I bought this on the 18th and put it on the TT today. I didn't recognize most of the songs but it did have 25 or 6-4. ALL of the songs are a slow, 80's, love song style. Meaning, lots of synthesizer and an overuse of boring vocals. This doesn't sound like Chicago at all! what is the deal! Why have they mangled these songs, and when did this come out?

1986: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_discography http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_18

If you want 25 or 6 to 4, pick up a copy of the "Chicago" double album (Chicago II, if you're counting in order).

I mean, this lp REALLY sucks, I listened to the first song, picked up the the tone arm and moved it to 25 or 6 to 4 listed to that a little and started wondering if this was even a chicago album or a mismark. Oddly though, if I turned it up to 45 rpms it sounded more like Chicago should.

If you are looking for Chicago the "Rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After Terry Kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

If you are looking for Chicago the "Rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After Terry Kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

It still sickens me the way TK died-cleaning his gun? Their first 3 albums are essential.The first live release is just awful but I've read the live in Japan is worth a listen.

If you are looking for Chicago the "Rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After Terry Kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

:thmbsp: What he said!!:thmbsp:
they kept some punch in their arrangements for a time, but went along for the ride from there on.... many people fail to understand, that people who make records also need to make a living, and want homes, families, cars, etc...if they can figure out a way to turn their music into a job, and thats all they bring to the table, it doesn't make them bad people...just less than wonderful rock stars!

if you are looking for chicago the "rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After terry kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

x 1000

Just for my scrounging reference, what album is the turning point?

Chicago II is the only one I own (I have it on open reel tape) and will listen to. I've come upon some of their later records in bulk lot buys of LPs and most of it is really dreadful boring crap.

Just for my scrounging reference, what album is the turning point?

Get I,II, and III. Then stop and enjoy.

Turning point? I think blurry glasses describe it better… For me from Chicago XI there is no visibility, but still at Chicago VII you’ll have a nice view…..

:thmbsp: What he said!!:thmbsp:
they kept some punch in their arrangements for a time, but went along for the ride from there on.... many people fail to understand, that people who make records also need to make a living, and want homes, families, cars, etc...if they can figure out a way to turn their music into a job, and thats all they bring to the table, it doesn't make them bad people...just less than wonderful rock stars!

In which the artist turns to manufacturer of product in the so called "music" industry. Which is OK I guess because it does fill a need in the market; some people need ear warmers and ads need jingles and what not. Chicago being a very good example of then and now.

:... many people fail to understand, that people who make records also need to make a living, and want homes, families, cars, etc...if they can figure out a way to turn their music into a job, and thats all they bring to the table, it doesn't make them bad people...just less than wonderful rock stars!

:thmbsp: In the '80s, that schlock made Chicago wealthy. So who do you blame, them or the public that ate it up? I used to yell sellout as loud as everybody else, then saw several of my friends in bands have to make very difficult decisions...stop playing music so they could raise a family, or make something more commercially acceptible or even sell their songs to commercials. My friend Steve almost sold a song to Apple, which would have given him a very nice downpayment on his house.

And besides, I slowdanced a lot to those Chicago songs that are so bad, and have fond memories of them because hey, it was the first time I touched an actual girl.

Peter Cetera left the band right b4 that effort, the new singer/bass player was son of Elvis's bass player and mimicked Peters sound but not completely.
Ballads where were the money was then so oh well.

I enjoy most of it through the mid-70s, then it fades off into shlock.

Turning point? I think blurry glasses describe it better… For me from Chicago XI there is no visibility, but still at Chicago VII you’ll have a nice view…..

I like all the ones before X.
After that they turned into a wimpy chick band.

If you are looking for Chicago the "Rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After Terry Kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

That is true! The first three albums are the best. The first greatest hits album is also great also.

Get I,II, and III. Then stop and enjoy.

