Resurrection

wizbuzz >> Uncategorized>> Resurrection

Resurrection

The article traces how Resurrection (1994) transformed Common from a marginal, derivative MC into one of Chicago’s defining hip-hop voices. It begins by reframing Chicago’s identity not through tourist clichés—skylines, sports icons, deep-dish pizza—but through the lakefront, the everyday backdrop of the city’s residents. This lens becomes a way to understand Resurrection, whose CD art literally features the sun rising over Lake Michigan. The album captures the textures of South Side life in the early ’90s: cruising Lake Shore Drive, biking through parks, hanging out at beaches, absorbing the city’s complexity beyond its media caricature.

The article contrasts Common’s debut, Can I Borrow a Dollar?, which leaned on forced Chicagoness and borrowed styles, with the creative and personal growth fueling Resurrection. Between these albums, hip-hop changed—Dr. Dre’s The Chronic, Nas’ ascent, and the rise of jazz-sampling East Coast aesthetics pushed Common to deepen his writing. Under producer No I.D.’s evolution—moving from drum-first beats to jazz-steeped, emotion-rich sample constructions—Common found a new voice. He began composing his lyrics mentally while driving the lakefront, a process that mirrored improvisational jazz.

Resurrection is framed as a unified work of lyricism and atmosphere. Tracks range from playful word experiments to earnest self-reflection. Songs like “Book of Life,” “Thisisme,” and especially “Nuthin’ to Do” capture middle-class Black youth in Chicago with specificity and melancholy, pushing back against national portrayals of the South Side as irredeemably violent. The article also places the album within the tragic context of early ’90s Chicago violence, highlighting how Common portrayed complexity rather than sensationalism.

The narrative then covers “I Used to Love H.E.R.,” its conceptual reputation, and the ensuing feud with Ice Cube—an exchange culminating in the scathing diss track “The Bitch In Yoo.” The beef dissipated only after the deaths of Biggie and 2Pac and minister Louis Farrakhan’s intervention at the 1997 Hip-Hop Summit. Despite modest sales, Resurrection earned Common artistic legitimacy, inspired his eventual name change, and set the stage for his later career: the Soulquarians era, experimental work, acting, awards, and near-EGOT status. Through all of this, the article closes, the lake—and the Chicago spirit embedded in Resurrection—remains constant.

This article is a rich, elegantly argued appreciation of Resurrection and Common’s artistic emergence. Its greatest strength is its seamless blending of biography, musical analysis, and Chicago cultural history. Rather than recounting facts, the writer uses place—Lake Michigan as symbol and motif—to articulate how geography shaped one of hip-hop’s most introspective voices. The opening images are especially strong, reframing Chicago from stereotype to lived reality and positioning Resurrection as a sonic map of mid-’90s South Side life.

The analysis of Common’s growth is sharp and persuasive. The contrast between Can I Borrow a Dollar? and Resurrection is rendered with both humor and empathy, showing an artist fumbling for authenticity before discovering a style rooted in jazz, local identity, and emotional honesty. The exploration of No I.D.’s production is a highlight, explaining not just the album’s sound but how that sound emerged—from digging techniques to compositional philosophy. The author also excels at contextualizing the album within broader hip-hop shifts, from Dre’s G-funk dominance to Nas’ lyrical precision.

Most compelling is the treatment of “Nuthin’ to Do,” which the author positions as the album’s emotional core. Their argument—that Common provides a counter-narrative to media portrayals of Chicago as a warzone—is both historically grounded and politically sharp. The article navigates sociological and musical insight without preaching.

Where the piece wobbles slightly is in its treatment of “I Used to Love H.E.R.” The writer’s impatience with the song’s legacy (“a sly gimmick,” “mind-blown emojis”) will strike some readers as contrarian for its own sake. Still, the criticism is well-reasoned, even if overstated.

The long coda about Common’s subsequent career path is amusing and humanizing, though it risks diluting the tight focus of the earlier sections. Yet the closing image—the sun rising over Lake Michigan, unchanged despite Common’s transformations—beautifully anchors the essay in place and memory.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *