# Chicago VS. Blood Sweat and Tears



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I thought the ELO VS The Moody Blues thread was interesting enough that I would start a similar one on Chicago and Blood Sweat and Tears.

The reason being obvious in that they were both popular at the same time and the horn sections distinguished them from other rock acts of the time. Now certainly Chicago has had the most enduring career of the two as they are still touring, albeit not quite the original band of the late 60s and early 70s.

Blood Sweat and Tears interestingly enough was started by Al Kooper. Kooper was a pretty talented keyboardist and his work with his previous band The Blues Project and his solo albums are all worth a listen but my favorite album of his was "The Sessions" album he made with Stephen Stills and Mike Bloomfield. One of the best blues albums of the late 60s. Kooper would leave the Blood Sweat & Tears after the first album and it's probably best that he did. Their first album "Child is Father to the Man" is a good album in it's own right but the direction Kooper would have taken the band would never have brought them the success that his departure and consequent hiring of David Clayton-Thomas did. Having James William Guercio produce the band's self-titled second album propelled them to commercial success. And the rest as they say is history.

Chicago on the other hand would not have the immediate top 40 success that Blood Sweat & Tears would see. They were much more progressive and experimental in their sound. Their first album was called Chicago Transit Authority but they were forced to shorten it to just Chicago because of a suit by the transit authority. Although CTA has some really great material on it it was not until the band's second album Chicago II that they really started getting noticed and each album brought them further success and more popularity. In the early days they were not really known as a ballad band and were really quite progressive in many of the things they did. It wasn't until their 7th album that they stumbled upon the Peter Cetera ballad style that would lead to so many radio hits of the future and even after Cetera leaves the band in the 1980s they would hire a bass player who sounds similar and continues the ballad tradition. The saddest part of their history was the accidental death of lead guitarist Terry Kath and it would change the band forever. With Hot Streets and Chicago 13 and 14 it was looking like Chicago had finished it's run but in 1981 David Foster became their producer and they moved to Warner Brothers. They also added Bill Champlin as keyboardist and vocalist and they had a renaissance and found themselves more popular than ever with hits like Hard Habit to Break, You're the Inspiration, Stay The Night etc. Unfortunately Chicago's light has dimmed in recent years and although with Chicago 30 they tried to make a comeback by hiring Rascal Flatts as producer it just wasn't enough. Chicago 30 was actually the first album of new material since Chicago 21 and releasing compilation albums is just not going to do much for your fan base. Today the band is more of a Vegas type stage act of has beens. Kind of sad really but they still remain one of the most successful bands in U.S. history. 

I know there was a lot of ground I didn't cover but I think that's enough to get things started. My vote goes for Chicago if for nothing more than their first ten albums or I could say their first seven even. Blood Sweat & Tears never really had much success past their 4th album and the departure of David Clayton-Thomas. They've also had so many members it's almost impossible to keep track. I know it has to be well over a 100!


----------



## kv466 (May 18, 2011)

Chicago


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Both highly versatile, ambitious bands with many talented musicians. But I have to go with Chicago because of their consistent personnel and trademark sound. BST was a revolving door for jazz and session players after the Al Kooper led debut. And that record sounds awfully dated at this point. Chicago Transit Authority holds up better for my ears.

After 1974, I have no use for Chicago either. Too much top 40 pop after that.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

You guys could at least vote in the poll!


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

Chicago, although I don't care much for the later ballads except _Hard Habit to Break_; I love it! Chicago LP albums are relatively easy to find at a certain annual sale I attend, so I have a large collection of the early albums, even some with flair enclosed. Saw them in concert in support of Chicago 30 (web editor will not allow me to otherwise ID) a few years ago with the original horn section intact.
Chicago really opened the possibility of playing in this type ensemble to us "band geeks" in the 70s. Both they and Blood, Sweat &Tears deserve a nod to the Rock & Roll HOF.

Jimmy Pankow still "yowsa!"


----------



## realdealblues (Mar 3, 2010)

Chicago
That first Chicago album Chicago Transit Authority is one of my absolute favs. One of my desert island discs. Terry Kath was such a great guitarist. I like all the Chicago albums up until he died. Granted you occasionally had some cheese pop Peter Cetera songs but Kath's songs were all heart and soul.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Terry Kath was a great guitarist. His accidental death was such a tragedy. I was fortunate enough to have seen them in the 1970s several times. I think my favorite albums have to be CTA, Chicago II and III. Really creative and innovative. I don't know any bands that released three two LP sets in a row and even a fourth that was four LPs. I honestly am surprised that Columbia had enough faith in them to allow CTA as a two record set. 

