1978-1981: The "Chicago as Post-Army Hollywood Elvis" era, in which the band, reeling from Kath's sudden death, released a string of crappy, uninspired albums that sold next to nothing. And in Chicago 13's abominable "Street Player" — foreshadowed the absurd depths to which Chicago would be willing to plunge in order to stay on the charts.
1982-1991: The "Chicago as 'Comeback Special' Elvis" era, in which the band — though clearly beyond its creative prime — turned commercial craftiness into big hit records (albeit big hit records that often sounded nothing like Chicago). The horn section, an afterthought or absent altogether from wide swaths of these albums, pretended to play guitar in the videos.
1992-2005: The "Chicago as Vegas Elvis" era, in which Chicago's dwindling fanbase was treated to a flood of "two new tracks!" compilations, a boxed set, a Christmas album, a laughably overdubbed live album, two sets of reissues, and an unreleased album. During this period, the band — having nothing new to say or even sell anymore — allowed its setlist to calcify. They left Warner Bros. complaining of a lack of creative control, started Chicago Records, did nothing with it, and then returned to Warner (via Rhino).
This only takes us up through 2005, of course, and being that it's now '06, and there's a new Chicago album afoot, we must be in a new era. Indeed we are. It's the "Chicago as dead Elvis" era. XXX serves as irrefutable proof that the band's creative spirit has passed on, slumped over a toilet, and this record is floating in the bowl.
Actually, this may be an insult to dead Elvis.
You think I'm being mean, but that's because you haven't heard the album yet. It sounds like the entire band was trapped in a cryogenic freezer since the summer of 1989, wandered out last year, and recorded these songs. If you've got Chicago's 18, 19, or Twenty 1 in your collection, and wanted to know what their B-sides might have sounded like, this is the answer.
This is puzzling for a number of reasons. First of all, 'Comeback Special' Chicago earned its hits the old-fashioned way, by sacrificing artistic integrity. Most of the kids who bought those records had no particular allegiance to Chicago the band; they just liked "Hard Habit to Break" or "Look Away." When that type of music stopped selling records, the audience moved on, and for the most part, the folks who have been bothering to show up for Chicago concerts for the last ten years are the diehards. The old fans. The ones who freak out for "25 or 6 to 4" or "South California Purples." These fans love the stuff Chicago did in the '80s because it was Chicago, not because it fit a trend; they've been thirsting for a new album from the band for over a decade, and though they'd love to see Chicago score another hit, they'd rather hear something good. Something creative.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Progged
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.
2 - Tommy
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.
3 - Ron
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.
4 - Vern Halen
"Chicago, Chicago / my kind of town ...."
Did Chicago ever actually do that song?
5 - Earl
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!
6 - Steve
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.
7 - Mandi
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.
8 - Randy
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.
9 - Joe C
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.
10 - Tracy
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.
11 - Gary L
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.
12 - thetrailblazr
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'...
13 - Kassi Washington
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.
14 - Fred
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.
15 - Vince
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.
16 - Charlie
This writer is dead on the money. My review here concurs with everything he said. Jason Scheff is just awful. Read my review here.
17 - Larry R
I can sum up the album in one word. Boring. Somebody needs to write good songs. Desperately.
18 - marty
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.
19 - Scott
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.
20 - Wim Zinkhann
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.
21 - Sky
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.
22 - Gary
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.
23 - George
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.
24 - Tony
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.
25 - Waldemar
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