why is Chicago distained by the critics?
ali...@yahoo.com
relay...@aol.com (Relayer211) wrote:
> Does anyone know why the rock critics dislike the band Chicago so much?There
> seems to be many worse groups to me then them.
I think because they went on and on and on and on for so long, getting
blander with each release. I've always held the fact that they couldn't
be bothered to come up with actual titles to most of their records up as
evidence of their uttler lack of imagination. They did have some good
songs earlier on though.
Dee
Camel Toe
> He also tried his hand at movie producing and/or
> directing. "Electra Glide In Blue" starring Robert Blake was the
> result. I'm pretty sure I saw it way back when, but can't
> remember if it was any good.
For a first time director Guercio actually got some decent reviews for
this film (he never directed another movie). I have a fairly lengthy
review from the NY Times which had many good things to say about Guercio
and his film making technique. Many Chicago members were featured in the
movie (Terry Kath played the role of the cop killer). The soundtrack
album that accompanied the movie is a *must get* for hardcore Chicago
fans. Kath plays bass throughout the whole album (he is quite good) and
sings the memorable, climactic song entitled "Tell Me" which is highly
recommended (and unforgetable for anyone who has seen the movie). I
cannot imagine being a Kath fan and not having this album. Many good
session players are featured on the album such as Larry Carlton, Victor
Feldman, Ben Benay and Paul Beaver. All 3 of the Chicago horn section
can be found on the soundtrack. There are 2 jazzy instrumental("Morning"
and "Jolene's Dance") which I really like a lot. Those who don't like
wah-wah might want to take a pass on this one.
>
> Wonder what that guy is up to now?
> FYI- I think his first hit records came as producer (maybe
> discoverer) of The Buckinghams-whose hits did sometimes feature
> added on backing horn parts to punch up the songs.
He produced and managed a Chicago clone band by the name of "Gerard"
who released a self-titled album in 1976. The odd thing about this album
is that the cover is a direct copy of Chicago 5 (the one with the
woodwork). Chicago's James Pankow provided the horn arrangements for the
band. Even the lettering on the liner notes was the same as the Chicago
albums of the era! Instrumentation is this band is almost identical to
Chicago with the occassional addition of a female lead vocal. All 3 horn
players and percusionist Laudir DeOliviera play on the album.
Immediately after the break with Chicago he had some success
internationally with two albums by the German band Lake (I never heard
any of their music in on the radio here in the US) in 1978 and 1980.They
must have sold poorly domestically.
I guess after his international success with Lake he decided to revive
the career of the Scandinavian band known as Sailor. They were noted for
their use of an oddly archaic keyboard instrument known as a
Nickelodean. Guercio had them ditch the Nickelodean and had them record
a decent album ("Dressed For Drowning")of pop tunes which sank without a
trace (and is hated by all Sailor fans). Guercio played bass on the
album - he is actuallly a pretty good bassist.
From what I can tell Guercio retired from producing after producing
Carl Wilson's 1981 self-titled album. At one time he owned Caribou Ranch
in Colorado which he then sold to his brother Jeff in the late 1970's..
Very Long Buckinghams aside:
Guercio's first brush with success came producing the Buckingham's
"Time and Charges" and "Portraits" albums. As a staff producer for
Columbia, Guercio took the newly signed Buckinghams
(who had a hit with "Kind Of A Drag" for a small label) and tried to
mold them into album-oriented artists with an ear to the ground of
current day
pop/rock. Listening to "Portraits" and "Time and Charges" show a very
distinct
influence of the Beatles (especially the "Revolver" and "Sgt. Pepper"
albums).
These 2 Buckingham albums are *very* Guercio-influenced. He basically
used the band as
a pallet for his ideas. Guercio added string arrangements to many of
the songs
and wrote much of the material on "Time and Charges". The band wrote
more of the music
on "Portraits" although Guercio still produced and provided horn and
string arrangements. Guercio gave both albums a weird psychedelic feel
which
makes them both sound very dated today. Listen to "Susan" and you will
hear a
very odd break just before the end which features nothing but
industrial noise- this
was purely Guercio's idea (the rest of the band hated it!). This was a
big risk: a
producer jeopardizing the potential hit status of an obviously
hit-bound song. I still
cringe when I hear that break. Sound collages became a part of these
albums due
to Guercio's influence. Guercio left before they made the forth and
last album entitled "In One Ear And Gone
Tomorrow" although he did have his hand in one of the songs. This album
flopped
and soon after the band was involved in a drug bust which made national
news.
