I’m watching HBO’s Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony and Chicago is finally being inducted. From what I understand, Jann Wenner is the reason it took so long for them to be included. He stated they would never be inducted.
Why? What did he have against them? Was it Peter Cetera? Cuz I agree, he sucks. But he doesn’t negate 20 years of great music. So . . . what did Wenner have against them?
My guess it’s due to the critical consensus that artistically Chicago simply wasn’t that good and didn’t deserve to be in the RRHOF. I think that’s a bit of an overstatement since the group did do some good work up until around 1975 when their slide into mediocrity began. Still, I’m not sure if five very good (but not great) years followed by decades of blah forgettable music is enough to merit inclusion (not that it’s up to me anyway).
Man, if only having five years of good stuff and a couple decades of suck precluded entry into the RRHoF we’d have to kick out 90%+ of the entrants.
Jann Wenner is an asshole? It’s a safe default answer, but I was a Creem fan when RS pretended that it mattered.
I’ve heard members of the Monkees say that Jann Wenner has taken upon himself to personally make sure they don’t get in.
True, but at even when the group was at its artistic peak, Chicago’s music was considered merely very good rather than great and ground-breaking. Let me put it this way: Can anybody identify any notable groups or artists who cite early Chicago as one of their musical influences? Also, Chicago’s early music fell into the Jazz Fusion (or Jazz Rock)genre which, on the whole, is not as well regarded as it was during its peak in the early 70s. The only other group in the RRHOF that extensively delved into Jazz Fusion was Traffic but that group balanced things out by also doing other genres like pop, R&B, psychedelic, and British Folk. That said, I think Chicago would probably be held in higher regard had it had broken up right after Terry Kath accidentally shot himself in 1978. Much of the dross that sank the group’s reputation came during the post-Kath years.
Wow. Tough room. I enjoyed Chicago right through the 80s while Pete Cetera was singing lead. Yeah, they’re mostly irrelevant now, but I thought they were a pretty solid group and I thought the horn section had some pretty good chops. They were part of my soundtrack growing up, and IMO, one of the important American bands.
Back when they were still CTA, they performed at my high school. I’m pretty sure we were just a stopover/minor detour between two bigger gigs.
Those of you who are saying Chicago isn’t a very good band, you are wrong. They’re good enough for the Rock 'n Roll Hall of Fame. But let’s say your questionable tastes are correct-- that doesn’t answer the question.
There are many mediocre bands out there that Jann Wenner did not make his personal business to keep out of the RNRHOF. But they were so good that the voting body of over 600 artists, historians and music industry insiders questioned for years why they were not nominated. The answer was Wenner. More than one artist on stage called for transparency in the nominating process.
Yeah, the thread is not about Chicago’s talent. Arguing about the relative Talent or “Deservedness” of a given artist for the RRHoF is a tail-chasing exercise.
I have no inside scoop, but yeah, it sure seems that Wenner and/or other parts of the leadership team have an agenda and bands like Chicago, Rush and Deep Purple were on the bottom of it.
Who does Wenner hate the most? Who’ll be permanently ruled out of the RRHOF the hardest? Perhaps Amy Ray. Have any other lyrics called him out by name like that?
While digging around, I found this fascinating blog post about why Yes isn’t in the Hall of Fame from the official site. Note that she mentions critics downgraded the band because its emphasis on classical influences seemed to downgrade rock and roll’s more populist roots. What does this have to do with Chicago? I wouldn’t be surprised if Wenner and his ilk feel Chicago’s heavy jazz and big band influences somehow compromised rock too. A very stupid argument yes. But it’s a glimpse on the weird way much of the critical establishment thinks about bands like Chicago.
Wenner thinks he walks on water so that’s the main issue.
I took a look at Chicago’s entry in the old Rolling Stone album guides. Most of their albums through the '70s got 2 stars out of 5 and were knocked for lacking imagination and their hits sounding samey. Their '80s output mostly got 1 star ratings because “'80s Chicago doesn’t even have the horns going for it.”