this role.

The Burns brothers don't make documentaries that simply recite history as facts and figures -which is what a lot of people posting here seem to want. Their films simply wouldn't be as interesting as they are if they were made as such.

Theoldprofessor

02-14-2010, 05:43 AM

Ironically, many progressives think a scrappy minimum wage steel-worker in Homestead PA deserves equal coverage to the Titans of Industry Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Rockefeller, et al.

Both of my grandfathers were "scrappy minimum wage steel workers" in Homestead, PA. That masterful "titan of industry," Mr. Andrew Carnegie, was in part responsible for the 1892 disaster in Homestead, though he ran off to Scotland before the thing came to a head, leaving one Henry Clay Frick to do pretty much what he wanted. Result -- 10 dead and Carnegie's legacy permanently damaged. He returned from vacation after the strike ended. No, I think the more coverage those Titans receive, the better off we all are.

Sorry for the interrruption. Back to baseball. As far as I know, Ford Frick and Henry Clay Frick were not in any way related.

FrankWakefield

02-14-2010, 08:42 AM

D. Broughman

02-14-2010, 10:44 AM

What Burns DID do with Baseball, is to get a bit of interest rekindled in the minds of some folks. Whether they watched it because of the history of the game, because of the interviewees, because of the examination of the racial barrier... whatever the reason, folks who watched that saw video of Honus Wagner, Ty Cobb, Walter Johnson, Babe Ruth, Lou Gehrig, Joe D, Ted W, Stan M.... it revived interest in the history of the game, it started interest anew in some who watched the series. We may well have a few more collectors of the old stuff because of what Burns did.

I think Frank hit it right on the head. Burns revived interest in baseball.

Brian-Chidester

02-16-2010, 08:22 AM

Burns's documentary also came out the year of the Players' Strike, and may very well have given all the people who were pissed at the players something to think about. Burns's film does not portray the owners in very good light. Even up through the late 1980s. "Collusion" was a great section of the final film.

FrankWakefield

02-16-2010, 10:11 AM

Brian-Chidester

02-16-2010, 10:43 AM

The film series said a lot about the business of baseball that might have been right in front of my face, but I'd never personally considered before. Things such as official MLB being an organization of the owners, and by extension, the commisioner(s) and even the Hall of Fame. I mean, a man like Kenesaw Mountain Landis, to me, is an utter disgrace to the Hall of Fame. Yeah, yeah, he might have cleaned up baseball after its worse scandal, but if for no other reason than his outward prejudice towards blacks (which in effect WAS the thing that kept them out of MLB until his death), and his anti-labor decision to not bring a verdict down with regards to the Federal League... I personally think he poses the greatest case for one being REMOVED from the Hall of Fame. But, of course, he championed the owners.

Do the owners or the commisioner's office care in the least about a lowly player like Joe Jackson? No, they don't. That would be like someone from the Milam or Bryant family coming out and expressing guilt and remorse for what happened to Emmett Till. The commissioner's office would have to publically apologize for allowing what happened to Joe Jackson to stand for as long as it has. In my estimation, that is the only justice that will suffice.

ChiefBenderForever

02-16-2010, 10:43 AM

I thought it was a wonderful work of art and he did a great job considering he had very little time to cover each era. Of course New York would get a lot of coverage considering their history and fan base. It would be cool to see nine innings on each era so more could be covered. For the average fan of baseball who only knows about Babe Ruth and Ty Cobb it is a great introduction to the history of the game.

bmarlowe1

02-16-2010, 03:23 PM

Brian-Chidester says re Landis:
"...but if for no other reason than his outward prejudice towards blacks (which in effect WAS the thing that kept them out of MLB until his death)"

This contention is very well discredited. For starters, I would refer you to 4 articles in the Summer 2009 Baseball Research Journal beginning on page 26.

Did Landis fail to show leadership on this issue and just float along with the status-quo? That seems to be the consensus. Should that keep him out of the HoF? Perhaps, but we should at least be accurate as to the reason.

