Recently overheard in a Connecticut restaurant: “The fundamental difference between the British and Americans is that the British think that 100 miles is a long distance, whilst the Americans think that 100 years is a long time”. Interesting observation, and probably true, but I don't think it is the fundamental difference. No, the main difference is in the lyrics of the song “For He's A Jolly Good Fellow”.
In case you haven't heard this song, the lyrics go like this: “For he (or she)'s a jolly good fellow” is repeated three times, in a fairly unimaginitive (though easy to remember whilst drunk) fashion. This is the same in both the British and American version. But then comes the difference! The British conclude “and so say all of us!”, which could be interpreted as “the people who are currently singing this song agree that the object of the song is indeed, a jolly good fellow, and we are singing this song to assert our claim. Your opinion may differ, but this is our claim, which we believe is worth singing about”. Or thereabouts. The American version meanwhile ends “For he's a jolly good fellow, which nobody can deny”. This is making an altogether different claim: “We have unilaterally asserted a truth, and you are unable to contradict it - if you attempt to, you will be wrong. You are either with us, or against us, and if you are against us, then you are probably part of an axis of evil (or some other sort of geometric wickedness, such as a hypoteneuse of villainy)”
So, what's going on with these two alternative endings? Which is the original, and why was it changed? I don't have solid proof, but I suspect that any song which includes the phrase “Jolly Good Fellow” probably originated amongst the English upper classes, maybe whilst out rowing or something. The phrase “Jolly Good Fellow” sounds as natural coming from the lips of an American as does the phrase “You Guys Rock!” coming from a Brit. So, if the song is originally British, would it be reasonable to suspect that the substitution of the fourth line is just a case of someone misremembering? No, I don't think so - the substitution seems to be entirely in line with the differences in the psyche of the two cultures:-
It is an American tradition to decide something, declare it so, safe in the knowledge that everyone else will say “yup, OK then”. Think Freedom Fries (someone originally decided that French Fries were in some way unpatriotic, and at least half of the country decided that this was a reasonable conclusion and hey presto! the name was changed overnight. Similarly, when the Pennsylvania town of Mauch Chunk (meaning Bear Mountain) was in decline in 1953, someone thought it would be a good idea to rename it “Jim Thorpe” after a popular, though recently deceased, Olympic athlete. So, they did. They just did it. I can't imagine any such thing happening in Britain at any time over the past 100 years - we'd need to have something lobbied in commons, presented to the lords, lodged with the council, rejected, appealed, repealed, signed, countersigned, presented to parliament again, voted on, sat on, placed in the local paper for a period of not less than 28 days before an inquiry into the feasibility of changing the name of a town (or indeed, of a potato product). In other words “and so say all of us - but er, we'd better check what everyone else thinks first”.
Each of these two philosophies has its merits - neither is actually wrong, but neither is actually right either. And even though the British version doubtless precedes the American one, it turns out that even this isn't the original song to make use of this tune. The original words were:-
The Bear went over the Moutain, The Bear went over the Moutain, The Bear went over the Moutain to see what he could see, and all that he could see, and all that he could see was the other side of the Mountain, the other side of the Mountain, the other side of the Mountain was all that he could see.
Far better, I think.
Back in the day, when I wrote songs far quicker than I could record them, I set myself the challenge of writing a song per day for every day of the year. I think I got about halfway through January, before some of the songs I was writing started to seem very ordinary, and just written for the sake of it. And, if you can't be proud of a song that you've just written (or at least very pleased with yourself for creating it), then there really isn't much point is there? So, it is a tough challenge. I note that cartoonist Scott Bateman (from Portland, Oregon, where all of the cool and unintentionally beautiful people hang out, drinking their organic lattes and riding their soya-hydrogen hybrid recycled skateboards) has set himself the ambitious challenge of creating and releasing a flash based animated film for every day of the year. He is also the genius behind Crack Panda (which has some of the same appeal as Book Crossing, but it is slightly more subversive and altogether more juvenile; I like it!).
A couple of months ago, we were driving down the Massachusetts coast, stopping off at Cape Cod and a number of other places, and one of our stopping points was the Olde Towne of Plymouth (NB - not the real Plymouth, but the made-up one whose founders couldn't be arsed to think up a decent original name, I mean it isn't difficult - how about Quazdangle or something, I bet no-one has done that before). What is there to do in Plymouth? Well, we checked out the tourist guide booth (the proprietor of which seemed to be very proud of Plymouth), and picked up a map, which told us that we could:-
(a) Visit Plymouth Rock
(b) Visit the Mayflower II, supposedly a replica of what the Mayflower may or may not have looked like.
