Category Archives: Quick Review

Quick Review: 15 years ago, the release of (What’s the Story) Morning Glory

Posted on by

I have lots of music that I enjoy. But few albums rank as high as this 1995 release from Oasis. I estimate that between its release on October 2, 1995 and today (to be fair, I didn’t purchase the album until sometime in 1996), I have heard Morning Glory hundreds of times. (My best estimate at this point would be around 1,200 times.) Some quick thoughts about this masterpiece:

1. This is Oasis at their musical peak. Coming off a very successful debut album, this finds the band both brash and melodic. Many of the lyrics may not make sense (just read the lyrics to “Some Might Say”) but it is an irresistible combination of music, swagger, and atmosphere.

1a. Some of these songs are spectacular, particularly “Don’t Look Back In Anger.” The three-song run from tracks 2 to 4 (“Roll With It” to “Wonderwall” to “Don’t Look Back in Anger”) is great.

2. The popularity of this album would cement their claims of being the biggest band in the world. Perhaps most importantly, it even became popular in the United States with “Wonderwall” becoming a hit, other songs (like “Champagne Supernova”) making some radio headway, and Oasis playing much of this album on MTV Unplugged (which is a very fun album to listen to).

3. There is an atmosphere surrounding this album that comes out in some of the music. This was during a period of music known as “Brit-Pop” though Oasis was on the more traditional, brash side of this movement (while bands like Blur where more on the artistic/experimental side). London was being reborn after years of drudgery, Tony Blair was on the horizon of British politics, and all seemed bright again in England. Part of the irony is that Oasis was leading this charge, a band of working-class members, led by occasionally vulgar brothers, and hailing from the dreary northern city of Manchester.

4. I have many good memories of hearing this album. I was discovering a number of bands at this point, most of them British. The link between the Beatles and Oasis seemed (and still does seem) pretty clear. While some have always been mad that they tried to ape the Beatles, I don’t hold it against them. At the time when I first found this album, it is a short step from listening to Revolver to then listening to Morning Glory.

5. Though they weren’t on the album, there are a number of very solid B-sides from this era. These songs were evidence that Noel Gallagher was swimming in good music at the time – all of the B-sides could have easily made an excellent album in their own right.

All in all, an excellent album. With Oasis being no more and all the albums after Be Here Now lacking their 1990s swagger, I will return to Morning Glory many more times to hear Oasis at its peak.

Quick Review: That Thing You Do

Posted on by

I’ve always liked this 1996 film that follows a one-hit band from Erie, Pennsylvania to the top of the record charts and then back down again as they fall apart. A few thoughts on re-watching the extended cut of the movie:

1. The movie has an innocence about it: small-town kids make it big. The characters have a wide-eyed wonder for much of the movie until they become disillusioned. Perhaps this is still the American dream for many bands: hope to get discovered by a local agent and then hit the big-time with all its benefits (fame, money, women, TV).

2. Though he is the last member to join, the drummer, Guy Patterson, is the main character who speeds up the tempo of the band’s hit song when it is still in its embryonic stages and tries to hold the band together as the pieces fall apart. Guy is likable. The extended cut includes move of Guy’s initial back story before he joined the band.

2a. The lead singer, Jimmy, on the other hand, is the brooding genius who can’t handle the demands of the road and just wants to record his next hit record.

2b. Faye, Jimmy’s girlfriend, is played by Liv Tyler and is a lovely girl caught in the band’s crossfire. (This is the only movie where I liked Liv Tyler’s acting.)

3. I like the music. Though it was written in the 1990s, it does sound like music from the 1960s. The title track, “That Thing You Do!”, is catchy and usually stays in my head for a few days after hearing it. Some of the other songs on the soundtrack are also good.

(According to Wikipedia, the title track was good enough in 1996 to merit airplay: “Written and composed for the film by Adam Schlesinger, bassist for Fountains of Wayne and Ivy, and released on the film’s soundtrack, the song became a genuine hit for The Wonders in 1996 (the song peaked at #41 on the Billboard Hot 100, #22 on the Adult Contemporary charts, #18 on the Adult Top 40, and #24 on the Top 40 Mainstream charts).”)

