Great review. Very well written and witty.

I lost all hope in Chicago years ago. I never was a die hard fan, but did enjoy some of their music. But it appears that my hope died with good cause. I won't be trying to revive it either.

Who cares if it's not an "evolution?" Why is it that critics can never get past the fact some of us just enjoy catchy music that makes us smile? Chicago does just that with "XXX". So who cares what you think? I don't.

Next time write a real review of the music.
All you wrote was a diatribe of everything you dislike about the band over the last twenty years.
Actually, Chicago XXX has some fine musical moments that you never cared to mention. for example the Robert Lamm penned tunes are sunny and catchy and do at least resemble classic Chicago.
Bill Champlin has written some of the bluesiest and funkiest material ever to appear on a Chicago record.

I too, dislike the large amount of ballads on the CD, but some of them happento be very good and will bo doubt become big hits for the band.

"Chicago, Chicago / my kind of town ...."

Did Chicago ever actually do that song?

They're into putting out product. That's business! Pure and simple. As for the title of the release... maybe there is hidden porn backwards tracking on it!

Though I do have their best of covering the '82-'89 period, and my mother used to own their 1974 hit "If You Leave Me Now", I can't say I'm really eager to hear anything new by them, two decades is long enough for a band I think, that hasn't been musically innovative after it's early days.

It's hard to read a review like yours after being such a fan of the band for many years -- but in this case, I have to agree with you - on a great deal of your comments regarding this new recording. I do agree with you that Chicago is the horns. This recording is an adult contemporary country-pop showing. And there is nothing really wrong with that because that IS what is commercial across America for those who hate the bombardment of hip-hop/rap. But...I wouldn't completely bury Chicago because of this showing or the sappy ballads of the 80's/90's - they have too much OTHER good stuff out there for folks to enjoy.

The review was basically a history lesson, interpreted through the eyes of a mean-spirited critic who apparently didn't take the time to actually listen to the new album.

The new album, although not coming within even the same universe of innovation as the band's first two albums, displays a commercially-appealing sound, with several power ballads, some rock and some blues.

Power ballads that are hit material include, "Feel," "Love Will Come Back," and "King of Might Have Been." These tunes are followed up with Lamm's catchy pop tune, "Come to Me, Do" and two longer songs, "Lovin' Chains" and "Better," both of which feature Champlin's bluesy, raspy voice. The vocals on these two songs are very good, bringing the band back closer to its rock roots. After listening to the two songs featuring Champlin several times, I appreciated the songs even more, listening to the subtle nuances of his intonations.

All of the songs on the album tend to grow on one, after listening to each two or three times. Other tunes, "Caroline" and "90 Degrees and Freezing," add to the collection, rather than taking away from it.

All in all, I would highly recommend the the latest edition by America's most commercially successful band. A few critics who try to pigeon hole Chicago into one musical bin or another may have difficulty appreciating its range, but long-time Chicago fans, as well as the listening public, will throughly enjoy this new CD.

This reviewer???? has no clue about Chicago like most. XXX is a good to great CD.

It can not compare to anything from the Kath era but then it does not pretend to.

It is better than anything they have done since then with the exception of the unreleased Stone of Sisyphus. 17 would be close behind XXX but still behind.

Do not listen to this closed minded Bozo, get XXX and decide for yourself.

Bands grow and change when they have been around for over thirty years. Critics often can't see past the initial sound of a band and believe every other album should sound like those first recordings.
Comparing Chicago to Elvis is like comparing the Beatles to the Backstreet Boys.
Seriously, Elvis was a great performer, but not a songwriter. The comparison is an empty one.
There was never any "comeback" with Chicago. Whatever you may think of their output, they never left the music scene.
Chicago XXX has its drawbacks, but is still 200 percent better than anything on the radio today.