Kevin


----------



## Manxfeeder (Oct 19, 2010)

I supposed I'd vote for Chicago all-around, but speaking as a sax player, I did admire BST's Fred Lipsius on alto sax. Actually, I still do. Comparing Lipsius on God Bless' the Child with Walt Parazaider on Movin' In, there's not much comparison.

I think Lipsius was a much better flute player. His playing on Variations on a Theme by Erik Satie is beautiful. Parazaider just sounds like a typical sax/flute doubler - especially on their live album from Carnegie Hall. 

Parazaider wasn't much of an actor, either, if you've ever seen Electra Glide in Blue. 

But to his credit, he does have an honorary doctorate from his alma mater. It's more than I have. But Lipsius is a graduate and is now a professor at Berklee College of Music, plus he won a Grammy award. Not too shabby.


----------



## Vaneyes (May 11, 2010)

I liked 'em both at their peaks...late 60's, early 70's. Same producer, I think. Anyway, I voted **&T on the basis of one concert experience in 1969 (Fine gentleman and troubadour Glenn Yarbrough was their opener). Never saw Chicago in concert.


Favorite songs -
Chicago

1970: Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?; Make Me Smile
1972: Saturday In The Park
1975: Old Days

**&T

!968/9: You've Made Me So Very Happy; Spinning Wheel; And When I Die

Personnel for the concert I attended...

Fred Lipsius : alto sax, keyboards 
Dick Halligan: keyboards, trombone, horns, flute, backing vocals 
Steve Katz : guitar, harmonica, lute, mandolin, vocals 
Jim Fielder : bass, guitar, backing vocals 
Bobby Colomby : drums, percussion, backing vocals 
David Clayton-Thomas : vocals
Lew Soloff : trumpet, flugelhorn 
Chuck Winfield : trumpet, flugelhorn, backing vocals
Jerry Hyman : trombones, recorder


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Chicago, without a doubt - before they descended into MOR hell they produced a string of fine albums - I think the rot started to set in by VIII although the group's early penchant for lengthy concept pieces had pretty much dwindled by then and they were eager to streamline. Consider how prolific they were - they managed to shoehorn six studio albums in the years between 1969 and 1974 and of those four were double LPs. They were also aided by a consistent line-up - no personnel changes for the first 10 years, and eventually everyone was contributing to the writing of material which gave them more options and took some heat off Robert Lamm and, to a lesser extent, Terry Kath and James Pankow. 

**&T, on the other hand, seemed unwieldy in comparison and appeared to change line-ups every 10 minutes and I think this instability started to seriously mess them up by the time of the 3rd album. Apart form a couple of injudiciously chosen covers (their reliance on other people's work hinted at a collective struggle to write original material, although at least they helped draw attention to the likes of Laura Nyro and Harry Nilsson) I thought collectively the first three **&T albums were a very good body of work, but once Dick Halligan left I think it was pretty much game over - post-Kooper he seemed to be the only guy who had the organisational smarts to hold things together creatively. Chicago were by far the more cohesive band with a strong group ethic whereas **&T always seemed to be pulling in too many different directions. I can't claim to have heard too much of **&T's output after the 4th album but what I have sounded vacuous and extremely uninteresting.


----------



## Lunasong (Mar 15, 2011)

What about Earth, Wind & Fire? I currently have the 2-disc set _Chicago with Earth, Wind & Fire: Live at the Greek Theatre_ (2004) at home from Netflix and EWF put on the better show.


----------



## Art Rock (Nov 28, 2009)

Both never really appealed to me that much. Picked Chicago on the strength of a few songs I like.


----------



## Quintessense (Dec 10, 2012)

New to this Forum.

Voted for BST because the majority of the original band members were classically trained at Julliard, and they did pull off a feat that as far as I know, has never been equalled: THREE straight # 2 hits within three straight single 45 releases within 12 weeks of each other, even shoving the BEATLES out of a # 2 spot during their time.

Am familiar with CHICAGO's music and they are extremely talented, and have some of their CDs somewhere; let's admit it and suffice to say that ALMOST ALL BANDS has many changes, metamorphises, some to grow, some to decline. 