4. I don’t think the extended cut scenes add much. While it adds more nuance to some characters, particularly Guy, the in-theater version was snappier.

5. There are a lot of allusions/homages to the mid 1960s music scene. The Beatles are referred to often and a scene where the Wonders bike/run/skip on a map of the United States is very similar scene from A Hard Day’s Night.

6. I’ve been trying to think about the main point of the film. It could be viewed as sort of a slice-of-life retrospective about the heady days of rock in the mid 1960s but there are a couple of themes that run throughout the story that suggest there is something deeper:

a. The power of relationships over music and fame. While the band hits it big, it’s not the band that endures – it is the relationship between Guy and Faye.

b. The permanence/creativity of jazz compared to rock music. Guy is more interested in jazz when he initially joins the group to help them survive the injury of their original drummer. By the end of the film, he is still more interested in jazz. Compared to the fickle nature of rock (from nobodies to stars to nobodies all within a year), jazz is portrayed as having staying power.

c. The cycle of one-hit wonders that makes the music world go around. Toward the end of the film, their manager (played by Tom Hanks), suggests that this tale is a common one. The music machine takes innocent kids with hit songs, uses them for what they are worth, and then doesn’t care too much if they disappear. As long as there is another chart-topper in the works, that is all that matters.

After another re-watching, my liking of the film is confirmed: the catchy music plus the joy of seeing a small-town band hit it big plus the reality of what often happens when fame comes between people makes for an enjoyable two hour concoction.

Quick Review: Stat-Spotting

Posted on by

Sociologist Joel Best has recently done well for himself by publishing several books about the misuse of statistics. This is an important topic: many people are not used to thinking statistically and have difficulty correctly interpreting statistics even though they are commonly used in media stories. Best’s most recent book on this subject, published in 2008, is Stat-Spotting: A Field Guide to Identifying Dubious Data. A few thoughts on this text:

1. One of Best’s strong points is that his recommendations are often based in common-sense. If a figure strikes you as strange, it probably is. He has tips about keeping common statistical figures in your mind to help keep sense of certain statistics. Overall, he suggests a healthy skepticism towards statistics: think about how the statistic was developed and who is saying it.

2. When the subtitle of the book says “field guide,” it means a shorter text that is to the point. Best quickly moves through different problems with statistical data. If you are looking for more thorough explanations, you should read Best’s 2001 book Damned Lies and Statistics. (A cynical reader might suggest this book was simply a way to make more money of topics Best has already explored elsewhere.)

3. I think this text is most useful for finding brief examples of how to analyze and interpret data. There are numerous examples in here that could start off a statistics lesson or could further illustrate a point. The examples cover a variety of topics and sources.

This is a quick read that could be very useful as a simple guide to combating innumeracy.

Quick Review: Lost Season 6 special features

Posted on by

I was excited to check out the final disc of Lost Season 6 to see the special features. Alas, I was disappointed – here’s why:

1. The feature I was anticipating the most was “The New Man in Charge.” This roughly 10-minute epilogue featured Hugo Reyes as keeper of the Island with Ben Linus working for him. While this feature provided a few answers about the overall story, it didn’t do enough. And since it didn’t do enough, it didn’t seem very necessary.

2. What I found more interesting was the roughly 8 minute feature titled “See You In Another Life, Brotha.” While this is probably my favorite phrase from the TV show, it featured the producers and cast talking about how they interpreted the sideways story arc that distinguished season 6. The sideways world was meant to represent a better side of the characters, what they could have been if they had not encountered the Island.

3. The feature titled “A Hero’s Journey” quickly showed how the show’s story arc followed Joseph Campbell’s outline of the hero’s journey. This was not terribly useful, particularly if you had been reading Doc Jensen in the final season where he already made this connection.