Did you listen to the cd, based on your review you obviously decided to give us a history lesson on something you no nothing about. First you get hung up on the cd title, and then rip the band for its commercial success over four decades, and you forget that its fan base ranges for those who grew up with it's early sounds of Pankow and his horns counterparts, Lamm, Kath, Cetera, mixing vocals with the horns, and those fans who fell in love with the 80's & 90's ballads wether it be Cetera, Champlin, or Scheff.But then again your review was to look at the new CD on its own merits remembering that its fan base wanted something that mixed the best of all Chicago era's. You failed miserably in whatever you were attempting to do, probably trying to bury the band without actually listening to the songs. As they say, "You hear but you obviously didn't listen. Well done CHICAGO, maybe it wasn't your best work but still enjoyable to LISTEN.

ABsolutely spot-on review-cum-obit of(the band formerly known as)Chicago.
ADDENDUM: Perhaps XXX's most resounding contribution would be it's VINYL counterpart:
For better or for worse, it'd make a fine addition; the best since mabye '17', or 'XI'...

I read this after I got ahold of the Chicago 30 CD. I will preface what I say by adding: I am just one opinion and I mean no harm, but open dialogue should help, not hurt. I consider myself a long term fan and I have every recording they have released (and yes one they didn't) so I know they have alot of fans that will come to their aid, but I have to agree with this review. I absolutely hated this outing - it 's nothing more than a showcase for Jason Scheff. And since I am also big fan of Rascal Flatts, this guy was the best choice of a producer to showcase Jason Scheff and his new back up band - Chicago. That may seem like a harsh statment, but I call 'em as I hear 'em. The ballad material on this CD is not needed for a band of this stature and yes it does sound like a rip off of David Foster's production work. I am aware that Chicago wanted to get away from such tags but this 30th CD does not help. There isn't a new thing on this CD as this review points out. And as much as I loved hearing Robert Lamm 'front' Chicago for as many years as he's been with the band, this production makes him sound like he should retire. His only composition on the recording, "Come to Me, Do" for a musician of his calibre -- just sounds amature and lyrically unfinished. But...it does have the most radio appeal of anything on this CD. Another song sounds like a rip off of "The David Letterman Show"'s band opening. I miss seeing compositions of James Pankow on this CD, although his horn charts are ideal amist the circumstances. It's an awful production mix and doesn't compliment Chicago at all and I think it was meant to be that way with the tons of Jason Scheff singing/arrangements/writing - especially after having a composition with horns and one WITHOUT. Chicago IS the horns for anyone who doubts. As a Chicago fan, honestly, I could wait longer for something "new" if this is all they have to give.

I don't understand why all the history and bashing is necessary for a review. Without being a diehard fan, I find it admirable that the band remains essentially the same after all these years and appears to enjoy performing together. I've listened to Chicago XXX and enjoyed it. I think there is variety to the songs, some good work from the horn section and the Champlin, Lamm and Scheff styles are all represented. Bottom line is I've found myself tapping my foot and smiling as I listen to the music.

