Chicago

Not in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame

Eligible since: 1994 (The 1995 Induction Ceremony)

Previously Considered? Yes  what's this?


Inducted into Rock Hall Revisited in 2006 (ranked #191) .


Essential Albums (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3Amazon CD
Chicago Transit Authority (1969)
Chicago (II) (1970)

Essential Songs (?)WikipediaAmazon MP3YouTube
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is? (1969)
25 Or 6 To 4 (1970)
Saturday In The Park (1972)
If You Leave Me Now (1976)

Chicago @ Wikipedia

Chicago Videos

Will Chicago be inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame?
"Musical excellence is the essential qualification for induction."
   

Comments

469 comments so far (post your own)

Is there anyone who deserves it more than these guys? Come on... they're not even on the future possible list for any year.

Posted by Will on Wednesday, 11.1.06 @ 04:52am


Chicago is #1 on my poll at:
http://www.rateitall.com/t-2529-deserving-of-the-rock-and-roll-hall-of-fame.aspx
It seems to me they should have a higher Induction Chance % here.

Posted by Garrett on Wednesday, 11.1.06 @ 15:09pm


Chicago should already be inducted. This just goes to show the extreme bias, as well a a lack of knowledge of one of the best groups to ever be formed. Terry Kath, Peter Cetera, Robert Lamm and the rest of the group deserve this honor more than most. Pity.

Posted by Guitar Man on Sunday, 11.5.06 @ 17:27pm


Come on! Grandmaster Flash better than Chicago??? Pull your head out! Put Chicago in the Hall!

Posted by Jeff on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 05:42am


Chicago will never be inducted because of Jann Wenner, and his personal vendeta from years ago. This is just one reason of many, why the Hall is such a joke

Posted by Mark on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 06:05am


Jann Wenner will never allow them in. His school yard grudge from years ago will prevent them from getting in.

Even if they are ever nominated, 5 bucks says they decline.

Posted by Kathryn on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 06:08am


2 words will keep Chicago out of The Hall of Shame. Jann Wenner. Jann and his temper tantrum over an interview, will keep one of the most deserving bands of all time out.

Hey Jann, get over it!

Posted by Susan on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 06:10am


The unfathomable exclusion of Chicago from the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is a damning blight upon the entire system. There is no intelligent reason to not induct them. The HOF is a sham without them.

Posted by Mark L Bakke on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 13:41pm


The HoF is a sham regardless of what it does or does not have.

Posted by William on Tuesday, 01.9.07 @ 13:53pm


Chicago not being in the R&R Hall is a crying shame, there is NO way they will attend any ceremony if they ever due get inducted. They were eligible first back in 1994, to not have them in is RIDICULOUS. In my opinion they are the worst snub for a group, as far as solo artists go you tell me how Neil Diamond isn't in the Hall. If I was running the show at the Hall I would immediately induct those two artists along with Kiss, Alice Cooper, Rush, Def Leppard, Yes and Mellencamp everyone else has no HUGE beef. Those artists DO!

Posted by Pete on Friday, 01.12.07 @ 11:04am


Chicago should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of fame. One of the first bands to use horns extensively, has had a top forty album in at least 5 different decades, ranked #2 behind the beach boys as the top american band of all time.

But Chicago will not get in as long as Jann Wenner is there with the Rock and Roll committee

Posted by Mary on Tuesday, 01.30.07 @ 20:46pm


I agree with you guys that Chicago should be in the Hall. But Flash and the Five finally got their due as pioneers of Rap/Hip-Hop music. I mean come on!!!! They had to put some Rap/Hip-Hop musicians in the Rock Hall sooner or later!!! Don't you guys think so ??? Personally I think the only other Rap group that should go in the Hall is Run-DMC.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Wednesday, 01.31.07 @ 17:39pm


The body of work Chicago did for rock n roll is tremedous, and they damn straight deserve to be in the rock n roll "hall". Deep Purple and The Moody Blues also deserve to be there. What's up with the voting process, who are these people?

Posted by moomootay on Saturday, 02.10.07 @ 05:03am


The "HOF" is a joke. Just look at "most" of people already in it. Why don't you put the Backstreet Boys and N'Sync in. After all, you already have no credibility.

Posted by Thomas on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 10:16am


No Moody Blues, no Yes, no Chicago, no ELP, no Rush, no Tull, no Purple, no Alice, no Hall and Oates, no ELO, no Cars, no Feat....

There can be no true Rock and Roll Hall of Fame without these folks.......

Posted by Mac on Tuesday, 03.13.07 @ 17:46pm


Chicago should have been in years ago, on the strength of their catalog from 1967-1982. Reinventing themselves gave them additional hits from the period 1982-1991. Five different lead singers over the years, all with hits. The songs with multi-vocals. The horns, the list goes on. Few horn bands have followed because a seven or eight member band costs a lot of money. This is a personal vendetta to keep them out, when all the B listers are getting in now.

Posted by Mark on Sunday, 03.18.07 @ 17:31pm


When Chicago created their pop-rock style in the early 80's, they found a perfect formual and stuck with it for the rest of the decade. The only knock on them is that their 80's tunes kinda all sound the same. Let them in.

Posted by Creepozoid on Tuesday, 04.10.07 @ 03:07am


Chicago not in the Hall is a joke, plain and simple. Their exclusion devalues the entire HOF experience.

Posted by Dave on Tuesday, 04.10.07 @ 18:32pm


Perhaps the most embarassing thing to the Hall I can think of is that this band is not in the Hall of fame. And it is compounded yearly with the grandmaster flash's- and bogus inductees that follow.
You can erect a building gather a group of writers with media pull and make all the presentations you want but the people cannot be fooled. We know who the forgotten greats are.
The real damage is the youth that may not know.
Go to the Hall look over the list of inductees and never see the name CHICAGO sitting there.

Posted by anthony on Saturday, 04.28.07 @ 16:43pm


how can Chicago NOT go in??? they HAVE to be in the Rock and Roll hall of fame! original, talented. come on!! 30 LP's and counting!

Posted by Steve on Friday, 06.1.07 @ 15:58pm


Each year the list of inductees makes me wonder is this really a HOF. Chicago should have been inducted when they became eligible in '94. Since their first two albums with tracks like "25 or 6 ro 4?" where Terry Kath's guitar work defined him as one of the best around, their cover of "I'm a Man" with the lead vocals being handled by numerous band members, "Dialogue (Part I & II) asking questions which are still relevant today, to "Make Me Smile" and "Colour My World" which showcased Terry Kath's richly captivating baritone voice. To Jann Wenner all I have to say as far as advice is that you should take the advice from the title of an Eagles song and just get over it!!

Posted by richard on Tuesday, 06.5.07 @ 02:12am


I'm not a big Chicago fan but I have to say that they are one of the more puzzling exclusions. They have extraordinary longevity, a distinctive sound (in other words, they're not derivative), tons of commerical success, and some critical success in their early years. Seems like an airtight resume to me. Traffic belongs, but not Chicago? Really?

Posted by A-Killa on Tuesday, 06.5.07 @ 15:33pm


Really.

Posted by Dezmond on Wednesday, 06.6.07 @ 08:12am


No love for the 1994 generation:
Chicago
-Stooges
-Alice Cooper
-King Crimson
-Grand Funk railroad
-Yes
-Warren Zevon
-Johnny Winter
-Joe Cocker
All these people could have their place in the hall and all emerged in 1969

Posted by roméo on Wednesday, 06.6.07 @ 09:56am


I FIND IT REPULSIVE AND RIDICULOUS THAT CHICAGO IS NOT IN. THEY HAVE TOURED FOR 40 YEARS AND ARE THE MOST SUCCESSFUL BAND OF ALL TIME. THEIR BODY OF WORK SURPASSES EVERYONE AND ANYONE ELSE IN THE HALL OF FAME.

ON ANOTHER NOTE: WHAT ABOUT THE ROLLING STONES AND THE DO0BIE BROTHERS?

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS CIRCUS?

MJB...SEATTLE

Posted by MJB on Saturday, 06.23.07 @ 14:46pm


MJB

1) Are Chicago REALLY the most successful band of all time?

2) Does touring for forty years automatically warrant induction?

3) The Rolling Stones are already in the Hall Of Fame. First ballot. Who woulda thunk it?

Posted by Casper on Saturday, 06.23.07 @ 21:52pm


hall of fame - too cool for chicago ?? - they should be in

Posted by ms on Wednesday, 08.1.07 @ 06:53am


Perhaps the most embarassing thing to the Hall I can think of is that this band is not in the Hall of fame. And it is compounded yearly with the grandmaster flash's- and bogus inductees that follow.
You can erect a building gather a group of writers with media pull and make all the presentations you want but the people cannot be fooled. We know who the forgotten greats are.
The real damage is the youth that may not know.
Go to the Hall look over the list of inductees and never see the name CHICAGO sitting there.

Posted by anthony on Sunday, 08.12.07 @ 21:03pm


I think the youth would be damaged if they had to hear Chicago songs.

And what is with the anti-Grandmaster Flash bias? Seems to be coming from forty year old whities in the suburbs, I presume.

Posted by Casper on Monday, 08.13.07 @ 12:10pm


they should be in - no question - i wonder why they do not have atleast more consideration.

Posted by MIKE on Monday, 08.13.07 @ 13:43pm


Artists like Chicago are hurt with this particular nominating committee because they consider anybody after 1970 who was more popular on AM radio than FM radio to be uncool. They want an edgier feel (or heroin use as in the case with James Taylor types) otherwise no go. This is what I believe hurts others to varying degrees like Neil Diamond , Linda Ronstadt, John Denver, Three Dog Night, The Carpenters, The Doobie Brothers, Hall & Oates......

Posted by SG on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 01:21am


I also wanna say that I agree with Casper that the youth of today would be damaged if they had to hear Chicago songs. This is because the youth of today aren't able to process what's known as M-E-L-O-D-Y. Most of what passes today as "music" is really just 1 note repeated in a synthesized blend of reverberated echo style vocals. Actual acoustical musical instruments are virtually unheard on commercial radio. Most public schools today don't teach much music education and the ones that do are declining in number at a fairly rapid pace. Thus if a young person was played a song like "Color My World" they would start convulsing into a state of sensory overload-not knowing how to process this information.

(I personally am not a big Chicago fan and became more bored with them as they went along though CTA is a good trip)

PS-I'm a white 40 year old guy from Philly who doesn't think Grandmaster no matter how talented is R&R either. HA!

Posted by SG on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 02:01am


QUOTE: Most of what passes today as "music" is really just 1 note repeated in a synthesized blend of reverberated echo style vocals.

