Ok does anybody else like Chicago (Transit Authority)

Posted by: Guido Fawkes on 26 January 2009

Talking to another member of this forum tonight - he expressed surprise that I liked the music of Chicago - admittedly I only know their early work, but regard it as some of the best music ever to hit the rock scene - a bit like Creedence Clearwater Revival met Soft Machine for an extended jam.

Ok so it is not a trendy choice, but then many of my other favourites like Chas n Dave, Gracie Fields, Marie Lloyd, George Formby, Bernard Cribbins, Tom Lehrer, Noel Coward and Country Joe & the Fish are not trendy.

So do you like Chicago or are there some other not so trendy bands that you're happy to say you are proud to have in your music collection.

Just wondered - ATB Rotf

ATB Rotf
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by Blueknowz
I used to have the original someone nicked at one of our parties! bought it at the same time as Blood Sweat& Tears
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by BigH47
I seem to have C13,17 & 19 on vinyl + GHits CD. No Authority though.I don't play them.
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by ewemon
Don't have any of their albums but of the ones I have heard the first 2 or 3 were for methe best.
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by John G.
I've got 1 through 8. I really like 1,2,5,7 and 8. 7 is most interesting. I lost interest after 8.
Posted on: 26 January 2009 by u5227470736789524
Just reacquired CTA yesterday, also have 17. Had at least the first five or six on vinyl back in the day.

Saw the original lineup live shortly after the second set was released. It was at college in Ohio, 18 miles from Kent Ohio shortly after the Kent State riots/shooting in May 1970. The atmosphere was slightly tense - the band was on fire and "the whole world was watching".

Jeff A
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by Guido Fawkes
It's good to know I'm not the only who admires Chicago - the early albums seem very spontaneous to me. I get the feeling they just turn up at the studio, knew what they wanted to play and played it - no doubt after hours of rehearsal.

The odd hit single seems to appear within a set of longer jazz rock rock pieces, which I think shows their versatility, but I think all many folk remember is the #1 single If You Leave Me Now, which is certainly not in character with those early albums.

Thanks for the recommendations.

I'll explore some of their later stuff.

ATB Rotf
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by JohanR
Early Chicago was as good (particulary Chicago II) as the later stuff is bad. It's even hard for me to believe that, lets say, '25 or 6 to 4' is done by the same people that did that ultra awful 'If You Leave Me Now' !

JohanR
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by tonym
I liked 'em!

Admittedly, it's probably their early stuff and I've only got the Greatest Hits on CD but that does get an occasional airing.
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by bob atherton
I bought 1 & 2 when I was in the USA in 1970. Haven't heard any other albums. Like the two I have.
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by winkyincanada
They never wasted any time trying to think up album titles did they? I could never get past the hair, teeth and 'staches. Just too "wholesome" or some-such.
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by Chris Kelly
I'm with you ROTF. The early albums, with the late Terry Kath on guitar were excellent and the Rhino remasters still get an airing here from time to time. The production by James William Guercio was first rate.
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by Paper Plane
Count me in.

I've liked 'em since a mate played me CTA when it came out. I have 1 & 2 on vinyl and 7 on CD. Keep meaning to get 3 which I understand is bit more "experimental".

steve
Posted on: 27 January 2009 by Ron The Mon
Occasionally, I'll throw on "I'm a Man". That song sounds cool as Hell on a Naim system. Something about the "stereo" mix from that era. You've got to sit in the "sweet spot" too; alone; in the dark; with an adult beverage; with candles and incense,......

The percussion on that song is like Santana's "Soul Sacrifice", it just grooves. The song is a jam-and-a-half; actually more like a triple jam. I usually play it four or five times in a row. Got to be on vinyl too (did they ever do it on CD?).

Ron The Mon
Needle-Freak

P.S.
If you like CTA (not to be confused with Chicago) the natural progression should be to other hair and stash bands like Three Dog Night, Blood Sweat and Tears, and the first three Cocker records.

Actually, just play "I'm a Man" over and over and you'll be fine.
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by bob atherton
OK, now I'm confused. I just checked my two albums that I thought I bought in the States in 1970. The first is Chicago by Chicago (big siver logo on front) CBS # S 63928 (1970). The other album is Chicago Transit Authority on Columbia # GP 8 (I know for sure that I got that one from the States in '70) it has no date anywhere that I can find.

Are these the first two albums?
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by BigH47
A search on AMG for Chicago Transit Authority just brings up the Chicago page.
It shows (LP)as :-
CTA as Columbia 8, GP 8 or MFS-2-128 (1969)
Chicago II as Columbia 2 1970 (no mention of other LP releases).
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by TomK
25 or 6 to 4 and I'm a man were two of my favourite songs from school days. Never managed to get into any of their albums though.
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by John G.
quote:
Originally posted by bob atherton:
OK, now I'm confused. I just checked my two albums that I thought I bought in the States in 1970. The first is Chicago by Chicago (big siver logo on front) CBS # S 63928 (1970). The other album is Chicago Transit Authority on Columbia # GP 8 (I know for sure that I got that one from the States in '70) it has no date anywhere that I can find.

Are these the first two albums?


Yes

Posted on: 28 January 2009 by BigH47
Not too confusing is it? Chicago II is easily recognised because it's called Chicago!!! Roll Eyes
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by Guido Fawkes
quote:
Originally posted by BigH47:
Not too confusing is it? Chicago II is easily recognised because it's called Chicago!!! Roll Eyes


Chicago I was called Chicago Transit Authority so it is easy to tell it apart from their second album, which is just called Chicago - the third album is easy to recognise from the cover as it is also called Chicago, but has some stars on it; it was the same consultancy that advised Peter Gabriel on catchy titles for his first few albums.



Of course, as I'm sure you know, the album that comes after Chicago III was called Chicago V, but to avoid confusion on the cover, it's just called Chicago.



Now what's the title of the album that Led Zep did after III?
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by BigH47
That would be IV easily spotted cause it says nought on the cover! Roll Eyes

"Bruce meet Bruce, this over here is Bruce and next to him Bruce.
What's your name ?
Roger!
Too complicated we'll call you ....Bruce".
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by BigH47
quote:
Of course, as I'm sure you know, the album that comes after Chicago III was called Chicago V, but to avoid confusion on the cover, it's just called Chicago.


BTW Chicago IV is "At Carnegie Hall Live"
But VI is not "Live in Japan" just to simplify things.
Posted on: 28 January 2009 by John G.
Not to be confused with 2,3 or 5, this is one of my favorite Chicago albums #7.

Posted on: 28 January 2009 by Klout10
What about Chicago Blues??

Big Grin

Regards,
Michel
Posted on: 29 January 2009 by JohanR
And to add to the confusion, my 1970's US LP of what is populary called 'II' is labeled 'Chicago II' on the spine, the recent CD is not!

A great album, one of very few double albums I can listen through at one go. Okey, the string quartet thing on side three is a bit tedious.

JohanR
Posted on: 29 January 2009 by Jet Johnson
Yeah I still play their stuff occasionally although I reckon their early stuff is easily better than the later material.

Their version of "I'm a Man" was one of my earlier single purchases ...I always club them together with Blood Sweat and Tears (another uncool Jazz/Rock act whom I have a soft spot for!)