Wow, it's nearly impossible to respond to a review this biased and literally seething with disgust for most of this legendary band's output. Even though it's obvious the reviewer holds their earlier work in a slightly higher regard than everything that has come since, he still manages to insult them even while feigning phrases resembling compliments. Terry Kath's MUDDY ROCK? Is THAT what you call the work of one of the most prominent rock guitarists of his era - the man Jimi Hendrix held in the highest regard? Cetera's GIFT FOR SCHMALTZ? Is THAT what his performance on 25 or 6 to 4 represents to you? Have you forgotten tracks like Sing A Mean Tune Kid or State Of The Union? Why couldn't you simply leave it at "Peter Cetera's GIFT"?? Look, Mr. Jefito - if you hate Chicago so much, why compose an article and pass it off as an objective review? Maybe you need to try a bit of Robert Lamm's CYNICAL OPTIMISM (ooops, wait, isn't that an oxymoron?). So let me get this straight. What you're basically saying is, that for Chicago/Elvis to NOT be dead, he/they need to go back to their 1960's protest period and make sure there's lots of heavy horn charts. Is that right? Just because your personal taste in music differs from their output, shouldn't you focus your comments on whether or not something is GOOD? Sound, objective reviewers will put their personal tastes aside and comment on the overall quality of the product they're reviewing. If they're good at what they do, they should be BRUTALLY HONEST, as I'm sure you feel you've been in the above Chicagologue. In reality, what you've been is BRUTALLY BIASED...against the 2nd most successful American band in history. Much of their collective success came from songs, arrangements, and performances EXACTLY like the ones currently being presented on Chicago XXX, which sounds to me like a pop album of the highest quality in just about every way possible - if you're a Chicago fan, that is, which you're very obviously not. You're calling Chicago XXX "Jason's Show", conveying some sort of dismay over the fact that Robert Lamm appears to be reduced to few cameos. Sir, this is a situation that has existed within Chicago for DECADES. Robert Lamm stopped dominating the writing within the band after Chicago VIII. I think it's a miracle they have someone like Jason Scheff in the band writing, singing, and playing up to the very high standard set by his predecessor. Same sentiment goes for Bill Champlin, who's also prominently featured on Chicago XXX. John Lennon probably said it best when he remarked "You can't dig Elvis up and take him back to his Sun Records period. LISTEN to his Sun records and enjoy them, but dig what's happening NOW!" While I love Chicago's early output and will always have an immense sentimental attachment to it, I'm very excited about their new material - and the mere fact that they still exist at all as a recording/performing entity. As for Mr. Jefito, gosh...I can't WAIT to read his review of ROCKY VI.

This writer is dead on the money. My review here concurs with everything he said. Jason Scheff is just awful. Read my review here.

I can sum up the album in one word. Boring. Somebody needs to write good songs. Desperately.

while a little meanspirited this review is right on the money. i am one of their biggest fans from 69-79. after that it has been horrible. the best that can happen here is the original four fire the rest and start again. lamm and pankow should make a classic guitar album and maybe let champlin write a song for it. the horns here are good but the sheff stuff is childish and pure drek. it's incomprehensible to me how artists who wrote and performed fresh and excellent music can, given that they are all very rich men, permit this to go on in their name. i guess it's show business. i will remember my nights at carnegie hall in 1971 and 72 for the band they were. had kath lived he would not have permitted this to happen. in fact, i'm sure he's turning in his grave.

Is there a review here for Chicago XXX or a slanted history lesson on the band? This is the reason these guys took their own forums down. This isn't a review. I would go so far as to say, the input from Bill Champlin is my favorite part of XXX. And good to hear more from Robert as well. And then there are a lot of people who will love Scheff's contributions, because it heavily represents the Chicago they loved from the 80's and early 90's. I think there is something here for every Chicago fan. Yes, the order of the tracks should NOT have had all of the ballads bunched together. Or maybe they did that, just to piss off all the people who were going to moan about the fact that they were there, in the first place. How about a review of the music that's on the disc and not what you expect them to do. Judge them on the present. I think there's a great CD here, that I can listen to, start to finish (with a little re-shuffling of the song order)...and ya know what, it's been a long time since I've been able to do that.

Great comment. I'm a big Dutch Chicago fan. I've got almost anything of the band and also of Peter Cetera. Became a fan a bit with # 16, and in my opinion this also is # 22, for it's the same music as 10-15 years ago. I loved and still love that music, so for me it is great, but I can imagine that someone who wants something new really is disappointed. You better listen to Peter Cetera who has no pretention of doing anything else than the last decade. Just remains the same. Good songs from way back. I think this will be the last thing we ever hear of Chicago, because I can't imagine there is nowadays a market for it. There wasn't a market for #21, so why must there be a market for #30?
Things sometimes end, and this is unfortunately the end of Chicago. So (still remaing a fan) looking forward to the next decade of great hits.