Don't stop there - V is a masterpiece (sonically as well).

jblnut

Don't stop there - V is a masterpiece (sonically as well).

jblnut

I stand corrected. :thmbsp:

Chicago Transit Authority - their first is their best, I think. Chicago VII is a close second then Chicago II. After Terry Kath died and they came out with Hot Streets, wel,l that is pretty much when I quit buying their records.

So who do you blame, them or the public that ate it up? I used to yell sellout as loud as everybody else, then saw several of my friends in bands have to make very difficult decisions...stop playing music so they could raise a family, or make something more commercially acceptible or even sell their songs to commercials.

An excellent point. Personally as a jazz fan I don't care for Smooth Jazz, but at the same time I don't blame any smooth jazz artist for doing what they do. It sells. I think Kenny G has the musical ability to be a great straight ahead jazz player if he wanted to, but he obviously has gone a more commercial route and is a very wealthy man because of it. The idea of the starving artist, although romantic, is a very difficult path to follow. Even Zappa, considered by most to be pretty non-commercial, recorded quite a few "locker room lyric" songs primarily because they had an appeal to a large segment of the record buying fans. Nearly every artist makes some compromise in order to pay the bills. Just simple survival.

Just for my scrounging reference, what album is the turning point?

I think the Chicago is good all the way to that 1st greatest hits album...Chicago IX....IMHO. I don't own anythng but VI, though.

I dunno, I wasn't alive for the Chicago thing, but I am still a fan. I have most of their albums up through "Chicago IX: Greatest Hits". I think that their ballads are OK, but I still love their earlier sound. The ballads didn't use the horn section hardly at all, and I wasn't very fond of that. Makes for great slow dancing music though-or for making out!

One note to Chicago IX though. Those are all the radio singles, so they are shortened in time for radio. I would recommend getting their first 3 albums as well, as they have the full length version of the song. If you are just in it for the hits, there are two albums you can get. The first one is obviously Chicago IX, but the other one is entitled "The Very Best Of: Only The Beginning". In my opinion, the latter is the place to start if you want to get the real taste of Chicago.


-Jason

I like all the ones before X.
After that they turned into a wimpy chick band.

i'm pretty much with ya here. V is rock solid, and VI is interesting too (I really like "In Terms of Two"). there are a few more great songs after X that are still reminiscent of the old Chicago, but no more great albums.

I disagree with you that's a good album, I recognize two songs on that album.
I actually have that on cd. I recommed "the heart of chicago 1967-1997".
Lenny Kravitz does an excellent job on the song "the only one". Chicago still has
there fans!

Even at their peak, when they still had some fire in their bellies and JWC hadn't yet taken them all the way to glitzville, their albums were full of filler. It's hard to argue with their best songs - they were terrific - but they just didn't have the imagination or energy to keep it up. After V there were, at best, one or two good songs per album. You had the hits and you had 40 minutes of invisible music.

Chicago is pretty much an easy listening oldies band and has been since about 1978. Aside from their occasional good song they were about as interesting as as old Mantavoni or Mitch Miller record.

As for Chicago XVIII, I think you were being generous when you called it "horrible."

the kath years...

I was an original fan circa 69'-70' and faithfully purchased all of their albums as they were released up to about Chicago X. I really hated to see them turn into a ballads band over the years, and feel that the death of Terry Kath took all of the soul and edge out of the band and their recordings.
James Pankow the trombonist/composer/arranger, was a graduate of my old high school and once returned around 71' to perform with the jazz orchestra, which he was once a member of when he attended the school. It was an incredible experience to see him perform "Ballet For A Girl In Buchan" with the school jazz band, at a time when Chicago were at the top of their game and popularity!

Agreed, Chicago V is a jammin LP. Especially love Dialog I+II.
Seen them once at the old Chicago Stadium. Terry Kath was still alive then, and playing. They seemed lackluster, and bland, with the exception of Danny's drumming, and Terry's playing. The horn section I remember sounded a bit anemic.

