DaWayne Bailey
GC
because he opposed the N&D cd. here's a quote from his web site:
"Instead, after preaching to the fans at each concert how we were going in a
"new direction" with SOS, instead we were going to start work on a Big Band
album, doing nothing but "Love Boat"-type titles like "Night & Day" and
"Sophisticated Lady", and other World War II-era classics.
I like these songs too, just like I like ABBA and other styles, but I didn't
feel like abandoning our new album to be in a "cruise ship cover band". My
opinions offended the original members because they are all horn players who
would rather play Glenn Miller than the more aggressive style that I
preferred from SOS. I also didn't see a fight to stand up for the SOS album.
I didn't hide my disgust from them either, and that didn't go over too
well."
I have to agree with him, The ROCK direction was the way to go to redeem
them after all the ballads they churned out! Night and Day has never been a
favorite of mine, BUT I would never use my cd as a coaster!
gc
schusker.r...@hotmail.com
"cruise ship" type stuff. It's made for listening, not dancing, and it
would make lousy elevator music. Too musical. Can you imagine the
looks from the midnight buffet crowd if Chicago was the cruise band?
"Henry, who are those guys who are ruining those wonderful old songs?"
Chicago's background and claim to fame is horns. All horn players are
familiar with the big band stuff, and have some nostalgic feelings
about it because it was horn-based. For Chicago to redo those
swing-era standards in Chicago style was brilliant. Having done it,
Chicago should move on and never do anything like that again.
Too bad Keith couldn't defer to the guys who had kept a successful
band together for 28 years. If he could have gone their way for one
album, he could still be with one of the world's premier bands. His
loss.
I do understand folks who don't like Night & Day. You have to have a
strong liking for swing/jazz/big band to appreciate that CD. Most
people like rock, not big band, so it's understandable that most
people will not really groove out on Night & Day. That's OK, it's just
one album. Every horn player who ever played in the high school jazz
band gets it, though.
Regarding the ballads, I agree completely. Chicago was turning into
"Peter Cetera and Chicago," doing music anyone could have done. Not
even written by band members. Come on! Nice songs, but that's why God
made Michael Bolton. Chicago, you guys just be Chicago. Either chuck
the ballads, or made sure you do them Chicago-style.
I've just restarted my Chicago collection after about a 20-year
hiatus. I have Night & Day and Group Portrait. My 21-year-old daughter
likes Chicago, too (she says); she has one of the group's Greatest
Hits CD's. She played those syrupy, no-horns ballads for me and said,
"Now *that's* Chicago - not that junk you play."
Now, what am I gonna do wit' 'dat?
As for SOS . . . that's weird. Why don't they just go ahead and
release it? What's the holdup?
Mjoann
hiatus. I have Night & Day and Group Portrait. My 21-year-old daughter
likes Chicago, too (she says); she has one of the group's Greatest
Hits CD's. She played those syrupy, no-horns ballads for me and said,
"Now *that's* Chicago - not that junk you play."
Now, what am I gonna do wit' 'dat? >>
THERAPY!!!!!!!!!!! Quick! Before its too late!!!!!
H.B. Elkins
>Night & Day, in my opinion, is a different kind of animal. It is NOT
>"cruise ship" type stuff. It's made for listening, not dancing, and it
>would make lousy elevator music. Too musical. Can you imagine the
>looks from the midnight buffet crowd if Chicago was the cruise band?
>"Henry, who are those guys who are ruining those wonderful old songs?"
>
>Chicago's background and claim to fame is horns. All horn players are
>familiar with the big band stuff, and have some nostalgic feelings
>about it because it was horn-based. For Chicago to redo those
>swing-era standards in Chicago style was brilliant. Having done it,
>Chicago should move on and never do anything like that again.
>
>Too bad Keith couldn't defer to the guys who had kept a successful
>band together for 28 years. If he could have gone their way for one
>album, he could still be with one of the world's premier bands. His
>loss.
>
>I do understand folks who don't like Night & Day. You have to have a
>strong liking for swing/jazz/big band to appreciate that CD. Most
>people like rock, not big band, so it's understandable that most
>people will not really groove out on Night & Day. That's OK, it's just
>one album. Every horn player who ever played in the high school jazz
>band gets it, though.
