Chicago VI was on sale this month from Amazon. I downloaded it and I think it is excellent. I haven’t listened to a lot of Chicago before the soft rock era. Are all of the early Chicago albums this good?
The first few, before the death of Terry Kath, were an exquisite blend of brass and rock.
I listened to the early albums a lot in my high school and college days. Honestly, I can’t understand why. There’s too much noodling and boring art school nonsense on the first four albums. Live at Carnegie Hall is a big egotistical, boring mess. I’d stick with the Greatest Hits album for the early stuff. After that, I find Chicago XIV strangely compelling, even though it’s their biggest failure. Their '80s stuff (16, 17, 18, and 19) was the most successful, but they’ve dated very badly.
The first album is the only I’ve really enjoyed, perhaps because it is very different to the rest of their albums. The first five tracks are pure classics. I will admit that there is a bit of noodling, but - hey, it was a noodly time.
There was a brief trend with jazz-rock groups in the late 1960s: Electric Flag, Blood, Sweat and Tears and Chicago. Some of it was pretty good but it petered out real quick. So, yeah, early Chicago wasn’t bad.
I’m also in the Greatest Hits club when it comes to Chicago, and even at that, I don’t bother with anything after the first one.
Great hits. Album cuts tend to put me to sleep.
Well in my case I understand why-they could write some killer hooks during their heyday-some of which I still like (tho I haven’t gone back and gotten any of their CDs yet), but yes some of it just doesn’t work anymore, if it ever did.
As an aside - I’ve heard (no cite though) that Jimi Hendrix considered Kath the best guitar player in rock.
Chicago’s first two albums were their best. By Chicago 3, they took the worst elements of their previous albums and made it their signature. But Chicago 5, they were a MOR joke. “Saturday in the Park” is as defining their downfall from good to terminally mediocre as “The Joker” does for Steve Miller.
If you like later Chicago, you probably won’t like their earlier work, because it had some actual rock music in it (as well as blues).
They were my favorite band when I was in high school in the '70’s, but as an adult, I would have to say that 1 & 7 are their only truly good albums, especially 1 (Chicago Transit Authority). “Beginnings” is still one of my favorite songs especially when the radio stations will play the full-length version, “Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is” still holds up well as a Top 40 piece, “I’m a Man” is an excellent cover, and the rest of the album, with the exception of Terry Kath’s attempt to imitate Jimi Hendrix, is pretty good second-tier jazz.
There is some good stuff on the other albums – “Ballet for a Girl from Buchanan” (contains “Color My World” and “Make Me Smile”) on 2, “Dialogue” on 5, “Just You ‘N’ Me” and "Feelin’ Stronger Every Day on 6 – but it is buried in a lot of shit.
Re Terry Kath: I’ve read that when Chicago toured with Jimi Hendrix, Noel Redding and/or Mitch MItchell told some of Chicago’s members that Kath was better than Hendrix. While I think Kath is underrated as a guitarist, this is BS. Hendrix is the second-greatest musician of all time. I think Redding, who was jealous of Hendrix according to the stuff I’ve read, was just bullshitting. OTOH, Kath deserves more recognition than he has gotten from the critics and Chicago certainly deserves to be in the Rock 'N" Roll Hall of Fame.