|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
- 1 Cuban feel?
- 2 Photos
- 3 Mee Maw? Doesn't exist...
- 4 Singles chart positions
- 5 Cryptic?
- 6 Cryptic!
- 7 Chris Pinnick
- 8 Pointless information?
- 9 Corrected Jimmy's Quote on VH1: BTM
- 10 Carnegie
- 11 Fair use rationale for images
- 12 I rather call it Rock and Pop then SOFT ROCK
- 13 Questions 67 and 68
- 14 Robert Lamm: wah-wah
- 15 Citations & References
- 16 EasyTimeline
- 17 Renaming category codes
- 18 Membership: Subs
- 19 Chicago Records
- 20 Bob Roberts
- 21 Power ballad rock should be mentioned
- 22 Clean up for tone
- 23 Lineups
- 24 Notre Dame connection
- 25 Do you think it's possible Chicago invented soft rock music?
- 26 Problematic sentence
- 27 Marty Grebb
- 28 New technology
I vaguely recall them looking for a Cuban-style percussionist at one point, but none is named here. Columbia had made a big deal of it, if I recall right. Does anyone know about that episode? Rlongman (talk) 19:14, 15 July 2011 (UTC)
any photos of existing band?
- i've put one in.
Mee Maw? Doesn't exist...
...well, Jgv did something for us Chicago fans...correct the Mee Maw/Cetera reference. Whoever put Mee Maw in place of Peter Cetera must have watched too many episodes of "Hee Haw".
Anyway, never undermine the talents of a great musician like Peter Cetera. Hiphats 00:09, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Singles chart positions
Good work to add these, but I suggest they be done the same way as the albums: list US position, then list UK position only if it charted. As it stands now, it's hard to read with all the empty UK positions shown first. Wasted Time R 21:01, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
- I agree. Both the album and singles lists might also lend themselves better to a table format. If someone else doesn't get to it first, I'll put this on my things-to-do list. Engineer Bob 21:50, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure what's cryptic about 25 or 6 to 4. It's a song about trying to write a song early in the morning- 25 or 6 (26) to 4 (o'clock).
- Maybe so, but many people had/have no idea what it is about. A Google or Google Groups search on the song title and "meaning" or "cryptic" will show you a lot of examples of the puzzlement. Wasted Time R 16:42, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
- Taking in mind Wikipedia's policy on personal attacks and my own beliefs on violence, I WILL KILL THE NEXT PERSON WHO LEAVES AN UNSOURCED SONG EXPLANATION ON WIKIPEDIA. I apologise for that. In short, everyone I have ever met who makes a connection involvoing lyrics is absolutely sure that they alone are correct in finding the author's hidden meaning. Personally, I think somewhere between 76.7 and 99.7% of all songs are meaningless, and this is one of them. Back on track...
- I'm not sure if the poster who started this section also added the meaning. Either way, to the editor in question: Feel free to find a credible source, then re-add your information. Again, I'm sorry about this entire post. Deltabeignet 23:22, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
- "25 or 6 to 4" may be only slightly cryptic. If you want a nicely sourced comment on the song's meaning, look to the song. "25 or 6 to 4" could be taken literally as it is written in the song title, as a reference to the time of night (consistent with the lyrics "waiting for the break of day" & for these 2 reasons preferrable to the homophone "25 or 624," putative reference to types of LSD, or Thorazine pills, or cocaine, etc.). Who would be "searching for something to say" at this time of night but a college student pulling an all-nighter to write a difficult paper under severe deadline pressure, and exhausted by lack of sleep?
I agree with you, he says,"wondering how much I can take!", and "I will try to take some more--------, 25 or 6 to 4. <-wrong lyrics: in actuality "Should I try to do some more (work on songwriting)... twenty five or six to four" El benderson 20:22, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I wanted to ask before I just added him, but shouldn't Chris Pinnick be added as a past member? I believe he was listed as a member in Chicago 17, while being omitted from XIV and 16. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 18.104.22.168 (talk • contribs) 11 September 2006.
- Pinnick was listed as an "additional musician" on the liner notes for XIV and 16, and is mentioned as a "sideman" on the band's website. However, even I was surprised when I checked the liner notes on Chicago 17 -- Chris was promoted (albeit briefly) to band member. I'll update the infobox and the article on 17 tonight; I'd recommend NOT altering the Chicagoband template until someone writes an article on Pinnick. - Engineer Bob 06:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
"The band released a live album in 1999, Chicago XXVI, which did not include any of Cetera's solo compositions" seems to be a pointless line. Uh, no kidding... why would it contain any of his solo work? Why not add that it doesn't contain any Champlin, Lamm, Scheff, Howland or Imboden solo compositions if it goes so far as to make a note of it lacking Cetera solo work...?
What is meant by the comment is that the live album did not contain any Cetera wrote material while he was in the group, examples of this would include just about all of Chicago 17 where Cetera wrote or co-wrote most of the hits including "Your're the Inspiration", "Stay the Night" and "Along Comes A Women". It's not pointless because Chicago 17 was the band's best selling album. I will re-word it for you so it is more clear.
Corrected Jimmy's Quote on VH1: BTM
Changed quote to what he actually said on BTM as opposed to the close approximation given in quotations previously.
Okay, I think there's a serious NPoV problem here.