BST had far more unrealized potential, and it is well-documented that BST was mismanaged several times, and was unfortunate to have the wrong people in charge at the wrong times. CHICAGO seemed to be better managed, focused, and sold a ton more records than BST.

Musical range, ability, potential? BST in a rout.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Will You Still Love ME is a classic. Definitely Chicago.


----------



## Cnote11 (Jul 17, 2010)

As my mother would say, Chicargo


----------



## StveGreen (May 1, 2013)

Chicago here. 1) They could rock out better ..... 2) They had as many as three singers live .... 3) They helped bring the gals to the AoR audience.

Disagree that VIII was sub-par. It touched all their styles, sort of an unofficial medley of their past work. I've also heard it called their 'happiest' album.


----------



## StveGreen (May 1, 2013)

Oh ..... I knew I missed one, lol.

Chicago wrote the vast majority of their material, hits and LP cuts both.

(I _do_ think **&T had the better horn section, though. IIrc, they had more guys there than Chicago did).


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Once Dick Halligan threw in the towel after the fourth album I think Blood Sweat & Tears could only have been saved if someone like Edgar Winter took them over and shook things up a little (interestingly, his vocalist from White Trash, Jerry LaCroix, joined for a short while). Brit-jazzer organist/sax player Graham Bond might have been another contender but he was too far gone on heroin by then. When David Clayton-Thomas returned he pretty much tried to turn it into his backing group and one side-effect was that they increasingly became an MOR nonentity. I've heard that Laura Nyro was allegedly sounded out to join them after Kooper decamped after the first album - of course, it couldn't have lasted but that WOULD have been interesting...


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

elgars ghost said:


> I've heard that Laura Nyro was allegedly sounded out to join them after Kooper decamped after the first album - of course, it couldn't have lasted but that WOULD have been interesting...


I can't even imagine what **&T would have been like with Laura Nyro. She was great as a singer/songwriter but I don't think her style could have been suited to **&T.

Kevin


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Hi, Kevin. The group were ostensibly after a vocalist to replace Al Kooper but presumably also someone who could write songs with relative ease - always a bit of a **&T Achilles Heel, even when they were at their peak. Laura's voice had the power and the range to cope with being in an eight or nine-piece band and she was also sufficiently accomplished a keyboard player which would have helped take the strain off Dick Halligan who had to do double duty on both keyboards and wind instruments after Kooper's exit as well as being the group's musical arranger. 

Who knows - perhaps Laura might have considered joining but manager David Geffen apparently pooh-poohed the idea as being detrimental to her growth as a solo artist. She couldn't have lasted long, though - **&T were always an unstable collective and I think Laura was just too much her own person to stay penned in by a group environment what with all the drugs, egos and whatever, plus after a while she may have wanted to have more of a say in the group's direction than some members would have been willing to concede.

Had she joined in 68, I myself don't think there would have been too much MUSICAL incompatibility - both acts were largely r & b/jazz-based, the main difference being that Laura also incorporated Brill Building pop and Broadway elements to her songwriting, even at this fledgling stage of her career. And the band did cover And When I Die and He's A Runner from her debut album, of course!


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

Thanks for the education! I just have trouble wrapping my head around BST having a female lead singer and what it would have been like if Nyro was that female. I know they did a fine job covering the two sings you mention but Clayton Thomas and BST actually improved those songs in my opinion. If BST had become just a Laura Nyro backup band I don't think they would have ever achieved success. Heck the best thing that happened to them (career wise maybe not musically) was Kooper leaving and I say that being at one time a huge Al Kooper fan.

Kevin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I'm on a Chicago kick this week! Listening to CTA, VI, and trying to get into II and III. The second album wasn't recorded very well. I just got VI on CD, and it sounds fantastic!

The opening numbers on III and V are great! Play A Mean Tune Kid, and A Hit By Varese are classic Chicago. But some of the other material on III sounds like they wrote some tunes after sitting around listening to Abbey Road, and Crosby, Stills, & Nash.


----------



## RobinG (Aug 25, 2013)

Chicago without a doubt but they only just have the edge over BST.


----------



## Itullian (Aug 27, 2011)

Chicago's first two albums were awesome.
After that.....meh. Got a little too pop for me.

but picked them over BST easily.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I just listened to III again, and I have to say it's a great album! Much better than ...meh, imo.


----------



## neoshredder (Nov 7, 2011)

Itullian said:


> Chicago's first two albums were awesome.
> After that.....meh. Got a little too pop for me.
> 
> but picked them over BST easily.


