The Chicago Discography

[Orbert]

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.

[Big Hath]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

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!

[ytserush]

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.

[Orbert]

I recorded and watched Now More Than Ever: The 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.

[Big Hath]

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?

[King Postwhore]

I saw it myself and yeah, I agree about David Foster.  PC did hijack the band with Foster.  CNN did a great job.

[Orbert]

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.

[Cool Chris]

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.

[red barchetta]

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.

[Cool Chris]

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.

[Orbert]

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.

[hefdaddy42]

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.

[King Postwhore]

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.

[Orbert]

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.

[King Postwhore]

He seemed very self conscious from the Doc.

[red barchetta]

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.

[DragonAttack]

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.

[Orbert]

[Cool Chris]

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.

[DragonAttack]

^
The comment as to the song titles cracked me up

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.....]

[Orbert]

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.



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.)







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.



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.



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.

[King Postwhore]

Bob, that is impressive.  Pm me how much that cost.

[Orbert]

PMs are so last-decade, man.

It's $125 at Amazon.

[Orbert]

I also picked this up.  Chicago: VI Decades Live

Review coming soon.

[ReaperKK]

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?

[Orbert]

Start with Chicago II or Chicago V.

[jammindude]

Start with Chicago II or Chicago V.

This man speaks truth.

[ReaperKK]

I’ll give Chicago II a spin and report back.

[Podaar]

Orbert is the expert, but my favorite will always be Chicago Transit Authority.

[Orbert]

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.

[Big Hath]

I would like to point out the debut album does have tracks entitled "Introduction" and "Beginnings"

[ytserush]

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.

[Orbert]

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.

[Fritzinger]

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?