Brian-Chidester

02-16-2010, 05:04 PM

So the quote in Ken Burns's film where Landis writes, "The answer is no"... that was made up by Burns?

howard38

02-16-2010, 08:06 PM

bmarlowe1

02-16-2010, 08:51 PM

So the quote in Ken Burns's film where Landis writes, "The answer is no"... that was made up by Burns?

I don't know whether he made it up or not . What I do know is that Burns is very good at presentating broad sweeps of history - not so good at the scholarly part of getting all the details right - that is true not only in Baseball but in his WWII series. In some discussion with experts that advised him in Baseball - it is clear he is often more interested in effect than detailed accuracy. Quoting Landis in this manner may be very effective - but it may not be true.

I can tell you that in my specific area of expertise he went against solid advice and presented mis-identified images. The photo of Candy Cummings he used is extremely compelling - but it is not Candy Cummings and he was told by experts that it wasn't - but he used it anyway. He was also mis-leading at times in his image presentation in The Civil War.

You ought to see what other researchers have to say. If you are that interested, the articles I cited are a good starting point - they present a variety of views. Burns made a nice contribution in some respects - but his is not the Bible of Baseball History.

If you like - I'll quote Burns, page 284:
"Judge Landis's replacement as baseball commisioner was....Albert Benjamin "Happy" Chandler....Chandler told his visitors, "If a black boy can make it on Okinawa or Guadalcanal, hell, he can make it in baseball." Still a secret vote was said to have shown that 15 out of 16 club owners opposed integration."

tedzan

02-16-2010, 10:04 PM

slidekellyslide

02-16-2010, 10:19 PM

perezfan

02-17-2010, 12:58 AM

Like Ted Z, after a while, I just had to cease watching it as well. When I realized my level of annoyance was outweighing the enjoyment, I had to turn it off. The political agenda was far stronger than any baseball content.

Aside from the aforementioned "errors and omissions", the 1970s segment barely recognized (or even mentioned) the best team of the decade, and chose to focus on Bostonians' extreme disappointment, along with biased reactions from people like Mario Cuomo and the renowned baseball expert, Doris Kearns Goodwin.

I can appreciate the effort and don't begrudge those who loved it, but it wasn't my "cup of tea".

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 08:00 AM

Brian-Childester,

I understand the point you were trying to make but I'd advise against using Emmett Till in any kind of analogy involving Joe Jackson. It will seem to some that you are saying what "happened" to Jackson is comparable to what happened to Till and hyperbole like that will not win you any arguments.

Howard

I'm not comparing what happened to these men... I'm comparing the justice system. Nothing more. In the case of Till's murder, it was a corrupt Southern court system. In the case of Jackson, it was a corrupt commissioners office.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 08:09 AM

Burns had an "agenda" in his BB documentary which resulted in quite a few "hyperboles" (as Howard and BMarlowe have alluded to).

Burns did similar things in his Jazz documentary....like not crediting great artists in Jazz such as Hoagy Carmichael, Lionel Hampton, etc.
that didn't fit his agenda.
There are other glaring omissions; however, these two Jazz greats immediately come to mind.

After a while, I just couldn't continue to watch the BB documentary for these reasons. I did not think it was worth watching his Jazz
documentary at all. But, I did read the book.

Completely agree about the ommission of Hoagy Carmichael. In the same respect, I thought Gerry Mulligan played a much bigger role in the creation of Modern jazz than Burns afforded him. But then again West Coast jazz was erased from the series almost entirely.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 08:14 AM

Outside of the few glaring errors that only baseball historians will notice I watched Burns baseball and thought it was great. Although I can watch Innings 1-4 over and over, I have little interest after that point. Every filmmaker has a point of view and that's what you're going to get. I don't think Burns has ever declared his documentary to be the authoritative history of the game. He gave his point of view, I'm not so sure that it was as important to him that we got an actual photo of Candy Cummings as it was to tell his story.