And that puts your opinion out of the running. There's a thriving underground scene and there has been one for decades now. Those artists need to be ushered in, not what's left of the dinosaurs that sold by the bucket load. More great albums are coming out yearly in this decade than in any prior. To deny that pretty much reeks of an ignorance that considers modern music only whatever they hear when they flip the dial on the way to their neighborhood classic rock station. Whatever. Carry on wayward, son. Carry on.

Posted by Casper on Tuesday, 08.14.07 @ 19:47pm


The problem is how do you usher these underground artists into the mainstream without the fame and the $$ compromising their artistic integrity? Business is to art what Raid is to bugs.
Then you're just replacing 1 bunch of sellouts with another.

Posted by SG on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 00:21am


"Then you're just replacing 1 bunch of SELLOUTS with another." - SG

Ah, the cry of Sellout - the scarlet S.
The ridiculous musician's Catch-22 wherein if more than 100,00 people or so actually discover your work and decide they like your stuff enough to purchase it, you have naturally compromised your integrity, abandoned your principles and somehow betrayed a true cause.

Plenty of good art has made money for its creators. What tired bullshit.

Posted by shawn on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 09:01am


SG also doesn't realize that there's been plenty of indie to mainstream jumps without anything close to a sacrifice of artistic integrity....Decemberists, Replacements, Modest Mouse, etc...

Posted by Casper on Wednesday, 08.15.07 @ 12:58pm


"Plenty of good art has made money for its creators. What tired... (Profanity deleted)"

Sorry shawn old pal but I stand by what I wrote.

The musical landscape is littered with promising
carreers curtailed or gone down the abyss of $$/fame induced substance abuse/mental breakdowns (see hendrix, joplin, morrison, vicious, spence, barrett, green, erickson, gibb, a few dozen other people I don't have time to mention not just in music but in other art forms like Film -Phoenix, Monroe etc as well as thousands who didn't even make it that far)
And those that do make it find themselves slowly but surely putting out more commercial music by the year bowing to the pressure of record co. execs (see genesis, yes, heart. fleetwood mac, floyd, areosmith, etc, etc, etc, etc) funny, as I'm typing this that old glen campbell standard plays in my head..."ther'll be a load of compromisin on the road to my horizon. But I'm gonna be where the lights are shinin' on me! Like a rhinestone cowboy..."


As for you, Casper I'm not sure I understand your definition of mainstream. I must have been visiting
the concession stand while The Decemberists and The Replacements were marching in the hit parade. With Modest Mouse, "we were dead..." only hit the big time a few months ago so lets give them a liitle time to succumb to the evils of corporate culture. In 2021 when they become eligible for the Hall Of Fame and if their artistic integrity is still intact I will come back here and admit to you I was wrong.

Posted by SG on Thursday, 08.16.07 @ 02:44am


Chicago had 5 #1 albums in row (1972 - 1975)...they were THE leading singles charting group of the entire 70's(in an era of the greatest music)...they had a total of 20 top ten hits...they are the longest running & most successful US pop/rock band ever...enough said!

Imagine the MLB Hall of Fame not including The Babe?, how lame would that hall be?

Do the right thing, put Chicago in!

Posted by Al on Tuesday, 08.28.07 @ 12:14pm


Yo Casper and SG,
Can't we all get along?!?! Howz about a big Chicago-style group HUG!!! Mmmmmm, feels good, huh! Now ROCK ON!!!

Posted by Tom on Tuesday, 08.28.07 @ 12:39pm


You know, although I am an advocate for Chicago being inducted, it seemed to me that Al was grossly overstating Their chart success; until I checked the singles history myself. I was pretty amazed. Chicago did cahrt in the Hot 100 no less than 28 times.... IN THE 70's. Wow.
I have to admit, that is pretty damn impressive.

Posted by shawn on Tuesday, 08.28.07 @ 14:55pm


grand master flash ???? are you kidding - Chicago doesn t even get consideration - hall of fame is trying to be too cool . no pat benatar or Heart ???? either - i don t know ....

Posted by ms on Wednesday, 08.29.07 @ 11:48am


Well, you can't use Grandmaster Flash as a basis of comparison since that's a completely different genre. Flash was a pioneer in hip-hop and deserves to be in. It makes more sense to compare Chicago to other '70s classic rock bands that are in, such as Traffic, Skynyrd, or Bob Seger. It's unclear to me why any of those three are in and Chicago is out. I'm not even a big fan but the numbers don't lie.

Posted by A-Killa on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 10:40am


"Do you have any actual thoughts on this issue or are you just "following" me?" -anon

The irony cloud is so thick in here I'm getting high off of the second hand smoke, dude.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 15:09pm


Bob Wills was a national treasure from the pre-rock era, he is in as an early influence, complaining about that is the dumbest thing I've ever seen on any website ever, and I used to post at a board about professional wrestling.

Posted by Kit on Thursday, 08.30.07 @ 15:43pm


Its obvious Chicago belongs in the Hall of Fame, I can't imagine (based on numbers alone) that anyone could/would dispute that.
What this all boils down to is prejudice on the behalf of one Jann Wenner (obviously).
That's the crime here, that if someone in a position of authority doesn't like you, or has a beef with you, then your accomplishments mean nothing.
What if he had a problem with the Beatles, could he leave them out? How about The Stones or The Who? No way, but he did seem to get away with it with Chicago.

Why?

Granted, even though they (Chicago) haven't released any worthwhile material in the last 20 years (and yes, I'm a fan), that shouldn't take away from the previous 20 years of excellent music they did make.

They are basically they're own best tribute band these days and that may have hurt their legendary status.

I just can't believe the members of the band haven't stood up for themselves and called this guy out.

Like I said, do the right thing and put them in!

And thanks Shawn, I too thought the numbers seemed a bit overblown when I started looking them up. But it's all there in black & white.
(hear that Jann?)

Posted by Al on Friday, 08.31.07 @ 11:27am


These guys shared the spotlight with Led Zeppelin as the greatest rock bands of the 1970s. Sure, they relied heavily on ballads in the latter part of their career, but their early music was revolutionary. Although horns had always been a staple in rock, these guys found a way to integrate them into a rhythim section and vocal section. And, for the most part, they covered just about every musical genre out there. So, the reality is that they have defied categorization despite doing mainly ballads for the last 20 years. The album cuts in some cases are better than some of the hits.

These guys have been victims of changing tastes in the music industry and commercial radio, which seems lately to be only interested in the "flavor of the month" artist, and the music all sounds the same. These guys were a product of the late 60s and early 70s, when the music was far more diverse and imaginative. I blame the record companies and commercial radio for knocking out all diversity and imagination in the music these days. Chicago had to do what they did to survive.

These guys should have been in long ago.

Posted by Larry Launstein Jr. on Thursday, 10.18.07 @ 07:27am


Street Player '79 is a Disco classic.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Friday, 10.19.07 @ 10:44am


Chicago should have been in a long time ago. So, what's the beef Jann has against them?

Posted by tricia on Monday, 10.29.07 @ 08:31am


chicago not being in the rock hall of fame makes the hall look like a joke.even if you are not a fan of the the group or you have a personal vendetta they deserve their due.it looks ridiculous when the hall is inducting the dave clark five and their is no chicago[let alone neil diamond or the moody blues]what incredibly poor choices.

Posted by gdk on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 08:22am


Although, they've been relegated to the "guilty pleasures" part of my music library, I remember just how phenomenal they were at their prime years, and still enjoy their music. Listen to what is going on with the horn arrangements,listen to the incredible chops of Terry Kath on guitar, and listen to the various powerful vocalists. How can their greatness be denied? Granted,later permutations of the original band kind of turned them into a middle of the road pop act, but that hasn't stopped many others from being inducted!

Posted by Kevin on Friday, 12.14.07 @ 10:54am


Here is the truth for those of you wondering.

We the fans know that CHicago deserves this honor more than any other act out there, but as long as Jann and his comittee are in I dont think they will ever allow it. They falt out refuse to even aknowledge their existance.

So lets let Chicagos record speak for itself. After all the comittee can ignore the group but CAN NOT IGNORE the FACTS.

They are the only group to chart top 40 hits in 5 (yes count them) 5 decades.

OVER 120,000,000 albums sold

40 years and still going

Gold and Platinum albums too many to count.

Shall I go on JANN???????

MTV and Rolling Stone have control over who wins the Grammys and the American Music Awards and it is quite obvious that they now have control over the RRHOF and Jann and his comittee.

I bet you that all of the groups the comitte has liked were inducted automatically.

Jann and the comittee are BIASED and the selection process IS fixed....even though they deny it.

Let the FANS decide not some group of closed minded critics who wouldnt know good music if they heard it.

Posted by Ray on Monday, 12.17.07 @ 17:35pm


I am presently on holiday in the US and saw the farce that is the induction to the RnR HOF. I think Pattie Smith was being inducted - I've no problem with her per se but I got angry that a band like Chicago who, notwithstanding their global success were innovators,pioneers and survivors. Why are they constantly are overlooked, airbrushed out of RnR history. This is a sad situation and people like Clive Davis who was present ot see Pattie Smith inducted yet made millions of quid out of Chicago for CBS should be ashamed.

There will be no justice in this as Chicago are seen as MOR music, yet all you contributorsd know what they did to stimulate interet for thousands of people in the music world. it's just not cool to admit it.

Mark

Posted by Mark Slater on Tuesday, 01.1.08 @ 18:54pm


Chicago weren't really that innovative. Al Kooper's Blood Sweat and Tears did the whole brass section thing when Terry Kath was still polishing unloaded guns. Also, no one ever told them that the triple album isn't the default legnth, leading to their first few albums (the only ones close to being good) dragging ooooon and ooooon and oooon. Comparing them to Patti "I don't like e's" Smith is stupid because Patti Smith actually did good things for music. Chicago's Hall Case is DOA, and deriding the artists who actually deserved induction will do nothing to change that.

Posted by Kit on Tuesday, 01.1.08 @ 20:48pm


Skin Tight...your love is alright.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 09:06am


Patti Smith may have been "influential", at least that is what they say, but there is no comparison in the longevity and iconic stature of Chicago compared to the lack of a resume of P.S. I believe I once read that "Horses" was one of the most overrated albums in music history. But, hey does anybody reallly know what good music is, does anybody really care?

Posted by Truth Hurts on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 13:09pm


The arguement regarding Patti Smith and her induction and those artists who have yet to be inducted will rage on for awhile.