By the time the band was cleared of charges the band had imploded.
Guercio went on to produce the enormously successful second BS&T
album (1968) (little known fact: that album had some songs developed
while Al Kooper was still in the band).
Guercio then guided Chicago during their woodshedding period upon
their
arrival in LA. Guercio had a large effect on the sound of Chicago.
Although
Chicago is/was a far more talented band than the Buckinghams, Guercio's
production and guidance did
have play an important part in the band's output during his tenure as
manager/producer. As the years went on his influence lessened.
Listening to
Chicago III I hear that same type of industrial noise (in Man vs. Man)
that
Guercio put in "Susan". On CTA the sound collage found in "Someday" had
is
reminiscent to some of Guercio's work with the Buckinghams. Chicago
felt that
Guercio's presence was so heavy handed that they eventually resorted to
sneaking back into the studio at night (after Guercio left) to
re-record songs
without his input (this happened during the sessions for the eleventh
album).
After the Buckinghams had a flop with "In One Ear" they released
several non-Lp
singles which failed to chart (these singles can be found on the CD of
"In One
Ear"; all but two of the singles can be found on the Buckingham's CD
anthology
"Mercy, Mercy, Mercy"). Carl Giammarese and Dennis Tufano singed to Ode
records and released three albums under the name Tufano & Giammarese:
1973 "Tufano & Giammarese" an album of lighter, acoustic type music
1975 "Tufano & Giammarese Band" a nice pop album featuring a slowed
down
version of "Kind of a Drag" (Marty Grebb played on this one)
1977 "The Other Side" - this album had a bright LA studio gloss to it
(which is
not necessarily a good thing). It featured some of the earliest songs
of a
young writer by the name of Diane Warren (oh the pain!).
Tufano stayed in LA to for a rather undistinguished acting career. Here
is the link
to his acting related credits:
http://us.imdb.com/Name?Tufano,+Dennis
Tufano has occasionally done some singing but that has been very
infrequent: Tom Scott "Street Beat" he sang lead on one song; he played
guitar and sang
on Bernie Taupin's 1980 "Ride The Tiger". Drummer Jon-Jon Poulis had
some success
as a manager of rock acts but ended up dying due to (I believe) drug
and alcohol
induced liver problems. Giammarese and Nick Fortuna have been doing the
oldies
circuit with the "new" Buckinghams since the early late 1980's. I
believe that Carl
does all of the lead vocals. One Buckingham member was in Chicago for a
brief period: Marty Grebb toured with the band when they toured to
support album 14 (the
thumbprint album). Marty has said that he also played on that album
although
there is no mention of such in the liner notes.Marty
released his first solo album within the last year and has for the most
part been a
fairly busy musician playing as a sideman with many blues musicians. I
believe
that Marty was the Buckingham blessed with the most musical talent (he
is
skilled at guitar, sax and keyboards).
Toonhead
I was listening to their first albunm, which I do almost very day. They were
really odd..
--Steve--or----S.J. Carras
gca...@aol.com
http://members.aol.com/JCSt34204/index.html
poporc...@onelist.com
20s-to-50...@onelist.com/
buffy...@eskimo.com
For more visit www.onelist.com.
Steve_2000
Rock group when they came out in 1968. They were one of the
first groups to really use horns as part of the core band and
songs, not as studio 'sweetening (like strings) added to already
finished songs to punch them up.
Blood Sweat and Tears came out around the same time. Although
they had a many hit singles, BST was a slicker very pop band-
imo.