Every band in twilight faces the challenge of innovating when they've already climbed the mountain. This project feels like Chicago is looking to capitalze on the very successful joint tour with Earth, Wind and Fire and regain a pop foothold. Jump into the studio and then get back to the tour, which doesn't lead to rich songwriting.

Way too much Scheff I agree. Too many cliche power ballads that all run together. Yet there's still quality music here. Pankow's horn arrangements are superb, maybe hooking up with EWF had an influence as the Fire's style is clearly present while still maintaing the Chicago identity.

The infectious Champlin storytelling blues tunes work well. They have more texture and less sheen than the rest of the material. 90 Degrees and Freezing has fun hooks. Feel carries some strength and depth. The rest of XXX is moments rather than songs. The diehard fans will still love to hear the horns, the voices, it's still Chicago, it's just not Chicago in its prime, but how can it be?

Pankow's renaissance is a great building block for the next project. The band needs to return to its songwriting roots and get everyone involved and turn the musical diversity up to 11. That'll require leaving the road and really focusing on the writing for 31. I think that'll be the make or break project.

The seeds for a great next cd are there, but will require a producer that challenges them to truly create, to paint the layered stories. The next project has to be less concerned with what will sell and more focused on revealing the depth and breadth of their musical soul.

The reviewer is correct, this is an album that is not worthy. I actually met with the band at one point with the agenda of trying to produce a new, back to the basics record. I realized at that time that the way the band is so fractionalized that a good record was not to be. See, they need to play as a BAND, not bring in their home recordings to re-do exactly as the home recordings. They don't record as a BAND, they record as PARTS. Therefore no soul is conveyed. Instead I produced the Sons of Champlin's last record which features the best Chicago singer, Bill Champlin. That record at least has some soul and good songs on it.
I think this record is a stab at being able to say they put out records in 4 decades and that's about it.
The reviewer has FAR more insight than they even realize, I'm here to personally confirm it.

The tone of the interview seems to be that the reviewer got what he expected. I don't think it was written from an objective standpoint. I believe he had already decided that this CD wasn't very good.
I can not agree.
It may not be what everyone likes, but there are tracks here that are really good.
And what is wrong with music that you just plain like? I don't listen to most of today's hip/hop stuff,because I don't like it. But you won't find me writing a review of any of it. I already know I won't like it.
That's what I get out of THIS review.
Which, of course, gives it very little credibility.

Most of this review is bang on. This comes from a Chicago fan since 1979. The XXX album sure does sound like B-sides from 19 or 21. The only thing I'd disagree with is the contention that the horn section is prominent. It sounds pushed back in the mix to me - much like 19 and 21 again - and the arrangements sound pretty pedestrian.

I´m a dutch Chicagofan since 1970. I listened to Chicago xxx in a record shop and left with a seventies album of The Steve Miller Band. So Chicago xxx didn´t quite impress me, but I will accept it as a gift for my 50th birthday

Best Chicago album in the last 30 years.

I too love the new album. Too many snobby pretentious critics always claim a group must "evolve" into something foreign to their original loyal fans,rather than deliver more of the wonderful same. Give me more of the wonderful same, and show that you're ... oh what the hell, I'll say it - "Feelin Stronger Every Day." And they do, on every cut.

I am amazed by the responses to this review (which sounds like it's on the money, eventhough I haven't heard the record under discussion).

Like a lot of people, I was heavily into Chicago at the beginning; back in my junior high and high school days I played the second, third, fifth and I think eighth records obsessively. I had no idea what "25 or 6 to 4" actually meant, but I was sure it was something of deep significance, no doubt worthy of hours upon hours of discussion. I thought "When All the Laughter Died in Sorrow" was a poem of genius. I thought "Motorboat to Mars" was the greatest drum solo in history. I thought -- yes, I can admit it now -- that "Dialogue" was profound, and I even copied out the lyrics on notebook paper. I was capable of listening to "Does Anyone Know What Time It Is?" and actually asking myself, "Is it possible none of us really know what time it is? Can we... ever?" I was a fan.