I couldn't have said it better myself. When I was in my high school
jazz band, we were playing everything from "I'm Gettin' Sentimental
Over You" and "Woodchopper's Ball" to "Eli's Comin"' (by Three Dog
Night by way of Maynard Ferguson) and "Tie a Yellow Ribbon 'Round the
Old Oak Tree" (Dixieland style) and "Wichita Lineman." This was 20
years ago, when Chicago was rockin' and rollin' and I always thought
how great it would be for Chicago to do one of my favorite songs that
our jazz band played, "In The Mood." It took nearly 20 years for that
to happen, and now I listen to "Night & Day" as much as or more than
any of the Terry Kath-era releases. As a band that has always been
identified by its horn section, to me, an album of big-band standards
is a logical thing to do.
>Regarding the ballads, I agree completely. Chicago was turning into
>"Peter Cetera and Chicago," doing music anyone could have done. Not
>even written by band members. Come on! Nice songs, but that's why God
>made Michael Bolton. Chicago, you guys just be Chicago. Either chuck
>the ballads, or made sure you do them Chicago-style.
Ballads have a place in every band's repertoire. Look at "Beth" or
"Every Time I Think of You" by Kiss, or "Angel" by Aerosmith, or even
"Nothin' Else Matters" by Metallica. But Chicago seemed to actively
court the Michael Bolton crowd from 17 on. To me, "Searchin' So Long"
and "Baby What a Big Surprise" are true Chicago-style ballads, but the
stuff from the late 80s just doesn't quite come up to snuff. Give me
"Wishin' You Were Here" or even "If You Leave Me Now" over "You're the
Inspiration" any day.
>I've just restarted my Chicago collection after about a 20-year
>hiatus. I have Night & Day and Group Portrait. My 21-year-old daughter
>likes Chicago, too (she says); she has one of the group's Greatest
>Hits CD's. She played those syrupy, no-horns ballads for me and said,
>"Now *that's* Chicago - not that junk you play."
>
>Now, what am I gonna do wit' 'dat?
She probably prefers "Metallica" and "Load" to 'Kill 'em All" and
"Master of Puppets," too. ;-)
>As for SOS . . . that's weird. Why don't they just go ahead and
>release it? What's the holdup?
There's no reason to think that the same band that did "Night & Day"
couldn't have done "SOS," although if they do ever release "SOS" I
hope they give it a numbered title. I'm still in shock over the album
title "Hot Streets." ;-)
Maybe one of these days, now that the band has its own record label
and they realize that there's money to be made, they'll release it.
After going back to the original lineup, Kiss realized there was a
demand for "Carnival of Souls" with Bruce Kulick and a drummer whose
name I can't remember, instead of Ace Frehley and Peter Criss. So they
released "COS." The situation with "COS" really paralleled "SOS."
There were a gazillion bootleg copies out there, and the underground
audience kept demanding its release, so they finally gave in. Maybe
Robert Lamm ought to call Gene Simmons and ask for advice on what to
do with "SOS." ;-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
H.B. Elkins mailto:hbel...@mis.net
http://www.users.mis.net/~hbelkins
"You take what's good for you and I'll take my freedom." -- Steven Tyler
Kentucky Wildcats Basketball, #3 Dale Earnhardt & #35 Darrell Waltrip-- A Championship Combination
Say "nyet" to spam -- remove spambuster "y" in address to reply
+++++++++++++++++++++++++
schusker.r...@hotmail.com
wasn't going to be a big seller, yet they released it anyway, and put
a tremendous amount of musical thought and economic resources into it.
I would guess that, 50 years from now, N&D will turn out to be their
poorest-selling album. That's really cool, though. It's as if they
said, "We don't care whether anyone buys it or not, this is what we
want to put out."
But that leads to what I don't understand about SOS. If they had the
courage to put out N&D, well, why not release SOS, for which there is
tremendous clamour among Chicago afficionados? Let's fact it: at any
time before, during, or since N&D's release, if Chicago had posed this
question to "the market" -
"So, what'll it be: SOS or N&D?"
SOS would win hands down. So, if one, why not the other?
Come on, boys, release the thing, already!
MMurphy262
>"new direction" with SOS, instead we were going to start work on a Big Band
>album, doing nothing but "Love Boat"-type titles like "Night & Day" and
>"Sophisticated Lady", and other World War II-era classics.