I like 80's Chicago. I got no problem with pop. Brings nostalgia for me.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I'm on a Chicago kick this week! Listening to CTA, VI, and trying to get into II and III. The second album wasn't recorded very well. I just got VI on CD, and it sounds fantastic!
> 
> The opening numbers on III and V are great! Play A Mean Tune Kid, and A Hit By Varese are classic Chicago. But some of the other material on III sounds like they wrote some tunes after sitting around listening to Abbey Road, and Crosby, Stills, & Nash.


When you listened to CTA did you listen completely through or did you skip Free Form Guitar? Just curious!

Kevin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

I listened straight through. Some say that track is a throwaway. I can take it or leave it. I still can't seem to get through the second album. The sound is so bad it makes me want to take it off.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

starthrower said:


> I listened straight through. Some say that track is a throwaway. I can take it or leave it. I still can't seem to get through the second album. The sound is so bad it makes me want to take it off.


That's really strange because the version I have is really good. Do you have the Rhino remastered version?

Kevin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Yeah. Maybe I just need to turn it up loud and listen to the whole album. But right now I'm really into III, V, VI, and VII. Plus, I'm not that crazy about some of the material on no. 2. I was never a big fan of Smile, or 25 or 6 to Four.

I'd love to get hold of the Live In Japan set as well, but I haven't seen it at a reasonable price.


----------



## Kevin Pearson (Aug 14, 2009)

I understand. Chicago II was my introduction to Chicago and has a special place in my affections. After I heard it I went out and bought CTA immediately and not long after Chicago III came out. I was a newspaper boy at the time and one of my customers was the manager of a Columbia Record store in Madison, Wisconsin (as an aside he was also the producer for the Art Ensemble of Chicago at the time), and he brought me back an early release version of the album and he gave me all the Chicago III promotion material the store received. Those were good times! I would say that Chicago was probably the first band I ever really followed but only until Terry Kath's death. I picked up again when they had their renaissance with Chicago 16. 

Kevin


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Interesting story, Kevin. I have a bunch of Art Ensemble albums, but it always feels like their music had to be experienced in person. Their presentation and improvisational interplay can't really be captured on a recording. I would have loved to have seen them when all of the members were still alive. And of course, being an avant garde jazz group, their budget for making a record was miniscule compared to a huge band like Chicago.

I'll keep working on Chicago II. I know there's a lot of good music there that I just need to focus on.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

I put on 'Questions 67 and 68' from Chicago's debut album on the pub jukebox last night - perhaps it's my age but I think I was the only one in there who'd ever heard it before.


----------



## Harmonie (Mar 24, 2007)

Although I regularly listen to both, Chicago is the clear favorite for me. The only song I'd say I really love by Blood, Sweat & Tears is "You've Made Me So Very Happy". (Although I do adore some of the brass and saxophone harmonization sections they do in some of their songs [such as just after the jazz section in "Smiling Phases"] that you'll never find in Chicago. They're really good at that.)

Nevertheless, Chicago isn't perfect. I pretty much entirely like them for their 60s/70s music. Some of the 80s music is okay, but I just really can't call myself a fan of a lot of 80s music, Chicago or otherwise. And to see Chicago having transformed from the CTA and Chicago II Chicago to _that_, just makes me very sad. However, what came of them in the 80s and beyond doesn't allow me to neglect the greatness they started at. I fell in love with Jazz Rock on the Brass Rock side because of Chicago. I would have likely never even discovered Blood, Sweat & Tears and other similar groups like Lighthouse, if I had never gotten into early Chicago.

There are countless songs by Chicago I love - Beginnings, Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?, 25 or 6 to 4, Loneliness is Just a Word, etc. etc. etc. Blood, Sweat & Tears' have a number of songs I listen to regularly, but I don't necessarily _love_ them. I don't mean that in a bad way... I very much appreciate BS&T like Chicago. I wish this "Brass Rock" genre was still alive today.