That was all over by college. Punk, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, the Rolling Stones, the Beatles, Warren Zevon, Elvis Costello -- all these other influences, old and new, started coming in and Chicago just seemed impossibly old. I recalled how my junior-high band director liked them, and indeed they did seem like someone's very staid, conventional, acceptable idea of what "good" rock and roll sounded like. The occasional news that they were still out there kicking actually baffled me; they never got the memo that they were completely irrelevant and I guess their fans haven't either, which I suppose is as it should be, because they apparently keep finding each other, and judging from the responses here both Chicago and its fans like what they see in the other.

Barry Lerten's comment says it all: "Too many snobby pretentious critics always claim a group must `evolve' into something foreign to their original loyal fans,rather than deliver more of the wonderful same."

What can you say to a fan who likes the fact that the band hasn't grown an inch?

Mr. Jefito: I don't disagree with many of your criticisms of Chicago XXX (I'm a fan since CTA, a worn and well-loved vinyl copy of which sits in my collection). There is some well-constructed stuff on there (no serious music appreciator would fail to recognize the talented musicianship), but I moved on in 1979 (guess that makes me one of the "snobby, pretentious critics"; I need my artists to grow). But lots of people DO want their bands to lack innovativeness. What do we say to these people? I would say that these folks - and any interested in reading about the band's release for whatever reason - deserve a review that at least attempts objectivity. Did you write this article for yourself or for your readers? And if the latter, did you target your prose toward mainstreamers ("don't change" fans), (for lack of a better label) "snobby, pretentious" fans, or a general audience?

Here is my gripe about the review - again, noting that I agree with many of its impressions of the new CD. The author wrote: "1969-1977: The "Chicago as Elvis at Sun Records" era, in which Robert Lamm's cynical optimism, Terry Kath's muddy rock, and Peter Cetera's gift for schmaltz combined with rock & roll's best horn section to sell lots and lots of records."

If you enter a review project feeling so negative about the act - and when that feeling is of a degree that motivates you to insult the band about meaningless minutia right from the start rather than focus on its MUSIC'S merits - I have to question your fitness as an objective critic of Chicago.

I did like "cynical optimism," though. The phrase sounds like an oxymoron, sure, but it really does exist - and it's a great description of the sense one gets (or rather the sense I get) from Bobby Lamm's stuff.

Mr. Welch: I could deal with hearing "Dialogue" right now. It may not be particularly deep, but the main message - "We can make it happen" - makes a great pep talk for this dangerous new millennium.

Mr. Lerten: Who's the real pretentious snob? You judge people for daring to appreciate innovation and growth in musical art. I haven't judged you for settling for the "wonderful same." I need more than the same thing I heard eons ago, which is perfectly OK. Being content with a band maintaining one consistent sound is OK too. To each his or her own. And either way, "25 or 6 to 4" is killer. God love Jimmy Pankow and his horns. And long live the memory of Terry Kath. (Muddy rock, my ass.)

"Muddy rock" is a compliment. Good Lord, people, learn about your rock & roll.

NR, Objectivity means nothing. I'm not objective about anything that matters to me. What matters is fairness. Jefito gave the record a fair hearing, hated it, and wrote his impressions with -- it seems to me -- considerable meticulousness. He didn't just say it sucked, he said why it sucked, how it sucked, when it sucked, where it sucked, and then stood back and considered the nature of this particular brand of suckiness. That's all you can ask. It's perfectly okay to hate something -- just make sure you hate passionately and intelligently and, most important of all, interestingly. Jefito passes with flying colors.

