DreamTheaterForums.org Dream Theater Fan Site

General => General Music Discussion => Topic started by: Orbert on July 12, 2013, 11:18:24 PM

Title: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on July 12, 2013, 11:18:24 PM
Another Orbert Discography, this time from my first favorite band, the band originally known as:

The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)

(https://i.imgur.com/aZtIFMo.jpg)


That was originally the back cover, even though CDs tend to put that on the front nowadays.  The front cover originally looked like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/Y6nXmRz.jpg)


Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Background Vocals
Walt Parazaider - Saxophone, Background Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums

----------

Introduction  6:35
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?  4:33
Beginnings  7:58
Questions 67 and 68  5:04
Listen  3:22
Poem 58  8:37
Free Form Guitar  6:53
South California Purples  6:10
I'm a Man  7:40
Prologue, August 29, 1968  0:57
Someday (August 29, 1968)  4:13
Liberation  15:41


They wanted to do something different, play rock music with a full-time horn section as an integral part of the sound, not just added here and there.  They started out fusing rock with jazz, later adding a pinch of classical, country and western, and anything else that was handy.  They arrived on the music scene at exactly the right time for such a formula to work, and it worked well.  They are second only to The Beach Boys as the most successful American rock band, in terms of albums, singles, and total records in the charts.

They met in Chicago, where the horn section went to DePaul University and pianist/organist Robert Lamm went to Roosevelt University.  Lamm had a stack of songs he'd been writing while looking for a band to play them in.  He sang and played piano and organ, and said he could cover the bass parts with the pedals, so all they needed was a guitar and drums.  Guitarist Terry Kath and drummer Danny Seraphine were already working in the local clubs, but were both intrigued by the idea of rock with big-band jazz overtones.  Also, Terry could sing, and his rough baritone voice was a nice contrast to Robert's high baritone/low tenor.

It turned out that they really needed a bass player after all, as Robert hadn't actually learned to play the pedals yet, so bassist Peter Cetera was brought on board.  He had a high tenor voice which again provided a different color.  With three lead singers, three horns, guitar, keys, bass, and drums, the lineup was complete.  Their sound was so big that their debut album was a double studio LP, which was unheard-of at the time and is still very rare.

Most songs on the early albums were written by Lamm, but the debut opens with Terry Kath's aptly titled "Introduction".  From the opening bars, you know you're in for something different.  Two syncopated beats by the rhythm section are followed immediately by a horn riff which starts off in unison but eventually breaks into harmony reminiscent of big band or even be-bop.  As the song unfolds, Terry tells us a little bit about the band and asks us to just "let us play for you".  We take a musical trip from the jazz clubs on State Street in Chicago to the bars of Los Angeles.  We get the first of many horns breaks in odd time signatures (arrangements courtesy of Pankow), followed by trombone, trumpet, and guitar solos each in a different key and tempo, and finally the last verse ("now we've put you through the changes") and a syncopated, atonal ending.  As it turns out, every one of these would become Chicago trademarks, but they're all here in a six and a half minute tour-de-force.  An "Introduction" indeed.

Just to remind you to continue to expect the unexpected, the very next song starts with a free-form jazz piano solo.  A full minute of improvisation passes before we hear the now-familiar horn fanfare which opens "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?", a musing on whether anybody really knows or cares about time and the first of five Lamm compositions in a row.  But again, just to keep you on your toes, we go from 4/4 to 5/8 to 3/4 and back to 4/4 all before the first verse starts, and this was all after that jazz piano solo.

"Beginnings" pushes a few new boundaries.  After two verses, we get a breakdown, a quick four-bar horn break, then a slow build up to the trumpet and trombone swapping fours a few times, jazz style, then combining for a duet (all ad-lib) and a final chorus.  During the chorus repeats, a new Latin percussion instrument is added every four bars, and after the regular instruments fade out, the Latin percussion continues for another full minute.  This concluded Side One of the original LP.

"Questions 67 and 68" opens Side Two and introduces Peter Cetera on lead vocals on Chicago's first single.  It made it to #71 on the Billboard singles chart.  Not exactly a hit, but not bad for a new band.  It would later be re-released (nearly two years later, after the success of Chicago's second album) and reach #24.  It introduces another Chicago device, a composed horn break with the guitar ad-libbing underneath.  And it ends with yet another Chicago trademark: the song is in the key of C, and it ends with a long, sustained "C" chord on the piano.  Each of the first ten albums has at least one song ending with "a big C".

"Listen" is the shortest song on the album, and even a bit redundant, as its message is basically the same as "Introduction".  It entreats the listener to set aside preconceptions, make some time, and just listen.  The break is another ad-libbed guitar solo while the horns played a composed part.

"Poem 58" turns things around again.  It starts off with a catchy, syncopated riff, then dives immediately into an extended guitar solo which lasts over half of the song.  The song proper has only two verses, separated by another guitar solo and a horn break, but at over eight and a half minutes, is another mini-epic.

"Free Form Guitar" is a track which tends to divide listeners.  Terry Kath plugged his Fender Stratocaster directly into his Showman amp and did his best Jimi Hendrix imitation.  No pedals, everything recorded live in the studio.  Chicago would later open for Jimi on his tour, and according to the stories, Jimi would exclaim "Your horns breathe like one set of lungs, and your guitarist is better than me!"

"South California Purples" is, of course, really just the blues with horns.  Another Lamm composition, this time about missing Chicago and how depressing Southern California really is.  Six of the seven members were born in Chicago, and all of them grew up there.  They moved to L.A. to pursue their dream, but paying your dues is never easy, and it's telling that three of the 12 songs on their debut album bring it up.

Like all bands, Chicago started out playing covers.  Their version of The Spencer Davis Group's "I'm a Man" was so unique that they wanted to include it here.  Terry sings the first verse, Peter sings the second, and Robert sings the third.  After the break, they come back and repeat the second and third verse, but add the horns as well.

"Prologue, August 29, 1968" is a short track, an actual recording made at the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.  But it's not a happy recording.  It captures the sounds of black militants protesting and the efforts of Chicago police to get them to disperse.  The chant "The whole world's watching" is repeated over and over, and its rhythm is joined by instruments one at a time, seguing into "Someday (August 29, 1968)".  Together, the two tracks form one of the more obvious examples of Chicago's final influence, which is 60's protest music.

"Liberation" is the closing track, an instrumental recorded in one take in the studio.  It starts with two instrumental verses, then goes into an extended guitar solo before going through several changes and coming back to the horns for the ending.  It's credited to James Pankow, who obviously wrote the horn parts, but the real star here, as on so many of the early tracks, is Terry Kath on guitar.

----------

Campus radio stations were starting to have an influence on what ultimately became popular and sold a lot.  Also helping change the musical landscape was the advent of FM radio.  With its better sound quality than AM, rock music was no longer just something to put on at parties and for dancing, but people would actually sit and listen to rock music.  Rock responded by becoming more sophisticated.  It had matured and was ready to cross-breed with jazz, classical, and other mature musical forms.

On its initial release, The Chicago Transit Authority made it to #17 without a hit single.  It was "album-oriented" music.  FM stations played it, young people marveled at the sound, then went and bought it, took it home, and did the same thing.  Just played it over and over.  "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" and "Beginnings" weren't hits until after the second album had come out.  Chicago's producer, James William Guercio, was an exec at Columbia Records, and he saw to it that The Chicago Transit Authority was not forgotten by releasing those two songs, and re-releasing "Questions 67 and 68", while eventually tapping the second album for three singles as well.

While it's true the LPs aren't as long as CDs, and most double LPs from the 60's and 70's fit on a single CD, it's also true that the debut album by a band being a double was unheard-of.  Chicago's first, second, and third albums were all doubles, a feat which has never been matched, and probably never will be.  Then their live album was a quadruple set.  But I'm getting ahead of myself now.

By pretty much any measure, this album was amazing and groundbreaking.  The closet thing to it was Blood, Sweat & Tears' first album, also produced by James William Guercio.  It too featured a horn section and a fusion of rock and jazz.  And while the BS&T debut was also very good, Guercio basically produced that album so he could raise some money to fund his pet project, The Chicago Transit Authority, who he both managed and produced.  When Columbia balked at letting them do a double LP for their debut, he convinced the band to take a reduced royalty percentage as a compromise.  For the first decade, Chicago didn't make a move that wasn't approved by Guercio.

But enough about the politics.  Let's talk about the music.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: sueño on July 12, 2013, 11:24:52 PM
Lord, let me rev up YouTube tomorrow.   Definitely wanna contribute on this thread.

Gracias for starting it, Orbert!   :tup
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: LieLowTheWantedMan on July 12, 2013, 11:32:04 PM
Great album. :)
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Nel on July 12, 2013, 11:33:53 PM
This album is soooo good. "Does Anybody Know What Time It Is?", "Beginnings"... this was a fantastic debut.

I'll hang onto this as long as I can, Orbert. My love for Chicago is strong for the first few albums, but curls up and dies around Chicago V-VIII. It's nice to see one of these threads again though. For a band I know, I mean.  :D
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Jaq on July 12, 2013, 11:35:00 PM
As I mentioned elsewhere, it was Orbert singing the praises of the Carnegie Hall live album that got me to look into early Chicago, and wow, glad I did. Need to give this another spin so I can properly comment on it, but it's a great album.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Big Hath on July 12, 2013, 11:40:05 PM
simply a fantastic debut album.  #36 on my top 50 list.  Such a great full, raw sound.  They had thick voicings covered in the vocals and the horns.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: ReaperKK on July 13, 2013, 06:41:04 AM
I know nothing about Chicago so this will be really awesome to follow.

On a side note did The Beatles one ever get finished?
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Cyclopssss on July 13, 2013, 07:23:02 AM
Great write up! Great band as well.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: sueño on July 13, 2013, 08:29:07 AM
Just woke up to Saturday in the Park and 25 or 6 to 4.   :hefdaddy

Interesting bit on Prologue, August 29, 1968.  That's my sister's birth date. 

Choice tunes!   :tup
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Orbert on July 13, 2013, 08:47:28 AM
I know nothing about Chicago so this will be really awesome to follow.

On a side note did The Beatles one ever get finished?

I don't think so.  I was willing to take that one over, but I wasn't going to do it without Sir Bradford's okay, since it was his thread, and he never came back.  I actually kinda forgot about it.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on July 13, 2013, 08:54:32 AM
Great thread idea, and a great excuse to listen to this amazing album again - it's been a while.

Orbert, great OP.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: King Postwhore on July 13, 2013, 11:13:58 AM
Can't say enough about this album.  This is one of those albums that you never get sick of.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: sueño on July 13, 2013, 12:20:01 PM
Can't say enough about this album.  This is one of those albums that you never get sick of.

It's on Amazon for $4.99!!   :omg:

And it is coming my way!
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Orbert on July 13, 2013, 01:36:33 PM
Ha ha, that's probably how much I paid for the album originally, 40 or so years ago.  That's a great deal.  You will enjoy.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: theseoafs on July 13, 2013, 01:39:27 PM
As I said in the classic rock thread, this is one of the best debut albums ever released, and definitely one of the best rock albums ever, period.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: ytserush on July 13, 2013, 02:22:01 PM
The beginning of a 9 year period that is as great as any in post Beatles history.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: King Postwhore on July 13, 2013, 02:47:15 PM
Can't say enough about this album.  This is one of those albums that you never get sick of.

It's on Amazon for $4.99!!   :omg:

And it is coming my way!

Great call.  You'll love it.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: sirbradford117 on July 13, 2013, 03:10:13 PM
I WILL be following!  Can't wait!
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Orbert on July 13, 2013, 03:31:12 PM
Bradford, you're alive!

So about that Beatles discography...
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: sirbradford117 on July 13, 2013, 04:38:10 PM
I know nothing about Chicago so this will be really awesome to follow.

On a side note did The Beatles one ever get finished?

I don't think so.  I was willing to take that one over, but I wasn't going to do it without Sir Bradford's okay, since it was his thread, and he never came back.  I actually kinda forgot about it.

It's still on my "to-do" list to launch it again...
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Orbert on July 13, 2013, 04:40:24 PM
Cool. :hat
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: ReaperKK on July 13, 2013, 06:23:35 PM
I know nothing about Chicago so this will be really awesome to follow.

On a side note did The Beatles one ever get finished?

I don't think so.  I was willing to take that one over, but I wasn't going to do it without Sir Bradford's okay, since it was his thread, and he never came back.  I actually kinda forgot about it.

You should finish it if you ever have the time, I love reading and listening along, especially since I know very little beatles music.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: The Letter M on July 13, 2013, 09:49:02 PM
Brought CTA into the car with me today to listen to as I commute around over the next day or so. Going to be following this thread as I got in to Chicago awhile ago and I own most of their first 11 albums, but I've since shelved their music since, but this will allow me to revisit their material along with others!

The first album is indeed a GREAT debut, and in fact, I've enjoyed the first three albums (all doubles originally on vinyl!) ever since I got in to them! GREAT run of albums and you can't really go wrong with any three of them, but to come out of the gate at full speed with this album, it must have been something truly spectacular when it was originally released!

And speaking of The Beatles, their song "Got To Get You Into My Life" (from Revolver) was a huge influence on the formation of Chicago, which I always found interesting. Had The Beatles not released that song (with horns at least), we may have never had Chicago as it once was!

-Marc.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Orbert on July 13, 2013, 10:27:01 PM
That's true.  The Beatles set the mold for "regular" rock bands (two guitars, bass, drums) then later fractured that by adding strings, horns, clarinets, or whatever they felt the song needed, or one of them playing keyboards, or switching around who plays bass and who plays guitar, or...

But anyway, yeah, the horns were a pretty big deal when they showed up on Revolver; more than you might think, and it's pretty clear that Robert Lamm is a huge Beatles fan.  A number of early Chicago songs have Beatles quotes in them.

"I've got to get you into my life" in "Beginnings".  It's during an ad-libbed part, but he does it on the live album as well.
"I am he as you are he and you are we and we are all together" (or whatever the heck it is) in "South California Purples".
I know there are others, but I can't think of them right now.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: sueño on July 13, 2013, 10:47:10 PM
Earth Wind & Fire didn't do a bad job with "Got to Get You Into My Life", either.   I love horn sections!
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Laich21DT on July 14, 2013, 12:55:07 AM
Damn, great OP Orbert. That was truly an enlightening read.  :tup

I love this album. I've only heard the first few albums, and of course all of the hits, but this has to be my favorite so far. I think CTA is in the discussion for one of the best debuts albums of all time. They sound incredibly tight, and you can tell that they are a bunch of inspired young men. Each lead singer brings something unique to the table, the horns are obviously amazing, Kath was a monster on guitar and was almost ahead of his time, Cetera was an underrated bassist imo, and Seraphine was there to hold all that madness together, whom I also feel is underrated.

Favorites for me are Poem 58 - that guitar solo is so captivating! And Introduction.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: JayOctavarium on July 14, 2013, 09:47:18 AM
Sweet!

I have never listened to Chicago but I think that is going to change. I LOVE these threads... The ELP one really got my juices flowing :zydar:
Title: Re: Chicago: The Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Post by: Orbert on July 14, 2013, 10:47:50 AM
I'm glad people are digging this one.  Chicago was my first "favorite band".  The first three albums I ever owned were all by Chicago.  I've wanted to do the Chicago discography for a while, but like many longtime fans, I became disillusioned with them in the 80's and 90's when their sound seemed to change.  Terry had died, and took the heart and soul of the band with him, but as I said in the Classic Rock thread, you can't blame the band for wanting to continue.  They still had a ton a talent and plenty of good music to make, and it wasn't their fault that the music scene had changed and all anyone wanted to hear was Peter's ballads and songs about failed love affairs.

I always pictured the guys from Chicago as being pretty comfortable, but not exactly multi-millionaires.  They split the royalties seven ways, and later eight ways, and that was at a reduced percentage to begin with.  They had to keep working to pay the bills, and basically that's all they knew how to do anyway.  So they kept making new albums, even though most people still just wanted to hear "25 or 6 to 4" and "Make Me Smile".

Anyway, I stopped following Chicago around then, but in recent years I've worked on accumulating their entire discography, minus the countless "greatest hits" packages and repackages and maybe a few of the live albums of dubious authenticity.  I didn't want to do a discography thread and stop it at a certain point and say "Well, they got boring beyond this point."  You have to do these things properly.

A couple of final thoughts on the first album.  These are long songs.  Remember that in 1969, songs were still two and a half minute pop songs, three minutes max.  Two verses, maybe a break, then either a quick third verse or just another chorus, and you're done.  Chicago, in their own way, were prog.  The extended jazz solos, changing time and key signatures, fast and slow movements within the same song, nonstandard song structures, and of course the horns as a "lead instrument".  Maybe not prog in the same sense as Genesis or Yes, but Chicago helped push the boundaries and broaden the scope of rock and roll, and what you could play and still call it rock and roll.
Title: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 16, 2013, 09:02:56 PM
Chicago (1970)

(https://i.imgur.com/DPVkVY3.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Background Vocals
Walt Parazaider - Saxophone, Flute, Background Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums

----------

Movin' In  4:06
The Road  3:10
Poem for the People  5:31
In the Country  6:34
Wake Up Sunshine  2:29
Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon  12:55
  Make Me Smile
  So Much to Say, So Much to Give
  Anxiety's Moment
  West Virginia Fantasies
  Colour My World
  To Be Free
  Now More Than Ever
Fancy Colours  5:10
25 or 6 to 4  4:50
Prelude  1:18
A.M. Mourning  2:05
P.M. Mourning  1:59
Memories of Love  4:01
It Better End Soon  10:24
  1st Movement
  2nd Movement
  3rd Movement
  4th Movement
Where Do We Go from Here?  2:53


The real Chicago Transit Authority, the government-run entity which oversees mass transit in the Chicago area, threatened to sue The Chicago Transit Authority, the band.  Because obviously it would be too easy to mistake a rock and roll band for a bus company and accidentally buy a record album when you meant to purchase a ticket to Wheeling.  The band's manager and producer, James William Guercio, decided to just change the name of the band rather than try to fight them, since they were clearly out of their minds.  He didn't think the city of Chicago would mind having a band named after it, so the band became Chicago.

This album, therefore, was the second eponymous debut album in a row by the same band, something that I'm pretty sure has never been done before or since.  It is often catalogued as "Chicago II" as the band would later fall into a pattern of giving their albums Roman numeral designations, but the proper title of the album is Chicago.

The first album had some long songs, some with atypical structures.  This album pushed things in a different direction.  After the first side, which consists of four "regular" songs, each of the remaining sides is dominated by a suite of songs, each written by one of the band's main composers.  In the LP days, an album was naturally divided into two (or four) "sets".  It sometimes presented logistical challenges, but also opportunities to sequence and arrange the songs for maximum effect

"Movin' In" is a James Pankow song, yet another "introduction" to the band.  We've gotten one from each of the three main writers.  Sung by Terry Kath, it explains that this is what they've chosen to do, as hard as that may be to understand.  Not a bad song, and the break features jazz solos from the saxophone, trumpet, and trombone.

"The Road" is a Terry Kath composition, sung by Peter Cetera.  I mentioned in the CTA writeup that Terry didn't write many songs, but they were often unusual and, to me, interesting because his approach is so unconventional.  His choice of chords and cadences is often way outside the box.  The song is in 4/4, but it has an odd cadence, and each verse ends with a quick horn break with bars of 6/4 and 5/4.

"Poem for the People" is written and sung by Robert Lamm, and brings back one of his favorite themes: concern for the future, based on what he sees happening in the present.  It's a quiet, sad song, but features two horn breaks, both fully composed, which are uptempo and provide some nice contrast.

"In the Country" is another Terry Kath song, this time sung by Terry, with Peter taking a few lines here and there for contrast.  Once again, we get some interesting changes.  My favorite comes at the end of the break where, after a few modulations, they end up singing an A-flat sus4 chord, with Terry on the 4th (D-flat), and he holds the note while the chord changes to A, and now it's the 3rd (and thus is technically a C-sharp) and we've recapitulated back to the original key, all while he's holding the same note.  It's a brilliant, masterful key change.

"Wake Up Sunshine", a nice little song by Lamm, opens Side Two.  He sings the verses and Cetera sings the break.  Chicago completely exploited the fact that they had three lead vocalists.  The contrast between the voices accompanies changes in the music quite naturally and often very effectively.  Anyway, "Wake Up Sunshine" almost feels like a intro to the rather famous suite which follows it and rounds out the side.

The original title was "Ballet for a Girl in Buckhannon" because James Pankow's girlfriend lived and went to school in Buckhannon, West Virginia.  It was mispelled on the album and has been known forever after as the "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon", but the band insists that it at least be pronounced properly ("buck-hannon").  It's a suite in seven movements, and spawned two of the three singles from Chicago (the third being "25 or 6 to 4").

The suite opens with an amazing extended fanfare by the horns which leads into the first song, "Make Me Smile".  After two verses, a horn break, and a guitar solo, it segues directly into "So Much to Say, So Much to Give", a slow, angst-filled song expressing the frustration of living apart from the one you love.  It changes halfway through, becoming a bit more optimistic, then gets darker again before moving into the next piece, "Anxiety's Moment".  "Anxiety's Moment" is an instrumental, a trumpet solo by Lee Loughnane, which goes directly into the next movement.

"West Virginia Fantasies" is a brilliant instrumental in 3/4.  It starts as a trumpet solo, with the trumpet soon joined by a flute.  The two continue as a duet with the parts weaving around each other, then the key changes and we get a contrasting duet by the guitar and organ.  Another change, and the trumpet, sax, and trumpet play a trio that builds and builds, then slows down to a C7, leading us into the next movement, "Colour My World".  "Colour My World' was released as a single, but it's a very unusual song in terms of structure.  The piano intro takes us through an entire verse, then there is one sung verse, then a flute solo for a verse, and then the song ends.  It's the only full stop in the suite.  (Technically the C7 leading into "Colour My World" is a stop, but it doesn't resolve.  The end of "Colour My World" resolves.)

Things break loose again with "To Be Free", an uptempo instrumental that leads us into the closing section, "Now More Than Ever".  The suite closes with another amazing horn break, and of course "a big C".  When I saw Chicago in 1996, Robert Lamm introduced the "ballet" by saying (paraphrased but very close): "Here's a song that Jimmy wrote that we didn't have room for on the first album, and by time we recorded the second album, he'd written this entire piece of music around it."  I found that interesting, because "Make Me Smile" and "Now More Than Ever" are the bookends and clearly form the basis of the suite.  I've also heard the story of how "Jimmy" wrote "Colour My World" after hearing a Mozart piano piece, and now I wonder if it came first, and he literally wrote the ballet "around" it, or if Robert was just using an expression and "Make Me Smile" really was first, and the other bits filled things in, and led us into and out of "Colour My World".  If I ever meet Robert Lamm or James Pankow, I will certainly ask them.

"Make Me Smile" was released as a single, creatively edited from the ballet, with "Now More Than Ever" serving as its third verse (which it is).  In the original edit, the horn fanfare at the beginning is omitted, as is the break at the end.  It skips the guitar solo from "Make Me Smile" and jumps immediately to the recap leading into "Now More Than Ever".  I've also heard a longer edit which keeps both the intro and outro, and the guitar solo.  With three horn breaks and a guiter solo, it's a much more satisfying edit, and of course songs are allowed to be a bit longer nowadays.

Supposedly, Frank Sinatra really loved the song "Colour My World" and wanted to record it, but it only has the one verse.  He asked Pankow to write a second verse, but Pankow wasn't interested.  A lot of writers would've jumped at the chance to have Old Blues Eyes sing one of their songs, but the song is what it is.

"Fancy Colours" open Side Three of the original LP, with the sounds of wind chimes in each speaker.  A Robert Lamm composition, it's a neat song, a bit psychedelic I suppose, with some clever wordplay in the lyrics and some great flute playing courtesy of Walt Parazaider.  It has the "fake-out" ending which we discussed in Big Hath's "Chicago: Top Songs Thread".

As the story goes, Robert Lamm was up late, well into the early morning hours.  He couldn't sleep, so he wondered if he should try to do some more writing.  He kept hearing this riff in his head, over and over.  (Perhaps he'd recently caught Led Zeppelin's "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" or Procol Harum's "Simple Sister" -- both of which have very similar riffs -- on the radio.)  Outside on the street below, a police car goes by, without the siren on, but he can see the lights reflecting against the low clouds.  He looks at the clock through blurry eyes, and it's 25, no, 26 minutes to 4.  Whatever.  It's "25 or 6 to 4"

The next four tracks, which round out Side Three, form a suite, but they aren't indicated as such anywhere on the album.  There's no question that they go together, however, since they segue, and they were all written by Terry Kath, with some orchestration help from his buddy Peter Matz.  "Prelude" is a theme and variations on the melody from the main song, "Memories of Love".  It's introduced on the flute, later joined by strings, reeds and brass.  "A.M. Mourning" brings some development, "P.M. Mourning" has a beautiful trombone solo, a few more changes and more development, eventually leading into "Memories of Love".  It's a nice little suite, a bit of chamber music really, and very different from anything Chicago would do until Chicago XI, when drummer Danny Seraphine would put together a similar suite based on "Little One", a song written for his daughter (and sung by Terry).

Side Four is dominated by a Robert Lamm composition entitled "It Better End Soon".  Written about the Viet Nam war, its themes are universal, as war tends to always create the same issues.  People die.  Some are for it, some are against it, some have no idea why it's going on, and some are sure they know exactly what's going on, but still it continues.  The 1st and 4th Movements open and close the song, while the 2nd Movement is a flute solo, and the 3rd Movement is a "preach", spoken-sung by Terry, about the war, and what we, the people, should do about it.  Robert Lamm's protest music again.

The album closes with Peter Cetera's sole contribution, "Where Do We Go From Here?"  After seeing the Apollo 11 moon landing, many thought we'd done pretty much everything man could do.  So where do we go from here?  The answer, of course, is right here.  How about working on solving problems here at home?

----------

Wow, there's so much music here, and I've been listening to these albums for so long, that this could easily be two or three times as long.  And it would be, if I hadn't forced myself to be pretty ruthless with the editing.  Believe me, for every sentence here, I think I've written and cut at least one or two.  But I'll stop for now.  Discuss!
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Shadow Ninja 2.0 on July 16, 2013, 09:08:15 PM
Hey, I'm not much of a Chicago fan, but I want to thank you for the work you've put into this. They're one of my dad's favorite bands, so maybe this will help me get into them. :tup
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Nel on July 16, 2013, 09:17:25 PM
Yet another awesome release by them. When I ripped the CD into iTunes, I combined all the suites into single tracks (Ballet, Better End Soon, Prelude-Mourning-Memory Of Love).

And it has "25 or 6 to 4", which alone is almost enough to make it essential.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: masterthes on July 16, 2013, 10:22:59 PM
Ballet is probably my favorite work from Chicago
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Big Hath on July 16, 2013, 10:35:46 PM
this album is spectacular.  These guys were on fire, creatively.  And so much talent instrumentally as well as vocally.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 16, 2013, 11:35:32 PM
I love "Colour My World".  It is so beautiful!

Guess I'm gonna have to get this album, too.  Glad tomorrow is payday and Amazon's got them cheap.   :tup  Thanks so much for your hard work, Orbert!

Edit:  $4.99 plus auto-rip digital copy.  Yay!
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: The Letter M on July 16, 2013, 11:55:00 PM
Been spinning the second album in my car over the last couple days as I ride around on my commutes. GREAT music on here, especially "25 Or 6 To 4", as well as all the suites. Definitely one of my favorites, and I think, still a bit better than their debut! I shall be following this thread at least through XI (with the exception of IX, which I believe is a compilation anyway).

-Marc.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: jammindude on July 17, 2013, 05:51:45 AM
LOVE this thread, and I truly appreciate the hard work you're putting into this.   Having done QR and FW album discussions over at the MP forum, I know just how much time and energy it takes.  (It's more than most people might imagine)

I only own II, III, V, VII and X...and even those only on vinyl, which I don't have as much time for lately.    But I will be following these discussions very closely.   Heck, I only recently "discovered" this band myself.   Within the last 6 months??
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 17, 2013, 06:19:51 AM
Woot!  Just got these two (and Aja)!!

Shall be jammin' in the car on the way to work soon!    :metal

Edit:  Listening to these lyrics... :'(  so nice...

Quote
As time goes on, I realize
Just what you mean to me.
And now, now that you're near,
Promise your love that I've waited to share
And dreams of our moments together.
Colour my world with hopes of loving you

A short, simple, very sweet song (obviously a slow dance groove for the kiddies of the day ;) ). I'd love to be longer but it's perfect,  really.   Beautiful,  beautiful voice!
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 17, 2013, 07:52:54 AM
LOVE this thread, and I truly appreciate the hard work you're putting into this.   Having done QR and FW album discussions over at the MP forum, I know just how much time and energy it takes.  (It's more than most people might imagine)

Thanks.  And about the time... tell me about it.  I usually set aside two hours for each installment, but these Chicago entries have taken three to three and half hours each so far.  The first one because there was all the background I wanted to get in, and this one because there's so many tracks and I like to at least say something about each one.  Fortunately, I know that it'll get easier once we get past the first live album.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 17, 2013, 07:57:34 AM
Okay.  Do not like "Free Form Guitar".  At all.  Over seven minutes of discordance...no.   :angry:

That is all.   :tdwn
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Big Hath on July 17, 2013, 10:23:27 AM
Yeah that one took me a while to get into. I used to just skip the track entirely until I started really listening to what he was going for with the song.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 17, 2013, 10:46:44 AM
To me, "Free Form Guitar" is like an abstract painting.  With most paintings, the idea is to capture something real, like a landscape or a  person or something.  Then you have abstract paintings, which I don't actually like, but the art critics go on and on about the use of color and texture, the contrast, the bold strokes, blah blah blah.  There can be artistic merit in a painting that to me just looks like someone spilled paint on the floor.

With "Free Form Guitar" there's no real rhythm or melody, no chords, no structure.  But I listen to what he's doing, how he's making the sounds, the control he has over the feedback and tooooone.  I still don't know if I like it any more than I like abstract paintings, and I wouldn't listen to stuff like this all the time, but I can appreciate the artistry in it.  It took me a long time, and I still skip it probably more often than not.  But sometimes, I'll check it out, again.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Big Hath on July 17, 2013, 10:58:15 AM
pretty much the same.  I'm not going to go out of my way to listen to it (not in my top 50 list), but I can appreciate it.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 17, 2013, 11:01:19 AM
Too much goodness!!!  I'm spinning album I again right now.

Terry Kath was definitely influenced by Hendrix in his vocal style!  I hear those intonations all over the place.  I'm thinking my favorite is Robert Lamm...but Kath's delivery of "Colour My World" is exquisite.  I truly love the harmonies all three of the leads put down.

Something else I've realized...I'm betting a lot of people didn't realize this band wasn't black at the time (fortunately, it also didn't matter so much back then  :yeahright ).  No pictures on the album covers and the sound and style of the funky music as well as the soulful vocal deliveries no doubt aided in some mighty cross-over appeal.

Kath's Guitar Stylings!!!!!    :hefdaddy :hefdaddy  It's so perfectly complementary to everything going on.  He is awesome.

And the horn section -- SO.  TIGHT!!! 
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Big Hath on July 17, 2013, 11:23:00 AM
hey sueno, if you like tight horns, have you listened to Tower of Power?  I don't want to derail the thread, but you should really check them out if that is your thing.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 17, 2013, 11:31:58 AM
hey sueno, if you like tight horns, have you listened to Tower of Power?  I don't want to derail the thread, but you should really check them out if that is your thing.

Oh.  I OWN Tower of Power, thank you very much!  ;)  Love 'em!  :D

ACK!!!! Skipping "Free Form" again....   :P
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: The King in Crimson on July 17, 2013, 08:34:02 PM
Ah, another Orbert Discog thread. Gives me that warm, christmas-y feeling. :)

I'm not very familiar with Chicago, aside from a few radio hits, but I'll follow along. I picked up their first album and I'll be giving it a proper listen soon.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: jammindude on July 17, 2013, 09:50:13 PM
My wife got me a gift card for our anniversary...Chicago IV (Remastered)...which I've never heard...is in the mail.

Sorry to jump ahead, but I'm really excited and I can't wait to join the discussion on that album after spinning it.  :tup
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Nel on July 17, 2013, 09:56:54 PM
Chicago IV was at the record store two months back. I saw it and wanted it, but other releases took priority. When I finally went to get it, it was gone. And I was sad. Bought Chicago III and Hot Streets instead.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 17, 2013, 10:06:26 PM
Ooh, bummer.  Chicago III and Hot Streets are two of my least favorite albums from the early years.

Terry Kath was definitely influenced by Hendrix in his vocal style!  I hear those intonations all over the place.  I'm thinking my favorite is Robert Lamm...but Kath's delivery of "Colour My World" is exquisite.  I truly love the harmonies all three of the leads put down.

Something else I've realized...I'm betting a lot of people didn't realize this band wasn't black at the time (fortunately, it also didn't matter so much back then  :yeahright ).  No pictures on the album covers and the sound and style of the funky music as well as the soulful vocal deliveries no doubt aided in some mighty cross-over appeal.

Kath's Guitar Stylings!!!!!    :hefdaddy :hefdaddy  It's so perfectly complementary to everything going on.  He is awesome.

You know, I've heard Terry's guitar playing compared to Jimi's, but never thought about his vocal delivery.  Obviously their voices were very different, but you're right; the way they sing has some similarity.

The album covers didn't have any pictures of the band until Chicago VI, but the first several albums were gatefolds, and the first album had photos of each band member inside.  It's the first thing you see:

(https://i.imgur.com/sfWAmP3.jpg)

Chicago had a great poster inside:

(https://i.imgur.com/HTyTiNh.jpg)

So I suppose if you didn't buy their albums, you might not know, just based on Terry's voice I guess, but most people knew that they were white.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Nel on July 17, 2013, 10:20:41 PM
They seemed to be part of a new 2012 re-release. Up until then, I'd mainly been buying the Rhino rereleases that featured very uniform spines and backs. These featured new spines and said "remixed and remastered" on the side, and "copyright 2012" on the back. We'll get to those, though.

(Don't know what they were thinking with the Hot Streets album cover though.  :lol When I had started collecting albums back in 2006, I constantly skipped it because of that cover. And given my slight obsessive-compulsive attitude towards albums, not calling it Chicago XII irked me.)
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 17, 2013, 10:29:54 PM
It was the first album after Terry died, and they'd also made the decision to finally part ways with J.W. Guercio, their longtime manager and producer.  Having an album not named with a Roman numeral and having a silly band picture on the cover was part of their "new image".  Hey, they tried it.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Nel on July 17, 2013, 10:37:03 PM
Ah. Didn't even know that was the reason. Chicago's one of those bands where I like them but I never really pay attention to who's in the band, you know?  :lol Like I have my tier 1 bands where I know every member to the point that I check out all their side projects, and then tier 2 where I'll listen to all the music but never quite pay attention to the members.

Which is why I love topics like these.  :)
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 17, 2013, 11:14:39 PM
My wife got me a gift card for our anniversary...Chicago IV (Remastered)...which I've never heard...is in the mail.

Sorry to jump ahead, but I'm really excited and I can't wait to join the discussion on that album after spinning it.  :tup

Pick up the first one, if you can.  It's tremendous!
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 17, 2013, 11:39:12 PM

So I suppose if you didn't buy their albums, you might not know, just based on Terry voice I guess, but most people knew that they were white.

Perhaps they did.  I was five years old in 1970; honestly never gave it much thought at the time.  I do know they sounded similar to other black bands - Sly and The Family Stone, f'rinstance.  And as I grew older, I recall kids who didn't like "white" music being big Chicago fans.  They bought 45s, however.  :)

Another band like that was 3 Dog Night.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 18, 2013, 07:46:42 AM
I think the R&B side of Rock and Roll was a lot more prominent back then.  You could be more funky or bluesy, and those were genres more associated with blacks, right or wrong.  My favorite example of that phenomenon is Rare Earth, who I thought were black for a long time, and so did a lot of people.  They even recorded on the Motown label, which of course was based in Detroit and was strongly affiliated with black music.  They were the first, and easily most well known, white band on Motown.

My wife got me a gift card for our anniversary...Chicago IV (Remastered)...which I've never heard...is in the mail.

Sorry to jump ahead, but I'm really excited and I can't wait to join the discussion on that album after spinning it.  :tup

Oh baby.  My first album, ever (a story I know I've told here a few times already, and will again in this thread!)

With no basis for comparison, I didn't realize how different it was from most live albums, so beware; it is different.  But it's also amazing.  You're in for a treat.  Just remember to adjust your mental time machine to 1971 when you listen to it.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: ZirconBlue on July 18, 2013, 08:19:32 AM
(Perhaps he'd recently caught Led Zeppelin's "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" or Procol Harum's "Simple Sister" -- both of which have very similar riffs -- on the radio.)


Once, when I was driving through Ohio a decade or two ago I heard, "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", "25 or 6 to 4", and another song with the same basic riff (not the Procol Harum one, a Jeff Healey song maybe?) all in a row.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Jaq on July 18, 2013, 08:55:41 AM
The first Chicago album I dived into after taking the plunge with the Carnegie Hall album. While I loved the live album, it was this album that made me say "yeah, I get while old school Chicago fans hated their 80s albums." Pretty much kept repeating Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon over and over again-the horns on that in particular are amazing. Amazing album period.  :biggrin:
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 18, 2013, 11:45:08 AM
I think the R&B side of Rock and Roll was a lot more prominent back then.  You could be more funky or bluesy, and those were genres more associated with blacks, right or wrong.  My favorite example of that phenomenon is Rare Earth, who I thought were black for a long time, and so did a lot of people.  They even recorded on the Motown label, which of course was based in Detroit and was strongly affiliated with black music.  They were the first, and easily most well known, white band on Motown.

Oh, Rare Earth -"I just want to celebrate, another day of livin',  I just want to celebrate, another day of...LIIIFFFEEE"     :metal

Another "shocker" for the time -- Average White Band.  Of course, the info is in the band name.  :P  But not only were they white... they were SCOTTISH!!!???!!!   :eek    :lol   Extremely funky tunes, great skating music. 

They got a "pass"...  ;)
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Laich21DT on July 18, 2013, 03:05:27 PM
Into the Country is probably my favorite Chicago song. I love the guitar all throughout, and just the overall feel of it. The ending, where the guitar plays that repeating line, and the horns descend, is awesome.

I've never actually listened to this whole album though. It's so darn long, I tend to throw in the towel around 25 or 6 to 4. Listening right now, and I'm on Colour My World.

Just made me wonder, why did a bunch of Americans spell it "colour"?
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Laich21DT on July 18, 2013, 03:51:30 PM
Well, just finished Chicago II for the first time.   :tup :tup

Really liked it Better End Soon. The lyrics aren't anything earth-shattering, but the music is awesome. Does the beginning of Where Do We Go From Here sound like Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, or am I crazy?

Looking at the track-list for Chicago III, I am not familiar with any of them. I heard all of the Chicago I know from my Dad, so he must not have had that album. He hates Cetera led Chicago, and I always have too, I'm going to use this thread to try to get me into more of their albums. I know a couple songs on V, but nothing much afterwards, aside from the pop hits I'm not too fond of.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Big Hath on July 18, 2013, 06:37:14 PM
I'm guessing you've probably heard "Free" and maybe "Lowdown" but just didn't know it.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 18, 2013, 06:48:37 PM
I don't know.  I've already started my research for Chicago III and supposedly those two songs were singles and minor hits.  I don't remember hearing either of them on the radio, but I definitely remember the three singles from each of the first two albums.  I stopped at a Walgreens just a few years ago and "Lowdown" was playing on the canned music inside for some reason.  Blew me away.  I had no idea why such an obscure album track (as far as I knew) from one of Chicago's less popular albums would be playing on anyone's canned music tape.  Ha ha, I just remembered that now.  I guess now I know why.

Congrats on getting through Chicago (II), though.  And yeah, those descending chords in "Where Do We Go From Here?" are the same as the hook/intro to "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" just in a different key.  "Where Do We Go From Here?" is in D, whilst "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" is in F.  It came out three years earlier, too, but I'll give Elton a pass because it's a pretty common progression.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Big Hath on July 18, 2013, 07:07:27 PM
Hm, well, I've listened to III quite a bit, so maybe I've just internalized the songs and it seems like everyone else should have heard them too.   :-\
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Laich21DT on July 18, 2013, 09:21:31 PM
Congrats on getting through Chicago (II), though.  And yeah, those descending chords in "Where Do We Go From Here?" are the same as the hook/intro to "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" just in a different key.  "Where Do We Go From Here?" is in D, whilst "Goodbye Yellow Brick Road" is in F.  It came out three years earlier, too, but I'll give Elton a pass because it's a pretty common progression.

Thanks, it was something I had been meaning to do for awhile. And, wow, I never thought about which song was written first, and just kind of assumed that Goodbye Yellow Brick Road was first.

I'm guessing you've probably heard "Free" and maybe "Lowdown" but just didn't know it.

I just checked those songs out on Spotify, and yeah, didn't sound familiar. Also listened to Sing A Mean Tune Kid, which was awesome.

Can't wait for the Chicago III write up.

 :hat
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 18, 2013, 09:56:26 PM
I almost started it today, but I double-checked and the Chicago writeup was only two days ago.  I'll probably wait til this weekend sometime.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 18, 2013, 10:50:29 PM
We are eager!   ;D
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Laich21DT on July 19, 2013, 03:35:41 PM
Well, while we wait, let me say that I made it through Free Form Guitar yesterday, and I didn't even have to fight the urge to skip it. I basically approached it like you said, Orbert, and thought of it as an abstract painting. I will definitely check it out again sometime.

Also, let me say that I'm really glad that Robert Lamm wasn't capable of playing the keys and the bass pedals at the same time, because I really love Cetera's bass playing. Had Chicago gone the Doors route, I feel that their sound would not have been nearly as full.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Orbert on July 19, 2013, 04:16:34 PM
Definitely.  Cetera is a very underrated bass player.  He's all over the place down there, especially on the earlier albums where there's a lot more jazz influence.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 19, 2013, 04:41:59 PM
Definitely.  Cetera is a very underrated bass player.  He's all over the place down there, especially on the earlier albums where there's a lot more jazz influence.

I agree.  In fact, before these threads talking about Chicago, I didn't even know Cetera was a bass player.  In listening, I am diggin' his skillz.  Makes up for his whiney 80s action..  ;)
Title: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 20, 2013, 05:33:13 PM
Chicago III (1971)

(https://i.imgur.com/ozN1LTg.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Background Vocals
Walt Parazaider - Saxophone, Flute, Background Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums

----------

Sing a Mean Tune Kid  9:18
Loneliness is Just a Word  2:38
What Else Can I Say  3:13
I Don't Want Your Money  4:47
Travel Suite
  Flight 602  2:44
  Motorboat to Mars  1:30
  Free  2:15
  Free Country  5:46
  At The Sunrise  2:48
  Happy 'Cause I'm Going Home  7:28
Mother  4:31
Lowdown  3:36
An Hour in the Shower  5:30
  A Hard Risin' Morning Without Breakfast
  Off to Work
  Fallin' Out
  Dreamin' Home
  Morning Blues Again
Elegy
  When All the Laughter Dies in Sorrow  1:03
  Canon  1:05
  Once Upon a Time...  2:34
  Progress?  2:34
  The Approaching Storm  6:26
  Man vs. Man: The End  1:33


As I mentioned upthread, the first two albums were each, in a way, eponymous.  Naming this one Chicago III made a lot of sense, as it was of course their third album, even if it was only their second since changing the name of the band to Chicago.

They also continued the concept of placing only the band logo on the cover, and letting the music speak for itself.  And it continued to speak.  The third double LP in a row, it follows a similar mold to the second album, with Side One being four "regular" songs, and each of the remaining sides dominated by multi-song suites.  The difference this time is that two of the three remaining sides were taken entirely by these suites.

"Sing a Mean Tune Kid", written by Robert Lamm and sung by Peter Cetera, starts things off and is the longest track on the album.  Four verses, with a couple of smoking horn breaks in between the third and fourth, going directly into a five-minute guitar solo.  That may not sound like much (or perhaps it does), but five minutes is a long time for a guitar solo on a studio track.  In 1971, that was still longer than most songs.  But Chicago had already shown on the first album that they could, and would, do this from time to time.

It is followed by the shortest song (of those not part of a suite), "Loneliness is Just a Word", another Lamm composition, sung by Terry Kath.  A jazz waltz featuring some tight horn work and an inspired organ solo, it seems longer than two and a half minutes.  That's a good thing, by the way.  It packs a lot of music into its length, and doesn't overstay its welcome.

"What Else Can I Say" is one of two Peter Cetera songs on the album, and has something of a country-rock feel due to the use of pedal steel guitar.  I have to admit, this is not one of my favorite Chicago songs from the early days.  The lyrics are pretty weak, and the horns are absent, as they were on Cetera's sole previous contribution, from Chicago.  It wasn't so noticeable last time, as it was a mellow song to close out the album.  Here, it seems to stand out more.  As time went on, we would see that Peter Cetera's musical leanings often went in a different direction from the rest of the band.  And it's probably petty, but it always bothered me that there's no question mark in the title.

"I Don't Want Your Money" is a rare Kath/Lamm collaboration, with music by Kath and words by Lamm.  It's another rocker, starting off with Terry mercilessly bending the strings on some minor seventh chords, and two breaks featuring guitar solos while the horns play a backdrop.

Robert Lamm's "Travel Suite" takes up all of Side Two.  It's really a collection of songs with a common theme, with a bit of musical experimentation.  "Flight 602" takes us on the road and into the mind of the traveling rock musician.  On a plane, sitting alone in a hotel room, thinking about who you are and who you're supposed to be on stage in a few hours.  An acoustic song with steel guitar and no horns, this one somehow doesn't bother me the way Cetera's song from Side One does.

In another of Chicago's rather bold moves, "Motorboat to Mars" is a drum solo by Danny Seraphine.  The entire track.  It segues directly into "Free", the only real rocker in the suite.  A driving beat, a smoking horn break, but with only a single verse and a second chorus after the break, it's over far too soon (and in fact is extended quite a bit on the live version).

"Free" segues into "Free Country", another experimental piece.  It's Lamm on piano, Parazaider on flute, and Kath on various percussion, doing some free form jazz for six minutes.  They fall into some grooves from time to time, but overall it's completely unstructured.  Interesting the first few times, but honestly, I usually skip this one.

"At the Sunrise" is a standalone song about missing her, whoever she is.  It's a nice little song, with a horn break and a constrasting B section sung by Cetera (the main vocals are by Lamm), but overall feels like filler.  She's gone, or at least she's not here right now, so this fits into the Travel Suite.

"Happy 'Cause I'm Going Home" is yet another interesting, unusual piece.  It has no words, but two verses of very happy-sounding scat in two-part harmony (Lamm and Cetera) leading into a five-minute jazz flute solo.  It and "Sing a Mean Tune Kid" are the two longest tracks on the album, bookend the first disk, and have the extended solo in common, but IMO also have the same weakness: these magnificent solos ultimately fade out.  As we'll learn on the next album, Chicago at Carnegie Hall, the band had no problem with extended jams, and no problem ending them.  Fading them out in the studio always leaves me feeling less than satisfied (probably because I knew the live versions first).

"Mother" is Mother Earth, who has given us life and nurtured us, and in return we've thrown our garbage on the ground, cut down her trees and built concrete jungles.  "Our mother has been raped, and left to die in disgrace."  It's not hard to discern the message here.  The break is a bizarre trombone duet in 5/8, and it ends with a quiet, sad trombone solo.  This Robert Lamm song is unsettling, and it's meant to be.

"Lowdown" is the other Peter Cetera song, but this one's a rocker.  It's a sibling to "Mother" with a similar message, but this time with a blazing Kath guitar solo and a killer horn break.

Terry Kath's "An Hour in the Shower" rounds out Side Three.  As I said in Big Hath's "Chicago: Top Songs Thread", at five and a half minutes total time, it's really just a slightly longer-than-usual song with some changes to it rather than an epic in five parts, but what the heck.  Terry had a great suite on the previous album but didn't label it as such, while Robert and Jimmy did theirs, so I guess I can't blame him for wanting to get in on the action.  It's almost a shame, because it's the only suite of the three that's actually a cohesive work, as the other two are clearly composed of shorter pieces with the same theme put together.  Chicago was a little "suite happy" during this period.

Side Four of the original LP was James Pankow's "Elegy".  It opens with a piece by poet Kendrew Lascelles titled "When All the Laughter Dies in Sorrow" read by Robert Lamm, and is all instrumental after that.  Kendrew Lascelles was a poet known for his environmental messages in the 70's.  John Denver recorded his piece "The Box" on his album Poems, Prayers & Promises, also from 1971.  (Don't look at me like that.  John Denver was awesome.)

"Canon" is performed by just the three horns.  A quiet, slow piece, it features some excellent arranging by Pankow that makes it sound very full and evokes a brass choir, but no, it's just the three of them.

"Once Upon a Time..." starts with a pastoral flute solo, accompanied by piano.  The trombone comes in at the break, accompanied by the other horns and the rhythm section, and it builds as it segues into "Progress?"  The two pieces together represent the natural state of the earth at first, and what man has slowly done to it.  "Progress?" has the horns trailing off into chaos and entropy, as various sound effects gradually come in, the sounds of the city.  Traffic, pneumatic drills, horns honking, police whistles.

"The Approaching Storm" is something of the centerpiece of the suite.  After the main theme is introduced by the horns, we get a round of solos, jazz style with horn breaks between each, by the trumpet, organ, sax, guitar, and trombone.  The horn section reprises the main theme, then leads into the finale, "Man vs. Man: The End" which represents increasing tensions and issues, and finally the end.

----------

Of the early albums, Chicago III to me is the most uneven.  The band toured extensively for the first two albums, and were very tired when they went into the studio to make this album.  The "behind the scenes" studio banter which opens and closes Side One and the ad-lib (?) screams, shouts, and other vocals during some of the more upbeat tracks almost sound like the band was trying to convince itself that it was vibrant and energetic.  I have to admit, though, that I'm almost certainly prejudiced against this album, having owned the follow-up, the live Chicago at Carnegie Hall for years before buying this one.  The live album has a lot of songs from all three albums, but it's the songs from Chicago III which are changed the most, even though they'd been playing them for a shorter amount of time.  Some are slowed down a bit, giving them more depth and gravitas.  Some have the original idea expressed in a few minutes fleshed out much more fully.  This to me indicates that the band perhaps rushed this album, and the live versions represent the "final form" of some of the songs.

This album also continued the odd phenomenon of succeeding without hit singles to boost its sales.  Initially outselling each of the first two albums, it only had "Free" (which peaked at #20) and "Lowdown" (which made it to #45) as singles.  But Chicago was an unusual band in many ways, and this might be explained by the choice of singles released.  "Beginnings" (from the first album), "Colour My World" (from Chicago), and "Questions 67 and 68" the second time (from the first album) were all released as singles, and were all hits after Chicago III was out.  It's possible, actually quite probable, that a lot of people heard these Chicago hits on the radio and bought the latest album, assuming that that was the album they were from.  With only the band logo on both the front and back covers, and no track listings, it was impossible to tell.  I'm not cynical enough to suggest that this was by design, since the covers are great and the idea was to let the music speak for itself, but it probably did contribute to the confusion.

I'm already planning a separate post that gets into the whole mess surrounding the early Chicago singles, so stay tuned for that.

In the meantime... discuss!
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: sueño on July 20, 2013, 05:43:15 PM
I don't have this album (should I?, sueño ponders) but I will continue to say how much I enjoy your write ups.  I really appreciate the time you're taking,  I can tell it's a labor of love.

Too many thanks!   :hefdaddy
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 20, 2013, 05:46:57 PM
If you're into classic prog, I did a whole series of these things last year.  Yes, Genesis, and Emerson Lake & Palmer.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: sueño on July 20, 2013, 05:51:03 PM
I can't say I'm "into" any of it...at least in a past tense.  The more I read of this board, tho...I'm getting into music I've never heard before and I am loving it!   ;D

Think I'll check the Genesis.  I heard "Supper's Ready" and flipped!  :tup   Must find more.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Jaq on July 21, 2013, 09:44:03 AM
I agree 100% with the notion that the songs on this album that appeared on the live album worked better there; this album does have a bit of a rushed, sketchy feel compared to the first two Chicago albums, but the live versions of songs from this album absolutely smoke the studio versions. It's still a good album, but yeah, I tend to hit the Carnegie Hall album more than this.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Big Hath on July 21, 2013, 11:02:20 AM
I've read that the band was pretty scared heading into the studio for this one as they had run out of all their pre-written and extra material in making the first two albums.  So yeah, they were probably under the gun a little bit to write and record to get something out for the label.  But even then, I still love this album.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 21, 2013, 02:59:50 PM
It's not a horrible album or anything.  "Elegy" always rocks, and "An Hour in the Shower" is lots of fun.  There's a lot of strong material, but also a few that I regularly skip.  And I guess I just prefer the live versions of the stuff which is on the live album.  Of the original albums, this is the one I spin the least.

I've read about how they started with a pile of songs and eventually ran out, but never found out exactly when that supposedly happened.  If I had to guess I would've said sometime after Chicago V.  That album is like the first album in that it's all Lamm except for one or two songs, and Chicago VI is similar.  Chicago VII is when we really started seeing the other writers contributing more.  But Lamm was an insanely prolific writer.  I guess he really did write that much, at least in the early days.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: sueño on July 21, 2013, 03:00:44 PM
Maybe I'll just get the Live version referred to here...
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: jammindude on July 21, 2013, 06:16:21 PM
This was the album that made me discover Chicago.

Over the years, I've collected *A LOT* of vinyl...and maybe some of you guys who are into it know what I'm talking about when I say that you can often go to a thrift store or a garage sale, come home with 20 records that you have every intention of listening to, and then listening to about 5 of them before you bring home the next haul.    As a result, things get lost in the shuffle and you end up with a TON of albums that you want to hear, but have never gotten around to.

In that time, I had slowly accumulated the albums that I mentioned in this thread. (I just double checked...I have 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10 on vinyl and nothing on CD except for 4 which is in the mail and is due on Tuesday)   And one cold day just this last mid-December, I randomly chose III for no particular reason.    I remember that Sing a Mean Tune Kid really blew my doors off from the moment I dropped the needle in the groove.   I don't remember the rest of the songs by name (the album was going in the background while I was doing something else) but I remember that by the time I got to the end of side 2, I was saying to myself, "DAMN!  This is COOL!!!"

It inspired me to listen to 2 and 5 which I loved as well.   And personal drama (my house is a freakin circus of Osbourne proportions) often keeps me from digging into my music as much as I'd like, so I haven't had a chance to check out the rest, or relisten to any of this...but I think I'll check it out now while my wife is making dinner.   
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: sueño on July 21, 2013, 09:29:58 PM
Listening to "Mean Tune" now -- it is SO funkay!!!  :D

I love how lush Chicago is.  There music sounds more like orchestral arrangements than a pop band.  It's like a movie or TV show is coming on... but still so approachable.  It's a pleasure listening to real musicians.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH!!!!    :metal
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 22, 2013, 02:17:36 PM
The Confusing World of Chicago's Early Singles

I mentioned upthread that The Chicago Transit Authority made it to #17 on the U.S. album chart (#9 in the U.K.) without the benefit of a hit single.  This isn't quite true.  It didn't have a hit single initially, as the single from that album, "Questions 67 and 68", only made it to #71 on the singles chart.  Not bad, but not exactly a hit.  "Questions 67 and 68" later made it to #24, and The Chicago Transit Authority eventually peaked at #17 during its 171 weeks on the charts.  Yeah, math is hard, but that's over three years.  It was still on the charts when Chicago and Chicago III, came out, and they all helped support each other.  That's right; all three Chicago albums were in the charts at the same time.

Here's how it went:

April 28, 1969.  The Chicago Transit Authority is released.

July 1969.  The single was an edited version of "Questions 67 and 68".  The B side was "Listen".  The single made it to #71 on the singles charts.

January 26, 1970.  Chicago is released.