>
>I like these songs too, just like I like ABBA and other styles, but I didn't
>feel like abandoning our new album to be in a "cruise ship cover band". My
>opinions offended the original members because they are all horn players who
>would rather play Glenn Miller than the more aggressive style that I
>preferred from SOS. I also didn't see a fight to stand up for the SOS album.
>I didn't hide my disgust from them either, and that didn't go over too
>well."
First of all, we should all consider the source of these comments.
While I agree with his comments in regard to SOS, I think Bailey's
categorization of N&D as "Love Boat-type titles" is way off base and clearly
displays the bitterness he felt seeing his 15 minutes of fame go down the
toilet. Fact is, N&D was much closer to 'vintage Chicago' than anything they'd
done since the death of Terry Kath.
As a fan of nearly 30 years of this band, I am as appalled as anyone over the
way the remaining original members have slowly destroyed this band with their
'oldies but goodies' mentality, but as much as it may pain some of us fans, it
is THEIR band to do as they wish. As for Mr. Bailey? Well all I can say is that
if after all these years that Bill Champlin and Jason Scheff have been in the
band and still don't have much of a say as to what goes on, what makes Bailey
think his opinions should've carried any weight?
Murph
MMurphy262
>do with "SOS."
Lamm better call someone other than Howard Kaufman or Peter Schivarelli for
advice real soon because the ship, she is sinking.
Murph
Mark Rathwell
> One of the things I like about N&D is that Chicago HAD to know it
> wasn't going to be a big seller, yet they released it anyway, and put
> a tremendous amount of musical thought and economic resources into it.
You give Chicago too much credit. Giant Records suggested the idea
to Chicago while they were waiting for Stone. The album was produced in a
relatively short amount of time. In terms of musical thought, the
arrangments were good but there was less creativity here than on other
Chicago albums. In terms of "economics", Chicago invested very little.
> I would guess that, 50 years from now, N&D will turn out to be their
> poorest-selling album. That's really cool, though. It's as if they
> said, "We don't care whether anyone buys it or not, this is what we
> want to put out."
Again, that's not correct. Giant said "why don't you release a Big
Band" album and Chicago complied.
--
*****************************************************************
Mark Rathwell, The University Of Guelph
mrat...@uoguelph.ca or av...@freenet.carleton.ca
"A bronze man still can tell stories his own way" - R. Lamm
MMurphy262
>to Chicago while they were waiting for Stone.
Actually, I heard that the album was Bruce Fairburn's idea and that he
approached Chicago with it.
> In terms of musical thought, the
>arrangments were good but there was less creativity here than on other
>Chicago albums.
Huh? I'm not a musician but I know some who've said that these were some of the
most complex arrangements Chicago has done since the early 70's. Certainly more
so than all that computer generated crap they produced in the 80's.
Murph
bigd...@my-dejanews.com
(MMurphy262) wrote:> >Giant Records suggested the idea> >to Chicago while
Have to agree with you Murph. As a former professional musician (keyboards,
Bone, trumpet,vocalist, writer and arranger), I would say that Night & Day
was the most complex arrangements that Chicago has done in a long, long time.
Although many think of it as "a horn" collection, all of the individual
instrumentalist played some of the best they've ever done. Vocally, Night &
Day is probably the finest recording in Chicago's library. I was very pleased
to see them get away from the 80's synth/multi(x10!)tracking/techno pop that
they put out during the "Foster" years. This trend of horn based jazz/rock
style continues with Chicago XXV. I believe there is still a lot thatthe boys
have to offer us in the future.
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Mark Rathwell
> Actually, I heard that the album was Bruce Fairburn's idea and that he
> approached Chicago with it.
I heard that a Giant exec approached Chicago with the idea.
>
>
>> In terms of musical thought, the
>>arrangments were good but there was less creativity here than on other
>>Chicago albums.
>
> Huh? I'm not a musician but I know some who've said that these were some of the
> most complex arrangements Chicago has done since the early 70's. Certainly more
> so than all that computer generated crap they produced in the 80's.
I am a musician Mark and have played many of those tunes in
various circumstances. They did great arranging but the creativity is
still limited to that. With other Chicago albums they arrange material
that THEY write.
Mark
Awesoman
>various circumstances. They did great arranging but the creativity is
>still limited to that. With other Chicago albums they arrange material
>that THEY write.
>
Well, you are correct as they did not write the songs...but that wasn't the
idea of the album to begin with.
Awesoman's Awesome Page of Awesomeness!!!!