- Some fans say a low point of the group's early career came when they released an ambitious quadruple-album live set, Chicago at Carnegie Hall Volumes I, II, III, and IV, consisting of live performances, mostly of music from their first three albums, from a week-long run at the famous venue (where they made history by being the first rock band to play). The performances and sound quality were judged sub-par; in fact, one group member went on record to say that "the horn section sounded like kazoos." The packaging of the album also contained some rather strident political messaging about how "We [youth] can change The System," including massive wall posters and voter registration information. Nevertheless, Chicago at Carnegie Hall went on to become the best-selling box set by a rock act, and held that distinction for 15 years.
- The group bounced back from this misstep...
This is, I submit, a biased view of the package -- given that it did gain and hold sales records for fifteen years, it's hard to really call it a "misstep" or a "low point." I suggest it would be better to describe it as "controversial," suggesting that some feel it a low point, others a high point.
If nobody raises a strong objection in the next few days I'll try rephrasing it more neutrally. Sturgeonslawyer 23:18, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for images
The following images are being used on this article:
I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to each image page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
- All album cover images were removed from this article on 10 July 2007 by Durin (talk). -- Engineer Bob 07:15, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I rather call it Rock and Pop then SOFT ROCK
Chicago has more of a rock sound then then Maroon 5 ever has and since the lady who is runs the Maroon 5 bord insist Maroon 5 is not soft rock. If Marron 5 is not soft rock then Chicago who has far more of a rock edge to them is not soft rock. DLA75 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
I rather think of the more commercial late 70's and 80's Chicago fare as pop then Soft rock. Songs like 25 or 6 to 4, Make Me Smile, Free, Dialogue,Questions 67 & 68 and I'm A Man were considerd mainstream rock and were FM AOR radio staples in the early 70's. If you want to chane it back to soft rock or erase rock as a genre please don't but if you feel you must explain why. DLA75 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
Questions 67 and 68
It lists Cetera as the vocalist, but its clearly a duo. Isn't the second voice Kath? Should there be split credits for vocalist? I said what what in the butt--22.214.171.124 23:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
The other vocalist is Robert Lamm, the one who wrote the song, not Terry Kath. In someways it could be seen as a duet, but Cetera sings 80%+ of the song, so it is not an equitable duet by any standard. Kath and Cetera have true duet in the first part of the song "Dialogue". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Collinf (talk • contribs) 13 August 2007.
Just curious.... what does the title of this song refer to????? And if you listen to Chicago Live at Carnegie Hall, Terry deffinately says "...Sung by Pete"
Robert Lamm: wah-wah
Citations & References
An EasyTimeline has been added to better illustrate the band's member progression. If you would you more info on how to update this see
- Wikipedia:EasyTimeline and
- Template:Timeline Classical Composers Famous.
Renaming category codes
|The related Category:Chicago albums has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.|
|The related Category:Chicago songs has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. You are encouraged to join the discussion on the Categories for Discussion page.|
Wikilinks are provided for Nick Lane and Brian Hicks, but I do not believe they the right persons. The Nick Lane wiki is regarding a British biochemist and Brian Hicks' wiki connects to a former NFL and CFL runningback. I'm black. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:20, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
Power ballad rock should be mentioned
In the 1980's and 1990's, Chicago--like many other bands at the time--did rock songs that could be called "power ballads" or "rock ballads". That should be mentioned along with the other styles in the infobox. That's why I keep adding it.RobertGustafson (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
Clean up for tone
In the next day or two I will try to clean up this article, as the flags request at the beginning of the band History section. For example, the paragraph on a concert in Mexico which centers on how much the audience liked it while critics didn't. It has no citation, so there is no point to singling this one concert out with its own paragraph. Similar edits will trim adjectives and editorial phrases which are not substantiated.Wemonk (talk) 15:05, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
Notre Dame connection
The section Notre Dame connection appears to me as mostly trivial information not particularly relevant to the band. It seems to exist more to promote or advocate the people, schools, and charities referenced (see WP:PROMOTION). Unless someone can make a good case for keeping the section I will remove it. --hulmem (talk) 21:51, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
- I proceeded to delete this section. While likely factual, it only contained information about people and organizations that is either trivial or only distantly related to the band as a whole. Please do not add this information back in unless you can make a good case for why the information is notable and relevant to the band as a whole. --hulmem (talk) 05:12, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Do you think it's possible Chicago invented soft rock music?
This sentence is problematic in that the opening goes nowhere. "Chicago VII, the band's double-disc 1974 release, their 1975 release, Chicago VIII, featured the political allegory "Harry Truman" (#13) and the nostalgic Pankow-composed "Old Days" (#5)."
I had thought to remove the portion mentioning "Chicago VII" as that is the offending portion, but wanted to allow someone - the original author preferably - a chance to add whatever was omitted as I assume there was an intended point. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Mr. Grebb is mentioned in the article which caused me to wonder if this is the same Marty Grebb that was in another Chicago area band, the Buckinghams. If that connection is true should it be mentioned in that portion of the article? Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 15:37, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
In the portion focused on 1982 there is a sentence which includes this information - " . . .and used new technology (such as synthesizers) to "update" and streamline the sound . . .". While use of synths in their music was most likely new to the band, the synthesizer had been around for many years by 1982. Is this fact important enough to rework the sentence? My reason for changing things would be to not give the impression that this instrument was "new" technology in 1982. Thoughts?THX1136 (talk) 16:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)