4. The making-of featurette, “THE END: Crafting a Final Season,” was an opportunity for the producers, writers, cast, and others to explain a little what it was like to film the last season. The writers and producers said they felt the pressure to produce the perfect ending (which I do not think they did – this will be the subject of a future post) and they were satisfied with the final product. They all said the things you might expect: we all became a family, I really enjoyed the opportunity, and so on.

5. The blooper reel and deleted scenes were fairly worthless.

My opinion: the special features were not that special. I was hoping for more answers to questions about the Island but the answers were not given. Instead, the overall theme was that the producers and writers (and the cast went along with it with seemingly few complaints) wanted to end by focusing on relationships.

One thing positive that did come out of watching these features: I want to rewatch the final episode of the series. I’m looking forward to this task and seeing if I feel differently after watching it another time.

Quick Review: The Hunger Games series

Posted on by

The Hunger Games trilogy by author Suzanne Collins is popular. Hollywood is currently searching for a starlet to play the main character, Katniss Everdeen. And I too have recently read these books and have some thoughts:

1. I like the premise of the Hunger Games. The story is set in a dystopian world where the Capitol controls all 13 surrounding districts. As part of the control, each year the districts submit two teenagers, one male and one female, to compete in a reality TV contest where the winner must be the last one alive. Katniss is selected to compete in the Hunger Games and that is where the fun begins.

2. If I had to sum up the tone of the books in one phrase: this is like the young adult fiction version of a Jerry Bruckheimer film. Lots of action, little else. The characters have little emotional depth and don’t spend much time dwelling on what is happening. The real story is the action which includes two sets of Hunger Games and a war. Reading scenes where Katniss is in pain or disoriented is like watching jittery hand-held movie scenes.

3. I did not find the main character, Katniss, to be likable. Granted, she has had a difficult life but she is often caustic and unpleasant. She has good reason to be irritated – she ends up being a pawn for more powerful people throughout much of the three books – but I would think it is difficult for readers to make a connection with her. If there any connection to be made, it would be with her action-hero side as she shows determination and courage.

4. While it isn’t really explored in the books, this could be a devastating critique of reality television. Throughout the three books, Katniss is on display, first for entertainment and then later for propaganda. She chafes at this role but in this future version of society, people seem to be easily manipulated by what they see on their television screens. The power struggle in the books is often about who gets to control the overall narrative in the land.

5. Who is on the side of good or evil is muddied in the final book. While much of the action is taken against the oppressive Capitol, Katniss struggles with the idea that the rebels may be just as bad. This is not a typical good vs. evil outcome – the main outcome centers on the consequences of Katniss’ final actions.

Overall, I rated this series 2.5 out of 5 stars. The premise was interesting but I wasn’t fond of the execution or the outcome. This trilogy fits in with the dystopian turn in young adult fiction and will likely be a movie hit in the near future.

Quick Review: The Facebook Effect

Posted on by

Facebook, which went online in early 2004, is now old enough to be the subject of retrospectives. There is a new movie about the company, The Social Network, coming out this fall. There is also a recent book, The Facebook Effect: The Inside Story of the Company That is Connecting the World by David Kirkpatrick. I recently finished this book and have a few thoughts about the story of Facebook:

1. The idealism of Facebook comes throughout the story. Even from its early days, the founder Mark Zuckerberg was more interested connecting people than in just making money. This has driven many of the decisions made by the company and created friction between Zuckerberg and his coworkers as some wanted a greater emphasis on profits. At the end of the book, Kirkpatrick elicits some interesting thoughts from Zuckerberg regarding the differences between Google and Facebook. Zuckerberg describes Google as a passive company that tries to categorize the information that is already out there. In contrast, Facebook is a company that helps people express themselves and divulge information.

2. The growth in terms of number of users is remarkable. Kirkpatrick mentions several times seven or eight countries where 30% or more of the residents are on Facebook (not just 30% of Internet users).