----------



## Tbone1878 (Aug 5, 2018)

Hi just joined the forum as a result of this thread. have to say I was (still am really) a big fan of both bands from the late sixties to mid seventies period. I always felt that BS&T were more Jazz influenced but Chicago had the edge on rock and also self-penned tracks. Also by virtue of a static line up and three great singers they were more versatile. I liked the first three BS&T albums but felt that by 4 they had got stale and a bit boring. However New Blood and No Sweat seemed to revitalise them and certainly pushed them into a more fusion orientated direction and I do like both albums. Since then however for me they are a spent force. I bought the first 3 Chicago albums loved 1 & 2 but a bit disappointed by 3 so stopped buying till I bought 8 then 10 on a whim. In both cases apart from a handful of tracks on both I remain disappointed. So to sum up BS&T 1,2,3 New Blood and No Sweat yes - nothing after. Chicago 1 & 2 definitely yes with limited appeal after. Overall my vote is Chicago for sheer rock, excitement and fresh sounding horn arrangements. 

Thanks

Marty


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Just reading through this old thread while listening to Chicago II. The Steve Wilson remix makes it a lot more enjoyable. And besides I just got done listening to James Pankow tell the story of how the band was formed and the happenings of their first couple of years. Some funny and inspirational stories. It's a two part interview on YouTube taped in Nashville.


----------



## gregorx (Jan 25, 2020)

Both bands had brilliant debut albums and that was it. After Al Kooper left BS&T it was over for them, and Terry Kath's death marked the end of the Kath/Lamb CTA and the beginning of the the Peter Cetera Chicago.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

gregorx said:


> Both bands had brilliant debut albums and that was it. After Al Kooper left BS&T it was over for them, and Terry Kath's death marked the end of the Kath/Lamb CTA and the beginning of the the Peter Cetera Chicago.


I agree, but would rank the first Chicago album as one of the true premier first albums, surpassing BS&T's and still so very listenable. _Beginnings_ was and is a super-duper song, and so many of the others are primo. But it seems it could not last, and didn't over the subsequent albums.


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

BST's self titled second album is a classic as well. I just ignore the D.C. Thomas haters. Love the Al Kooper debut as well. I'm listening to Chicago VII this morning. Their last great album for me. Really strong song writing from Kath, and Pankow. And few more great songs from Cetera, and Lamb. Plus the wonderful side long jazz suite. A classic!


----------



## erki (Feb 17, 2020)

I have tried several times but I find Chicago utterly boring every time. They just do not have the spark for me however they play and arrange very well. BST on the other hand gets onto my turntable pretty regular if I want something fresh but familiar the same time.


----------



## SixFootScowl (Oct 17, 2011)

Blood Sweat and Tears for me. Never cared for Chicago.


----------



## senza sordino (Oct 20, 2013)

I’ve been listening to a lot of Chicago lately. It looks like I voted for Blood Sweat and Tears years ago, but now I’d like to change my vote. Chicago does lose its way through their career but overall I now think they are more interesting to listen to than Blood Sweat and Tears. 

I wonder if Chicago lost its way because they were trying to make top of the pop chart music. That’s damn near impossible to do. You can’t really ever know what the pop charts want months in advance. It seems to me Chicago became a band that tried to react to the changing times and tastes, rather than set the trend. The best you can do is make music you like and music you can write and perform. The best bands set the trend, followers are already banal and forgotten. Chicago initially set the trend, later they followed and became boring. 

My favourite albums are 1, 2, 3 , 5 and 7. Four double albums and a single album, that’s quite a lot of quality music, in my ever so humble opinion.


----------



## SONNET CLV (May 31, 2014)

I occasionally hear BS&T songs on Sirius Radio in the ol' Jeep. I play Chicago regularly in listening sessions in my tube-lit stereo cave. I do own a "Greatest Hits" album by the body fluid oozers. I have a foot of shelf space stocked with Chicago albums, on both the LP and the CD shelves -- though I could make due with only the first two albums, quite frankly.

In my short-lived span as a rock-n-roll band guitarist/singer, during which I played several Chicago and BS&T songs (as well as often wrote out the parts for the brass and woodwinds), it was at the shrine of Terry Kath that I worshipped. Kath taught me both that (1) I wanted to be a rock guitarist more than anything, and (2) I would never be a rock guitarist worth much of anything (at least never to half the level he attained … okay, to an eighth or the twentieth of the level he attained.), at least in any successful band.

To my humble ears, both bands produced good sounds and I'm glad to have experienced both.

Since I've never before considered which of the bands I prefer, I won't posit an answer here and do injustice to either of these fine musical groups. Rather, I think I will instead revisit some of their work that I've ignored in recent times. Each of these bands deserve as much.