With that said...I like accuracy and I'd like to know who it was that told Burns it wasn't Cummings and when he told him.

Agreed. I'd also like to know the context of the Landis letter where he said, "the answer remains no." Because, even if the owners were 15 out of 16 against integration during Chandler's era, that didn't stop Branch Rickey from going forward. And that had everything to do with Landis passing away and the person that Chandler was.

barrysloate

02-17-2010, 08:28 AM

Keep in mind everyone has a favorite team or player, and likewise a favorite jazz musician, that may have been given short shrift in the Burns' documentaries. And certainly he never tried to be encyclopedic in the way he approached his subjects. He focused on what he and his team felt were most important, and gave those areas a great deal of attention. My jazz favorite musician is Miles Davis, and he spent a lot of time on his career, so I for one was satisfied with the product.

We all agree there were errors and facts left out of all the Burns documentaries, but I believe that no one has ever tackled those subjects on film as well as he did.

And did anybody see his series on National Parks? It was terrific, and since I knew very little about them, if he left something important out I never would have known it. I was able to enjoy it exactly as it was presented.

tedzan

02-17-2010, 08:48 AM

Gerry Mulligan was the other great Jazz artist I thought Burns gave "short shrift" to. Thanks for mentionong him.

Mulligan, along with the Dave Brubeck Quartet, Duke Ellington, Dizzy Gillespie, Gene Krupa, Lionel Hampton, George
Shearing, and Jack Teagarden were my favorites at Birdland back in the late 1950's and the 1960's era.

TED Z

barrysloate

02-17-2010, 08:53 AM

Mulligan is one of my favorites too...as well as Jack Teagarden.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 08:57 AM

Yeah, Mulligan had so much to do with Miles Davis's solo career. After leaving Charlie Parker's band and playing with a wide variety of small combos in the 52nd Street clubs of NYC, Davis involved himself with Gil Evans and Gerry Mulligan, the latter of whom was a composer and was working with a nine piece band to mix fluidly concierto with jazz. The Birth of the Cool band became Miles Davis's Nonet, and because Davis had the contract with Capitol, he got to put his name on the "Birth of the Cool" album. In truth, it was a collaboration with Mulligan, Lee Konitz and Gil Evans, all of whom worked to write and arrange most of the numbers recorded there.

Miles continued his relationship with Gil Evans, and Mulligan moved to the West Cost and worked with the likes of Chet Baker and Art Farmer, etc., but both Mulligan and Davis were known as musicians who utilized the eraser concept more than any others. They erased or wiped away all of the excess and created a post-bop, sleek, modernist sound that revolutionized jazz. Miles gets the lion's share of the credit, and he deserves it... his music is incredible. But anyone who recognizes the brilliance of West Coast Cool jazz, which Burns chose not to, would have to acknowledge Mulligan as its progenitor.

barrysloate

02-17-2010, 09:01 AM

Good information Brian. Another interesting sidelight is the entire Birth of the Cool album, and the new direction jazz would head post-1950, was born in Gil Evans' studio apartment in Manhattan. That's where the musicians gathered to work on their new ideas.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 09:05 AM

It's true. 52nd Street was falling apart by 1950-51, as a club district. They had to have someplace to go. And besides, speakeasies were almost always in warehouses and apartments, no matter how good the club scene was.

That's the crazy thing about jazz. You can look to the recording sessions and say, "The albums where this guy or that guy played live in a club is even better," but then think about the fact that NO ONE captured these giants in apartments or other speakeasies.

We will always be left to wonder what Buddy Bolden sounded like. Sigh...

barrysloate

02-17-2010, 09:07 AM

There are no recordings known of Bolden, are there?

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 09:16 AM

Negative.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 09:21 AM

....
With that said...I like accuracy and I'd like to know who it was that told Burns it wasn't Cummings and when he told him.