Chicago as I understood it back in the day, was basically nothing more than a nightclub band, frequenting a place I once recall being named Club Laurel in Chicago.
Mark

I enjoy "Live At Carnegie Hall" (1972)

There are some hard to listen to tracks, but many nice tracks a well.
Played on a good system :music:

I can't point to a particular album that (at the time) made me think that Chicago had "jumped the shark" so to speak, but I do think it happened long before 18. After Kath died the compositions became progressively weaker, and I lost interest after X came out. A lot of folks won't listen to anything post Kath...

Chicago's most famous members members at the beginning each had their own style, Terry Kath the rocker, Robert Lamm the hitmaker and Peter Cetera the pussy. The pop and ballads were part of the whole, and were very good pop and ballads. It's worth noting that some of those early ballads, although sung by Peter Cetera, or Terry Kath, were written by James Pankow, the trombone player.
After losing their manager and the death of Terry Kath, Chicago did seem to be sliding towards oblivion.
They revived in the early '80s on the strength of some Peter Cetera efforts. Although these didn't sound like the Chicago from ten years previous, they were still pretty good. Peter Cetera left for a solo career in the mid '80s. I haven't bought or listened to a Chicago album produced since then.

and Peter Cetera the pussy. .

:lmao:

I guess I'll be like the girl in Animal House after the guys dumped them...." I really liked that album" to each his own.......now I didn't like 24-6 to 4 mind you...but the rest of the CD was nice for me.

That album (Chicago 18) brings back some bad memories. My first "real girlfriend" broke up with me because some guy from another school was making the moves on her. Right around that time, Chicago was on a big U.S. tour and they were making a stop in Tulsa, so the Top 40 station in town pretty much played "Will You Still Love Me" and "If She Would've Been Faithful" on a loop.

I, of course, got over my first break-up. But I've yet to erase the gruesome wounds inflicted on my soul by Jason Scheff's voice.

Sing a mean tune, kid.....punch 'em in the gut yeah yeah yeah!

If you leave me now, you'll take away the biggest part of me.........

It was over for me and Chicago when Kath died.

Dave

If you are looking for Chicago the "Rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After Terry Kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

What he said! They peaked with their first album!

While I understand the need to make a buck, especially with all the leeches in the music industry, didn't these guys make enough money off the first 3 albums, which were international smash hits and are still played somewhere in the world every day?

You can't compare the decision struggling musicians have to make to the sellout Chicago made. Also, it's a huge risk to alienate your fan base by changing styles so drastically, however in this case it paid off big time. A

As they say, there's no accounting for poor taste.

While I understand the need to make a buck, especially with all the leeches in the music industry, didn't these guys make enough money off the first 3 albums, which were international smash hits and are still played somewhere in the world every day?

You can't compare the decision struggling musicians have to make to the sellout Chicago made. Also, it's a huge risk to alienate your fan base by changing styles so drastically, however in this case it paid off big time. A

As they say, there's no accounting for poor taste.

I know nothing specific to Chicago, but isn't it fairly common for a band's first record contract to be for three albums and to one-sided for the record company and against the artists. I've read many times quotes where musicians said they really didn't make any money until their first contract had expired. The record company is taking a risk with a new artist, I'm sure a large percentage don't really pay off. Chicago is lucky to have remained popular for more than three albums. Most don't.

I guess I'll be like the girl in Animal House after the guys dumped them...." I really liked that album" to each his own.......now I didn't like 24-6 to 4 mind you...but the rest of the CD was nice for me.

I'll be like the other girls and go "Ewwww!"
:D

Get I,II, and III. Then stop and enjoy.

I couldn't agree more!:music:

If you are looking for Chicago the "Rock band", they haven't existed for a long long time. After Terry Kath died, they became a wimpy pop band.

:thmbsp: truer words have never been said

A lot of folks won't listen to anything post Kath...

Guilty.