© buy many pointless trinkets and souvenirs from the pointless trinket and souvenir emporia which spilled out from the seafront engulfing the land like an unstoppable and unsightly carcinogenic growth.
As the Mayflower II was obviously a big waste of time (seemingly made in the 1970s, probably Artex ceilings everywhere), we opted to visit Plymouth Rock. After all, you can't go wrong with a rock can you? Think of all of the other famous rocks: Ayers Rock, The Rock of Gibraltar, Brighton Rock, Glam Rock - all very impressive things to marvel over. Not so Plymouth Rock.
For those who haven't seen this piece-of-crap-of-a-tourist attraction, it is about the size of a large dog. It is held within a sort of prison on the beach (you have to look at this poor piece of stone through a set of railings in the pavement). About a third of it is actually beneath the sand, and another third is visible. The remaining third has been stolen by tourists over the years (hence its current state of incarceration to protect from further erosion-by-holidaymaker). However, these tourists were fools, as there is little evidence to suggest that this unfortunate oversized pebble was the actual rock at which the Mayflower landed in the first place. The rock itself was declared as being “Plymouth Rock” some 200 years after the landing (presumably by someone who had decided to open a string of trinket / souvenir shops, and decided that miniature replica Plymouth Rock paperweights would be a Nice Little Earner). There is also some doubt that the rock is in the location where the Mayflower landed, as it has been moved countless times over the past few hundred years.
So, it is tiny, it is imprisoned, it is not in the right place, one third of it is missing, and it isn't the right rock. Can anyone think of a crapper tourist attraction?
So Bob Moog's oscillators have finally given up. His VCFs have all got blocked. His VCAs have given up the ghost. His pitch bend will bend no more, and his portamento has passed on.
He has been replaced, you see, by a new virtual Bob Moog emulation, who is all bits and bytes. Most people will not be able to spot any difference whatsoever between the new Digital Dr Moog and the old organic one (though his wife claims that the new Dr Moog is neither as warm or fat as the old one).
Once upon a time, I had a domain name, “niknewark.com”. It was hosted by a company called **name of company deleted, as I've berated them enough in the past - let's call them Breamlinenet**, whose comprehensive catalog of incompetencies led to me switching hosting providers. Somewhere in the ensuing melee (amidst phones going unanswered and emails disappearing into a black hole), the good folks at Breamlinenet decided to fail to transfer one of my domains, niknewark.com. Even after it had expired, they wouldn't respond to requests from my new hosting provider to release it.
Until, one day, it was suddenly released and promptly bought up by an Italian cybersquatter, who then proceeded to host a website promoting strange cocktail of porn and garden supplies. I wish I was kidding. So, apologies if you mistakenly visited niknewark.com and found something other than what you were looking for, but I hope you were at least mildly amused. I would have mentioned it before (whilst the site was still up), but I didn't want to give my Italian chum any more hits than he deserved (aside from hits of the around-the-back-of-the-head-with-a-garden-ho variety).
Anyway, a couple of weeks ago, I received the following message:-
From: Domains (domains@tripoduk.com)
To: (My email address removed to foil spambots. Note, I didn't bother removing the one above ;-)
Date: Tue Aug 02, 2005 05:13:42 PM BST
Subject: niknewark.COM
Hi,
I am writing to inform you that niknewark.COM has expired and will be released to the public within the next few days.
There is a good chance that there will be several interested parties attempting to capture this domain when it is released, these will vary from parties with a genuine interest to domain name speculators otherwise known as cyber squatters who often put large price tags on such domains.
We are domain acquisition specialists and I felt that as the owner of niknewark.CO.UK, you would have a much more genuine interest in acquiring niknewark.COM.
If you would like us to try and acquire this domain on your behalf then please let me know as soon as possible preferably within the next 4 days as any later and it may be too late.
If you are genuinely interested, then I recommend you either call me on (UK +44) (0) 207 471 1803 or email me a number so that I can call you, as any delays in email communication could result in missing out on this domain.
Kind Regards
Gary
Needless to say, I didn't take Gary up on his offer. Astoundingly, none of the many other interested parties (all of whom doubtless recognise a highly unique and desirable domain name when they see one) tried to buy the domain, so I got it back in the end (after patiently waiting for 18 months). You can now visit this web site at http://www.niknewark.com. Sadly though, I can no longer recommend where to go for your garden porn requirements.