March 1970.  The first single from Chicago was an edited version of "Make Me Smile" -- the version without the horn intro, cutting out the guitar solo and jumping to "Now More Than Ever", then cutting out the horn outro (2:58 total time).  It made it to #9, their first Top Ten single and a hit by anyone's standards.  The B side was "Colour My World", but this was not a "Double A" situation.  "Colour My World" was just the B side of the single.  It didn't become a hit until later.

June 1970.  "25 or 6 to 4" is released and eventually makes it to #4, their biggest hit so far.  Yay!  Terry's guitar solo blew everyone's minds, and the horns were there, taking their breaks and working their way into the collective subconscious.

October 1970.  Manager/producer J.W. Guercio goes back to the first album and releases "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" without the free form piano intro.  Ah, but the horns are blowin' that sound.  It reaches #7.  Another hit.

January 11, 1971.  Chicago III is released.

February 1971.  The first single is "Free".  It makes it to #20.

April 1971.  "Lowdown" is the next single from Chicago III.  It peaks at #35.

June 1971.  JWG goes back to The Chicago Transit Authority again and releases "Beginnings" as a single, severely edited.  Both verses are intact, but everything after that is chopped and arranged into something like a refrain (2:47 total time).  "Colour My World" (from Chicago) is the B side.  This time, "Colour My World" catches on as well, and both songs become hits, each reaching #7 on the singles charts.

September 1971.  "Questions 67 and 68" is re-released and this time makes it to #24.  The B side is "I'm a Man".  It also starts getting some airplay, and also breaks the Top 100, peaking at #49.


As I mentioned upthread, Chicago III for a while outsold each of the first two albums, but my theory is that Chicago hits kept coming on the radio and people naturally assumed that they came from the most recent album, so that's the one they went and bought.

Now, in small print on most singles, it says the name of the album from which the song came:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/40/Make_Me_Smile_label.jpg)
(no higher resolution available)

People who bought the single had a way of finding out which album it came from.  Of course, Chicago was super hot at the time anyway, and all three albums were on the charts and selling, but it still strikes me as odd that the album with the fewest hits, and whose hits charted most poorly, originally sold the most copies.  And since sales of Chicago III have since been eclipsed by each of the first two albums, that indicates to me that, now that it's easier to tell which songs came from which albums, people are now buying the albums with the songs they recognize.

Again, there's nothing wrong with Chicago III.  I've mentioned that it's my least favorite of the original albums, but that's just because each of the first nine studio albums are so great, one of them has to be last, and when I feel like hearing stuff from this album, I tend to grab the live album instead.  There's no question that Chicago was still prolific and proggy during this time.  It's still a great album.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Unlegit on July 22, 2013, 08:40:56 PM
Interesting. I had assumed that the singles were hits right after the albums were released, but I guess not.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 24, 2013, 09:10:27 PM
Final thoughts on Chicago III:

The "Big C" song on this album is "Free".  It ends on a C, held on the piano as they segue into "Free Country".

For some silly reason, the situation with the title of this album reminds me of the Rambo movies.  The character of Rambo came from a movie called First Blood.  The sequel had the awkward title Rambo: First Blood Part II.  So when they made a third movie, they simplified things and just called it Rambo III.  See, that one actually made sense, as it was the third Rambo movie.  You'd think the fourth one would've been Rambo IV, but no, it was just Rambo.  It was a "self-titled" movie.

Obviously Chicago III makes sense here for the same reason: it's the third album by the band.  But it's only the second by the band after it became Chicago.  That's partly why it kinda bugs me when people refer to the second album as Chicago II.  I know why they do it, but I always prefer to use the original title.  I've even seen the first album listed as The Chicago Transit Authority I in an attempt to include the Roman I but also preserve the original title.  But that's just dumb.  Really.

Anyway, people talk about how Chicago has always used the Roman numerals, but Chicago III is actually the only one of the first four albums to have a Roman numeral.
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: ZirconBlue on July 25, 2013, 08:54:15 AM
For some silly reason, the situation with the title of this album reminds me of the Rambo movies.  The character of Rambo came from a movie called First Blood.  The sequel had the awkward title Rambo: First Blood Part II.  So when they made a third movie, they simplified things and just called it Rambo III.  See, that one actually made sense, as it was the third Rambo movie.


It should have been Rambo II: First Blood Part III.   ;)

Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 25, 2013, 10:29:26 AM
Ha ha, that would've been awesome! :lol
Title: Re: Chicago III (1971)
Post by: Jaq on July 25, 2013, 03:30:58 PM
For some silly reason, the situation with the title of this album reminds me of the Rambo movies.  The character of Rambo came from a movie called First Blood.  The sequel had the awkward title Rambo: First Blood Part II.  So when they made a third movie, they simplified things and just called it Rambo III.  See, that one actually made sense, as it was the third Rambo movie.


It should have been Rambo II: First Blood Part III.   ;)

 :rollin

Ahh, Rambo. Based on a novel where the character of John Rambo dies. Sequel comes out, author of the novel writes the novelization of the movie that has his character survive his on page death, has to write a note explaining Rambo died in the book, which is the point in time where approximately 99% of the people who picked up the novelization said "Wait, Rambo dies in the book?!"

I did more in the 80s than get drunk and have romantic encounters that pair up nicely with songs Kev talks about in his threads!

...back to Chicago.  :lol
Title: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 25, 2013, 10:16:29 PM
Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)

(https://i.imgur.com/641dHI0.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Percussion, Guitar, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion
Walt Parazaider - Saxophone, Flute, Percussion, Background Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums

----------

ORIGINAL 4-LP and 3-CD TRACK LISTING

In the Country  10:35
Fancy Colours  5:15
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (free form intro)  6:20
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?  3:47
South California Purples  15:34
Questions 67 and 68  5:35
Sing a Mean Tune Kid  12:53
Beginnings  6:27
It Better End Soon  15:55
  1st Movement
  2nd Movement (Flute Solo)
  3nd Movement (Guitar Solo)
  4th Movement (Preach)
  5th Movement
Introduction  7:09
Mother  8:20
Lowdown  3:58
Flight 602  3:31
Motorboat to Mars  3:00
Free  5:15
Where Do We Go From Here  4:08
I Don't Want Your Money  5:23
Happy Cause I'm Going Home 7:56
Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon  15:25
  Make Me Smile
  So Much to Say, So Much to Give
  Anxiety's Moment
  West Virginia Fantasies
  Colour My World
  To Be Free
  Now More Than Ever
A Song for Richard and His Friends  6:58
25 or 6 to 4  6:35
I'm a Man  8:51

REMASTERED VERSION FOURTH DISC

Listen  4:16
Introduction*  6:37
South California Purples*  12:41
Loneliness is Just a Word  2:44
Free Form Intro (Naseltones)*  5:58
Sing a Mean Tune Kid*  10:51
An Hour in the Shower  6:00
  A Hard Risin' Morning Without Breakfast
  Off to Work
  Fallin' Out
  Dreamin' Home
  Morning Blues Again
25 or 6 to 4*  6:21

*Previously unissued alternate versions

----------

With most bands, after three or four albums, you release a live album.  A double album, because live versions often have extended solos and maybe some other things you want to include, and also to more closely represent an entire concert.  But Chicago is not most bands.  Chicago's first three albums were all double LPs, so their live album had to be on the same scale.  It was a four-LP box set, with each record in its own jacket, a book with large, color pictures of each member, two huge posters, and an insert with voting information for all 50 states plus the District of Columbia.  The 1972 election was approaching, after all, and it was time for the people to speak.

Chicago at Carnegie Hall is loved by many, but also derided by some, and often for the same reasons.  It is very long.  It is indulgent; we hear them tuning their instruments between songs, talking quietly to each other, joking around.  The audience is very quiet both during and between songs, not screaming the whole time as at a... well... a "normal" rock concert.  The question isn't whether any of this is good or bad, but whether you like it or not.  There are factors which divide audiences further.  Carnegie Hall was designed for classical music, not amplified music, and this presented challenges in recording.  After the second song, the bass is cut drastically because Peter Cetera's bass amp was overpowering everything else (this has been corrected in the remastered version).  The horns sound thin, "like kazoos" according to James Pankow (this has also been corrected in the remastered version).  Also, some say that the performances are too much like the studio versions, stale and lifeless.  I personally think people who say that are out of their minds.  With seven players and some very complex, tight arrangements, I think it's amazing how much they groove, how much freedom they take with the arrangements, and how much the original arrangements are embellished.

It opens with the ambient sounds of Carnegie Hall and the band coming out to warm up.  We hear the audience react.  There is applause, cheering, and something which sounds like "Hello!" being shouted by someone in the audience, to which the band replies "Hello!" and "Hello there!"  Then there is over three full minutes of warming up and tuning up.  If this were a classical music concert, it would not be unusual in the least.  The orchestra must tune, and they do this after they come out.  That's exactly what happens here, for this is Carnegie Hall, the Mecca of the classical world.  Chicago, however, is a rock band.  But they are not like other rock bands.  They were at the height of their first wave of popularity, and this is an incredible document of that time.  And you are there.

So "In the Country" is listed at 10:35, but that includes the band coming out and tuning up.  All of the track times include everything else that they chose to include.  The song itself isn't much different from the studio version, although the single pickup note by the horns at the very start of the song changes the feel of the intro, and the slightly slower tempo adds some gravitas.  They double the length of the buildup at the end, and one of my favorite additions is some adi-lib piano during the horn break leading up to it.  Overall, it's a heavier, more rocking version, where the studio version was more light and poppy.

Robert Lamm thanks the audience for the reception, explaining what it's like to be at Carnegie Hall and "we can feel you, as well as see you, and it's really great."  He then asks us to imagine a set of wind chimes on each side of our heads, as they start "Fancy Colours".

The one-minute free form intro to "Does Anybody Really Know What It Is?" has evolved into its own track.  It's now six minutes, and drummer Danny Seraphine joins in halfway through when things really get rocking.  Then we hear the familiar fanfare which starts the song, which is pretty straightforward, save for a little embellishment to the trombone cadenza at the end.

Terry Kath's two-bar cadenza at the end of "South California Purples" has somehow grown into a 10-minute solo.  It starts with Terry holding an E as the rest of the band stops, then he's eventually joined by the bass, keys, and drums building into a jam.  The horns come back for the closing chords, ending what is easily one of the highlights of the album.

A rousing version of "Questions 67 and 68" follows.  It's introduced by Terry as "our first boss, hit-bound single that never was a boss, hit-bound single."  It's the same as the studio arrangement, but somehow the horns pack more punch, and Terry is on fire, as always.

"Sing a Mean Tune Kid" is next, and we're treated to another extended guitar solo.  As with the studio version, it starts as a 3/4 variation of the main progression, then slowly mutates into another open jam by the main quartet (the horns take a break).  It's a bit slower than the studio version, adding a bit more funk to what is probably Chicago's funkiest tune.

"Beginnings" follows, and like "Questions 67 and 68" it pretty much follows the original arrangement but still adds more punch, especially during the trumpet and trombones solos and duet.  They don't do the percussion break at the end, but you don't really miss it.

"It Better End Soon" has expanded from four movements to five, with a guitar solo movement added after the flute solo, and both are great.  Interestingly, the "Preach" movement is completely different.  And as with the album Chicago, the only lyrics included in the album are the words to the "Preach".

The third LP of the original box set opened with "Introduction" which welcomes us back after the intermission.  It's stepped up a few beats from the original, and really cooks.  The syncopated horns breaks are stunning, and all the solos are inspired.

"Mother" is next, expanded a little.  The intro takes its time to build more and is probably more effective because of it.  The trombone duet during the 5/8 section is now a trombone solo, then the sax joins, making it a duet, then finally the trumpet, making it a trio.  As on Chicago III, "Lowdown", its thematic twin, follows.

The first three parts of the Travel Suite come next.  "Flight 602" (with Lee Loughnane on second guitar), "Motorboat to Mars", and "Free", which has been expanded to include a saxophone solo and a reprise of the chorus. 

"Where Do We Go From Here" is a touch slower than the original version, and I think it works better.  It's a contemplative song.  Lee Loughnane plays guitar on this one as well.

"I Don't Want Your Money" smokes, with Terry simply torturing his guitar.  James Pankow once said that Terry Kath was the only guy who can play lead guitar, rhythm guitar, and sing, all at the same time.  Here's an example.

"Happy 'Cause I'm Going Home" is somehow more laid back than the original, though it's at the same tempo.  I think the electric guitar rather than the driving 12-string acoustic is the difference.  Walt Parazaider's flute solo is amazing.

They close the concert with the "Ballet for a Girl in Buck-hannon".  All those ad-libbed lines by Terry on the studio version, he does them here as well.  Honestly, I've never been a fan of a lot of "Oh yeah" during songs, either live or studio.  But it's a great, high-energy version of the Ballet.

Side Eight of the original set was the encores, starting with the only track not from a studio album, "A Song for Richard and His Friends".  Don't be fooled by the title and the lovely handwritten script that characterized every Chicago album from Chicago through Chicago IX; this is an angry, bitter song.  It calls for president Richard Nixon to quit, because of how poorly he's been handling the Viet Nam War.  Ironically, the Viet Nam War would end on President Nixon's watch (though much of the credit generally goes to Secretary of State Henry Kissinger for that), and President Nixon eventually did resign, the only U.S. President to do so, but it was in the fallout of the Watergate scandal and cover-up.  It had nothing to do with the war.

Then of course, "25 or 6 to 4" is the real closer.  And as you might expect, Terry's solo is absolutely blistering.  Cetera's vocals sound amazing; exhausted and emotionally drained, adding greatly to the feel of the song.  Coming as it does at the end of the night, their last night of a week at Carnegie Hall, I'm sure he really was exhausted and drained.

The crowd refuses to let them go, and the band, minus the horn section, come back for one more song.  Robert Lamm says "We're going to do something we haven't done for a while" but it's unclear whether he means doing a second encore, or the song itself, "I'm a Man" from the first album.  But it's the last single, the only one they haven't played, and one that they can get away with not having the horn section.

The four LPs were originally issued on a 3-CD set.  The Rhino remaster adds a fourth CD of four songs not included in the original release and four tracks taken from alternate nights.

"Listen" opens the bonus disc, appropriately enough.  This song is fine, and I like the message, but overall I've just never been a big fan of it.  They drop the tempo a hair, giving it more of a driving, heavier feel, but it just isn't that kind of song.  The horns sound great, though.

The alternate version of "Introduction" is great.  The solos are completely different, yet each is just as excellent as on the original live version.

"South California Purples" -- the song part -- isn't much different, although it's interesting how differently it starts.  The real gem here is Terry's solo, another ten-minute jam by him and rest of the quartet, built again from the ground up.

"Loneliness is Just a Word" is a nice addition, though not much different from the studio version.  It's a short song, but one of my favorites from Chicago III.

The oddly named "Free Form Intro (Naseltones)" is an alternate version of the piano solo intro to "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?"  It's similar yet different, in much the same way that Terry's guitar solos are similar to yet different from the versions on the original release.  It fades out when they start up the song, however, which is a strange move, since the song itself isn't very long.  After all, they included the entire tracks for "South California Purples" and "Sing a Mean Tune Kid" when obviously the point of inclusion was the guitar solo.  Why not include "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" when you've included the piano solo?  It's not like the fourth disc is completely full (it's only 55 minutes total time).

The alternate version of "Sing a Mean Tune Kid" is a bit tighter, a bit funkier, and has yet another great extended guitar solo by Terry Kath.

"An Hour in the Shower" is another interesting inclusion.  There's not much room for variation in the arrangement, so Terry has a little fun with the words here and there.  You just have to hear it to understand what I mean.

And again, "25 or 6 to 4" is the closer, and again, it features an absolutely amazing guitar solo.

----------

I was 12 years old.  At that time, my music collection consisted of a K-Tel mix tape and two 45 RPM singles.  My friend Dave asked me if I liked Chicago.  I'd heard of them, knew some of their songs.  Sure, they're pretty cool, I guess.  He said his sister had bought their live album, listened to the first side, and didn't really like it.  She kept the two posters (they were already on her walls), and had thrown away the voting information, but she sold me the rest of the box for five dollars.  So I got the records and the big picture book for five dollars.

Five dollars!  I took it home, put it on, and was in another world.  I had no idea.  I didn't know that you weren't supposed to include three minutes of the band coming out, tuning up, messing around on stage, all before the first song.  I didn't know that the audience isn't supposed to sit quietly and listen to the band tell stories which introduced the next song.  I didn't know that people would complain about the quality of the recording when clearly it was the performances that mattered.  I didn't know how different this live album was from pretty much all others before or since, because I had nothing to compare it to.  I did know that a four-record live album was pretty unusual, though.

To this day, Chicago at Carnegie Hall is one of my favorite albums.  Tomorrow, I'll be driving to Michigan to jam with my buddies from home and, as is tradition, I will listen to this album from start to finish during the trip.  And I'll be 12 years old again, just learning about music, with no idea what is possible, no preconceived notions of what a band "should" be or "should" sound like.

The alternate versions of "Sing a Mean Tune Kid" and "South California Purples" really opened my eyes.  Or ears, or something.  I had a co-worker who was a huge Grateful Dead fan.  Hey, they're cool, and I can appreciate bands that can just cut loose on stage, let the music change and evolve, make every performance a little different, a little special.  But I guess I didn't really understand it.  Hearing Terry's solos from some other night (it doesn't say which for any of them), it just reminds me that they played six nights there and recorded every night.  And I'm sure every solo, every night, was amazing.  I want to hear the other nights!  I want to hear all the solos.  I didn't realize.  I had no idea.

Get this album.  It's a little expensive, yeah, I know.  But it's worth it.
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: Big Hath on July 25, 2013, 10:31:12 PM
awesome, awesome concert and experience.  Proud to say I have performed on that very same stage, and this recording was in the back of my mind the entire time.
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: Jaq on July 26, 2013, 10:27:25 AM
As I said more than once, Orbert singing this album's praises is how I got into Chicago's early work, and Carnegie Hall has quickly propelled itself into my top five of 70s live albums, the order of which tends to change fairly often, but to give you the comparison, the others are Seconds Out by Genesis, Live And Dangerous by Thin Lizzy, At Fillmore East by the Allman Brothers, and Made In Japan by Deep Purple, and that's some pretty high level competition right there. Orbert praises it far better than me (and says largely the same things I would have about the same songs  :lol) so let me just repeat this one part: get this. It's awe inspiring.
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: sueño on July 26, 2013, 10:43:16 AM
...just....wow.....

I am riveted...thanks again for your hard work, Orbert!
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: ytserush on July 29, 2013, 07:34:20 PM
Blissful.....
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 29, 2013, 09:27:25 PM
I still remember the issue of Contemporary Keyboard magazine with the Robert Lamm interview.  Actually, I think I still have it somewhere.  One of the questions was whether Chicago had ever recorded a song that he really didn't like.  I hated that question.  If he picks one of his own songs, he's probably safe.  He's just admitting that a song he wrote wasn't really ready or up to standards.  But he answered honestly, and said "Lowdown".  That's why I don't like the question.  Many artists are quite self-deprecating and have no problem thinking of a song they'd written that, upon reflection, they really didn't like.  But there's a chance that he'll name a song by someone else in the band, and that's going to be printed.  Why do that?  Why invite someone to slam one of their bandmates like that?  And let's be honest; Peter Cetera wrote some weak songs, especially in the early days.  I don't hate "Lowdown", but Robert really didn't like the country edge that Peter brought to the band.  But they had a policy that anybody could write songs, and they'd at least try them.  Anyway, Robert did go on to say that the song was much better live.  "Better" presumably meaning that he didn't hate it so much when they played it live.  I always think of that when I hear the live version of "Lowdown".

The notes in the Rhino remaster come right out and say that the bonus tracks were picked because of Terry Kath's work.  There were the four songs which weren't on the original release, so they pretty much had to be included, but the versions of "Sing a Mean Tune Kid", "South California Purples" and "25 or 6 to 4" were worth including just because of the solos.  And almost like throwing a dog a bone (though they don't say so), an alternate version of Robert's piano solo intro to "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is included, but as I mentioned, they actually cut out the song itself.  That's such a strange move.  There's plenty of room on the disc, and the song isn't that long anyway.

As time went on and my friends and I bought more albums, I think I was already becoming a prog snob.  On the live albums from Led Zeppelin, Rush, KISS, REO Speedwagon, whatever we were listening to back then, the audiences were always screaming.  Screaming between songs, and often during the songs.  I thought that was so stupid.  How can you hear the music if you're screaming like an idiot the whole time?  Sit down and shut the hell up.  Chicago at Carnegie Hall really did spoil me as far as what to expect from a live album.  They don't come out and play hit after hit, though they already had enough hits to where they could have.  They came out and played a damned good concert.  A rock band playing Carnegie Hall was a huge deal, and the audiences I'm sure were actually intimidated.  Some I'm sure had been there before, but for classical or perhaps even opera.  But something about the very building meant that you remained respectfully quiet during the concert.  To this day, it's how I prefer live albums to be, even though almost none are.
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: jammindude on July 29, 2013, 09:37:05 PM
I got my copy in the mail last Tuesday, and I've been listening to it several times.    But it's *SO* much that it's still sinking in.

The performances are amazing, and I love the laid back feel between the songs.   It feels more like a professional concert as opposed to a "rock concert" (as Orbert has alluded).

Please don't stop writing these Orbert.  I'm really enjoying every word, and I'm looking forward to Chicago V.

But please don't be in a *huge* hurry...because I'm still absorbing this live album tastiness.
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: Orbert on July 29, 2013, 11:00:40 PM
I'm taking off for another long weekend starting Thursday, so I may or may not get the Chicago V writeup done by then.  If not, y'all get a break.

In the meantime, I'm glad you're digging the live album.  Yeah, there's a lot there.
Title: Re: Chicago at Carnegie Hall (1971)
Post by: sueño on July 30, 2013, 04:36:14 PM
I've got Carnegie Hall in the shopping cart.  $24 -- may have to wait a bit.  But echoing in with, PLEASE keep on with your reviews! 

But enjoy your long weekend!    :hat
Title: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 07, 2013, 10:44:38 PM
Chicago V (1972)

(https://i.imgur.com/3XSpzFw.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals, Percussion
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion
Walt Parazaider - Woodwinds, Percussion
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

----------

A Hit by Varèse
All Is Well
Now That You've Gone
Dialogue
  Part One
  Part Two
While the City Sleeps
Saturday in the Park
State of the Union
Goodbye
Alma Mater

----------

Every one of the early Chicago albums is incredible in its own way, and Chicago V is no exception.  The first studio album which was not a double LP, it instead provides 45 minutes of concentrated awesomeness.  The multi-part suites are gone; instead we have nine songs (seven by keyboardist and de facto leader Robert Lamm) in the four-to-seven minute range.  The horns are as tight as ever, the jazzy side is allowed to run free on numerous occassions, and there are of course a couple of hit singles.  Chicago V was Chicago's first album to reach #1, going Gold within two weeks of release and eventually going Double Platinum.

The cover continues the mystique of Chicago as a "faceless band".  The famous Chicago logo, designed by Columbia Records Art Director John Berg, is rendered by artist Nick Fasciano this time as a woodcut.  It's been five albums now, and so far no pictures of the band or anyone in the band have graced a cover.  Instead, the idea is that the Chicago logo itself would represent the band.  Even though it was a single LP, the original jacket was a two-pocket gatefold.  One side held the record itself, and the other side held two posters.

"A Hit by Varèse" opens the album.  A fast-paced tune in 3/4, it implores the listener (or some unknown third party) to please play something new and different, to "move me, remove me, and groove me".  The break features jazz solos by all three horn players, eventually combining into a trio which builds to manic proportions before returning for the third verse.  Edgar Varèse is a composer known for his atonal harmonies and unconventional structures, and we do get a taste of them here.  Then it all ends suddenly.

"All Is Well" changes the mood completely.  A mellow piece in D-flat with major ninths, it drifts along in 6/4, assuring us that all is well again.  It switches to 4/4 for the bridge, briefly back to 6/4, then 4/4 for the horn break.  It again goes through a number of shifts before returning to 6/4 for the second (and final) verse.

"Now That You've Gone" is James Pankow's sole contribution this time around, but it's a good one.  Another frantic, uptempo piece in 3/4, it's a bit contradictory, singing happily about the fact that "you've gone away", but that's okay, the horn break (first in 5/4, then 3/4) is what counts here.

"Dialogue (Parts One and Two)" is one of the two hit singles from the album (peaking at #24).  In Part One, Terry Kath sings the part of the questioning, uncertain citizen, not sure of what the future holds, whether the president knows what he's doing, how long the war will drag on.  Peter Cetera sings the part of the carefree college student, unconcerned with the future, confident that the powers that be will do what's best for everyone.  In Part Two, we get another Robert Lamm call to action.  "We can make it happen, we can change the world now, we can save the children, we can make it happen."

Side Two opens with the dark, pessimistic "While the City Sleeps".  The main attraction here is Terry Kath's guitar solo, with the horns playing a supporting figure throughout.

"Saturday in the Park" is of course the other hit, topping out at #3 on the Billboard Singles chart.  Robert Lamm is the sole member of Chicago not born in Chicago; he's actually from New York and the park is New York's famous Central Park, not Chicago's Grant Park as many have assumed over the years, but the message is the same.  Go to the park, enjoy a day off, check out the statues of men on horseback ("slow-motion riders") and other figures ("a bronze man still can tell stories his own way"), have some ice cream, connect with people.  And it ends with a "big C" held out by the piano.

"State of the Union" is yet another Robert Lamm protest song, his last really blatant one.  It points out some of the things wrong with the system today (actually in the 70's, although a surprisingly large number of things haven't really changed) and how we should try to fix them, but through peaceful means.  Ironically, the singer himself calls for peaceful change, but in doing so, calls attention to himself and is arrested.  For the break, we're treated to another Terry Kath guitar solo with the horns backing him up.

"Goodbye" is one of the highlights of the album.  It starts in 3/4, but the verses and trumpet solo are in 7/4, the horn break and bridge are in 4/4, then things change up a few times and end in 3/4.  It's barely over six minutes in length, but somehow feels like an epic because of how it unfolds and all the changes.

"Alma Mater" closes the album.  It's a quiet song by Terry Kath, perhaps meant to summarize what Chicago itself has been through so far.  "Looking back a few short years, when we made our plans and played our cards the way they fell."  It speaks of not being complacent, but setting new goals, as though they knew that changes were in the wind.

----------

Chicago V is my favorite Chicago album.  Sure, the first two are both masterpieces, with the third not far from the mark, but here is where they took the jazzy, semi-proggy rock and distilled it down to songs which still packed a considerable punch, but didn't overwhelm the listener or overstay their welcome.  It reminds me of Kansas' Leftoverture, where they shed the really extended pieces and focused on killer songs with tight arrangements, but still with all the hallmarks of the band's sound.  You have to set aside time to listen to any of the first three, and certainly for the live album, but Chicago V is a regular album that just happens to kick a lot of ass.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: sueño on August 07, 2013, 10:56:46 PM
Beautiful.   And beautifully written.

Thanks for that (another CD in the cart)!   :tup
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Laich21DT on August 08, 2013, 12:49:11 PM
Another wonderful write-up.  :tup

I have to admit, I'm only familiar with Dialogue and Saturday in the Park on this one. I've never been to Central Park, or New York for that matter, but if I ever do, I'll be blasting Saturday in the Park. I need to check out the rest of the album sometime soon.

One thing though, I'm pretty sure that in Dialogue, Cetera is the one questioning the President. The line: "Well I hope the President knows what he's into I don't know, ooh I just don't know!", pretty sure that's Peter. Then Terry follows with: "Don't you see starvation, in the city where you live". Also, sounds like I hear Lamm at 1:57 singing, "No the campus here is very, very free".

I was just listening to Dialogue on Spotify to confirm what I wrote above, and I was thinking that Chicago really does a great job gradually bringing the instruments into the song one by one. I'm A Man and Dialogue are the main ones that come to mind. South California Purples (why isn't it called Southern?) and So Much To Give, So Much To Say do this a little bit as well.

Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Unlegit on August 08, 2013, 01:10:01 PM
Great write up!  :tup

I'm honestly not sure what my favorite album by Chicago is, but this is definitely one of the contenders.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 08, 2013, 01:29:21 PM
Another wonderful write-up.  :tup

Thanks!  And you too, Unlegit!

I'm pretty sure that in Dialogue, Cetera is the one questioning the President. The line: "Well I hope the President knows what he's into I don't know, ooh I just don't know!", pretty sure that's Peter. Then Terry follows with: "Don't you see starvation, in the city where you live".

It's all about the context.  Peter's line is in response to Terry's.

Terry: Don't it make you angry, the way war is dragging on?
Peter: Well, I hope the president knows what he's into; I don't know.

Peter isn't questioning the president.  He has no idea, and just hopes the president knows what he's doing.  Terry wonders why he's not more angry about it.  In 1972 it was Viet Nam.  Today it's the Middle East.

The entire conversation is meant to paint Peter as blissfully ignorant, with Terry asking all the questions.  It's Terry who says "When it's time to function as a feeling human being, will your Bachelor of Arts help you get by?"  That's a much more cynical statement than it appears.  Robert (the writer) is literally wondering what good a B.A. is.  How does that even help you function in the real world?  Meanwhile, Peter sees himself as just a student, still separate from the world, not needing to worry about anything (yet, if ever).


Terry: Are you optimistic 'bout the way that things are going?
Peter: No, I never ever think of it at all.

Terry: Don't you ever worry when you see what's going down?
Peter: Well, I try to mind my business.  That is, no business at all.

Terry: When it's time to function as a feeling human being, will your Bachelor of Arts help you get by?
Peter: I hope to study further, a few more years or so. I also hope to keep a steady high.

Terry: Will you try to change things, use the power that you have; the power of a million new ideas?
Peter: What is this power you speak of and this need for things to change? I always thought that everything was fine.

Terry: Don't you feel repression just closing in around?
Peter: No, the campus here is very, very free.

Terry: Don't it make you angry, the way war is dragging on?
Peter: Well, I hope the President knows what he's into; I don't know.

Terry: Don't you ever see the starvation in the city where you live? All the needless hunger? All the needless pain?
Peter: I haven't been there lately, the country is so fine. My neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time.

(pause to reflect)

Terry: Thank you for the talk. You know, you really eased my mind. I was troubled by the shapes of things to come.
Peter: Well, if you had my outlook, your feelings would be numb. You'd always think that everything was fine.  Everything is fine.


Terry would like to open Peter's eyes to the harsh realities of the world, that not everything is as rosy as he seems to think, but instead, Peter convinces Terry to just not worry about things.  Just assume that everything is fine.  I see it as a cynical statement overall.  It's just easier to remain ignorant than to ask the hard questions.  Terry is really the voice of Robert, the writer.  He thinks that the powers that be should be accountable, and if they're not doing their jobs, then people have the right to be angry.  There is violence, hunger, and pain everywhere; just look around.  Peter is the common man, the ignorant masses who neither know nor care about what's going on.  If seeing all that stuff in the city bothers you, live in the country.

Also, sounds like I hear Lamm at 1:57 singing, "No the campus here is very, very free".

The line starts a little lower in his register, but it's Peter.  It threw me at first, too, but the timbre is the big giveaway.

I was just listening to Dialogue on Spotify to confirm what I wrote above, and I was thinking that Chicago really does a great job gradually bringing the instruments into the song one by one. I'm A Man and Dialogue are the main ones that come to mind. South California Purples (why isn't it called Southern?) and So Much To Give, So Much To Say do this a little bit as well.

You're right; with so many instruments, it would be easy to make everything a "wall of sound" which of course would be horrible.  Instead, they very carefully, very gradually build things up.  In "Part Two" things could (and, realistically, do) get a bit repetitive, but the horns keep building and doing different things, slowly getting more intense.  Also, the various Latin percussion instruments in "Part One" keep building, a trick they've used since the first album.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Laich21DT on August 08, 2013, 02:03:01 PM
Ah, ok. I stand corrected. I've always wondered whether the lines "My neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time" and "I also hope to keep a steady high" are meant to be taken literally.

Part Two of Dialogue contains what is likely my favorite Chicago horn section. It's from 5:33-6:00, just after the guitar solo. The way the horns build tension there is absolutely perfect.

Lets talk about Peter's bass playing for a minute. If I'm hearing things correctly, it sounds like he predominantly plays with a pick. I feel this was a good choice, as his sound really projects and cuts through the mix very well. If I may, I'd like to point out a couple of things he does in Dialogue that I love.

2:40-2:53 Is a quick little bass solo, which I've always appreciated, but never really followed it all the way to the end. The last two or three seconds of that bass solo are so moving, it nearly brings a tear to my eye. I could listen to that part over and over again.

5:12-6:00 Do I need to explain? My oh my.

7:00-7:10 Nice walking bass line (I think) under the more staggered "We can make it happen". Possibly they began singing it in a more staggered manner to represent uncertainty? Certainly the ending, "we can make it hap-" represents this.

Also, random question. I know we are done talking about Chicago (II), but I never saw an answer to this. Any idea why they used the British spelling of "colour" in two song titles? I've always thought that was kind of odd.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 08, 2013, 03:03:39 PM
"My neighbors don't seem hungry 'cause they haven't got the time" is pretty scary, and I think maybe we are supposed to think about it on more than one level.  But to me, it seems that again the idea is that Peter's character is ignorant.  "Oh, people are hungry?  I've never noticed."  And keeping a steady high isn't as common a statement today as it once was, but in the early 70's, basically you went to college to learn, but it was practically a given that you'd be high on something most of the time.  A natural high was not unheard-of, but again, in context, I don't think that's what Lamm was going for with that lyric.  Terry's character makes a reference to getting a B.A. and wonders how that will even help him function in the world, and Peter's character completely misses the point, merely saying that he plans to keep taking classes and stay high all the time.

I think Peter does some of his best bass playing on this album.  He's awesome on the free-form stuff on the live album, but manages to take it into the studio here.  He really shines during the jazzier stuff, like "Goodbye" and "Now That You've Gone".

Nope, I've never found an explanation for "colour".  Also, "Fancy Colours" was written by Lamm, and "Colour My World" by Pankow, so two different writers but both using the British spelling.  Honestly, I suspect that it was just to be different, to be "fancy".  :P
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: masterthes on August 08, 2013, 08:20:24 PM
Saturday In The Park =  :metal
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 08, 2013, 09:37:21 PM
"Saturday in the Park" was one of the first songs I learned on the piano.  I love those opening chords.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Big Hath on August 08, 2013, 11:10:53 PM
the band has said there were two reasons for the single LP this time around, both somewhat business related.  First, FM radio was becoming more commercial around this time and stations were starting to "format" - becoming more restrictive on what they would play.  Second, the way copyrights were handled for bands limited how many they could have per album.  Both of those led to shorter, more concise songs, and fewer per album.  I also suspect that creatively they needed to rebound a bit after releasing all those double albums.


This is another fabulous album.  Saturday and Dialogue are the obvious standouts, but there are several other gems.  Now That You've Gone is an awesome song.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 09, 2013, 08:08:47 AM
I remember reading the reasons for them finally going to single LPs, but couldn't remember them.  Thanks for providing that; it fits well with what I remember now.  They were going to have to release a single LP sooner or later -- there's no way they could've kept releasing doubles indefinitely -- so if it was gonna happen, I'm sure they wanted to make sure it was a good one.  But then, I think they're all great.

My second-ever album.  I started with Chicago at Carnegie Hall, and when it was time to continue my musical journey, this one seemed the next logical step.  What did they do next?  And of course, my mind was blown open a little wider.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: sueño on August 09, 2013, 02:25:20 PM
Just bought Chicago V

Shall be groovin' in the car on the way home tonight!  :)
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 09, 2013, 02:31:41 PM
Very cool! :tup

Be sure to let us know your impressions.  And as always, try not to let the hype lead to disappointment.  I love it, but I've seen many copies of it in used LP and CD stores.
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: sueño on August 09, 2013, 04:48:42 PM
"Listen children, all is not lost -- all is not lossstttt"!    :hat

God, I love that song so much.

Can you dig it?
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 09, 2013, 04:54:55 PM
Yes I can!
Title: Re: Chicago V (1972)
Post by: sueño on August 09, 2013, 05:01:50 PM
Yes I can!

:neverusethis:    :millahhhh
Title: Chicago Live in Japan (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 11, 2013, 11:22:32 AM
Chicago Live in Japan (1972)

(https://i.imgur.com/2iHqg0y.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals, Percussion
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion
Walt Parazaider - Woodwinds, Percussion
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

----------

Dialogue (Parts I & II)
A Hit by Varèse
Lowdown
State of the Union
Saturday in the Park
Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon
  Make Me Smile
  So Much to Say, So Much to Give
  Anxiety's Moment
  West Virginia Fantasies
  Colour My World
  To Be Free
  Now More Than Ever
Beginnings
Mississippi Delta City Blues
A Song for Richard and His Friends
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (Free Form Intro)
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
Questions 67 & 68
25 or 6 to 4
I'm a Man
Free

----------

Originally, I wasn't going to include this album in the Discography, for a few reasons.  It was originally only released in Japan, and not until 1975.  It was only after Chicago started their own label, Chicago Records, and bought back their catalogue from Columbia in the 90's that this album was finally released in the United States.  It has no number in the Chicago canon, but as it was recorded on the 1972 tour in support of Chicago V, it would be "Chicago Five and a Half".  It was originally a double LP and is now a double CD, but out of print.

Ultimately, I decided to include it, not just for completeness, but because it is very different from the official live album Chicago at Carnegie Hall, and many fans and members of Chicago prefer this album to it.  The sound quality is somewhat better, and rather than the quiet, sacred mecca of classical music known as Carnegie Hall, we have a screaming, enthusiastic Japanese audience, making this album much more like a "regular" live album, by rock standards.

Chicago at Carnegie Hall is often derided for its performances; critics say that they're flat and emotionless, too close to the studio versions.  While I don't agree with that assessment, there's no question that the energy level on Chicago Live in Japan is very high, and there's a great feedback between the band and the audience.  They open with "Dialogue" and as soon as Terry starts the guitar riff, the audience claps along and continues clapping rhythmically through the entire song.  I do like getting live versions of a lot of Chicago V songs.

A nice surprise is the original early version of "Mississippi Delta City Blues" which Terry Kath wrote for Chicago V but which didn't appear on a studio album until Chicago XI.  The version of "A Song for Richard and His Friends" here doesn't include the first "war scene".  That's mostly okay, but it also means that the interesting horn work leading into it is also missing.

And just for added fun, "Lowdown" and "Questions 67 & 68" are both sung in Japanese.  Peter Cetera learned to sing them phonetically, and Robert Lamm even does his harmonies and backgrounds in Japanese.

What's missing are the extended jazz guitar solos by the quartet which IMO characterize the early Chicago concert experience.  Robert's piano intro to "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is included, however, and it's a doozy, with him strumming and banging the strings inside the piano and in general offerring a very different solo from Chicago at Carnegie Hall.

At first, I didn't really care for this album, because it was so different from the official live album which I'd literally grown up with, but it's growing on me.  There's no denying the energy, sometimes taking some priority over the tightness of the performances, but never to a negative degree.  It's just a very different take on the early Chicago live concert experience, and... for completeness, I suppose... it really needs to be heard by fans of early Chicago, and included here in the Discography.  If you can find a copy, it's definitely worth checking out.
Title: Re: Chicago Live in Japan (1972)
Post by: sirbradford117 on August 11, 2013, 12:43:39 PM
I was lucky enough to find this on vinyl (the original Japanese import, NM condition) at a garage sale many years ago.  Thanks for including it in your writeup!
Title: Re: Chicago Live in Japan (1972)
Post by: Big Hath on August 11, 2013, 12:55:46 PM
I've only heard bits and pieces of this one.  By the time it was finally released in the US, I was moving on to other bands.  And all my money was going toward school around that time.
Title: Re: Chicago Live in Japan (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 11, 2013, 03:10:23 PM
I was lucky enough to find this on vinyl (the original Japanese import, NM condition) at a garage sale many years ago. 

I've only heard bits and pieces of this one. 

I'm still interested in your impressions, both of you, especially since this one's so rare.  I put very little faith in what professional rock critics say, and bands members are generally not in the best position to critique their own work.
Title: Re: Chicago Live in Japan (1972)
Post by: sirbradford117 on August 11, 2013, 05:18:21 PM
I think it's a great live album.  While I own the Carnegie album as well (and enjoy it), I do not have your expertise on it.  Certainly I had never really noticed the classical-concert vibe as opposed to the standard rock-show environment.  Being classically trained myself, that concert-hall feeling appeals to me greatly, and I really enjoyed my last listen to the Carnegie album.

Live in Japan, if I recall, is just more concise and with MUCH better sound quality.  I really enjoy the newer tracks "Dialogue," "Varese," "State of the Union" and "Mississippi Delta City Blues"... probably my favorite tracks on the album.  So the rest I regard as about the same, just with better sound quality and from a different tour.
Title: Re: Chicago Live in Japan (1972)
Post by: Orbert on August 11, 2013, 05:58:41 PM
Cool.  :tup  Those are the kind of remarks I was hoping for.
Title: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 12, 2013, 11:10:57 PM
Chicago VI (1973)

(https://i.imgur.com/eGyCYTv.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals, Harmonica (?)
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals, Percussion
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion
Walt Parazaider - Woodwinds, Percussion
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

Additional Musicians:

Loudir Soares De Oliveira - Congas
Joe Lala - Congas
J.G. O'Rafferty - Pedal Steel Guitar

----------

Critic's Choice  2:49
Just You 'N' Me  3:42
Darlin' Dear  2:56
Jenny  3:31
What's This World Comin' To  4:58
Something in This City Changes People  3:42
Hollywood  3:52
In Terms of Two  3:29
Rediscovery  4:47
Feelin' Stronger Every Day  4:15

----------

Chicago VI was, in many ways, a turning point for the band.  With the huge success of Chicago V, their first album to reach #1, there was perhaps some temptation to take the formula further.  The songs continued to get shorter, less adventurous, more pop and less prog.  This would have been fine, except that fans and band members alike generally agree that the material on this album was not as strong as on Chicago V, or any previous album for that matter.  This is Chicago's shortest album, clocking in at just under 38 minutes total time, with ten songs total.

It is a mellow, introspective album, much like Pink Floyd's Wish You Were Here or Genesis' Wind & Wuthering, which also followed huge, breakthrough albums (Dark Side of the Moon and A Trick of the Tail, respectively).  Robert Lamm wrote five of the ten songs, and each of them is basically voice and piano, although most have at least some embellishment (that is to say, some do not).  Four of the ten songs have no horns at all, and two have the horns in a supporting role only (no true horn break).  This left a lot of listeners wondering what happened, especially since the horns were all over the previous album.

To be fair, this isn't a bad album; it just had a very high standard to live up to.  Chicago VI did go to #1, buoyed by two Top Ten hits and probably the strength of the previous album as well.  It was Gold within a month of release and eventually went Double Platinum.

"Critic's Choice" is a Robert Lamm solo piece, just voice and piano.  It is addressed to all the professional rock critics who, despite Chicago's continued success, including a #1 album, continued to find bad things to say about them.  It ends with a "Big C" on the piano.

"Just You 'N' Me" is a James Pankow composition sung by Peter Cetera.  It eventually reached #4 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart.  It's a step up from the opening piece, but still pretty mellow, though it does feature a great horn break and a fine Soprano Sax solo by Walt Parazaider.

"Darlin' Dear" is the first real rocker on the album, with Lamm's piano grabbing you from the start, leading into a blues-shuffle.  The horns come swaggering in, countering the melody and providing the backdrop for Terry Kath's smoldering guitar solo.  At only three minutes, however, you're just getting into it when the song is suddenly over.

"Jenny" is Terry Kath's contribution, another mellow song with no horns.  The guitar work, including the clean electric solo, is all excellent.  Danny Seraphine's drum work is masterful, explosive yet understated.

"What's This World Comin' To" is another James Pankow song, a great uptempo rocker featuring round-robin vocals by the three lead singers.  Robert and Peter split the first verse, Terry and Robert split the second, and Terry and Peter split the third.  The chorus each time has Terry and Peter alternating lines.  At just under five minutes, it is the longest song on the album, and a full minute and a half of that is the jam at the end featuring a rare Lamm organ solo over the horns and guitar.

Robert Lamm's "Something in This City Changes People" originally opened Side Two, once again starting things mellow with just voice and piano.  The bass, drums, and guitar come in during the verse, which is sung in three-part harmony.  Actually, the entire song is sung in three-part harmony, save for a descant line by Lamm.  The break is a wistful scat by Peter, reprised at the end by an Alto Flute solo.  A very nice though slightly unusual song.

"Hollywood" is another introspective Lamm song.  It picks up a bit in the middle and continues to build, and there's some nice horn work throughout.

Peter Cetera's country-flavored "In Terms of Two" is next, starting off with a harmonica hook and featuring some tasty steel guitar work by session man J.G. O'Rafferty.

"Rediscovery" is the final Robert Lamm song on the album, once again primarily a voice and piano piece although technically it's performed by the full band.  It speaks of the need to regroup, get away from things, and rediscover what's really important.

"Feelin' Stronger Every Day" was the other hit, peaking at #10 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart.  It was co-written by James Pankow and Peter Cetera, and sung by Peter Cetera.  The album finishes on a high note, an uptempo song.

----------

In case you couldn't tell, I had some trouble finding positive things to say about this album and the individual songs on it.  And that's just plain unfortunate.  This isn't a bad album; I actually like it a lot, and most of the songs are really good.  It's just that it's so mellow overall, especially following the blazing hot Chicago V, that it feels weaker than it really is.

A good album has some variety to it.  There are the heavy/upbeat songs, a mellow one here or there, and most somewhere in between.  Once a band has several albums out, and you look at their catalogue and the albums within it, you can usually see a similar breakdown.  Each album has its own character, some are heavier overall and some are lighter.  This is the mellow one in the Chicago early catalogue, the breather between the breakthrough Chicago V and the epic Chicago VII.

Chicago VI was the first album with a picture of the band on the cover, though it was worked into the overall design which featured, as always, the Chicago logo.  It was also the first album to have additional players on it.  J.G. O'Rafferty's steel guitar is perfect for Peter's song, but the decision to add outside percussionists was an interesting one, especially since the horn players had always played Latin percussion in the past, and this album had the least amount of horn work of any so far.  As it turns out, Laudir De Oliveira would appear on Chicago VII as well, and finally become the eighth member of the band on Chicago VIII.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Big Hath on August 12, 2013, 11:30:48 PM
This is also the first of 5 albums the band recorded at Guercio's "Caribou" ranch/studio.  Previously, they had worked almost exclusively in New York.  Being outside the hustle and bustle of the city and in all that nature and quiet had the guys going a little stir crazy.  That may have played into the mellowness of the album.

I had Just You 'N Me at #9 in my songs list.  But I never was a huge fan of Feelin' Stronger.  Unfortunately, this album doesn't have a lot of memorable sections that really stick out to me other than those two hits.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 13, 2013, 07:48:29 AM
I knew that this was the first one at The Caribou, but was surprised to read that they'd previously worked in New York.  I thought they'd recorded the early albums in Los Angeles.  "South California Purples", "Hollywood", that line from "Goodbye" ("feels so good to be soaring, 'cause L.A. was so boring"), what were those all about, if not about living in southern California?

I agree about "Feelin' Stronger Every Day".  A good song, but not really a favorite.  I've never been a big fan of "two-part" songs, including this one.  It seemed pretty obvious that Pankow wrote the first part and Cetera wrote the second, although I could be wrong.  It may have been more collaborative throughout.

I know what you mean about the album lacking truly memorable moments, since it's all so low-key, but I've always liked "What's This World Comin' To" (although it's always bugged me that there's no question mark in the title, as with "What Else Can I Say").  The verses with alternating vocals, the smoking horns, and the jam at the end are all great.  Also the piano work in "Darlin' Dear" is pretty hot.

I've come to accept this one as "the mellow one".  I can understand people being underwhelmed by it, but I still put this one on when I feel like some mellow Chicago.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Big Hath on August 13, 2013, 08:06:04 AM
for the earlier albums, my understanding is the band had moved their base of operations, so to speak, to L.A. where they did some/most of their writing, but when it came time to record, they flew back to Columbia's studios in New York.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 13, 2013, 09:27:48 AM
Ah, got it.  That makes sense.

The more I think about it, the more your point about recording at The Caribou Ranch being reflected in the music also makes sense.  After the hustle and bustle of Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York, holing up in the Rockies to write and record an album must've been quite a change.  Very quiet, very peaceful, and I'm sure quite beautiful.  The result was a lot of mellow, introspective songs.  "Rediscovery" specifically mentions "this mountain majesty".
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Unlegit on August 13, 2013, 11:21:39 AM
Surprising that Feelin' Stronger Every Day isn't a huge favorite here. Personally, it's one of my favorite Chicago songs, especially the 2nd part of the song.

I agree with the mellow statements about this album though; it's definitely not incredibly rocked out.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: sueño on August 13, 2013, 03:19:07 PM
thanks for your hard work on this, orbert!  your musical taste is sublime.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 13, 2013, 05:18:13 PM
Thanks!  I can never remember what the word "sublime" means, but I think it's good, so thanks.  :)

In the Country is probably my favorite Chicago song. I love the guitar all throughout, and just the overall feel of it. The ending, where the guitar plays that repeating line, and the horns descend, is awesome.

I meant to comment on this, but forgot.  "In the Country" is one of my favorites as well.  I even had a dream once that I was on stage with Chicago, playing that song with them.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: sueño on August 13, 2013, 11:17:17 PM
Sublime - Of such excellence, grandeur, or beauty as to inspire great admiration or awe.   :biggrin:  Well, that's a bit much, but you're doin' good!   :tup

Orbert,  I just wanna really say thanks for this thread.  I now own I, II and V (so funkay!) with Carnegie Hall pending.  I didn't know how much I loved this music.  It was music of my childhood, wonderful summers and reminds me of a friend once very dear.  None of those I'll get back, but the memories are...good.

I will be scarce around here (cutting back on internet; must read more), but I've learned a lot from you..and other contributors.  So much music and film!.  Thanks for letting me hang.  I've enjoyed "The Dialogue".   ;)

Ciao..

Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 14, 2013, 07:39:50 AM
Chicago is good stuff, especially the older stuff, and I'm just doing what I can to get more people into it.  I'm not sure why, but it's important to me.  Feel free to drop in anytime!
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Podaar on August 14, 2013, 09:03:21 AM
I haven't piped up during the course of this thread but I've been following along with Spotify and have really enjoyed it. I also appreciate the great work and insight you (and Big Hath) have provided. So far I've added Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago, and Chicago V to my Amazon wish list. My children like to pick items from the wish list for presents and my birthday is this Saturday, so, you never know  ;).

I've jumped a little ahead and listened to VII and VIII...uuum. I think their discography from here on out is going to lose my interest. :D
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 14, 2013, 10:06:29 AM
I think VII is pretty killer, but different.  VIII is similar to VI in that the songs are generally pretty straightforward, but overall I think they're stronger than VI.  But yeah, they'd already turned the corner at this point.  The music business was changing, and the initial creative surge that gave us those first several masterpieces was spent.  That's another reason why I hesitated to do this Discography.  It seems almost pointless when the band was clearly past their prime only 1/4 of the way into their career.

But there are people who prefer, or at least like, the later material, and I needed an excuse to dig into it more.  Heck, I have it all; might as well get something out of it, right?
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Podaar on August 14, 2013, 10:32:38 AM
I think VII is pretty killer, but different.

Yea, I should have qualified my earlier statement with, "I really dig the first half of the album with all the Jazz and fusion work."

But there are people who prefer, or at least like, the later material, and I needed an excuse to dig into it more.  Heck, I have it all; might as well get something out of it, right?

Indeed. I look forward to your take on the subject.
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Big Hath on August 14, 2013, 10:36:06 AM
This was always one of my favorite cover designs.  Not because of the band photo, but the exquisite "currency" look.  But it is also one of the first times I saw what the band looked like (at the time of this album at least) and I was surprised at the music coming from guys that looked this "rough".
Title: Re: Chicago VI (1973)
Post by: Orbert on August 14, 2013, 11:16:53 AM
They do look pretty shaggy, don't they?  Having seen many earlier pictures of them, I knew what they "really" looked like, and basically attributed this look to where they were at the time.  They were in the Rocky Mountains in the winter, so their hair is all grown out and they're wearing winter coats.  It is an interesting choice, though, for their first-ever picture on an album cover.

I never realized that this design was meant to resemble currency until doing the research for this one.  I always liked the design, but it always seemed to me to be just that, a design.  Maybe even extra fancy to help distract from the band picture, and because previous designs were so simple.  But some place I found referred to it as "the dollar bill design" and you refer to the "currency" look of it, and that makes sense.  Maybe if it was green instead of blue, I would've seen it right away, who knows?
Title: Chicago VII (1974)
Post by: Orbert on August 16, 2013, 10:12:29 PM
Chicago VII (1974)

(https://i.imgur.com/e2Mebt3.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walt Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

Additional Musicians:

(lots)

----------

Prelude to Aire (Seraphine)  2:47
Aire (Pankow/Parazaider/Seraphine)  6:27
Devil's Sweet (Parazaider/Seraphine)  10:07

Italian From New York (Lamm)  4:14
Hanky Panky (Lamm)  1:53
Life Saver (Lamm)  5:18
Happy Man (Cetera)  3:34

(I've Been) Searchin' So Long (Pankow)  4:29
Mongonucleosis (Pankow)  3:26
Song of the Evergreens (Kath)  5:20
Byblos (Kath)  6:18

Wishing You Were Here (Cetera)  4:37
Call on Me (Loughnane)  4:02
Woman Don't Want to Love Me (Lamm)  4:35
Skinny Boy (Lamm)  5:12

----------

Chicago V and Chicago VI were not only shorter albums, but the songs themselves were shorter, and simpler.  With the concert sets becoming more about playing songs (especially their ever-growing list of hits) and less about showcasing the band itself, Chicago became restless and started working some jazzy instrumentals into their live sets.  Audience reactions were mixed, but the band loved it and decided that it was finally time to record the full-on jazz album that they'd talked about for years.

The problem was that not everyone was on board with this idea, most notably their manager/producer J.W. Guercio.  So a compromise was reached.  Chicago VII would be a double LP, allowing the band to include the jazzy, semi-improvised instrumentals they'd been working on, as well as the "regular" songs they'd been writing in the meantime.

As always, writing credits were included (although this is the first time I've included them here), and one of the first things I noticed is that all seven members of Chicago have writing credits.  My ritual was always to put the new album on, then carefully read through all credits and liner notes while listening to it.  In keeping with the jazz concept, individual credits were included for each song, and by time I'd finished reading through everything, the first side was over, and I hadn't heard any vocals yet.  At the time, I was unaware of the background of this album, but I was loving the results.

Side One starts with a short piece called "Prelude to Aire" featuring Walt Parazaider on flute.  The only other players are Danny Seraphine on drums, Laudir DeOliveira on percussion, and Robert Lamm on Mellotron.  "Prelude to Aire" of course leads into "Aire", a terrific instrumental by all eight players (including Laudir DeOliveira, who plays on 14 of the 15 tracks and was essentially the eighth member of Chicago at this point).  "Devil's Sweet" completes the first side, featuring the whole band plus David J. "Hawk" Wolinski on synthesizer.  There are numerous guest musicians and vocalists on this album, again something very common in jazz, and embraced here by the band.

Side Two opens with some weird synth sounds (think "Money" by Pink Floyd, only all synth and less rhythmic) courtesy of Robert Lamm, fully embracing his new status as a "real" keyboard player.  (He'd played only piano and organ prior to this album.)  The first three songs on the side segue.  "Italian from New York" is dominated by Terry Kath's guitar solo, with the horns backing him up, "Hanky Panky" is a jazz trombone solo framed by some big-band horn work, and "Lifesaver" completes the suite.  "Lifesaver" takes its time building, and when Lamm's vocals finally enter, halfway through Side Two, it's almost shocking.  Everything has been instrumental thus far.  Also, the song is about being "saved" by a telephone call from far across the sea, and Lamm's vocals are processed to sound like he's on the phone long-distance.