Patti Smith's induction has more to do with the "scene" and not so much her musical ability. She wrote words that connected with the times for many. The poet of her generation, so they say. This is the myth that surrounds her. I am of her generation and watched her perform from her early days at CBGB's. And although I am not of the opinion that she did anything "Hall of Fame" worthy, she was the critics darling and many musicians site her as a severe influence on them. And whether deservingly or not, she is in and we need to move on with the next artist/performer/musician.

As for Chicago, I give them more credit than what some wish to. Kit is correct when he mentions Al Kooper and B.S. & T. However, Chicago survived from one generation to the next where many of their peers did not. They did bring a uniqueness to the scene, and even if they weren't the first, they probably were the best at what they did. They did give us one of the best live recordings and Color My World will be a music standard long after we have all left this earth. And that has to be worth something.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 13:59pm


"and even if they weren't the first, they probably were the best at what they did."

I agree, but this whole notion that you have to be the first is stupid. Virtually everyhting done in music was done before in some form or fashion. I mean look at Zepellin, who definitley deserve induction (it is Zep for Gods sake), but nothing they did was so unique, they were a blues rock band, all of which had been done already by the great blues musicians. In fact, from their first album, they had stolen a number of blues songs and did not even give credit.

Posted by Truth Hurts on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 14:45pm


TH - I agree with you in much of what you say. Since I have never spoken to anyone on the HoF nominating committee, what follows is only speculation on my part.

When you are first, then you are the innovator. And there can be only so many firsts. Once you get past true innovation, then the questions revolve around influence, repopularizing a genre or style, were they one of the dominant bands of their era, body of work which sometimes is attached to longevity, muscianship, commercial success, recording of songs that have or will become musical standards and a few other criteria items. Did they build another layer onto the music which influenced them?

So the question regarding Chicago may be answered in those other criteria items. If we say that BST were the innovators, then does Chicago get in based on those other items? As you stated about Zep; they were not true innovators, but they score 9's and 10's on all other criteria items.

My opinion on Chicago is yes. Not every band is going to be selected into the Hall where it is a clear cut choice. But I think Chicago is at least worthy of serious consideration.

One question does arise from this. Does Blood Sweat and Tears deserve entry into the Hall?
Thanks for bringing them up Kit.

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 15:48pm


"When you are first, then you are the innovator. And there can be only so many firsts."

Not really. No one is ever first to do something. No artist has ever REALLY innovated. The best an artist could hope for is to be able to bring their (numerous) influences together, and create something relatively new from that.

Posted by liam on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 15:55pm


Not really. No one is ever first to do something. No artist has ever REALLY innovated. The best an artist could hope for is to be able to bring their (numerous) influences together, and create something relatively new from that.

I think my point is understood in the context of what I was saying. But just to keep you quiet, I amend my statement to "Relatively New".

Liam - is it your need to disagree just for the sake of it?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 17:36pm


The big problem that I don't think anyone mentioned (I was too lazy to look through all of the previous posts) is that if the HOF inducts Chicago, they will have to also induct Kansas, Boston, then Nazareth, America, Europe, Asia...

Where will it end?

Yes, I know that was disgusting. I still had fun writing it!

Posted by Joe on Wednesday, 01.2.08 @ 22:44pm


Why would those others have to be inducted if Chicago gets in?

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 04:06am


"Why would those others have to be inducted if Chicago gets in?" -d

C'mon Dameon --- you don't see the theme/joke Joe was constructing there?

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 08:13am


I knew there was a joke there, but I am old and my sense of humor has diminshed somewhat.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 08:40am


"I knew there was a joke there, but I am old and my sense of humor has diminshed somewhat." -Dameon

Ha-ha. Well, it could have also had to do with it not being that good of a joke, too.

He forgot to mention:
- The Ohio Players, Alabama, World Party, L.A. Guns, Miami Sound Machine, Georgia Sattelites and Atlanta Rythm Section....... to beat a lame joke to death!

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 13:35pm


Aww man, what about...

Arctic Monkeys, British Sea Power, The Dubliners, Gary U.S. Bonds (yep, I admit to that straw-grasp), Rick SPRINGFIELD and Texas?!?!?

Posted by liam on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 15:16pm


Good ones, Liam.
They'd also have to induct:
- New York Dolls, Manhattan Transfer and Black Oak Arkansas! This is exhausting; think I'll go listen to The Traveling Wilburys now.

Posted by shawn on Thursday, 01.3.08 @ 20:17pm


He forgot to mention:
- The Ohio Players, Alabama, World Party, L.A. Guns, Miami Sound Machine, Georgia Sattelites and Atlanta Rythm Section....... to beat a lame joke to death!

They'd also have to induct:
- New York Dolls, Manhattan Transfer and Black Oak Arkansas! This is exhausting; think I'll go listen to The Traveling Wilburys now.


I actually think that when it is their time, The Miami Sound Machine may very well receive some consideration. I am not a fan, but I just got a feeling that Gloria and her husband are well liked and respected in the business.

And as for LA Guns - they may not have the chops, library or talent to be in the HoF, but they were a band that in the 80's, you could have fun with. And chicks dug them!! I know you all hate that scene with a passion, but there has to be something said for RnR chicks in tight leather mini-skirts, high heeled leather boots and spandex tops. And they looked amazing sitting on the back of my bike. (Ladies - I mean no disrespect to you with these comments) The NY scene was nothing like LA, but some good times were had at L'Amours. The Brooklyn club was better than the Queens club, but man, we had fun, no mater the club. The Scrap Bar which was right across the street from Cafe Wa in the Village was also a great place to be.


BOA did a great version of "Jim Dandy". And I think Tommy Aldridge was their drummer. He went on to play with many acts after the demise of BOA. He is considered an excellent drummer.

And I don't care what you all think, the Dolls were as important to the underground scene as anyone. So stop picking on them. Thank you very much.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 07:33am


To defend myself:

I was only naming groups that had ONLY the names of cities, states, countries, continents, etc. as their names; hence, I didn't forget the Ohio Players, LA Guns, Miami Sound Machine, etc. (I had never heard of the band Texas.)

Yes, it was a lame joke. I still had fun telling it!

Posted by Joe on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 10:44am


"(I had never heard of the band Texas.)"

They DEFINITELY exist

Posted by liam on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 11:09am


"To defend myself:
I was only naming groups that had ONLY the names of cities, states, countries, continents, etc." -Joe

That is indefensible; utterly unacceptable!

We also forgot Hanoi Rocks, Mission of Burma and perhaps even Foreigner on our little Journey in our Cars on our Highway To Hell. Maybe we should have taken the Grand Funk Railroad instead?

Posted by shawn on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 11:19am


Now I get it. I guess my parents told me the truth when they said and I quote, "if I keep listening and playing that Rock and Roll, my brain would just slowly die." Who knew!!

And just for the sake of adding my two cents in - let's not forget our newest sensation HANNAH MONTANA

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 11:31am


No more state jokes now, guys.

I'm serious >:o

Posted by liam on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 11:46am


FYI - Linkin Park is in fact a name of a town in Jersey. The spelling is a little different.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 12:06pm


Ha-ha-ha!! Hannah Montana is a great one, right there under the nose. Did not know that about Linkin (Lincoln?) Park.

John DENVER.

Posted by shawn on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 15:25pm


Correct on the spelling of Lincoln. Great little town about 25 minutes out of NYC. Some amazing spandex came out of that little sleepy town.

Posted by Dameon on Friday, 01.4.08 @ 17:20pm


I recently did research on the most deserving bands that are not in the hall and Chicago made #1 on my list. Its funny to see those billboard stats posted because when I saw them the first time I was blown away. Now when I see them posted here its funny because it makes the hall such a mockery, My list is posted at work and when ever people see the list the all repeat over and over in disbelief "These are the people NOT in the hall??" "Are you sure"?


Perhaps the most embarassing thing to the Hall I can think of is that this band is not in the Hall of fame. And it is compounded yearly with the grandmaster flash's- and bogus inductees that follow.
You can erect a building gather a group of writers with media pull and make all the presentations you want but the people cannot be fooled. We know who the forgotten greats are.
The real damage is the youth that may not know.
Go to the Hall look over the list of inductees and never see the name CHICAGO sitting there.

Posted by anthony on Sunday, 01.6.08 @ 20:37pm


Only those who were in it during the 'Terry Kath years' should be inducted.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 03.10.08 @ 07:48am


Chicago will get in after Blood, Sweat & Tears gets in.

Posted by Gregory Pietsch on Sunday, 03.23.08 @ 16:26pm


I've been a Chicago fan since the very beginning. Until recently I did not know the reason why they had not been inducted into the HOF. If in fact Jann Wenner is still carrying a grudge for a comment made 35 years ago, it is way past time for him to grow up or step aside. Without any doubt, Chicago should be in the HOF. The statistics talked about previously are reason enough. Looking at the inductees in the HOF, it is obvious that Chicago's omission is a travesty when compared to some of the jokes who have been inducted.

Posted by Perry on Sunday, 03.30.08 @ 22:18pm


Chicago should have been voted in years ago along with a few other groups that apparently in the same political boat.It's a real shame they are being snubbed!

Posted by Roger on Saturday, 04.12.08 @ 19:25pm


Chicago not being in is a traversty....they are obviously deserving! So some stupid writers wanted them to drop the horns? How stupid is that?

The whole HEART issue, isn't Nancy Wilson married to Cameron Crowe?? Gotta be some bad blood there too.

Posted by Beth on Sunday, 05.18.08 @ 01:13am


Chicago and B,S & T have to go in. Rappers, Madonna and groups with little or no musical talent got in and these guys aren't even considered...what a FARCE!! These groups along with the Moody Blues are OVER-Qualified anyway. With the Hall's mentality...it makes you wonder how the Ventures got in.

Posted by James Pankow Fan on Monday, 05.19.08 @ 12:51pm


Last year Jann Wenner gave herself (lol) a lifetime achievement award from the RRHOF... BWHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHA. Don't forget your cute little 'domestic partner' next year.

He's turning this place into a joke. Just because Peter Cetera says he only reads the Rolling Stone when he's 'taking a shit' and the powers that be at the Rolling Stone never really liked the horns, they decided that Chicago wasn't worth it.

Nice work, guys....and Jann :-P

Posted by Will on Tuesday, 05.20.08 @ 05:33am


I think the GENESIS exclusion is a bigger travesty than the CHICAGO exclusion! CHICAGO comes in 2nd!

Posted by ytgg on Thursday, 05.29.08 @ 18:31pm


Other great Chicago songs that were not singles include:

Poem For The People
Happy Cause I'm Going Home
Als is Well
While The City Sleeps
State of The Union
Goodbye
Something In This City Changes People
Happy Man
Song Of The Evergreens
Oh Thank You Grea Spirit

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Sunday, 06.8.08 @ 02:44am


Now you are bringing Bill Clinton into the act. Maybe he can play his sax onstage. Please stop - we get your point.