Lead with the insults appears to be your M.O., Mr. Jefito. I know quite a bit about rock and roll on a professional level, thank you, so kiss my ass. And in many circles, even musical ones, "muddy" is not a recommended adjective. I sense where you're coming from by using that term (yeah, there are times when muddy is good), but if your readers don't get your intended meaning straight away, that's about YOU and YOUR word choice. Don't slam me - I just spent my valuable time reading YOUR article (an error that assuredly won't be repeated; this buyer has learned to beware), something that added significantly less to my life than an hour with Chicago XXX did.

Mr. Welch, that's your opinion. To me, a certain amount of objectivity indeed matters - whether a writer personally likes or dislikes an artist. He hated it and said so and in the way he saw fit, which absolutely is his right. My point is that by starting with insults practically from word one - and most of them centered around *inane* shit - he doesn't do much to encourage people to find him credible, even if he is right. In a music piece (as opposed to a politics or news editorial, a gossip item or celeb puff piece, or a stylistic piece from a writer who intends to be a nasty, insulting git), I just don't see the point of insulting the artist (and, by extension, the act's fans). It is possible to say negative things about a reviewed recording or whatever without trashing the artist and those in its camp.

This album was so country. How did they get from swing rock to country rock? And yes, I'm a diehard fan who FLIPS OUT anytime I hear 25 or 6 to 4.
It's not the sound of the music for me...it's the intelligence. Back then, difficult horn rhythms and intense dissonance...not to mention their crisply performed crescendos stood them out from other bands. They knew music, and they knew how to make intelligent music. Nowadays it's a lame horn part, same old major key signature throughout the song, no drum solos, and certainly no dynamics. If I gave the sheet music of the songs on XXX to a 5th grade band they could play it; the music isn't intelligent like it used to be at all.

Man, oh man, oh man. Whew---I don't know what's wilder and more outlandish here, the original review or some of the "fans'" replies to it. I prefer to take what I call the "psychiatric" approach to this CD, because one almost has to be a psychiatrist to fully understand and appreciate what has been going with Chicago for the past 15 years. And at the core of any good psychiatric analysis of Chicago, one has to look at the band's severed relationship with its original producer/manager/handler/hand-holder, James William Guercio. Bless his heart, Jimmy Guercio has to be laughing his rear end off in his adopted home, Boulder, Colorado, if he's taken a listen to XXX. In various comments over the last 15 years, Jimmy G. has noted that while the band fired him in 1977, they really quit listening to him in about 1974, and that is where the almost imperceptible slide in their fortunes began, although the slide did not gain momentum until 1978/1979. If Chicago had stuck with Jimmy G. AND listened to him into the 1980s and beyond, there is no telling what might have been. While Chicago's fortunes staggered back and forth through the 1980s and 1990s, Jimmy G. built a HUGE fortune. Having bought a massive amount of property on the south end of Rocky Mountain National Park in the early 1970s, Jimmy G. established Caribou Ranch, including its famed recording studio, where the likes of Joe Walsh, Elton John, Billy Joel, Carole King and Rod Stewart recorded. Unfortunately, the studio burned down from an electrical short in 1985. After that, Guercio was disenchanted with the music and recording industry, so he shifted gears, and successfully pursued large-scale cattle ranching (he now owns 3 ranches, including Caribou), property development, and, currently, oil and gas exploration, drilling and production, particularly coalbed methane wells. In the late 1980s, Guercio formed the Country Music Television (CMT) channel, which, in the early 1990s he sold to media tycoon Ed Gaylord and Westinghouse Broadcasting. Guercio is now worth several hundred million dollars, and all of this was done in the 21 years since 1985.