Peter Cetera's "Happy Man" finishes the side and also the first disk.  As with many of Cetera's songs, there are no horns, although this is a mellow acoustic song and they'd be out of place anyway.  Producer J.W. Guercio plays acoustic guitar, Terry Kath plays bass, and Robert Lamm plays electric piano.  Danny Seraphine, Laudir DeOliveira, and Guille Garcia provide the percussion.

Side Three opens with a pair of James Pankow tunes, the hit "(I've Been) Searchin' So Long" which made it to #9 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart, seguing into the salsa-flavored instrumental "Mongonucleosis".  Okay, it's not quite an instrumental; there's a single vocal line ("Que pe chesa?") which is repeated a few times.  I have no idea what it means.

We then get the two Terry Kath songs, two of my absolute favorites from him.  The beautiful "Song of the Evergreens" marks Lee Loughnane's debut as lead vocalist.  His voice is similar to Terry's upper range, which I suppose makes sense since Terry tends to write songs for his own voice.  Next is "Byblos", named after a club in Japan where Chicago had played.  Both songs start quietly and slowly build, but whereas "Song of the Evergreens" finally bursts forth into full-on rock and roll, "Byblos" rises to a simmer, not quite a full boil, and holds the tension at that point.  Terry plays guitars and percussion, J.W. Guercio plays bass, and David J. ("Hawk") Wolinski plays piano.  Different of course, but Robert Lamm and Peter Cetera provide background vocals, along with Terry and Lee, so it's not like they were snubbed from this track.  Danny Seraphine plays drums.

Side Four opens with the other two hits from this album, "Wishing You Were Here" and "Call On Me".  Written following a combined tour by the two bands, "Wishing You Were Here" features The Beach Boys (Al Jardine, Carl Wilson, and Dennis Wilson) on background vocals.  It reached #11 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart but went all the way to #1 on the Adult Contemporary chart.

"Call On Me" is Lee Loughnane's debut as a writer, and he scores a hit.  "Call On Me" also reached #1 on the Billboard Adult Contemporary chart, and peaked at #9 on the Pop Singles chart.  It features one of the last great Chicago horn breaks, embellished by some nice Latin percussion by Laudir DeOliveira and Guille Garcia.

The album closes with two more Robert Lamm compositions.  "Woman Don't Want to Love Me" is a dirty, funky song with Lamm on Clavinet and sung by Peter Cetera.  It's the only track on the entire album played by the original seven members and only the original seven.  One of the highlights of the album in my opinion, the break features some great guitar work by Terry Kath backed by the horn section.  The horns and guitar actually play off of each other, going back and forth a few times in a brilliant section that's part improv and part scored.

The last song is also the title track from the solo album that Robert Lamm was working on at the time, "Skinny Boy".  It's a Rhythm & Blues tune featuring The Pointer Sisters on vocals (along with Robert himself).

----------

Chicago VII was the last real masterpiece by the band, but what a masterpiece it was.  J.W. Guercio let them run free one last time.  The jazzy, funky instrumentals, the longer songs, the trumpet player on lead vocals, the Latin percussion, Robert's solo tune...  The experimentation was back, if only for one last hurrah.  And with three Top 10 hits, it was their third album in a row to reach #1 on the charts, going Gold a week after its release.

I know some people who, back in the LP days, never listened to the first disk.  I'm pretty sure I listened to the first disk more than the second, though the second disk is great as well.  On CD, I just let it play.  The sequencing and structure of the album are both perfect.  I love the instrumentals and I love the songs.

The cover, as always, features the Chicago logo designed by John Berg and realized by Nick Fasciano.  This time, it's embossed leather, celebrating four things associated with the city of Chicago: the railroads (Chicago was and is the rail center of the nation), the famous Chicago Stockyards, the Great Chicago Fire, and The Chicago World's Fair.
Title: Re: Chicago VII (1974)
Post by: Nel on August 16, 2013, 11:03:40 PM
I remember loving Devil's Sweet the one time I heard it.
Title: Re: Chicago VII (1974)
Post by: Big Hath on August 16, 2013, 11:12:01 PM
this album is all over the place, in a good way.  Really diverse blend of styles.  6 songs made it to my top 50.

Cetera said he always wanted to be a Beatle or Beach Boy and he got his wish somewhat here.  I believe Guercio had become the Beach Boys manager shortly before VII and I'm sure that helped with the collaboration and also the huge "Beachago" tour the following summer.

Life Saver is a weird little song.  Starts out as something like R&B, then when the horns come in, it completely changes into some kind of tin pan alley/vaudeville show tune.
Title: Re: Chicago VII (1974)
Post by: Orbert on August 17, 2013, 02:08:33 PM
I guess I had the timing wrong.  I thought that The Beach Boys appearing on Chicago VII was a result of discussions they had during the tour together.

I agree about "Life Saver".  It's an oddball song.  But Lamm has shown many times that he doesn't stick to conventional song structures.  Actually, when I first listened to the album, I'd lost track of where I was, and when the horns came in, I thought it was "Hanky Panky".  Something about the style said "Hanky Panky" to me.

Have you heard the early version of "Byblos"?  It's different.  I like the final form much better, though that might be mostly because I'm so used to it.  I don't think it works as well as an uptempo, manic song.  I like the way it's laid back, yet somehow very intense, in the final version.
Title: Re: Chicago VII (1974)
Post by: Big Hath on August 17, 2013, 11:08:55 PM
Ha, yeah, if not for the lyrics, Hanky Panky would be a good titel for it.

For Byblos, are you talking about the one labelled "rehearsal"?  Yeah, it is much more up tempo with Seraphine going crazy on the cymbals and drums and a much more lively guitar riff.  The song definitely works better as the laid back ballad.
Title: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 19, 2013, 09:35:13 PM
Chicago VIII (1975)

(https://i.imgur.com/Yp9ZN0g.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walt Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion

----------

Anyway You Want (Cetera)  3:37
Brand New Love Affair (Pankow)  4:28
  Part I
  Part II
Never Been in Love Before (Lamm)  4:10
Hideaway (Cetera)  4:44
Till We Meet Again (Kath)  2:03
Harry Truman (Lamm)  3:01
Oh, Thank You Great Spirit (Kath)  7:19
Long Time No See (Lamm)  2:46
Ain't It Blue? (Lamm)  3:26
Old Days (Pankow)  3:31

----------

I remember being disappointed when I first picked this one up in the record store in 1975.  Right or wrong, fair or unfair, an album's packaging says something about its contents.  Every Chicago album prior to this had been a gatefold, a jacket that "opened up".  The only exception was the live album, which was a four-LP box set.  You could hardly accuse them of being cheap with the packaging for that one.  Even the two single LPs were gatefolds.  Chicago VIII was the first album by Chicago that didn't "open up".  To me, this indicated that the record company did not see fit to invest in deluxe packaging, a sure sign that the band did not have the unconditional support of the label that they once had.

This is actually somewhat confusing, since Chicago VII did very well, reaching #1, spawning three hit singles and spending a long time on the charts.  It was actually still in the Billboard Top 200 when Chicago VIII was done and ready to be released.  They issued "Harry Truman" as the advance single (a rare move for Chicago) to give Chicago VII a little more time to shine.

It's another "regular" album, as they all would be from this point forward.  Eleven songs... no, ten.  They've listed "Brand New Love Affair - Part I" and "Brand New Love Affair - Part II" separately on the sleeve, even though they segue, are actually a single track on the record, and only total four and a half minutes anyway.  At 39:28 total time, it's a step up from Chicago VI, but still one of the shorter Chicago albums.

It did reach #1 on the Billboard album chart, knocking out Led Zeppelin's Physical Graffitti (speaking of elaborate packaging), and making four #1 albums in a row for Chicago.

Don't get me wrong; Chicago VIII is not a bad album.  Remember, there are no truly bad albums from the original band.  It rocks out quite a few times, definitely giving it an edge over the mellow Chicago VI.  The biggest hit from the album, "Old Days", starts with actual power chords courtesy of Mr. Kath, one of the only Chicago songs to do so.  "Old Days" made it to #5.  "Brand New Love Affair, Pt I & II" topped out at #61.  The advance single, "Harry Truman", got up to #13.  I also remember hearing "Ain't It Blue" on the radio a few times, though apparently it didn't chart.

"Anyway You Want" is a shuffle, but it's a rare Cetera song with horns, and they even take a break, following a guitar break by Terry Kath.  It's a good choice for an album opener.

"Brand New Love Affair, Parts I & II" is not as bad as some make it sound.  Sure, "Part I" is a smooth, sappy love song crooned by Terry.  But he does it so well, and it's really a beautiful song.  "Part II" lets it rip, with Peter Cetera actually getting a bit rough on lead vocals, and the horn break is one of my favorites of any Chicago song.

"Never Been in Love Before" is yet another Cetera-led song, even though it was written by Robert Lamm.  The third track on the album (or fourth, depending on how you count), this is the latest we've ever had to wait before getting a Lamm song.  It's another love song, not too mellow, with a horn break that moves things along nicely.

"Hideaway" is the other Cetera song, and this one's a straight-out rocker.  Guitar, bass, drums, and Hammond organ (no horns), and Peter doing his best to really get down and dirty.  Unfortunately, while the song has a good sound, it's about as interesting as a good bar band might write.  Not horrible, just nothing special.

"Till We Meet Again" is a short song, just voice and acoustic guitar (multi-tracked).  It starts with the sounds of a music box being wound up, emphasizing the brevity of the piece.  It's nice, actually goes through some changes in its brief span, and doesn't overstay its welcome.

Side Two opens with "Harry Truman" which was, as mentioned, the advance single.  A Robert Lamm piece starting with piano chords a la "Saturday in the Park", it's a call to our departed president to please come back.  We need someone like Harry Truman today.  A man known for his plain speaking and not even trying to please everyone, just doing his job (which he inherited when President Franklin D. Roosevelt died in office) the best he knew how, which ultimately included dropping a few atomic bombs on Japan to end World War II.

"Oh, Thank You Great Spirit", at a little over seven minutes, is the longest track on the album.  Terry's homage to Jimi Hendrix, it starts with a strange, dreamlike recitation, a brief sung verse, then takes off into a smoking guitar solo.

"Long Time No See" is another Lamm tune, an uptempo rocker again starting with the piano.  It has a great break with the horns and guitar doing something that sounds like a 70's movie or TV crime show theme.  It always reminds of "Theme from Shaft" or "Streets of San Francisco".  Well, it was the 70's.

"Ain't It Blue?" is a heavy, bluesy rocker, with Terry and Peter alternating lines on the lead vocals.  It swaggers along with the horns, and takes two breaks!

"Old Days", James Pankow's trip down memory lane, closes out the album.  Being a Pankow tune, it of course has a horn break, and it's a good one.  The slow fade at the end seems an appropriate end to the album.

----------

I was worried when I opened this one up for the first time.  Basic packaging, and ten songs mostly in the three-to-four-minute range.  But Chicago VIII did not disappoint overall.  If the initial creative burst that gave us all those great studio albums was spent and Chicago was now down to "regular" albums, then at least we got a good one.  It's different; you listen to it and you can practically hear the times changing, but at least they rock out and don't disapoint.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Big Hath on August 20, 2013, 08:20:52 AM
I've got to be honest, I rate this album pretty low.  I really only have it above Hot Streets from the 70's output.  But, I also haven't listened to it very much so I should probably give it another chance.  Old Days was the only song that made my top 50 list, and I remember the horns sounding really good on that song.

I was never enamored with the cover on this one when I was first getting into the band, so that probably plays into why I've never listened to it much.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 20, 2013, 09:23:56 AM
Really?  I love the cover.  It doesn't look like a rendering, and Photoshop of course didn't exist back then.  It looks to me like they actually made the patch and took a picture of it.  I always wanted one of those patches.  And I always wanted a denim jacket to put patches on.  The iron-on included in the album was cool, but the T-shirt I put it on eventually wore out and went away.  Also, cardinals are badass.

The horns sound great on this album.  They're only on six of the tracks, though, which is disappointing.  Peter always felt that they were optional, Terry was getting away from them, and even Robert didn't always use them.  James is the only one who consistently used the horn section, for obvious reasons.  But when they're there, they rock.

I can see how this one can be overlooked or underrated.  It does have its weaknesses, same as VI, X, and even XI.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Big Hath on August 20, 2013, 09:44:44 AM
I think I was born a little too late to want patches for a denim jacket.  I seem to remember my older brother having some of those.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: ZirconBlue on August 21, 2013, 12:17:19 PM
Also, cardinals are badass.


And the state bird of Illinois.


(. . . and Kentucky, and Indiana, and Ohio, and North Carolina, and Virginia.  And West Virginia.  I've lived in 5 states, and 4 of them had the cardinal as the state bird.)


I think I was born a little too late to want patches for a denim jacket.  I seem to remember my older brother having some of those.


I was born in 1971, and denim jackets with band patches were popular when I was in Middle/High School.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 21, 2013, 01:07:35 PM
I always go through several edits with these write-ups, and at one point I mentioned that the cardinal is the state bird of Illinois.  Then I wondered if Nick Fasciano (who designed the cover) even knew that, or if he just liked the look.  After all, it is the state bird of several states, as you mentioned.  I love the green against the red, with the touches of blue and yellow for accent, all against the black background.  In the end, though, I cut all of that out.  I've made note of the cover art a few times, and I didn't really want it to become a thing.  It would be a good thing, except that I didn't start it from the first album, and I had no idea what the concept was for the second album.  What is that, polished steel?  Marble?

Yep, I'm nine years older than you, but I was pretty sure that denim jackets with band patches were still around at least into the 80's.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Big Hath on August 21, 2013, 02:04:56 PM
yeah, I was born in '77, so I missed out on all the patch awesomeness.  The only patches I had were on the knees of my jeans after ripping holes in them by playing too rough.

For Chicago (II), yes, I think it is supposed to be a metal bar of some sort.  Silver or steel or something like that.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 21, 2013, 02:14:46 PM
That's too bad.  Nowadays, band T-shirts are as popular as ever, and that's cool, but your jacket was where you could show off all of your favorite bands.  And of course, the more patches you had, and the more awesome they were, the cooler you were.

And I never had one.  :'(
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Podaar on August 22, 2013, 12:59:47 PM
Orbert,

I've gotten the impression that you did a thread like this for ELP. Is that true? I'm having a horrible time tracking it down if you did. May I ask for some help in locating it?

Sorry for being off topic.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 22, 2013, 01:35:03 PM
No problem.  So far I've done discographies for Yes, Genesis, and Emerson Lake & Palmer.


Yes (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=32530)

Genesis (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=34467)

Emerson Lake & Palmer (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=35522.0)
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Podaar on August 22, 2013, 01:46:19 PM
Oh-boy, oh-boy, oh-boy :panicattack:

Thank you!!
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Podaar on August 24, 2013, 02:32:49 AM
Thanks Orbert! I've worked my way through the ELP and the Yes threads and have added a few CD's to my wish list as a result. You might be surprised but I was instantly smitten with Tales From a Topographic Ocean. I'm going to attempt Genesis again and see where it leads me. A few years ago I tried really hard to get into pre-Abacab Genesis to improve my prog-cred and failed miserably. Wish me luck.

I'm still interested in your thoughts about the remaining Chicago albums up through at least X.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 24, 2013, 06:55:54 AM
Good luck on getting into the early Genesis.  It's definitely different from their later stuff, and folks who started with the later, more popular version of Genesis don't always take to the earlier material.

I've been trying to work up the motivation to continue the Chicago discography.  I've been pretty busy lately, but that's not all of it.  I've been a staunch defender of the original nine studio albums, but upon re-listening, wow, things really did drop off towards the end.  I'll probably at least go through Chicago XI, the original nine.  After that, we'll have to see.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Big Hath on August 24, 2013, 10:21:05 AM
I was hoping you could make it to at least 17.  Definitely wanted to see your thoughts on Hot Streets, 13, and XIV if you could stomach your way through them.  Although 13 is a bit of a sentimental favorite of mine, the other two are pretty much the dregs of the discography.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 24, 2013, 11:59:12 AM
Maybe I'll just have to make do with less frequent updates or something.  I figured the participation in this one would be somewhat less than the true prog bands I'd covered, but it's still a bit discouraging when I feel like I'm only doing it for three or four people.

That's not a complaint, by the way, just a reason.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: jammindude on August 24, 2013, 12:14:18 PM
I haven't been chiming in much...but I want to remind you that there are those of us who lurk.    I haven't had the time to listen anything past IV...because that's all on vinyl and I haven't been down to the mancave for anything but my J-Dude reviews lately.   But this thread *HAS* inspired me to listen to more early Chicago...and I actually bought IV from Amazon *BECAUSE OF THIS THREAD*.     And I've really been digging it, because I had never heard it before...ever...until I bought it for this thread.

So don't think that these threads don't make a difference, even if we don't respond every time.   I'm a music reviewer, and I LOVE music reviews.   So I am out here watching.    But even though I *LOVE* reading the review for Chicago VIII (and will refer back to it when/if I ever get it) I just don't have anything to add currently, because I've never heard it. 

I will try to check out X sometime this week.   It's my understanding that it was kindof the last of the good ones.  (I think people have mentioned that even XI (Kath's last) was really not that great.   But who knows....maybe if I end up loving the band enough, I'll become a completist.)

One thing I would like to see a review for (if you've heard it and/or like it) is that Stone of Sisyphus (??) album that they recorded and didn't release til years later.  It was supposed to be a "return to roots" album, and I'd be curious to see what a hard core Chicago fan thought of it.
Title: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 24, 2013, 12:33:22 PM
Ah yes, the lurkers.  I know you're out there.  Okay, okay... I'll keep going.  This next one, though, is just gonna be a quickie.
Title: Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits (1975)
Post by: Orbert on August 24, 2013, 12:33:35 PM
Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits (1975)

(https://i.imgur.com/v8Fvt3W.jpg)

Click for the back cover, the "completed work" (https://i.imgur.com/sfMMCgJ.jpg)

25 or 6 to 4 
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? 
Colour My World
Just You 'N' Me
Saturday in the Park 
Feelin' Stronger Every Day 
Make Me Smile
Wishing You Were Here 
Call on Me 
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long 
Beginnings 

----------

The second Chicago album (and I believe the last regular release) to have a band picture on the cover was of course done in a rather comical way.  I think they still wanted the logo to represent the band, but it's a Greatest Hits package, so what the heck.  This always felt something like a compromise to me, but it made me chuckle.

I've seen other reviews of this album calling it "the only one you need" and such.  Okay, if all you really want are their greatest hits, then here they are.  Since I already had all the albums which preceded this one, I never bought Chicago IX, but I had a friend who did, and she played it one time when I was at her house.  You know how there can be "radio edit" versions of songs?  You know how the "greatest hits" packages usually include those shorter versions?  Yeah.  Disappointing.

But... such packages are not for serious fans of the band in the first place.  They're meant for the casual fans who only know them from their radio hits anyway, and here they all are.  Or maybe for people who are looking for a sampler from the band.  So here they are, the greatest hits.  Note that there were also some hits which apparently were considered less great.  "Dialogue" isn't here, nor is "Questions 67 and 68".  Neither of the minor hits from Chicago III are here, and while "Old Days" made it pretty big, it was just released prior to this album, so maybe it was too new, or the list had already been finalized by time "Old Days" started climbing the charts.
Title: Re: Chicago VIII (1975)
Post by: The King in Crimson on August 24, 2013, 12:42:20 PM
Ah yes, the lurkers.  I know you're out there.  Okay, okay... I'll keep going.  This next one, though, is just gonna be a quickie.
Yeah, I picked up Chicago I and II because of this thread. I had a (really shit) greatest hits collection but that was it. This thread inspired me to get some of their actual albums so kudos to you. I'll likely get some more in the future, but right now my music funds are spent for... quite a while. Suffice to say, I've been happily lurking since the beginning and will continue to do so, even though I have nothing to add to the discussions. :)
Title: Chicago X (1976)
Post by: Orbert on August 26, 2013, 10:58:54 PM
Chicago X (1976)

(https://i.imgur.com/4Mgr5Fr.jpg)

Click for full gatefold (https://i.imgur.com/ztnXKik.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds, Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Vocals
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion, Vocals

----------

Once or Twice (Kath)
You Are on My Mind (Pankow)
Skin Tight (Pankow)
If You Leave Me Now (Cetera)
Together Again (Loughnane)
Another Rainy Day in New York City (Lamm)
Mama Mama (Cetera)
Scrapbook (Lamm)
Gently I'll Wake You (Lamm)
You Get It Up (Lamm)
Hope for Love (Kath)

----------

The band continued to evolve, the songs continued to get shorter, and while the Chicago sound was continuing to push in different directions than before, it was overall heading in a more mainstream and less proggy direction.  Now, to be fair, the band never set out to be "prog"; they just wanted to rock out with horns.  But they weren't even doing that a lot of the time anymore.  The famous Chicago horns only appear on six of the 11 songs here, and there are guest musicians (mostly strings and French horns) all over the place.

The horns are the first thing you hear, however, on Terry Kath's rocker "Once or Twice".  A great, up-tempo song, it really cooks.  The downside of such a high-speed song is that you can have three verses and a double-length saxophone solo for the break, and it still comes in at only three minutes.  But it grabs you and starts the album off on a high note.

"You Are On My Mind" is a somewhat different song by James Pankow.  It has a nice horn break (of course), and some great trombone work at the end.  What's different is that James sings the lead vocals.  After each of the three regular singers tried it, and James felt that none of them really sounded right, producer J.W. Guercio suggested that Pankow try it himself, and he ended up singing the final version of the song.  It made it to #49 on the charts, and was even resurrected for the 2007 tour, complete with Pankow on lead vocals.

"Skin Tight" is the other Pankow song.  It's a somewhat funky, bluesy song with some sassy horn work.

"If You Leave Me Now" needs no introduction.  It was Chicago's first #1 hit, and while the rest of the band really liked the song, most felt that it was too different stylistically to put on a Chicago album.  Some were actively against it, and it almost wasn't included on the album.  Producer/manager J.W. Guercio pushed for it, however.  It is said that the seeds of Guercio's eventual dismissal after Chicago XI were planted here.  Full of lush strings and French horns, it brought a whole new audience to Chicago, officially launching the next phase of their career, for better or for worse.

After his lead vocal debut and first songwriting credit on Chicago VII, on different songs, trumpeter Lee Loughnane finally sings his own song, "Together Again".  The horns are back, and the break has some nice flute work by Walt Parazaider and synth work by Robert Lamm.

Another slight stylistic departure, Robert Lamm's "Another Rainy Day in New York City" features a Calypso rhythm and steel drums during the break.  It made it to #32 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart but went all the way to #2 on the Adult Contemporary chart.

Side Two opens with "Mama Mama", Peter Cetera's other contribution.  It too features strings and French horns instead of the Chicago horn section.  I actually like this song, certainly more than "If You Leave Me Now" and not just because the latter was overplayed and overproduced.  I'd already come to that conclusion before it was released as a single.

"Scrapbook" is a cool idea that I wish went on just a bit longer.  Each verse is a glimpse at a point in Chicago's history, from State Street in Chicago to their breakthrough shows in California and eventual world tours.  It goes into a jam featuring something we'd almost forgotten existed: the Terry Kath guitar solo with the horn section backing him up.  Then the music changes and you think it's going to go into another section, but instead it ends abruptly, leaving the listener intrigued but ultimately unsatisfied.

I love "Gently I'll Wake You".  It's a sappy, cheesy love song which I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to take seriously.  It's all mellow, then the chorus hits and the strings and horns hit you in the face as Robert roars "Gently I'll wake you!  I won't hardly shake you!"  It cracks me up.  I have no idea if it's supposed to be serious or satire, but I take it as satire and it's a riot.

"You Get It Up", another Lamm composition, is another one that I'm not sure you're supposed to take seriously.  I mean, the lyrics are pretty blatant.  The horn work is fun, though, and overall it rocks out, though it, like most songs on this album, just seems too short.

We started with an up-tempo Kath song, and finish with a mellow one, "Hope for Love".  It's a nice enough song, I guess, but I really don't care for Terry ballads.

----------

Eleven songs, all in the three-to-four-minute range.  That's right; all under four minutes, all over three.  I don't know if it was by design or what.  While most bands were enjoying the freedom of the 70's, stretching out a bit on albums, Chicago seemed to be going the other way.  Their first albums had some long tracks and multi-song suites; now they literally just cranked out short pop songs, and packed as many as they could onto their albums.

There's a great variety to this album, which is interesting, and some great moments.  Unfortunately, they're just too few and too far between.  Terry Kath and Robert Lamm in particular are said to have been increasingly dissatisfied with the way the band was being run, and it was being run with an iron fist by James William Guercio.  After he "allowed" them to get their jazz ya-yas out on Chicago VII, it was back to business as usual with Chicago VIII, and this album, its follow-up, takes the band even more definitely towards light, fluffy, pop music.

At least the gatefold covers were back, for now.  In fact, for the first time, the cover art continues from the front cover across to the back.  I always thought that it was cool when album art did that.  You could open it up and the picture continued around the spine.  Most Chicago albums up to now opened up, but this is the first time it wasn't just the same thing on the front and back.
Title: Re: Chicago X (1976)
Post by: Big Hath on August 26, 2013, 11:22:56 PM
decent album, somewhere in the middle of the pack for me.  Only three short Lamm songs (and two of them seemingly written as a joke) kind of tells you something though.

The artwork actually won the band a Grammy.

Regarding "If You Leave Me Now" barely making the album at the last minute, a few months after recording the album, Parazaider says he heard the song on the radio and said to himself "that's a catchy tune, where have I heard it before"?  Then the DJ comes in with "and that's the latest release from Chicago".  Apparently he didn't even remember the song!
Title: Re: Chicago X (1976)
Post by: Orbert on August 27, 2013, 07:41:18 AM
Yeah, that's a great story.  Since the horns don't play on it, he didn't really have a connection to the song.  Supposedly he thought it sounded like Paul McCartney or someone like that, then found out it was actually Chicago.

Four Lamm songs total, but I know what you mean.  It seems like maybe he wasn't even trying anymore, and I'm not sure if I blame him.
Title: Re: Chicago X (1976)
Post by: Podaar on August 27, 2013, 08:07:12 AM
Ah, Chicago X, so much nostalgia. This was the go to album at the end of a party when just a few other adolescent couples where hanging out and pairing up for awkward teenaged exploration. Now, so many years later it just doesn't tickle the music fan in me...especially if you play Chicago Transit Authority right after listening to it. It makes one sad to think what could have been if they'd retained more of their AOR aesthetic.
Title: Re: Chicago X (1976)
Post by: Orbert on August 27, 2013, 08:34:04 AM
It's amazing that this is the same band (plus a percussionist), same manager and producer, and only seven years later.  The first album also had 11 tracks and was twice as long.  Song length is obviously not the only measure of a song's "worth", but there's no question that they'd stripped things down, way down, by this point.

And because they'd scored their first #1 hit with this "formula", there was of course the temptation to keep doing it this way.  Look what happened to Yes with "Owner of a Lonely Heart" -- their first and only #1.  Genesis stripped down and started scoring major radio hits.  When you've been in the business for years and years, and you finally start making some money, it's hard to say No to that.
Title: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: Orbert on August 29, 2013, 10:23:21 PM
Chicago XI (1977)

(https://i.imgur.com/EOlQjWN.jpg)

Click for full gatefold (https://i.imgur.com/kEtkRJv.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion
Terry Kath - Guitar, Percussion, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Keyboards, Percussion, Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

----------

Mississippi Delta City Blues (Kath)
Baby, What a Big Surprise (Cetera)
Till the End of Time (Pankow)
Policeman (Lamm)
Take Me Back to Chicago (Seraphine, Wolinski)
Vote for Me (Lamm)
Takin' It on Uptown (Kath)
This Time (Loughnane)
The Inner Struggles of a Man (Frontiere)
Prelude (Little One) (Seraphine, Wolinski)
Little One (Seraphine, Wolinski)

----------

I never owned an LP copy of this album.  I stuck with Chicago through Chicago X, but my interests had moved on by then, and Chicago was not the powerhouse that they once were.  I had a few friends who had Chicago XI, both female, now that I think about it, and both of whom I'd actually introduced to Chicago.  I borrowed it from one of them; I don't remember which.  I think it was Laurie.

Back in the LP and cassette days, I used to find two albums that "went together" and put one on each side of a C-90 cassette.  Because I usually listened to albums straight through, it was easier to just play the tape than get out the records, and the records were spared from a lot of the abuse that I saw my friend's records go through.  Also, there were tape decks in cars, so I recorded most of my albums anyway.

So I borrowed Chicago XI from Laurie and put it on the other side of a tape with Chicago X.  I read the credits once, but didn't have them to study and memorize, and somehow I'd believed all these years that "Little One" and that whole suite were written by Terry Kath.  "Little One" is preceded by two orchestral pieces, and the parts all segue, just as with Terry's "Memories of Love" suite from the second album, Chicago.  And Terry of course sings "Little One".  But no, both "Little One" and its "Prelude" are by Danny Seraphine, along with his friend David "Hawk" Wolinski.  You may recall that Hawk was a guest on Chicago VII, playing keyboards on some of the jazzy instrumentals.

But I'm getting ahead of myself.  The point is that I thought that Terry had written the suite which closes this album, and I think I even referred to that during my writeup of Chicago.  I thought that this album started and ended with Terry Kath songs, as did Chicago X.

The album does start, however, with a Terry Kath song, "Mississippi Delta City Blues" which had been around since the early days.  There's even a version of it on Chicago Live in Japan, recorded during the tour for Chicago V and not much different from the final version here.  It's a great opening tune, bluesy and dirty, with plenty of horns, and of course Terry's gritty guitar and vocals.

"Baby, What a Big Surprise" was Peter Cetera's inevitable follow-up to his hit "If You Leave Me Now" from the previous album.  This one reached #4 and further cemented Chicago's new-found reputation as an "Adult Contempory" group.  As much as I dislike the "Adult Contemporary" label because it's so generic sounding (much like the music itself), the term "Soft Rock" is an actual oxymoron and thus even worse.  Anyway, fans loved it, they loved Peter, and again the song was practically a Cetera solo piece, with J.W. Guercio on guitar and bass, lush orchestration (courtesy of Dominic Frontiere), and a host of guest background vocalists.  It is the only song on the album with Cetera on lead vocals, which was very unusual during his tenure with the band.

"Till the End of Time" is James Pankow's sole contribution this time around, also a rarity.  He sings it as well, doing a decent, if unremarkable, job capturing the schmaltzy 40's style.  The horns of course are great on this one.

Robert Lamm's excellent "Policeman" is next.  I love this song. 

Every day he wakes up, as his bare feet hit the floor
Grabs a cup of coffee, straps his magnum on once more
Feeds the cat he lives with since his wife walked out the door
In nine years, he'll retire with a pension


It's a character study in a song, chill and introspective, with some great trombone work towards the end.

"Take Me Back to Chicago" is the other Seraphine-Wolinski collaboration, sung by Robert Lamm.  It's about missing your hometown and the simpler times you enjoyed back when you lived there.  Chaka Khan adds some vocal spice to the outro.  Chaka of course was the lead singer for Rufus, the band for which Hawk Wolinski was the keyboard player.  It was released as a single and broke the Top 100, but ultimately only reached #63.

"Vote for Me" is another Lamm is-he-serious-or-isn't-he song.  It feels tongue-in-cheek, and Robert's disdain for the government is well known, but I think it's just a fun mock election platform song.

"Takin' It On Uptown" is Terry Kath's other song, and is believed to be essentially a solo piece, a preview of the solo album he was working on at the time, similar to Robert Lamm's "Skinny Boy" from Chicago VII.  There is a liner note saying "Keep your eyes open", apparently in reference to Terry's solo album which was never completed, as he died following the release of this album.

"This Time" is a Lee Loughnane song.  As with his other songs, it's not bad, but really, as with Pankow's "Till the End of Time", he should have had one of the regular lead singers sing it.

The album closes with the aforementioned three-track suite, the dark orchestral piece "The Inner Struggles of a Man", the lighter but brief "Prelude (Little One)" and finally the song "Little One", sung by Terry Kath.  It too cracked the Billboard Top 100, reaching #44.  As I mentioned, I thought for the longest time that Terry himself wrote it, and it's especially poignant because the song is written by a father to his child, and Terry had a baby daughter at the time.

Oh Little One, don't live in fear of the future
'Cause I will always be there


And less than a year later, he was gone.  I always thought it was so tragic and ironic that he would write those words.  Now I know that he didn't write them, but he did sing them, and as he did have a little one, I'm sure he meant every word.  It's a great, soulfull vocal performance by Terry.  And it was his last.

----------

During the recording of this album, the decision was made by the band to part ways with their longtime manager, producer, friend and mentor James William Guercio once the sessions were concluded.  It was at his insistence that "If You Leave Me Now" was included on Chicago X and "Baby, What a Big Surprise" was included here.  While these songs were huge commercial hits, some members of the band (in particular Robert Lamm and Terry Kath) felt that they were not representative of "the Chicago sound" and would ultimately lead the band in a different direction.  It turned out that they were right, but the damage had already been done, so to speak.

This would be their final album under J.W. Guercio, but more importantly, their last album with Terry Kath.  Shortly after the release of Chicago XI, Terry accidentally and fatally shot himself at a party.  The heart and soul of Chicago was gone.

Overall, this album is a step up from Chicago X, but at the same time, a bit less balanced.  Peter Cetera's "Baby, What a Big Surprise" doesn't stick out as much as the band may have thought, IMO, because both Lee Loughnane and James Pankow contributed songs which they also sang, and Danny Seraphine contributed a songs few as well.  Robert Lamm and Terry Kath wrote and sang a few songs each, nothing unusual there, but Chicago has always been a collective.  They encouraged everyone to write songs, and apparently to attempt to sing them (or perhaps that was JWG's influence), so they couldn't very well complain when Peter Cetera's songs caught fire, and caught the public ears.  But it was ultimately the mediocre songs and vocal performances that hurt this album.

There are some high points and some low points, and some great variety overall.  I don't know if any of the songs are really bad, there's just too many mediocre ones.  At least most of them break the four-minute barrier and don't feel like they were intentional victims of trying to keep things short and commercial-sounding.
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: jammindude on August 29, 2013, 10:32:12 PM
Chiming in to say thank you for continuing with this. 

I was actually expecting "X Part II", but you've made it sound like a slight improvement, and I'm going to have to check it out.   Maybe not in the immediate future...but I'm sure I'll bump this thread when it does happen.

Still fascinated by this thread.   Keep up the great reviews!   :tup
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: Big Hath on August 29, 2013, 11:15:20 PM
agree with almost everything you said here, orbert - right down to thinking Kath wrote Little One!  For the longest time I thought he MUST have written due to his singing such seemingly personal lyrics.  Never bothered to look it up.

also agree on this being a slight step up from X.  I put them both in the 3rd tier of Chicago albums.  Mississippi Delta City Blues is an awesome song.  I always liked the switch between the feel of the verses and the choruses on Take Me Back.  And the background vocals/harmonies on Baby What A Big Surprise are phenomenal.
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: The Curious Orange on August 30, 2013, 02:12:39 AM
Orbert - another lurker here! have enjoyed reading all your discographies so far, keep up the good work!
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: Orbert on August 30, 2013, 07:56:18 AM
Thanks for the comments, guys!  I'm feeling a bit less whiny these days, and will more than likely go ahead and finish the discography.  I was feeling somewhat intimidated, having picked up Chicago XXX a few years back and... well, you do the math.

But if you do, you might reach the same wrong conclusion as I did.  Fewer than half of the remaining Chicago albums are "regular" studio albums.  There are a bunch of "greatest hits" and box sets, some special collections (Chicago Love Songs, etc.) two more live albums, two or three Christmas albums, and the Big Band album which they finally did.  I'll give them all at least a once-over; studio albums will get proper write-ups while live albums and collections not so much.
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: Big Hath on August 30, 2013, 08:03:17 AM
personally, I can't wait to see what you have to say about the next three studio albums.  ;)
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: Orbert on August 30, 2013, 08:20:05 AM
You might be surprised.  I've been listening to Hot Streets and Chicago 13 all week, with a particular ear towards "finding the good" rather than the bad, and I've found quite a bit.
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: Big Hath on August 30, 2013, 08:31:48 AM
right on!  Can't say much for Hot Streets, but 13 is pretty cool in my view.
Title: Re: Chicago XI (1977)
Post by: sirbradford117 on August 30, 2013, 10:39:33 AM
Thanks Orbert for continuing!  I'm a lurker too.

You might be surprised.  I've been listening to Hot Streets and Chicago 13 all week, with a particular ear towards "finding the good" rather than the bad, and I've found quite a bit.

You're absolutely right... I quite enjoyed those 2 albums the last time I listened to them!
Title: Chicago: Hot Streets (1978)
Post by: Orbert on September 01, 2013, 11:13:33 PM
Chicago: Hot Streets (1978)

(https://i.imgur.com/QSHSsA9.jpg)

Click for full gatefold (https://i.imgur.com/G9KVxrT.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Donnie Dacus - Guitar, Vocals
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums

----------

Alive Again (Pankow)
The Greatest Love on Earth (Seraphine, Wolinski)
Little Miss Lovin (Cetera)
Hot Streets (Lamm)
Take a Chance (Loughnane)
Gone Long Gone (Cetera)
Ain't It Time (Dacus, Seraphine, Schwebke)
Love Was New (Lamm)
No Tell Lover (Cetera, Loughnane, Seraphine)
Show Me the Way (Seraphine, Wolinski)

----------

The first thing you notice is that this album actually has a name and not a number.  Or maybe that it has a silly band picture on the cover.  Well, half of a band picture anyway; you get the rest of the band when you open up the jacket (or CD booklet, as the case may be).  This is obviously a different approach for Chicago, and it was an important album for them.  Unfortunately, the results were not an unqualified success.

They had planned to part ways with James William Guercio after Chicago XI was done.  They did that.  They felt that he had been leading the band in a direction that they weren't happy with, a direction that was not faithful to the original concept of Chicago.  They had hoped to get back to that.

They had not planned, obviously, on the death of founding member Terry Kath, and it's difficult to say which event had a greater impact on the Chicago sound, but most fans agree that it was the loss of Terry.  He was not just their guitarist and one of their lead vocalists, but also considered by most to be the heart and soul of the band.

They considered breaking up.  Already faced with the daunting concept of pressing forward without their longtime mentor, they suddenly faced a much greater tragedy, one which hit them much harder emotionally.  But eventually they decided that they still had music to make, and since they'd been together since college, it was really all they knew how to do anyway.  But first, they had to find another guitarist.

Their search led them to Donnie Dacus, who both sang and played guitar.  Rather than attempt to replace Terry with someone who sounded similar, they went in a different direction.  Donnie had a high voice, similar to Peter Cetera's, and his main guitar sound was a clean electric sound, not the gritty, bluesy sound that Terry Kath preferred.  The opening track, "Alive Again" is clearly a statement from the band.

Yesterday, I would not have believed
That tomorrow the sun would shine
Then one day, you came into my life
I am alive again


Okay, so technically it's a love song about finding someone when you were down and out, but there's no question that there's a double meaning here.  The song, and thus the album, opens with Donnie's guitars.  Plural.  Rhythmic picking, with power chords behind it.  And then the horns come in, announcing that Chicago is back.  They are alive again.  It's a great, upbeat song from James Pankow, and if there's a weakness to it, unfortunately, I would have to say that it's the guitar.  Not just because it isn't Terry; there was only one Terry.  But the sound really is thin and weak.  When the solo comes, the song practically loses all momentum as Donnie plays a mellow solo over the charging, upbeat rhythm.  It's an odd choice, especially if the idea was to show off the new guitarist and his skills, and after such a strong opening, it's nothing short of disappointing.  Otherwise, it's a great song and it reached #14 on the Billboard Pop Singles chart.

And then, as with the previous album, the rocking opener is followed immediately by a mellow song sung by Peter Cetera.  The latest from the now-regular team of Danny Seraphine and Hawk Wolinski is "The Greatest Love on Earth", a sappy song about long-distance love.  Not a horrible song, I suppose, but by having it second on the album, it certainly doesn't give the impression that they're trying to do anything different from the last few albums.  Nice horn work anyway.

"Little Miss Lovin'" is also sung by Peter Cetera, but that's to be expected, since he wrote it.  But who is that on background vocals?  Is that the Bee Gees?  Yes, it is.  This is Chicago getting back to their roots?  Nice horn work anyway.

The title track, "Hot Streets", is one of only two Robert Lamm songs on this album, but it's one of the better songs.  Walt Parazaider's flute solo in 7/4 is a highlight, and towards the end, the song suddenly shifts to a slow 5/4 for the outro guitar solo by Donnie Dacus.  It's another odd choice, and I'm not sure that I like the solo, but it's growing on me.

Lee Loughnane again contributes another not-bad song with "Take a Chance".  The credits don't indicate who sings lead vocals, but I'm assuming that this is Donnie Dacus, as it's the only voice that I don't recognize.

"Gone Long Gone" is one of Peter Cetera's country-flavored songs.  No horns, and it sounds like steel guitar, even though there's no steel guitar credited on the album.  Maybe it's Donnie with a slide.  I actually kinda like this song.  And yeah, the Cetera country-flavored song with no horns is actually old-school Chicago, so there is that.  This song was also released as a single, topping out at #73.

So what does a Donnie Dacus song sound like?  We don't know for sure, because he shares writing credits with Danny Seraphine and someone named Warner Schwebke, but "Ain't It Time" is a pretty heavy rocker.  I like the main riff, the refrain kicks some butt, and the horns are pretty hot.  The guitar work is pretty good, too, not as thin-sounding as elsewhere on the album.

"Love Was New" is something of a Chicago rarity; it's a Robert Lamm song that I just don't like.  I like the idea of it, and the music is nice enough, I suppose, but it's an awkward song in its execution.  And ironically, after all these high-pitched lead vocals, it actually sounds odd hearing Robert's baritone voice again.  It threw me for a second, hearing it again.  Robert's voice is perfect for "Hot Streets" and that type of song, but it has a weird quality to it here.  Somehow his Italian accent comes out, and I didn't even realize he had one.  The bonus track on the Rhino reissue of this album is an alternate version of this song with Donnie Dacus on lead vocals, so apparently I wasn't the only person who thought that Robert's voice wasn't right for this song.

"No Tell Lover" is a unique collaboration from Peter Cetera, Lee Loughnane, and Danny Seraphine.  With Robert writing fewer songs these days and Terry gone, the other writers in the band had to step up.  Another mellow song sung by Peter Cetera, this was also a single and went to #14, the same as "Alive Again".  It has some nice horn work, including a great break, and some synth strings by Blue Weaver, the keyboard player for the Bee Gees.

(The Bee Gees were in the studio next door recording their album Spirits Having Flown, which is why they and Blue Weaver appear on this album.  In return, the Chicago horns appeared on the Bee Gees album on a few songs, including their hit "Too Much Heaven".)

The closing track, the other song by Danny Seraphine and Hawk Wolinski, is a real oddball piece.  It starts with a weird synth patch that sounds like a calliope or something, and to me it somehow evokes a marching clown band, as from a circus.  The song itself has an odd cadence to it, and that same theme comes back at the end, sung by a male chorus processed through some kind of filter, so it really does sound like a marching clown band.  What a bizarre choice of a song, and a bizarre way to end such an important album.

----------

They called upon legendary producer Phil Ramone to produce this album.  That's him on the far left in the band picture (the larger version).  Phil had mixed some of Chicago's earlier albums, and had recently produced two of Billy Joel's biggest albums, The Stranger and 52nd Street, so it should have been a great match.  But the production here is very thin sounding.  The horns sound fine, but there's no bottom end.  Donnie Dacus' high voice meant that the three-part harmonies had a different balance, with two high voices and Robert Lamm providing the lower voice.  Before, Robert's voice was in the middle between Terry's deep baritone and Peter's high tenor.

But the biggest problem is the guitar sound.  Again I must emphasize, it's not just that "it's not Terry".  The guitar is just too low in the mix sometimes, even during the solos.  This worked with Terry Kath when it was a countermelody behind the vocals or he was soloing but the horns were also playing something, but when it's a regular guitar solo, and you've got a new guitarist who you're trying to show the world will be an able replacement, you at least want to hear him, don't you?  Overall, it seems like there's a hole somewhere.  Maybe it was intentional, maybe they didn't want to fill that hole somehow, out of respect for Terry's memory.  But I somehow don't think so.  The 70's were ending, punk and disco were all over the charts, and this is what Chicago sounded like with Phil Ramone's awesome super-slick production.
Title: Re: Chicago: Hot Streets (1978)
Post by: jammindude on September 01, 2013, 11:38:59 PM
Unofficially "Chicago 12".....great review. 

I am intrigued.    :corn
Title: Re: Chicago: Hot Streets (1978)
Post by: Orbert on September 02, 2013, 01:23:14 PM
Sidebar:  Chicago in Quadraphonic
(or what you kids today call "surround sound")

Something that would be appropriate to mention in this thread is that Columbia Records, Chicago's label for the first decade or more, was one of the pioneers in the Quadraphonic Audio movement of the late 60's, early 70's.  Quadraphonic was a predecessor to today's 5.1 or 7.1 "surround sound" audio technologies, but had a few important differences.


With four matched speakers, one in each corner of the room, and remembering that in the 70's, you "panned hard", you could in an extreme case have the guitar in one corner, bass in another, drums in another, and keyboards in the other.  Vocals somewhere in the middle of the room, or maybe lead vocals along one wall and backgrounds along the others.  The idea was to get both separation and immersion.  Imagine what you could do with a horn section.

To the point:  All of Chicago's early studio albums were mixed for Quadraphonic Audio.

The vinyl copies are still out there.  So is a lot of Quadraphonic Audio equipment, some of which still works.

This page shows all (https://www.quadraphonicquad.com/Columbia.htm) of the known Quadraphonic Audio releases on Columbia Records.  It lists over 350 albums, including everything from The Chicago Transit Authority through Chicago XI, except for Chicago at Carnegie Hall.  That's right, all of the studio albums from the original band, including Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits.

But wait!  Couldn't you put a Quad mix on a Blu-ray or DVD, and just not use the center and subwoofer channels?

Funny you should ask.  A few years ago, Rhino (who has been releasing remastered Chicago for a while now) started doing exactly that.  This is a review of The Chicago Transit Authority in 4.0 on DVD (https://surroundablog.blogs.com/surroundablog/2010/03/chicago-transit-authority-dvd-dts-quadrophonic.html).  This is another (https://theseconddisc.com/2010/04/12/review-chicago-chicago-transit-authority-quadradisc/).

(https://i.imgur.com/LuGW6TO.png)

I jumped on it when it first came out.  Yes, I have one, and it's freakin' awesome.  Would it have been even better lossless?  Maybe a little bit.  But this is pretty amazing as it is.  True Quad Audio, played on my home surround system.  Oh baby.

The assumption was that if it sold well enough, they would do more, although Rhino never actually said that.  So far, there's just the first album.  So get out there and buy one.
Title: Re: Chicago: Hot Streets (1978)
Post by: Big Hath on September 02, 2013, 03:54:04 PM
glad you brought that up!  They also released both Chicago (II) and V in DVD-Audio.  I actually have V, but never found the other two cheap enough to pull the trigger.

More comments to come later on Hot Streets.
Title: Re: Chicago: Hot Streets (1978)
Post by: Big Hath on September 02, 2013, 11:11:48 PM
ok, Hot Streets.  First off, dat cover!  It's funny, the CD pressing I have is from the mid-90's after Chicago Records acquired the back catalog and released some budget versions of a few of the albums.  They only reproduced the front of the vinyl cover on the CD "booklet" with nothing else except a track listing (very cheap).  So for the longest time I never saw what the back looked like with the rest of the band.

No Tell Lover is by far my favorite song on this album as evidenced by being in my top 50 songs.  Alive Again isn't terrible, same with Hot Streets, and Little Miss Lovin' (Cetera singing almost tongue-in-cheek in this lower register is somewhat of a precursor to P.C. Moblee it seems).

Alas, this is my least favorite Chicago album from the 70's.  Aside from No Tell Lover, the highs just don't make up for the rest of the mediocre to forgettable that I find here.
Title: Chicago 13 (1979)
Post by: Orbert on September 04, 2013, 11:00:33 PM
Chicago 13 (1979)

(https://i.imgur.com/3Ugv2tI.jpg)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Donnie Dacus - Guitar, Vocals
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums

----------

Street Player (Seraphine/Wolinski)  9:11
Mama Take (Cetera)  4:14
Must Have Been Crazy (Dacus)  3:26
Window Dreamin' (Parazaider/Loughnane)  4:11
Paradise Alley (Lamm)  3:39
Aloha Mama (Seraphine/Wolinski)  4:11
Reruns (Lamm)  4:29
Loser With A Broken Heart (Cetera)  4:43
Life Is What It Is (de Oliveira/Valle)  4:37
Run Away (Pankow)  4:18

----------

If Hot Streets sold poorly (which it did), then Chicago 13 did even worse.  This is unfortunate, because in some ways, it is a better album.  Phil Ramone was kept on as producer (technically both this album and Hot Streets were co-produced by Chicago and Phil Ramone) and the sound quality is much better.  It doesn't sound so thin and... well... weak, for lack of a better term.  The sound here is fuller, with better low end, though it still has too much reverb and sounds too slick for its own good.  It almost sounds like 80's production, which means that the album was ahead of its time, though that's not necessarily a good thing.

It still seemed that the band was struggling to find their "new sound".  Yes, the idea at one time was to get back to the "old sound" but those plans had to be modified when they lost Terry Kath.  Also, the music scene is ever-changing.  It was now the late 70's; disco was big, punk was on the scene, and rock and roll itself was changing.

The defining characteristic of the Chicago sound is their horn section.  If they could not literally return to the original sound, they could adapt their sound for the times.  The horns were in full force on Hot Streets, and they're in full force here as well, on all but two songs, and taking a number of great breaks.

And what is this?  A nine-minute track to open the album?  Before you get too excited, you should know that "Street Player" is no "Beginnings" or "Sing a Mean Tune Kid".  It is, however, about as adventurous as Chicago could be at the time.  The main song goes about four and a half minutes and features a trumpet solo by Maynard Ferguson.  Then it goes into a percussion break, with the horns coming in "a capella" and taking another break.  The bass, keyboards and guitar come in, and the jam continues.  Some would call it indulgent, but I think it's kinda cool, and I have to give them props for at least doing it.

"Mama Take" is next, making three albums in a row where the opening rocker is followed immediately by a mellow song with Peter Cetera on lead vocals.  To be fair, Peter does most of the lead vocals on this album anyway, and "Mama Take" isn't that mellow.  It has a good beat to it, and is actually a rare Chicago song with acoustic rhythm guitar and horns.  Even more rare in that it's a Peter Cetera song.

"Must Have Been Crazy" finally answers the question of what a Donnie Dacus song sounds like.  It sounds like Eagles.  Slide guitar, definite Southern rock feel, no horns.  This song was actually the advance single, for reasons that defy understanding.  It broke the Top 100, but only went as far as #83.

The horns are back on "Window Dreamin'" which makes sense as it was written by Walt Parazaider and Lee Loughnane.  The break is an old-school Chicago break with the guitar soloing over the horns.  Pretty good solo, too, with some guts to it.  Actually, this is a pretty good song overall, with lots of kick.

"Paradise Alley" is something of an odd song.  It's not bad, just a bit different; catchy, with a funky beat contrasted with a smooth, jazzy chorus reminiscent of a 50's nightclub.

Then they go full Cotton Club with "Aloha Mama", firmly in the style of the old jazz-blues clubs of the 30's.  (Think Cab Calloway and "Minnie the Moocher".)  I happen to think it's awesome, but online reviews lead me to believe that not everyone "got" it.  Someone even called it their attempt at ragtime.  Um, no.

Robert Lamm's "Reruns" is one of the highlights of the album.  An uptempo song with a good beat, great horns, an odd cadence, and he even sings this one.  I don't think Robert has ever sung a song that he didn't write, and a lot of his songs are sung by someone else.  This is his only lead vocal on the album.

Peter Cetera's other contribution is "Loser with a Broken Heart".  No horns, but the song isn't bad.  It's kinda catchy, really.

"Life Is What It Is" represents percussionist Laudir de Oliveira's sole writing contribution to the Chicago catalogue, but it's a good one.  A smooth, jazzy beat, horns, Latin percussion (of course), it reminds me of Earth, Wind & Fire.  That's a good thing, by the way.  Earth, Wind & Fire is a great band.  They too are from Chicago, and feature a horn section as an integrated part of their sound.  They tour together a lot, and have for the last 10 years or so.  Come to think of it, "Street Player" sounds a lot like Earth, Wind & Fire, too.

The album closes with "Runaway" by James Pankow.  It's not his best, but it's not bad.  It has the typical Pankow great melody and chord progression, and of course the horns.

----------

Chicago 13 has been called their "disco" album, which is not only unfair, but just plain wrong.  The opening track is the only thing even close to disco, and that's mostly just the tempo.  It's the classic disco tempo, the beat is maybe reminiscent of disco, but more Latin jazz to my ears, and Cetera's bass line dances around in something vaguely reminiscent of disco, but it too is more of a Latin funk or blues.  An edited version of "Street Player" was released as a single, but it only made the "Black Singles" chart (which I don't think even exists anymore) and only made it to #91.

The rest of the album is all over the place, in terms of styles and influences.  That probably hurt them more than helped.  Personally, I like an album with a lot of variety, and have no problem with funk, jazz, or blues mixing it up.  I want to hear the Chicago horns, and they're here.  And like it or not, Peter Cetera's high tenor is the kind of voice that was becoming more and more popular as the 70's ended and the 80's were just around the corner.  He sings most of the songs here, so between Peter and the horns, that would seem to be the "new" Chicago sound.

I don't think Chicago 13 is that bad.  There are some good songs and a lot of strong individual moments, but it's not a very cohesive work overall.  In the context of an entry in the Chicago catalogue, I think it's fine.  Not every album is going to reach #1.  At the time, however, I can see why it wasn't very popular.  With no single breaking the Top 40, and not a lot of promotion from the label, Chicago 13 peaked at #21, their lowest-charting album yet.  And it really wasn't that long since they had that string of four #1's in a row (Chicago V through Chicago VIII).  So of course people were already saying that Chicago was done at this point.
Title: Re: Chicago 13 (1979)
Post by: ZirconBlue on September 05, 2013, 07:52:54 AM
Your write-up makes it sound like an album I'd like.  I'll have to check this one out.
Title: Re: Chicago 13 (1979)
Post by: Podaar on September 05, 2013, 08:02:41 AM
I'm listening to it while reading. I must give all these an honest attempt.

Thanks Orbert
Title: Re: Chicago 13 (1979)
Post by: Podaar on September 05, 2013, 08:46:23 AM
Like most of later Chicago it is really toe tapping, sing-a-long sort of rock which I really enjoy listening to but unlike their earlier albums I have no desire to purchase the music for my own collection.

When reading the write-ups and listening to the music I also enjoy pulling up the list of music that was released during the same year to remind myself of the context. 1979 was a very interesting year in music!
Title: Re: Chicago 13 (1979)
Post by: Big Hath on September 05, 2013, 11:02:46 AM
First off, I have always considered this to be my Chicago guilty pleasure album.  I’ve said this somewhere here before, but when I was first getting into Chicago, I was very intrigued by and fell in love with the band’s imagery, specifically the logo and their use of it on the various album covers.  And this album cover was and still is my favorite from their discography.  I absolutely love that they turned the logo into a high-rise (if I’m not mistaken, it is supposed to be a stylized version of the Marina City complex merged into one building).  I picked up the album very early on in my Chicago discovery phase (early ‘90s) due to me liking the cover so much.  And likely because of that, I listened to it a lot and found a great deal to like about the music.

Orbert, glad you had some good things to say about the actual songs as well.  I’m of the belief that this album fairs much better when listened to “out of context”, so to speak.  When you listen to it as it came out or with the thought that it came out in ’79, you definitely pick up on the slick production, the disco beats, the questionable lyrical content, etc.  Sure, this album represents a band that is struggling a bit with relevancy, but it also seems to be a band that had a lot of fun recording these songs.  Take P.C. Moblee for instance.  What the heck was that?  Cetera used a very nasally, twangy, closed vocal register on “Window Dreamin’” and “Aloha Mama” and decided to credit the vocals to “P.C. Moblee” who appeared “courtesy of the Peter Cetera Vocal Company”.  There are also a lot of interesting things happening musically all over the album.  “Mama Take”, “Reruns”, and “Life Is What It Is” are very underrated Chicago songs.