Another band that came out right in that time frame was the
unknown treasure, the Sons Of Champlain from SF. The Sons were a
blue eyed jazz/rock/R and B group, that were an
archetypical 'hippie' band of the 60's-living together etc. But
their songs/music and musicianship were possibly the best of any
of those bands. Their guitarist Terry Haggerty was rigging out
electric jazzy fusion lines years before it got popular. Bill
Champlains great blue eyed soul singing and strong lyrics (in
addition to playing B-3 and very good second lead guitar) were
first rate. The Son's were considered the tightest most musical
unit in the area at the time by the big popular SF 60's rock
groups as well as by artists who had moved to the Bay area at
during the time, like soon-to-be legendary Van Morrison. The
Sons were simply coming from a much more musical and soulful
space, many members having majored in music at US Berkeley.
Later Bay Area (total funk) groups like Tower of Power were
influenced much more by the Sons than by BST or Chicago.
Having been around and paying attention to the scene during this
time, I can tell you...BST had the top 40 hits and a couple big
albums, but Chicago developed into a true superstar band. At
their early mid-70's peak, they were a headliner that could fill
arenas, had hit singles and were accepted by Rock fans-also the
T-40 fans who listened to their tamer singles that made the
charts. Chicago was definitely the most successful of the horn
bands.
They were strongly influenced and managed by manager-producer
James William Guercio, who discovered them and guided and
polished them into the hot rock horn out fit that debuted on the
first CTA album. Guercio had a strong hand in all their big
records for years. He eventually noticed that bassist Peter
Cetera was developing a very unique and attractive 'signature
lead vocal sound.' Chicago's initial lead vocals had been sung
by 2 or 3 guys.
Once Cetera developed his sound, the move toward creating very
good, altho increasingly more commercial hit singles began
happening. This was fine, as Chicago would still chart big rock
songs and had the one really ripping rock lead player (not jazz
rock like the Sons T. Haggerty)-Terry Kath. Kath was hot from
the first album onward and received allocades from Jimi Hendrix
as one of the hottest 'new' rock players Hendrix had seen in the
late 60's.
Kath killed himself accidentally with via a gunshot wound. He
was ironically replaced by another guitarist and, ironically-
eventually-Bill Champlain...the leader of the Sons of Champlain-
who had finally given up on his SF band after trying for about
10 years and 6 or seven records to make it. He joined the Sons
as a second lead vocalist, keyboardist and guitarist.
In the early 80's-after close to 15 years as a charting band,
Chicago wad having a harder time charting records and their
drawing power was decreasing. A decision was made to change
directions-Gurercio may had left. They began recording a string
of power ballads featuring Peter Cetera on his trademark lead
vocals. They had always had ballads or slower songs during
their very popular period, but they were part of a bigger
picture...with all kinds of rockier and uptempo songs coming out
as well.
When they re-invented themselves as a 'power love ballad
band'(songs like "You're The Inspiration") with the sole
intention of getting the singles on the charts, they lost a lot
of credibility with critics and some fans. But they did continue
to chart singles and keep their career as a viable 'current
charting' recording act going several more years. Of course in
concert, they had the backlog of rocking Chicago oldies to fall
back on. But eventually really turning into a ballads band in
the 80's eventually pigeon-holed them. And their hard core
original rock fans left them as they became a mainstream band.
Cetera saw the writing on the wall and left in the late 80's -
probably about 5 years too late to 'go out on top'-but Chicago
is a 'machine' run by the managers who would (and still do) keep
it going as a money maker even though they are a (strong)
nostalgia band now.
Champlain had one medium sized post-Cetera 'Chicago' hit as sole
lead vocalist-the ballad (of course)'Walk Away'- then they had a
barely charting single with the Cetera-sound-a-like vocalist who
had joined the band to recreate Cetera's critical lead vocals in
concert.
By this point Chicago was firmly in the nostalgia circuit,
(sorta like the current Moody Blues annual tours). But Chicago
has one of the strongest bands and song catalogs of any band
playing that 70-s oldies 'circuit'-so many eras, so many #1 hit
singles and albums. There are 3 of the original members left
but, I've in the 90's and they still do justice to their kick
ass original strong horn tunes, the more pop but still strong
middle period stuff, and even the (imo-sappy) 80's ballads-altho
some of those songs are the only songs people know them for and
love em.