Compare that to what Chicago HAS NOT DONE in the same period, while continuing to pat themselves on the back for splitting with Jimmy G. Now, who would YOU say is smarter? Yes, former drummer Danny Seraphine tried to emulate Guercio and put some sanity into Chicago's business and musical decisions, but he was simultaneously hamstrung by both Warner Brothers' idiotic insistence on power ballads (not the band's fault) AND the band's paranoia that he somehow was destroying the group's "democratic" decision-making process, causing them to "fire" him in 1990. And let us not forget that the band's creativity was seriously wounded in the late 1970s and early 1980s by the self-admitted (in public interviews) drug usage of some of the band's members. I mention all of this, because one cannot adequately appreciate how Chicago churned out this incredibly "Dual Personality" CD, a.k.a. XXX, without knowing all the history. And yes, the band DOES have its factions. There is the "conservative" element, the horn section (Pankow, Parazaider and Loughnane), along with the "liberal" wing of Scheff and Lamm, plus the "let's hang out and rock" trio of Champlin, Imboden and Howland. Although all these guys get along well on the surface, there are very significant differences in the way that they all look at musical and business decisions. All that being said, I don't think that this XXX CD would have been given a "green light" commercially, had it not been for Scheff's tight friendship with Rascal Flatts and the popularity of the latter group with recording industry executives. Furthermore, it was Scheff and Lamm, along with Champlin, who really wanted to make the new CD. The horn section was not originally very enthusiastic, although they seem to have warmed up to the idea over the last year. So, the dominance of Scheff over the first half of the CD is somewhat understandable, although you have to wonder why his "elders," the four original members, did not tell him "no" on some of the sophomoric lyric writing. However, I seem to remember several nasty reviewers in the mid-70s referring to "sophomoric" and "sappy" Chicago lyrics around the VII, VIII and X albums, so maybe Scheff is just being true to a less glorious side of the band's history.

By the same token, Scheff's voice isn't quite what it used to be, and in his valiant attempts to hit the highest of high notes in some of the ballads on the front end of XXX, Scheff winds up coming across as screeching. Unfortunately, as people like Billy Joel and Elton John found out some years back, male voices tend to deepen and lose some of their "clarity" with age, no matter what we do to fight it. Scheff is now 43, and this is about the same age that the ability of Joel and John to hit high notes began to fade. I must say, one of the few people to hold on to an extended upper vocal range is Peter Cetera, the original Chicago bassist/vocalist, who is probably also laughing his rear end off in Idaho. And while we're discussing retention of vocal ability, I really have to "Feel" for Robert Lamm, whose voice just "ain't what it used to be." Granted, the man is 61 years old, and he is to be commended for having an incredible amount of energy and boyish enthusiasm for his age (his fellow three original members could learn something from him in that department). Nevertheless, as he unfortunately demonstrated in this week's television appearances on Martha Stewart's and Tony Danza's shows, he's having problems getting his voice warmed up and sounding hoarse. And his ability to hit any high notes is now limited and particularly evident on lighter, slower songs, like Saturday In The Park and the early part of Beginnings. If it was up to me, I would advise the band to develop a song list in which tunes that feature Bobby Lamm on lead vocals are inserted after at least a half-dozen other songs. This would give him a chance to warm up his voice on background vocals while someone else does the leads until he's ready to sing without being hoarse. Again, this is regretfully a function of age, which again leads me to say that Chicago should have cut out 50% of the front half of XXX and replaced these ballads that show the uneven character of Lamm and Scheff's voices with some faster, noisier songs that would mask these limitations. In fact, I very much like the Back Half of XXX, which is what salvages this CD from being completely like 19 or 21. Well, I've triend to take a very analytical, fair approach to my comments, but I have a feeling that I'm going to be skewered by the hard core faithful, no matter what I say. Just remember, I'm really a faithful follower of the band, but let's be honest---they haven't always made the best choices, a problem exacerbated by dumb-ass recording company executives.

White Sox Fan: Man, lots of info in there I never knew! Perhaps you're really Jimmy G in disguise? [g]

give CHICAGO,aS FAR AS THE concern and the credit for CHICAGOXXX. Keyboard player RObert Lamm and Walt and the remaining Originals can record any style of music and I'd keep in my collection. We love you TERRY DAVE

The official review of this album did seem more like a vendetta against the band than a review of the album.