Dan, the best public info on this is in a Net54 thread. go to:
http://tinyurl.com/ybe96ry

scroll down to #14. There is a bit more to this, but confidentially prevents me from saying more about it.

BTW - I have since found another good image of Cummings, but that is way O/T.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 09:50 AM

Because, even if the owners were 15 out of 16 against integration during Chandler's era, that didn't stop Branch Rickey from going forward. And that had everything to do with Landis passing away and the person that Chandler was.

"....everything to do" - How do you know that? How do you know that it was primarily Landis alone that stopped Rickey? You've said nothing to support that.

History is rarely that simple. Landis's parents and grandparents were abolitionists, and his brothers actively opposed Klan candidates for congress. None of that makes him a hero - he wasn't. Nor was he the primary cause of the problem.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 10:51 AM

One can only go by the letters and statements made by Happy Chandler with regards to soldiers fighting in the war, and that those good enough to fight should be good enough to play in MLB. Also the fact that Robinson broke in during the Chandler era.

As for Landis, enough attempts were made to integrate baseball during his era to affirm that either he flat out rejected their entry, or else he was passive and upheld the owners' sentiment.

But I know history is never that simple. If it could be proven beyond a doubt that he was instrumental in upholding segregation in baseball, then he would (IMHO) be a major blot on the Hall of Fame's reputation.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 11:30 AM

[quote=Brian-Chidester;783394]
As for Landis, enough attempts were made to integrate baseball during his era to affirm that either he flat out rejected their entry, or else he was passive and upheld the owners' sentiment.quote]

I agree with that statement as it leaves the question open.

slidekellyslide

02-17-2010, 11:35 AM

Dan, the best public info on this is in a Net54 thread. go to:
http://tinyurl.com/ybe96ry

scroll down to #14. There is a bit more to this, but confidentially prevents me from saying more about it.

BTW - I have since found another good image of Cummings, but that is way O/T.

Yep, my problem is that Burns seems to take a beating every time someone brings this issue up, but Corey can't even remember if he told Burns or the producer. And as far as confidential sources go, as long as they remain confidential I remain skeptical about when and if they notified Burns. What's the point in remaining confidential about such a triviality??

There seems to be such a dislike for Burns's Baseball documentary among SABR types, but as far as I can tell there has never been an undertaking to showcase the history of the game in such a grand way. Mistakes were made, but none so egregious as to ruin a really great documentary.

Hell, I didn't even know until this thread that some folks had found enough of a political bent in it as to turn them off. I can understand that they may not like Doris Kearns-Goodwin, or Mario Cuomo, but these people were all talking about the game as it related to them or to America...they weren't discussing Health Care or National Defense.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 12:07 PM

Dan: There seems to be such a dislike for Burns's Baseball documentary among SABR types...

That is true - it's because we tend to be overly obsessive as to details (kind of anal-retentive I guess)

Dan: "but as far as I can tell there has never been an undertaking to showcase the history of the game in such a grand way. Mistakes were made, but none so egregious as to ruin a really great documentary."

I agree. What I disagreed with was Brian's citing of Burns as providing a simple conclusive answer to the cause of the continuation of MLB segregation thru the 1940's. I am not even sure if Burns intended that.

Dan: "And as far as confidential sources go, as long as they remain confidential I remain skeptical about when and if they notified Burns."

That's a fair statement, but the confidentiallity is not my choice. All I can say is that more than one very knowlegable consultant to Burns' project advised against using the photo. The person who wanted it used (also a consultant) was the owner of the photo and either had recently sold it or would relatively soon sell it (I don't recall the exact date of the sale). It was a really bad choice made from competing consultants, one of whom clearly had a $ interest in the photo being used as Cummings.

slidekellyslide

02-17-2010, 12:20 PM

That's a fair statement, but the confidentiallity is not my choice. All I can say is that more than one very knowlegable consultant to Burns' project advised against using the photo. The person who wanted it used (also a consultant) was the owner of the photo and either had recently sold it or would relatively soon sell it (I don't recall the exact date of the sale). It was a really bad choice made from competing consultants, one of whom clearly had a $ interest in the photo being used as Cummings.