Of course Chicago has always gotten all kinds of reviews by rock
critics, but most serious musical reviews sorta stopped when
Cetera left, and they had been being beat up pretty badly,
critically, during that whole commercial ballad era.
This was only to be expected, because, as mentioned-Chicago had
a nice long run as a premier ROCK band with horns for many
years, before having to schmaltz out in the 80's.
If you would have asked this question in the 70's when they were
an innovative rock oriented horn band, expertly walking the line
between commercial (but cool) singles and concert tour de
forces, you'd probably have gotten different viewpoints, but
nothing like today.
Probably same with the Moody Blues. If they would have ended it
at a certain point when their best work had been done-they'd
probably be viewed in a different light today, with their best
work as the focus. But they stayed to long at the party. Chicago
has as well, but had several different variations on their
formula-approach, that they can still really entertain a Chicago
fan from any of their many eras.
It's probably more like Chicago sold out or went commercial by
switching to the 80's ballads, the Moodies by just reworking the
same fromula/sound until their albums wouldn't really sell and
the singles were very few and far between. So they began milking
the concert trail and overstayed their welcome, altho there are
still fans who enjoy seeing them every few years when they bring
out an orchestra to help them recreate the small body of
brilliant work they did in the late 60's early 70's.
FYI-I believe Bill Champlain has finally left Chicago. He was
actually with them longer than he was with his seminal and
influential original horn band, the Sons Of Champlain. Their
stuff sounds a bit dated, it should-most of it's 30 year old,
but it kicks tail. If so inclined-pick up the Best of the Sons
of Champlain compilation of their first 3 or so Capitol albums,
or locate the more expensive import of their first album ( a
double:) called 'Loosen Up Naturally' and realize these guys
were laying this great stuff down in the late 60's.
imo
Steve
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
Chris P. Mezzolesta
(ali...@yahoo.com) wrote:
> I've always held the fact that they couldn't
>be bothered to come up with actual titles to most of their records up as
>evidence of their uttler lack of imagination. They did have some good
>songs earlier on though.
This was their first producer's chioce (James Guercio), a statement
that the music would stand on its own without a catchy title to help
it sell....Nothing to do with the band. Their one attempt to get away
from it didn't do much better (Hot Streets, which otherwise would have
been Chicago XII) so for whatever reason they went back to the
numbers...
JRNelsonSr
>they had a many hit singles, BST was a slicker very pop band-
>imo.
Although BST were more of a jazz band with rock inflection. Chicago were more
of a rock band with jazz leanings.
Joe
King Pineapple
P. Mezzolesta <mezzo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>This was their first producer's chioce (James Guercio), a
>statement
>that the music would stand on its own without a catchy title to
>help
>it sell....Nothing to do with the band.
Who else did Guercio produce? I know that at the same time he
was doing Chicago he did some work with Firesign Theatre.
I saw Chicago on election night '72 (when Nixon won 49 states),
they were REAL bummed out...but still did a great show.
Steve_2000
Pineapple <craigseu...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>In article <2mivhs887a7kjecjl...@4ax.com>, Chris
>P. Mezzolesta <mezzo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>>This was their first producer's chioce (James Guercio), a
>>statement
>>that the music would stand on its own without a catchy title to
>>help
>>it sell....Nothing to do with the band.
>
>Who else did Guercio produce? I know that at the same time he
>was doing Chicago he did some work with Firesign Theatre.
>
>I saw Chicago on election night '72 (when Nixon won 49 states),
>they were REAL bummed out...but still did a great show.
>
album as I recall. Lead player went onto a version of Poco,
again as I recall.
He also tried his hand at movie producing and/or
directing. "Electra Glide In Blue" starring Robert Blake was the
result. I'm pretty sure I saw it way back when, but can't
remember if it was any good.
Wonder what that guy is up to now? He was such a world-beater in
his heady successful days as Chicago's guiding light. Seemed
like nothing he wouldn't try in the entertainment biz- music,
movies, building a major recording studio (Caribou)...