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 06.19.08 @ 10:33am


Does this guy Roy ever give it a rest? I have always enjoyed Chicago but after reading his constant diatribes, I hope they never see the light of day.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Sunday, 06.22.08 @ 16:53pm


I am at a point that I don't want to see Chicago inducted just because of Roy. Hey Roy: Do you get paid by the word or by how annoying you are?

Posted by Dameon on Wednesday, 07.2.08 @ 08:10am


Roy... Where do you come up with this stuff?

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Monday, 07.7.08 @ 08:15am


Are they not going to be inducted due to the fact that there are so many bad feelings between Peter Cetera and Chicago, because I understand they split up on very ugly terms and to get them together on the same stage is what they want to avoid?

Posted by jenny on Thursday, 07.17.08 @ 18:45pm


Dameon...while we're on the subject of unsung guitar heroes, I had brought up Terry Kath in a previous post. Now there was a cat who could flat-out PLAY!!! You never hear of him being mentioned with the usual greats, but he very well should be...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.20.08 @ 18:08pm


I have been a life-long fan of the group and consider myself very open to all genres of rock-n-roll. Chicago has released songs that fit into most every genre..jazzy, sincopated rhythms, ballads, driving rock and have adapted to the sounds of each decade they have played.

As far as past conflicts with people, whether it is Jann Wenner, Pete Cetera or James Guercio, the time has come to mend the fences. Geez...after 40 years you would think that there are more important issues in life than to carry bitterness around.

I think the hatchets need to be buried and Guercio, their original manager and producer, should give the induction speech. What better event for the Rock-n-Roll Hall of Fame than to have the reunion of all of these talents on the stage at the same time. Like Dean Martin appearing on the Jerry Lewis Telethon. What a monumental moment!

It is about time everyone grew up and decided life is way too short to carry resentment to the grave.

I will do my part to petition the HOF.

Posted by beancountr on Monday, 07.21.08 @ 15:29pm


Here is my email to the president of the HOF, Terry Stewart, followed by his response.

I hope this finds you all well.
I want to petition the induction committee to consider and accept the group Chicago into the Hall of Fame. It is long overdue. They are the number 2 band of success in America, only behind the Beach Boys (members of HOF). They have produced and sold hits that cross over into many genres of Rock-n-Roll, including jazz, ballads, driving rock, and unique syncopated rhythms. The collective talents of the virtuoso artists collaborated to create music that has affected 2 – 3 generations of listeners. They overcame the challenges of dealing with music producers/ managers that took advantages of their talents for personal gain, as well as the issues in the late 60’s and early 70’s dealing with copyright issues and royalties for original work. The group was so committed to their craft that they were willing to take reduced royalties in order to release double album LPs just so they could share their messages with the world.

It is rumored that there is “bad blood” between Chicago and Jann Wenner that keeps them from being inducted. Other rumors concern the relationship between the original group members and Pete Cetera. Even other rumors deal with grudges between the members of Chicago and Jim Guercio, their original manager / producer. As a fan, I don’t care about the bitterness and resentment individuals have between themselves and others. As adults I would hope that they have all come to the realization that a lifetime is a longtime to carry a grudge and that resentment never hurts the person it is pointed against, but rather the person carrying the resentment. If these people haven’t learned that lesson yet, it is time they did. Besides, the point of the Hall of Fame is to highlight artists that have made significant contributions to rock-n-roll music. How can the history of the music be complete without a mention of Chicago! Consider this. If an Anthology collection were to be put together for Chicago, as it was for the Beatles, the collection would be twice the size of the Beatles. Chicago had so much music inside them that they released more songs than (I guess) 90% of the members in the Hall currently.

Please, end the madness of excluding this group from the history of rock-n-roll, as taught through the Hall of Fame. Make this right!

I hope you have a wonderful day

Steve Cunningham,

A music fan!




Posted by beancountr on Tuesday, 07.22.08 @ 13:59pm


THE RESPONSE:

Thanks for your comments about Chicago. They are certainly a good choice. Here’s how the process works.

Nomination and induction into the Hall of Fame is not about popularity, records sales, which label the group is on, or anything other than the process below. The love for, the evaluation of, and the impact of any artist are subjective questions to be answered by the nominators and the voters. Unlike baseball, football, basketball or hockey, statistics are not relevant.

The entire nomination and induction process is coordinated by the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation in New York City. Artists can be inducted in four categories: Performer, Early Influence, Non-Performer and Side-Men. The latter three categories are evaluated and decided by separate committees.

The selection of Performers is a two-step process. The only formal criteria for the performance category is that an artist has to have had their first record 25 years ago. That said, candidates are reviewed and discussed relative to their impact on this music that we broadly call rock and roll. The innovation and influence of these artists is also critical. Gold records, number one hits, and million sellers are really not appropriate standards for evaluation.

The formal selection of Performers begins with an extensive panel of journalists, historians, previous inductees, noted musicians, industry heads, etc. In turn, those nominated are sent to a committee of more than 500 people around the world (journalists, historians, music industry management, all living inductees, musicians, etc.) who vote. Those receiving the highest number of votes and more than 50% of the votes cast are inducted into the Hall. Usually, this means five to seven new performing members each year. All this said, you can see the road to being inducted is an arduous one and for the most part, removed from the realm of influences or politics.

Finally, as I noted above, everyone personalizes everything about rock and roll, when they are brought into the circle of discussion. As such, the definition of "rock and roll," who is or was important, and who should be inducted is incredibly subjective. Everyone believes themselves to be the “expert”. Unfortunately, there are no longer any absolutes when it comes to candidates. The Chuck Berry, Elvis, Little Richard, Beatles days are gone. Going forward, the controversy will continue. Having said that, I believe that all worthy candidates will be inducted, just not always when they or their fans deem timely. In fact, there's not only precedent in our history, but also with the sports halls of fame where many great stars do not get inducted in the their early years of eligibility, or for many years to come in quite a few instances.

Peace & Soul,
Rock & Roll!

Terry Stewart
President
Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum

P. S. I nominated Chicago last year. Unfortunately, they did not receive enough votes to make the final ballot. And no, there are no political issues or bad blood…just not enough votes.

Posted by beancountr on Tuesday, 07.22.08 @ 14:00pm


I propose the creation of a "grass roots" campaign to petition the 500+ members of the voting committee to vote for the induction of Chicago into the HOF.

Begin with finding "living inductess" through group/artists websites. Many musicians maintain web pages and MySpace sites that can be used as a petition platform.

In addition, bombard the local DJs and newspaper entertainment reporters, asking if they participate in the voting process.

Finally, research record company and talent management company websites and locate points of contact. Let's deluge them with emails insisting the induction of Chicago.

Is anyone with me on this?

Posted by beancountr on Tuesday, 07.22.08 @ 14:30pm


Without question, Chicago belongs into the RRHOF, but the hurdles are many and perhaps so high that a former President of The United States may not be able to climb over. The biggest hurdle is one word long...Ego.

I truly think Ego's and corporate culture has become the single reasons that a group that has sold so many songs, and records/cd's isn't in this body. The ego's are ( and im sure some will be upset with me on this) on both sides. But lets take the corporate culture issue first.

In the Music Industry, like any major industry, if one takes a mavrick route across the grain of acceptability or status quo,they are likely to become the least likely promoted/advanced ; this sadly I believe to be true here with Chicago.

Chicago believed strongly in thier creativity roots and stood up for them against the establishment; this may be a result of thier upbringing, thier influnce from the 60's culture on establishment; its likely that James William Guerico's ultra strong grip on the band in thier early years instilled in the group a " Never Again" attitude on being told what to play and what to record.

Its this approach that Record Exec's didn't like and still dont. Magazines like Rollling Stone, depend on partnenships with music recording companies and instrument companies for advertising, its thier lifeblood; if this partnership is damaged or non existant, then the Magazine is also non-existant.

So The Stone follows the corporate music and free thinking artist, and groups are targeted first by contract/label loss and then when nothing affects the artist/ group, then the legacy is attacked as it is here.

Now the ego part... Record Exec's,Managers, Labels, and Artist all have Ego's...The bigger the entity the bigger the Ego; when Ego's clash the results is loud and almost as big as the ego's in question.

Chicago, right or wrong, in letting Guerico go after Terry Kath's death, fired a shot across the establishment bow that they likely didnt believe to be a big deal; but it was. James William Guerico was an established manager/promoter who had many friends in the industry, his dismissal was an affront to the establishment and to someone who was connected(musically). Corporate Ego at work.

James Pankow is a talented musician, singer/songwriter and a nice human being; but James Pankow is passionate about his music, and isnt afraid to speak up and out when his work and the work of his fellow musicians in Chicago is affronted, either real or percieved. Mr Pankow's comments noted in this thread are form the heart, but when read by those who might vote to respect the body of Chicago's work, may work against the band.

I can see where Mr. Pankows heart and mind are, but I can see the view form the other side. Ego's across the lines and the results are saddening to all who love Chicago and thier great music.

Another sad commentary to this issue is the Ego's outside the box; Peter Cetera, the golden voice in back up and lead on so many great songs of Chicago's ( and one who influenced me musically so much) left the band after 18 years of great music. The Corporate Ego that worked against Chicago on the RRHOF has also hit Mr. Cetera as a solo act, in that despite a solid musician, he too has no record company, and that too is sad.

But equally sad is the what if; what if the RRHOF did put Chicago in, based on comments I have read, Mr. Cetera would not join the band to recieve the honor, something that is sad to all the fans who love both him and Chicago, sad for his wonderful and beautiful two daughters to see thier father with the men who shared the majority of his youth, and sad for us fans who would love to see them together again for just a single shining moment.

Ego's again at work...How sad. It's crazy that the Hall doesn't induct in a musical act that influenced so many people in so many ways; sad that some members already in the hall know Chicago is worthy and yet say nothing to mak it so.

Lives are all too short, the musical greats of yeaterday are starting to pass, some already gone, we dont have time for Ego's, and its time to Honor the craft, if not the men.

By honoring that craft, we must insist that Chicago be inducted, if not for anything else, then at least for the craft that Jimi Hendrix called " Gituarist better than I am"...what a statement huh?

Do it for Terry Kath...and lets bring in all who have made Chicago great...Laudir,Tris, Dewayne, Keith and those who helped along the way.

I have one final word for the RRHOF and all the Ego's who have blocked this bands place in History...Its summed up in a Chicago song...."IT BETTER END SOON"

Thanks for listening, and I hope I didnt offend anyone....