And one note on Maynard Ferguson – you can sure tell when he is playing on “Street Player”.  My goodness, his sound doesn’t mesh at all with the other horns.  They had over a decade to refine their approach together, but even from the beginning they were a very complimentary group, always playing as a tight section.
Title: Re: Chicago 13 (1979)
Post by: Orbert on September 05, 2013, 11:37:49 AM
ZirconBlue, definitely check this one out.

Podaar, this album is full of catchy tunes!  I've have a few of them stuck in my head all week.  I'm adding a few of them to my Chicago playlist on my iPod (which previously only had "original" Chicago songs).

Yep, that's a mutant Marina City in downtown Chicago on the cover.  The clincher is the lighted parking level 1/3 of the way up.

(https://2.bp.blogspot.com/_C-H_N_bo5kU/TS5ft7jGENI/AAAAAAAAAYc/ayUbDkNP0HE/s400/HeroChicago-6651c505-5b90-4376-8ee6-b88a7e9ae6a9.jpg)

Chicago 13 is probably one of my favorite Chicago covers, too.

Ha ha, I was going to mention P.C. Moblee, but forgot.  It was getting late.  (I thought the writeups for the "later" Chicago albums would be easier and faster, but they're actually taking longer because there are so many songs.)  P.C. Moblee is of course just Peter Cetera singing in a different register.

Yeah, Maynard Ferguson sticks out, doesn't he?  For the albums I'm not as familiar with, I listen to them once or twice before looking at the credits, to allow myself to judge the music without preconceptions as much as possible.  But that blaring, screaming trumpet on "Street Player" stuck out, and I thought "Whoa, Lee sure is going for it!"  Then I saw that it wasn't Lee at all, and it made more sense.

Also, I forgot to mention Airto on percussion.  Both Airto and Maynard Ferguson were popular at the time, and I guess Phil Ramone thought it would be a cool gimmick to get them on this album.  The problem is that Chicago already had a full-time percussionist and a full-time trumpeter, so there's no way it could be seen as anything but a gimmick.  Sure, call them "guest stars" on the album; we all know what's really going on.

Final note (for now): Some of those online reviews made a big deal about "Street Player" being a "cover" song, noting that it was the title track from a Rufus album released the previous year.  Danny Seraphine and Hawk Wolinski had been writing together since Chicago VII, and Hawk was the keyboard player for Rufus.  So Rufus recorded the song and Chicago did as well.  I have no problem with that.  Just because the Rufus version came out first doesn't make the Chicago version a cover.  It was co-written by a member of Chicago.  Once again, it can be very difficult to underestimate the intelligence of the general public.
Title: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Orbert on September 07, 2013, 02:52:14 PM
Chicago XIV (1980)

(https://i.imgur.com/zfaUC2g.png)

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums

Additional Personnel

Chris Pinnick - Guitar
Mark Goldenberg - Guitar
David "Hawk" Wolinski - Keyboards
Ian Underwood - Programming

----------

Manipulation (Lamm)  3:45
Upon Arrival (Lamm, Cetera)  3:48
Song for You (Cetera)  3:41
Where Did the Lovin' Go (Cetera)  4:06
Birthday Boy (Seraphine, Wolinski)  4:55
Hold On (Cetera)  4:15
Overnight Cafe (Cetera)  4:19
Thunder and Lightning (Lamm, Seraphine, Cetera)  3:32
I'd Rather Be Rich (Lamm)  3:08
The American Dream (Pankow)  3:19

----------

After the disappointing but not really surprising Hot Streets, and the even more disappointing follow-up Chicago 13, Chicago decided that Phil Ramone, despite having great credentials, was not the man to produce their albums.  Another highly respected producer, Tom Dowd (Cream, Eric Clapton, Toto) was brought in to produce Chicago XIV, and to be honest, I think he did even worse.  That's subjective, obviously, but "slick" 80's production just doesn't feel right for Chicago, and it doesn't sound right either.  Chicago has a big sound, guitar, horns, keyboards, percussion.  Say what you will about James William Guercio and his puppetmaster control over the band, but he knew how to make them sound good, damned good.

They also decided to fire guitarist Donnie Dacus, whose performances on the two Ramone-produced albums was okay, but not particularly exciting.  I think he did better on Chicago 13, but you know how it is.  When a band is going through a rough time and ends up making an album they're not really happy with, they sometimes fire the new guy, just because.

They decided to go with a couple of session guitarists, Chris Pinnick and Mark Goldenberg.  I don't have full album credits, so I don't know who plays on which songs, but the guitar work here is a definite step up, and my understanding is that most of it is Chris Pinnick.  Hawk Wolinski, something of a "recurring guest" musician plays some keyboards, presumably the synths, as it is well known that Robert Lamm prefers to stick to piano and organ.  Ian Underwood is credited for "Programming", and I wonder if it's the same Ian Underwood that played with Frank Zappa and others.  I can't find any definitive information, but it's not exactly a common name.

The album starts off strongly with "Manipulation", one of two Robert Lamm compositions, and a great uptempo rocker.  The first thing we hear is the drums laying down the beat, then the guitars and keyboards come in, then the horns.  It can't be an accident that they decided to open the album once again with an old-school Chicago rocker.

Then, once again, we downshift into a mellow rocker sung by Peter Cetera.  How many albums in a row is this now?  Start with a rocker, then follow up immediately with a mellow one.  It doesn't matter.  "Upon Arrival" is actually a kinda pretty song, and is a rare co-composition by Robert and Peter.

"Song for You" takes us all the way to acoustic guitar and no drums.  Another song that's very nice, well performed, and to be honest, a bit repetitive and boring as well.

"Where Did the Lovin' Go" is yet another Cetera song, light and devoid of substance, and he still refuses to put question marks on titles which are clearly questions.

"Birthday Boy".  Okay really now, this is getting silly.  With only Peter and Robert doing lead vocals, and Robert only ever singing his own songs (and not always then), it's simple math that Peter would end up singing most of the songs.  But this is four ballads in a row, after that great opening rocker, and honestly, it really is starting to sound like Chicago is just Peter's backup band.  Again, it's not a bad song, just nothing to get excited about.  Also, it starts with a barrage of cheesy synth brass which probably sounded really cool in 1980, but when you've (still) got the best horn section in rock and roll, doing power ballads with synth brass is nothing short of criminal.

Side Two starts off with a rocker.  Anyone notice a pattern?  And it's another rarity, a Cetera-penned rocker, with horns, that I really like.  "Hold On" is possibly my favorite song from the album.  It's also kinda funny, because Peter sings the lead vocals with his P.C. Moblee voice (think "Hideaway" from Chicago VIII) and the backgrounds with his high nasly voice (think "Wishin' You Were Here" from Chicago VII).  Great song, though.  The horns kick, the guitar kicks, Peter wails.

And then we again downshift with the laid back "Overnight Cafe".  Another Cetera song, this one has a kind of reggae or ska beat to it.  A chill song about hanging out in some dive late at night and thinking about her, whoever she may be.  It's kinda cool.  Good song.

"Thunder and Lightning" was the one single from the album, reaching #56 on the Pop Singles chart, so not really a hit, though I do remember hearing it on the radio.  It's a good song, upbeat with some great harmonies.  And it's the only Lamm/Seraphine/Cetera collaboration in the Chicago catalogue.

"I'd Rather Be Rich" -- written and sung by Robert Lamm -- might at first seem like one of his "is he serious or isn't he?" songs, in the vein of "Vote for Me" (from Chicago XI).  But when you listen closely, you realize that it's no joke; it's a condemnation of money and yuppie culture and perhaps even Republican culture.  People with money are the ones with the real power.

Money get you justice
Money sets you free
Money makes it possible
To be or not to be


For the second album in a row, James Pankow only contributes one song, and it closes the album.  "The American Dream" has his typical great melody and progression, and of course a killer horn chart.  A strong way to end the album.

----------

There were three outtakes from this album: "Doin' Business" and "Soldier of Fortune" by Robert Lamm, and "Live It Up" by James Pankow.  I haven't heard them, but I'll be honest, when you practically fill the album with Peter Cetera ballads and cut two songs from Chicago's most prolific and successful writer and one from the guy who wrote fewer songs but ones which were almost always great, something's wrong.

On the other hand, the 70's were over, and musically they really had been for a while.  Chicago's awesome fusion of rock, pop, and jazz had no place on the airwaves in 1980, which was full of punk, disco, and new wave.  Meanwhile, you've got this guy who sings the high stuff like nobody's business and you play a couple of his songs and the girls literally rip their panties off and jump on you, and it's tough to argue with that.  So Chicago was basically Peter Cetera and Chicago, and Robert was allowed a few songs (but not too many) on each album and James still wrote awesome horn charts and got to contribute a song here and there, and this is how Chicago entered the 80's.

Despite going back to the Roman numeral title (I forgot to mention that Chicago 13 was their first album with an Arabic numeral title), the album failed to win back any old-school Chicago fans, and apparently didn't win any new ones either.  It topped out at #71, one of Chicago's poorest charting albums ever.

Chicago was still contracted to Columbia Records for one more album, and their "new" contract (post-Guercio) gave them a lump sum of one million dollars per album, plus a piece of the sales.  There were no sales, and Columbia was losing money.  It didn't help that they wouldn't promote the new Chicago albums, but whatever, with Chicago XIV, Columbia had had enough.  They bought out the contract, starting putting together another "Greatest Hits" package to fulfill the contract, and let them go.  Was this the end of Chicago?  Or did that really happen already and somebody forgot to tell them?
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Big Hath on September 07, 2013, 07:26:31 PM
another pretty meh album.  Although I do enjoy most of 13, the three album run from Hot Streets, 13, and XIV was a band trying to stay relevant and basically grinding themselves to a halt in the process.  Creatively they limped into the '80s and honestly they could have easily called it quits after this album.  Between the three albums, you could probably piece together one pretty good album - only three songs from these albums made my top 50 list.  On the contract side, they had signed a pretty big deal around the time of 13, and well, that didn't last long.  Columbia was tired of lagging sales, and I'm sure the band was tired of label pressures.

So, to sum up, the Hot Streets/13/XIV run (and resulting drop from Columbia) is one of my primary defenses of what happened in 1982.  I honestly believe there was no Chicago at this point, at least one that would in any way resemble the band that created CTA, Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon, the multi-part suites, etc.  They had to reinvent themselves.

It should be noted that David Foster was considered as producer for XIV before they went with Dowd.
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: jammindude on September 07, 2013, 08:13:54 PM
Still loving these write ups...   
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Orbert on September 07, 2013, 09:58:27 PM
jammindude, thanks for chiming in.  I know you probably feel kinda lame posting just to say that you're still reading, but I appreciate it.  It's good to know that people are reading these, even if there's not much to say, if anything, especially if you've never heard the album in question.

Big Hath, I agree with all of that.  In a sense, Chicago did end after Chicago XI.  I don't think the band realized how much of a difference it would make to not have JWG on the other side of the glass; they were just tired of his iron fist.  And obviously it would have been much easier had they not also lost Terry at the same time.  They probably could have weathered either change singularly, but both at once really threw them into turmoil.

This was not the same band that made "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" or even "Dialogue".  It wasn't too different from "Old Days", with the guitars, Peter's vocals, and the horns.  But even that song was five years old at this point, a lifetime in the music biz.  An album of tunes like "Hold On" or "Manipulation" or even "Thunder and Lightning" would have been fine to me and probably most old-school Chicago fans, but it wouldn't have sold.

The problem wasn't really that they were out of gas, although it did seem like it.  I'm sure they were actually tired and burning out.  No, the biggest problem is that the music scene, and the music biz, had changed to the point where even if they did create another "Make Me Smile" or "Saturday in the Park", no one would've bought that, either.  The 70's were over.  Very few bands made the transition from successful 70's band to successful 80's band.  With six of the original seven members still on board, they just couldn't figure out how to write music which both played to their strengths and was relevant.  Maybe it wasn't even possible.
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Jaq on September 07, 2013, 10:49:10 PM
Surviving a change from decade to decade-and I've always believed that musical decades aren't necessarily the same as the years in question-for bands is generally a tricky thing. The 70s to the 80s was a trickier transition than most of them, because by about 1978-1979 or so, most of what had worked in the rest of the decade had stopped working, and the decade that was coming saw bands being forced to have a personal image in addition to a musical one.

Chicago was pretty well doomed to have to change, one made harder for them because they didn't HAVE the visual image to work with a lot of bands did, since their logo was their image. As much as I loved the first few Chicago albums, they were artifacts of a time when rock and roll simply didn't have any rules, because it wasn't very old, and radio was more forgiving. By the late 70s, radio was already beginning its march towards playlists and demographics, and I agree with the notion that even a Saturday In The Park couldn't have been a hit in 1980. The bands that survived that period where I see the 80s music scene really starting-I pinpoint it at around late 1978 or so-were the ones that succeeded in re-inventing themselves. (As a call back to other Orbert discography threads, the one band I can think of that best did it was Genesis, since they actually wound up becoming MORE successful than their 70s incarnation.) Having listened to these albums on Spotify as the thread has gone on, I simply think they're not very good, and the band needed to re-invent itself...because they kind of got lost as the 70s ended. That happened to a LOT of bands that simply didn't know how to make music that would appeal to the current audience, but it really crushed Chicago.
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Orbert on September 08, 2013, 11:57:43 AM
Yeah, not having a single lead singer or front man, which IMO was originally one of their strengths, ended up working against them later on.  Especially with the 80's and the advent of music videos.  Bands needed to have an image, specifically a face that people could associte with them.  A front man in the traditional sense.

I think that's why Phil Ramone and Tom Dowd pushed for Peter Cetera to become the lead singer of Chicago.  And since Peter was writing more, it made sense for him to effectively become the image associated with the band.  Now, given all of that, it's actually amazing (and somewhat tragic) that this is when Columbia decided to stop promoting Chicago.  Ramone and Dowd had actually done their jobs; they'd come up with a Chicago sound for the 80's, but without promotion, album sales will suck, and Columbia used those same lousy album sales to justify their decision to cut Chicago.

I'm personally not a huge fan of Peter's ballads because they all sound pretty much the same to me.  And as has been pointed out in other threads, they all seem to have the same theme: failed relationships.  I'm sure most old-school Chicago fans felt the same way.  But Terry wasn't coming back, Robert and James weren't writing as much (for reasons I've never really understood), and there's no denying that Peter's songs were popular.  If Columbia had actually picked a few of those songs from Chicago XIV and promoted them, the singles and the album would probably have done much better.
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Jaq on September 08, 2013, 01:34:49 PM
That is something, on a slightly off topic note, that music video put an end to. In the 60s and 70s, it was far more common for a band to have more than one lead vocalist, even bands with people who only sang and didn't play anything. Every member of Kiss sang lead, for example. Tons of bands had at least two people who could sing. But using the example I gave in the previous sentence-while Kiss continued to have two lead singers, after I Love It Loud's video all of Kiss's singles were sung by Paul Stanley. Bands were forced to develop an image focused on having one singer be the frontman, even IF they actually didn't. Night Ranger was actually an oddity in that they had two singers, one of them the drummer, and never were turned into the one singer image band.

That's a long ramble to say that Peter Cetera would have been pushed as the front man regardless, but that's the truth. If the Eagles had stayed together, they would have been pushed as Don Henley's band.  :lol
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Orbert on September 08, 2013, 03:24:52 PM
They weren't?




 :P
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Jaq on September 09, 2013, 07:23:12 AM
His songs would have been the videos and singles, though. You wouldn't have known Glenn Frey existed  :lol
Title: Re: Chicago XIV (1980)
Post by: Orbert on September 09, 2013, 10:48:35 AM
True.
Title: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: Orbert on September 09, 2013, 11:39:25 AM
Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)

(https://i.imgur.com/ErPnP99.jpg)


Baby, What A Big Surprise
Dialogue (Parts I & II)
No Tell Lover
Alive Again
Old Days
If You Leave Me Now
Questions 67 and 68
Happy Man
Gone Long Gone
Take Me Back To Chicago

----------

Originally, I wasn't going to cover this album, being that it is a compilation album and thus all the songs on it have been discussed already.  But the more I thought about it, the more I realized that I almost had to include it, for a number of reasons:
As mentioned upthread, Columbia Records was home to Chicago for their first 12 studio albums, two live albums, and first "greatest hits" package.  They were at one time Columbia's biggest-selling act, with three albums on the charts at the same time and tens of millions of albums sold.  A lot of this, however, was due to James William Guercio, who was a big wig at Columbia as well as Chicago's manager and producer.  They were treated very well by the label, and their albums were always promoted well.  When Chicago cut their ties with JWG, Columbia had no particular loyalty to them.  That is, no more and no less than any band that continued to make money for them.

Hot Streets, their first post-JWG album, didn't do particularly badly, though it wasn't really up to previous sales.  Chicago 13 fared even worse, though it can be argued that that was because it didn't get much promotion.  Chicago XIV was pretty much a flop.  It broke the Top 100, making #71, but was easily their worst-charting album yet.  It received almost no promotion at all, which certainly contributed to the poor sales.  I'm sure someone at Columbia would say that there was no point in promoting an album that they didn't think would do well anyway.  Okay, but by not promoting, you're basically guaranteeing that it will tank, and doesn't their contract include a lump sum of one million dollars per album, regardless?  Don't you want to see some of that money back?  It's called protecting your investment.

In any event, Columbia Records used the poor sales and high overhead as an excuse to cut Chicago from their lineup.  The contract called for one more Chicago album, so they threw together one of the poorest excuses for a "greatest hits" album ever created and shipped it out.

At first glance, it would appear to include all the hits from the later material, Chicago VIII (which was too new to be included on the first package) and onward, with a few overlooked hits from earlier albums included as well.  It actually looks like a nice companion package to the first one.

IT IS NOT.

"Dialogue (Parts I & II)" quite simply is a lie.  Only "Part II" is actually included.  That's right, the actual dialogue, the whole point of the piece, is missing.  You get four minutes of "We can make it happen" and some nice horn breaks, but not the whole song.

"No Tell Lover" is the single edit, so it's missing just under half a minute.

"Alive Again" is the single edit, so it's missing just over half a minute.

"Questions 67 & 68" is the single edit, so it's missing almost a minute and a half (over 1/3 of the song, including both instrumental breaks).

"Take Me Back to Chicago" is the single edit, so it's missing over two minutes, nearly half of the song.


The point is, I realize that "greatest hits" packages often use the single edit of songs, so this wasn't really unusual at the time.  But including only "Part II" of "Dialogue" is just plain stupid.  Either there was no quality control, they just didn't care, or both.  Also, the album itself has no liner notes and no original artwork on the cover (okay, the collage of signs with the word "Chicago" from all around the Chicago area is kinda cool, but hardly up to Chicago standards), so this supports the idea that it was literally thrown together and pushed out the door, just as the band itself had been.

And in these days of being able to download singles from albums, there's just no point to even bothering with this album.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: jammindude on September 09, 2013, 03:21:11 PM
See...and I honestly love even seeing your negative reviews.   Hearing the thoughts of a fan about a band that they are a fan of...and getting that level of "fandom" from someone who cares.   I love seeing that, and reading their thoughts.

Good write up (considering what you had to work with)  ;D
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: Orbert on September 09, 2013, 04:29:05 PM
Ha ha, thanks!  Yeah, this one was so bad, it was almost fun to write.  Fun, yet sad.

I honestly don't understand what was going on with the label.  Yes, they had this ridiculous contract to work with, but given that, you don't spend less on promotion, you spend more.  You actually choose intelligent singles to release, and you bombard your radio affiliates with them.  Columbia apparently did none of that, then complained that there were no sales.  True, Hot Streets, Chicago 13, and Chicago XIV were kinda weak overall, but each of them had at least a few strong songs on them that could have been promoted as singles.  Even if people heard them, bought the album, and discovered that they were kinda weak overall, you've still made a sale.  This was pre-Internet, all word-of-mouth and reputation.  People would have bought a new Chicago album if they heard about it and there was a good song on the radio.

I did not personally witness it, but I'm sure that there were people in record stores everywhere saying "Hey, a new Chicago album?  I didn't even know they were still around."

And as we'll see in with Chicago 16, they turned things around and made a pretty impressive comeback, so the Up Yours award goes to Columbia Records for their crappy treatment of one of their legacy rock and roll acts.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: Podaar on September 09, 2013, 04:36:29 PM
I'm still enjoying reading and listening along...although, I believe I'll just skip this one.  :)
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: Dr. DTVT on September 09, 2013, 06:21:59 PM
While my familiarity with Chicago is essentially nil, I read these threads because a) You write well, b) you write honestly about your thoughts, and c) it's not just watching a discography unfold, but in a small way, your life.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: Orbert on September 09, 2013, 06:52:39 PM
Podaar:  Yeah, really it's for the best.

Dr. DTVT:  Wow, thanks!  I do try to make them entertaining or at least interesting.  And since this is music I've grown up with and loved (and sometimes less-than-loved) all my life, I guess it will tend to come across rather personally and reveal something about my life.  As I've said, I find it interesting to study how music has changed over the years, specifically certain bands I've followed for a long time.  And because of my age, I'm in the position to relate personal experience and first-hand knowledge and impressions of the times to what I'm writing about.  I started off (the Yes and Genesis threads) trying to give objective overviews of the albums and songs, and provide my personal remarks separately, but that's harder to do.  This way's more fun.

 ;D
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits, Volume II (1981)
Post by: Big Hath on September 10, 2013, 11:06:56 AM
yeah, it's a shame what happened to this release.  I had 8 of these 10 songs in my top 50.  I remember buying the cassette version of this and when it got to Dialogue, I remember thinking "that's not how I remember that song!"
Title: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 10, 2013, 03:05:04 PM
Chicago 16 (1982)

(https://i.imgur.com/o0EVMBA.jpg)


Peter Cetera - Bass, Acoustic Guitar, Vocals
Bill Champlin – Keyboards, Guitars, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Percussion, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Cornet, Percussion, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion, Background Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flute, Clarinet
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

Additional Personnel

David Foster – Keyboards
Chris Pinnick – Guitar
Steve Lukather – Guitar
Michael Landau – Guitar
David Paich – Synthesizer
Steve Porcaro – Synthesizer Programming

----------

What You're Missing (Gruska, Williams) – 4:10
Waiting for You to Decide (Foster, Lukather, Paich) – 4:06
Bad Advice (Cetera, Foster, Pankow) – 2:58
Chains (Cetera, Thomas) – 3:22
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away (Cetera, Foster, Lamm) – 5:08
Follow Me (Foster, Pankow) – 4:53
Sonny Think Twice (Champlin, Seraphine) – 4:01
What Can I Say (Foster, Pankow) – 3:49
Rescue You (Cetera, Foster) – 3:57
Love Me Tomorrow (Cetera, Foster) – 5:06

----------

Chicago took the money Columbia Records paid them to buy out their contract and used it to finance their next album while they shopped for a new label.  They also continued their search for a new regular guitarist.

They pretty much hit the jackpot with Bill Champlin.  A guitarist, keyboardist, singer and songwriter, Champlin was actually contacted by Chicago shortly after Terry Kath's death, suggesting that he audition for the band.  He declined.  Champlin already had a long and successful career as a songwriter (two Grammies) and studio musician and vocalist (numerous other awards), and a solo career.  But in 1981, he found himself collaborating with Peter Cetera on a project not related to Chicago, and the drummer for that project was Danny Seraphine.  Seraphine and Champlin wrote some songs together, and Seraphine invited Champlin to appear on the next Chicago album.  Seraphine meanwhile lobbied to get Champlin into the group as a permanent member.  Not only did they need a guitarist, but 80's Chicago was becoming more synth-heavy, and Champlin played keyboards as well.  And finally, he was a baritone; this meant that he could sing Terry's parts and the classic Chicago three-part harmony would be back.

Champlin himself was still hesitant.  He knew he would have to sing "Colour My World" every night, and he really didn't like that song.  Kenny Loggins, a personal friend of his, even called him to try to talk him out of it.  ("What are you doing? Those guys are over!")  But as they say in the music biz, a gig's a gig, and Bill Champlin eventually took the job, becoming the newest member of Chicago.  Champlin had recently worked with producer David Foster on his latest solo project, and thought that Foster would be a good choice for Chicago.  He could not have been more correct.

David Foster is credited with pretty much singlehandedly inventing the "Adult Contemporary" genre, and his work with Chicago is held up as the model.  He was actually considered to produce Chicago XIV, and he finally gets his chance here.  The "slick" 80's production of Phil Ramone and Tom Dowd was toned down a bit, the horns were pushed somewhat to the side (but not to the back, as some complain) in favor of synthesizers and strings, and outside writers and musicians (including himself in both roles) were brought in.  The result was a sound that was somehow fresh, bright, warm, stripped down and full all at the same time.


The opening track, "What You're Missing" was written by Jay Gruska and Joseph Williams, two guys I've never heard of.  Whatever, it's a good opening song.  A short synth flourish to let you know what's in store, then the rhythm section comes in (heavy drum beat, not-too-clean guitar), then the horns.  Yes, the horns are still here.  Actually, throughout this album, it's impressive how well the horns sit side-by-side with the synths, guitars, and sometimes even strings.  There's actually more going on, musically, than on most previous Chicago albums, yet the sound is clear and feels remarkably unclutterred, even open.

"Waiting for You to Decide" is our first deja vu moment.  It starts off in the same key and with the same beat as "Wake Up Sunshine" from Chicago.  You hear that beat and when the unison horns come in the first two notes are even the same, but no, it's a different song.  Not a bad song, either.  And for the first time in several albums, it's two upbeat tunes in a row!

Make that three.  "Bad Advice" starts with the horns blasting, the drums thumping, and Peter doing some funky pickin'.  Yeah, you forgot he even played bass, didn't you?  It's a kind of swaggering, shuffling tune.  And it's another Cetera tune, upbeat and with horns, that I actually like.  The times, they are a-changin'.  Maybe it's because Peter doesn't sing this one; that's new guy Bill Champlin on lead vocals.

Would you believe four in a row?  Okay fine, I'll drop the act.  Everybody knows "Hard to Say I'm Sorry" and "Love Me Tomorrow" because they were the big hits.  They're mellow and sappy and the girls love them but guess what?  They are easily the mellowest songs on the album.  All of the other songs are at least upbeat, if not outright rocking.  "Chains" starts off with a backbeat and synth (eighth note chords, Oberheim or Roland, kinda cheesy but cool at the time) and you think it's gonna suck, and it kinda does, but at least it rocks, and is pretty short.  It's another Cetera song, co-written with someone named Ian Thomas.

"Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away" was the biggie, the one that brought Chicago back from the depths.  Hitting #1 on both the Billboard Hot 100 and Adult Contemporary charts, and even #4 in the U.K. (the first Chicago song since the mid 70's to chart in the U.K.), it was a monster by all accounts.  Obviously two songs spliced together, "Hard to Say I'm Sorry" is the mellow one that gets the girls all hot and bothered, then "Get Away" is the short tag where the band can't help itself and cuts loose for a minute.  One of my favorite horn breaks, just because of its intensity, it's over too soon, but it's still great.

"Follow Me" is another one that somehow combines guitars, horns, and synths without sounding cluttered, it even has an old school Chicago horn break with a change or three.  Primary writing credit goes to David Foster, but James Pankow is there too, and he doesn't let us down.

"Sonny Think Twice" was the Champlin/Seraphine song that served as his introduction to the band.  The synth bass is kinda weird, but hey, it was the 80's.  Nice horn chart, a catchy chorus, and nice vocal harmonies.

"What Can I Say" starts off and you think I lied to you, because this is obviously a mellow song, but then the rhythm section comes in and it's an uptempo tune after all.  So then you think, "What, another song with a question title but no question mark?"  Sorry, I can't help you there.  But this song gives us our next deja vu moment.  The horn accents on 2 and 3½ behind the lead vocals sound familiar, but there are only so many tricks James can use before he starts repeating himself.  Then the trombone solo comes in and the first four notes are the intro to "Just You 'n' Me" from Chicago VI and you go "What?" but then it continues and he's just restating the melody, a perfectly normal motif for such a solo, and you realize that musically he's winking at you because we all see what he did there.  Those earlier horn accents were also the same as on "Just You 'n' Me".  There's no way that that was a coincidence.

"Rescue You" is yet another rocker, and you have to remember that by "rocker" I mean by 80's standards.  It's not Iron Maiden or even later Triumph.  I mean guitars, drums, backbeat.  Nice guitar work, great vocals, but points off for synth brass when the real thing is available.  This is one of the only tracks on the album with no horns.

I totally forgot how "Love Me Tomorrow" starts, with the guitar and drum strikes.  It fools you; you think it's gonna be an actual rocker, then it all starts and the keyboards come in and okay, yeah, it's this song after all.  It made #22 on the Billboard Hot 100 but went all the way to #8 on the Adult Contemporary chart.  It ends with an extended break by the strings, which is kinda weird, but also kinda cool, so I'll allow it.  Honestly, it sounds really good; I would guess real strings, but there are no strings credited, meanwhile synths and synth programming, so maybe they're synth after all.

----------

I have to admit, I kinda like this album.  I want to hate it, because of what they did to "my" band, but I can't.  It's really good.

Robert Lamm, you might notice, is mostly absent here.  According to Wiki, he was unavailable for most of this album, dealing with "personal issues".  I've tried to find more information, but there's not a lot.  I do know that he's been married four times, and one of his three divorces was in 1981, so maybe he was dealing with that during this time.  In any event, he only has a single co-writing credit, no lead vocals, and it's hard to tell because of the production, but I don't hear him on any background vocals, either.

Also, longtime percussionist Loudir Soures de Oliveira is gone.  Clearly the whole Latin percussion thing, which I kinda liked and thought worked well with the horns and "big sound", had no place in 80's music.  Actually, I didn't even realize it until researching this album, so maybe it was just time.

Meanwhile, half of Toto plays on this album and has writing credits on one of the songs.  Also, Chris Pinnick, guitarist from Chicago XIV, is back.  Producer David Foster has keyboard credits and co-writing credits on seven of the 10 songs.  Why?  They have a guitarist now, they have... okay, with Robert taking personal leave, we do see that Peter and James both stepped up a bit in the writing department, so maybe the Foster co-writing is more of the "I helped arrange it in the studio so I get co-writing credit" situation.  I don't know.

But with all the reason whys I "should" hate, or at least dislike Chicago 16, in the end, it's the music that matters.  And the music is good.  The writing is mostly good and often very strong, and the production is phenomenal.  I get to hear my beloved Chicago horns (a lot more than I thought I would, given the singles from this period), the songs don't suck, so all is well again.

Chicago ended up signing with Full Moon Records, a division of Warner Bros., beginning the next phase of their history.  Chicago 16 went to #9, their highest charting album since Chicago XI, and eventually went multi-platinum.  They were back.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: jammindude on September 10, 2013, 03:34:22 PM
Sweet!!  My first exposure to Chicago was actually "Hard To Say I'm Sorry"...I had the 45rpm, and I always liked it. 

I'm going to be curious about the review for XVII because I think it has the only (or at least one of the very few) Cetera sung hit single songs that isn't a sappy ballad in "Stay the Night" which I also really like. 
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Big Hath on September 10, 2013, 11:50:21 PM
So glad you liked this one!  I'm telling you, once you get past the ballads (assuming you don't care for them - I like them) there is some really great stuff on 16 (and 17).  The songwriting is solid and the production is out of this world.  "Follow You" and  "Sonny Think Twice" made my top 50 list along with "Love Me. . ." and "Hard To Say. . ."  But the other songs are good as well.

I'll bet Foster attained many of those writing credits in-studio.  When they were looking at him for XIV, Seraphine called Champlin to ask about Foster and Champlin tells him "You'll probably end up rewriting a lot, but I think Foster would be great for you guys."  So I imagine they did a whole lot of re-writing with Foster heavily involved.

Champlin was perfect for Chicago.  Multi-instrumentalist, song-writer, great voice.

I'll bet Warner Bros was loving every minute of the success this album found.  They took something Columbia had right under their noses and made it work.  I wasn't old enough to pay attention at the time, but I'm sure they promoted the heck out of it.

This (Champlin, Foster, etc) was exactly what Chicago needed to reinvent themselves for the 80s.  Here is Parazaider with a story about what happened after this album was released:

"I had a kid come up to me and say, 'I have your first record, would you mind signing it?' This was somewhere in North Carolina. We were going on-stage, and I told her I would sign it after the show. And what she had was the Chicago l6 album. She had no idea about the others that came before it. The reality hit, we had gained another generation."
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 11, 2013, 08:39:14 AM
It's not that I don't like the ballads; it's that it was around Chicago X and Chicago XI that I was starting to lose interest in the band anyway.  Hot Streets didn't exactly turn me around, though I thought it was okay.  But I was in junior high, still exploring all kinds of music, and I basically moved on.

After a few years of not hearing anything from Chicago, they were back, but it seemed like all we got were Peter Cetera's wimpy ballads.  And it was songs like "If You Leave Me Now" and "Baby, What a Big Surprise" that had helped turned me away from Chicago in the first place.  At the time, I wasn't thinking about how the change was necessary to fit the times or any of that, I just knew that they'd changed, the focus was now on Peter and the new "Adult Contemporary" sound, and... well fuck that.  This wasn't the Chicago I grew up with, and nothing I heard on the radio inspired me to buy their new albums and pursue them any further.

After high school, I lost touch with Michelle and Laurie, who probably bought those albums, so I never gave them proper listens.  I went on a mad downloading spree about five years ago, filling out discographies of every band I had ever had any interest in (getting high-speed Internet at home and knowledge of various sources of high-quality music is a dangerous thing), but I gave some of the "new" Chicago a quick listen, and still wasn't impressed.

Listening more closely and critically now, it's clear that David Foster did a great job with them, and there's no two ways about it: he saved the band, brought them back, made them relevant again.  But to do that, he did have to reinvent them.  Okay, so you can't just let the horn section take off for a while.  The break in a rock song must be a guitar solo.  That's a rule.  Also, if you do have horns, keep them to a minimum.  They are old school; this is the age of synthesizers.  Foster found a way to blend them, something which I really didn't think would work (and doesn't quite work sometimes).

I miss Terry, but he's not coming back.  I miss Robert, but for understandable reasons, he's lost interest in the band he helped build, because it's not his band anymore.  His fire is all but out.  I miss the horns.  They're still there, but largely marginalized, to the point where I rejoice if I even get to hear them.  That's just how it is.  But again, I'll give Foster credit for at least getting them in there as much as he does, which is far more than I thought, given what I heard on the radio.

Ha ha, I read that same story about Walt and the teenaged girl with Chicago 16.  Yep, they gained a new generation.  But honestly, they'd lost a large part of the old generation, possibly most of it, so they didn't have much choice.  Their concerts are a different story; people are there with their kids and grandkids; it's insane.  More on that later, though.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: ZirconBlue on September 11, 2013, 09:13:03 AM
In my college marching band, we had to learn a new show for every home game.  One show we did was a Chicago show.  There was only one "modern" (in 1991) song in the show, one of the Cetera ballads. I can't remember which one, though, because it ended up getting cut before we learned any drill for it.  So, our Chicago show ended up consisting of entirely of pre-80s Chicago music.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 11, 2013, 10:38:35 AM
That would be sweet!  In high school, we did "25 or 6 to 4", which was cool, and tried to do "Make Me Smile" (semi-long version with the horn fanfare at the top) but it proved too much for our limited talents.  I didn't march in college.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Big Hath on September 11, 2013, 01:04:15 PM
kind of a thread jump, but the discussion in the Yes thread reminded me of trying to find Chicago albums back when I was getting into them.  In the early-90s about the only Chicago albums you could find in stock at my local stores were CTA, Chicago (II), 17, and maybe 16 and V (plus the myriad greatest hit packages).  There was a music store in the mall called Camelot Music that had a book of in-print music you could have them order for you.  This book was huge as it listed pretty much every current and back catalog album that was in print at the time, in all the different versions (cassette, vinyl, CD, etc).  I remember going through picking out albums to buy and of course you had to pay full list price - no sales or discounts on these special orders.  Then you had to wait however many weeks it took to process and deliver the order back to the store.  But those were some exciting times when I finally received the call that my music had arrived.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 11, 2013, 02:00:36 PM
Yep, The Chicago Transit Authority, Chicago, and Chicago V seemed to be the ones you could always find from the original band, which made sense because they were the biggest sellers.  And then whatever the most recent one or two were and the countless "greatest hits" packages.

I used to haunt Camelot, Recordland, and the various indies regularly, hoping to catch something out of the ordinary, then I realized that that just wasn't gonna happen.  They only have so much shelf space, and it makes sense that the stock only the ones with the best chance of selling; that is, the known big sellers or current hot ones.  But I could never bring myself to special order anything.  If it involved paying up front and then waiting, that just wasn't going to happen.  Even if it was just ordering something, the wait would almost kill me, and then I'd pay full price anyway, which would finish me off.

Those were the days.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 11, 2013, 02:44:47 PM
Meanwhile, at Columbia Records...


Suit #1: So we finally got rid of Chicago. Sad. They used to be great.

Suit #2: Yeah. Well, at least they're doing better now, over at Warner Brothers.

Suit #1: What?

Suit #2: Their new song is Number One. The album went Top Ten.  They're hot again.

Suit #1: WHAT!?

Suit #2: I'm sorry, did you suddenly go deaf?

Suit #1: No, I mean what are we doing about it?

Suit #2: What, like try to sabotage them, or...?

Suit #1: No, you moron.  TO CASH IN ON THEM!

Suit #2: Dude, they're not ours anymore.

Suit #1: BUT WE STILL OWN THEIR BACK CATALOGUE!

Suit #2: Another "Greatest Hits" thing?

Suit #1: Another "Greatest Hits" thing!

Suit #2: But we just did one two years ago.  Like, one album ago.

Suit #1: So what?

Suit #2: We can still make money on their back catalogue?

Suit #1: We can still make money on their back catalogue!

Suit #2: But what do we even call it?

Suit #1: Hmm... what was their biggest selling song?

Suit #2: "If You Leave Me Now"


(https://i.imgur.com/Xrvl3Ru.png)


If You Leave Me Now
Saturday in the Park
Feelin' Stronger Every Day
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
25 or 6 to 4
Baby, What a Big Surprise
Wishing You Were Here
No Tell Lover
Another Rainy Day in New York City
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
Song for You 

----------

Another "greatest hits" thing.  A cash-in by Columbia to capitalize on the recent success of Chicago 16.  People recognize the name, pick it up, look at the back, recognize a bunch of titles, maybe buy it.

Edited versions of "No Tell Lover" and "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" (not only is the piano solo cut, but the entire amazing horn fanfare and trumpet solo are cut, leaving only two measures of intro before the song starts).

Because Columbia still owned all of these songs, this is an official release, but it has never been considered canon and was not given a number in the sequence.  It therefore does not deserve a proper writeup, nor does it necessitate a change in the thread title.  It is, however, open to discussion and mockery.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Big Hath on September 11, 2013, 02:57:59 PM
so yeah, I have this one on cassette.  One of my first Chicago purchases actually.  I didn't know "Does Anybody Know . . ." had that awesome intro and fanfare until a year or two after I heard this version.  I will say that this compilation is the reason I like "Baby, What a Big Surprise", "Wishing You Were Here", "No Tell Lover" and "Another Rainy Day in New York City" as much as I do.

Aside from Feelin' Stronger and 25 or 6 to 4 , this was a pretty mellow compilation.  Probably trying to play off the success of the ballads on 16.

I hope you have another one of these planned for Take Me Back To Chcago, this was hilarious.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 11, 2013, 03:54:35 PM
I have to ask, why did you buy it?  Did you know at the time that it was just another "greatest hits" thing and just not care?  I do understand people buying such packages to get a sample of the band, and hopefully an idea which "real" album to get next.  And if they included the full versions of songs, they would actually be handy "mix tapes" from a favorite band, so a cassette would be perfect.  But I'm a cynic, so when I saw this one day in the CD racks at Best Buy, I laughed.  It just screamed "cash grab!" to me.

Aside from Feelin' Stronger and 25 or 6 to 4 , this was a pretty mellow compilation.  Probably trying to play off the success of the ballads on 16.

That's what I figured.  Since Peter's ballads were hot, load up a disc with 'em and sell a few.  "Feelin' Stronger Every Day" is sung by Peter and the first part is pretty mellow.  And come to think of it, Peter sings "25 or 6 to 4", which pretty much everyone knows, so it made sense to throw that one on as well to fill things up.

I hope you have another one of these planned for Take Me Back To Chcago, this was hilarious.

I hadn't thought that far ahead, actually.  I was just looking at the Wikipedia entry for Chicago 16 and it has links to the previous and next albums, and it said this one was next, then Chicago 17.  I need another day or two to listen to Chicago 17, so I figured I whip this up just to hold people over.  I'm glad you liked it. :)
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Big Hath on September 11, 2013, 09:18:55 PM
I have to ask, why did you buy it?

First off, I was really new to the band and had no idea what this was to be honest.  I think I maybe had some clue this was a compilation, but I probably didn't care since I was more of a "greatest hits" guy back then anyway.

Second, I am a collector/completist by nature.  So basically I was looking to get everything I could find.
Title: Re: Chicago 16 (1982)
Post by: Orbert on September 11, 2013, 10:07:39 PM
Wow, I consider myself a completist as well, but as a rule, I don't buy compilations if I already have everything on it.  The only exception would be if any alternate version(s) on it are somehow different or longer, not just a radio edit.  I hate radio edits.  But if it's a longer cut, or has a slightly different mix, or something like that, I allow myself to buy it (sometimes).

But in your case, it was one of your first Chicago purchases, so I guess that's okay.   :P
Title: Chicago 17 (1984)
Post by: Orbert on September 12, 2013, 01:00:53 PM
Chicago 17 (1984)

(https://i.imgur.com/rEefgkh.jpg)


Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Bill Champlin – Keyboards, Guitars, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums

Additional Personnel

(too many to list)

----------

Stay the Night (Cetera, Foster) – 3:50
We Can Stop the Hurtin' (Lamm, Champlin, Neal) – 4:11
Hard Habit to Break (Kipner, Parker) – 4:44
Only You (Pankow, Foster) – 3:53
Remember the Feeling (Cetera, Champlin) – 4:28
Along Comes a Woman (Cetera, Goldenberg) – 4:14
You're the Inspiration (Cetera, Foster) – 3:51
Please Hold On (Champlin, Foster, Richie) – 3:41
Prima Donna (Cetera, Goldenberg) – 4:13
Once in a Lifetime (Pankow) – 4:11

----------

Chicago 16 was a huge success and a huge comeback for the band, so of course producer David Foster was retained to work his magic again on Chicago 17.  He took things farther, adding more synths and electronic drums, another layer of polish to the sound, and an army of session musicians.  If Chicago 16 was less Chicago than it was David Foster, the ratio is even lower here.  More electronics and less horns, more session players and less actual Chicago players on the final record.  And as hard as that is for purists to accept, the result was twice as many hit singles (four total), nearly twice the sales (quadruple platinum upon release, eventually going 6x platinum and still counting), and Chicago's most successful record.

"Stay the Night" starts things off again with a rocker, or at least an "Adult Contemporary" rocker.  The two hits from Chicago 16 were both ballads, but the lead track and first single from Chicago 17 shows that Peter still has some edge to him.  "Stay the Night" went to #16, a hit.  Not Top Ten, but certainly strong enough to let everyone know that that last album wasn't a fluke.  There's more to come.

"We Can Stop the Hurtin'" reminds us that Robert Lamm is still in the band, back from whatever issues he was handling during the Chicago 16 sessions, and singing lead on a song co-written with Bill Champlin and someone named Deborah Neal.  It also reminds us that Chicago has a horn section, as they didn't play on the opening track but are featured here.  They even take a break.  It's against a backdrop of synths, but you take what you can get, and it's even kinda cool hearing them in a somewhat different setting.  Actually, as electronic and synth-heavy as this song is, I was surprised to learn that Robert wrote it.  It's a nice combination of new and old Chicago.

"Hard Habit to Break" was the second single and went all the way to #3 on both the Billboard Hot 100 and Adult Contemporary charts.  By outside writers Steve Kipner and Jon Parker, it's a ballad, but it's also another masterpiece of production, with horns, strings, synths, guitars, and drums, all sharing space and somehow sounding full yet clean.

"Only You" is an interesting song.  A James Pankow song, with (presumed studio-earned) co-writing credit to David Foster, the verses are sung by Robert Lamm, the pre-chorus by Bill Champlin, and I'm honestly not sure who that is singing the chorus, but it's a high falsetto, and between that and the horns and synths, my first thought was that we'd suddenly switched to an Earth, Wind & Fire song.  Not that that's a bad thing; as mentioned upthread, EWF also had a great sound which featured horns, and they were pretty hot around this time, too.  But this is a Frankenstein of a song.  Not bad, actually pretty good, but weird.

"Remember the Feeling" is a Cetera-sung ballad co-written by Peter Cetera and Bill Champlin.  It has all of the hallmarks of an Adult Contemporary Power Ballad™ -- distorted guitars low in the mix and topped with strings, heavy gated drums (compressed and also slightly lower in the mix so as not to be confused with actual rock and roll), acoustic and electric piano, synths, and background vocals in high harmony.  The result is a song with enough schmaltz to get the girls excited but enough balls to not completely offend the guys, or at least be mostly tolerable while they slow-dance with the girls.

"Along Comes a Woman" is another Cetera song, co-written this time by Mark Goldenberg.  It's an uptempo song, actually something like rock and roll or at least what passed for it in the 80's.  It was the fourth and final single from the album and reached #14 on the Billboard Hot 100.

The third single was "You're the Inspiration" yet another Cetera ballad with co-writing credit by David Foster.  It reached #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 but went all the way to #1 on the Adult Contemporary chart.

"Please Hold On" is an interesting song.  Co-written by Bill Champlin and Lionel Richie back when they worked together, David Foster also has co-writing credit, presumably earned in-studio.  It's a shuffle, almost funky, but smoothed out by the horns and and electric keyboards into something like Adult Contemporary R&B.  Except I'm not sure if such a thing even exists.  If it does, it was probably invented right here.

"Prima Donna" is the other Cetera-Goldenberg composition.  You know the song "Danger Zone" by Kenny Loggins (actually written by Georgio Moroder with lyrics by Tom Whitlock)?  I'm pretty sure they listened to this song a few times.  The beat, the accents.  It's really hard for me to listen to this song and not hear "Danger Zone" but at least I know that this one came first, so it's not Cetera's fault.

And apparently we're back to closing the album with a James Pankow song.  "Once in a Lifetime" is, incredibly, the only song on the album not co-written by at least two people.  James' horn charts are great, of course, and they even take the break.  So you can look at it a few different ways.  Either David Foster wanted to put the Pankow song with all the horns last because he considered it of a lower priority, or he was aware that old-school Chicago fans were still looking for something to latch onto, and if this was the last thing they heard, then they would be somewhat appeased.

Actually, the whole album feels like a balancing act between the old and the new.  Foster knew that he'd brought Chicago to a new audience with Chicago 16, but he also knew that at least some of the sales, and credit for even being there in the first place, was due to the old-school Chicago fans.  Where Chicago 16 was remarkably consistent, especially considering everything he had to do and everyone he had to please all at once, Chicago 17 feels like he was trying hard to drag the band into the 80's, and at the same time break new ground in order to not appear to just be doing more of the same.

I think that while Chicago 17 did better commercially, as an album it is overall less consistent and less balanced.  There's very much a feeling like "okay we've had a few rockers in a row, time for a ballad... okay now time for an old-school song with horns to please the fogies... okay now another ballad..."  I'm tempted to say that you can't please everybody, but since this is Chicago's top-selling album of all time, I don't think that that was much of a concern here.  How do you argue with this kind of success?  Six million copies sold.
Title: Re: Chicago 17 (1984)
Post by: Jaq on September 12, 2013, 02:56:23 PM
The consummate 80s pop-rock album, and most likely the album most played by lovelorn teenagers in the mid 80s. The word for this album is immaculate. Even if it reminds me of the Doonesbury comic where the strip's aging folk rocker has David Foster producing him, and Foster proceeds to tell the singer about all the music that he can make with synthesizers. Finally after working his way through every aspect of his music, the singer asks "Hey, Fos, about my vocals" and Foster says "I got it covered."  :lol
Title: Re: Chicago 17 (1984)
Post by: Orbert on September 12, 2013, 04:38:38 PM
Oh man, I had totally forgotten about that strip, but I remember it now, and I now get it (I really didn't at the time).
Title: Re: Chicago 17 (1984)
Post by: Big Hath on September 12, 2013, 11:32:32 PM
so yeah, I like this one.  9 of the 10 songs made my top 50 list.  Only "Please Hold On" didn't make it, but I find that song enjoyable as well.  The pinnacle of 80s pop-rock.  Jaq called it "immaculate".  Yep, every bit of this album, every sound, every beat, every nuance to the vocals is produced to absolute perfection.  I don't know where I mentioned it before, but this is one of the best sounding albums I've ever heard.

The hits are the hits, and I like them naturally, but I feel the strength of the album is in songs like "Once In A Lifetime", "Prima Donna", "We Can Stop the Hurtin'", and my personal favorite from the album "Remember The Feeling".  That song must have hit me at a time of a particularly difficult break-up.  Orbert, probably not too many slow dances to that one.  If you pay attention to the lyrics, it's actually pretty heartbreaking: "I should have noticed that something was wrong, when I awoke she was gone."  He's not talking about a one night stand, either.  The rest of the lyrics describe someone that was basically the love of his life and he was so caught up in love, he didn't see that things might be falling apart.  Cheesy, schmaltzy . . . yeah.  But it got me through some difficult times.

Huge success from this album that gave the band another chance in the spotlight a decade after the first one.  Here is Loughnane talking about it:

"We had a great time playing the big time again. It was the second big wave. People would give their eye teeth for the first amount of success that we had in the '70s, and to be able to do it for the second time is a major milestone in the history of rock 'n' roll as well as our history. Not too many people have had this opportunity, and we had a lot of fun with it."
Title: Re: Chicago 17 (1984)
Post by: Orbert on September 13, 2013, 07:29:40 AM
Well, as I said, it's hard to argue with how popular this album was and still is.  Six million units is incredible for anyone, let alone a band's 14th studio effort.  And it does sound great; it sounds amazing.

It just doesn't feel as cohesive as Chicago 16.  It doesn't feel as balanced.  Or maybe it does feel balanced, but only because it's more obviously a mix of "hard" and "soft" and "light" and "heavy".  There's a lot going on here.

And my biggest problem is all the music not actually played by Chicago.  They hired a great guitarist; why are there three other guitarists credited?  They have a drummer; why are there two other drummers credited?  They have the best horn section in rock and roll, a legendary horn section; why are there two other horn players credited?  These are all listed under "Additional personnel" and there's more.  Synth programmers, background vocalists, a percussionist (since they lost Laudir).  Did Chicago even play on this album, or was it truly a David Foster work?
Title: Re: Chicago 17 (1984)
Post by: Big Hath on September 13, 2013, 08:36:34 AM
all fair points.  It probably helped that I had no history with the band before hearing this stuff.
Title: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: Orbert on September 13, 2013, 11:08:43 PM
Chicago 18 (1986)

(https://i.imgur.com/rFTRcDE.jpg)


Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion

Additional Personnel

(lots)

----------

Niagara Falls (Kipner, Caldwell) – 3:43
Forever (Lamm, Gable) – 5:17
If She Would Have Been Faithful... (Kipner, Goodrum) – 3:51
25 or 6 to 4 (Lamm, Pankow) – 4:20
Will You Still Love Me? (Foster, Keane, Baskin) – 5:43
Over and Over (Lamm, Howard, Lukather) – 4:20
It's Alright (Champlin, Foster) – 4:29
Free Flight (Pankow) – 0:25
Nothin's Gonna Stop Us Now (Scheff, Feiten) – 4:25
I Believe (Champlin) – 4:20
One More Day (Pankow, Grillo) – 4:14

----------

After the massive success of Chicago 17, which featured four hits all sung by Peter Cetera, Peter decided that the time was right to leave Chicago and pursue his solo career full time.  I say "full time" because apparently Peter had released his first solo album back in 1981 but no one knew about it.  The label was Warner Bros., who believed that if they promoted it and it sold well, then Peter might leave Chicago, who they had also just signed.  Instead, Chicago made their huge comeback with Peter as lead singer, and Peter ended up leaving two albums later anyway.

If Chicago's recent success was largely due to the efforts and talents of David Foster, which very few people dispute, here was Foster's greatest challenge yet.  Create a successful Chicago album without their lead singer.

He succeeded, for the most part.  Chicago, the great faceless band, now saw that unique attribute work in their favor.  They replaced Peter with a young man named Jason Scheff who played bass and sang in the same high tenor range.  Foster created another one of his sonic masterpieces (with Jason taking over lead vocals and a lot of people not even noticing the difference) and the band played on.  Although the album itself only made it to #35, Chicago 18 boasts four Top 100 songs, including a Top 10 and a Top 20.  It went gold, but compared to the multi-platinum success of its immediate predecessors, it is easily the weakest of the three Foster-produced albums.

"Niagara Falls" leads things off and we've got synths and horns and a high tenor voice, and another Chicago album is off to a fine start.  It was released as a single but only made it to #91 in the Billboard Hot 100.

"Forever" is a Robert Lamm song, co-written with someone named Bill Gable.  It sounds great, it's got those Chicago horns playing accents and taking the horn break, and even something new: a saxophone line weaving around and doing sexy saxophone things.  In all these years, I've never heard Walt play a sax part like he does here.  Who'd have thought?

"If She Would Have Been Faithful... ", by another pair of outside writers, was one of the more successful singles, reaching #17.  It almost segues into its B-side, the remake of "25 or 6 to 4" (originally from Chicago), which divided fans.  Some liked the modern spin on an old classic, many thought it was nothing short of blasphemy.  Either way, it made it to #48 on the charts, thanks to a music video, a great new horn charts by James Pankow (for which he was given co-writing credit), and a terrific vocal performance by Jason Scheff.  Actually, Jason sings all four of the singles from this album.

"Will You Still Love Me?" by David Foster and some of his friends, was the most successful single, reaching #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #2 on Adult Contemporary chart.

"Over and Over" is the other Robert Lamm song, this time co-written with none other than composer James Newton Howard, and Steve Lukather from Toto.  Lukather played guitar on Chicago 16 and has credits here for synth programming.

"It's Alright" is a Bill Champlin song, co-written with David Foster.  It has some bite to it, something like a smooth R&B feel, with a good beat and a nice horn chart.

"Free Flight" is a short a capella horn piece which was originally uncredited and appended to the front of "Nothin's Gonna Stop Us Now", but now is credited to James Pankow (in case there was any doubt) and is its own track on the CD.

"Nothin's Gonna Stop Us Now" is Jason Scheff's ante into the band, co-written with Buzz Feiten.  Another song with a not-too-mellow beat and another horn chart that seems to borrow a few licks from "Just You 'N' Me" (from Chicago VI).

"I Believe" is Bill Champlin's other song, and he shares vocal duties with Jason Scheff.  It's been a while since we had a song with more than one lead vocalist.

And once again, we finish up with a James Pankow song, this time it's "One More Day".  An uplifting, idealistic song about thinking about the future and our children, it of course features a great horn chart, and vocals by Bill Champlin.

----------

I'll be honest, this album sounds as good as its two predecessors, but it's not quite as adventurous as Chicago 17, and it's not as outright rocking as Chicago 16.  The songs themselves aren't bad; they're just not as strong and don't have as many stand-out moments.  Peter had started writing more of the songs, including more of the hits, and his sudden departure left a hole in the writing department as well as in the vocals.  Robert and James wrote a few more songs here, but they just weren't enough to take up the slack.

