Talk:Chicago (band)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Photos

any photos of existing band?

i've put one in.

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] Cryptic?

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)

[edit] Cryptic!

"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?

-Ludd Zeppelin

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)

[edit] Chris Pinnick

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 204.222.250.14 (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)

[edit] Pointless information?

"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.

[edit] 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.

[edit] Carnegie

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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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--12.24.60.12 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.

[edit] Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 08:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)