Bassplayer_525

Posted by Bassplayer_525 on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 05:43am


For those who don't read the "Press" section of the Chicago board, here is what Jimmy said last week to a newspaper reporter about the Rock-Hall:

Chicago brings horns to Plain Dealer Pavilion Tuesday
Friday, July 04, 2008
John Soeder
Plain Dealer Pop Music Critic

Chicago co-founder and trombone player Jimmy Pankow, 60, filled us in by phone recently from a tour stop in Harrisburg, Pa.

Q: Chicago has been eligible for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame for years, although you've never been nominated. What if anything would being inducted mean to you?

A: "If we were invited, I really don't know if we would give a [expletive], to be honest with you.

It's not only Chicago. There are other artists, like Neil Diamond and the Doobie Brothers, who are way overqualified, and they're not in the Hall of Fame.

It would be nice if induction was based on real accomplishments. If that was the case, we would've been in there years ago.

We're certainly qualified, 100 million albums later.

It's gotten to a point where it's almost laughable. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame is really not an accurate representation of historically successful artists . . . to Jann Wenner's discredit."

[Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone, is chairman of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Foundation, which oversees the induction process.]

Since I posted Jimmy's recent comments above, I decided to transcribe Robert's talk about the Rock Hall situation to a disc jockey at WMJC radio in NYC on June 27th.
For the record, here it is....

DJ: I refuse...and I have this up on my website... to acknowledge the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame until they induct Chicago. How are you guys NOT in the Hall of Fame?

Lamm: I honestly don't know. I'm guessing it's... it must be something personal, although I have been told by members of the Board who I'm acquainted with that Chicago's name does come up year to year. We have kind of gone through the whole vetting process but we've just never made it through to number one.

DJ: It doesn't make any sense.

Lamm: Well, I don't get it either. I mean (giving) all due credit and respect to those who have been elected to the Hall of Fame, I don't disagree with any of those choices, but I certainly think Chicago deserves to be alongside all of them.

DJ: Absolutely! I tell you, you don't need all that recognition to do what you're doing, still touring... it's been 40-some odd years... and you're going to go on
'til forever, right?

Lamm: That's the plan right now. The plan is to never stop.Chicago-911

On the above comments by Robert & Jimmy:

It was good to hear Robert confirm that Chicago's name comes up "year to year" for consideration in the early stages of the process.

The real problem IMHO is that the Rock Hall has a glut of noteworthy candidates, but they've only inducted on average 5-7 artists per year lately. The Hall has only existed since 1986, if I recall the date correctly, so they have a lot of catching up to do.

Jann Wenner is so tied to the small number of yearly inductees that, when he replaced the Dave Clark Five with Grandmaster Flash in 2006, he refused to expand that year's winners by even one spot to induct both. (The DC5 did get in the next year.) Hopefully, they'll be more flexible in the future.

Along with fans of other groups, we're not alone in our frustrations with the Hall.

The BAND knows they belong.

And WE know they belong.

And, despite Jimmy's suggestion that the band might not care by the time they'd be inducted,
I certainly hope they'd be honored for the most obvious reason:
THEY BELONG IN THE ROCK HALL!!!

Question is: With all the different decades the Rock Hall has to choose from, when will Chicago work their way up. All I know about the upcoming (2009) class is what I saw in an article,
that The Hollies may have the inside track for inclusion, so one spot is likely filled already.

Hey, Rock Hall: All we want is for the band to be inducted before they need wheelchairs
to attend the ceremony!

Posted by Briangator on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 05:47am


Roy,

Aerosmith, Jackson Browne, Michael Jackson, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Queen, Bonnie Raitt, Bob Seger and ZZ Top were all eligible prior to 2000.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 07.25.08 @ 14:08pm


I have been a fan of Chicago since 1989, when I was first getting into music. I don't think I am alone when I say their music has been a soundtrack to my life. Chicago has, and always will be, a band without peer. Go back and listen to a song like "Introduction" on Chicago Transit Authority or the "Ballet for a Girl In Buchannon" on Chicago II. Each layer of those songs is so rich, so deep, it was like a work of fine art. The work of Terry Kath on guitar and Cetera's bass work is highly underrated. They are never given the credit they deserve. It goes to other bands of that time like Zep or Hendrix. The horns are like another voice. And Lamm, Kath and Cetera each had a unique vocal style. It is such a shame that a band who has sold 120 million and counting albums is not given their just desserts. Many younger people who listen to Led Zep or Pink Floyd or Sabbath just don't know what kind of music Chicago made in the late 60's and early to mid 70's. If they would go back and listen to CTA, they would be shocked. Instead, when they hear Chicago, they think of "Look Away" and "You're the Inspiration", which aren't bad. They just aren't "cool" by today's standards. So Chicago is thrown into the trash folder and overlooked. Thanks a lot, Jann Weiner! And I am being nice just calling him a weiner. I can think of a lot meaner words than that...including two that end with -ck and head!

Posted by JT on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 18:36pm


"Chicago has, and always will be, a band without peer."-JT

If go you back and read a few of the more recent comments, particularly on the Blood, Sweat, and Tears page, you'll see that particular statement is a bit of a stretch.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 19:21pm


Not only did Terry Kath admire Hendrix, Hendrix admired Terry Kath

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 19:55pm


Aaron...true statement!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 07.26.08 @ 19:59pm


The Morning Comes: An Analysis of Peter Cetera

After careful examination of a handful of your songs, I have come to two conclusions about you, Mr. Cetera. The first conclusion is that you had been planning your departure from Chicago even before you were asked to join the band. Chicago was a tool that you used to make a name for yourself in order to be able to have a solo career later on in the future. You were never planning on staying with Chicago. During your seventeen years with Chicago, you kept your desire to leave the band all bottled up inside of you. You were not sure how you were going to tell your bandmates that you wanted out. Your only outlet was your music. You had hidden messages in the songs you wrote. When you wrote "If You Leave Me Now" and "Baby, What A Big Surprise" you were not thinking about a woman. What you were really thinking about were your bandmates from Chicago and how they would feel if you left them. Your song "Hard To Say I'm Sorry" was also a cry for help. It was your apology letter to Chicago, three years in advance. When you finally got the guts to tell your bandmates that you were leaving the band, baby, it was a big surprise to everyone.

On your second solo album, your first after leaving Chicago, appropriately and dramatically titled "Solitude/Solitaire" you included a song called "Big Mistake" which you had started writing while you were still with Chicago. Once again, I don't think you were thinking about a woman when you wrote that song either. What you were really thinking about were your bandmates from Chicago. Was it a big mistake to leave the band? You purposely made a pretty obvious reference in the song "Big Mistake" to the song "Baby, What A Big Surprise."

Quote: "Baby you might get a big surprise tonight" from Big Mistake

The second conclusion is that you are a person who does not dwell on the past. You are always looking to the future. It's either that, or you really like the phrase "the morning comes" which you use in three of your songs.

Quote: "Hold me 'til the morning comes" with Paul Anka

Quote: "He'll be gone when the morning comes" from Big Mistake

Quote: "When the morning comes and it's time to go start another day" from Daddy's Girl

Posted by RoughhWolf on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 05:33am


Popstrology: The Art and Science of Reading the Pop Stars:

What's Your Sign? Use the Pop Music Charts to Reveal Your Personality Traits, Guide Your Relationships, and Discover Your True Destiny.

By Ian Van Tuyl and Owen Grover, 2004

Page 123: Chicago - You may not deliver thrills, but you sure deliver value.

True to the need of the album-oriented rock (AOR) format that launched them, the first four released by the band called Chicago comprised three double albums and one quadruple album. That's 10 LPs in a little less than thirty months, and if you factored that into your Birthstar's already staggering album-sales figures, you might find that in terms of sheer tonnage, Chicago shipped more vinyl than any other American rock band in the 1970s. Not bad for a band that could have walked through O'Hare Airport at the height of their success without attracting so much as a single screaming fan. That's not because their fans didn't love them, but because total subjugation of individual ego to the collective good of the group was the rule in Chicago, even to the point of using a logo rather than a picture of the band on all of their albums. It would turn out in the end, of course, that the incredibly accomplished and hardworking musicians who had chosen so admirably to prosper as seven anonymous dwarves had been harboring a would-be Snow White in their midst all along. Peter Cetera was his name, and as soon as his name became well known to those who loved his high tennor voice, he was asked to leave a hive that was perfectly happy not to have a queen. "Team player" may sound like faint praise sometimes, but find the right team to play with and you'll realize your true power.

Lasting, Massive, Whitebread, Familiar, Not Sexy

Constellations: Launching Pad, Lite & White

Birthsongs: #1 Hits

If You Leave Me Now - October 17-30, 1976
Hard To Say I'm Sorry - September 5-18, 1982
Look Away - December 4-17, 1988


Page 117: Peter Cetera - You are the glorious butterfly who's reluctant to emerge from the cocoon.

What Michael McDonald and Lionel Richie were to the Doobie Brothers and the Commodores, Peter Cetera was to Chicago: the man who found his true voice while teaching his former group how not to rock. It took your Birthstar 17 albums with Chicago before he worked up the nerve to go solo, but when he finally did, his timing couldn't have been more perfect. The year was 1986, the constellation Reaganrock was in its ascendancy, and Kenny Loggins was simply too busy to record every single movie sound track, which left Karate Kid, Part 2 to Cetera and his Glory of Love. And if your Birthsong's bombastic Whitebread grandeur seems indistinguishable from Chicago's 1982 #1 Hard To Say I'm Sorry, it only goes to show you (a) the degree to which Cetera had transformed his former group by the end of his tenure and (b) the enduring appeal of a full-tilt, over-the-top power ballad in the hands of an uninhibited master. If you sometimes feel like renting the entire film oeuvre of Ralph Macchio and staying up all night to watch it, that's just popstrology at work. Because like your Birthstar himself, you are the type who understands the importance of the word "sometimes" in the edict that less is sometimes more.

Massive, Whitebread, Familiar, Not Sexy, Forgotten

Constellations: Spin-Off, Reaganrock, Theme Singer

Birthsong: #1 Hit

Glory of Love - July 27-August 9, 1986


Page 118: Peter Cetera and Amy Grant - You might actually be a saint, but to someone you're a sinner.