This led to more outside writers being brought in, and it is with Chicago 18 that they were becoming known as a band with some great songs but not necessarily great albums.
Title: Re: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: Nel on September 13, 2013, 11:23:31 PM
Put me in the camp that doesn't really like what they did with "25 Or 6 To 4" on this one. Just wasn't my cup of tea. Out of this era, I'd say i actually kind of like XIV and 16, but 17 and 18 never did much for me. I found a used copy of 19 at the local record store about a week and a half ago for $2, so I picked that up.
Title: Re: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: ZirconBlue on September 16, 2013, 09:50:21 AM
They replaced Peter with a young man named Jason Scheff who played bass and sang in the same high tenor range.


<snip>


"Will You Still Love Me?" by David Foster and some of his friends, was the most successful single, reaching #3 on the Billboard Hot 100 and #2 on Adult Contemporary chart.

So, Jason Scheff also contributed question marks?  ;)
Title: Re: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: Big Hath on September 16, 2013, 10:37:07 AM
Chicago 18 - not terrible.  Both the hits "If She Would Have Been Faithful" and "Will You Still Love Me?" are favorites of mine.  Some other decent stuff on this album too.  Just not quite on par with the previous albums.  This began a downward slide that got really fast, really quick.

Also, wanted to talk about the Take Me Back To Chicago compilation from 1985.  So Chicago 17 is released in 1984 and becomes a huge multi-platinum hit album with 4 top ten hits (depending on what chart you look at).  And just like after 16, Columbia releases a compilation album in early 1985 to seemingly take advantage of the wave of sales from 17.  It has a pretty cool cover idea in that it is made up of strips from several of the old covers that spell out Chicago.  However, curiously, they didn't include major hits.  Some of the songs weren't even released as singles and Harry Truman was the highest charting song at #13.  Most of them fizzled out around the 40s or 50s.  Maybe they were trying to avoid including songs that had appeared on previous greatest hits albums.  I actually applaud them a little bit for going with some of the deeper cuts.  Anyway, the band obviously doesn't recognize the album as being in the official discography.  This album is the reason I like "Thunder and Lightning" and "Mongonucleosis" as much as I do.

Then, in 1990, right on cue following 1989's 5-time platinum selling Greatest Hits 1982–1989, Columbia again releases a Chicago compilation.  Guess what this one was titled - Take Me Back To Chicago.  Yes, the exact same album title from five years before.  Some of the songs are the same, but some are replaced by bigger Cetera hits, although "Song For You", "Run Away" and "Mama Take" are also included - non-singles, or singles that never charted.

Orbert, yes, I have both of these.  :D  The 1990 version was actually the first CD I ever owned.
Title: Re: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: Orbert on September 16, 2013, 12:03:17 PM
Wow, talk about the ultra-sleezy cash grabs.  I've seen it in the racks but always ignored it.  I didn't realise that there are actually two versions, released five years apart, with the same title but different track listing.  That's pretty lame.

I know you'd asked upthread whether I'd cover Take Me Back to Chicago, and I knew it was coming up and I meant to look it up, but I guess I waited too long.  I've been using Wikipedia as my guide because the page for each album has links to the previous and next albums, so it's easier than using AMG (All-Music Guide), my usual source.  AMG breaks things up between regular releases and compilations, and there are so many compilations, both authorized and unauthorized, that it was a pain in the ass to get it all straight.  I actually started putting the lists together to insure that I had everything and in the correct order, but gave up when I got to the 80's and all the games Columbia was playing.  It was just easier to follow the Wiki links.

Unfortunately, the Wiki page for Take Me Back to Chicago has links back to Chicago 17 and forward to Chicago 18, but the pages from those two albums do not link to Take Me Back to Chicago, which is how I missed it.  So thanks for bringing it up and talking about it.  It's interesting getting the perspective of someone who came to Chicago later in their career and free from the bias against their later material.  And someone who's even more of a completist than me, which sometimes is pretty rare.  But again, I don't bother with any compilations unless they offer something I can't get from the regular releases (other than edited versions, which IMO don't count).

The cover is kinda cool.  Might've been cooler if the slices were from the album covers in chronological order, but I'm assuming they were chosen to create the most aesthetically pleasing effect.  So at least some thought went into it.

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/56/Album_Take_Me_Back_to_Chicago_cover.jpg)
Title: Re: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: masterthes on September 16, 2013, 03:59:17 PM
I just have to say "If She Would Have Been Faithful" is one of the weirdest ideas for a pop love song I have ever heard. That had to have come from some real life inspiration

Oh, and on 17, I still listen to Hard Habit and Inspiration on a regular basis
Title: Re: Chicago 18 (1986)
Post by: Big Hath on September 16, 2013, 09:56:31 PM
yeah, a little strange.  I don't expect many around here to know about it, but it has a very similar theme of the Garth Brooks hit "Unanswered Prayers".  It's about a guy who sees an old flame and thinks about how he used to pray they would spend their lives together, but that would have left him without the life he currently has.
Title: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Orbert on September 16, 2013, 10:05:54 PM
Chicago 19 (1988)

(https://i.imgur.com/HW0JgXz.jpg)


Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Guitars, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Saxophone
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals
Dawayne Bailey - Guitar, Vocals
Danny Seraphine - Drums, Percussion, Programming

Additional Personnel

(lots and lots)

----------

Heart in Pieces (Feehan, MacLeod) – 5:04
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love (Warren, Hammond) – 3:55
I Stand Up (Lamm, McMahon) – 4:06
We Can Last Forever (Scheff, Dexter) – 3:45
Come in From the Night (Champlin, Gaitsch) – 4:43
Look Away (Warren) – 4:02
What Kind Of Man Would I Be? (Scheff, Sandford, Caldwell) – 4:21
Runaround (Champlin, Scheff) – 4:10
You're Not Alone (Scott) – 3:56
Victorious (Jordan, Capek) – 6:03

----------

By this point, Chicago was a band, but they were also very much a brand.  A name to put on the album cover, a certain sound, good music, but it didn't seem to matter a whole lot who was singing and playing the music.  Chicago 18 had had four singles, all sung by Jason Scheff, and a lot of people didn't even realize that Peter Cetera had left the band.  Chicago 19 had three singles, all sung by Bill Champlin.

Of course, Peter's solo career was taking off and he had songs on the radio, so it made sense for Chicago to focus on their "other" lead singer, as Robert Lamm continued to take a smaller and smaller role in Chicago, though I've never heard a definitive reason why.  If I had to guess, I'd say that he was disillusioned.  He didn't write many songs anymore, and sang even fewer.  But he stayed in the band because he'd been doing it his entire adult life and didn't have anything else.  Chicago was still a successful band, and he was an original member.  He still got to sing "Saturday in the Park" and "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" every night, and Chicago was even making more money now than they did before.

But Chicago 19 has three other keyboard players credited, and three session guitarists (as well as a percussionist and several programmers).  This is in addition to Bill Champlin, who played both keyboards and guitar, Robert on keyboards, and Dawayne Bailey on guitar.  Dawayne had played with them on the Chicago 18 tour and was made a regular member as of Chicago 19.  But there are still more session players than actual band members on the album, and if you look at the songwriting credits, you see that only half of the songs were even co-written by a member of Chicago; the rest were by outside writers.

"I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love" went to #3 on the Billboard Hot 100, "Look Away" went all the way to #1 on both the Hot 100 and Adult Contemporary charts, and "You're Not Alone" made #10 on the Hot 100 and #9 on the Adult Contemporary chart.

But the album itself only went to #37, peaking slightly lower than Chicago 18, which had reached #35.  Even with three Top 10 songs, including another #1, people did not buy Chicago albums.  The people who liked the songs were not the ones who bought albums and played them all the way through.

The rockers on the album are "I Stand Up", "Come In from the Night" and "Runaround".  They each have some nice guitar and horn work and will probably make it to my Chicago playlist on my iPod.  "Victorious" tries hard to be a mini-epic of some kind, with the slow build up and slow fade at the end, but overall it just drags.  It's not as profound as it thinks it is.  The rest of the album is pretty forgettable.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Nel on September 16, 2013, 10:07:51 PM
The album cover... it is one of their worst, I think. Just looks like a digital mess.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: jammindude on September 16, 2013, 10:23:39 PM
I had almost forgotten about "Look Away"...  a guilty pleasure of sorts.   I hate that I like it.   When I catch myself singing it, I'll start to sing it like a lounge singer just to seem like I'm making fun of it.    But then I realize that singing it like a lounge singer is really not far off from the original, so it just sounds like I'm singing it normal....and then I just stop singing and hope it passes.

 :facepalm:
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Lolzeez on September 16, 2013, 10:24:47 PM
I Stand Up and Runaround are awesome. I don't care what others think.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Orbert on September 17, 2013, 07:35:55 AM
They are.  I don't think you'll get any argument here.

Possibly worth noting is that they're two of the songs actually written by Chicago.  "Runaround" is the only song written entirely by Chicago (Bill and Jason) and "I Stand Up" is Robert Lamm's only contribution, co-written with Gerald McMahon.

It seems apparent that outside writers were brought in because Chicago no longer had enough writers in the band, but I wonder how much of that was at the label's insistence.  The two Diane Warren songs were singles, and hits.  "You're Not Alone" made Top 10 also.  None of them were written by Chicago.  Meanwhile, Robert is down to a single co-writing credit, Jimmy is absent, and I guess the others who tried their hands at songwriting (Lee, Danny, and Walt) either didn't care to, or didn't bother.  Were they actively being squelched, or had the well run dry?  And what about two-time Grammy winner Bill Champlin?  Two co-writing credits here, one on the previous album plus a full credit.

It's bad enough that there are so many session players on the album, but I find it really discouraging when a band no longer even writes most of their own songs.  The members of Chicago weren't significantly different from the hired hands at this point.  Even the horns, who still get a moment to shine here and there, aren't heard nearly as often as the synthesizers, all programmed and played by hired guns.

So if they really had become a brand more than a band, for God's sake why didn't someone do something about the packaging?  That cover really is horrible.  In the late 80's, CDs were big; they were the norm.  I think it's entirely possible that people heard the latest Chicago song on the radio, went to check out the CD, went "Ewww!" and instead grabbed the latest from Air Supply or Tears for Fears.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Big Hath on September 17, 2013, 08:17:08 AM
yeah, that cover is just a mess.  My guess is that it is supposed to be some kind of digital abstract art.  You know, since computers were "hot" at the time.

Going back to "If She Would Have Been Faithful" for a second, I remember in 9th grade English we were doing vocabulary and the teacher allowed us to bring in a song that contained one of the vocabulary words for extra credit.  One of the words was "paradox" so naturally my first thought was "it's a paradox, full of contradictions".  Got the extra credit and got to listen to Chicago in class - not bad.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Jaq on September 17, 2013, 08:32:51 AM
I honestly thought 19 was a compilation or a live album. I had no idea it was a studio album. Which goes to show you how far Chicago had fallen off my personal radar by 1988.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Big Hath on September 17, 2013, 10:45:58 AM
Chicago 19 - First off, why was "What Kind of Man Would I Be?" not a released as a single from this album?  I think it is one of the better ballads here and it is also co-written by an actual member of the band!  Scheff has a great vocal performance on the song.  They included it on the 1989 Greatest Hits package and only then was it released as a single.

But even I have some reservations about the other power ballads here. Creatively, it seems the band itself was pretty much done.  They brought in Diane Warren of all people (Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now, Because You Loved Me, Un-break My Heart, How Do I Live, and a seemingly endless string of other mamsy-pamsy drivel - sorry if some of you like these).  The lyrics are cringe-worthy at times, especially on "Look Away" and "I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love".  Grow a pair!  I guess it makes sense that those two were both Warren-penned.

"Come in From the Night" has some really cool things going on.  I like that one.  "I Stand Up" is good.  Wish the horns were a bit more up front in the mix on "Runaraound".
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: masterthes on September 17, 2013, 02:40:55 PM
So, I'm surprised Google doesn't even know the name of the model in the Look Away video. Was that the only thing she did?
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on September 17, 2013, 08:49:55 PM
Just to get back to 17 for a minute, it will always be my favorite Chicago album (even though I know it isn't their best - look to the 70's for that), because it came out when I first started having feelings for girls.  I mean real feelings for specific girls, not just teen horniness.  So all of those love songs, even the ones that were uptempo, hit me in that special way that albums sometime hit people. 

You know what I mean.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: Orbert on September 17, 2013, 09:11:20 PM
I know what you mean.  They say that the music of our adolescence is the music that will resonate with us for the rest of our lives.  The friends you have during that time, the relationships during that time, are the ones you'll never forget.

Almost no one remembers being born and learning to walk and talk.  Our brains weren't developed enough; specifically the memory-recording areas weren't done yet.  But the second most important time, becoming an adult, going through the changes, we all remember.
Title: Re: Chicago 19 (1988)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 18, 2013, 05:50:36 AM
I completely agree with hef as well as playing these damn love songs after a break up.  Why the hell would I torture myself with the love songs but I did.  I guess I was yearning for the relationships to work it out, to be in love again.
Title: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: Orbert on September 18, 2013, 11:42:39 AM
Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989

(https://i.imgur.com/AwOqdKF.jpg)


Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away
Look Away
Stay the Night
Will You Still Love Me?
Love Me Tomorrow
What Kind of Man Would I Be? (Remix)
You're the Inspiration
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love
Hard Habit to Break
Along Comes a Woman
If She Would Have Been Faithful...
We Can Last Forever

----------

Yeah, I know, it's another "greatest hits" thing.  But this was an official release by Warner Bros., Chicago's label at the time, not another cash grab by Columbia.  Greatest Hits 1982–1989 is Chicago's 20th official album.  I can even recommend this album for people who are into this kind of thing.

For one thing, Chicago had become a "singles" band, a band known more for their songs than for their albums.  So here they are, all the hits from the 80's, in one convenient package.  People weren't buying Chicago albums in huge numbers, because they were now known for their Adult Contemporary sound, but when you bought the albums there were all these weird songs with trumpets and saxophones and stuff and really, who wants that?

Best of all, they didn't edit the songs!  Give or take a few seconds of fadeout, these are the full album versions.  You even get "Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away" intact.

And because it was becoming more common, the version of "What Kind of Man Would I Be?" (originally from Chicago 19) is slightly remixed and was released as a single.  It reached #5 on the Billboard Hot 100, and #2 on the Adult Contemporary chart.  And you had to buy this particular package to get it.  Now how much would you pay?

Despite all of that, it only reached #37 on the Billboard 200 (album) chart, exactly the same place where Chicago 19 had peaked.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: Cool Chris on September 18, 2013, 11:59:15 AM
I completely agree with hef as well as playing these damn love songs after a break up.  Why the hell would I torture myself with the love songs but I did.  I guess I was yearning for the relationships to work it out, to be in love again.

Nothing said Forlorn Teenage Love for me and my friends back in high school quite like Chicago 1982-1989. I mean, seven hells! Just look at those song titles!
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: King Postwhore on September 18, 2013, 04:21:12 PM
I tortured myself on that greatest hits for this one girl who stomped my heart.  What the hell was wrong with me?! :lol
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: Big Hath on September 18, 2013, 07:35:54 PM
this is probably my most played album of all-time.  It was never out of my cd-changer in my first car.  There were six slots, and the first one was always reserved for this album.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: Orbert on September 18, 2013, 09:20:44 PM
Wow, this place continues to surprise me.  I didn't expect all the love for this album.  But as I said, as much as I'm categorically against "greatest hits" things, this is a solid collection of songs, so sure, why not?

What I'd like to see is a collection of all the 80's songs that had some resemblance to old-school Chicago, with horns and rockin' guitars.  I bet they'd all fit on one disc, too.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: King Postwhore on September 19, 2013, 06:50:45 AM
Bob, I'm curious if you had a bootleg od the album Stone Of Sisyphus?  I had it then when the real release years later but it shorted a song.  That was a modern Chicago sound with horns that the record company did not want to release.
Title: Re: Chicago: Greatest Hits 1982–1989
Post by: Orbert on September 19, 2013, 08:00:58 AM
I tracked down some of the songs from the original bootleg at one point.  I think one or two were officially released on one of the box sets or something; I don't remember now.  I remember getting at least one from Kazaa or something; that's how long ago this was.  But when the official version was released, I picked that up and I think I nuked the bootlegs I had.  I didn't think I needed them since I had the real thing.  In retrospect, I should've kept them anyways.  It would have been cool to have the early versions as well.

Then I learned that one of the songs didn't end up on the album (I think it was by Dawayne Bailey).  But I don't even know which songs I'd had before, so I don't know if I deleted something I'll have trouble tracking down again, or what.

After Chicago Twenty 1, I was going to mention Stone of Sisyphus, since musically it came next, even though the official version wasn't released until many years later, and by that time it had changed somewhat.  The Chicago catalogue gets a bit odd, and a bit messy.
Title: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Orbert on September 19, 2013, 09:58:46 PM
Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)

(https://i.imgur.com/8cwi7Jb.jpg)


Dawayne Bailey - Guitars, Background Vocals
Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Vocals
Tris Imboden - Drums, Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Background Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flute, Background Vocals
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

Additional Personnel:

(lots)

----------

Explain it to My Heart (Warren) – 4:44
If It Were You (Scheff, Scheff, Smith) – 4:43
You Come to My Senses (Steinberg, Kelly) – 3:49
Somebody, Somewhere (Champlin, Matkosky, Dukes) – 4:21
What Does It Take (Scheff, McMahon) – 4:38
One from the Heart (Lamm, McMahon) – 4:43
Chasin' the Wind (Warren) – 4:18
God Save the Queen (Pankow, Scheff) – 4:19
Man to Woman (Scheff, Mitchell) – 3:56
Only Time Can Heal the Wounded (Lamm, McMahon) – 4:43
Who Do You Love (Champlin, Matkosky) – 3:20
Holdin' On (Champlin, Saviano) – 4:15

----------

Ah, the 90's.  A new decade, time again for a new image.  For the first time, the famous Chicago logo does not even appear on the cover, at least not in its entirety.  As a nod to the past, it's referenced, but the cover itself is dominated by the big red "1" with the word "Twenty" written on it, and then a moment later you might notice the word "Chicago" across the top.  Yes, somebody thought this was a good design, someone else approved it, and it somehow became the new album cover.

Also, after the Roman numerals and a handful of Arabic numerals, we get a new variation: a combination of...  You know what?  You can see it.  I don't need to describe it.  Which is good, because I can't.  Chicago Twenty 1.  Okay.

The album kicks off with a Diane Warren song, and there's another one of her sappy ballads later on.  And the worst part is, the two Diane Warren ballads and the other song by outside writers, "You Come to My Senses", are the worst songs on the album, although the other ballads aren't much better, really.  Somebody decided that this is what Chicago needs, what they should be about.  Honestly, they're all pretty bad.  But at least nine of the twelve songs are co-written by members of Chicago.

So which ones actually rock?  "If It Were You", written by Jason Scheff, his brother Darin, and someone named Tony Smith, isn't bad.  "God Save the Queen" is probably the best song, rocking out with the horns and electric guitars.  Robert Lamm's two songs aren't too bad.  "One from the Heart" has something of an old-school Chicago swing to it, while "Only Time Can Heal the Wounded" has a more modern feel, but still uptempo and not too sappy.  And he even sings both of them, but man, he sounds old and tired.  Age is a bitch.  "Who Do You Love" -- a question without a question mark -- is pretty good.

The last song, "Holdin' On", is interesting, all things considered.  There was the song "Hold On" from Chicago XIV, then there was "Please Hold On" from Chicago 17.  Now we have "Holdin' On" which whines "I don't know what to do, 'cause the pieces won't fit into place" and "we can't let it end this way".  And it occurred to me that that message might apply to the band itself.  At this point, no combination of heavy, light, old, new, horns, strings or synthesizers seemed to be the answer.  But they had to hold on, please hold on, and keep holdin' on.

After ignoring Chicago for most of the 80's, I actually bought this CD when it came out.  I wanted to just check in on them, see what they sounded like.  I saw that three songs were by outside writers and of the other nine, eight were co-written by outside writers.  At the time, however, I didn't realize that this was a step up from Chicago 19.  I didn't understand why the band wasn't writing their own material any more.  I still don't understand it.  But as I suspected, or at least hoped, there was still rock and roll, the horns still blasted from time to time.  But the label insisted on promoting sappy crappy ballads as singles.  They don't give a damn about any trumpet-playing band.

Oh yeah, housekeeping.  Danny Seraphine was rather abruptly fired from the band prior to the start of the sessions for Chicago Twenty 1.  By the time the recording was finished, they'd hired Tris Imboden as the new drummer, so his name appears in the credits as a band member, but session man John Keane actually plays on most of the album.  Also appearing are David Foster on piano, three more keyboard players plus Steve Porcaro again programming, another guitarist, and a baritone saxophone player.  Why?  Walt plays baritone sax.  He played one on Chicago VI, and it was great.

Overall, this album sounds a lot like Chicago 19, but a little bit better.  The songs are a bit stronger.  But music had changed again, and Chicago was again trying to find a relevant sound.  "Chasin' the Wind" only reached #39 and was the only single, and the album itself only reached #66, which made it the second-worst non-compilation album (only Chicago XIV did worse).  Once again, Chicago knew that something had to change.
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Podaar on September 20, 2013, 10:32:11 AM
They don't give a damn about any trumpet-playing band.

 :lol
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: jammindude on September 20, 2013, 10:33:16 AM
They don't give a damn about any trumpet-playing band.

 :lol

 :rollin
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Big Hath on September 20, 2013, 11:11:56 AM
better than 19, but not by much.  "You Come to My Senses" is one of the worst things I've ever heard.  They couldn't even get Warren to save the record sales this time.  "God Save the Queen" is my favorite from this album.  I'm going to have to pull thus one out of the cd case and give it another listen.  Never even bothered to rip it to the computer.
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Orbert on September 20, 2013, 03:11:35 PM
better than 19, but not by much.
Yep.

"You Come to My Senses" is one of the worst things I've ever heard.
Tell me about it.

They couldn't even get Warren to save the record sales this time.
True.

"God Save the Queen" is my favorite from this album.
Same here.

I'm going to have to pull thus one out of the cd case and give it another listen.  Never even bothered to rip it to the computer.
Ha, I win!  Ripped and iPodded this one a long time ago.



Wait, that's not necessarily a win, is it?



 :sad:
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Orbert on September 20, 2013, 03:44:58 PM
One explanation I read, or at least it was a partial explanation, for the problems that Chicago started to have at this time was that FM radio was getting more programmed and segmented.  There had always been "oldies" stations versus "Top 40" stations and what-have-you, but market segmentation was really reaching the next level.  "80's" stations only played a certain kind of 80's, either the mellow stuff or the heavier stuff or whatever.  Where I live we have two "classic rock' stations and while there's a lot of overlap, one leans more towards the hits while the other leans more towards album tracks.

Anyway the point is that the "lite rock" stations already had a bunch of Chicago songs, and the ballads on Chicago Twenty 1 just aren't as good.  Chicago was actually competing with themselves, competing with their earlier, slightly better incarnation with Peter Cetera singing and better people writing.

I'd read a lot about how Diane Warren's ballads ruled the airwaves during this period, and how she'd actually written a bunch of Chicago's later hits, but that's not really true.  There were "I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love" and "Look Away" from Chicago 19, and then "Chasin' the Wind" kinda tanked.  That's it.  Peter Cetera wrote most of the hits he sang, and Diane Warren only wrote two songs for each of these last two albums.  Granted, three of the four were singles, and two of those three were genuine hits, but it's not like she wrote all their hits from this period.  Just two, and when the third one didn't do so well, they ended that particular experiment.
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 20, 2013, 05:04:15 PM
Had it on the I-Pod and took it off.  I think it's worse than 19.  Night and Day I love.....coming soon!
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Orbert on September 20, 2013, 11:12:03 PM
Yeah, I gave Stone of Sisyphus and Night and Day each a few spins over the past two days.  I'm still gathering my thoughts on them.
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Orbert on September 21, 2013, 05:54:03 PM
Stone of Sysiphus (the first time)

It seemed that Chicago had always struggled to do what they wanted to do, musically, and were willing to accept the financial rewards, or lack thereof, as something of a trade-off.  Of course, this was much easier when they first started out and were very successful, scoring radio hits, selling millions of albums, and playing sold-out concerts.  When they lost Terry Kath and were forced to reinvent themselves, it was a struggle, but their resurgence in the 80's seemed to validate their efforts.  As the 80's ended, however, and Chicago's popularity began to fade, they once again found themselves disillusioned with the music business.  It was clearly more about the business and less about the music than ever before.  No one asked them what happened to the music; they asked why they weren't writing hits anymore.

Chicago worked with Peter Wolf (former keyboard player for Frank Zappa, not the lead singer from the J. Geils Band) who was making his name as a producer and who had been a fan of Chicago since the beginning.  He encouraged them to write their own songs, ignore current musical trends, and make the album that they wanted to make.  Music from the hearts of musicians with that much talent cannot possibly be bad.

Chicago's 22nd album was to be Stone of Sysiphus, after the Greek myth of Sysiphus.  Sysiphus had defied the gods and as punishment was doomed to forever push a huge stone up a hill, only to lose control as he neared the top, watch it roll down, and have to start over again.  It was probably not an accident that Chicago felt that way about their efforts to succeed in the music business.

After the first three tracks were finished, Wolf presented them to the suits at Warner Bros., who loved them.  With this very encouraging news, the band enthusiastically finished the album.  Horns all over the place, experimental things, adventurous things.  The band was invigorated.  At the very least, the songs the suits had loved would be singles, while the rest of the album would allow them to really stretch out and for the first time in years do what they wanted to do.

But in the time it took them to finish the album, there was a major shake-up at Warner Bros., and everyone at the top was new, and the new suits hated the album.  They saw no commercial potential to it, and told Chicago quite bluntly that they would release it, but it would receive no promotion, because they had no confidence that it would sell, at all.  The band was crushed.  They chose to shelf the album, and began preparations to find a new label.  They would rather not release the music that they'd poured their hearts into than watch it fail due to no support from the label.

For years, stories about the "lost" Chicago album practically matched the myth of Sysiphus itself.  Bootlegged tracks showed up here and there.  Official copies of songs showed up in boxed sets and other collections over the next several years.  What was reported to be the original artwork to the never-released album showed up on the 'net:

(https://i.imgur.com/Ffz4zUX.jpg)

I think I had six or seven tracks from Stone of Sysiphus altogether, and had them on my iPod with the above artwork for the album cover.  It was finally released 15 years later, after Chicago had formed their own label (Chicago Records) and bought back their entire back catalogue.  It was reworked a bit, given new cover art, and eventually became Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sysiphus.

As you can see by the Roman numeral XXXII, it's not yet time to officially discuss the album.  But for those who have it and don't know the story behind it, it's important to note that the music was originally written in 1993, not 2008.
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: jammindude on September 21, 2013, 06:57:46 PM
I only read about it...I havn't heard it.   But I find the story behind it so intriguing, that I'm waiting with baited breath...
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: Nel on September 21, 2013, 07:49:52 PM
I do have the 2008 release of the album, but I didn't know the backstory of the music for almost a year after that.
Title: Re: Chicago Twenty 1 (1991)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 21, 2013, 08:22:28 PM
I have the boot and the 2008 release.  It's a shame that they couldn't release it back in 93. 
Title: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Orbert on September 22, 2013, 10:44:34 PM
Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)

(https://i.imgur.com/91MYplw.jpg)


Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Vocals
Bruce Gaitsch - Guitar
Tris Imboden - Drums, Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flutes
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

Additional Personnel:

(Not too many this time, mostly legitimate guest appearances)

----------

Chicago (Fred Fisher)
Caravan (Duke Ellington, Irving Mills, Juan Tizol)
Dream a Little Dream of Me (Fabian André, Gus Kahn, Wilbur Schwandt)
Goody Goody (Matty Malneck, Johnny Mercer)
Moonlight Serenade (Glenn Miller, Mitchell Parish)
Night and Day (Cole Porter)
Blues in the Night (Harold Arlen, Johnny Mercer)
Sing, Sing, Sing (Louis Prima)
Sophisticated Lady (Duke Ellington, Irving Mills, Mitchell Parish)
In the Mood (Joe Garland, Andy Razaf)
Don't Get Around Much Anymore (Duke Ellington, Bob Russell)
Take the "A" Train (Billy Strayhorn)

----------

Okay, here is where I would normally tell you how the album came about, or something about the logic behind it or what the idea was.  But the truth is, I don't know.  I've read the Wikipedia page for this album several times and I still don't get it.  The AMG page is useless.  I went to the discography on the official website for Chicago the band (chicagotheband.com, oddly enough) and the page for Night & Day - Big Band actually links to the Wikipedia page.  That's right; the official source is a metasource.  Of course, that same website, the official site of Chicago the band, also has a history of the band which mentions that Stone of Sysiphus has still never been released (it came out five years ago).

Here's the issue:  Night & Day - Big Band is an album of covers of big band tunes and jazz vocal standards from the same period.  After the discouraging experience with Stone of Sysiphus, which Warner Bros. refused to promote on the grounds that it had no commercial potential, prompting Chicago to begin the process of finding a new label, Chicago decided that their next project would be covers of tunes from the 40's, and it was released on Giant Records, a division of Warner Bros.

Everything I can find about the background of Night & Day - Big Band (which isn't much) says that it's something the band really wanted to do (which I believe, and which makes a lot of sense), but I can find nothing about how in the world it got approved for distribution when Warner Bros. refused to promote Stone of Sysiphus.  Come to think of it, I don't remember seeing any promotion for Night & Day - Big Band, either, but I missed a lot of the mid-90's.  Maybe Chicago decided that releasing an album and not getting any label support is still better than not releasing it at all.

I saw this one in the CD racks at Best Buy and actually got excited.  I like big band music.  I played in the jazz band in high school, and most people who've played in such bands know that a high school "jazz band" is really more about big band and swing, not traditional jazz.  But whatever.  James Pankow is a genius at arranging the three Chicago horns to make them sound like six or nine, and big band has always been one of Chicago's most obvious influences, so I was looking forward to hearing what he could do with real big band arrangements.

I'd still like to hear what he could do, because that isn't what you get here.  These are not true big band arrangements, but are instead Chicago putting a "modern spin" on big band music.  Whereas big band music is largely instrumental, with most songs having at most a sung verse or two, what you get here are most definitely songs.  The horns do sound great, and they have a big band feel, but they aren't the focal point, as you might think.  The focus is still on the vocals.  You get 12 songs, no instrumentals.  In fact, I was familiar with all of these tunes, and didn't even know that some of them had words.  For most of them, I've only ever heard instrumental versions.

I'll try to be fair here.  The reviews online for Night & Day - Big Band are overwhelmingly positive.  Our own kingshmegland says he loves it, and I don't want to rain on his parade, either.  But I do have to be honest.  If you're expecting Chicago going full-on big band, kind of like the first disk of Chicago VII was mostly full-on jazz, you will be disappointed.  If you were looking forward to hearing that awesome breakdown during "Take the 'A' Train", you will be disappointed (they skip over it in favor of more vocals).  Half of the solo section from "In the Mood" is here, but again, instead of the other half of the solos, we get more vocals.  Glenn Miller's incredible "Moonlight Serenade" is sung.  The muted trumpet descant isn't even there.  It's really a completely different version of the tune.  Okay, you get the idea.

It all sounds great.  The horns sound great, the arrangements are very good, and the production is crisp and clear.  But this is not big band music.  It's a modern (or at least 90's) take on big band standards, with the focus on the vocals rather than the instrumentals.  If you like big band and jazz vocal standards, you will probably like this album.  But if you're an actual afficionado of 40's music, this is not faithful to the genre, and the "modern" spin instead makes it sound dated rather than timeless.

The ones sung by Robert Lamm are the best.  "Chicago", "Caravan" and "Take the 'A' Train".  He has the voice for it, and he has the feel.  He sounds better here than he has in years.  Bill Champlin sounds pretty good, too.  I wish I had something positive to say about Jason Scheff's vocals, but he just doesn't have the feel for it, and ironically, his efforts to "jazz things up" just make you wish he'd have had more faithful to the genre.  It really sounds awkward and out of place.

Joe Perry takes the guitar solo in "Blues in the Night".  R&B vocal trio Jade sing on "Dream a Little Dream of Me" and Paul Shaffer plays the piano on that tune as well.  Bill Champlin doesn't play any guitar on this album; he restricts himself to keyboards and vocals.  Session man Bruce Gaitsch is listed as the guitarist in the band credits as opposed to as a hired gun, but he is generally not regarded as a regular member of Chicago.

In case you couldn't tell, I was very disappointed by this album.  But the reviews are almost all positive.  The one negative one I read was quite short and said the same thing I've said here: he wished that they'd done an album of actual big band music.  But most people aren't as picky as I am.  If you like big band, swing, and 40's standards, you'll probably like this album.
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 23, 2013, 05:46:54 AM
Why I loved this album was that Chicago was at least getting back to the essence of their 70's style.  Yes it was modern sounding but the horns were prominent again and it was a big step in the right direction.  problem was after this, they did not release a full studio album for a long, long time, which discouraged me.
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Orbert on September 23, 2013, 07:41:24 AM
That makes sense, and it fits with the other positive reviews I'm seeing for this album.  It sounds great, and it does get back to what Chicago was all about.  Robert Lamm said that the original idea was pop-rock with horns, and that's what you get here.  But you're right; from here, it was over ten years until the next studio album, Chicago XXX.

And since this is technically an album of covers, it's pretty clear that the fire was smouldering at this point.  We're down to where we can toast marshmallows, but not cook up steaks.
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Big Hath on September 23, 2013, 08:22:42 AM
Orbert, to give you a bit more perspective on my relationship with this band, this was the first "new" Chicago release after I discovered them/they were my favorite band.

More thoughts on the album to come later tonight.
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Zook on September 23, 2013, 08:27:38 AM
Not a fan, just making an observation based on this thread and after looking at their Wikipedia page: these guys weren't very creative in the album name department...
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Orbert on September 23, 2013, 05:11:15 PM
It was their thing.  Actually their manager/producer's thing.  Chicago III made sense, for the reasons discussed above, then there was the first live album, but starting with Chicago V, they just kinduv stuck with it, and it seemed to fit.  Each album was like the latest issue of a magazine.  The cover had the logo but there were always variations, and the title was the "volume number".
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: splent on September 23, 2013, 07:13:43 PM
Saw Chicago at Ravinia two years ago.  Awesome show.

Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 23, 2013, 08:00:07 PM
The tour for Night & Day was awesome as well.  They just got Keith Howland who I love as a guitarist and the band just seemed to click live.
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Orbert on September 23, 2013, 09:04:52 PM
Saw Chicago at Ravinia two years ago.  Awesome show.

I almost went to that show.  Ravinia is like a mile from our house.  Had to resist, though.  We saw them at Tinley Park in 1996, though.

The tour for Night & Day was awesome as well.  They just got Keith Howland who I love as a guitarist and the band just seemed to click live.

What was the set list like?  Lots of Night & Day I assume, but also the "regular" stuff?  Lots of hits, "25 or 6 to 4" as the encore, etc.
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Big Hath on September 23, 2013, 10:24:23 PM
The tour for Night & Day was awesome as well.  They just got Keith Howland who I love as a guitarist and the band just seemed to click live.

I really like Howland.  It's amazing how he handles all those rhythm and lead sections, sometimes while singing at the same time (also has a great voice).
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Big Hath on September 23, 2013, 10:42:28 PM
Night & Day - as I mentioned, this was the first album Chicago released after I had started getting into their back catalog.  So, in a way, this album is like 13 in that I have a certain sentimentality for it.  I remember seeing a display in the front of the music store with several of these prominently displayed.  I basically knew what I was getting into with this.  I remember I was looking forward to Miller's "Moonlight Serenade" and "In The Mood" the most.  Well, those two were certainly disappointments.  I couldn't stand what they had done with either song.  But I did find a few gems in "Caravan", "Don't Get Around Much Anymore", and the understated "Sophisticated Lady".
Title: Re: Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)
Post by: Orbert on September 24, 2013, 11:26:00 AM
I basically knew what I was getting into with this.

That gave you an advantage.  For some reason, I expected actual big band music.  I guess "Big Band" in the title misled me.

I remember I was looking forward to Miller's "Moonlight Serenade" and "In The Mood" the most.  Well, those two were certainly disappointments.  I couldn't stand what they had done with either song.

Same here.  "In the Mood" has be done and re-done countless times over the years, and I suppose that the Chicago version is at least slightly more faithful to the original, in that it actually keeps some of it.  But why would anyone even want a vocal version of "Moonlight Serenade" when the intrumental is so incredible?  Maybe knowing that you simply cannot top Glenn Miller led them to go a completely different direction with it.

But I did find a few gems in "Caravan", "Don't Get Around Much Anymore", and the understated "Sophisticated Lady".

I love all three of those tunes, and the Chicago versions were interesting, but still disappointments overall.


I definitely had my expectations set too high, so after two spins, I left it alone for a day and a half, then played it again.  Better, since I knew what to expect, but I still can't help but think that this was a missed opportunity.  Updating the tunes was a gutsy move, but they could have done more to keep what made the tunes great in the first place.  Also, if ever there was a time to show off the horn section, really show it off like in the old days, this was it.  Simply including two instrumentals would have done a lot to raise my opinion of this collection.
Title: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Orbert on September 26, 2013, 11:49:14 AM
Chicago was in a creative drought.  Night & Day - Big Band in 1995 was essentially an album of covers.  Before that, it had been over a decade since they'd released an album of new studio material that didn't have at least a few songs by outside writers, and most of the remaining tracks were only co-written by members of the band.

They still toured (I saw them in 1996, and it was a great show), but they were essentially an oldies act at this point.  Their concerts included one or two newer songs, but the audiences came to hear "25 or 6 to 4" and "Saturday in the Park" and other songs at least 20 or 25 years old at this point, and Chicago knew it and catered to them.  But without any new studio material, Warner Bros. decided to release another "greatest hits" thing to try and keep Chicago in the public eye and ear.

The Heart of Chicago 1967–1997

(https://i.imgur.com/5j4JX5S.jpg)

You're the Inspiration
If You Leave Me Now
Make Me Smile
Hard Habit to Break
Saturday in the Park
Wishing You Were Here
The Only One (previously unreleased)
Colour My World
Look Away
Here in My Heart (previously unreleased)
Just You 'N' Me
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
Will You Still Love Me?
Beginnings
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away


The Heart of Chicago 1967–1997 was the first compilation to include material from both the Columbia years and the Warner Bros. years.  It also included two new songs which were released as singles, which was common at the time (and may still be now; I don't know).  Both were minor hits on the Adult Contemporary charts.

At only 67 minutes running time and missing some significant hits ("25 or 6 to 4" for example), it didn't exactly set any sales records, although it did go Gold upon release, on advance sales.


Realising their mistake, Warner Bros. released a companion piece the following year:

The Heart of Chicago 1967–1998 Volume II

(https://i.imgur.com/0H6aLC5.jpg)

Dialogue (Part I & II)
Old Days
All Roads Lead to You (previously unreleased)
Love Me Tomorrow
Baby, What a Big Surprise
You're Not Alone
What Kind Of Man Would I Be?
No Tell Lover
Show Me a Sign (previously unreleased)
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
Call on Me
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love
Feelin' Stronger Every Day
Stay the Night
I'm a Man
25 or 6 to 4


The Heart of Chicago 1967–1998 Volume II filled in most of the gaps, and at 72 minutes (16 songs, including two more new recordings) was overall a somewhat better value.  The problem of course is that you had to buy both of them to get all the hits from either period, and there was still a fair chance that you were only interested in the early stuff, or later stuff.  It didn't sell as well as the first one, staying on the Top 200 chart for only two weeks and peaking at #154.


The two Heart of Chicago albums, with years in the titles and collectively covering the entire career of the band, always reminded of two other compilations which were also red and blue:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/81/Beatles19621966.jpg) (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/17/Beatles19671970.jpg)

The difference of course is that George Martin had the foresight to compile both at once, allowing him to devote each volume to a specific period in the band's history, rather than spreading both across each.  The result was two much more consistent collections.

But at this point in Chicago's career, there was no one steering the ship.  They were eight very talented musicians, trying to find a sound that was relevant, and no idea how to do so.  The Beatles had had George Martin, with extensive knowledge of the music business prior to joining up with them, and while The Beatles eventually stood up to him and fought against him, at the very least, he provided a guiding, unifying vision.  The closest thing Chicago had had was James William Guercio, and they'd chosen to break ties with him.  While even Guercio admits now that he was too hard on them, he kept them going, he cracked the whip, and yes, it was he who had started nudging them in the direction they'd taken in the 80's which resulted in their second wave of success under David Foster.
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: King Postwhore on September 26, 2013, 11:54:28 AM
All Roads Leads To You was the one song I really liked.  I saw them as well on the same tour and I believe Lenny Kravitz produced the 2 songs on the Red GH.
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Big Hath on September 26, 2013, 12:00:55 PM
yeah, I have both of these . . .
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Orbert on September 26, 2013, 12:26:11 PM
:lol I'm not surprised.  Don't you pretty much have everything of theirs?

I guess I need to either get them, or at least hunt down the new songs.  As I've mentioned (too many times, I'm sure), I don't buy compilations unless they have something I can't otherwise get, and here they are.  But it's still gonna be tough to bite the bullet.

So how are "The Only One", "Here in My Heart", "All Roads Lead to You" and "Show Me a Sign"?
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: jammindude on September 26, 2013, 12:46:55 PM
I was just shopping at the official Chicago store looking to pick up the first album.   But I only see digital copies available.   Do they not sell hard copies?  I know they just bought the rights to their own back catalog...but does Rhino still press the actual CD's? 

It's nice that they offer FLAC files...but I'm a bit old school in that I still like to hold something in my hands and know it's mine. 
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Orbert on September 26, 2013, 12:48:29 PM
It may be that they only sell digital copies through the Chicago website.  I'm sure you can still find actual CDs at Amazon.com and those kinds of places.
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Big Hath on September 26, 2013, 01:01:39 PM
"The Only One" is the Kravitz collaboration.  The three singers all trade off lead vocals on the verses, and I mean they all sing lead on each verse.  Kind of weird.  Really slow tempo love song.  There is a repeating vamp at the end where things pick up a bit (Kravitz does most/all? of the vocals here), but overall I didn't like it.

"Here in my Heart" is another slower tempo song, but it's a little better.  Decent chorus and bridge.

"All Roads Lead to You" (Desmond Child is a co-writer) is decent.  Pretty cool Lamm vocal in the pre-chorus.

"Show Me a Sign" sucks.




You will be surprised to find out these were the last Chicago albums I ever bought (besides a re-release of something I already had in a different format).  Around the time these came out, I was starting to get into Tower of Power pretty heavily.  And not too long after that I discovered Rush and well, my entire musical world turned upside down.
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Orbert on September 26, 2013, 01:12:11 PM
Amazingly, in the half hour between the time I asked and now, I managed to find three of the four songs online.  The one I couldn't find was "Show Me a Sign", so I suppose that's the silver lining, if it sucks.

I love Robert Lamm.  He's my man.  But his later vocals sound like he's had a stroke or something.  (And if any of you have had strokes or know someone who has, that's not meant to be offensive, merely descriptive, because if you do know someone who's had a stroke, you know exactly what I mean.  Both my mother and my mother-in-law had them before they passed, and it wasn't fun.)  His voice is weirdly, unnaturally deep, and he lingers on certain consonants in a way that's just this side of drunken slurring.  I think I mentioned on one of the early 80's albums that it sounded like his Italian accent was coming out or something, but it's become more pronounced by this point.  I'm not imagining it, right?
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Nel on September 26, 2013, 06:22:11 PM
I was just shopping at the official Chicago store looking to pick up the first album.   But I only see digital copies available.   Do they not sell hard copies?  I know they just bought the rights to their own back catalog...but does Rhino still press the actual CD's? 

It's nice that they offer FLAC files...but I'm a bit old school in that I still like to hold something in my hands and know it's mine.

You should be able to find the physical Rhino rereleases somewhere. I see them all the time at the record store.  ???

You know, as someone who never buys compilation albums (I hate when they put new songs on those btw. Argh!), it irks my inner ocd to look through my collection of studio and live Chicago albums and still see numbers like IX and XXXI and others missing. A part of me almost feels obligated to buy them just to fill in the gaps.  :lol
Title: Re: Chicago 23 & 24: More Greatest Hits Things
Post by: Orbert on September 27, 2013, 04:17:11 PM
"The Only One" is the Kravitz collaboration.  The three singers all trade off lead vocals on the verses, and I mean they all sing lead on each verse.  Kind of weird.  Really slow tempo love song.  There is a repeating vamp at the end where things pick up a bit (Kravitz does most/all? of the vocals here), but overall I didn't like it.

"Here in my Heart" is another slower tempo song, but it's a little better.  Decent chorus and bridge.

"All Roads Lead to You" (Desmond Child is a co-writer) is decent.  Pretty cool Lamm vocal in the pre-chorus.

"Show Me a Sign" sucks.

So I put the three I could find (still can't find "Show Me a Sign" - I have mixed feelings about that) onto my iPod and listened to them a few times each.  Not bad.  But still that mushy 90's "power ballad" or "lite rock" sound which, honestly, I can easily live without.  Later Chicago, in general, apparently just doesn't thrill me.


Some stuff about Night & Day - Big Band that I forgot to mention earlier

On the Rhino reissue of Chicago VIII are three bonus tracks: "Sixth Sense", "Bright Eyes", and "Satin Doll". 

"Satin Doll" is a pretty faithful rendition of the Duke Ellington classic.  In other words, it's instrumental, the horns carry it, and the piano, guitar, bass and drums do jazzy things which actually fit.  According to Wikipedia, it was taken from their performance on Dick Clark's "New Year's Rockin' Eve".

"Sixth Sense" by Terry Kath sounds like a demo or rough mix.  But it too is an instrumental and it's in the big band style.

This is the kind of thing that I was expecting when I hunted down Night & Day - Big Band.  They'd actually dabbled in bona fide big band music.  At the end of "Satin Doll" you can hear Robert Lamm say "We used to really have to play that every night."  If Night & Day - Big Band had included even a couple of pieces like that, actual big band numbers, it would have saved that album for me.  Instead, honestly, I don't think I'll ever play it again.

Even the song "Bright Eyes" by Robert Lamm is in a similar style.  It's jazzy, not poppy or rockin'.  The chords and rhythms are definitely jazz.

It feels to me like all three of these pieces were something like follow-ups or even leftovers from Chicago VII, which included almost a full disk of instrumental jazz.  Maybe they figured the jazz would work, but big band was a bit too much.  But their inclusion on Chicago VIII really raises that one for me, and I already liked Chicago VIII more than most.  It was probably around this time that they decided to do a big band album when they got the chance.
Title: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on September 29, 2013, 03:46:03 PM
Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)

(https://i.imgur.com/ExGzqnC.jpg)


Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Guitars, Vocals
Keith Howland - Guitars, Vocals
Tris Imboden - Drums, Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Percussion, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Cornet, Guitar, Percussion, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion, Background Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flute, Clarinet
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

Additional Personnel:

(lots)

----------

The Little Drummer Boy
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas
The Christmas Song
O Come All Ye Faithful
Child's Prayer
Feliz Navidad
Santa Claus Is Coming to Town
Christmas Time is Here
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
What Child Is This?
White Christmas
Silent Night
One Little Candle
 
----------

Ouch.

I love Christmas music.  I love the sound of Chicago.  Even their sappy crappy stuff, I have to admit sounds really good.  But I just don't like what they've done here.  Christmas albums are technically "cover" albums, and when you cover songs you either try to be faithful to the originals, put your own spin on things, go somewhere in the middle, or combine elements of each.  Chicago, with their multiple lead singers and amazing horns had a chance to do something really unique here.  And this is indeed different.  I just don't like the results.

A lot of people apparently do.  The album sold well and got good reviews.  But at least three or four times (and there are only 14 songs), I found myself screaming "Just sing the damned song!" at no one in particular (although usually I was screaming at Jason Scheff).  A lot of Christmas songs have a timeless quality to them.  Sing the song with genuine emotion, and it will sound good.  You don't have to "jazz things up" as they've done here, and you don't have to change everything just to make it different for no particular reason.

I have no problem with popular artists recording a Christmas album.  Sure, if they do it, it's usually later in their careers, and since I'm a cynic, I know that this is often because they're not writing much original material anymore.  And that was certainly the case with Chicago.  But it's also true that if you make a Christmas album, it almost has to be later in your career because you have to have a fan base to sell it to.  No one's going to buy a Christmas album from someone they've never heard of.  So fine, they made a Christmas album, technically their second cover album in a row.  And twice in a row now, I've been disappointed, but that's mostly due to my high expectations.  Your mileage may vary.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 29, 2013, 07:56:21 PM
Wife loves it.  I can't listen to it.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on September 29, 2013, 08:53:59 PM
Why not?
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 29, 2013, 09:00:27 PM
There's just something about Christmas covers.  It's just me.  It's not the album.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on September 29, 2013, 09:38:24 PM
Fair enough.

As always, my goal here is not merely to inform, but to spark discussion.  I worked on the writeup above for over two hours.  It doesn't look like it, because I kept writing, editing, rewriting, deleting, over and over.  I kept trying to be fair and balanced, and finally realized that I couldn't.  I kept falling back to "Well, it sounds great anyway" but really, there's almost nothing else that I like about it.  So I ripped it all out because it was so negative.

Christmas music is usually very straightforward.  If you sing it well, and put some emotion into it, it's gonna sound pretty good.  I find that in general, Jason Scheff does neither.  He was literally hired because he plays the bass and sounds enough like Peter Cetera to sound almost like Peter Cetera once you apply a nice thick layer of production.  But his idea of singing "with style" has nothing to do with emotion, and when you get right down to it, his voice isn't that good.  So to make up for it, he syncopates, changes the rhythm for no real reason other than to make it different.  He did the same thing on the songs he sang Night & Day - Big Band, and it was annoying then, too.

Then you have things like "Feliz Navidad" by Jose Feliciano.  I know I'm not the only one who could live a long and happy life without ever hearing that song again, but if there's one thing that I didn't think possible, it would have been a version even worse than the original.  Well, here we have one.  The original, as everyone knows, is literally just the same verse over and over.  I've never bothered to count, but it's at least three or four verses of the same thing.  But it works because Jose sings it with sincerity and energy.  I can't even imagine why someone thought that a slow version of the song would be a good idea.  I guess it's supposed to be contemplative and introspective, but it's just boring.  Instead of the same thing repeated with gusto and energy, it's the same thing repeated slowly, until you just want to shoot someone, but would probably settle for breaking something really expensive.

"Pa-rup-a-pum-pum" is not a lyric.  It is onomatopoeia, a word that sounds like what it represents; in this case, someone playing a drum.  You know, like a little drummer boy, who has no gift to give other than to play his music, simply but from the heart, with everything he can put into it.  Singing the line "Pa... Rup-a Pum... Pum!!" and milking it is not the point of the song.  It is the one "lyric" which is meant to be sung simply, because it represents the drumming of the little drummer boy.  The point of the song lies in the rest of the lyrics.  You know, the part that tells the story.  How can someone not understand that?  How can such a simple song go so very wrong?

The entire album feels like that.  Like they're just plain missing the point.  They came up with these complex, ridiculous arrangements, and I just wanted to hear some of my favorite Christmas songs with some awesome horns.  Making fast songs slow or slow songs fast, or changing the rhythm or the words or any other "clever" tricks do not make the songs better.  Usually, it's just annoying.

Is that kinda what you were thinking, Joe?
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Big Hath on September 29, 2013, 09:43:51 PM
never bought it.  Not much of a fan of Christmas albums by one artist/band.  I prefer them to be a various artists type thing.  Plus, after the big band album, I don't think I wanted to spend money on another Chicago covers album, especially one that would get very limited plays.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Big Hath on September 29, 2013, 09:50:48 PM
Then you have things like "Feliz Navidad" by Jose Feliciano.  I know I'm not the only one who could live a long and happy life without ever hearing that song again, but if there's one thing that I didn't think possible, it would have been a version even worse than the original.  Well, here we have one.  The original, as everyone knows, is literally just the same verse over and over.  I've never bothered to count, but it's at least three or four verses of the same thing.  But it works because Jose sings it with sincerity and energy.  I can't even imagine why someone thought that a slow version of the song would be a good idea.  I guess it's supposed to be contemplative and introspective, but it's just boring.  Instead of the same thing repeated with gusto and energy, it's the same thing repeated slowly, until you just want to shoot someone, but would probably settle for breaking something really expensive.

so I just gave this a listen for the first time.  Pretty boring.  Seems like this song would have been a perfect opportunity for them to go back to some of their Latin percussion roots and made a really fun song in the vein of Mongonucleosis.  At least it would have had some life.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: ZirconBlue on September 30, 2013, 07:56:17 AM
No one's going to buy a Christmas album from someone they've never heard of. 


Except Trans-Siberian Orchestra.   ;)
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on September 30, 2013, 10:26:41 AM
Ah, good point.  TSO came on the scene with their "orchestral metal" sound or whatever you call it, and somehow it seemed to work well with Christmas music.  There were enough people who'd grown up with metal, and even those who weren't really metalheads had heard metal guitars in movie soundtracks and stuff, and could handle it.  So they went from virtually unknown to the hottest Christmas music ever, pretty much overnight.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: ZirconBlue on September 30, 2013, 02:41:07 PM
Ah, good point.  TSO came on the scene with their "orchestral metal" sound or whatever you call it, and somehow it seemed to work well with Christmas music.  There were enough people who'd grown up with metal, and even those who weren't really metalheads had heard metal guitars in movie soundtracks and stuff, and could handle it.  So they went from virtually unknown to the hottest Christmas music ever, pretty much overnight.


I was very excited to hear Savatage on the radio, only to later learn that they'd relabeled the song as being by TSO.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on September 30, 2013, 03:40:13 PM
Trans-Siberian Orchestra sounds like a group that would play that kind of music.  I was intrigued when I learned that the basis of TSO was the guys from Savatage, but I think it was a good move to call the group something else.

I did check out Savatage because I figured that maybe the guys in Savatage were closet progheads, therefore Savatage maybe crossed the line into prog metal at least a bit, but I don't remember hearing anything other than metal.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: King Postwhore on September 30, 2013, 03:41:35 PM
There is one Christmas album I do like a lot and it's by Jars Of Clay.  Their interpretations of songs are so unique.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: jsem on October 01, 2013, 08:28:08 AM
Just have to chime in here and say that the version of God Rest Ye Merry Gentleman on that album is amazing. The rest of the album is forgettable, but whatever.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on October 01, 2013, 09:48:04 AM
That's cool that you like it.  I know that a lot of people like this album, and I'm sure that there are individual songs which really resonate with some people.  I'm not one of those "you can't like it because I don't like it" kind of guys; I really do wish the best for this band that I still love and respect.  But that is one of the Jason Scheff songs I really had trouble with.

I'm just too old, I guess.  Orchestrate it, add awesome horn charts or strings or Latin percussion or whatever you want, but don't mess with the melody.  At that point, you're just messing around because you can, and adding nothing to the performance.  I like Christmas music and just want to hear the songs.
Title: Re: Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)
Post by: Orbert on October 01, 2013, 10:32:37 AM
Oh yeah, Keith Howland

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Keith_Howland.jpg/221px-Keith_Howland.jpg)

You may have noticed a new name in the lineup for Chicago 25: The Christmas Album, guitarist Keith Howland.  After the Stone of Sysiphus debacle, guitarist Dawayne Bailey (who had written the title track and one other song on the album) left Chicago.  Although Bill Champlin was originally brought in to play guitar, he had been playing mostly keyboards since they'd added Dawayne Bailey in 1986, so they decided to audition for a new full-time guitarist.

At the end of the second day of auditions, Keith Howland showed up uninvited, and managed to talk to Jason Scheff in the parking lot.  Keith had grown up listening to Chicago and was a huge fan of Terry Kath.  He'd actually modelled his singing and playing style on Terry Kath, and he asked Jason if there was any way he could get an audition.  Jason told him that the auditions were over, but he'd talk to the rest of the band, and to come back the next day.

Keith was the only person to audition on Day Three, and he got the job.

When I saw Chicago in 1996, it was after years of being out of touch with them.  I didn't even know who was in the band anymore, though I'd heard that Robert Lamm and the three horn players were still around.  But a friend of mine had tickets that he couldn't use and knew I was a fan, so my wife, son and I went.