FYI- I think his first hit records came as producer (maybe
discoverer) of The Buckinghams-whose hits did sometimes feature
added on backing horn parts to punch up the songs.
imo
Steve 2k
Chris P. Mezzolesta
<craigseu...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:
>Who else did Guercio produce? I know that at the same time he
>was doing Chicago he did some work with Firesign Theatre.
Buckinghams, BS&T, and of course Firesign as you said (all on Columbia
- hrrmmmm) I'm sure there's more...
>I saw Chicago on election night '72 (when Nixon won 49 states),
>they were REAL bummed out...but still did a great show.
Interesting that they put "A Song for Richard and His Friends" on the
Group Portrait box as if it were an album cut, leaving off the
applause at the end and giving the illusion that it was a studio
recording.....I wonder if it was the apparent abandonment of their
heavy political content that led to some of the critical backlash (or
the fact that it was there in the first place? the political content I
mean) - - The last example I can think off of the top of my head is
"State of the Union" from "V" (1972) unless I'm missing one....I dug
"..Richard.." a lot when I was younger, now it really grates (not in
the way one would expect, Kath's feedback is the highlight for me, the
rest grates)
Still I bordered on idolatry back in my formative years, Kath's death
(a few scant months after my mom was diagnosed with MS) was a second
severe blow...
Chris/Power Salad
www.powersalad.com
new comedy CD!!!
Jeff Troutman
> In article <2mivhs887a7kjecjl...@4ax.com>, Chris
> P. Mezzolesta <mezzo...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
> >This was their first producer's chioce (James Guercio), a
> >statement
> >that the music would stand on its own without a catchy title to
> >help
> >it sell....Nothing to do with the band.
>
> was doing Chicago he did some work with Firesign Theatre.
>
I don't think he produced them, but he did work in some capacity with Chad &
Jeremy. He also occasionally played bass for the Beach Boys in the '70s.
Jeff Troutman
Jeff Troutman
> In article <20000514220555...@ng-md1.aol.com>,
> relay...@aol.com (Relayer211) wrote:
>
> > Does anyone know why the rock critics dislike the band Chicago so
much?There
> > seems to be many worse groups to me then them.
>
> I think because they went on and on and on and on for so long, getting
> be bothered to come up with actual titles to most of their records up as
> evidence of their uttler lack of imagination. They did have some good
> songs earlier on though.
The critical drubbing started pretty early: I think a lot of critics saw the
second set as a betrayal of the promise of the first, and reacted
accordingly.
Jeff Troutman
Jeff Troutman
> IIRC, Chicago Transit Authority was a fairly groundbreaking Horn
> Rock group when they came out in 1968. They were one of the
> first groups to really use horns as part of the core band and
> songs, not as studio 'sweetening (like strings) added to already
> finished songs to punch them up.
Mention should also be made here of the Electric Flag, a 1967 band
featuring Mike Bloomfield and Buddy Miles, who used a horn section. Paul
Butterfield had added a horn section to his band about this time as well.
Jeff Troutman
Steve_2000
<yourhe...@starpower.net> wrote:
>Steve_2000 <steve_200...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
>> IIRC, Chicago Transit Authority was a fairly groundbreaking
Horn
>> Rock group when they came out in 1968. They were one of the
>> first groups to really use horns as part of the core band and
>> songs, not as studio 'sweetening (like strings) added to
already
>> finished songs to punch them up.
>
band
>featuring Mike Bloomfield and Buddy Miles, who used a horn
section. Paul
>Butterfield had added a horn section to his band about this
time as well.
>
>Jeff Troutman
>
sang lead for the first (one album) version of Blood Sweat and
Tears were buddies and would later partner for some legendary
jam recordings. Bloomfield made his original name playing for
Butter...left that gig for the E. Flag I believe..didn't Buddy
play drums for them?
Anyway a lot of inbreeding of ideas among those guys. I always
thought of the Flag and Butterfield adding horns the way a
standard blues act like BB King might do on an album or a
particularly fat tour...
BST and Chicago were going different places with their horns,
imo. (As were the *unkown* Sons of Champlain.)