It's extremely difficult to imagine Peter Cetera as a defiler of a pious and virtuous young woman, but that's exactly how many of Amy Grant's biggest fans saw him when he tempted her into a popstrological Power Couple in late 1986. Ms. Grant wasn't a pop singer, you see--she was a singer of gospel and Christian Contemporary with a devout following that bought her records in the millions and viewed her move away from their chosen genre as a true fall from grace. You are too young to remember, but as powerful as the constellation Reaganrock was in the 1980s, its watered-down sound was still demon rock and roll to some, and not just a lunatic fringe. These were the years after all, in which Jerry Falwell's Moral Majority was at the apex of its powers, and devotees of his brand of Christianity viewed Ms. Grant's crossover as a grim portent indeed. And perhaps their fears were well founded, for not three months after you were born, the taint of sin was shockingly revealed even within the holy confines of the Praise the Lord Ministries, whose leader Jim Bakker provided America with what historians may someday call the first great scandal of the modern media age. As a child of Peter Cetera and Amy Grant, you are unlikely to be viewed as an iconoclast, and yet your capacity for toppling dubious icons through seemingly innocent actions is popstrologically unquestionable.

Whitebread, Familiar, Not Sexy, Forgotten, Minor

Constellations: Power Couple, Reaganrock

Birthsong: #1 Hit

The Next Time I Fall - November 30-December 6, 1986

Posted by RoughhWolf on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 05:36am


In Chicago's 16 years of eligibility, many Chicago fans have tried to move the unshakable opinion of Jann Wenner to try to get Chicago nominated. There was even a group of radio DJs that tried a few years back, but Wenner changed the nominating requirements that prevented the nominations from counting thus preventing Chicago's nomination.

The efforts of fans have been far less successful than that of those DJs.

The interview that Bob Sirott did with Walt, Lee, Jimmy, and their manager Peter Schivarelli for their temporary exhibit at the Chicago History Museum. They took some questions from fans and someone asked about Chicago not being in the RRHOF, and Schivarelli answered the question in great detail about the DJs who had tried to get Chicago inducted.

The requirements for who could be nominated weren't changed, but the requirements for who could do the nominating were... There are very few (if any) radio DJs with nominating power any more.

Posted by Perplexio on Monday, 07.28.08 @ 21:54pm


Roy...Even though their contributions to rock music can't be overlooked, the present regime down at the hall seems to feel otherwise. Until there are some wholesale changes I don't think they'll ever get in, along with some other most deserving artists.

Gotta make room for the hip-hoppers and bubble gum pop dance queens, ya know!! Better watch out, the Jonas Brothers are on the latest cover of Rolling Stone and Oprah thinks they're right up there with the Beatles...I can't believe she'd make such a absurd comparison!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.3.08 @ 08:33am


Don't exaggerate. As long as they'll induct bands like The Dave Clark Five, there's still hope for Chicago. The number of hip-hoppers and dance queens inducted is still limited to two. And as long as they only induct deserving hip-hop and pop acts, there's still plenty of room for other genres to get nominated. They'll have a hard time finding nine influential or innovative rappers and pop singers every year!

Posted by The_Claw on Sunday, 08.3.08 @ 10:26am


I don't think it's an exagerration at all. I don't know how old you are, but the DC5 made a lot more noise than people think. I'm not really sure what their beef is with Chicago, but there doesn't seem to be a light at the end of the tunnel. I think that the whole induction process has turned into a conundrum that's going to be difficult to remedy. It's going to be increasingly difficult to keep inducting from the 60's and 70's while they're letting people like Madonna in (who I feel had absolutely NO business being inducted) their first year of eligibility without looking stupid. They're going to get put on the spot on why "it took so long". They set a very bad precedent. It's not supposed to be a popularity contest, but who made the biggest impact with their influence and innovation on ROCK & ROLL MUSIC!! Does that term even ring a bell with anyone anymore??

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.3.08 @ 11:28am


It is an exaggeration. Hiphoppers and female pop acts are quite rare in the hall of fame. One of each, to be exact. And so are mor recent acts. Only 25% of all the acts in the hall had their first record released in or after 1969, the year Chicago debuted. They hardly even begun inducting 70s acts! I don't see why the induction of Madonna would end that prematurely. She's not thát powerful.

Or do you mean that now they are inducting pop acts, they will forget the rockers? Well, they never intended to focus solely on rock music, and they never did. If they would, they would have called it the Rock Hall of Fame, not the Rock & ROLL Hall of Fame. But still, after inducting quite a lot of acts from other genres, including pop, soul, blues, funk, hiphop, country, disco, folk, beat, surf, reggae and jazz, they still found room to induct The Stones, The Who, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zep, Queen, AC/DC... Off course you'll never feel comfortable with the Hall of Fame if you only consider one type of rock 'n roll as the true form. Their range is much broader than yours.

The "what took them so long" remark is unavoidable, how hard they'll try. Don't forget they inducted three acts last year that began their career before Chicago. And there are more acts out there that were quite important to the history of rock & roll and began before '69. Just ignoring major, more recent acts so slightly less important, older acts can make it in, won't work. Those acts you ignored to get older acts in, will be the "what took them so long" acts of the future. I rather have them inducting the most important eligible acts than only chosing quite important acts just because some of their members are getting too old.

I admit, I too have my problems with the nominating committee. They rarely nominate the nine most important eligible acts, and some very influential acts have been ignored for too long. But I feel that that has more to do with a bias against some music genres than an effort to induct as many 'popular' acts as they can. If that was the case, Chicago, one of the most succesful groups in the U.S. in terms of record sales, would have been inducted a long, long time ago. If it really was a popularity contest, how on earth could Leonard Cohen have beaten Donna Summer and The Beastie Boys? Kudos to Leonard (what took them so long?), he completely deserves induction, but I doubt he's the more popular one.

Posted by The_Claw on Sunday, 08.3.08 @ 19:18pm


To me, rock & roll is simply rock & roll, and I do realize it has a lot of stepchildren (aka subgenres). The direction they seem to be going would be veering more toward calling it the "Popular Music Hall Of Fame", which would go back a lot farther than the 50's. I just don't want to see it become diluted. Being inducted should really mean something. Rock & Roll (which "Rock" is just short for) to me, anyway, just has a different feel to it than anything else. To me, "pop" is it's own genre, along with rap/hip-hop, country, etc...I know you'll probably think that would thin out the selection, but in a way, it should. I also know that with that mindset even someone like SRV getting inducted would be questionable because he was a BLUES player. It's a touchy subject, and I certainly don't have the correct answer for it. I just hate seeing derserving artists who, in my opinion, are the essence of Rock being overlooked.

Claw...I respect and acknowledge your opinions and appreciate your input.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 08.3.08 @ 21:01pm


"Claw...I respect and acknowledge your opinions and appreciate your input."
The feeling is mutual. You put into words what many people think and feel about the RnRHOF, but you know how to do it in a way that is both well-argumented and respectful. We maybe disagree on a couple of points, but I think we both can agree that the way the induction process works right now isn't a great one. I hope that in 2010, when they'll have an induction ceremony for the 25th time, they'd do something special, like doubling the number of nominees and inductees, so some notable omissions could finally get what they deserve.

Posted by The_Claw on Monday, 08.4.08 @ 07:54am


They'll get in. I noted earlier that the voting committee is plunging into the waters of the decade (the 80's) that made them want to create this thing in the first place. Faced w/ the hideous combo of British synthesizers and American hairspray (as they may or may not see it) the reaction will be one of two things:

1. They'll follow the lead of Stave Van Zandt and take refuge in the 60's. This will expose the fact that all they ever really wanted was a 60's museum in the first place, and everyone from the Strawberry Alarm Clock to the Blues Magoos will start to show up on the ballots.

2. They will be swayed by the younger voting voices and the younger acts they've already put in (if U2 & REM can still be considered young!) and stay within the 70's, at least until Seattle shows up on the radar.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 08.4.08 @ 19:12pm


Cheesecrop (I'll bet there's a story behind your moniker...)...That's definitely one way to look at it that hasn't been broached yet. Was I right in using the word "conundrum"???

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 08.4.08 @ 19:30pm


Okay...here is my effort. I did write Paul Schaffer via the CBSMailbag@aol.com regarding Chicago and the Hall, since he is a voting member.

In addition, below is a form letter I am going to send out to as many voting members or other recording icons that I can contact, including legendary DJs and media reporters.

After the letter, I will list 3 addresses of some big names (you should recognize). What is the forum's input to sending multiple copies of this letter to these three names, all from various Chicago fans? Let me know your thoughts.

I hope this letter finds you well.

I am writing you inform you of a “grass roots” effort that has been formed to contact voting members of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The issue we want to bring to light is the exclusion of the group Chicago from the Hall’s inductees. I understand that record sales and chart numbers don’t drive the inclusion / exclusion decisions, that there are other contributing factors considered. However, looking at the longevity of this group and its impact on introducing different styles of music to a host of listeners (rock jazz, ballads, driving rock, Latin rhythms, and pop) I believe their impact on the history of rock and roll is too great to be overlooked.

When compared to some of the other inductees I have concerns regarding the factors that are considered. I have never viewed Madonna’s music to be Rock and Roll, but rather pop. So, the type of music a musician or group of musicians played must not be a large factor to consider. I don’t wish to take away from the contributions the current inductees have made. I am more curious to know why Chicago has been excluded. What did they fail to accomplish that, if done, would put them into the Hall? I received an email from Terry Stewart, President of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum recently. He assured me that there the exclusion was not related to any political or personal vendettas, but only the lack of sufficient votes.

So, with that said, here we stand, asking a group of distinguished musicians, icons in the industry, to join us in this effort. Please, help us to correct this situation while the members of the group are still around to appreciate the recognition. I implore you to do your part, what ever you can, to add a missing piece to the history of Rock and Roll, by placing Chicago amongst the great musicians of our time.

Sincerely,


TABLE 1

Members of Chicago to induct to the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

Terry Kath
Peter Cetera
Robert Lamm
James Pankow
Lee Loughnane
Walter Parazaider
Danny Seraphine
Laudir De Oliveira
Donnie Dacus
Bill Champlin
Jason Scheff

the three addresses:

Irving Azoff
3500 W Olive Ave
Burbank, CA 91505-4628

Clive Davis
745 5th Ave
New York, NY 10151-0001

David Foster
3300 Warner Blvd
Burbank, CA 91505-4632

Posted by beancountr on Tuesday, 08.5.08 @ 05:10am


I would be happy if just Terry kath got in.

Posted by Rob on Sunday, 08.17.08 @ 16:24pm


Chicago deserves Hall-of-Fame status although I'm not sure why any such quality would desire the one in Cleveland, especially with Jann Wenner at the helm.

Why Chicago? Let's start first with Terry Kath playing Hendrix before Hendrix AND BETTER! Hendrix called Kath HIS INFLUENCE! Then, go listen to the band from CTA to about '72. They had a consistent anti-Nam message along with premium musicianship and melody combined with a dazzling horn section written by Jimmy Pankow. That period alone should be enough as other inductees apparently only required a single release. I believe hey were also the first "rock band" to play Carnegie Hall.