James Pankow once said of Terry Kath that he was the only guy he'd ever met who could sing, play lead guitar and rhythm guitar all at the same time.  Keith Howland, who grew up listening to Chicago and Terry Kath, came pretty damned close.

At this point, Chicago was resigned to their fate as a nostalgia act.  There's nothing wrong with that, I suppose.  With countless millions of albums and singles sold, and millions of fans still out there wanting to see them and willing to pay, there was no reason not to continue touring, even if new material was becoming more and more scarce.  People didn't care about the new material anyway; they wanted to hear "Make Me Smile" and "25 or 6 to 4".  Chicago still had the horns, Robert Lamm, a bassist who sounded enough like Peter Cetera to sing his songs, and now a guitarist who played and sounded like Terry Kath.  I saw one of Terry's last shows back 1977, touring Chicago XI with the original lineup.  The 1996 show was almost as good.
Title: Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)
Post by: Orbert on October 03, 2013, 10:38:40 PM
Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)

(https://i.imgur.com/CeXNj3k.jpg)
Click for larger view (https://i.imgur.com/rA9ezvu.jpg)


Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Guitars
Keith Howland - Guitars, Vocals
Tris Imboden - Drums, Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Percussion, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Cornet, Guitar, Percussion, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion, Background Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flute, Clarinet
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

----------

"The Ballet"
  Make Me Smile
  So Much to Say, So Much to Give
  Anxiety's Moment
  West Virginia Fantasies
  Colour My World
  To Be Free
  Now More Than Ever
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
Mongonucleosis
Hard Habit To Break
Call on Me
Feelin' Stronger Every Day
Just You 'N' Me
Beginnings
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away
25 or 6 to 4

Studio Tracks

Back to You (Lamm, Howland) – 3:41
If I Should Ever Lose You (Bacharach, Krikorian) – 4:30
(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher (Jackson, Miner, Smith) – 4:11
(vocals by Michael McDonald)

----------

The official justification for this album, according to the band and the label, is that the late 90's Chicago lineup was tight, the shows were still full of energy and excitement, and they deserved to be captured in a live album.  There hadn't been an official live album in well over 20 years (Chicago at Carnegie Hall, or Chicago Live in Japan if you count that one).  And that's all true.  As I mentioned, I saw this lineup of Chicago in 1996 and it was a great show.

The other reason of course is that Chicago had not released an album of new studio material in years.  Yes, there were Chicago 25: The Christmas Album, and Night & Day - Big Band, which were new studio albums, but technically cover albums.  It had been eight years since Chicago Twenty 1.

So it was time for either another "greatest hits" thing, or a live album.  With five official compilations and countless unofficial ones, a new live album was the way to go.

I don't have this one, and I've never heard it.  I've tried to find it, and yes I suppose I could buy it, but while I'd love to hear it, I don't really have any interest in owning it.  Reviews range from positive to lukewarm.  The sound is excellent, and the performances are inspired.

As for negatives, obvious studio doctoring is a biggie.  Another is the set list which features a lot of songs originally sung by Peter Cetera but sung here by Jason Scheff.  Other than "Beginnings" (written and still sung by Robert Lamm) and what is now known simply as "The Ballet", every song is one formerly sung by Peter, but now sung by Jason.  Yeah, Peter isn't coming back, but literally stacking the set list with songs now sung by someone else seems to underscore that.  When I saw them, Robert sang a few more ("Saturday in the Park" and "Wake Up Sunshine", probably a few others) and Keith and Bill sang some of the old Terry songs.

The other thing that brought reviews down overall is the inclusion of three new studio tracks, two of which are covers, one of them sung by Michael McDonald.  Why?  No one knows.  Sure, the official word is that he brought something special to it, they were excited to be working with him, blah blah blah, but ultimately they included studio tracks when that's just not why you buy a live album.  Maybe the new track by Robert Lamm and Keith Howland is good.  But at 3:41, is it worth the price of a CD?  I can't answer that, because I haven't heard it.

I find it interesting that people still associate Chicago's album titles with Roman numerals, so much so that Chicago 25: The Christmas Album is listed as "Chicago XXV: The Christmas Album" both on Amazon.com and Wikipedia, when it clearly has an Arabic 25 on the cover.  Similarly, this album is listed both on Amazon.com and Wikipedia as "Chicago XXVI: Live in Concert" when there is clearly a 26 on the cover.  At this point, only nine of Chicago's 26 official releases used Roman numerals in their titles (III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits, X, XI, and XIV).  Seven used Arabic numerals (13, 16, 17, 18, 19, 25, and 26) and except for Twenty 1 and the first two eponymous albums, the others had actual titles.
Title: Re: Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)
Post by: King Postwhore on October 04, 2013, 03:44:46 AM
Bob, you need to find this.  It is a great live album.  It gets a regular spin from me here.
Title: Re: Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)
Post by: Orbert on October 04, 2013, 06:48:16 AM
Okay, that's one recommendation.  But convince me.  How is "The Ballet" and what makes it different here?  It's their best-known "epic" of course, but why do we need another version of it?

I love "Call On Me".  Love the horn break.  But the last time I saw them, they cut out the second verse.  Do we get all three verses here?

"Searchin' So Long" and "Mongonucleosis" is an interesting inclusion.  Good jam on "Mongonucleosis"?

One of the reviews mentioned a flute solo in "Just You 'N' Me".  That's different.

I know the horns still cook, and Bobby is still with them, though I wish he'd gotten to sing more.  After all this time, I should stop thinking of Jason as the "new" Peter, but I guess it's not just the songs that matter, but who's singing them.  And these are pretty much the best of the Cetera songs.

Most importantly:  How is the new studio track, "Back to You"?
Title: Re: Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)
Post by: King Postwhore on October 04, 2013, 08:30:16 AM
I'd have to play it again to get those details but I do know how tight they were live and the CD shows that.  Some shows are flat and this was not one of them.  I also loved the mix of this CD.  I'll listen to it again this weekend.
Title: The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)
Post by: Orbert on October 07, 2013, 01:26:34 PM
The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)

(https://i.imgur.com/YnLmBuY.jpg)

----------

DISC ONE

Make Me Smile*
25 or 6 to 4
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?*
Beginnings
Questions 67 and 68
I'm a Man*
Colour My World
Free
Lowdown
Saturday in the Park
Dialogue (Parts I & II)*
Just You 'n' Me
Feelin' Stronger Every Day
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
Wishing You Were Here
Call on Me
Happy Man*
Another Rainy Day in New York City
If You Leave Me Now

DISC TWO

Old Days
Baby, What a Big Surprise
Take Me Back to Chicago*
Alive Again
No Tell Lover
Love Me Tomorrow*
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away
Stay the Night
Hard Habit to Break
You're the Inspiration
Along Comes a Woman*
Will You Still Love Me?*
If She Would Have Been Faithful...
Look Away*
What Kind of Man Would I Be?*
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love
We Can Last Forever*
You're Not Alone*
Chasin' the Wind
Sing, Sing, Sing

----------

In 1998, Chicago formed their own label, Chicago Records.  They then purchased their entire back catalogue from Columbia and transferred it to Chicago Records.  I believe they did the same with their Warner Bros. catalogue, though I cannot find a specific reference to that.  Anyway, the idea was for Chicago to finally own their material, have total control over how it was distributed, and of course not have to argue with any suits about whether anything is commercially viable.  They would own their music, all of it, and any future music would be recorded and distributed as they saw fit.  The previous two albums, Chicago 25: The Christmas Album and Chicago 26: Live in Concert, were released on Chicago Records.

In 2002, Chicago entered into an agreement with Rhino Entertainment, apparently ending the Chicago Records experiment.  My guess is that they discovered that owning and running your own label isn't nearly as much fun as it sounds (if it sounds fun at all), and certainly not as much fun as actually playing music, which they still do, one or two hundred times a year.  So Rhino has been reissuing the original Columbia albums, many with bonus tracks, ever since.  They have also been the label of record for every official Chicago release since then.

The first "new" release, Chicago's 27th official album, is this compilation, The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning.

Pro
Con

"Make Me Smile" is an acceptable edit, actually a good one.  They kept the entire horn fanfare and coda, and the guitar solo after the horn break.  It's really "Make Me Smile" and "Now More Than Ever" in their entireties combined into a single track and making a complete song.

"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is all here except for the free-form piano solo.  This version includes the entire horn fanfare and trumpet solo intro.

"Happy Man" is missing the false start, but includes everything else.

All of the other edits (and there are a lot) were just cheesy ways of shortening the songs to appease short attention spans and cram more songs onto each disc.  More songs is good, but cutting out verses or instrumentals is not.

So yes, this is another "greatest hits" thing.  That's six now out of 27 official releases.
Title: Re: The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)
Post by: BanksD on October 07, 2013, 02:52:41 PM
This was actually the CD that got me into the band. I had heard Hard Habit To Break and some of their other work before and i wanted to hear more so i bought this album off of my mom's iTunes account and fell in love with it. I ended up getting more of their albums as time went on and now they're definitely a top 10 band for me.

Title: Re: The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)
Post by: Orbert on October 07, 2013, 03:44:56 PM
I've bought a few Greatest Hits packages in my time, and I do recognize that they have a function.  They're a ready-made sampling of the band's work, and presumably people buy them if they've heard one or two songs and are interested in what else they've done, or someone recommends that band and says "Just get their Greatest Hits and see what you like".  Especially if a band has been around for a long time.

I try not to come across too negatively about the seemingly endless Chicago compilations, but it's really hard to keep an objective view sometimes.  Once I figured out that these compilations often have the shortened versions of songs, I decided that if I wanted to check out a band, I bought one of their regular albums.  A lot of times, that can provide at least as good a picture of what the band is about, if not better, since so often the better stuff is not what some suit has decided would make a good radio hit.  But you have to start somewhere.  I don't mean to denigrate anyone who buys a compilation as a means of checking out a band.  As always, what you see above has been edited several times.  I originally was much harsher on this one, then I realized that overall, this is actually one of the better compilations of Chicago hits, if not their best.

I'm always curious, though.  If you liked "Hard Habit to Break", what did you think when you got this compilation and heard all the 70's stuff?
Title: Re: The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)
Post by: King Postwhore on October 07, 2013, 04:24:33 PM
Never bought this because I got the Box Set from Rhino.
Title: Re: The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)
Post by: BanksD on October 07, 2013, 04:27:39 PM
I've bought a few Greatest Hits packages in my time, and I do recognize that they have a function.  They're a ready-made sampling of the band's work, and presumably people buy them if they've heard one or two songs and are interested in what else they've done, or someone recommends that band and says "Just get their Greatest Hits and see what you like".  Especially if a band has been around for a long time.

I try not to come across too negatively about the seemingly endless Chicago compilations, but it's really hard to keep an objective view sometimes.  Once I figured out that these compilations often have the shortened versions of songs, I decided that if I wanted to check out a band, I bought one of their regular albums.  A lot of times, that can provide at least as good a picture of what the band is about, if not better, since so often the better stuff is not what some suit has decided would make a good radio hit.  But you have to start somewhere.  I don't mean to denigrate anyone who buys a compilation as a means of checking out a band.  As always, what you see above has been edited several times.  I originally was much harsher on this one, then I realized that overall, this is actually one of the better compilations of Chicago hits, if not their best.

I'm always curious, though.  If you liked "Hard Habit to Break", what did you think when you got this compilation and heard all the 70's stuff?

yea I totally got what you mean, I was only 12 or 13 when I got this so i was pretty ignorant of the situation going in.


but as for your question of the 70s stuff, I actually really didn't listen to it for a while, but once I decided to listen to the full compilation I ended up enjoying that era a lot more than the later stuff (and as of now CTA is probably my favorite Chicago album, and if i remember right it was the first one I ever owned on CD)


I've always been pretty attracted to music that was more experimental in nature (I'm also a saxophone player lol) so when I heard the early stuff had a lot of that I was really drawn to it.
Title: Re: The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning (2002)
Post by: Orbert on October 07, 2013, 07:17:09 PM
Thanks.  I appreciate the insight.

I play sax as well, and know a lot of horn players who really love the early Chicago stuff, for obvious reasons.
Title: Chicago: The Box (2003)
Post by: Orbert on October 08, 2013, 05:02:04 PM
Chicago: The Box (2003)

(https://i.imgur.com/yVwjsNQ.jpg)


DISC ONE

Introduction (Kath) – 6:35
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (Lamm) – 3:20
Beginnings (Lamm) – 6:27
Questions 67 and 68 (Lamm) – 5:01
Listen (Lamm) – 3:22
South California Purples (Lamm) – 6:11
I'm a Man (Miller, Winwood) – 5:43
Movin' In (Pankow) – 4:06
Wake Up Sunshine (Lamm) – 2:29
Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon: Make Me Smile/So Much to Say, So Much to Give (Pankow) – 7:02
Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon: Colour My World (Pankow) – 3:00
Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon: To Be Free/Now More Than Ever (Pankow) – 2:41
Fancy Colours (Lamm) – 5:10
25 or 6 to 4 (Lamm) – 4:50
Poem for the People (Lamm) – 5:31
It Better End Soon: 1st Movement/3rd Movement/4th Movement (Lamm, Kath) – 6:37

DISC TWO

Loneliness Is Just a Word (Lamm) – 2:36
Travel Suite: Flight 602 (Lamm) – 2:45
Travel Suite: Free (Lamm) – 2:16
Mother (Lamm) – 4:30
Lowdown (Cetera, Seraphine) – 3:35
An Hour in the Shower (Kath) – 5:28
A Hit by Varese (Lamm) – 4:55
All Is Well (Lamm) – 3:50
Saturday in the Park (Lamm) – 3:56
Dialogue (Part I & II) (Lamm) – 7:10
Just You 'N' Me (Pankow) – 3:42
Something in This City Changes People (Lamm) – 3:42
In Terms of Two (Cetera) – 3:29
Feelin' Stronger Every Day (Cetera, Pankow) – 4:14
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long (Pankow) – 4:29
Mongonucleosis (Pankow) – 3:26
Wishing You Were Here (Cetera) – 4:37
Call on Me (Loughnane) – 4:02
Happy Man (Cetera) – 3:14

DISC THREE

Harry Truman (Lamm) – 3:01
Old Days (Pankow) – 3:31
Brand New Love Affair, Part I & II (Pankow) – 4:27
Never Been in Love Before (Lamm) – 4:10
You Are on My Mind (Pankow) – 3:12
Mama Mama (Cetera) – 3:30
Hope For Love (Kath) – 3:03
Another Rainy Day in New York City (Lamm) – 3:01
Gently I'll Wake You (Lamm) – 3:33
If You Leave Me Now (Cetera) – 3:56
Mississippi Delta City Blues (Kath) – 4:39
Baby, What a Big Surprise (Cetera) – 3:04
Take Me Back to Chicago (Seraphine, Wolinski) – 5:17
Prelude (Little One) /Little One (Seraphine, Wolinski) – 6:34
Gone Long Gone (Cetera) – 4:00
No Tell Lover (Cetera, Loughnane, Seraphine) – 3:48
Alive Again (Pankow) – 3:28
The Greatest Love on Earth (Seraphine, Wolinski) – 3:18
Little Miss Lovin' (Cetera) – 4:36
Hot Streets (Lamm) – 5:14

DISC FOUR

Street Player (Seraphine, Wolinski) – 4:23
Must Have Been Crazy (Dacus) – 3:23
Manipulation (Lamm) – 3:29
Thunder and Lightning (Cetera, Lamm, Seraphine) – 3:32
Song for You (Cetera) – 3:41
The American Dream (Pankow) – 3:17
Love Me Tomorrow (Cetera, Foster) – 4:59
Chains (Thomas) – 3:22
What You're Missing (Gruska, Williams) – 3:30
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away (Cetera, Foster, Lamm) – 5:06
Stay the Night (Cetera, Foster) – 3:48
We Can Stop the Hurtin' (Lamm, Champlin, Neal) – 4:11
Hard Habit to Break (Kipner, Parker) – 4:43
Along Comes a Woman (Cetera, Goldenberg) – 3:46
You're the Inspiration (Cetera, Foster) – 3:48
Good for Nothing (Lamm, Foster, Marx) – 3:38
If She Would Have Been Faithful... (Kipner, Goodrum) – 3:51
Forever (Lamm, Gable) – 5:17
Will You Still Love Me? (Foster, Keane, Baskin) – 4:11
Niagara Falls (Kipner, Caldwell) – 3:42

DISC FIVE

Heart in Pieces (Feehan, MacLeod) – 5:04
Look Away (Warren) – 3:59
What Kind of Man Would I Be? (Scheff, Sandford, Caldwell) – 4:19
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love (Warren, Hammond) – 3:55
We Can Last Forever (Scheff, Dexter) – 3:45
You're Not Alone (Scott) – 3:56
Hearts in Trouble (Champlin, Matkowsky, Dukes) – 4:01
Only Time Can Heal the Wounded (Lamm, McMahon) – 4:43
You Come to My Senses (Steinberg, Kelly) – 3:49
God Save the Queen (Pankow, Scheff) – 4:19
Chasin' the Wind (Warren) – 4:18
All the Years (Lamm, Gaitsch) – 4:16
Stone of Sisyphus (Loughnane, Bailey) – 4:12
Bigger Than Elvis (Scheff, Wolf, Wolf) – 4:31
Caravan (Ellington, Mills, Tizol) – 3:23
Here in My Heart (Ballard, Howard) – 4:15
The Only One (Pankow, O'Connor) – 4:38
All Roads Lead to You (Beeson, Child) – 4:20
Show Me a Sign (Pankow, O'Connor) – 3:35

DISC SIX: DVD

Live material from 1972
Promotional videos for Chicago 13 (1979)

----------

Boxed sets were the big thing, so...

Wait.  Boxed sets were the big thing, but their time had kinda come and gone already by this point.  They worked for a while, when a lot of people still had record albums, because boxes were about the same size as records (except for the thickness) and could fit onto the shelf with them.  By 2003, it was becoming more common to actually package these multi-disc sets in a booklet-type thing like you see in the photo above.

Anyway, with still no new music forthcoming and Rhino anxious to get some new Chicago product out there, we got Chicago: The Box.  Actually, back in 1991, Columbia Records had released a boxed set called Chicago Group Portrait, which of course contained only music from the Columbia years. This was yet another cash-grab by Columbia after Chicago had gone over to Warner Bros. and I was feeling kinda spiteful about it, so I didn't include it, but I realise now that I probably should have at least mentioned it, because this is technically the second boxed set from Chicago.  Oh well.

Unlike "greatest hits" things, a boxed set is a more serious effort to provide an overview of the band and its history.  Besides all the hits, significant album tracks are included, and often out-takes and other rarities as well.  The big draws for this set were three tracks from Stone of Sysiphus (which was still unreleased) and the DVD of concert footage from 1972, the Chicago V tour.

As you can see by the track listing, including the track times, there are some interesting edits here.  "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is the version without the piano intro but with everything else, the same as on The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning.  "I'm a Man" is the same edit as well, missing most of the drum solo.

I've never seen the "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" edited this way before.  Clearly, the idea is to isolate "Colour My World", presumably so people can just jump to that song if they like.  The edit of "It Better End Soon" is also unique; if this listing is correct (I don't own this box), we have only the 1st, 3rd, and 4th movements, but not the 2nd (the flute solo).  "An Hour in the Shower" is all here; I just didn't feel like including the names of all the separate movements.

"Dialogue (Part I & II)" has been fully restored, so that's nice.  There's a rhythm, a gradual buildup at the end which is lost when they randomly cut parts out to make it shorter, to appease today's shorter attention spans.  I hate that.  The song is great as it is.  Each of those repeated sections serves a purpose.  End of rant.

"Happy Man" is the version without the false start but everything else, so that's fine.  The "Little One" suite is missing the first part, "The Inner Struggles of a Man", which is interesting.  I guess someone finally made the decision that it wasn't essential to the piece (which it isn't).  Normally, I'd defend including everything, but if there was ever a superfluous orchestral instrumental, this was it.

As mentioned, the three "lost" tracks from Stone of Sysiphus, "All the Years", "Stone of Sysiphus", and "Bigger than Elvis" were the rarities, and for die-hard Chicago fans, were supposed to be the big draw.

In 2003, getting ahold of concert video from 1972 was a big deal.  I'd still probably grab this set if I ever found it somewhere second-hand just for that DVD.  Nowadays, I can just go to YouTube and find this footage and more, but I still like owning the physical media, especially for really rare stuff like this.

To me, it's also interesting looking at the track listing and seeing how the early days were dominated by Lamm and Pankow, especially Lamm, and that as time went on, other names crept into the mix, finally giving way to names of people not even in the band.

Unfortunately, as nice as this set is, it did not sell well, failing to chart in the U.S. or anywhere else for that matter.  The three rare tracks and the DVD were tempting, but not enough to get hardcore Chicago fans to shell out for it.  It was comprehensive out of necessity, but that made it expensive, and hardcore fans already had most of the songs included here.  And casual fans don't buy boxed sets.  That didn't leave much of an audience for this, Chicago's 28th official release.
Title: Re: Chicago: The Box (2003)
Post by: Orbert on October 11, 2013, 09:40:39 PM
Okay then, moving on...
Title: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: Orbert on October 11, 2013, 09:59:01 PM
Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)

(https://i.imgur.com/G9VsQha.jpg)


Winter Wonderland
Let It Snow! Let It Snow! Let It Snow!
Jolly Old Saint Nicholas
The Little Drummer Boy
This Christmas
Feliz Navidad
Bethlehem
The Christmas Song
O Come All Ye Faithful
Rudolph The Red-Nosed Reindeer
Have Yourself a Merry Little Christmas
Sleigh Ride
Silent Night
What Child Is This?
Christmas Time Is Here
God Rest Ye Merry Gentlemen
Santa Claus Is Coming to Town
Child's Prayer
One Little Candle
White Christmas

----------

Chicago once again teamed up with Phil Ramone (who had produced Hot Streets and Chicago 13) to work on a new Christmas album, but due to budgetary constraints, they only recorded six new songs.  Rhino, which had been reissuing Chicago's entire back catalogue, added these six songs to Chicago 25: The Christmas Album, and released this "new" album.  They also pulled back all copies of Chicago 25: The Christmas Album and deleted it from the catalogue, but it's still pretty cheesy that they did this.  I'm sure at least a few people who had bought the first Christmas album also bought this album, not realising that they already had two-thirds of the songs.

If you never bought the first one, this was the one to get, as it has all 20 Chicago-style Christmas songs on it.  But if you already had the first one, it created a problem.  If you didn't know what they'd done, you paid full price for just six new songs.  Or maybe you figured it was worth it to get the six new songs.  Or maybe you think it was pretty crappy that they did it this way and would like those six new songs, but weren't willing to pay full price to get them, because you already paid for the other songs once.

I have a pretty high opinion of Rhino in general.  When they reissue older albums, they usually take great care to reproduce the original packaging and artwork, including credits, lyrics, and photos.  But they were in a tough position here.  What were they supposed to do with just six songs?  I suppose they could have released an EP, but since the first Christmas album only had 14 songs, and the total still fit on a single CD, this is the way they went with it, for better or for worse.
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: jammindude on October 11, 2013, 10:24:45 PM
These make a VERY interesting read.   But it just solidifies how much they just weren't doing much later on.   It's just really kinda sad.   To be so prolific at one point, and then just....I don't know...releasing stuff just to be releasing stuff.   

It's almost like you release a new package as a reminder that your brand is, in fact, still out there.   Feels almost like a Coke commercial at this point.

But I'm still waiting to hear more on the eventual release of SoS.   Please keep these up though.  I'm hanging on every one.   It's almost like reading a really interesting unauthorized biography.  :corn
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: Orbert on October 12, 2013, 12:15:10 AM
We're getting toward the end now, so yeah, I'm definitely going to finish things.  It wouldn't make sense not to.

And you're right; they weren't making new music.  The drive to write new songs was long gone, but they'd found something of a ready-made pool of songs to cover with Christmas music.  So this was their thing.

I remember seeing an interview with Chicago (actually just the horns and Lamm, the remaining original members) around this time, and interviewers always seem to ask the same questions.  "When you first started out, did you have any idea that you'd still be playing, touring, 35 years later?"

I still remember Walt Parazaider's answer: "No, we figured we be retired by now!"  He said it with a laugh, and it really is kinda funny.  You have to remember (and I think I've said this before, maybe even in this thread) that in the old days, rock musicians used to actually retire.  Most bands eventually broke up or stopped selling anyway, so they just stopped recording and touring, and either found day jobs (possibly for the first time in their lives) or if they were lucky and smart, they'd made enough money while they were popular, and invested it wisely, and were set for life.

Anyway, Walt Parazaider is the one who said he'd thought they'd be retired by now, done for good, living off their past success, and it's interesting because he's the one who has chosen to sit out some of the recent tours.  (Some guy named Ray Herrmann fills in on woodwinds.)  Walt's 68 years old and has devoted his life to entertaining other people.  I really don't have a problem with him taking it easy now.  I honestly keep expecting to hear one of these days that Chicago has finally called it quits.  But nowadays, the norm is to just keeping going as long as you're still breathing.  It didn't used to be that way.  It used to be okay to retire at some point.  And they're not making new music anymore, just touring and watching Rhino release a new compilation or live disc every once in a while.  Yeah, it's sad.  But for most of us, the creative spark doesn't last forever, and it's hottest when you're young.  These guys are not young anymore.
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: Orbert on October 12, 2013, 07:26:52 AM
Feels almost like a Coke commercial at this point.

Funny you should say that.  While researching this discography, I ran across numerous references to the album covers which mentioned the "Coca-cola inspired" logo.  I'd never actually made the connection.

(https://i.imgur.com/trkMcLZ.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/Im5xtOK.jpg)

The way the "C" is big and underlines the first part of the word, the loop on the "o", the script itself.  I never noticed before.
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: Jaq on October 12, 2013, 07:27:07 AM
It really is kind of sad to read these and watch Chicago go from the fearless inventive band that rocked through the 70s, to the David Foster driven juggernaut that topped the charts in the 80s, to a band that has released precisely one album of studio originals in two decades...and it was recorded in 1993. It's beyond bizarre the way this band turned out. Almost as if what they went through in the 90s made them collectively say screw it we'll just tour on the oldies. I suppose it works, since they keep doing it, but it's a damn shame what's happened to their music output over the past two decades. I salute you for slogging it through the latter years, Orbert, because man, I don't think I could do it in your shoes.
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: ZirconBlue on October 14, 2013, 07:53:58 AM
I have a pretty high opinion of Rhino in general.  When they reissue older albums, they usually take great care to reproduce the original packaging and artwork, including credits, lyrics, and photos.  But they were in a tough position here.  What were they supposed to do with just six songs?  I suppose they could have released an EP, but since the first Christmas album only had 14 songs, and the total still fit on a single CD, this is the way they went with it, for better or for worse.


It should have been a reissue of 25, now with 6 "bonus tracks".
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: jsem on October 14, 2013, 08:03:09 AM
Huh, didn't know they just reused a ton of songs from the previous Christmas album. Lol.
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: Orbert on October 14, 2013, 10:06:02 AM
I have a pretty high opinion of Rhino in general.  When they reissue older albums, they usually take great care to reproduce the original packaging and artwork, including credits, lyrics, and photos.  But they were in a tough position here.  What were they supposed to do with just six songs?  I suppose they could have released an EP, but since the first Christmas album only had 14 songs, and the total still fit on a single CD, this is the way they went with it, for better or for worse.


It should have been a reissue of 25, now with 6 "bonus tracks".

Yeah, that would have been more honest.  It would have made it clear that it was just the previous Christmas album, augmented.  The idea that this "new" album replaces the old one makes some sense, but it really screws the people who'd bought the first one.
Title: Chicago: Love Songs (2005)
Post by: Orbert on October 14, 2013, 11:22:38 AM
Chicago: Love Songs (2005)

(https://i.imgur.com/tlukeCN.jpg)


You're the Inspiration
If You Leave Me Now (Live 2004 featuring Philip Bailey on lead vocals)
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away
Here in My Heart
Call on Me
Colour My World
Just You 'n' Me
After the Love Has Gone (Live 2004 with Bill Champlin on lead vocals)
Hard Habit to Break
Look Away
Beginnings
Happy Man
Will You Still Love Me?
No Tell Lover
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love
Never Been in Love Before
What Kind of Man Would I Be?
Wishing You Were Here

----------

Chicago's 29th official release was yet another compilation album.  After two boxed sets and countless "greatest hits" things, the focus here is on love songs (even though most would say that that's all they'd done for the past 25 years at this point anyway).

Chicago had recently completed a very successful tour with Earth, Wind & Fire -- something of a kindred band, also from Chicago and also featuring a horn section -- and two of the tracks here are new live recordings taken from that tour.  By the way, if you ever have a chance to check out the live DVD or Blu-ray from that tour, you should.  It's pretty awesome.  I've been a fan of both bands for a long time, and it did not disappoint.

On that tour, each band performed one song from the other band, and the combined bands also played a set.  Here we have "If You Leave Me Now" from the combined set, sung by Philip Bailey from Earth, Wind & Fire.

The other logical choice was "After the Love Has Gone".  I mentioned way upthread that Bill Champlin was hired not just for his voice and the fact that he played both guitar and keyboards, but because he's a Grammy-winning songwriter.  "After the Love Has Gone" was a hit for Earth, Wind & Fire, but Bill wrote it (technically he shares the Grammy with David Foster and Jay Graydon) before joining Chicago.

What I found interesting is that, looking over the song list, you realize that Chicago has been recording love songs, and scoring hits with them, ever since the first album.  "Beginnings" is the "almost full version", including all the horn breaks and solos and missing only the percussion jam at the end.  "Colour My World" from the second album is here.  In total, seven of the 18 tracks are from the original lineup; eight if you count "If You Leave Me Now".

An interesting inclusion is "Never Been in Love Before" from Chicago VIII.  I've always liked that song, although "Brand New Love Affair, Part I & II" might have been a better choice from that album, as it actually charted.  It only reached #61, but I don't think "Never Been in Love Before" was even released as a single.  If it was, it didn't break the Top 100.

"Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away" are here together, so that's good.  It's still the one 80's track that I'll listen to when it comes on the radio, just to hear "Get Away".  Sometimes I wonder if they did that on purpose, to appease fogies like myself.  Yeah, probably.

Love Songs was released in late January 2005, just in time for the Valentine's Day market (note the clever artwork and marketing tie-in), and reached #57 on the U.S. Album charts.  Hey, whatever works.
Title: Re: Chicago: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? (2003)
Post by: Nel on October 14, 2013, 11:42:47 AM
It should have been a reissue of 25, now with 6 "bonus tracks".

Very much agree. Rhino's really good about these things otherwise.

As for Love Songs, it's nothing I'd ever buy (not a compilation guy), but I do like the album cover, cheesy as it is.
Title: Re: Chicago: Love Songs (2005)
Post by: sueño on October 14, 2013, 11:44:56 AM
Quote
The other logical choice was "After the Love Has Gone".  I mentioned way upthread that Bill Champlin was hired not just for his voice and the fact that he played both guitar and keyboards, but because he's a Grammy-winning songwriter.  "After the Love Has Gone" was a hit for Earth, Wind & Fire, but Bill wrote it (technically he shares the Grammy with David Foster and Jay Graydon) before joining Chicago.


Did not know that (that song is awesome!).  EW&F is one of my favorite bands (got to finally see them live in 2009) and I can definitely see the kindred spirit between them and Chicago.   

Still loving your write-ups, Orbert!   :tup
Title: Re: Chicago: Love Songs (2005)
Post by: Orbert on October 14, 2013, 12:02:24 PM
:tup

I've been a fan of Earth, Wind & Fire almost as long as I've been a fan of Chicago.  I started following Chicago in 1974, EWF in 1975.


By the way, when you put two bands, each with their own horn section, on stage at the same time, it gets pretty crowded.

(https://i.imgur.com/2Ks5MSn.jpg)
Title: Re: Chicago: Love Songs (2005)
Post by: sueño on October 14, 2013, 03:29:55 PM
(https://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/61sewajFPeL.jpg) (https://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Earth-Wind-Fire-Theatre/dp/B001676320)

^^^THAT...is in the Netflix queue!    :biggrin:
Title: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Orbert on October 15, 2013, 09:07:27 PM
Chicago XXX (2006)

(https://i.imgur.com/IWuwHX8.jpg)


Feel (Hot Single Mix)
King Of Might Have Been
Caroline
Why Can't We
Love Will Come Back
Long Lost Friend
90 Degrees And Freezing
Where Were You
Already Gone
Come To Me, Do
Lovin' Chains
Better
Feel (w/Horns)

----------

Bill Champlin: Keyboards, Vocals
Keith Howland: Guitar
Tris Imboden: Drums
Robert Lamm: Piano, Vocals
Lee Loughnane: Trumpet, Flugelhorn
James Pankow: Trombone
Walt Parazaider: Saxophones, Flutes
Jason Scheff: Bass, Vocals

Additional Musicians

Lee Thornburg: Trumpet
Tom Bukovac: Acoustic & Electric Guitars
James Matchack: Keyboards, Loop Programming, Sequencing
Jay DeMarcus: Keyboards, Guitars, Programming, Piano
Dann Huff: Guitar
Shelly Fairchild: Vocals
Rascal Flatts (Gary LeVox, Jay DeMarcus, Joe Don Rooney): Vocals
Dean DeLeo: Guitar
Steve Brewster: Drums
John Brockman: Drums
Yankton Mingua: Guitar
Jack Kincaid: Guitar
Bobby Kimball: Background Vocals
Joseph Williams: Background Vocals

----------

In 2006, Chicago finally did it again.  They released a new studio album of all original music.  It had been 15 years since Chicago Twenty 1.  I'd bought Chicago Twenty 1 when it came out, my first Chicago album since the original lineup, and was not particularly impressed, so I'd pretty much given up on Chicago.  I had my memories of growing up with them, all my original vinyl of course, and was slowly upgrading them to CDs.  The new stuff obviously was not for me.

But when Chicago XXX came out, there was much fanfare.  I actually moved to the Chicago area back in 1994, and of course the media around here was making a huge, huge deal.  The thirtieth album!  Triple X!  So I bought it.  I had to check up on the boys, see what they were up to.

I generally avoid promotion of any kind as much as I can, and I managed to miss that this was in fact their first new studio album in 15 years.  I guess I figured that there had been other albums in between which I'd ignored, but no, I'd managed to buy the last two studio albums in a row and didn't even realize it.

My first impression was the track listing on the back of the CD case.  The opening track is "Feel (Hot Single Mix)" and the last track is "Feel (w/Horns)".  I had a bad feeling about this.  First, that they actually called it "Hot Single Mix" seemed really cheesy.  Then there's the other mix, "w/Horns".  Seriously?  After 15 years, the band with the most famous horn section in rock releases a "Hot Single Mix" without their signature horn section, but makes it a point to also include the version with horns?

But I tried to remain objective, and for the first time in many, many years, I went through the ritual.  Put the album on, play it straight through, loudly, while pawing through the lyrics and credits (at one time on the album jacket and record sleeve but now in a little 4.5 x 4.5 inch booklet).

"Feel" is weird.  It starts with an odd, mechanical percussion loop, reminiscent of "Mama" by Genesis.  Except that "Mama" came out in 1983, so this isn't exactly innovative.  As the song unfolds, honestly, it still fails to excite.  The "Hot Single Mix" did not seem particularly hot.  The slow, mechanical beat which I think was supposed to be driving and heavy, was really just plodding and kinda boring.

The next five tracks -- I kid you not -- are all ballads.  Electric piano, light wimpy vocals, sadness and heartache.  Everything horrible about 80's Chicago was here, only updated for the new millenium.  Actually no, strike that.  It wasn't even updated.  This album could have come out right after Chicago Twenty 1 and it would have picked right up where they'd left off.  By this point, I'd pretty much finished going through the CD booklet and gotten to the "Additional Musicians" credits, and there are more studio musicians than band members on this album.  This didn't exactly inspire confidence, either.  Hmm, did that say Dean DeLeo?  The guy from Stone Temple Pilots?  I wonder...

Then something happened.  "90 Degrees and Freezing" actually rocked.  Drums, guitars, horns.  And the horns are blaring.  Blatant and unrepentant.  Wow, it's about damned time!

"Where Were You" also rocks.  Hey, two in a row.  (No question mark in the title, though.)  Would you believe three in a row?  "Already Gone" rocks, and at 6:51, it's the longest song on the album, it has a weirdass breakdown in it that's kinda cool, and once again, the horns and guitars are all over.

Okay, I won't keep you in suspense.  What they've done here is divide the album into Side One and Side Two, even though as far as I know, it was only ever released on CD.  The first six tracks are all ballads, the next six are the rockers, and the closing track is the better, more rocking version of the opening track (w/Horns).

Ha ha, one of the online reviews I read actually said:

Directions
Step 1: Put CD in
Step 2: Skip to Track 7
Step 3: Press Play

Starting off with all the ballads, I'm guessing, was meant to draw in the fans of the 80's Chicago sound, but it was a complete buzz kill.  The rockers are generally pretty good, but it's odd to divide the album up like this.  I guess the alternative, alternating between ballads and rockers, possibly in ones and twos, would have underscored the dual nature of the album, so they just made it easier for all of us.  Fans of wimpy 80's Chicago can stop after the first six tracks, and fans of the older stuff can just start at Track 7.

This morning on the way to work, I started at Track 7, "90 Degrees and Freezing" and played from there.  33 minutes of old-school Chicago rock and roll.  Some really nice horn charts, actual rocking electric guitars (turns out that is Dean DeLeo from Stone Temple Pilots, but only on one song) and three drummers for some reason (on different songs), but I'm not complaining.  "Side Two" of this album is pretty good.  I'll take it.


The album was produced by Jay DeMarcus of the band Rascal Flatts.  Rascal Flatts is a Country & Western band, and some have called this "Chicago's C&W album".  That's clearly a placebo effect; I don't hear it at all.  Jason Scheff is a personal friend of Jay and the band, and most of them appear on this album on background vocals.  Jay plays some keyboards and manages to get co-writing credits on over half of the songs (as David Foster did back when he produced Chicago), but whatever.  Most of the songs are at least co-written by members of Chicago.  Robert Lamm actually has a sole writing credit ("Come To Me, Do") for the first time in decades.  Actually, the only song wholly written by outside writers is "Feel", by some guys named Blair Daly and Danny Orton.
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Orbert on October 15, 2013, 09:23:04 PM
Robert Lamm

(https://i.imgur.com/hCo3FXd.png)

It finally occurred to me to find out what was going on with Robert Lamm.  Why was the man who had written most of The Chicago Transit Authority and nearly half of the total material from the first five albums so silent lately?  I'd assumed that he'd just lost his passion for writing.  As I mentioned earlier, the fire of creativity burns brightest when we're young, and he's not so young anymore.

Well, it turns out that Robert has been quietly releasing solo albums to fill the void.  Skinny Boy came out around the same time as Chicago VII, and it seems that he was content to just work within Chicago after that.  But he released a second solo album in 1995, Life is Good in My Neighborhood, with songs he'd been working on for nearly ten years.  As Chicago hadn't released any new studio material since 1991, it made sense that Robert would need to find a release.  Three more solo albums followed, in 1999, 2003, and 2004.  And he's released two more since Chicago XXX.

The best of the batch, all critics seem to agree, is Subtlety & Passion from 2003.  The Chicago horns play on that album, actually all of the then-current members of Chicago play on it, on different tracks.  On his previous solo albums, Robert had stayed away from anything sounding too much like Chicago.  Skinny Boy (which I have) is pretty much white R&B.  The next few dabble in blues and even hip-hop.

Until Chicago XXX came out, Subtlety & Passion was regarded as the return of Chicago.  But now they were actually back (if only for a while).
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on October 17, 2013, 10:06:09 AM
Orbert, I love your write-ups.

I just picked up Stone of Sisyphus.  It is . . . interesting.
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Orbert on October 17, 2013, 10:54:57 AM
Thanks, Hef!  I know people are still reading these, but I always like the feedback and reassurance.  Maybe I have deep-rooted insecurities or something.

I found my original mp3's of Stone of Sisyphus from 1993.  I did save them, separate from the official release in 2008.  Oddly enough, I'd filed them under 1993, exactly where they should be, and I didn't see them before.  I've been doing a bit of comparing back and forth between them.  Since it is likely to be the last Chicago album released, and because of its near-legendary status, I want to make sure it gets a good write-up.
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on October 18, 2013, 04:41:56 AM
Some of the vocal performances on that album are amazing.
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Podaar on October 18, 2013, 07:08:44 AM
I also wish to express my appreciation, again, for these write-ups. I like your style man!

Hey, I thought of  you yesterday Orbert while listening to NPR Word Cafe. They had the Tedeschi Trucks Band on who seem to be featuring their horn section much more. I'm going to order their latest album today.

Anyway, I thought you may enjoy this program if you haven't already heard it. World Cafe (https://www.npr.org/blogs/WorldCafe/2013/10/17/236247932/tedeschi-trucks-band-on-world-cafe)

My apologies if this is the wrong place to put this post.
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Orbert on October 18, 2013, 11:19:48 AM
No problem posting that here.  It's my thread and I say so.  Besides, Susan Tedeschi is a babe.  Someone pointed out the Tedeschi Trucks Band to me a while back, but I'd forgotten about them, so thanks for reminding me!

:tup
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Orbert on October 18, 2013, 12:23:28 PM
About the Cover, and a History Lesson

The City of Chicago used to have three airports: O'Hare, Midway, and a small airport named Meigs Field.  Meigs Field was located on Northerly Island, an actual island in the Chicago harbor.  Due to its proxmity to downtown, it was ideal for private planes and corporate jets to fly people in and out of Chicago for business.  Northerly Island was actually owned by The Chicago Park District, who leased the property to the city.  In 1996, the lease expired, and the park district did not renew the lease.  Mayor Richard Daley, who had wanted to close the airport for while and turn it into a park, saw his chance.  The airport was closed by the city in October 1996, but in February 1997, under pressure from the Illinois State Legislature, it was reopened.  The battle was on.

A compromise was finally reached in 2001 between the city of Chicago, the state of Illinois, and other interested parties, but there was also a federal component of the legislation which did not pass the U.S. Senate.  More meetings were held and compromises were proposed and rejected.

Monday morning, March 31, 2003, people woke up to see this:

(https://i.imgur.com/4tfa7nA.jpg)

It's a little hard to see, but in the middle of the night, in a very controversial move, Mayor Daley had ordered city crews to destroy the runway.  They began by carving big X's into the concrete, rendering the runways useless and stranding sixteen planes which were parked at the airport.  Here's a better look at the damage:

(https://i.imgur.com/p9Djrz9.png)

Mayor Daley had no authority to give this order, but the deed was done.  Meigs Field was history.  It was now after 9/11, and Mayor Daley was able to use the idea of planes flying so close to the downtown area, with its highrises and skyscrapers, as a security concern.  He had to look out for the safety of the citizens of Chicago, regardless of what the legislators said.


As the band was starting work on this, their 30th album, Robert Lamm saw those pictures on the news and got an idea for the album cover:

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1d/Chicago_xxx_promo.jpg)

As I mentioned, I moved to the Chicago area in the 90's, and the destruction of Meigs Field was big news around here.  Nobody was happy about it, except for Mayor Daley himself.  The cover, with the three X's jackhammered into the concrete, is admittedly pretty cool.  But for anyone in the Chicago area who had seen the images of Meigs Field, it was disturbing and perhaps a little bizzare to see it stylized and immortalized on an album cover.


A few more tidbits

During its brief stay on the album charts, Chicago XXX peaked at #41.  The first single "Feel" made it to #19 on the Adult Contemporary chart, and "Love Will Come Back" topped out at #21.  Not quite the huge comeback they were hoping for, but not horrible.
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: sueño on October 18, 2013, 12:29:34 PM
Didn't know that about the album cover (great trivia!) but I lived in Chicago during that time period, too and agreed -- it was HUGE news.  My boss used Meigs Field frequently for his own business travel and to say he was "annoyed" would be an understatement.

The Daleys were kings of Chicago.    :\ :tdwn
Title: Re: Chicago XXX (2006)
Post by: Orbert on October 18, 2013, 12:40:06 PM
Yeah, they were.  Richard M. Daley, and his daddy Richard J. Daley, pretty much did whatever they wanted to.  They owned the town.
Title: The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)
Post by: Orbert on October 19, 2013, 05:37:21 PM
The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)

(https://i.imgur.com/iGtOQJL.png)


Questions 67 & 68 (Lamm) - 3:26
25 or 6 to 4 (Lamm) - 2:53
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (Lamm) - 2:46
Make Me Smile (Pankow) - 3:00
Beginnings (Lamm) - 2:49
Colour My World (Pankow) - 3:03
Saturday in the Park (Lamm) - 3:56
Feelin' Stronger Every Day (Pankow/Cetera) - 4:15
Just You 'n' Me (Pankow) - 3:43
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long (Pankow) - 4:18
Call on Me (Loughnane) - 4:02
Wishing You Were Here (Cetera) - 3:01
Old Days (Pankow) - 3:31
Another Rainy Day in New York City (Lamm) - 3:01
If You Leave Me Now (Cetera) - 3:56

Baby, What a Big Surprise (Cetera) - 3:07
No Tell Lover (Loughnane/Seraphine/Cetera) - 3:51
Hard to Say I'm Sorry (Cetera/Foster) - 3:41
Love Me Tomorrow (Cetera/Foster) - 3:58
Hard Habit to Break (Cetera/Foster) - 4:46
You're the Inspiration (Cetera/Foster) - 3:49
Will You Still Love Me? (Foster/Keane/Baskin) - 4:13
If She Would Have Been Faithful... (Kipner/Goodrum) - 3:51
I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love (Hammond/Warren) - 3:55
Look Away (Warren) - 4:00
What Kind of Man Would I Be? (Scheff/Sandford/Caldwell) - 4:20
You're Not Alone (Scott) - 4:00
Here in My Heart (Ballard/Howard) - 4:20
Feel (W/Horns) (Orton/Daly) - 4:31
Love Will Come Back (Scheff/DeMarcus/Sandford) - 3:43

----------

That's right, another compilation, another "greatest hits" thing.  Chicago XXX was a pretty good album; maybe not the return to the 70's sound or quality that it was purported to be, or 80's for that matter, but because of its aforementioned dual nature, it had something to offer everyone.  But another year -- another year and a half, actually -- had passed, and it was time to get some new Chicago product out there.

This particular collection was marketed as the "40th Anniversary" of Chicago.  The cover features the Chicago logo as the wax seal on an invitation, presumably to a gala event celebrating the 40th Anniversary of the band, which honestly is no small feat.  A nice touch is the glimpse at the inscription inside, the lyrics to "Beginnings" from the first album.

The Wiki page for this album mentions that The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning , the 2002 compilation also from Rhino, has all the songs that this album has, except for the last three, two of which hadn't been released yet at the time.  "Here in My Heart" was from The Heart of Chicago 1967–1997 (it never appeared on a regular studio album) and the other two, "Feel (w/Horns)" and "Love Will Come Back", were the two singles from Chicago XXX.  The Wiki page even includes a link to The Very Best of Chicago for "the origins" of these tracks, implying that this is really just the earlier complilation with three more tracks.

It is not.  Look at the track times.  Wherever possible, these are short versions of the songs, and when there is more than one choice, the "extra short" version is here.  Furthermore, there were a number of tracks on the earlier compilation that aren't here.  The Very Best of Chicago had 39 tracks and was totally packed; this one only has 30 tracks including the three new ones and is less than 152 minutes total time.

This is just another compilation, and an inferior one at that.  If you absolutely have to have the two singles from Chicago XXX, or maybe the one song which has now shown up on multiple compilations but never a regular studio album, then by all means, go ahead and buy this.  But the earlier compilation has all of these songs and more, and many of the songs are their longer versions.

Not all, though.  "Greatest hits" things never include all the full-length versions of the songs.  This is so that there's at least some possibility that some people will buy the studio albums to get the full versions of those songs.  If you really did give them the full versions of all the hits, for many people there would simply be no reason to buy anything else.

I can't see any reason for anyone to buy this album.  It exists simply because it was the latest compilation and gave people something to buy.  Nice cover, though.
Title: Re: The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)
Post by: Nel on October 19, 2013, 08:00:44 PM
I have this one. This was when I was starting to get into collecting discographies and I had asked my parents for maybe a Chicago album or two for Christmas. Of course, my parents didn't really *get* that I wanted studio albums, and just bought this for me instead.  :lol
Title: Re: The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)
Post by: Orbert on October 20, 2013, 07:20:47 AM
Parents, sheesh.  Well, you asked for Chicago, and a two-disc set like this does look pretty nice.  They were probably pretty happy that they'd found such a nice present for you.

And as with any compilation, it's probably a good enough overview and introduction to the band, as it does cover all eras pretty well.  What did you think of it?  What did you get next?
Title: Re: The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)
Post by: Nel on October 20, 2013, 10:43:00 AM
I, um, thanked them for it (I never try to seem ungrateful for anything, really), put it in a box, and bought the first two albums the following year.  :lol

It IS a nice looking cover.
Title: Re: The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)
Post by: The King in Crimson on October 20, 2013, 10:59:34 AM
I own this. I heard "25 or 6 to 4" and a couple of other songs and decided I'd get one of their albums. This was all the local Best Buy had in stock, so I bought it.

I was REALLY disappointed when I found out that a lot of the songs were shortened versions. REALLY disappointed. I sold it off a couple of years ago because meh.
Title: Re: The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition (2007)
Post by: ZirconBlue on October 21, 2013, 09:49:38 AM
This is actually the one Chicago album I own.  I honestly bought it mostly because it was super-cheap.  I can't remember where I got it, but it was less than $10, new.  I figured if I got a compilation album, it might help point me in a direction of what studio albums to get next.  But, really, this thread has been much more helpful in that regard. 
Title: Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus (2008)
Post by: Orbert on October 22, 2013, 10:09:05 PM
Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus (2008)

(https://i.imgur.com/9ejB0JZ.jpg)


Stone Of Sisyphus (Bailey, Loughnane) – 4:11
Bigger Than Elvis (Scheff, Wolf, Wolf) – 4:31
All The Years (Lamm, Gaitsch) – 4:16
Mah-Jong (Scheff, Walsh, Zigman) – 4:42
Sleeping In The Middle Of The Bed (Lamm, McCurry) – 4:45
Let's Take A Lifetime (Scheff, Walsh, Zigman) – 4:56
The Pull (Lamm, Scheff, Wolf) – 4:17
Here With Me (A Candle For The Dark) (Pankow, Lamm, O'Connor) – 4:11
Plaid (Champlin, Lamm, Mathieson) – 4:59
Cry For The Lost (Champlin, Matkowsky) – 5:18
The Show Must Go On (Champlin, Gaitsch) – 5:25

Bonus Tracks

Love Is Forever (Demo) (Pankow, Lamm) – 4:14
Mah-Jong (Demo) (Scheff, Walsh, Zigman) – 4:59
Let's Take A Lifetime (Demo) (Scheff, Walsh, Zigman) – 4:15
Stone Of Sisyphus (No Rhythm Loop) (Bailey, Loughnane) – 4:35

----------

Dawayne Bailey — Guitar, Vocals
Bill Champlin — Keyboards, Guitar, Vocals
Tris Imboden — Drums, Percussion, Harmonica
Robert Lamm — Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane — Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Backing Vocals
Walter Parazaider — Woodwinds, Backing Vocals
James Pankow — Trombone, Backing Vocals
Jason Scheff — Bass, Vocals

Additional Musicians

Bruce Gaitsch — Guitar
The Jordanaires — Backing Vocals on "Bigger Than Elvis"
Sheldon Reynolds — Guitar
Jerry Scheff — Bass Guitar on "Bigger Than Elvis"
Joseph Williams — Backing Vocals on "Let's Take a Lifetime"
Peter Wolf — Arranger, Keyboards

----------

On June 17, 2008, they finally did it.  Chicago released their "lost" album, originally titled simply Stone of Sisyphus.  Recorded in 1993, it was to be only their second studio album to have a title and not just a Roman numeral, to emphasize the uniqueness of the album.  As referenced upthread, the album was produced by Peter Wolf, former keyboard player with Frank Zappa, who encouraged the band to make this album exactly how they wanted to make it.  Write songs from the heart, with no thought of commercial viability.  Forget everything that had been forced upon them in the past decade or more about what people expect Chicago to sound like, and just make the music they want to make.  Be experimental, take chances.

Once they'd completed rough versions of three songs, Peter took them to the suits at Warner Bros., who loved them.  Chicago disappeared into the studio and finished the album with a renewed vigor, and without any involvement of any kind from the suits.  During this time, however, the upper levels of Warner Bros. had gone through a complete shakeup; all new suits were at the top, and they didn't like that they had no input to the music, and they didn't like the music.  They saw no commercial viability, and said that they would release the album, but would not promote it.

Chicago chose to shelf the album rather than watch it go out and die due to lack of promotion.  They eventually made Night and Day - Big Band to complete their contract with Warner Bros., and formed Chicago Records with the specific purpose of acquiring and owning the rights to all Chicago music, from the Columbia and Warner Bros. catalogues, and any future music as well.  They then entered into a long-term agreement with Rhino Records to distribute it.  Now, 15 years later, it was time to release the album of which they were more proud than anything they'd done since the 70's.

On the spine, it says Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus.  On the front, back, and on the CD itself, it says Chicago Stone of Sisyphus.  They've downplayed the XXXII, but it is apparently part of the title now (I always think of what's on the spine as the "official" title).

The album has also gone through some changes along the way.  Some songs have been remixed.  One song was dropped.  But it overall is pretty much the same as it was in 1993.  And listening to it now, it's pretty obvious why the suits at Warner Bros. had trouble with it.  I've been listening to it since it came out, including the past two weeks solid, and some of it still throws me.  Some of it is really out-there, very "un-Chicago-like", which I'm sure was the idea.  But it's a daring, challenging album which rewards any listener willing to give it time to work.

This isn't a concept album, and the title track, "Stone Of Sisyphus" doesn't actually have much to do with the Greek Myth of Sisyphus.  Originally "Twenty Years on the Sufferbus", the music and lyrics went through a lot of changes, and "Sufferbus" eventually became "Sisyphus" when they noticed parallels between their own situation regarding the music business and the tragic character Sisyphus, doomed to forever push a huge stone up a hill, only to watch it roll back down every time he neared the peak.  This song comes blasting out of the gate, with the horns blaring.  You can just imagine the jaws hitting the table in the Warner Bros. conference room listening to this one.

"Bigger Than Elvis" is a very personal song by Jason Scheff.  Jason's father of course is Jerry Scheff, bassist for Elvis Presley's band.  The song is about how young Jason would watch Elvis on TV, and while everybody else was watching Elvis, Jason was always trying to catch a glimpse of his dad, who, in his eyes, was much bigger than Elvis.  Jason "tricked" Jerry into playing on the track (they muted the vocals), and they even got The Jordanaires to sing backing vocals, as they had on so many Elvis Presley records.  That Christmas, Jason played the finished track for Jerry, who was moved to tears when he heard it.

"All The Years" makes me rethink what I said about this not being a concept album.  Robert Lamm talks about "all the years we've wasted" and he admits that he's talking about his band Chicago and what they'd been doing recently, although the lyrics ultimately expand to talk about politics and the world in general.  That's the Robert Lamm we've missed.  The idealist, guy with the world view.  There's a breakdown in the middle with some sound bites, including "the whole world's watching" chant which also appeared in "Prologue, August 29, 1968" from the first album.  Nice tie-in there, from the first album to what will likely be the last studio album.

Mah-Jong is the Chinese mother of all card games which is poker, bridge, and rummy all rolled into one; not the silly tile-matching game that Internet gamemongers would have you believe it is.  And "Mah-Jong" is a song that only a bassist could write.  Funky, rhythmic, and with a catchy chorus that's very hard to shake.  Minor quibble: according to the lyrics, she lives one block east of Chinatown.  One block east of Chinatown is a freeway.  All the apartments and houses are west of Chinatown.  Must not be Chicago Chinatown he's talking about.