I'm an "old school" Chicago fan, and love everything they put out from Transit Authority to Chicago 11.

I heard Chi-XXX was going to be more rock influenced and not another ballad album, so I bought it when it came out. I do have to say I was disappointed. Instead of just making good music they liked, the band seems to have been trying to please both their rock fans and their ballad fans...which never works.

The first half of the ablum is all ballads, and the second half is slightly more uptempo songs. I think I have bought my last Chicago album.

That said, I do love Robert Lamm's solo stuff and will continue buying his work.

What a disappointment! I just downloaded Chicago XXX to my ipod, and now I have to figure out how to unload it. I am probably the biggest fan of Chicago: in the fan club, going to concerts all the time, having every recording in my collection, etc. I thought Chicago XXI was a disappointment, but that 1991 crap was more in touch with the times than Chicago XXX. What are they thinking? Better yet - who was stupid enough to front the money to produce this? My favorite band has died - the problem is they don't know it yet.

I think Chicago XXX is well produced and I love all of the songs. Jason Scheff is a plus to Chicago. I have been a fan since the 1970's. I still will always love the song "Beginnings".

I think the biggest problem with this review is that you seem to think Chicago was some kind of hard hitting metal band in the late 60s and 70s, and that ballads were below them. I think you should wash the nastalgia out of your ears and relisten to their older stuff. Colour my World, I've Been Searching So Long, Just You and Me, If You Leave Me Now, and more were all done during the "glory days" and were all hit ballads. If you still don't believe me, check out the Love Songs compilation from the band, might help your flawed perspective on the band.

One thing about Chicago's ballads, whether it be the 60s, 70s, 80s or the 90s, is that they always have some of the most powerful lyrics and strongest musical composition than anything else out there. Period. And yes, this trend continues on with Chicago XXX. In fact, this is more in line with the Chicago of the 70s than you give it credit for since both eras have ballads, just that the 70s had horns in their ballads like XXX (as well as HOC1&2, and 26 from the 90s) and the 80s didn't.

And while there are no protest songs damning Bush and 9/11, there are songs that definitely keep pace with the older Chicago tunes. The last three songs (not including Feel) definitely have that old school Chicago sound to them.

It's Nov. 07, and I'm just hearing about this album? That's because nobody talked about it. Not the hard core fans anyway. Have you ever tried performing their music? Then you'll never understand where critics are coming from. Oh, their old style won't "sell records" today. That's because of the dumbing down of pop music. Where are the horns? Where have they been for 25 years? Only on Night & Day that's where. When that came out, even Jimmy said " for those of you who gave up on us (the horns) this album is for you". Well it's the only album I've bought since #13. I LOVE their ballads, but as usual, the horns could have phoned this one in. Use em or lose em.

I think one of the biggest mistakes made on this album was its marketing. I saw one, maybe two ads for it in magazines. That's certainly not going to get any new listeners to chime in on their music. Instead of just tossing this album out on the market, Chicago should have released videos of songs like "Feel" and the Cetera-esque "Love Will Come Back" to put their name out in public again. It really pains me to see another great album by a great band flounder like this. I ask people at my school what they think of Chicago and they reply "who's Chicago?" It kills me. So much unappreciated talent. With their connections with Rascal Flatts, "Love Will Come Back" could have become a much bigger hit. All in all, I loved the album. I"ll admit it does feel a little overproduced at times, but that could just be a last-minute attempt to try and sound contemporary. If the band is planning on any new recordings, I'd enjoy some more '70s-sounding tracks. A recover of "Dialogue" would be excellent with the war in Iraq.

I have to agree with the article.How many greatest hits packages can a band put out.Not only is it ripping of the fans,it is egotistically absurd.I can't even believe these rearend holes still call themselves Chicago.When Terry Kath died they still moved on,but when Peter Cetera left,then fired Danny Seraphine,to me they died!!!Kudos to Danny Seraphine and CTA and last...Jason Scheff sucks!