Chicago

[jmjk]

(Inspired by Rooster Ties' 70s/80s thread)

PROS

Great rhythm section work

Great songwriting and arrangements

Guitar feedback mixed with horns and vocal harmonies

Peter Cetera was actually a phenomenal bassist

Moments of brilliance in mixing pop melodies with jazz/prog/psychedelic foundations

Terry Kath's guitar work

Non-single album tracks are where it's at

Had jazz influneces, though seemingly never pretended they were a jazz band

CONS

Radio generally focused on the gummy pop singles

Terry Kath shot himself by accident, forever changing the band

Peter Cetera stopped playing bass, and reckoned himself a balladeer

Most everything they recorded after 1978

[SEK]

I saw Chicago a couple of times back in the late '60s, when they opened for Hendrix. They were okay, but I had been grooving on "Miles In the Sky" and the Sons of Champlin's "Loosen Up Naturally". I remember taping parts of "Chicago Transit Authority" and "Chicago 2" (on reel-to-reel) but did not hold onto that tape too long.

[DrJ]

I think most of Chicago's hits and a (very) few of the stronger album tracks through about CHICAGO VIII or so hold up pretty well. Unlike jmjk, I tend to think Chicago was generally at its best (least indulgant, most tuneful and least lyrically embarassing) on the early singles - some of which were pure radio pop magic - although there are some great album tracks too (for example, check out "Thank You Great Spirit" on CHICAGO VIII for some great Terry Kath).

The rest, and everything after that point...doesn't quite hold up.

Edited October 4, 2003 by DrJ

[Free For All]

They were a bunch of DePaul students who decided to start a band. There's a hot dog place under the "L" stop at Fullerton (near the DePaul music school)called "Demon Dog" that's owned/operated by the guy who managed the group- it's full of Chicago memorabilia and they play nothing but Chicago. All the time. Think I'd go a little nuts with that. Great dogs, though.

Edited October 4, 2003 by Free For All

[Chuck Nessa]

SHIT, I thought this was about what was going on musically in Chicago during those years. History was being made you know.

Turns out to be about a pop band (possibly - rumors everywhere in town) about a mob sponsored rock band.

Guess I don't know what time it is.

[Free For All]

I thought this thread was going to be about the Chicago jazz scene in the 60s and 70s.

Now that I'd like to hear about.

EDIT: Oops! Chuck beat me to it. Actually, I immediately thought about him as the ultimate resource on this topic (the city, not the group).

Edited October 4, 2003 by Free For All

[JSngry]

SHIT, I thought this was about what was going on musically in Chicago during those years. History was being made you know.

Turns out to be about a pop band (possibly - rumors everywhere in town) about a mob sponsored rock band.

Guess I don't know what time it is.

Do you really care?

Seriously, I liked the first 2-3 albums pretty well, but after that...

I was always a BS&T man myself. Liked their horn writing more, even if David Clayton-Thomas' vocals were kinda creepy and the image of Dick Halligan scoring w/groupies is even creepier. Still, other than James Pankow, I think BS&T had "better" musicians, although Bobby Colomby vs Danny Seraphine probably comes down to a matter of taste.

I mentioned this elsewhere, but it bears repeating. The influence of producer James William Guercio on the early Chicago sound cannot be underestimated. If you doubt that, listen to two Buckinghams albums he produced, TIME AND CHARGES & PORTRAITS. There's a shitload full of moments in those albums where you'll swear you're listening to a Chicago album.

[DrJ]

Very true about the production influence, Jim.

I think Chicago was just plain spotty for the first 8 or so LP's, then consistently lame. That's why I'll pretty much always consider them a solid Top 40 pop singles band with pretentions to something greater (those multi-tune suites they seemed so fond of seldom worked). For example, CTA and CHICAGO II were very strong, but then CHICAGO III was pretty tepid. They regained form around V which was a pop immortal, kept runnin' strong for VI but then VII and VIII again waned a bit. One Cetera starting hitting it big with sappy pop ballads (and then Kath shot himself), it was all over.

Edited October 4, 2003 by DrJ

[jmjk]

While I wouldn't call myself a big Chicago fan, their music made enough impact on me to take their integrity more seriously than their radio hit parade would generally allow. The early singles like "Beginnings" and "Questions 67 & 68" may still be in moderate rotation on soft-rock radio, but I feel there's a lot to listen to underneath the sappy lyrics. Too bad this balance between radio hooks and instrumental fire didn't hold up past the mid 1970s. I still like many of the album tracks better than their singles. At one time I thought all the band was capable of was "Colour My World" and "If You Leave Me Now". I'm glad something told me to adventure further and actually check out a few complete albums.

I feel most of CTA is pretty smokin', as well as parts of Chicago V and VII, where they almost out-prog/fusion some mainstream prog and fusion bands on a few cuts.

[A Lark Ascending]

I absolutely love I, II and III.

II and III were records I bought in my first year of record buying and I still play them - great tunes, good arrangements and enormous variety (III just goes everywhere fom blues rock to soft country to folky stuff...'Hour in the Shower' has stupid lyrics but is a wonderful performance.

I lost track then and by the time I noticed them again they had mutated into an AOR stadium band.

I bought V a while back which seems quite good. I also recall hearing a track I really liked in about 1975 but can't tell if it was on VI, VII or VIII. If I see those cheap I might experiment.

After that I'm not interested.

I'm pretty sure Chicago were one of the factors in me getting an ear for brass instruments and saxophones - an important part of my jazz pre-history.