But, as has been stated so often on these posts, you're closer to this Hall if you're furiously angry and can swear like a truck driver. Notice that I didn't add a single thing about musicianship.

Posted by Gig on Saturday, 09.6.08 @ 11:16am


It's September 23,2008 and once again Chicago is not a nominee. How can anyone take this organization seriously when one bitter man can carry such a vendetta and have so much power. It is astonishing that the 13th most successful group in the history of the Billboard charts is not even considered. Another sad day for the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Posted by C J on Tuesday, 09.23.08 @ 19:27pm


The HoF is a sham regardless of what it does or does not have.
Posted by William

Agreed,it's fun killing time here though,but yeah it's all bullshit.
RRHOF = A popularity contest = ing one big circle jerk.

Posted by Gary James CA on Monday, 09.29.08 @ 22:04pm


WHO THE HECK IS JANN WERNER? The first 3 albums should have instantly got them in. Yeah they mellowed out,,,but dang Terry Kath tore it up!

Posted by Bryan on Tuesday, 09.30.08 @ 12:47pm


I voted 'no' on Chicago's chances only because I know the Hall's politics and the way the comittee's tastes run.

It seems you have a better chance of getting in the hall if you only know three chords than if you are a band full of highly skilled musicians, some of whom *gasp* actually went to music school like Chicago.

Their first five studio albums were, both musically and creatively, some of the best ever made during the rock era.

However, all still got panned by Rolling Stone. Too bad they can't blacklist Jann Wenner!

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 10.1.08 @ 13:29pm


It devalues the whole point of The Hall of Fame that Chicago have not already been inducted.

It's a disgrace and a gross injustice.

Posted by P Allen on Thursday, 10.2.08 @ 09:11am


Roy...I don't think this guitar actually exists. By the appearance, it has a Fender headstock. Fender already has (or had) a Terry Kath signature Telecaster. Also, it only has twelve frets, which would make it very limited. Fender wouldn't make such an electric guitar...it wouldn't even make a good boat paddle! Furthermore, if he were alive, I seriously doubt Kath would endorse such an instrument.

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 10.6.08 @ 17:47pm


Wow, is this ridiculous? To say Chicago is not worthy of the R&R Hall of Fame is like saying Buddy Holly sucked. Will, you are an idiot. Although I am a Chicago 1-11 guy, the band has endured and lived on. I wasn't a ballad era guy. Killer brass, Peter Cetera on vocals and bass (voted top bass player, early 70's Playboy, Danny Serephine, drums, Downbeat Magazine early '70's, picked out by Buddy Rich as one of the best drummers, Terry Kath, one of the best guitar players ever (as they played warm up for Hendrix in '67/'68, it is well documented he said Kath was a better guitar player than him. He was.) I'll put him up against any one. Listen to Poem 58 on the first album. Listen to the rest of the album. Induction. Give me a break. The band changed over the years, but 40 years of constant music speaks loudly. I went to a concert several years ago. (I saw them in the Tery Kath days @ 10 times). Thought I would hate it. Bought two beers. Realized I had two beers sitting at my feet at the end of the show. Enough said. Do the research I speak of.

Posted by CTAMan on Monday, 10.20.08 @ 00:59am


Styx was the first band to have 3 consecutive platinum albums and was the #1 touring band for years in the early 80's. Journey also was a #1 touring band and has consistently been near the top of the charts in the early 80's as well as more recently. That doesn't mean those bands don't "suck," but PLEASE don't say they aren't "top selling acts." You just make yourself look like a Chicago-crazed crackpot.

Posted by prognosticator on Monday, 10.20.08 @ 13:05pm


The differences between Chicago and all those other bands that The Rock Hall and Rolling Stone hate is:

All those other bands like Boston, Kansas, Journey, Styx and REO Speedwagon, have always sucked!!

Chicago didn't always suck!

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.20.08 @ 04:43am
--------------------------------------------------
That's a rather subjective opinion there. While I'm not partial to some of the acts on the whole, I'll tell you right off that the best work of both Boston & Journey can compare favorably w/Chicago's best. While I probably do like more songs from Chicago, there has never been anything wrong w/"More Than A Feeling", "Wheel In The Sky", or "Any Way You Want It". "Hitch A Ride" is another favorite, and for my money at least, "Stone In Love" is an absolute gem. Chicago's got plenty of great stuff, and I don't want to go deeper into a full-blown recitation of their entire catalogs. I've no doubt there are others who feel the same way about Kansas, Styx, and Speedwagon as well.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 10.20.08 @ 17:54pm


Guess Roy is a big Chicago lover. So am I, but I agree w/ a comment made (somewhere above) by Dameon. After reading about 50,000 words and a lot of repeats, he does get to be annoying.

Yes, Chicago SHOULD be in the RHOF. No doubt. Thank you for pointing out the Wenner vendetta and the other reasons for the snub, which I did not know. Suggest you would do better however to leave politicians out of it. I love Chicago, but I hate Bill Clinton. If he were to give the induction speech I'd shut off my television - too many unpleasant memories of him wagging his boney finger in front of the camera.

Now I see RS, the magazine Peter Cetera "wipes his ass with," has gotten increasingly political. Guess Wenner must figure this new format makes for gravitas? He wants to be credible, yet he childishly harbors resentment toward Chicago, Quincy Jones, Hall & Oates, et al. Denies Neil Diamond also. That said, I do read his magazine anyway (don't use it for tp, its not good for that).

But now Roy really is right. Chicago is one of my favorites and they DO belong in the rock museum.

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 11:22am


Oops! I wish to retract my statement, "I hate Bill Clinton." Let's not be haters here. But bringing him into the discussion only causes distraction. Let me say rather, I'm not a fan of Bill Clinton, but probably would not turn off my television on account of him.

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 14:09pm


How would ya like to have Mike Love speak? Might prove to be Fun, Fun, Fun, til the Rock Hall took the microphone away! (smile)
http://www.futurerocklegends.com/blog_files/Mike_Loves_Induction_Speech.html

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 10.23.08 @ 17:57pm


Roy, I'm still feelin bad. Like I messed up yor dream dude. One of these years Chicago will make it in (lets hope), and you should have yor dream induction speaker. But am thinking, if you hold out, maybe we could get a fresh new president - who actually has Chicago connections? That would really "Make Me Smile" baby!

Posted by Telarock on Friday, 10.24.08 @ 17:53pm


Can somebody please tell me what vile deed Chicago has done to the great and powerful Mr. Wenner to deserve their barring from the Hall?

Seriously, Chicago should be in for longevity alone. So what gives?

Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 11.5.08 @ 01:53am


Chicago simply rocked in the early years and lead the Nation in the latter years. They do deserve to be in the Hall. Now!! You listen to a song like "Introduction" and you hear what being a player is all about from the whole band, top to bottom. Come on, we all can't like all the music but with as many top selling LP's and Top Ten Tunes, PUT CHICAGO IN THE HALL OF FAME.

Posted by Lana on Wednesday, 11.5.08 @ 15:19pm


The use of Chicago's music during the elections is merely because Obama is from Illinois, and the networks don't want to look to uncool or unhip in regards to their audiences.

Never mind that they almost invariably end up doing so.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 11.6.08 @ 05:38am


Can somebody please tell me what vile deed Chicago has done to the great and powerful Mr. Wenner to deserve their barring from the Hall?
(Posted by Randy on Wednesday, 11.5.08 @ 01:53am)
------------------------------------------------
Has something to do w/Peter Cetera saying he wipes his ass w/Rolling Stone pages. But that was only after long-standing snub by Wenner's mag. Wenner or one of his toads actually thought Chicago might be better off if they lost their horns? Needless to say folks at RS never did "get" Chicago.
Also I checked Wilson&Alroy's reviews and they have never reviewed any Chicago albums. So they don't appear to be a critic-friendly group? It is perplexing!

The songs from "The Chicago Transit Authority" (a two-set, 1969) and "Chicago II" were so lyrically fresh and jam-packed musically - those 2 albums are out'n'out rock classics. They were great at least up til Terry Kath's death in 1978. Beyond that I don't know.

Vote "Yes" to Chicago. There's way too much talent and musical material there to keep blocking them out.

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 11.6.08 @ 12:20pm


Chicago is legend. Can't believe they're not in. If Bach & Beethoven were alive in the 60's & 70's they would have been in Chicago

Posted by Holly on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 21:06pm


Not that all HOF members were hugely acclaimed, but... Chicago hasn't really racked up any major critical acclaim through the years (check out acclaimedmusic.net to see that). And, the 80s period, I think, hurt the group (even though I like some of the hits from that era). And, I don't really see a huge impact- i.e. groups that were influenced by Chicago, followed itslead, all that.

Posted by JR on Monday, 11.24.08 @ 21:12pm


Roy.....Did you get it all out of your system? I think we all know your opinion of the Chicago snub.

Posted by blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 06:53am


Roy...you obviously know very little...if anything about the Dave Clark 5 (I'm guessing this because Chicago seems to be the only group you can talk about in depth)or that particular era in music. So with that in mind, please refrain from talking about them.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 07:27am


Didn't Herb Alpert and the Tijuana Brass fuse jazz and pop/rock years before Chicago??

Posted by interviewer on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 10:15am


interviewer, to answer your question: No, Herb Alpert and TJB did not fuze jazz and pop/rock. Herb Alpert, had a new sound (at the time) and an incredibly successful career. But his sound had minimal if any elements of rock. It would be more correct to say he fuzed jazz with Latin, particularly Mexican. Beginning with Lonely Bull and many other TJB hits had distinct mariachi influence.

One of these days I will write a post on what IS rock. Because it seems many people really don't know, at least they don't seem to know how the RHOF defines rock. For now, understand this, the core sound in rock is almost always the guitar. The string is the thing! I will elaborate some other time.

As for Chicago, I'm a big fan just like Roy. Chicago did have two prominent guitarists. Terry Kath on lead guitar was probably the defining instrumentalist for the group, and Peter Cetera was a great bass guitarist. They would have been a great rock band without the brass. But the horns actually added another "voice" to their sound, made them even better. They belong in the RHOF, long overdue.

But now, Roy, stop beating up DC5. Are you mad at them cause they are inducted and Chicago is not?

Posted by Telarock on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 11:51am


BTW, I can only to speak for Chicago up to the time of Terry Kath's death in 1978. Past that time, it's a different group for me.

Posted by Telarock on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 12:02pm


Telarock said: 'BTW, I can only to speak for Chicago up to the time of Terry Kath's death in 1978. Past that time, it's a different group for me.'