Lamm had the music for "Sleeping In The Middle Of The Bed" and knew how he wanted the chorus to work, but couldn't come up with a melody.  He had a rhythm, though, so he rapped it to his co-writer John McCurry, who thought it was great just like that.  So rap appears on a Chicago album.  Yeah, more jaws hitting tables.

"Let's Take A Lifetime" is another Jason Scheff song, another mellow one (like "Bigger Than Elvis") but it's not a bad song.  I'm not a good judge of this kind of music, though.

"The Pull" is another Robert Lamm song (this album has the highest Lamm percentage of any album since the 70's), a very personal song about being pulled in too many directions at once.  Well, two, which is one too many when you're playing in a band and you have a wife at home who needs you.  Jason sings it and tweaked some of the lyrics, and Peter Wolf messed with the arrangement, so they get co-credit, but it's a Lamm song.  And it's another one with a weird beat, a weird sound that says "not commercially viable".  Jaws, tables, head shaking, face palming.  I think it's a great song, but there's no way you'd hear it on the radio.

A rare Lamm-Pankow collaboration, even the title of "Here With Me (A Candle For The Dark)" reflects its dual nature.  Jimmy wrote the chorus and most of the music, and wanted to call it "Here With Me".  Robert wrote the verses and wanted to call it "A Candle For The Dark".  Robert's songs almost never have the repeated line from the chorus as the title.  The awkward dual title is the result of their "compromise".  The break has a cool, pseudo-baroque section to it that I always love hearing.

Plaid, as a fabric style, consists of horizontal and vertical stripes, some wide, some thin, some solid, some cross-hatched, in colors that you might not normally use together, yet somehow it all works and the overall pattern has a texture that transcends its components.  The song "Plaid" sounds like plaid looks.  Every time I hear the song, I'm amazed.  All the different rhythms, the weird sounds, the horns, guitars, and keys, the mix of smooth and harsh lead and background vocals, all weave around and through each other, and somehow it all works.  It's a musical plaid.  I have no idea what the song is about, but it sounds amazing.  And again, you could never play this on the radio.

"Cry For The Lost" is Bill Champlin taking it as far as he can go.  Peter Wolf challenged him to write a commercial song, so commercial that it goes beyond commercial.  I don't even know what that means, but I like the song.  On an album that intentionally tries to push boundaries and just plain get weird sometimes, this song and Jason's ballads actually do help keep things grounded.

Now, if you have a song called "The Show Must Go On" you already know it has to be the last song on the album.  It just sounds like the title of a song which would be last.  The lyrics, however, are another story.  According to Bill Champlin, it's "pretty much pointing the finger at management types. Do you think the suits at the label are going to get behind a record that calls them assholes?"  So there you have it.  Chicago wanted the show to go on, but were continuously stifled.

After being given free reign to write and record whatever they wanted, saying what they wanted to say, including a few choice words about the music business itself, it's not surprising at all that the new management at Warner Bros. listened to this album and hated it.

This is not Chicago. What in the hell is this?

But if you ask the band, this is definitely Chicago.  It is more Chicago than Chicago had been in 15 years, since "If You Leave Me Now" became so huge that suddenly it was what people expected them to be.  Radio was becoming programmed and formatted, and that was the format that someone decided Chicago fit into.

Okay, full disclosure.  I remember buying this, taking it home, playing it, and being disappointed overall.  All this talk about how it was what they wanted to do had me expecting, if not another Chicago, at least another Chicago V.  I would've settled for another Chicago VIII.  Those are each great albums in their own way, even if they each emphasize different strengths of the band.  This wasn't like any of them.  It still sounded like "new Chicago" to me.

But after listening through every studio album and everything they've done, and getting to this point, I can hear now how it is, and was, a definite step back for them.  A good step back.  A step back to a time when they wrote what they wanted to write, played what they wanted to play, and didn't give a damn about what they were "supposed" to sound like.  The horns sound like they did in the old days.  Still warm and smooth and full, but not glossy and shiny like 80's or 90's production; raw yet rich like 70's production.  The Latin percussion is back!  Several cuts have prominent Latin percussion and complex rhythms throughout.  Songs like "The Pull" and "Plaid" and "Sleeping In The Middle Of The Bed" are boundary-breaking tracks.  They're like nothing Chicago has ever done before or since.

There are four "Bonus Tracks", and it's a little weird what they've included.  Four demos, including a song that's not on the album called "Love Is Forever".  It's a nice enough song, a Pankow-Lamm collaboration sung by Jason Scheff.  And it's a bit more than a demo.  I mean, it sounds pretty finished to me.  Full background vocals, horns, everyone plays.  It's not like it's just a voice and piano or something.  All of the "demos" are finished or nearly finished versions.

The weird part is that there's a song missing.  It's called "Get On This" by guitarist Dawayne Bailey, and it is a rocker.  It rocks harder than anything else on the album.  The only way anyone knows about this song is if they have the original leaked version of the album from 1993, and I'm fortunate enough to have it.  Dawayne Bailey took it particularly hard when the album was rejected by the label.  Besides writing the title track, he wrote"Get On This" with James Pankow and Walt Parazaider's daughter Felicia, with whom he was in a relationship at the time.

I think the inclusion of "Get On This" would have made the album even stronger, even more rocking, even more "non-Chicago yet Chicago".  But Dawayne was no longer in the band, and while they kinduv had to keep the title track, I couldn't find anything about the status of his relationship with Walt's daughter.  There has never been any official statement regarding the departure of Dawayne Bailey from the band, or why "Get On This" was dropped from the final version of the album, and doesn't even appear as a demo.  But we can guess.
Title: Re: Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus (2008)
Post by: jammindude on October 22, 2013, 11:38:53 PM
Ugh....when I get back to work, I *HAVE* to buy this album.

This thread already motivated me to buy Carnegie Hall....it may well convince me to buy this as well.

It sounds right up my alley.
Title: Re: Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus (2008)
Post by: Orbert on October 23, 2013, 08:06:20 AM
It's different, and it's not what I or anyone else expected.  I instantly loved Chicago at Carnegie Hall, but much of that was probably youthful exhuberance and excitement.  I dove right into it, as it was my first album and all I had.

This one has taken much longer to get into.  My mistake was having perconceptions of how it would sound.  As mentioned, I was disappointed and just plain didn't like it at first, and it's gotten a few spins since I picked it up in 2008, but it wasn't until I really started listening to it recently that I "got" it.  I still don't know if it's a great album or even a good album.  It somehow defies that kind of evaluation.  What I like about it is how daring it is, the balls it took to make such an album.  That is what is most similar to 70's Chicago.  The attitude.  The feeling that this is definitely what they wanted to do.

Even between the original version of the album and the official released version, the changes reflect that.  Some of the extra synths on the title track (originally played by Peter Wolf, who felt they were needed) have been removed.  "Plaid" has even more weirdness and rhythmic counterpoint.  That kind of thing.  There are some things on some original versions that are better, but hey, nothing is perfect.  A major loss, unfortunately, is Dawayne Bailey's "Get On This".  The two outright guitar-driven rockers were his, and they cut one.  In 1993, it was where they were.  By 2008, they had changed.

I think my final iPod version of this album will be the official release, plus the "Love Is Forever" demo and "Get On This".  I don't see any point in including demo versions of songs that have final versions on the album, and I don't feel like going through the rest of the album song-by-song and deciding whether I like the original or final version better.  The 2008 version is the official version, although I'll keep the 1993 version and listen to it once in a while.
Title: Chicago XXXIII: O Christmas Three (2011)
Post by: Orbert on October 26, 2013, 05:47:15 PM
Chicago XXXIII: O Christmas Three (2011)

(https://i.imgur.com/WFWKYnw.png)


Wonderful Christmas Time (featuring Dolly Parton)
Rockin' Around the Christmas Tree
I Saw Three Ships (featuring America)
Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays
What Are You Doing New Year’s Eve?
It's the Most Wonderful Time of the Year
I'll Be Home for Christmas
On The Last Night Of The Year
Merry Christmas Darling (featuring Bebe Winans)
Rockin' and Rollin' on Christmas Day (featuring Steve Cropper)
My Favorite Things
O Christmas Tree
Jingle Bells
Here Comes Santa Claus/Joy to the World (with Children's Choir)

----------

Drew Hester - Percussion
Keith Howland - Guitars, Vocals
Tris Imboden - Drums, Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpets, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flute
Lou Pardini - Keyboards, Vocals
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

Children's Choir:

Jillian DeGrie
Grace Howland
Hope Howland
Carter Pankow
Lilli Pankow
Connor Scheff
Jason Scheff Jr.
Lydia Young

----------

In 2011 Chicago treated us to their third collection of Christmas music, cleverly titled Chicago XXXIII: O Christmas Three.  Lots of threes there.  Sure, they're mostly just a touring nostalgia show now, but they've made it clear that they intend to keep playing as long as people will pay to come and see them, and they do still record albums.

I mentioned in my writeup for the first Christmas collection that I generally have trouble listening to these, and I think I've figured out why.  The music of course is great, the production is excellent (Phil Ramone returns for his final time with Chicago), but I like to sing along with Christmas songs, and I can't do that if they've messed around with the melody and the rhythm.  Hey, add horns, weird extra harmonies, even change the tempo (a bit) and that's all good, but jerking the melody around just to put your own spin on things crosses the line.  Some people are fine with it; I'm assuming that those are the people who prefer to listen rather than sing along.  I can't help but want to sing along, and I can't do that.  Even if I am just listening, I'm singing along in my head, and dammit, he's not singing it right!

So interestingly, I found myself enjoying the songs I didn't already know much more than the ones I knew.  I'm still surprised after all these years when I encounter a "new" Christmas song.  Sometimes it really is a relatively new song, such as Justin Timberlake's "Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays" but sometimes they're songs that have been around for decades which, for some reason, I don't remember hearing before.  But it was weird realizing that I enjoyed these songs more, and why, and it made me try to listen to the others more with fresh ears.  If I didn't already know the song, would I like this song?  The answer was usually "Yes".  But mostly, I still have trouble with them "jazzing up" the old favorites too much.  I know; first world problems for sure.  This is in general some great stuff.

They upped the quotient of newer Christmas songs this time around, with Paul McCartney's "Wonderful Christmas Time", "Merry Christmas Darling" by The Carpenters and the aforementioned "Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays" by Justin Timberlake.  And as with the first batch, Lee Loughnane has given us another Chicago original, "Rockin' and Rollin' on Christmas Day".

Dolly Parton sings on "Wonderful Christmas Time"; America (actually just Gerry Beckley and Dewey Bunnell, joined by Hank Linderman) sing and play on "I Saw Three Ships"; Bebe Winans sings on "Merry Christmas Darling"; Steve Cropper adds his guitar chops to "Rockin' and Rollin' on Christmas Day"; and as before, the set finishes with a song featuring a children's choir.  As you can tell by the names, it's mostly the kids of the band members.

In 2008, after 27 years with Chicago, Bill Champlin decided it was time to move on.  Bill originally played more guitar than keyboards with Chicago, but recently, especially after the addition of Keith Howland on guitar, he'd been playing keyboards pretty much exclusively.  For touring, Chicago still felt more comfortable having another keyboard player (Robert Lamm has always been just a pianist/organist) so they enlisted keyboardist and singer Lou Pardini.  Lou is also a gifted songwriter; his song "Just To See Her" won a Grammy for Smokey Robinson in 1988 and was also nominated as Song of the Year that same Year.

Drew Hester is also credited as a regular member of Chicago on this album, their first full-time percussionist since Loudir de Oliveira left the band back in the 80's.

Title: Re: Chicago XXXIII: O Christmas Three (2011)
Post by: Orbert on October 29, 2013, 07:48:14 PM
Okay then, moving right along...
Title: Chicago XXXIV: Live in '75 (2011)
Post by: Orbert on October 29, 2013, 07:49:16 PM
Chicago XXXIV: Live in '75 (2011)

(https://i.imgur.com/ZiYwppw.png)


Introduction
Anyway You Want
Beginnings
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
Call On Me
Make Me Smile
So Much To Say, So Much To Give
Anxiety's Moment
West Virginia Fantasies
Colour My World
To Be Free
Now More Than Ever
Ain't It Blue?
Just You 'N' Me
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
Mongonucleosis
Old Days
25 Or 6 To 4
Got To Get You Into My Life
Free
I'm A Man
Dialogue
Wishing You Were Here
Feelin' Stronger Every Day

----------

Peter Cetera - Bass, Vocals
Terry Kath - Guitar, Vocals
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone
Walter Parazaider - Woodwinds
Danny Seraphine - Drums
Laudir de Oliveira - Percussion

----------

Chicago was never bigger than they were in the 70's, so after three Christmas albums (well, two and a half), countless "greatest hits" things (including two boxed sets), and a live album capturing the recent band, this should have been a great idea.  Actually, it was a great idea.  In 1975, Chicago was touring in support of Chicago VIII, their eighth Gold Record in six years and fourth Number 1 album in a row.

The original seven plus one, with Laudir de Oliveira on percussion on his first tour as a regular member of the band.  The shows were incredible, full of powerful hits but still with time for "The Ballet" in its entirety, and a couple of indulgences, such as "Mongonucleosis" -- the jam which always followed "(I've Been) Searchin' So Long" -- and their cover of The Beatles' "Got To Get You Into My Life", the horn-driven song which gave Walt Parazaider and the boys the idea to start a rock band with horns in the first place.

Here's the problem: The sound quality.  I don't have this album, but reviews online all agree that while the performances are great, the sound quality leaves much to be desired.  Some say that the horns are mixed too low, others say that the guitar is also too low.  I'm not sure what that leaves, other than the vocals and rhythm section.  All agree that the sound itself is not great.

I have to say, after hours of hunting on YouTube, which has an impressive amount of bootleg and other rare Chicago live recordings, I've never found anything that I could say has even "good" sound quality.  I know it was possible for this amazing eight-piece band to sound good in a live setting because I saw them in 1977, but apparently it was just about impossible to record them properly, otherwise a decent recording of them would exist.  And it may, somewhere, but this is not it.

This two-disc set was issued on Rhino Handmade, a division of Rhino reserved for special, limited-edition releases.  The first disc is packed but the second disc is only half full, clearly because this album represents exactly one concert,   Some reviews say that the performances are so awesome that once you start listening, you forget about the sound quality and just listen.  That's entirely possible.  But by all accounts, the sound quality is an issue.  What's interesting is that this set is compiled from three nights in the same venue, so it was professionally recorded, not bootleg.  Is it possible that someone completely choked while mixing and mastering this live album?  I really would love to hear it, because I don't want to believe that Rhino Handmade would release something this bad, but it's both hard to find and rather expensive, so it might be a while.

By the way, it's not the venue.  I saw Yes on the Union tour at the Capital Centre in Largo, MD, where this album was recorded, and they sounded excellent.  So it's possible for an eight-piece band to sound good there.  I also saw Rush on Counterparts there, but then, Rush always sounds great and there's only three of them, even if they sound like six.
Title: Re: Chicago XXXIV: Live in '75 (2011)
Post by: ZirconBlue on October 30, 2013, 08:14:11 AM
I don't know if it's already been discussed, but it bugs me that live albums and, especially, compilations are included in the sequential numbering of albums.
Title: Re: Chicago XXXIV: Live in '75 (2011)
Post by: Orbert on October 30, 2013, 10:21:58 AM
It goes back to the early days, when it was just easier.  The first two albums didn't have numbers, but technically each were eponymous (self-titled) albums.  To help clarify matters, Chicago III was named thus.  Then came Chicago at Carnegie Hall, which also didn't have a number.  When the next studio album came out, the question was what to call it.  It was their fifth album overall, and since they'd gone with III previously, Chicago V seemed like a good idea, and the numbers just went up from there.  So yeah, even though it wasn't given a number in the title, the first live album was counted in the numeration, so the precedent was set and it would have made even less sense to change that later on.

Remember that back then, live albums and compilations were not nearly as common as they are now, or for bands which have been around for ages.  There were no bands which had been around for ages; certainly no one foresaw Chicago being around for over 45 years.  Most bands had one live album and one greatest hits thing.  For a long time, Chicago was the same way.  After Chicago VIII, they took a break, and it was time for a greatest hits thing, so what the heck; they'd counted the live album in the numeration, might as well call it Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits.

I agree that it's kinda silly now.  I bought Chicago Twenty 1 on CD, then 15 years later, just because I felt like checking up on them, bought Chicago XXX.  A difference of nine in the sequence, and they were actually consecutive studio albums.  Okay, that's not counting Night and Day and the first Christmas album, and with no idea that they'd made Stone of Sisyphus but not released it.  But yeah, counting all those compilations and live albums at this point almost seems like an effort to "boost the numbers" but it's really not.  It's because they'd set a precedent and followed it, and all these years later, the relative lack of new studio content has screwed up the ratios.

I think if they'd known back in the beginning that the band would last 45 years and the second half of that would include fewer studio albums than anything else, they'd probably have only numbered the studio albums.  But again, there was no precedent, and they were making it up as they went along.  Each decision made sense at the time.
Title: Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012)
Post by: Orbert on October 31, 2013, 12:17:57 PM
Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012)

(https://i.imgur.com/dZ0FcPJ.jpg)


I know, it seems like all Chicago does anymore is release Christmas albums and compilations.  So what better way to finish off this discography than a compilation of Christmas albums?

If you're keeping count, Chicago XXV: The Christmas Album had the original 14 songs, then six more were added and it was re-released as Chicago Christmas: What's It Gonna Be, Santa?  The set from 2011, Chicago XXXIII: O Christmas Three had another 14 tracks, bringing the grand total to 34.

But it's actually simpler than that.  This is a two-disc set wherein the first disc is Chicago Christmas: What's It Gonna Be, Santa? and the second disc is Chicago XXXIII: O Christmas Three.

A new original by Lee Loughnane would've been kinda cool, so the 35th album would have 35 tracks, but whatever.  This is what we have.
Title: Re: Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012)
Post by: Orbert on October 31, 2013, 12:20:46 PM
20 studio albums in 45 years, 17 of them all original material (the others being the two Christmas albums and Night and Day - Big Band), is nothing to sneeze at.  Four of the first six studio albums were doubles.  And of course, there are the singles added as "bonus tracks" to some of the compilations and live albums.  They even released a new single this year ("America (https://soundcloud.com/chicago_the_band/america-preview-new-chicago)" - the obligatory patriotic song), so they're still creating new material, just at a slower pace than before.

Admittedly, it makes me a little sad to see what has become of the once vibrant band that I still love.  But it's the kind of sadness you feel for a grandparent or aging aunt or uncle.  You know their time is limited because they've already had so many good years.  You remember the good times, and you imagine them remembering the good times and knowing that those days are behind them, and you can't help but feel sorry for them.

But Chicago is still touring; they're not gone yet.  And I can still put on Chicago Live at Carnegie Hall, and I'm 12 years old again, just starting to learn about music, with no idea what the limits were (because there weren't any back then), and just enjoy.  This still happens every time I play that album.  You never forget your first time.
Title: Re: Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012)
Post by: sueño on October 31, 2013, 12:35:48 PM
:clap:  for all of this, Orbert.  Thanks so much for your hard work!   :)
Title: Re: Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012)
Post by: Big Hath on October 31, 2013, 01:39:34 PM
I saw they also released another single called "Somethin' Comin', I Know" (sounds like a Lamm title to me).  Any chance you've heard that?  I haven't.  Also, what are the Nashville Sessions I see at their online store?  Edit: The description says "Chicago performs 15 of their biggest hits in the studio -recorded in 2009".  Here is the track listing:

-25 or 6 to 4
-Make Me Smile
-Feelin' Stronger Every Day
-Beginnings
-Saturday In The Park
-Colour My World
-Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
-Questions 67 and 68
-Old Days
-Just You And Me
-Call On Me
-Another Rainy Day in New York City
-No Tell Lover
-(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
-Alive Again



As for me, I got into the band when they were already in free fall mode (relative to their early years).  The first release after I became a fan was Night and Day.  So I never really knew what it was like for them to be one of the hottest names in Rock and Roll and putting out top selling great albums all the time.  I envy that.  But the live shows are still cookin' if Chicago in Chicago is any indication.

Orbert, great job with this thread.   A masterpiece.


Now, go do your top 50 songs list while it's fresh on your mind.  :biggrin:
Title: Chicago: Final Thoughts
Post by: Orbert on October 31, 2013, 04:14:44 PM
Yeah, I stumbled across some video of the horns recording "Somethin' Comin', I Know".  Interesting that they were in a hotel room, apparently recording on a mobile between shows.  Yep, it's a Lamm tune, the "B-side" of Loughnane's "America".  I know that now in the digital age, there aren't really sides, but I wouldn't be surprised if they still think in terms of singles needing a B-side.  You can't just release one song; there have to be two.

I've never heard of The Nashville Sessions.  Looks like new studio recordings of older songs.  I've never really gotten into those.  If you're gonna re-record the songs with the current band, take the time to record a concert and do it right.  Doing it in the studio, to me, invites direct comparisons to the originals (even more than live recordings would) and there's no way they're going to be better.  It seems like you're admitting that you can't sound as good live as you can in the studio, so you go for the controlled conditions, and where overdubs are acceptable.  (To me, overdubs will never be acceptable on live albums.  Never!)  Basically, it's a cover album of your own songs, which just seems weird to me.


This was a tough discography to do, but as with the others, it gave me a reason/excuse to listen to everything.  Well, everything I could get my hands on.  I stuck with Genesis until the end, and Yes is actually still around (they're writing the new album now), but there are some albums of theirs that I'd never really dug into.  I found a greater appreciation for them by being "forced" to listen critically to them.  I had pretty much given up on ELP, so those last few albums, after they got back together, were interesting.  I'd never heard them.

Chicago was somewhere in between.  There's a "lost period" there in the 80's and early 90's.  I've had the albums (well, the downloads) for years, but honestly, they just didn't seem worth my time.  I'm glad to find out that I was wrong, at least about some of it.  Overall, I find the later material weaker, but that's usually true of any band with a long career.  The good news is that there are still good songs to be found on every album, all the way to the end.  Stone of Sisyphus is challenging and rewarding.  "Side Two" of Chicago XXX is actually pretty strong.

And who knows?  Chicago may still have an album left in them.  I really doubt it, since they're releasing singles now.  If they're doing that, they're not "saving them up" until they have an album's worth.  That's okay.  Like I said, I'll take what I can get, and this is what we get.


P.S.: I don't do Top 50 lists.  Sorry.
Title: Re: Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012) and Final Thoughts
Post by: JayOctavarium on November 02, 2013, 10:49:36 AM
Thanks for the entertaining thread Orbert! I'll admit I really didn't sit and listen to anything after IV but it was still fun.
Title: Re: Chicago: Ultimate Christmas Collection (2012) and Final Thoughts
Post by: Orbert on November 02, 2013, 01:55:37 PM
You should at least check out Chicago V.  Everybody should.  It's my favorite album of theirs, and I know it's very highly rated among other Chicago fans as well.  They had settled down into writing tight five or six minute songs, but the songs themselves have great jazzy solos and incredible horn breaks, so the "prog" wasn't quite out of their system; it had just been channelled.
Title: Re: Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)
Post by: Orbert on November 12, 2013, 08:26:11 PM
Chicago 26: Live in Concert (1999)

(https://i.imgur.com/CeXNj3k.jpg)


Bill Champlin - Keyboards, Guitars
Keith Howland - Guitars, Vocals
Tris Imboden - Drums, Percussion
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Percussion, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Flugelhorn, Cornet, Guitar, Percussion, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Percussion, Background Vocals
Walter Parazaider - Saxophones, Flute, Clarinet
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

----------

"The Ballet"
  Make Me Smile
  So Much to Say, So Much to Give
  Anxiety's Moment
  West Virginia Fantasies
  Colour My World
  To Be Free
  Now More Than Ever
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
Mongonucleosis
Hard Habit To Break
Call on Me
Feelin' Stronger Every Day
Just You 'N' Me
Beginnings
Hard to Say I'm Sorry/Get Away
25 or 6 to 4

Studio Tracks

Back to You (Lamm, Howland) – 3:41
If I Should Ever Lose You (Bacharach, Krikorian) – 4:30
(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher (Jackson, Miner, Smith) – 4:11
(vocals by Michael McDonald)

----------

The official justification for this album, according to the band and the label, is that the late 90's Chicago lineup was tight, the shows were still full of energy and excitement, and they deserved to be captured in a live album.  There hadn't been an official live album in well over 20 years (Chicago at Carnegie Hall, or Chicago Live in Japan if you count that one).  And that's all true.  As I mentioned, I saw this lineup of Chicago in 1996 and it was a great show.

The other reason of course is that Chicago had not released an album of new studio material in years.  Yes, there were Chicago 25: The Christmas Album, and Night & Day - Big Band, which were new studio albums, but technically cover albums.  It had been eight years since Chicago Twenty 1.

So it was time for either another "greatest hits" thing, or a live album.  With five official compilations and countless unofficial ones, a new live album was the way to go.

I don't have this one, and I've never heard it.  I've tried to find it, and yes I suppose I could buy it, but while I'd love to hear it, I don't really have any interest in owning it.  Reviews range from positive to lukewarm.  The sound is excellent, and the performances are inspired.

As for negatives, obvious studio doctoring is a biggie.  Another is the set list which features a lot of songs originally sung by Peter Cetera but sung here by Jason Scheff.  Other than "Beginnings" (written and still sung by Robert Lamm) and what is now known simply as "The Ballet", every song is one formerly sung by Peter, but now sung by Jason.  Yeah, Peter isn't coming back, but literally stacking the set list with songs now sung by someone else seems to underscore that.  When I saw them, Robert sang a few more ("Saturday in the Park" and "Wake Up Sunshine", probably a few others) and Keith and Bill sang some of the old Terry songs.

The other thing that brought reviews down overall is the inclusion of three new studio tracks, two of which are covers, one of them sung by Michael McDonald.  Why?  No one knows.  Sure, the official word is that he brought something special to it, they were excited to be working with him, blah blah blah, but ultimately they included studio tracks when that's just not why you buy a live album.  Maybe the new track by Robert Lamm and Keith Howland is good.  But at 3:41, is it worth the price of a CD?  I can't answer that, because I haven't heard it.

Okay, so I was a bad boy.  I finally found this online, at a place of less than stellar repute.  I wanted to hear this album so badly, I couldn't help myself.  I paid the price, caught some nasty malware that took me two days to get rid of.  But the worst part was that I finally got to hear this album, and I literally have to force myself to keep listening to it.

I'm sorry, but I really hate the way Jason Scheff sings.  With Peter's old songs, it's like he has meticulously gone through every line of every song and found at least one or two things to change, just to change them.  Change the rhythm of this line, change this one note here, this one there.  He literally never sings more than one line in a row the same way that it was originally sung.  Everything must be different.  This is how he puts his mark on things.  Like a dog marking his territory, he pisses on everything.

He did the same thing to the Big Band songs on Night and Day, and he does the same things to the Christmas songs that he sings.  Songs that he originally sang on studio albums, he sings them like an actual human.  But everything else, he pisses on.  He just can't follow someone else's melody; he can't sing a song the way it was originally sung, the way people have been listening to it for years, the way they're expecting to hear it.

Champlin does the same thing to Terry's songs.  Fucks around with the rhythm and notes just to change them.  Okay fine, I guess that makes me a fanboy.  I admit it.  But I've been listening to these songs for 40 years, and they have actual melodies.  Believe it or not, the idea is not to sing the song differently every time, or change every other word just for the hell of it.  Sure, make it your own, put your own spin on it.  But literally changing every single line?  Really?  That's what you think it means to sing these songs?

You know who doesn't do it?  Lamm.  Lamm's voice is now deep enough to sing some of Terry's old songs, and he sings them the way Terry sang them.  "Colour My World" sounds great with Bobby Lamm singing it.  He puts his mark on it, changes just a few things here and there, but he basically sings the song the way it was originally sung, the way people who've been listening to it for 40 years expect it to sound.

Actually, I kinda get it.  Champlin was not in the band when Terry was, and Jason was not in the band when Peter was.  They didn't listen to these songs every night, play them while the original singers sang them.  To Bill and Jason, these are their songs now and they get to sing them any way the want to.  Somehow, to them this means that they must change everything.  But they're basically pissing on songs which, I'm sorry, have actually melodies -- good ones -- which they're just plain ignoring.

Children plaaaa-haaay
In the pa-hark
Theydonno - ho
Eye malo-o-o-one,
Inthedark, yeah
Eventho-ho-ha-oh

Time-in tiemuh-gin,
I see yo vase!
Smylininsah-ai-ai-ai-ud!


Bill Champlin, I can say this now, but I never liked you, and I'm glad you left.

Jason Scheff, I don't care if your dad played with Elvis.  You're no Jerry Scheff on bass, and you suck as a singer, too.


The "new" song is okay, I guess.  No worse than any other of their recent ballads, though not significantly better.  At least the horns are there.  The Bacharach cover was okay, at least it had a great melody (as all Bacharach songs do), and I haven't plucked up the courage to listen to the Michael McDonald song yet.

I probably should've at least waited until I've heard the whole album, twice to be consistent and do it right, but I don't know if that will even happen.  This is really painful.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on November 12, 2013, 08:33:40 PM
While I agree with you on them vocally, (Bill's intonation has always drove me nuts)  Musically, they were right on.  The new keyboardist that replaced Bill has such a great deep voice I think you'd love him live. I know Paladia (sp?) had a concert recently so if you have a digital live music station.  check it out.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: BanksD on November 12, 2013, 08:34:56 PM
I tend to feel the same way about Champlain's singing in general with Chicago. Even when he sings on his own songs it just sounds so...bad and out of place, and I don't know who thought it would be a good idea for him to sing Kath's parts but there's no way they could've seriously for the better part of 20 years that Champlain even sounded remotely good  on them (especially on Dialogue, no idea why but that one always stuck out to me as being exceptionally bad with Bill)

Jason on the other hand I tend to really like on his own material, but on other songs I'm usually really indifferent.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on November 12, 2013, 08:52:29 PM
So it's not just me.  Thank you both.  I was afraid that people actually liked these guys.  I mean, I'm sure a lot of people do, but wow, I'm honestly not sure why.

Yeah, Jason's fine on his own songs.  He just can't bring himself to sing someone else's melodies.  Same with Bill.

Bobby and Jimmy (funny how they still call each other that) both have said how much Keith Howland reminds them of Terry.  Me too.  I thought he was fine when I saw him, though I admit that I had no idea who he was and "fine" in this context basically means that he didn't annoy me the way Bill and Jason did.  I seem to think that Bobby Lamm sang Terry's part during "Dialogue" though, not Bill.  I remember noting that there was at least one song besides "Colour My World" that Terry originally sang, which Bobby now sings.  I know they did "Wake Up Sunshine" which I've always liked, and of course "Saturday in the Park", but those are Lamm songs anyway.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on November 12, 2013, 10:51:33 PM
right there with you guys.  Can't stand Jason singing Peter's stuff.  His live vocals have always kind of annoyed me anyway.

Howland is awesome as far as I'm concerned.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: sueño on November 13, 2013, 09:34:24 AM
The cover is gorgeous...

(https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/942219_604530622940126_521201008_n.jpg)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on November 14, 2013, 04:28:02 PM
Wow, that is.  It's looks very "Autumnal" though, which is kinda wacky since the release date is Christmas.  Actually, a Christmas release date is kinda wacky, too.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 10:47:03 AM
Sometime past while lurking I had previously read through this thread in the early stages of its creation and was intrigued by Orbert’s very well written and entertaining reviews.  Mention of shifting time signatures in the early albums instantly whetted my appetite to hear this band with fresh ears.  It also made perfect sense to me that whatever 80s soft rock perceptions that many will have of Chicago (personally I have unhappy memories of endless dentist chair sits and long suffering carpool rides to-and-from school), that conventional wisdom would have it that Chicago, like Genesis, were once a “serious” band (back in the days of yore when such things were important). And naturally, as all such things were done in Rock & Roll History, along with every other band that ever existed, Chicago would inevitably walk the same cheese-drenched path that was the fate of any respectable 70s band still intending to pay the bills in the 80s. Chicago’s weapon of choice in those tough times would be the power ballad. Fair enough. Some people love that style of music and Chicago certainly must have done it well (and with gloriously blaring horns to boot!).  I can only imagine how that period of Chicago must have been the soundtrack for numerous first slow dances and teenage romantic crushes.  I can see how that would make that music special and irreplaceable to many people. More power to you!
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 10:49:18 AM
So.....backward in time so many weeks ago....

I was at the local Barnes and Nobles record section looking through the “D”s for Dream Theater’s new album, and I saw just a glance away, in the “C”s that they had both Rhino releases of Chicago Transit Authority and Chicago. So I grabbed the new Dream Theater and, with Orbert’s write-ups still fresh in mind, also decided to grab CTA (as it was only around $8 which is cheap in Barnes And Noble’s terms considering how typically overly-inflated most of their prices are) thinking “What great luck!” finding the 1st album without even really trying within a week of becoming curious.  I wasn’t immediately won over by what I heard, but I was instantly impressed by the quality on all fronts of this eclectic blend of styles, reminiscent in its diversity to the other prog bands that I had listened to religiously during my teens (you know the usual...Yes, ELP, Genesis, King Crimson, Gentle Giant, etc.). This music was somehow strangely familiar and yet at the same time brand new to my years.  It made me recall yet another time in the past....at some point I think I was 12, and huge into the Beatles, when my cousin had tried to impress upon me the importance some of the early recordings of this band (it may have even been the same album!), but I didn’t really get it at the time; probably because I didn’t really understand or appreciate jazz then and had also yet to become taken by 70s progressive bands.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 10:49:49 AM
With CTA I wasn’t really sure if I liked this band yet, but I certainly enjoyed it enough that the next time I was back in at that same Barnes and Noble’s about week or so later, I had to check the “C”s in the music section  and much to my delight...Chicago was still there! I think Chicago [II] “won me over”. Needless to say, I had to move on to III (I ordered the Friday Records release with the extra 2 tracks). I’m not sure if I like this one as much as II, but it still has many magical moments along with other things that just grab my ear and refuse to let go. I’m still digesting it, but all the same I’m realizing at this point that I really dig this band’s music. And I probably will just keep going in order (as I always do these things) moving on to Carnegie Hall...and since Kath seems my favorite writer so far (IMO writes the most uniquely put together = thereby inherently proggy songs) it stands to reason that I’ll probably end up checking out all the stuff either up to XI (or whenever Cetera starts to get so annoying that it makes it too distracting to enjoy the rest of the music anymore).
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 10:51:11 AM
(Perhaps he'd recently caught Led Zeppelin's "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" or Procol Harum's "Simple Sister" -- both of which have very similar riffs -- on the radio.)


Once, when I was driving through Ohio a decade or two ago I heard, "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", "25 or 6 to 4", and another song with the same basic riff (not the Procol Harum one, a Jeff Healey song maybe?) all in a row.
Let’s throw George Harrison’s “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” into the pile while we’re at it.

You know...for a guy who really doesn’t care what time it is he seems awfully hung up on his clock reading either 3:35 or 3:34 AM in the morning. This Lamm fellow seems to have a thing with numbers in general:
Questions 67 and 68
Poem 58
Someday (August 29, 1968)
25 or 6 to 4
It Better End Soon (1st Movement, 2nd Movement, 3rd Movement, 4th Movement)
Flight 602
... just from the first three albums
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 10:52:45 AM
Because obviously it would be too easy to mistake a rock and roll band for a bus company and accidentally buy a record album when you meant to purchase a ticket to Wheeling.

 :lol

Thanks for this thread and all the write-ups Orbert!  Some fine work here. I will be returning to your reviews to compare them with my own findings as my journey continues forward. For now I want to give the first three albums more time to settle and then...on to Carnagie Hall!!!
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on November 17, 2013, 11:50:42 AM
Hi Lupton, and welcome aboard!  Thanks for the kind words.

In some ways, Terry was my favorite writer, for the same reasons you mentioned.  His approach was different.  He was one of the only members of the band without any formal musical education, which in this case was a plus.  He had no predefined ideas about how music "should" be written, and thus was free to just put chords and melodies together that break boundaries.  Lamm and Pankow were more prolific, and also wrote some great stuff, but it was great in how they bent conventions and broke open the standard forms.  Terry just wrote what he felt.

"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is not a statement that Robert doesn't care about time.  It's that he doesn't understand everybody else's obsession with it.  When people ask him what time it is, he asks if anybody really knows what time it is.  It's philosophical, rhetorical, not interrogative.

I caught "While My Guitar Gently Weeps" on the radio recently, and noticed that descending riff in the ending.  Yet another song that uses it.  But it's a pretty common riff.


So anyway, it's great to have another Chicago fan on board, but I actually came back here to post a bit more about the new single.  It was just a happy coincidence that Lupton had posted his comments.

Click either of these to biggify them:

(https://www.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/1/7/5117551/custom_themes/817894467775020827/files/crazy-happy-lyrics-credits_01.jpg?1384544888428)

(https://www.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/1/7/5117551/custom_themes/817894467775020827/files/crazy-happy-lyrics-credits_v2_02_mini.jpg?1384545670364)

Chicago had said something recently about finally embracing technology.  There's a YouTube video made this past summer of the horn section recording in a hotel room while on tour.  Looking at the credits here, it seems they're running with it.  Drum parts recorded live, brass recorded somewhere and sometime else, bass recorded here, percussion recorded there.  Sounds like a true Frankenstein of a production.  Reminds me of the stuff Frank Zappa used to do.

But what has me concerned is that for the first time as far as I know, James Pankow is not involved.  Walt has taken some time off from the band in recent years, and he's not here on sax.  But James has always been the trombonist and arranged the horns.  He does neither here.

With Terry gone and Peter alive but with no intention of returning to Chicago, at least we had Robert Lamm and the original horn section all these years.  Two very key parts of their original sound.  Looks like we're down to just two original members now, including just one horn player, at least on this single.  Ouch.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on November 17, 2013, 12:23:53 PM
I did here a link to some rough demos Orbert and they seemed to embrace and old style of music.

Well the link is dead but they talk about it here.


https://somethingelsereviews.com/2013/04/04/hear-demos-of-two-new-chicago-songs-somethin-comin-i-know-and-watching-all-the-colors/


And welcome Lupton!
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 04:34:42 PM
Thanks for the nice welcome Orbert and kingshmegland!  :)

I’ve really enjoyed reading everybody’s comments in this thread. (and where-ever else I’ve lurked and read on this board for that matter)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Lupton on November 17, 2013, 04:41:44 PM
In some ways, Terry was my favorite writer, for the same reasons you mentioned.  His approach was different.  He was one of the only members of the band without any formal musical education, which in this case was a plus.  He had no predefined ideas about how music "should" be written, and thus was free to just put chords and melodies together that break boundaries.  Lamm and Pankow were more prolific, and also wrote some great stuff, but it was great in how they bent conventions and broke open the standard forms.  Terry just wrote what he felt.
That makes a lot of sense.  I'm still reeling from the curve ball he threw on III as compared to II.  We get mostly soulful nitty-gritty rock-n-roll stuff like “I Don’t Want Your Money” and “Off to Work” and then he pulls out that short section “Dreamin’ Home”.  Good God! Those chords!   :hefdaddy

Quote
"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is not a statement that Robert doesn't care about time.  It's that he doesn't understand everybody else's obsession with it.  When people ask him what time it is, he asks if anybody really knows what time it is.  It's philosophical, rhetorical, not interrogative.
Oh sure that makes sense too. It was not my intent to criticize Lamm.  He has very recently become sort of a newly found musical hero to me (as the rest of the band [including Cetera] are now too). I just find it funny that in one song he’s disparaging the concept of time, and then in another the chorus is a statement of time. He’s having to answer the question he doesn’t want to answer (even if the lady happens to be pretty  ;))
 
I’m just riffing. Finding stuff that’s funny to me in things that are [meant to be/are really] deep or profound. It's only for a laugh.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on November 17, 2013, 05:17:27 PM
That's cool.  It's all good.  I love talking about Chicago.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: BanksD on November 17, 2013, 09:20:37 PM
I'm glad to see this thread back up, as I've been in a massive Chicago kick the past week or two and I'm forgetting how much I'd loved this band 3 or 4 years ago when i first got into them.

It's funny though recently I've finally been getting around to albums I'd ignored for so long (Chicago X, Twenty 1, VIII, 13, XIV, and somehow I'd never heard 17 until recently) and even the weaker ones (21, and XIV have songs that I just love).

I'll always hold CTA through XI up as their best works for the most part but I can't really find much in their catalog I don't at least enjoy some of (never listened to the Christmas albums though, and don't really intend to)


All this talk of a new album has gotten me hopeful for something that's at least good, because I enjoyed some of XXX even though parts of it felt very stale.
Title: Re: Chicago (1970)
Post by: ZirconBlue on November 18, 2013, 09:01:02 AM
(Perhaps he'd recently caught Led Zeppelin's "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You" or Procol Harum's "Simple Sister" -- both of which have very similar riffs -- on the radio.)


Once, when I was driving through Ohio a decade or two ago I heard, "Babe, I'm Gonna Leave You", "25 or 6 to 4", and another song with the same basic riff (not the Procol Harum one, a Jeff Healey song maybe?) all in a row.
Let’s throw George Harrison’s “While My Guitar Gently Weeps” into the pile while we’re at it.


That was the 3rd song!  Specifically, Jeff Healey's cover version.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: sueño on November 28, 2013, 02:21:44 AM
Because Tom Jones!   :rollin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQxYYU2NnVM&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQxYYU2NnVM&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on November 28, 2013, 08:21:56 AM
Ha ha, that was great!  I grew up with Tom Jones and his weekly TV show.  I probably saw that performance when it first aired.

Gotta love how everything on TV was lip-synched back then, and they made no effort to hide it.  No wireless mikes, hell, no microphones of any kind anywhere.  But whatever.  He obviously had recorded the song at some point, the horns cooked, and they even had a guitar solo.  ♫♫
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: sueño on January 22, 2014, 10:37:10 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeZ2BRHojTs&feature=youtu.be (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeZ2BRHojTs&feature=youtu.be)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on January 22, 2014, 10:59:42 AM
Yeah, I've seen a little bit about that.  I'll check it out, of course.  It looks like it could be really good.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: sueño on January 22, 2014, 05:18:13 PM
They are also gonna be playing Carnival cruises this year!

https://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/22/3886282/carnival-cruise-lines-announces.html (https://www.miamiherald.com/2014/01/22/3886282/carnival-cruise-lines-announces.html)
Title: "Now" Chicago XXXVI (2014)
Post by: Orbert on July 19, 2014, 12:05:52 PM
Discography Thread Resurrection!!

Because they went and released a new album.



"Now" Chicago XXXVI (2014)

(https://i.imgur.com/PScW1Ix.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/J2WoHVl.jpg)

Keith Howland - Guitar, Vocals
Tris Imboden - Drums
Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Vocals
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Background Vocals
James Pankow - Trombone, Background Vocals
Walt Parazaider - Saxophone, Background Vocals
Lou Pardini - Keyboards, Vocals
Walfredo Reyes, Jr. - Percussion
Jason Scheff - Bass, Vocals

----------

Now  5:03
More Will Be Revealed  5:11
America  4:04
Crazy Happy  5:02
Free At Last  5:13
Love Lives On  5:21
Somethings' Coming, I Know  3:48
Watching All The Colors  4:15
Nice Girl  4:02
Naked In The Garden Of Allah  4:24
Another Trippy Day  4:04


First impression: Hmm, pretty good.  That opening track with the strings and semi-disco sound (or whatever that was) kinda scared me, though.

Second impression: Wow, lots of horns; that's cool.  And they've still got it, and even sound different sometimes.  Pankow's obviously been experimenting and/or has learned some new tricks in arranging them.

Third impression: Man, Keith Howland's guitar sounds great.  Like Terry would if Terry was still around.  Ah, that's right; Keith literally grew up listening to Terry Kath, and he was hired because he sounds like Terry.  I'm glad he's still with them.

Fourth impression: Okay, I'm just gonna skip that first song from now on.  I really can't stand Jason Scheff or his shitty ballads.

Fifth impression: This is a great album, improved considerably by starting with Track 2 and going from there.  It sets a completely different tone, focusing on the guitar and the horns, the rock and roll.  The other ballad makes a nice contrast, coming halfway through the album.  I don't know why they feel the need to start each "side" with a ballad, especially now that no one from the 80's or 90's cares anymore, and the rest of the album is rock and roll.

----------

I ripped it lossless to my iPod and have been listening to it pretty much non-stop for the past four or five days.  I miss the old days of listening while absorbing the credits from the liner notes, but this is cool, too, because it allows me to listen to the music and focus on that without thinking about who wrote what and who's playing what.  I did a quick skim through the credits when I opened it and saw that there are individual songwriting, playing, and production credits for each song.  This reflects how the album was made, which was rather unconventionally.  More on that later.

It's growing on me, as you can tell.  And really, that opening title track is really deceiving.  A flourish, a piano glissando, and strings hit you first, followed immediately by horns that sound great, in a mellow Sinatra kind of way, then Jason Scheff's "kinda like Peter Cetera but whinier and no balls" lead vocals come in and you think you've made a horrible mistake.  And you have.  You forgot to skip the first track.  Remember to skip that track, and you'll be fine.  I'm actually keeping this on my iPod, but without the title track.

Chicago's website and message boards have been very busy the past year or so, as news of the band working on a new album trickled out.  How were they making a new album?  Aren't they on tour right now?  What will it sound like?  Who's even in the band any more?

And the title of this one is different.  They've kept the Roman numerals, since it's their thing, but also added a title, in quotation marks, and up front.  The proper title of this album is "Now" Chicago XXXVI.  Weird huh?

But it also makes a statement.  This is how Chicago sounds now.  This is what they are now.  This is how they do it now.  They still tour pretty much constantly, doing hundreds of shows a year, so they developed a studio-quality mobile recording setup that they can take with them on the road.  They record tracks in hotel rooms and people's houses, and it sounds great, and it all gets cleaned up in production anyway.  They call it "the Rig".

Here's the thing, though.  Walter Parazaider, original woodwind player and often considered the founder of the band, does not tour with them all the time.  He was sick for a while, and has taken some time off.  Also, in at least one of the countless interviews over the years that always ask the same questions, the answer was "We thought we'd be retired by now. No one thought we'd still be doing this 40 years later."  I'm sure that's true, but the more people ask, and the more they have to think about it and answer it, the more often it's gonna hit them: I'm 70something years old.  I should be home playing with my grandkids and chilling and enjoying life, but I'm still working.  It's the greatest job in the world, playing music, but I still do it and I do it every night, and I'm getting really old.

These guys were playing sold out shows in Carnegie Hall when I was growing up, and I'm old, so what does that make them?

Anyway, the point is that despite the official band roster I've given above, taken directly from the CD jacket (alphabetized to make it consistent with other discographies), Walt Parazaider isn't on this album very much.  Each song has individual writing and playing credits, as they were recorded in bits and pieces while on the road (and sometimes in the studio), and since Walt wasn't on the road most of the past few years, that's not him on saxophone.  James Pankow, who always arranged the horns for all songs, doesn't do that anymore either, and doesn't always play trombone here.

In fact, if you read the credits carefully, only half the songs are played by Chicago and only members of Chicago.  That opening sappy 80's-sounding ballad by Jason Scheff is just him, Howland on guitar, and a bunch of session guys.  Lamm, Pardini and Loughnane do some vocals.  Those aren't Chicago horns (which is why they sound so different) and that's sure not them on strings.  That's also why I have no trouble skipping the title track.

The real opening track is "More Will Be Revealed", a Lamm song featuring mostly the actual band Chicago.  Ray Herrmann is credited on saxophones, and he's the guy who tours with them when Walt's not with them, so I'm sure we're listening to horns recorded on the road.  But it's a good song, and it's actually Chicago "now".

"America" is deceiving.  A Lee Loughnane composition, it starts with the words "America, America is free. America, America is you and me" being sung in lush major-seventh harmonies, and critics have already blasted it for being the obligatory ultra-patriotic song that's so common nowadays.  But that's because they stopped listening once they heard that.  That's the refrain, and it's meant to be ironic.  The first verse follows immediately:

The dream is fading before our eyes
Take some time to revive it
"We the People" must start right now
Don't expect our leaders to show us how
They don't have a clue what to do


Yeah, kind of a different message there.  A good song, mostly Chicago, except Lee is the only Chicago horn player.  Session guys on sax and trombone.

"Crazy Happy" is a Scheff/Lamm collaboration.  They share lead vocals, and Scheff not only plays bass but also keyboard bass and some regular keyboards.  Same sax and trombone player as on the previous track (Larry Klimas and Nick Lane, respectively) but otherwise Chicago.

"Free At Last" is old-school Chicago.  A Keith Howland song, featuring his awesome Kath-like guitar and actual Chicago horns.  Okay, mostly.  Herrmann on sax, but remember, that's as close as we usually come these days.  Horns are arranged by Pankow, so they sound great, like Chicago.  I should mention that Pankow doesn't seem to be the sole horn arranger anymore.  Most of the horn arranging credits go to Lamm and Loughnane.

"Love Lives On" is the other Scheff ballad.  I'll probably nuke this one from my iPod, too.  Scheff, Imboden on drums, Pankow and Loughnane on horns, the rest are session guys.  Really, what is the deal with recording an album, calling it Chicago, and having half the songs basically solo tracks by individuals and whoever they felt like getting?  If Scheff wants to make a solo album and fill it with his crappy ballads, let him.  Why muck up Chicago albums with them, when Chicago doesn't even play on them?  Oh yeah that's right, because no one would buy a Jason Scheff solo album.  They'd sell even worse than Peter Cetera solo albums did, and people actually liked him.

"Something's Coming, I Know" is another Lamm song, and it's all Chicago, including Walt on sax.  A little bit cheesy, but it sounds great, and I love hearing those horns.

"Watching All The Colors" is a Lamm song from another side of his writing book, the psychedelic side.  But it's good, and it's all Chicago once again.

"Nice Girl" is a Howland/Scheff collaboration, and once you know that, it kinda sounds like it.  Howland's the rocker in the band, and that balances out Scheff's wimpiness.  Catchy song, poppy but with some nice guitar work and their "road" horn section.

"Naked in the Garden of Allah" is weird song, but kinda cool.  Another Lamm experimental thing, its lyrics are sparse and impressionistic, but the idea seems to be that we are all the same, all children of whatever creator we may believe in, however we perceive Him to be, and really, getting along shouldn't be that hard.  This concept is reflected in the title itself.  All Chicago, plus a session guy named John McFee on fiddle.  Yes, fiddle.  It's an interesting addition, and sounds cool.

"Another Trippy Day" is Lamm being not-so-serious again, and having some fun with vocal effects.  It's listed as a "bonus track" which doesn't seem to mean a lot when the album is only released on CD anyway, but whatever.  All Chicago, plus John Van Eps (who has co-writing credit) on synths.

----------

Listening to this album multiple times before digging into the credits turned out to be a good thing.  I likely would have focused too much on who's playing, or not playing, on individual songs, and tried to hear differences.  Instead, I was able to enjoy an album of great music and not worry about that.  It does bug me that it says Chicago on the cover and some members of the band don't feel compelled to actually record their songs with the band Chicago.  Each member also has production credit on their own songs.  You'd think that this would result in a disparate collection of songs with no cohesive sound to them, but the results are remarkably consistent.  What part of the process is that, the mastering?  I don't know.  But somewhere between recording each of the individual tracks and putting a final version of the album together for CD cutting, somebody made it all sound really good and consistent.  It sounds like an album that shows off the different sides of a band, which it is.  And I probably should stop making such a big deal about all the session guys appearing on all the songs.  Looking at it now, it's not that many, and it does add some color and variety to the songs.

Overall, I like it.  It's a good album, and a good Chicago album.  No, it's not 70's Chicago.  That band is gone, that time is gone.  But this is a good representation of Chicago now.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: hefdaddy42 on July 19, 2014, 01:30:33 PM
Sounds great, I will check it out!
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: Nel on July 19, 2014, 03:54:03 PM
Bought it on release day, still need to hear it. I have it as Chicago XXXVI: Now in my iTunes. I hate the way the band stylized it.  :lol
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: Orbert on July 19, 2014, 05:36:39 PM
Same here.  Chicago XXXVI: Now.  It's a happy coincidence, but I've always found it kinda cool how Roman numerals end up in the correct order when you alphabetize by them.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: Jaq on July 19, 2014, 06:53:52 PM
Had no idea they had an album coming out. Cool.

Of course, since I am such a fan of Orbert's discography threads, anything new in one of them-will the new Yes get the same treatment?-is always a plus  :hefdaddy
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: Orbert on July 19, 2014, 07:32:45 PM
Fear not, I'll be adding a write-up on the new Yes album to that discography as well.  But I'm pretty busy again this week, with another gig coming up, so I don't know when.  I still have a lot of listening to do.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: Big Hath on July 25, 2014, 09:16:20 PM
ok, Orbert.  I know this is related to Chicago 17, but bear with me as this is the kind of thing that is right up your alley.

Every version of "Only You" that I've heard begins immediately with the drum beat and synth bass.  However, I was listening to the hi-rez version I got from HD Tracks and there is a 5-second horn swell before the drums and bass come in.  Have you heard both of these versions?  It's a small thing, but it does add a bit more character to the song.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: Orbert on July 25, 2014, 10:11:03 PM
The only version I've ever heard is the (I suppose) the "regular" album version from Chicago 17.  A horn swell leading up to it sounds cool, and I'm sure it does add a little something.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography - "Now" (2014)
Post by: bl5150 on August 18, 2014, 09:07:22 AM
Followers of this thread might be interested in this interview on That Metal Show (of all places) with the daughter of Terry Kath about her upcoming doco .  Not the deepest interview of all time but interesting nonetheless. 

https://www.spreaker.com/user/cmsrocks/interview-with-michelle-kath

I need to review this thread at some point - Chicago got a runner up mention (#51) in my Top 50 and are one of the very few 60's/70's bands that played a part in my childhood.   I need to educate myself a bit more on the early stuff - I have maybe 10 albums of theirs but with a band like Chicago that's just scratching the surface.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on October 07, 2016, 08:01:44 PM
hey Orbert, were you aware that this existed?

https://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Quadio-Disc-Blu-Ray-Audio/dp/B01EWGTEGS/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1475891841&sr=8-1&keywords=chicago+quadio


seems to be every Chicago album that had a quad mix, now on blu ray. CTA, II, III, V, VI, VII, IX (greatest hits), and X

Quote
new boxed set that includes quadraphonic and stereo mixes in high resolution 192/24 DTS-HD Master Audio on nine Blu-ray Audio discs

Quote
Housed in a rigid two-piece box, nine albums are presented in sleeves that replicate the original release down to the last detail, including mini posters, and the iron-on that came with Chicago VIII. To ensure optimal sound quality, Rhino has remastered each album in both its original quadrophonic and stereo mix on each disc
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on October 07, 2016, 09:16:37 PM
I saw some advertising for that a while back, and got very excited.  Then I saw the prices for the box, and was somewhat less excited, but still interested to read the reviews.  Reviews are mixed.  There were apparently some "technical issues" with some of the pressings, supposedly one of the discs is actually mono or something like that; it's actually been a little while since I read the reviews so I don't remember exactly, but apparently there were some real problems.  As for reviews, some people raved and others pointed out specific things that were bad, so my enthusiasm waned.  I remember seeing "missed opportunity" more than once, but also people pointing out that this is probably all we're going to get, so take it or leave it, depending on how hardcore of a fan you are, and what your finances allow.

I'm building a small collection of Blu-ray, DVD-A, 5.1, 4.0, and whatever "other" formats are out there, and would really love to get this, but I wanted to wait until they got the bugs worked out, then I kinda forgot. :(  I hope there's still some out there.  It would also be nice if they were released individually, but who knows?

Have you heard anything about the set?
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on October 07, 2016, 09:39:51 PM
honestly I just stumbled across this collection today and I've only read those amazon reviews, which for the most part are glowing, although one or two do mention a possible mastering error.

I guarantee this set has been discussed ad nauseam over at the Steve Hoffman forums.  Might be worth it to try to find the thread where it is being discussed for a more detailed discussion and any possible fixes that have been made.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on October 07, 2016, 11:09:56 PM
as I suspected, here is the 57(!) page thread on this set alone.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/quadio-chicago-bluray-box-set-announced.531917/
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on December 08, 2016, 10:14:58 PM
ok here's another one you may already have heard about, Orbert.  I know you are a fan of Steven Wilson's work with the Yes catalog.  Now he is doing something with Chicago.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there will be a surround mix.

