Be Here Now - Oasis

I was having a particularly hard time figuring out how to start this review. And then I read the Wikipedia page on Be Here Now and now…oh, my, so much to say. This album came out in August 1997, hot off the heels of Morning Glory. By then, Oasis was generally praised as “the biggest band in the world.” Those are Noel’s words, obviously, but it really wasn’t that far off. The media craziness that surrounded the band around this time (’96 to ’97) was huge. Most of my scrapbook articles and photos come from this period, because the band was EVERYWHERE. Making headlines for going on tours, cancelling tours, losing band members…my favorite piece of video-recording from this time was MTV’s Unplugged, which Liam decided to sit out complaining of a sore throat (brother Noel took up the vocals that day and, actually, sounded pretty good), but then sat at the side balcony heckling Noel all night. That crazy kid. And then followed it up by singing off-key and spitting during Oasis’ performance at MTV’s Video Music Awards in NY. Man, those were good times. Those videos still exist somewhere back home :)

Amidst the adoration and fame and constant press, there was much drug abuse. This pretty much sets the stage for how the band recorded Be Here Now and how the album ended up. If there is one thing critics will agree on about Be Here Now is that it is a bloated, overblown album. A few examples from the Wikipedia page:

- In 2007, Q magazine described the fact that Be Here Now is often thought of as "a disastrous, overblown folly — the moment when Oasis, their judgment clouded by drugs and blanket adulation, ran aground on their own sky-high self-belief."
- Q magazine described the album as "cocaine set to music."
- Irish Times journalist Brian Boyd wrote: "Bloated and over-heated (much like the band themselves at the time), the album has all that dreadful braggadocio that is so characteristic of a cocaine user."
- “It’s the sound of…a bunch of guys, on coke, in the studio, not giving a fuck. There’s no bass to it at all; I don’t know what happened to that…and all the songs are really long and all the lyrics are shit and for every millisecond Liam is not saying a word, there’s a guitar riff in there in a Wayne’s World style.” – Noel Gallagher
- "If he [Noel] didn't like the record that much, he shouldn't have put the fucking record out in the first place...I don't know what's up with him, but it's a top record, man, and I'm proud of it — it's just a little bit long." – Liam Gallagher

How awesome are the Gallagher quotes? Love it. Sadly, though, I gotta agree. But, that means I also agree with Liam. Let me say this first though: I didn’t remember remembering the album so well. Does that make sense? I mean, I really thought that I hadn’t paid too much attention to it, that I hadn’t listened to it that many times when I first bought it. But when I put it on these past few weeks, it was like finding a long lost friend. I knew all the songs, all the words, all the harmonies. I don’t feel any real emotional attachment to it as I do to the others, but I still, clearly, enjoyed the hell out of it. Which is why I understand what people are saying about overblown, but I still love it.

Yes, the album is excessive. Every song is looong, and every song is dying to sound epic. Think of an album made up entirely of Champagne Supernova wanna-be’s (but add about 5 minutes of play time to each). The album itself clocks out at around 71 minutes, nearly 20 minutes longer than either of the previous two albums. There are guitar tracks upon guitar tracks, several key changes within the same songs, and just buckets of sound. Listening to the album all the way through in one sitting can be a bit tiresome. Looping it in my car stereo for three days straight was overdoing it just a tad (a tad being the equivalent of eating three or so Cadbury cream eggs in a row…I have never done this…one egg induces a sugar high just fine).

BUT every song does sound masterful. Each song taken on its own sounds epic and sound-defying and each one induces that same high that Champagne Supernova was going for. I agree with Liam. I don’t know what Noel is going on about. Every song on that album is fantastic, in terms of composition, complexity, layers and layers of sound, editing, riffs, harmonies, key changes, lyrics, drums, vocals, guitars, the whole thing. The album fails because it is too much to take in at once (trust me…too much), but every song is memorable. Liam’s voice is as powerful and unique as ever and Noel demonstrates what makes him such a good songwriter and guitarist. Like the previous two albums, Noel wrote all the songs. Also like those albums, the lyrics tend to be silly, nonsensical, and optimistic, but (and I think this is something I haven’t quite gotten across in my other reviews) his lyrics also tend to be poetic and deep. Noel has often been described as something of a romantic and a philosopher. Every now and then he tries too hard and then things sound forced or silly, but in general he writes pretty, meaningful, simple, relatable words.

I was a bit worried that all these years later I would listen to this album and only think “yep, bloated, long, what the hell were they thinking;” I did, but I also rediscovered how awesome all the songs are on their own.

(What's the Story) Morning Glory? - Oasis

This is where it all started, the first album I acquired. I must give credit where it is due, however: (What's the Story) Morning Glory? was originally a present to my sister. I don’t recall if she didn’t like it or what, but I slowly appropriated it until I wound up listening to it pretty much every day after school. The album came out in the Fall of 1995, and she received it sometime that year, if not early in ’96, so I would have just turned 13 or so…yep, definitely ripe for that “let me obsess over music or boys” phase. I wore that album out, too. I listened to that album so much that the one I currently own isn’t even that same one from ‘95/’96 because that one got so badly scratched, I had to buy a new one. The funny part is, since I listened to it last week, it must have been years since I had last heard it. Time is really creepy when you start to put it that way…

Anway…this is a seriously good album. And it doesn’t much matter if I’m biased about this or not, it’s pretty well agreed upon that this is a good album. For example, I just learned that this album won the Brit Award for the best British Album of the last 30 Years at the 2010 Brit Awards. I’m not exactly sure what the Brit Awards are, but, well, at least someone out there agrees that this is a seriously good album. It has a lot of the same emotional power, rock exuberance, heartfelt lyrics, and everything else that made people take notice of Oasis when Definitely Maybe came out, but it is much more polished than their debut album. You lose some of the rawness that was in the debut album, but you still get great harmonies and ultimately a more put-together sound.