Clearly then the fault lies with competing consultants. Highly doubtful Burns had any interest in misrepresenting a photo he had no investment in.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 12:29 PM

[quote=slidekellyslide;783419]Clearly then the fault lies with competing consultants.../quote]

On that we'll have to agree to disagree - a historian will always be confronted with experts who differ (that is certainly the case with how much continuing segregation was the fault of Landis - experts do disagree).

In this case Burns or his producer made a bad choice - the fact that experts disagree should mean you don't portray the photo as positively identified - you find another photo that everyone agrees on or you just skip it. I have advised some authors to do just that.

slidekellyslide

02-17-2010, 01:10 PM

Eh...filmmaker or historian? Burns went with a photo that had already appeared in a SABR publication identified as Cummings. We still have NO proof that Burns was even aware of the controversy surrounding the photo when he made the film.

ChiefBenderForever

02-17-2010, 01:27 PM

He is a great story teller and somewhat of a historian. I don't get the political agenda at all, he made a great starting point, now it's up to others to build upon that. It's his choice to do whatever he wants. Sounds like he made a mistake on a photo and maybe a few other things, but when you look at the overall project it was a success.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 01:41 PM

Eh...filmmaker or historian? Burns went with a photo that had already appeared in a SABR publication identified as Cummings..

Placed there (and at least 6 other publications both prior and subsequent to Burns) by the same person/owner who wanted it used in Burns' project.

slidekellyslide

02-17-2010, 02:24 PM

Are you saying that Ken Burns was aware of this decade long evil plot by Mark Rucker to make millions on an anonymous 19th century baseball photo?

barrysloate

02-17-2010, 02:29 PM

For the record Ken Burns and Mark Rucker became pretty good friends during the making of the documentary, and he counted on Mark's photo library a great deal. If Mark told Ken that the tintype pictured Candy Cummings, I doubt Ken had the inclination to do independent research. If Ken was told by others it was not Cummings, he then had to make a decision. I'm not sticking up for or condemning anyone, I just think that verifying that particular image was not of paramount importance to Burns. I think he took Mark's word and went with it.

I know Mark always believed it was Cummings, but I think he now realizes that the general consensus is that it is not. I have certainly given him my opinion on several occasions.

Brian-Chidester

02-17-2010, 03:05 PM

think that piture of Cummings, which really isn't a picture of Cummings, was used on the 2009 Obak series. So, even 15 years after Burns used the image, it's still being labeled as Candy Cummings. I think that's a shame.

bmarlowe1

02-17-2010, 03:07 PM

Brian - I am 100% with you on that one :)

This "new" to me photo of Cummings appeared in the McFarland reprint of the 1914 Richter's History and Records of Base Ball.

Barry - if you need to - feel free to draw a mustache on him.:D

Hot Springs Bathers

02-17-2010, 08:15 PM

I had the great fortune to meet Mr. Burns and talk with him at length about his baseball effort when he attended the Hot Springs (AR) Documentary Film Festival.

During that visit he stressed that all of his films, which he considers a continuous series, are intended to explain what makes us Americans. His intent is to weave a fabric of human traits that show how we are part part of the other nations that we come from but distinctly different. Thus very American subjects like baseball, jazz and OUR national parks. Of course I am still not happy that he ignored the first National Park-Hot Springs in his latest film.

The good news-bad news is that for the first time he is revisiting a film when he releases The 10th Inning this Fall. He feels that baseball has changed so much since the original release that he needed to add a couple of hours. I am afraid that will mean the strike and of course steroids.

During our visit I asked him about films on other sports and he said that he has no plans for any others. The next day he approached me and said he is still not sure where football fits and how it has influenced American life. He then said maybe in the future?

I guess what I am getting at in this post is that politics, race and sport all are all factors in how baseball has helped shape America.