Quote
A 2017 stereo version of Chicago II, an album that still sounds like nothing else.

Originally issued in 1970, Chicago's second album brims with confidence and inspiration as it draws on everything from ambitious orchestral music to heavy rock.

Chicago II has been remixed before, but never like this. For the first time, a stereo remix from the 16-track multi-track tapes made it possible for Steven Wilson to bring out elements that were muffled or submerged in the mix. The result is a stereo version of Chicago II that boasts a clarity and punch it didn't possess before.

Pre-order for 27th January release.


https://www.burningshed.com/store/progressive/product/99/8237/
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on December 09, 2016, 08:03:22 AM
Whoa!  No, I hadn't heard about this before.  I'll definitely pick it up.  Too bad about no 5.1 mix, but he probably thought it might be overkill since they recently released all the quad (4.0) mixes.  I want those, but as far as I know, they're only available all together in the one box, and the mixed reviews - combined with the price - are scaring me.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on December 09, 2016, 08:24:42 AM
yeah, this is a definite buy for me too even though I don't usually buy multiple copies of an album unless a surround mix is involved.  Every one of his remix projects I've purchased has been a winner so far and I can't imagine he would take on the project unless he thought he could work some magic with it.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: hefdaddy42 on December 09, 2016, 11:07:44 AM
ok here's another one you may already have heard about, Orbert.  I know you are a fan of Steven Wilson's work with the Yes catalog.  Now he is doing something with Chicago.  Unfortunately it doesn't seem like there will be a surround mix.

Quote
A 2017 stereo version of Chicago II, an album that still sounds like nothing else.

Originally issued in 1970, Chicago's second album brims with confidence and inspiration as it draws on everything from ambitious orchestral music to heavy rock.

Chicago II has been remixed before, but never like this. For the first time, a stereo remix from the 16-track multi-track tapes made it possible for Steven Wilson to bring out elements that were muffled or submerged in the mix. The result is a stereo version of Chicago II that boasts a clarity and punch it didn't possess before.

Pre-order for 27th January release.


https://www.burningshed.com/store/progressive/product/99/8237/
Holy crap!
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ytserush on December 29, 2016, 05:55:01 PM
as I suspected, here is the 57(!) page thread on this set alone.

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/quadio-chicago-bluray-box-set-announced.531917/

I love that forum.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on January 03, 2017, 11:25:13 AM
I recorded and watched Now More Than Ever: The History of Chicago (https://www.cnn.com/shows/history-of-chicago).  It was on CNN, which I thought was a little weird, but I thought maybe it would be more like a true documentary than an infortainment piece if it's on a news channel rather than MTV or E! or something.

I'm still not sure how much difference it made, but I will say that it was a great film, clearly made by someone with love and respect for the band and what they've done.  Most of the focus was on the early days of the band, the late 60's and early 70's, but also plenty of time on the changes they went through later (especially after losing Terry Kath) and so on, right up until a few years ago.  January 1 was the premiere broadcast, so the film is Copyright 2017, but you can tell that a lot of the content was finished a year or more ago.  There are quotes from people saying what a shame it is that they're not in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, then they follow it with the fact that Chicago was actually inducted last year, so that was odd.  Also, they mention that the band is still playing over 100 shows a year, which is true and very cool, but it seems like they should've mentioned that they released an album last year of all new material, and it's (IMO) the best one in probably 20 years.

Overall though, a pretty good flick.  Two hours as broadcast (with commercials), but not too many breaks.  The first one wasn't until over 20 minutes in, and I was starting to wonder if there were going to be any breaks at all.  Silly me.  Anyway, a solid history of the band, for those who are interested.  It felt balanced, not shying away from the negative.  Danny Seraphine was fired, Peter Cetera did quit, and later said that he never really liked the horns.  David Foster was and still is an asshole, but he also dragged the band into the 80's and likely saved them.  That kind of thing.  I might watch it again, or at least the first half or so.  Some really good pictures and live footage of the early days.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on January 03, 2017, 11:48:04 AM
can't wait to watch it.  I saw it was directed by someone named Peter Pardini, who happens to have the same last name as a current member of the band.  Any idea if they are related?
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on January 03, 2017, 11:59:57 AM
I saw it myself and yeah, I agree about David Foster.  PC did hijack the band with Foster.  CNN did a great job.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on January 03, 2017, 12:23:50 PM
I tried to find a reference to whether Peter Pardini and Lou Pardini are related, and couldn't find one, but it does seem quite a coincidence.

The whole thing with David Foster "promoting" Peter Cetera to front man was interesting.  I had my own idea about how it played out, and was glad to see that it was basically correct.  They had a couple of big hits with Cetera singing, right around when video and MTV were really getting big, and the music scene was changing.  Good or bad, the norm for a band is to have a single front person, and that's what viewers expect.  Also, he had that high tenor voice that melts panties, so he became "the" lead singer.  Then he decided he didn't really need the band and struck out on his own.

Kinda shitty what they did to Donnie Dacus.  Some of that was new to me.  They'd obviously brought him on board because he was so different from Terry Kath in every possible way (guitar, voice, looks), then realized that that wasn't working, so they dumped him and got a Terry clone.  I'm glad they did, but lining up a successor to make the transition easier for yourself when you dump someone is one of most blatant examples of putting "the company" ahead of the individual, and it saddened me to find that Chicago was no different.  Yes, it was a business decision, and music is their business, but damn.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Cool Chris on January 03, 2017, 07:46:41 PM
I watched part of that, knowing next to nothing about the band. It seemed like a well-constructed documentary. I am always fascinated by bands who have so many line-up changes over such a long career.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: red barchetta on January 03, 2017, 09:35:31 PM
Cetera did not want to leave Chicago but he wanted to do what Phil Collins and a few others were doing. Make solo albums and tour on his own and come back to the band but the band did not agree. And they asked him to sign a contract for a 100% Chicago dedication time and there he went.

I don't have CNN on my cable package so unfortunately I could not see it but soon it will be on the web. I have been listening to their music quite a lot the past few months and it's too bad a time machine doesn't exist.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Cool Chris on January 03, 2017, 10:15:24 PM
I was hoping to hear that Cetera approached the band wanting to go on a hiatus, but when they didn't want to, he proclaimed Chiacgo was his baby, and then went off to play with another band whose bassist recently passed, hoping it would turn in to a full time gig.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on January 03, 2017, 10:48:13 PM
Cetera did not want to leave Chicago but he wanted to do what Phil Collins and a few others were doing. Make solo albums and tour on his own and come back to the band but the band did not agree. And they asked him to sign a contract for a 100% Chicago dedication time and there he went.

Most bands take time off between albums, tours, etc., in a regular cycle.  Chicago doesn't take that kind of time off; they never have.  In the early days, they played over 300 gigs a year.  I would guess that in the 80's, they were still playing at least 200 shows a year.  They weren't just gonna sit for six months while Peter went and did a solo album, not even three or four.  So from his point of view, which is a valid one, they forced him to quit by not allowing him to do his solo thing on the side.  The band I'm sure saw it differently.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: hefdaddy42 on January 04, 2017, 03:32:39 PM
Forgot all about this.  Of course, I haven't had the time to watch it anyway.

If it isn't on my cable system's On Demand, it will probably be on one of the streaming services soon.  There are a shit ton of music documentaries on Netflix, Amazon, etc.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on January 04, 2017, 03:38:03 PM
Cetera didn't want horns and that was a big issue.  So I think he was the cause for him not being in the band.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on January 04, 2017, 04:27:59 PM
I knew Cetera was the last to join the band, since Lamm had them convinced for a while that they go work as a six-piece and he'd cover bass parts on the organ pedals, but I didn't realize how much later Cetera had joined.  The documentary has a bunch of promo pictures they'd shot as a six-piece, before Cetera.  The others were specifically on board with the horns.  Cetera said later (after quitting) that he never really liked the horns and stuff.

So yeah, I'm sure that played into it, but he played for 15 years in that band and never bought into the entire premise of the band's existence?  Loser.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on January 04, 2017, 04:58:17 PM
He seemed very self conscious from the Doc.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: red barchetta on January 04, 2017, 09:52:16 PM
Cetera did not want to leave Chicago but he wanted to do what Phil Collins and a few others were doing. Make solo albums and tour on his own and come back to the band but the band did not agree. And they asked him to sign a contract for a 100% Chicago dedication time and there he went.

Most bands take time off between albums, tours, etc., in a regular cycle.  Chicago doesn't take that kind of time off; they never have.  In the early days, they played over 300 gigs a year.  I would guess that in the 80's, they were still playing at least 200 shows a year.  They weren't just gonna sit for six months while Peter went and did a solo album, not even three or four.  So from his point of view, which is a valid one, they forced him to quit by not allowing him to do his solo thing on the side.  The band I'm sure saw it differently.

You're right. That band was touring heavily. But who knows if the band would have agreed for a hiatus. Maybe they would have made better music. We will never know.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: DragonAttack on January 18, 2017, 07:49:57 PM
We watched the special a couple of weekends ago.  Very well done.  I do wish they would have shown each album cover of their gold and platinum sellers, release dates, where it charted, ....it helps those unfamiliar with a band.  Also, would show how idiotic the RRHoF is for snubbing them for so long. 

Their music was a bit hard to grasp for this early teen.  Many a song was edited out of my versions, but, then again, there was so much there to have in such a short time.  Like many, my interest in the band waned before the 70s closed, but not my listening to their early offerings.  Chicago V is still a Top 50 all time album for me, 'Dialogue I & II' is still relevant today, there's nothing better than hearing 'Saturday in the Park' on a, well, sunny Saturday, and 'Free' is just such a kick axe 'hidden' gem.

Finally got up to Orbert's review of 'Carnegie' (my vinyl listening to it starts tonight).  Oh, and as to III, I am impressed that Orbert edited his review almost 2 1/2 years after his original post.  And just impressed with the reviews, period.

Blast from the past:  I have the first five albums courtesy of Columbia House orders from the mid 70s.  Partly because of the 'buy 2, get one free' promos.  So, I'd buy a Chicago double LP for $5.99, and get 'Aqualung' at no cost.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on January 18, 2017, 08:50:30 PM
:hat
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Cool Chris on January 18, 2017, 11:08:15 PM
I remember in the late 80s, dancing with *name deleted* at the middle school dance to "You're the Inspiration." Goddamn that was a schmaltzy moment, I can still remember it to this day. That was the song to make you think about the girl you had a crush on.

And along that time, my friends and I used to joke that the band had to have the absolutely worst luck with women, just look at the song names from that era: "If She Would Have Been Faithful"  "Will You Still Love Me"  "Heart in Pieces" "I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love" "Look Away"  If you just got dumped by someone, Chicago wrote the soundtrack of your life. Funny to think that for years that was the extent of my knowledge of them.

Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: DragonAttack on February 04, 2017, 06:11:37 PM
^
The comment as to the song titles cracked me up :tup

I made it through half the album(s) last weekend.  I never liked 'South California Purples' on the studio LP, but I really enjoyed the longer live version.  And I just listened to it again while I've been on line.  I really like it.

The piano intro to 'Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?' was way too long (the studio intro is a gem that people never hear).  This was zzzzzz.  As was some of the bantering.  They should have edited this down to being 'only' a 3 LP set ;) 

Oddly, the next song I'll hear is 'Introduction'.  That should have been the opener, or 'Sing A Mean Tune Kid'.  That was a problem I had back in the day.  The track order is 'boring' (sorry).  What was/were the setlists that week?

What surprised me about the whole thing, is that my vinyl sounded really good 40+ years later.  Guess I didn't abuse it with my old ceramic cartridge.  In other words, I probably only listened to it once or twice back in the day.

[btw, I have all of those HUGE posters, but no voter registration card.....]
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on May 12, 2018, 02:36:12 PM
Chicago Quadio

In the 1970's, Chicago was Columbia Records' flagship act, and Columbia Records was also one of the labels which ventured into "quadraphonic" sound. Every studio album up through Chicago X had both a stereo and quad mix, and if you had the right equipment, you could play the album in glorious four-channel sound. My friend Jai (pronounced "Jay") had a quad setup, turntable with built-in four-channel amp and four speakers, but I don't remember if he ever got any quad albums. This was in junior high, when we were all learning about music and what there was, and what we liked. (Bonus Trivia: Jai's mom was a Chicago fan and had the second album on LP, and that was my introduction to the band. She was also a stunning, beautiful woman. My first "friend's hot mom" crush. Literally where the term MILF comes from.)

Rhino has gotten ahold of all the original quad master tapes and repackaged them on Blu-ray disc. Blu-ray supports up to 5.1 discrete high-def channels, and the quad mixes are lossless 4.0. It sounds absolutely fantastic. Quadraphonic, ancestor of Surround Sound, was just too far ahead of its time, but we can do it justice now.

I got a bonus at work for doing something someone thought was amazing, so I spent some of it and finally got this. I can heartily recommend this boxed set to any Chicago fan, or anyone who loves good music.

(https://imgur.com/aJqtOnS.jpg)

Each album comes in its own cardboard jacket, each a perfect replica of the original LP jacket. Only the studio albums were done in quad, so the amazing Chicago at Carnegie Hall (unofficially "Chicago IV") is not here. (Chicago IX: Chicago's Greatest Hits is here.)

(https://imgur.com/YJ05TSJ.jpg)

(https://imgur.com/IUNsfDA.jpg)

(https://imgur.com/ywaD6Nl.jpg)

Lyrics on the sleeve, with Beverly Scott's distinctive script looking exactly as it did over 40 years ago. The poster-photo foldout is also here, in CD size. The disc looks like the original LP if all the music was on one side.

(https://imgur.com/Oo9XHsC.jpg)

These were twice as big originally, but with seven guys in the band, it's still a lot of paper. Kudos to Rhino for faithfully reproducing original posters and everything. They're all like this. All the posters, every detail. Even the iron-on patch that came with Chicago VIII is here. The jackets that originally "opened up" open up.

The only video content you need is the menu, which also keeps track of which song you're on. The Blu-ray disc is set up to start playing automatically when you put it in, just as a CD would.

(https://imgur.com/1hOcbb9.jpg)

I listened to Chicago V today and was in pure musical bliss for 45 minutes.

I set a chair in the middle of the room (back to the TV) and just disappeared into the music. Horns are over there, one guitar is over there, one's in that corner, there's a piano along that wall and the organ's over there, you're sitting in the middle of the drum kit, the bass is right next to you, vocals are all around you, it's fucking amazing. Then the next song, some things are different, some things move around. Horns are spread out now, trumpet over there, sax over there, trombone in that corner. I have been listening to this album for over 40 years, and I heard new stuff, new licks I hadn't heard before, or heard them now more clearly. I love that!

If spreading the music along the X-axis (left-right) separates things and lets you hear stuff more clearly, imagine when it's spread out in two dimensions, X and Y, spread throughout the room. I have a decent surround system in my living room (I would have it no other way) and this is what it's for.

I already had The Chicago Transit Authority Quadio disc, which was released a few years back, and it's amazing. I'm sure the response to that release was why they felt they could go ahead and do them all. I listened to Chicago the other day. That was interesting because some of the tracks -- that is to say, some specific tracks on certain songs -- were slightly different takes. The single version of "Wake Up, Sunshine" (the one you hear on the radio sometimes) is here rather than the original studio version. Exactly the same except for that one vocal line. You know which one I mean. A few lines here and there during "The Ballet for a Girl in Buckhannon" are different. You know what? I like it! I like hearing new and different things. Kinda like how the Steven Wilson remixes bring out just a few gems here and there. So far, it's been much more enhancing than distracting, and my response has been positive every time. Maybe eventually something I really liked which I thought was critical to the song will be changed, but it hasn't happened yet.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on May 13, 2018, 08:20:54 PM
Bob, that is impressive.  Pm me how much that cost.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on May 13, 2018, 09:01:10 PM
PMs are so last-decade, man.

It's $125 at Amazon. (https://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Quadio-Disc-Blu-Ray-Audio/dp/B01EWGTEGS)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on May 13, 2018, 09:05:22 PM
(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91KpWJDfObL._SX522_.jpg)

I also picked this up.  Chicago: VI Decades Live (https://www.amazon.com/Chicago-Decades-Live-4CD-1DVD/dp/B079PT1MWV/)

Review coming soon.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ReaperKK on May 13, 2018, 09:11:20 PM
What would you guys recommend as a good startongnoff point for Chicago. I’d like to check out a couple of albums this week at work, what would you say are good entry points?
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on May 13, 2018, 09:50:53 PM
Start with Chicago II or Chicago V.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: jammindude on May 13, 2018, 09:54:52 PM
Start with Chicago II or Chicago V.

This man speaks truth.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ReaperKK on May 14, 2018, 08:12:05 AM
I’ll give Chicago II a spin and report back.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Podaar on May 14, 2018, 10:04:45 AM
Orbert is the expert, but my favorite will always be Chicago Transit Authority.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on May 14, 2018, 10:24:21 AM
Starting with the debut album is always a valid option, as far as I'm concerned.  So much so that I guess I take it for granted and tend to point out other releases as starting points.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Big Hath on May 14, 2018, 02:12:46 PM
I would like to point out the debut album does have tracks entitled "Introduction" and "Beginnings"
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ytserush on May 20, 2018, 04:20:12 PM
I saw Chicago --The Hit Years Live in the used been yesterday and I wasn't going to consider it because my enjoyment of Chicago ends in 1980 so I figured the track listing wouldn't be something I'd want. but it turns out there's nothing on there after '75 or "76 so I picked it up.

It's one of those gray market recordings and the fidelity isn't that great but the performances are nice although there is no indication of where they were recorded.

 Thought I might have some of these recordings on other live releases and I might (A few performances sound very familiar to me) , but there is some stuff I don't have. Last track is a medley of I'm a Man/25 or 6 to 4/Beginnings which I thought was cool. Never heard that before.

Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on June 09, 2018, 12:36:25 PM
When I saw them back in '76, the big ending medley was "(I've Been) Searchin' So Long/Mongonucleosis" with Mongo breaking into a jam which becomes the drums/percussion jam spot, then that led into "25 or 6 to 4".  By this point, "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" was right before the intermission, the end of Set 1.

When I saw them again in '96, the big ending medley was similar.  I don't remember exactly which tunes because I wasn't expecting it to morph into the big ending thing, but it did finish with the drums/percussion spot going into "25 or 6 to 4".

So throwing "Beginnings" in there is new and cool.  I need to check that out.

The piano intro to 'Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?' was way too long (the studio intro is a gem that people never hear).  This was zzzzzz.  As was some of the bantering.  They should have edited this down to being 'only' a 3 LP set ;) 

Oddly, the next song I'll hear is 'Introduction'.  That should have been the opener, or 'Sing A Mean Tune Kid'.  That was a problem I had back in the day.  The track order is 'boring' (sorry).  What was/were the setlists that week?

What surprised me about the whole thing, is that my vinyl sounded really good 40+ years later.  Guess I didn't abuse it with my old ceramic cartridge.  In other words, I probably only listened to it once or twice back in the day.

[btw, I have all of those HUGE posters, but no voter registration card.....]

I meant to come back and comment on this.  While I can see how Chicago at Carnegie Hall, with all of its "dead air" and stage banter and stuff, doesn't work for some people, I've never had a problem with it and always been 100% fine with it simply because it was the first live album I'd ever heard.  As far as I knew, this was how it works.  You completely capture the experience of being there at Carnegie Hall, which before this week, before this moment, was the sacred Mecca of Classical Music.  Chicago was the first rock/pop band to play there, and they played it like they play every show: like they're still playing in the bar on State Street.  It's a great show, and it doesn't have to have the audience screaming all the time so you can't hear the music, or each song banging directly into the next song, or Greatest Hits Only.  They play a song, it's great, they take a second to clear the spit valves and maybe tune something, then they play the next song.  Sometimes they have to switch instruments, Lee picks up the acoustic guitar sometimes, Walt has to switch from sax to flute a few times.  I love the quiet between the songs as Robert or Terry talk a bit, tell you about the next song, then they play it.  So chill.

I think Lamm's piano solo is unfuckingbelieveable.  Pensive, impressionistic, Jarrett, Satie, Lamm, then jazz trio for the second half with Peter and Danny joining him.  That entire first CD, the first three LP sides, is a 65-minute continuous live take.  No edits, opening night at Carnegie Hall.  It's an historical document, and I wouldn't change a thing.

"Introduction" was their opening song for the first two album tours.  They moved it to start the second set, right after the break.  Works fine for me.  I like how that whole LP side (with "Mother" and "Lowdown") is all continuous, too.  The second set is from closing night, since they mention that.  But obviously the entire album is meant to represent an actual concert, not just live versions of greatest hits edited together to seem like a concert where they just played live versions of greatest hits.  That's what I find boring.  Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent blokes.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Fritzinger on June 11, 2018, 06:02:50 AM
Okay, you guys inspired me to listen more to Chicago. I have the Chicago Transit Authority, III, VI, VII, Hot Streets, X, XI and 17 on vinyl. I know, VERY different albums (although I haven't heard them all them). And after reading Orberts notes on Live At Carnegie, I can't wait to hear that.

Since yesterday I have been listening to their debut on heavy rotation and I love it! The last 14 min song might be a little long (chill out Terry), but otherwise it's a great album, and it's impressing that this double LP was a DEBUT!

I have to drive to Vienna now, it's roughly a 1h drive, I think I will dive the Chicago II a listen in the car (don't have it on vinyl yet).

Do you guys think it's good to just start with the debut and listen to all the albums chronologically? I know that after 8 albums (or so) they "went pop", but I have found peace with a lot of pop music so I want to give those albums a spin too. I have a question for the Chicago fans who know all their stuff: did they ever kinda go back to their roots? Was there an album where they decided to not care about hits and just do what they initially did in the early 70s?
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on June 11, 2018, 07:20:12 AM
I've always felt that to truly understand a band, and if you have the means and opportunity, you listen to the catalog in chronological order.  With some bands, a "mix tape" might be a better choice, but then you're always getting someone else's idea of what a sampler of their music should be.

Also, road trips to me are the best time to listen to entire albums all the way through.  I don't get much listening time these days, but my car is my listening room.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on June 12, 2018, 08:15:41 AM
Chicago: VI Decades Live

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/91KpWJDfObL._SX522_.jpg)

Four CDs plus a DVD.  Also, a nice photo booklet with lots of notes.  The first two CDs are the complete performance at the Isle of Wight Festival, August 28, 1970.  CDs 3 and 4 are live recordings taken over the years, chronologically, from 1969 to 2014, spanning six decades, hence the name of the box set.  The DVD contains a complete concert broadcast from the German television show "Rockpalast".  It was recorded February 12, 1977 during the tour of Chicago X ("the chocolate album").  It also contains a bonus video of the band playing "What's This World Coming To?" live in the studio.

First, the concert DVD.  Not only because I personally watched it first before listening to the CDs, but because for me this is the gold mine.

Anyway You Want
Saturday In The Park
Skin Tight
Just You 'N' Me
Hope For Love
You Are On My Mind
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon
Beginnings
Scrapbook
A Hit By Varese
Call On Me
Takin' It On Uptown
If You Leave Me Now
Once Or Twice
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
25 Or 6 To 4
Got To Get You Into My Life
I'm A Man
What's This World Comin' To (bonus track)

I was pleasantly surprised that they still ventured off into extended jams sometimes, something I'd assumed (for some reason) that they'd stopped doing by the time they had enough hits to just play an entire show of hits.  No.  They still played concerts of songs that they wanted to play, songs that showed off their versatility and musicianship.  I'm reminded now of that part of the CNN documentary where Lamm is reminiscing on a conversation he had with Terry about maybe playing a "greatest hits tour".  Other bands do it, why not Chicago?  Terry scoffed and called him a "fucking sellout".  So obviously they never did that while Terry was around, which I find reassuring.

It starts off innocently enough, with "Anyway You Want", the opener from Chicago VIII and kept around for this tour as well.  Then of course into a hit, "Saturday in the Park" to get the crowd really going.  "Skin Tight" from the current album gets an interesting response.  It's not well-known, but it does have a killer horn break.  It's one of my personal faves from Chicago X despite the cheesy, blatant lyrics.  Then another hit, which Lamm introduces as his favorite Jimmy Pankow song, "Just You 'N' Me".

I know that Terry was in many ways the heart and soul of the band, and some of his songs are my favorites, but "Hope For Love" is the weepy, sappy side of Terry that I just never got into.  All the momentum drops out at this point.  But it's Terry's first real moment, so there you go.  "You Are On My Mind", another from Chicago X, follows, and again it's IMO one of the better songs from that album.  Also, we get the first extended jam of the evening at the end.

"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is awesome, as always, then the first set concludes with the "Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon".  It's awesome how they kept changing things, adding little bits here and there, but never distracting and never deviating from the original structure.  It's mostly a handful of times that make you go "hey, that was cool".  I mean, even at this point, they'd been playing this piece for six or seven years.  You can't just keep playing it the same way every night for that long (and of course they had no idea that they'd still be playing it another 40 years later).

"Beginnings" opens the second set, with the coda section rearranged a bit, which they seemed to do every couple of tours.  "Scrapbook" from the new album follows, again one of the stronger tunes.  It's short, but packs a lot, including some great horn work, into three minutes.

Then it's time to get weird.  The opener from Chicago V, my personal favorite, "A Hit By Varese" is only slightly psycho on the album, but here, they go for it.  This is the avant-garde jazz side of the band that I've missed, and I was thrilled to find that they were still at it as recently as this tour.  When I saw them on the next tour, Terry's last, I don't remember them playing it.  Anyway, most of the song proceeds as on the album, but the jam at the end somehow goes off into another dimension, and hangs out there for a while.  I'm trying to remember now if they bring it back, or just leave you out there.  A truly mind-blowing performance of a song that's a little weird to start with.  I literally had to take a break for a while after this song was over.

"Call On Me" brings things back to normal.  Loughnane's first composition was a hit, and features a great horn break.  An early version of "Takin' It On Uptown" (eventually released on Chicago XI) follows.  They had to play "If You Leave Me Now" sometime, so here it is.  I'd always thought that it was French horns on the record, but the Chicago horns sound amazing here.  Lee pulls out a flugelhorn for that rich, mellow sound, and the inversions are deceptive.  Pretty sure the trombone is on top.  Pankow is a genious at arranging three horns to sound like six.

"Once Or Twice", the other Terry Kath song from Chicago X, is next.  I like this one.  The "chocolate album" opens and closes with Kath songs, and this is the opener, a barn-burner at such a high tempo that even with three verses and a double-verse saxophone solo, it's over and done in three minutes.

"(I've Been) Searchin' So Long" starts the big medley, going into "Mongonucleosis", the drums/percussion jam, and eventually "25 Or 6 To 4".  The first encore is The Beatles' "Got To Get You Into My Life", which is said to be what gave Robert Lamm the idea of forming a pop band with horns.  They finish with "I'm A Man", another cover, but for some reason the song which they've done as the final encore for many, many years. A good song, though never really a fave, and a bit odd to do two covers for the encore, but thus ends the concert.

"What's This World Comin' To" is, as mentioned above, a live studio performance of a song from Chicago VI.  I'm honestly not sure why they included it here, but they probably just found it somewhere, it's a video, so they put it on the DVD.  It's a slightly more "live" version of the song than on the album, but still very tight of course, and overall a great performance of one of my favorite songs from Chicago VI, so certainly a worthwhile addition.

----------

Okay, this is taking long than I thought it would.  Silly me.  I'll be back later to go over the CDs.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on June 12, 2018, 08:56:03 AM
Oh i need to buy that.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on June 12, 2018, 12:38:20 PM
Chicago: VI Decades Live (continued)

Disc 1 - Isle of Wight Festival 8/28/70
  1. Introduction
  2. South California Purples
  3. Beginnings
  4. In The Country
  5. Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (Free Form Intro)
  6. Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
  7. Mother

Disc 2 - Isle of Wight Festival 8/28/70 (conclusion)
  1. It Better End Soon
  2. Ballet For A Girl In Buchannon
  3. 25 Or 6 To 4
  4. I'm A Man

There are live recordings which put you there, in that venue, in the audience, and you are listening to it live just as it happened and it's amazing.  Then there are live recordings which sound pretty good, and there are things about the performance that are great, but also a number of times where it kinda strikes you how it's tighter on the studio version and you kinda miss that.  Or the mix is okay but not great.  Or technical difficulties cause issues that are really no one's fault, but they affect the recording and thus your enjoyment of the recording anyway.

Despite being very aware of the significance of this live recording, and the significance of Chicago even playing The Isle of Wight Festival in 1970 (it's a British festival featuring British acts, at least at that time), I found this concert a bit disappointing.  It's certainly interesting to hear earlier live versions of songs I know so well from Chicago at Carnegie Hall.  And Terry Kath's guitar solos were always ad-libbed, every one of them, every night, so yeah, it's yet another version of "25 or 6 to 4" but I'll always stick around to hear the solo.  That kind of thing.  But there's a weird kind of vibe to the performance that's hard to nail down.  It's almost like, we're pop stars now, and this is live, and when you play live things can get loose and funky and kinda crazy, so they intentionally play things a bit looser and funkier and crazier.  The band never did learn the words to "I'm a Man", so they make up words that sound kinda like the real lyrics sometimes, but otherwise just babble and mumble their way through the song.  That's how they do this song.  It's like that on the studio version and every live version I've ever heard.  But it's okay because it's only rock and roll and who gives a shit?

I love Terry Kath's enthusiasm and course his guitar playing, but I found myself wishing he'd reined it in a bit with the "oh yeah"s.  YMMV.

Don't get me wrong.  This is a good recording, and well worth listening to.  I just feel like I won't be going back to it very often.  I'm sure there are folks for whom this concert was the holy grail, not the live DVD.

Disc: 3
  1. Poem For The People (Paris, France 12/8/69)
  2. 25 Or 6 To 4 (Paris, France 12/8/69)
  3. Liberation (Paris, France 12/8/69)
  4. Goodbye (The John F. Kennedy Center for The Performing Arts, Washington D.C. 9/16/71)
  5. Now That You've Gone (Hordern Pavilion, Sydney, Australia, 6/26/72)
  6. A Hit By Varèse (Chicago Stadium, Chicago, IL 8/13/73)
  7. If You Leave Me Now (Oakland Coliseum, Oakland, CA 12/1/77)
  8. Takin' It On Uptown (Oakland Coliseum, Oakland, CA 12/1/77)

Disc: 4
  1. Hot Streets (Greek Theater, Los Angeles, CA 8/11/78)
  2. Little One (Greek Theater, Los Angeles, CA 8/11/78)
  3. Forever (Pensacola Civic Center, Pensacola, FL 3/21/87)
  4. Medley: In The Midnight Hour, Knock On Wood, I'm A Man, Get Away (Pensacola Civic Center, Pensacola,
  5. You're Not Alone (Starplex Amphitheatre, Dallas, TX 5/30/92)
  6. The Pull (Caesar's Palace, Las Vegas, NV 3/20/94)
  7. In The Mood (Caesar's Palace, Atlantic City, NJ 7/28/94)
  8. Don't Get Around Much Anymore (Caesar's Palace, Atlantic City, NJ 7/28/94)
  9. Look Away (Acoustic) [A&E Network, Live by Request 9/5/02]
  10. America (WHYY, The Grand, Wilmington, DE 5/7/14)

The other two discs vary in quality from pretty good soundboard recordings to pretty bad bootleg quality audience recordings.  The performances themselves are fine.  Chicago eventually got over the "live ego" thing and learned how to just put on a good live show despite being huge pop stars.

Here's the thing.  I can usually listen to less-than-perfect live recordings.  I've suffered through some genuinely crappy quality bootlegs when the performances were good enough to keep my attention.  After a few songs, my ears seem to adjust, and the sound quality doesn't bother me and I can just listen to the music.  But here, since it's only one or two songs from all different recordings in widely varying quality, your ears never get a chance to adjust.  At least mine don't.  By time I've adjusted, the song is over and the next one sounds different because it's from a different time and place.

The early version of "Poem for the People" is interesting, with the original piano intro (played on that horrible Hohner Pianet that Lamm had) and without Terry's countermelodies throughout as on the studio version.  "25 or 6 to 4" and "Liberation" are always a treat because of Terry's solos.  "Goodbye" is fine.  Most Chicago tunes, because of the tightly arranged horns and vocals, don't leave much room for improv, so it often just comes down to the solos or if they do something different with the arrangement.  Of the three horn players, Lee Loughnane always seemed the weakest soloist to me.  He'll occasionally stumble upon some cool licks, but his 7/4 solo in "Goodbye" has always felt awkward and this one's no exception.  "Now That You've Gone" isn't a great mix, but I like the song so it's okay.  Unfortunately, this is another great song that's great because of its arrangement, so it's basically the same as the studio version, only not as tight and not as cleanly recorded.

"A Hit By Varèse" is probably the worst offender of the bunch.  Such a great tune, but it sounds like it was recorded on a portable tape recorder somewhere about 1/4 mile from the stage.  Abyssmal sound quality, and worst of all, they cut off the amazing avant-garde jam at the end.  They catch most of it, but it trails off.  "If You Leave Me Now" sounds just like the album, which is both good and bad (Sorry, I just don't like the song), while "Uptown" is extra-funky.  This is from the same tour as the DVD concert, so the song still had not yet reached its final form, but it's still very good, just extra loose in that Kath way that you either like or you don't.  I go back and forth.

Disc 4 is all post-Kath material, and in my case, that unfortunately means I'll visit this one even less often than the others.  I like the horns on "Hot Streets".  "Little One" (with both orchestral prequels, just not listed here) to me is mostly pointless without Terry singing it.  I sort of latched onto "Forever" from the later catalog because Lamm writes and sings fewer and fewer songs, and he was always my favorite.  But this song is a bit of a snoozer for me.

The blues medley (ha, apparently the track info ran up against Amazon's length limit, and I'm too lazy to dig it up from the book) is interesting.  I'm glad the band took some chances, did some different things.  I'm just not a fan of "In The Midnight Hour", and I've never heard of "Knock On Wood" though it's obviously another blues classic.  Then they work into yet another version of "I'm a Man" and finally "Get Away" which is the highlight for me.  Also known as the seemingly out-of-place coda from "Hard to Say I'm Sorry" (from Chicago XIII) they play it twice, just because it was originally so short that even though it totally cooks, you feel a bit cheated when it ends so soon.  So they play it twice.

"You're Not Alone" from Chicago 19 is a Bill Champlain song that I could honestly take or leave.  "The Pull" is a bit better, as it has some actual emotion to it.  The two big band songs aren't too bad, but having played in a jazz/swing band and played the original charts, these "poppified" versions feel a bit weak to me.

"Look Away" isn't bad, an acoustic version of a mellow song, and a nice closer to the set.  Except that they instead leap forward 12 years and include a live version of "America", presumably because it was released as a single and there's no official live version anywhere else.  Nice vocal harmonies.  Sorry, another pretty weak song IMO.  I get what they were going for here, and I'm glad Chicago still doesn't shy away from the political, but other than that... snooze. 

----------

And there you have it.  To be honest, I can see myself pulling out the concert DVD once in a while because it's freaking amazing.  And I'll get around to ripping the CDs because I'm a completist and this is Chicago we're talking about, but I'll end up hitting the Skip button a lot, and eventually I'll just remove a lot of them from my iPod, because there's no point to keeping anything on there that I literally skip every time.

The price continues to come down on this set, and it's currently less than $50 on Amazon.  For me, it's all about the live concert DVD, though $50 for a concert vid is pretty steep.  The Isle of Wight CDs will probably get some play as well, at least on my iPod, but I was mostly curious about the other two live CDs, and what's here didn't really surprise me that much, other than the widely varying sound quality.  I have to assume that this is the best quality they could find as they dug around for material, and this is the best they could make it sound after cleaning it all up.  And if that's true, then that's really a shame because Chicago live is really pretty amazing.  I saw the original band back in the 70's, and a later lineup in the 90's, and both were great shows.  Chicago has always played hundreds of gigs per year, even long after they could have retired and sat back.  But this is what they do.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ytserush on June 13, 2018, 07:33:41 PM
My fascination with Chicago ends around 1980. I pretty much love everything they did to that point. Never checked out much after that other than what got airplay and I wasn't all that impressed with it.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Cyclopssss on June 15, 2018, 01:02:50 AM
Awesome reviews, although that's the absolute first time ever I've heard 'in the midnight hour' and  'knock on wood' referred to as 'Blues' classics. They're soul (or 'R & B')songs to me. 
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on June 15, 2018, 07:18:49 AM
Yeah, R & B would've been more accurate.  Maybe even Motown.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Cyclopssss on June 15, 2018, 08:53:56 AM
No, it's Atlantic Soul to be precise.  ;)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: DragonAttack on June 15, 2018, 04:05:47 PM
Been so busy (and lazy) lately.....

Next to Led Zeppelin, Chicago had the strongest first four studio offerings IMO.  Just had to mention that.

Along with having a community yard sale last weekend. 

I got rid of almost 800 of my vinyls (sniff).  My asking price was  3/$1.00  (33 1/3 cents a piece......get it? ;) )

A handful or so I sold for $2-10.....including Carnegie Hall.  Put a $5 sticker on it, and it went without a hassle.  I think back to my frat days, and sharing a two story house with my best friend out in the country, with a music room and that poster (amongst others) up on the walls.

I recall listening to those four pieces of vinyl when Orbert posted about this LP about sixteen months ago.  Thanks for the memories and this thread.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on June 15, 2018, 04:25:15 PM
Awesome!  $5 is exactly what I paid for Chicago at Carnegie Hall, all those years ago...
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: bl5150 on August 06, 2018, 05:58:58 AM
If you enjoy some very faithful renditions of Chicago classics then check out a Russian group called Leonid & Friends

Just search "Leonid Chicago" on Youtube.


Some examples

Beginnings: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kQ1llzPiB4

25 or 6 to 4 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_torOTK5qc

If You Leave Me Now:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQ_j4Ytecgg


Website (which has the lot ):  https://www.leonidandf.com/
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: red barchetta on November 24, 2018, 12:41:26 PM
Been so busy (and lazy) lately.....

Next to Led Zeppelin, Chicago had the strongest first four studio offerings IMO.  Just had to mention that.

Along with having a community yard sale last weekend. 

I got rid of almost 800 of my vinyls (sniff).  My asking price was  3/$1.00  (33 1/3 cents a piece......get it? ;) )

A handful or so I sold for $2-10.....including Carnegie Hall.  Put a $5 sticker on it, and it went without a hassle.  I think back to my frat days, and sharing a two story house with my best friend out in the country, with a music room and that poster (amongst others) up on the walls.

Yes, the first 4 albums are pretty fantastic.  I got rid of a big bunch of albums 15 years ago (about 300).  I'm not sure it's the best move I have ever made but what is done is done.  Saw Chicago in september for the first time ever.  Simply perfect rendition of the 2nd album played completely from 1st to last song.  I wish I have a time capsule to go back 45 years back and see Terry Kath.

I recall listening to those four pieces of vinyl when Orbert posted about this LP about sixteen months ago.  Thanks for the memories and this thread.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: red barchetta on November 24, 2018, 12:45:01 PM
Yes, the first 4 albums are pretty much fantastic.  Saw Chicago for the first time in september and it was great.  Played a perfect rendition of the complete 2nd album but I wish I have a time capsule to go back 45 years and see Terry Kath.  I got rid of a big chunk of albums (about 300) 15 years ago but I'm not sure I did the best move.  But what is done is done.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: red barchetta on November 24, 2018, 12:47:08 PM
sorry about the reproduction of Dragonattack's quote.  Been too long out of the forum and forgot about the way to reply.
Title: Chicago XXXVIII: Born For This Moment (2022)
Post by: Orbert on November 08, 2022, 08:23:40 AM
Discography Thread Resurrection!!

Because they went and released a new album, again.



Chicago XXXVIII: Born For This Moment (2022)

(https://imgur.com/fF4pPhi.jpg)

Robert Lamm - Keyboards, Guitar, Bass, Lead Vocals, Backing Vocals, Programming
Lee Loughnane - Trumpet, Guitar, Synthesizer Bass, Backing Vocals, Brass Arrangements
James Pankow - Trombone, Keyboards, Brass Arrangements
Walfredo Reyes Jr. - Drums
Ray Herrmann - Saxophone
Neil Donell - Lead Vocals, Backing Vocals
Ramon "Ray" Yslas - Percussion
Loren Gold - Piano

----------

Born for This Moment  4:50
If This Is Goodbye  3:49
Firecracker  3:50
Someone Needed Me the Most  5:17
Our New York Time  4:16
Safer Harbours  4:53
Crazy Ideas  3:17
Make a Man Outta Me  4:14
She's Right  3:46
The Mermaid (Sereia Do Mar)  3:34
You've Got to Believe  3:12
For the Love  4:02
If This Isn't Love  4:38
House on the Hill  3:48

----------

Eight years later, they release another album.  I'm not sure what's more amazing, the fact that Chicago released a new album after eight years, or that I went to update the discography and saw that the 2014 update ("Now" Chicago XXXVI) was already a thread resurrection at the time, and that Chicago's last album before that was Chicago XXX from 2006, another eight years before that (not counting Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus, released in 2008 but recorded in 1993).

Also, they officially don't know what to do about album titles anymore.  They want the albums to have actual titles, but they feel obliged to continue the trend with the Roman numerals.  So it says Chicago Born For This Moment on the cover, and Chicago XXXVIII on the spine.  Wikipedia has it as Chicago XXXVIII: Born For This Moment which seems a pretty good compromise, so that's what I've gone with.

If I were on discussion boards like DTF and some crazy guy obsessed with the band Chicago picked up the new album, my first question would be "How do the horns sound?"  The answer is: They sound great, and are all over this album.  Every song, and most with their own breaks.  Not as long or as adventurous as on earlier albums, but they're here, and there's no question that these are the Chicago horns.

The second question might be "Who's still in the band?"  Meaning of course "What original members are still in the band?"  Three.  Only Robert Lamm, Lee Loughnane, and James Pankow (keyboards, trumpet, trombone).  Original woodwind player Walt Parazaider was only on a few tracks from the last album and has officially retired now, citing health issues (Alzheimer's :().  This is reflected (kinda) in the credits I've given above, which for the first time are in the order given in liner notes, with original members first, then everyone else in some order I can't figure out.  Not alphabetical; possibly based on how many tracks each one plays on, because there are 34 persons listed under "Additional Personnel".  That includes eight string players and seven backing vocalists, but also 12 guitarists including the great Keith Howland, who was an official band member on the last album.  The liner notes give individual credits for every song, and after glancing at the band roster I was bummed to not see Keith Howland, but then I heard a solo that sounded like him, and sure enough, that was him.  Even co-wrote the song with Pankow.  And don't get the wrong impression; Lamm and Loughnane are both credited with playing guitar on this album, but that's just for completeness; with 12 other guys there is apparently no official guitarist.  Next year, they'll go on tour again and someone will be picked to play guitar and he'll be the official guitarist for Chicago at that point.

I could spend several more paragraphs on the credits, but I've gone on long enough.  Things are very different in Chicago these days.  Loughnane continues to contribute some horn arrangements, which is good, though presumably Pankow does the majority as that's always been his primary role.  Lamm has always been the de facto leader of the band, and that would appear to still be the case.  In the "Thank You" section of the liner notes, only Lamm, Loughnane, and Pankow get to give their thank-yous.

The songs.  Sigh.  I was hoping you wouldn't ask about them, because overall I have to say I'm disappointed.  While the previous album pleasantly surprised me with how much Chicago can still rock, and still pull out some weird/unusual tunes, this album is very firmly in the "light rock" genre.  If you were on a cruise ship, having dinner in one of the fancier lounges, and there was a live band playing, they would sound like this.  Great sound, great horn section and some great arrangements, great vocal harmonies, all sounding great.  But not exactly rock and roll.  Moments of rock and roll, moments where the horns or electric guitar take off for a while, give you a glimpse of what they can do, but then they step back and the nice vocal harmonies are back.  Short songs, they all sound great, but very few outstanding moments.

Robert Lamm and fellow Chicagoan Jim Peterik have been hanging out.  A couple of songs were co-written by them, and you can hear Peterik's guitar on them.  Peterik was with The Ides of March and wrote their most well-known song "Vehicle" and some may also know that he co-wrote "Eye of the Tiger" (theme from Rocky III).  But really, if you care about that, you're a bigger geek than me, and that's just scary.

Neil Donell is the new lead singer.  He's been an official member of the band for years now, having taken over from Jeff Coffey in 2018.  Wait, Jeff Coffey?  Who is that?  He's the guy who took over from Jason Scheff in 2016 when they finally (in my mind) got tired of his whiney voice and butchering Peter Cetera's melodies.  But Coffey only lasted a few years, and Neil has been the Cetera clone since then.  All this happened since the last studio album, but remember that Chicago still tours every year so they have to keep a full roster.  Anyway, Neil Donell is another Cetera clone, but he's not as wimpy/whiney as Jason Scheff, and from the few videos I've seen, he sticks closer to the original melodies when they do the classic stuff.

The rest of the guys, who really cares?  I doubt most of you will ever hear this album, and I'm including this writeup for completeness sake, because I'm the official Chicago geek of DTF and will not be out-geeked.  I've played the album probably five or six times now.  The nice, smooth sounds with a slightly Latin flavor sometimes because of the percussion, the nice vocal harmonies, and those great horns.  At this point, I'm only in it for the horns, and I get to hear them and be happy.  They are definitely the high point of the album for me, though I realize that that's probably not worth the price of admission for most.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: DragonAttack on November 11, 2022, 03:02:10 PM
^
Some of us official geeks of bands on DTF appreciate your efforts. ;) :tup

Must have been osmosis....I didn't listen to this, but I did have my 'best of Chicago(with the wife somewhat in mind)' disc playing in the car on our trip this week (it ended with 'If You Leave Me Now'). 

I listened to some of '38' today.  Yeah, there's lots of 'old fogey' syrup in this, but the horns did sound good.

Signed
an old fogey
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: Orbert on November 11, 2022, 06:21:11 PM
:tup
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: Nel on November 11, 2022, 09:58:55 PM
Man, even their ugliest album covers do *something* with incorporating the logo into it. This one's just the logo on black. The only thing that stands out is it having a title.

Anyway, I bought it. I was happy to get anything after they did yet ANOTHER Christmas album back in 2019, but yeah. This one didn't do much for me. "Chicago XXXVI: Now" had a bit more interesting stuff going on 8 years ago.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: Orbert on November 11, 2022, 10:37:20 PM
Yep, agreed on all counts.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: KevShmev on November 12, 2022, 08:35:30 PM
I don't think I've heard a Chicago song since the 80s, but I'd be open to checking out a few newer tunes. I don't think I have it in me to power through a full Chicago album that isn't from the 70s, so gimme 3-5 good songs from the 90s till now, and I will check 'em out.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: Orbert on November 13, 2022, 07:13:34 AM
That's a pretty tough call.  I have trouble even thinking of their post-90's output in terms of good or bad.  Almost none of it is stuff I would normally listen to, mostly because of the lead vocals, so it's down to how interesting I find the song itself.  If they do something different with the arrangement, or how cool the horn arrangement is and/or they get a chance to cook out.

Chicago XXX: Already Gone, Better.
Chicago XXXII (Stone of Sisyphus): The Pull.
Chicago XXXVI (Now): More Will Be Revealed, Free at Last.

From the new one, I'm not even there yet.  Pick any song at random; they all pretty much blur together.


Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: KevShmev on November 13, 2022, 10:55:03 AM
Okay, thanks!

I will check those out and report back.  :tup :tup
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: red barchetta on November 21, 2022, 12:48:27 PM
I'll have a listen to that new album and thank you for bringing it.  This band is one of the greatest ever but to me it ended pretty much with Peter Cetera departure.  And back then, I did not like their music anymore.

Take all the albums with Terry Kath (especially the first 5-6 ones), that's their best stuff.  Epic songs by dozens.
Title: Chicago at Carnegie Hall Complete (2021)
Post by: Orbert on July 24, 2023, 10:11:55 PM
Another thread resurrection by your resident Chicago geek!


Chicago at Carnegie Hall Complete (2021)

(https://imgur.com/5CYiWKw.jpg)

(https://imgur.com/yfAnELq.jpg)

As I mentioned in the writeup for Chicago at Carnegie Hall (https://www.dreamtheaterforums.org/boards/index.php?topic=38009.msg1626927#msg1626927), the album was originally four vinyl LPs and later three CDs, and the remastered/expanded version includes a fourth CD of additional material.  Four of the eight tracks on the bonus CD are alternate versions of songs already on the first three CDs, because they played all week at Carnegie Hall and recorded every show.  The alternate versions of "Sing a Mean Tune, Kid", "South California Purples", and "25 or 6 to 4" were specifically chosen because of Terry Kath's amazing extended guitar solos.

That was great, of course, getting to hear more live Chicago from back in their prime.  But somehow, rather than giving me more and making me feel satisfied, it just made me want more.  They played eight shows (Monday through Saturday, with matinee shows Friday and Saturday) and recorded them all.  I wanted to hear it all!  I wanted to hear all of Terry's solos.  I wanted to hear Robert's free form piano intros to "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?"  They played "Elegy" -- where is it?  Hearing how different the alternate versions were made me suddenly understand why Deadheads collect every show they can get their hands on.  With The Grateful Dead, improv was a huge part of the show, so every show was different.  I didn't expect this to be quite on that level, but I did want to hear the solos, and how different the songs were each time.

Well, be careful what you wish for.  Trumpeter Lee Loughnane sat with engineer Tim Jessup and went through all the tapes, cleaned everything up, and released it all.  Disc 1 is the first show, first set.  Disc 2 is the second set.  Discs 3 and 4 are the second show, first and second set.  And so on.  Eight shows; 16 sets on 16 discs.  A few reviews on Amazon talk about audio quality issues, and honestly I have no idea what they're talking about.  I think most of it sounds fucking fantastic, and there are multiple reviews saying that whoever says otherwise probably has defective discs or something, because most, like me, rave about the sound.  Other than the occassional issue that comes up with live recordings, it's amazing and revelatory.

Okay let's be honest.  I don't think anyone here at DTF is going to shell out $350 to buy this 16-disc box.  (I didn't.  I paid $90 for the VBR mp3 downloads.)  But we have five versions of "Sing a Mean Tune, Kid" and every one has the extended guitar solo, each one different.  Four versions of "South California Purples", same thing.  Eight versions of the "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon", six versions of "It Better End Soon" (the guitar solo, flute solo, and "preach" were different every time), six versions of "25 or 6 to 4" each with mind-blowing solo.  You get the idea. Four versions of "Introduction" (trumpet, trombone, and guitar solos), four versions of "Mother" (the insane three-horn break!), seven versions of "Free" (that saxophone solo!)

I don't know; maybe I just talked most of you out of it, if anyone was even close to buying this.  Many would think there's no point to hearing all these different versions, all these different solos.  I guess it depends on how into live music, and 1971 Chicago, you are.  I'm on my third listen through the entire set, and still in absolute bliss.  I'm still baffled by people who say that the live versions are so similar to the studio versions that there's no point.  Those people must have even better drugs than me, because every version of every song has a different vibe, sometimes a vastly different vibe.  The amount of improv is crazy, and just them messing around with the arrangements is a marvel to hear.  Six versions of "A Song for Richard and His Friends", each one different.

Okay, I'll stop.  I really don't expect people to get this, but if you have the cash and you're a fan of original Chicago, this collection is absolutely worth it.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography: Chicago XXXVIII (2022)
Post by: ytserush on July 25, 2023, 07:55:08 PM
Are you kidding me? I NEED this! Thanks for posting.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on July 25, 2023, 08:36:51 PM
That's the spirit! ♫♫!!

And you're welcome!
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: hefdaddy42 on July 26, 2023, 02:59:20 PM
It's also on Spotify.

14 hours 34 minutes.  Holy hell.

I bet it's awesome.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: King Postwhore on July 26, 2023, 03:20:56 PM
I own it on cd.  It's amazing. 
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Lupton on July 27, 2023, 02:10:54 PM
Yes! Thanks for the writeup Orbert. This one is so tempting that it may even get me to break my normal "no digital" purchase rule. All those versions of Purples and Mean Kid have got to be WAY different in all the jammy bits. But I can't confirm this suspicion without actually checking them all out!  So it makes this very tempting for sure.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on July 27, 2023, 03:08:57 PM
It's also on Spotify.

14 hours 34 minutes.  Holy hell.

I bet it's awesome.

Yeah, it's a lot.  I work from home two days a week, and play a lot on weekends, so I've been working my way through.  I'm still on my 3rd pass, because this week I've been editing tracks together.  Each version of "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" for example is seven separate tracks.  "It Better End Soon" is always five separate tracks.  The piano intro to "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is always separate from the song (probably because it was that way on the original release).  So I'm using Audacity to fix everything, but the tracks come with "dead air" at the beginning and end which is annoying as fuck because you can't just append the tracks; you have to edit out the 0.2-second gap each time.  Anyway, I'm halfway through.  The first four shows are done.  I need to finish by Friday night because I'm hitting the road Saturday for Michigan and need to have everything loaded on a USB drive for listening in the car.

I guess that would be one big advantage to buying the CDs.  They'll just play through without the stupid gaps.  I've seen ripping software that does entire discs at a time, and it would probably be easier to rip full discs and cut them into separate songs than splicing at the separate tracks together like I've been doing.  Oh well.  We makes our choices and we lives with them.  Now that I've shelled out for the mp3's, I'm not going to also buy the CDs, no matter how tempting all that glorious packaging is.  (They recreated the posters and picture book and included a new write-up in the booklet, but really, I can't justify over $200 for that and a little convenience.)
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ytserush on August 05, 2023, 03:41:04 PM
It's also on Spotify.

14 hours 34 minutes.  Holy hell.

I bet it's awesome.

Yeah, it's a lot.  I work from home two days a week, and play a lot on weekends, so I've been working my way through.  I'm still on my 3rd pass, because this week I've been editing tracks together.  Each version of "Ballet for a Girl in Buchannon" for example is seven separate tracks.  "It Better End Soon" is always five separate tracks.  The piano intro to "Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?" is always separate from the song (probably because it was that way on the original release).  So I'm using Audacity to fix everything, but the tracks come with "dead air" at the beginning and end which is annoying as fuck because you can't just append the tracks; you have to edit out the 0.2-second gap each time.  Anyway, I'm halfway through.  The first four shows are done.  I need to finish by Friday night because I'm hitting the road Saturday for Michigan and need to have everything loaded on a USB drive for listening in the car.

I guess that would be one big advantage to buying the CDs.  They'll just play through without the stupid gaps.  I've seen ripping software that does entire discs at a time, and it would probably be easier to rip full discs and cut them into separate songs than splicing at the separate tracks together like I've been doing.  Oh well.  We makes our choices and we lives with them.  Now that I've shelled out for the mp3's, I'm not going to also buy the CDs, no matter how tempting all that glorious packaging is.  (They recreated the posters and picture book and included a new write-up in the booklet, but really, I can't justify over $200 for that and a little convenience.)

Need to find a used copy. Didn't realize what these are going for. This is in King Crimson Deluxe territory. Total musical treasure.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on August 06, 2023, 09:30:07 PM
When it first came out, Rhino had it for like $120, about a third of what Amazon is currently charging for it ($350), but it's been out of stock forever.  I wasn't sure about getting the whole thing, and then by time reviews were coming in, Rhino was out of them and Amazon was the only way.  I wanted to trust Rhino, and in this case I should have, but I've heard stories.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: ytserush on August 19, 2023, 08:14:44 PM
When it first came out, Rhino had it for like $120, about a third of what Amazon is currently charging for it ($350), but it's been out of stock forever.  I wasn't sure about getting the whole thing, and then by time reviews were coming in, Rhino was out of them and Amazon was the only way.  I wanted to trust Rhino, and in this case I should have, but I've heard stories.

I'd have no trouble dropping $120 on this. Maybe they'll reissue it one day.
Title: Re: The Chicago Discography
Post by: Orbert on August 19, 2023, 10:13:41 PM
I should've just jumped on it when I had the chance.