I must concede some gritty truths though. I would not trade Hello for Rock ‘N’ Roll Star for best opening track. Hello is good but Rock ‘N’ Roll Star feels much more emotional. I would also be hard pressed to pick Wonderwall over Live Forever. But you got my favorite Oasis song of all time here: Don’t Look Back in Anger. I guess it’s a disservice to Liam, who really shines in this album as a vocalist, even more so than in Definitely Maybe, but I always had a particular fondness for Noel’s voice, which made this song particularly awesome. There’s also Some Might Say, arguably one of my top five favorite Oasis songs. And the amazingly epic Champagne Supernova. I really like this description I found for that song in Allmusic.com: it succeeds at coming off with a “top-of-the-world/end-of-the-movie feeling.” So true. And, it’s got everything you need in an epic song, from the mellow intro to the rising sound, and the waves crashing (literally) at the end. The length contributes to the epic feel also, topping out the album at 7 minutes and 30 seconds. But it never feels overblown or long.

(What’s the Story) Morning Glory? feels a little less rock ‘n’ roll heavy than Definitely Maybe, but it definitely showcases good song-writing, good vocals, good musicians, a well put-together band, and it pretty much sums up a big chunk of the rock scene of the ‘90s. So, I feel like I could have done a lot worse when I was 13 than listening to this album (cue Rock saying I should have been badass like him and listened to Iron Maiden =P), and years later I still love it.

A Tale of Two Cities - Charles Dickens

I had Dickens pegged all wrong. Having never read any of his books, I had mistook him for a children's book writer (this is what happens when watching Scrooged is pretty much the only association one has to Dickens). Admittedly, since I've read exactly one of his books, I may now be mistaken in assuming he didn't write any children's books. Clearly I could remedy this by reading a little bit about him, but this review isn't about Dickens in general, but the one book in particular. My point being, I didn't expect A Tale of Two Cities to be such a drag...and gory...and really sad...and violent...and all-out depressing...and bloody. You see what I mean. Then again, what on earth did I expect about a story that takes place during the French Revolution?

The problem about a historical novel, for me, is that I generally know next to nothing about the historical setting in which it takes place. As such, I take the author's word at face value, without question. In this case, Wikipedia also informs me that the author's primary source was The French Revolution: A History by Thomas Carlyle. And while I wouldn't necessarily put Wikipedia down as a reference in a college paper (have college professors given up on this and are now just thankful their students read up on a subject at all?), it's good enough for me as I read the book and write this review.

And here's what I learned: the French Revolution really sucked. So maybe it brought about a shake-up in the monarchies, and got them to sit up and realize that starving your nation isn't exactly advantageous. But the whole business itself sounds like one of those They Live nightmares. Apparently even looking at someone cross-eyed was enough to get your head "razored" off, to paraphrase a brutally graphic line from the book, and absolutely anyone around you could end up turning you in as a traitor of the Republic. Even mourning the death of someone that was accused of being a traitor could get you killed.

Overall, Dickens paints a very detailed picture of what life was like in France and England at the time. He doesn't hold back in detailing how violent the times were, particularly when describing the mobs, such as the scene detailing the storming of the Bastille (again, Wikipedia informs me that the brutality Dickens described did, you know, actually happen). Dickens doesn't go so far as to justify the mob and their violence, but it is clear that he understands their motiviations. His descriptions do paint the revolutionary mob as essentially a pack of wild animals hungry for blood, but at the same time he's saying "hey, you push people down long enough and this is what you get." He sees that England could head in the same direction if the authorities continue to oppress the people as he described earlier in the book: "Crush humanity out of shape once more, under similar hammers, and it will twist itself into the same tortured forms. Sow the same seed of rapacious licence and oppression over again, and it will surely yield the same fruit according to its kind." Kinda seems like it would apply to the current situation in the U.S., and maybe an American Revolution is in the way, but that's...a completely different post.

The book's plot is relatively complicated as it intersects the stories of about a dozen characters. In fact, there is so much coincidence in this book you'd think there were only 50 people living in the entire world. The probability of some of these characters actually crossing paths as much as they do, over the time span in which events happen, and at the particular junctures in which they meet and cross, must be non-existant. But it makes for very good story-weaving and surprising moments.

The narration is not at all as straighforward as I expected (why I expected that I'm not sure). Quite the opposite, the narrative is poetic, archaic, stylish, metaphorical, convoluted, and very detailed. It's the kind of book that yields a ton of memorable quotes, and I'm not just talking about the "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times" bit. Nearly every page has very smooth, powerful writing, which can sometimes be difficult to get through, but overall the story-telling is unique and interesting.

All in all, it was a very enjoyable book. Even though the subject matter is pretty violent, and even though the book can be really depressing at times, it's a good read and the ending is...well, I won't deny a tear or two was shed.

22 down, 30 to go.