3. The potential for profits comes from Facebook’s unique user database. With users voluntarily uploading information about themselves, advertisers can then target messages to particular groups. While most advertising is aimed at vague categories or misses its mark altogether, Facebook offers the opportunity to really reach certain segments.

4. While Facebook might have a unique mission, the story of its early history sounds similar to other tech companies. The founder has an idea that builds upon his previous work, he finds others to help him out, some of the key people drop out of college to focus on the company, and for years the company operates more like a frat house than a legitimate business.

5. Kirkpatrick recognizes that Facebook has had its issues and he points out when he disagrees with the company. However, several times he suggests that users ability to protest Facebook’s actions (like when privacy settings have been changed) is only made possible because of Facebook’s genius.

6. The main founders were from Harvard. There is little discussion in the book about how the advantages the founders had (generally wealthy families, exemplary educations, the connections one can make at a place like Harvard) could help make Facebook possible compared to starting a company like this elsewhere.

7. The big question that comes after reading about Facebook: how exactly does this or will this change the world? Does it improve the world? Kirkpatrick seems to buy into the big ideas of Zuckerberg: the book opens with the story of how a single man in Columbia was able to kick-off a nation-wide protest against the existing government through Facebook.

I am more skeptical. While this online world does seem to represent something new (people voluntarily giving up their privacy and forming communities), I don’t think it has yet translated into much real-world action. Does being open online (even though openness really is more often sculpting an idealizing image of oneself) necessarily lead to being more open in the real world? Perhaps greater results will be seen when younger generations who are always used to having Facebook around grow up.

In summary, this is an intriguing look at how Facebook has developed and about the ideals that motivate its founder.

Quick Review: Turner Field and Busch Stadium

Posted on by

In the last three weeks, I visited two baseball stadiums for the first time: Turner Field in Atlanta and Busch Stadium in St. Louis. Both stadiums are relatively new (Turner Field opened for baseball in 1997, Busch Stadium in 2006) and I’ll compare them.

1. Both have some similar features that characterize baseball stadiums built after Camden Yards in Baltimore. They feature wide concourses, particularly on the bottom level. There are unique spots in each stadium such as special vantage points, named sections, food options, and restaurants in the bleachers. The seating is pretty close to the field though skyboxes and suites are given prime positions. Home plate faces the downtown and the outfield seats are constructed so that the buildings can be seen from the seats. I would have to say Busch Stadium was nicer: it featured a lot more red brick (while Turner Field had a lot of dark blue) and a better location.

2. The locations differ. Busch Stadium is at the south end of the downtown with its southern edge bordering Interstate 64 while Turner Field is a few miles south of downtown along Interstate 75. There really is nothing to see or do around Turner Field while one can easily walk from Busch Stadium to the Gateway Arch. Even with these options in St. Louis, more could be done to surround the stadium with fan-friendly areas instead of open space.

3. The two games offered some fun moments. The best part of the Atlanta game was watching the home team come from behind to win in the bottom of the 9th. The best part of the St. Louis game was to watch Aroldis Chapman of the Cincinnati Reds. In his third big league appearance, Chapman threw multiple pitches over 100 miles per hour, peaking at 103 mph. Chapman also faced Albert Pujols with one on and one out in the bottom of the 8th – Chapman induced an inning-ending double-play groundout.

4. It is a little hard to compare crowds since I was at Turner Field on a Monday night and at Busch Stadium on a beautiful Saturday afternoon during a key series with the first-place Cincinnati Reds. However: Atlanta had a pitiful crowd considering the team was in first place and playing well. The St. Louis crowd was enthusiastic throughout, even with their team down 4 and 5 runs in the last two innings. I felt bad for the Atlanta players as they deserved a better crowd.

5. One feature I strongly disliked in both stadiums: they both had people speaking to the crowd between innings. While this is probably done to keep fans attentive, I found it annoying. This is the sort of thing I would associate with minor league parks where the baseball quality is lower so fans need to be entertained in other ways. Fans at major league games should find plenty to do without needing to be entertained all the time by special entertainers.

