We're happy to be nominated in four categories for the Reader's 2024 Best of Chicago poll. Find them all here and cast your ballot by December 31!
We're happy to be nominated in four categories for the Reader's 2024 Best of Chicago poll. Find them all here and cast your ballot by December 31!
Requests? 773-DJ-SONGS or .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)
by Andy Frye
If you follow music at all, you have heard the news: Oasis are back together. With concert dates next summer scheduled in London, Cardiff, Dublin, and other locations, tickets across the pond are selling fast. Is there new material? Supposedly, there is an album in the works. In related news, Liam Gallagher says his brother Noel is no longer a "potato."
Why reform Oasis now? Some might say… It's all about the money. Either way, many of us who dug in hard to their first two albums a quarter-century ago are celebrating. To others, the band is still—to say the least—a little polarizing.
Looking back, what appears to irk people most about Oasis, at least in the U.S., is both about the music—and not about the music. Some of the dislike of the band is more about the two brothers' personalities. Or—at least back then in the '90s—the size of their footprint on music.
But with the more prominent bands from the 1990s it seems to come with the territory. Ask anyone on the street about one of the most popular acts of the decade—not Nirvana, but the Dave Matthews Band and you'll surely get different reactions. Some consider DMB not much different from smooth jazz (something about which we all have a pointed opinion.) There are strong opinions about Green Day, Alanis Morrissette, and the Red Hot Chili Peppers. Like them or not, each artist was an essential part of the late 20th-century musical ecosystem.