The Chicago Discography

[Big Hath]

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.

[Orbert]

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?



 

[Orbert]

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.

[King Postwhore]

Had it on the I-Pod and took it off.  I think it's worse than 19.  Night and Day I love.....coming soon!

[Orbert]

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.

[Orbert]

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:



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.

[jammindude]

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...

[Nel]

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.

[King Postwhore]

I have the boot and the 2008 release.  It's a shame that they couldn't release it back in 93. 

[Orbert]

Chicago: Night & Day - Big Band (1995)




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 Andrι, 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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Orbert]

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.

[Big Hath]

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.

[Zook]

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...

[Orbert]

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".

[splent]

Saw Chicago at Ravinia two years ago.  Awesome show.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Orbert]

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.

[Big Hath]

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).

[Big Hath]

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".

[Orbert]

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.

[Orbert]

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



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



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:



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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Big Hath]

yeah, I have both of these . . .

[Orbert]

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"?

[jammindude]

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. 

[Orbert]

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.

[Big Hath]

"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.

[Orbert]

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?

[Nel]

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. 

[Orbert]

"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.

[Orbert]

Chicago 25: The Christmas Album (1998)




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.

[King Postwhore]

Wife loves it.  I can't listen to it.

[Orbert]

Why not?

[King Postwhore]

There's just something about Christmas covers.  It's just me.  It's not the album.