6. A final thing I noticed: both teams prominently featured their past accomplishments. The Cardinals’ scoreboard consistently included the line “ten-time world champions.” The Braves set of pennants in the outfield commemorating their incredible playoff streak from the 1990s through the 2000s was impressive.

7. Final thought: I enjoyed visiting both stadiums and seeing some good baseball.

Quick Review: Getting It Wrong

Posted on by

The media seems to have a lot of influence as they both report on and shape perceptions of events. However, they can be wrong or overstate their importance. Journalism professor W. Joseph Campbell examines 10 media myths in the book Getting It Wrong: Ten of the Greatest Misreported Stories in American Journalism. Some thoughts on this interesting look at history and the media:

1. This is an interesting set of 10 events that includes William Randolph Hearst and his role in starting the 1898 war with Spain, Edward Murrow and challenging Joseph McCarthy, Walter Cronkite supposedly ending the hopes of Lyndon Johnson for winning in Vietnam, Woodward and Bernstein in their role in Watergate, and Hurricane Katrina. Many of the events are critical moments in history where a certain story has taken hold even though it is erroneous or misguided.

2. One issue that comes up in a number of cases is that of media figures overstating their influence. Take the incident between Murrow and Joseph McCarthy. While Murrow did preside over a scathing look at McCarthy, Campbell shows how the tide had already turned against McCarthy. Murrow was not the first to challenge the Wisconsin Senator and yet the story was built up over time to suggest that Murrow was the major force in bringing down McCarthy. Campbell suggests a lot of this happens because media figures build up the story over time to honor their own. Another case involves Walter Cronkite. For years after his 1968 editorializing against the Vietnam War, Cronkite said his statement didn’t matter much. However, a few years before his death, he changed his tune and started buying into the idea that he really had turned the tide.

3. Another issue that Campbell introduces is the inability of the media to reflect on its own problems, particularly when historical facts suggest the original story was wrong. Even with strong evidence in a number of these cases, media figures have continued to perpetuate narratives that highlight the role of their colleagues. When media outlets do reflect on mistakes or issues, they tend to bury these stories.

Overall, I enjoyed reading this book. With doses of history plus some thinking about what influence the media actually has, Campbell provides a cautionary tale. As important gatekeepers of knowledge, the media has a critical role in society that includes keeping track and improving upon its own record.

Quick Review: an Amtrak short trip

Posted on by

In order to visit family, I recently traveled by Amtrak from Naperville, IL to Quincy, IL and back. I haven’t been on Amtrak for years – and so I’ll share a few thoughts.

1. The advantages to Amtrak travel: larger seats than found in coach sections in airplanes, plenty of space for luggage, a quicker trip than driving (4 hours one way and 3.5 on the return compared to 5 hours driving), the ability to read/do other things while traveling (instead of sitting behind a steering wheel), a reasonable round-trip price (cheaper than the gas would have cost and no extra wear on my vehicle), a generally quiet ride.

2. The disadvantages: limited travel times (either very early in the morning or later in the evening), no car to drive once arriving at my destination plus need someone to pickup/drive to the train station, having to travel with more people, a snack car with very limited offerings.

3. The kind of route I traveled seems to be one where the train could be positioned to succeed: the train cuts down on the travel time, the price is reasonable, and there is no competition from airlines. At the same time, there can’t be too much traffic on this route – while there were more people than I expected (undoubtedly helped by the fact that the train was linked to the third largest metropolitan area in the country), I imagine it might be difficult to generate revenue.

Overall: it was a good trip but there could be a lot of factors that would push me to drive instead. Perhaps this is an American perspective: driving is the default mode unless another form of transportation is an overwhelmingly better option. I could see why there are proponents of high-speed rail (and there are major plans to have a network in the Midwest that centers around Chicago): it would offer a helpful and needed alternative to driving.