But the time was definitely ripe for blues, blues-rock, Rock and
pop/jazz-rock bands to add in horns. It was a late 60's American
trend.
America wasn't able to come up with the heavy rock lead guitar
superstar trios and quartets-Cream, Hendrix, Beck, Who, Zeppelin
etc- that Britain was slamming us with (to great success) at
during those few years.
I was reading my "History of Marshall Amps' book last night-the
power house British stacks necessary for that stadium filling
huge guitar sound. Marshalls were back ordered for months or
years in during that time. You just couldn't get em easily in
America. So the American's seemed to counter with larger bands
using keyboards and especially horn sections for a powerful
sound.
This was all during the era when the real 'bigger than life'
Rock Concert Experience was being defined and created (as
opposed to screamfests for underpowered Brit invasion or simply
very popular groups a couple of years before-which were
really 'fan events' not musical or concert experiences. There
was a major shift around 66-67 as Rock began to be viewed (by
the mainstream) as something else besides disposable teenage
entertainment. Things like Monterey Pop (while relatively small)
were hugely influential and turning points for the way some Rock
music was starting to be viewed.
The release of great artistic albums like Sgt. Pepper and
substantial albums (not just singles) by many late 60's bands
fueled this newish perception of certain Rock music as being
much more than just throwaway entertainment.
And the various British and American bands rose to the challenge
in their various ways. The top 40 continued on as usual...but as
Eric Clapton has said in numerous interviews- during the time
Cream was becoming huge, a whole 'underground' circuit
developed in a very short time and a circuit of halls and
promoters quickly sprang up to accommodate these new
supergroups.
Guys like Bill Graham made sure the best production values
(sound and lights) available at the time were used in his halls
to maximize the concert experience-allow the aritists to sound
and look as good as they could. 'Underground' FM radio stations
also began popping up with freeform formats that allow them to
do something like play a full side of 'Are You Experienced' or
maybe a Quicksilver Messenger Service or Van Morrison album..
imo
Steve 2k
Chris P. Mezzolesta
< >
Thanks for the infomative post! Ties a lot together.....
flicklives
Chicago made the same mistake made by Peter Frampton. Both veered away from
what made them favorites- the former by replacing horns with strings, and
the latter by replacing guitar licks with piano and strings. They replaced
strengths with weaknesses, and lost credibility as a result.
BTW, Chicago producer James William Guercio also produced the first DC
Thomas BST album. He may have done a few more for them, but that one is
forever burned into my memory. The CD version sounds so good, mostly because
it doesn't have the pops and scratches that my original LP had. Also, I
don't have to flip it over- there's no side two.
King Pineapple wrote in message
<1e593fc0...@usw-ex0105-037.remarq.com>...
Jeff Troutman
> In article <8fqfgk$51f$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "Jeff Troutman"
> <yourhe...@starpower.net> wrote:
> >Steve_2000 <steve_200...@my-deja.com.invalid> wrote:
> Horn
> >> Rock group when they came out in 1968. They were one of the
> >> first groups to really use horns as part of the core band and
> >> songs, not as studio 'sweetening (like strings) added to
> already
> >> finished songs to punch them up.
> >
> band
> >featuring Mike Bloomfield and Buddy Miles, who used a horn
> section. Paul
> >Butterfield had added a horn section to his band about this
> time as well.
> >
> sang lead for the first (one album) version of Blood Sweat and
> Tears were buddies and would later partner for some legendary
> jam recordings. Bloomfield made his original name playing for
> Butter...left that gig for the E. Flag I believe..didn't Buddy
> play drums for them?
Not to my knowledge. Sam Lay and later Billy Davenport were Butterfield's
drummers during this period. Buddy had been a session drummer and was
working in Wilson Pickett's band when he met Bloomfield.
>
> Anyway a lot of inbreeding of ideas among those guys. I always
> thought of the Flag and Butterfield adding horns the way a
> standard blues act like BB King might do on an album or a
> particularly fat tour...
I can see that with Butterfield, but some of the Flag's horn charts had a
post-WW2 jazz sound to me.
Jeff Troutman