Favorite BS&T song: "Spinning Wheel"
Favorite from Chicago: "25 or 6 to 4" (with "South California Purples" and "Color My World" in a close tie for second)


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

A statement that I've seen posted several times in other forum and one that becomes surprisingly heated as partisans of each have firm commitments to their group of choice.

"The difference between Blood, Sweat, and Tears and Chicago is that BS&T are a jazz-rock group and Chicago is a rock band with horns"...

Agree? Disagree?

There are some really first-rate Chicago 1970 Tanglewood performances which can be found here -

https://www.youtube.com/user/ChicagoOnMV


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

Blood, Sweat & Tears never really had an identifiable sound over a string of albums. They hired a lot of session players and jazz musicians to work in the band. Chicago was a consistent group with an instantly identifiable sound. And that horn section was a huge part of it. It wasn't rock with horns tacked on. It was very well integrated into the compositions thanks to the great arrangements of James Pankow. But still, I'm not interested after the mid 70s. They obtained a great balance on their seventh album which to me was their high point. After that the record companies got greedy and just wanted three minute pop tunes.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Deleted post - pretty dodgy source of information - couldn't verify the facts independently...

:tiphat: - ST


----------



## starthrower (Dec 11, 2010)

How about "According to Peter Cetera." I already mentioned in a previous post that he was interviewed about this on a TV program. It had nothing to do with horns. It had everything to do with the fact that the band and management objected to him releasing a solo project while being a member of Chicago. That's why he quit. He said so himself.

PS I just listened to an hour interview with James Pankow on YouTube. He tells some funny stories but he gets his facts and timeline pretty screwed up. I'm not sure I would trust him to tell the truth about Cetera exiting the band.


----------



## TMHeimer (Dec 19, 2019)

In 1977 I moved to Northern Manitoba to start my career teaching Band. The other Band Director was 2 years older than me and from North Dakota. He was present at Woodstock at age 17 in 1969. I was maybe 50 miles South (age 15) in my hometown of Yonkers, NY and did not go (parents probably wouldn't have let me, but I had no interest anyway --more interested in the Mets Amazin' '69 season). The guy from ND was a true "hippie". Why am I telling you this?

He knew I had no interest in rock/pop music at all but said I should listen to this cassette tape of Chicago 10. I still have that tape (made a copy to avoid always playing the original). Still listen to it often when returning to the cabin we still have up North.
After hearing that tape I began to explore the day's pop music. I continued to tape some of those great hits that came out from about '77 to 1985-6. Still listen to all those as well. After that time period, it all fell apart IMHO. Oh, Disco was also great and the only thing I could dance to. It was like today's Hip Hop but with multiple chords and melodies you could remember well after the song ended.


----------



## Strange Magic (Sep 14, 2015)

^^^^Three cheers for Disco! Some of the most euphoric music ever penned--Disco Lives Forever.


----------



## Duncan (Feb 8, 2019)

Strange Magic said:


> ^^^^Three cheers for Disco! Some of the most euphoric music ever penned--Disco Lives Forever.


:tiphat: to my friend, Strange Magic, for once again serving as the source of inspiration for a new (and non-ironic) thread idea -

"The A to Z Guide to Disco Artists"... Coming soon to a forum near you!


----------



## pianozach (May 21, 2018)

starthrower said:


> How about "According to Peter Cetera." I already mentioned in a previous post that he was interviewed about this on a TV program. It had nothing to do with horns. It had everything to do with the fact that the band and management objected to him releasing a solo project while being a member of Chicago. That's why he quit. He said so himself.
> 
> PS I just listened to an hour interview with James Pankow on YouTube. He tells some funny stories but he gets his facts and timeline pretty screwed up. I'm not sure I would trust him to tell the truth about Cetera exiting the band.


I've heard this version of Cetera leaving elsewhere as well.

The facts are, however, it was the suits at the record label that pressured Cetera into a solo career. They get their balladeer, and don't have to be bothered with a rock fusion band with horns, which they had also pressured the band to eliminate.

It was a lot like a divorce . . . while it could have been amicable, the suits and lawyers probably made it a lousy situation.

Fortunately the band quickly found a younger Cetera clone in Jason Scheff, who did just fine in the band.


----------



## elgar's ghost (Aug 8, 2010)

Looking at the list of ex-Blood, Sweat & Tears personnel is like reading a WWII memorial in a fair-sized town.


----------



## Jay (Jul 21, 2014)

The first albums of each group are required; after that, meh...


----------