That's why they should only induct 'the Terry Kath years'. No one who entered the band after his death should be inducted (if Chicago is ever inducted).

Personally, I think they will be inducted some day (maybe after Jann Wenner dies). Maybe after I'm dead & all the band members are dead.

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 12:47pm


Street Player

Posted by Joe-Skee on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 14:51pm


I agree with you Paul in KY. I wouldnt support inducting any members of Chicago beyond the group as of 1978. There could be no end of it! So maybe that is part of the "problem"?

Posted by Telarock on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 16:14pm


This thing with Chicago is like beating a dead horse. I think for whatever reason, they're not gonna get inducted...no matter what line-up you offer! Members of the nominating committee seem to have it in for them, and let's not forget that Jann Wenner seems to have some sort of "veto" power...just ask the Dave Clark 5!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 18:04pm


True, but those bands didn't piss Jann Wenner off. How do you propose to get by that, Roy. He obviously can't be pressured or told what to do, and he has displayed a certain "veto" power.

Everyone who knows anything about popular music over the last 40 years knows perfectly well what Chicago has accomplished, and you can waste your time typing up these lists you come up with and rant and rave about the injustice. But how do you propose getting by someone in charge who is seemingly made of teflon, doesn't care what the fans think, and seems to really have it in for Chicago...among others?

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 18:31pm


Everyone who knows anything about popular music over the last 40 years knows perfectly well what Chicago has accomplished, and you can waste your time typing up these lists you come up with and rant and rave about the injustice. But how do you propose getting by someone in charge who is seemingly made of teflon, doesn't care what the fans think, and seems to really have it in for Chicago...among others?

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 18:31pm
--------------------------------------------------
Tis' the reason why I'm not really here to talk HOF, but rather just rock in general which, if it has to, will wander down the path of the Hall.

Roy -

I may actually have an answer to your Chicago dilemma that may make some sense. I'm not going to try and advocate Wenner too much here, but in all the mentions of jazz & rock, nobody has mentioned the Doors. They have a far greater calling card than Herb Alpert or Miles Davis when it comes to the real fusion of jazz & rock. In addition, they do show up a full two yrs. before Chicago (at least in terms of the charts - 67 to 69). Could it be that Wenner honestly believes he HAS inducted the original jazz-rock act? I DO support Chicago, but you can make something of a case here in this regard.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 19:49pm


Also don't forget The Zombies. Rod Argent definitely combined jazz and rock on She's Not There in 1964-three years before the Doors came along. Also Traffic used jazz elements starting in 1967 as well as Zappa and Beefheart in the mid-late 60s.

So this notion that Chicago was the first to incorporate jazz into rock is simply not born out by the facts.

Posted by classicrocker on Tuesday, 11.25.08 @ 23:08pm


Roy, this is becoming an endless diatribe and hate orgy for Jann Wenner besides. I saw yor post about "bands with more than 9 members" - it doesnt move me. When I think of Chicago, it is the following:
Terry Kath
Peter Cetera
Danny Seraphine
Robert Lamm
James Pankow
Lee Loughnane
Walter Parazaider
Laudir DeOliveira
Beyond the above personnel, you have some 'enterprize' which was formerly the artists known as Chicago. Just a succession of people tailgating on the name Chicago. I'm not having it.

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 11.26.08 @ 08:58am


Chicago should have been inducted YEARS ago! What is wrong with you people?

Posted by Kathy on Saturday, 12.13.08 @ 11:22am


When I saw that Chicago was not inducted in the rock hall of fame, I couldnt believe it. How in the world is one of the most influential and popular bands not already in?? For a long time they were just as popular as the beach boys. It truly confirms the inaccuarcy of the rock hall of fame. Its more like a joke.

Posted by Mr. Journey on Monday, 12.15.08 @ 11:04am


Happy New Year Roy...I was wondering when you would send out your first New Year posting on Chicago. Thanks for reiterating everything that you have told us a 10x before. Maybe 2009 is the year for your boys.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 06:07am


Roy,

"Chicago Transit Authority" does include one song song that was NOT original. "I'm A Man" was first recorded by the Spencer Davis Group with Steve Winwood on lead vocals.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 09:15am


Roy, we (all who frequent this site) know you love Chicago, but why did you post the albums list twice? One list has 20 and the other has 19? I tried but couldn't find Waldo. (missing #)

As to getting Chicago nominated: Its tricky! Why would their chances improve anytime in the future? If you actually know who makes up the nominating committee these days, you should expect a turn away from classic acts like Chicago and Tull and Neil Diamond. I unfortunately see a move to more pop and hip-hop. And I don't think modern-day Chicago cranking out albums w/ all those super-bowl type numerals is going to do squat for their chances. Sorry Roy, but thats the way it iz.

Posted by Telarock on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 10:51am


Has Chicago even made it as one of the nominees any given year? It[s one thing to be discussed (which is included in "previously considered," but another if the group actually hasn't even made it to the nominee ballot. And even still, Chicago has been eligible for 15 years- I said it before, the switch to te glossy sound of the 80s may have hurt the band's chances.

Posted by JR on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 11:22am


What's wrong with a group trying to change with the times. The 1980's was all about Synthesizers. You know that. At least for the first half of the '80's they were. Horn pop music was dying out.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Tuesday, 01.6.09 @ 11:30am


CTA - I'm A Man written by Steve Winwood
III - When All The Laughter Dies In Sorrow - Kendrew Lasalles

Posted by rhh on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 10:19am


I don't understand why people post chart stats here- that has nothing to do with the HOF. If the committee doesn't feel a band should get in, it won't make it onto the ballot.

Joe, there's nothing wrong with changing with the times. What I meant was that Chicago's music in the 80s wasn't highly favored by critics; it was the kind of sappy, syruppy material that is "frowned upon." And, Peter Cetera definitely continued that tradition when he went solo.

You can get an idea of how acclaimed an act is by visiting acclaimedmusic.net. None of Chicago's singles are in the current top 3,000, and just one album is (Chicago Transit Authority). Not the most beloved band, critically, unfortunately (I like the music myself, though).

Posted by JR on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 11:12am


A critical and commercial success.

Posted by Joe-Skee on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 11:18am


JR....I just checked out that site (acclaimed music). I didn't really have time to go through the whole site. How did they arrive at their rankings? I have to say that I am very unimpressed with their listing. But then, I am rarley impressed with listings from magazines, websites or TV shows.

I have never really commented on Chicago so here is my buck 3.80. I like them. I thought their first 5 albums were pretty damn good and somewhat different than what was mostly out there at the time. I think they deserve a spot in the Hall; but I also think there are some bands that need to get in before they do.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 12:38pm


Regarding that site, acclaimed music - Nevermind by Nirvana is ranked as the 3rd greatest album of all-time. With all due respect to Nirvana and the Grunge scene, there is no chance in hell that album should be rated higher than Who's Next, Rubber Soul, Tommy, Exile on Main Street, Let It Bleed, Pepper, London Calling, Rocket to Russia and countless other albums. This site has minimal viability as far as I am concerned after reading this list.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 13:37pm


Don't dismiss the sitejust because you disagree with one ranking. That site is not about how high a record should be rated, but how high it actually ís rated. Don't blame Acclaimed Music for Nevermind's high rating, blame all the journalists and all the other listmakers that the site uses as a source.

Posted by The_Claw on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 15:10pm


Regarding that site, acclaimed music - Nevermind by Nirvana is ranked as the 3rd greatest album of all-time. With all due respect to Nirvana and the Grunge scene, there is no chance in hell that album should be rated higher than Who's Next, Rubber Soul, Tommy, Exile on Main Street, Let It Bleed, Pepper, London Calling, Rocket to Russia and countless other albums.

Posted by Blah-blah-blah on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 13:37pm
--------------------------------------------------
Why not? It's a classic album, isn't it?

Why can't a more modern album be ranked high? (and I use that term modern lightly, seeing as how Nevermind is 18 yrs old) Plenty of classic albums since the start of the 80's -

GNR - Appetite Def Lep - Pyromania
VH - 1984 M. Jackson - Thriller
Prince - Purple Rain Police - Synchronicity
Smiths - Meat is Murder J&MC - Psychocandy
Metallica - Master of Puppets
Pearl Jam - Ten S. Pumpkins - Mellon Collie...
Beck - Odelay MB Valentine - Loveless
Radiohead - O.K. Computer

Is it only because those albums are older? If that's the case, I vote for Ricky Nelson's greatest hits, not for any coherent reason, but simply cause it's... older.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 16:25pm


Each adn every 1 of the 3 previous commentors re acclaimedmusic.net have self-contradicted.
1) JR - doesn't like charts/stats but then proceeds to offer up yet another list of "acclaimed albums" from a Swedish website.
2) Blah-blah-blah - trashes the whole list because of an issue with Nevermind (1 album) but almost all other groups he prefers are in the top 25 of that list.
3) The Claw - says it's NOT about what should be, it's about what IS. Based upon what? And isn't the whole idea to determine what should be???

Just a little jab at ya dudes, in fun. But I did look at the list and read about how it is made. Every list is only as good as the judgement of the people surveyed. What this dude, Henrik Franzon, does is to actually compile lists of lists. He takes multiple lists from different sources and crunches all the data together. What that does is effectively unweight any biases.

In my opinion the top portion of the list of "3000 Albums" is actually not too bad.

Posted by Bubble on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 16:26pm


Cheesecrop you snuck in just before my post. If you want, that website does give different versions of lists. The "All Time" lists probably rightly give weight to albums which have stood the test of time.

Also, excuse me Blah-blah-blah, The Who didn't hit the list until #34, just above "Thriller" which is #35.

Posted by Bubble on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 16:39pm


Cheesecrop you snuck in just before my post. If you want, that website does give different versions of lists. The "All Time" lists probably rightly give weight to albums which have stood the test of time.

Also, excuse me Blah-blah-blah, The Who didn't hit the list until #34, just above "Thriller" which is #35.

Posted by Bubble on Wednesday, 01.7.09 @ 16:39pm
--------------------------------------------------
Will have to check that out when I get a minute.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Thursday, 01.8.09 @ 05:49am


Excuse me if someone else has mentioned this, but posting up Chicago's chart success is kinda a moot point(irrelevant). They just don't have the credentials to get in... lack of musical influence/innovation, marginal critical acclaim... but I WAS shocked at the 7% chance of getting in. That's way too low for a band with their success.

Posted by ray on Monday, 03.2.09 @ 02:06am


Chicago's chart success is staggering, with nearly 50 hits to their credit, but their style is undoubtedly what turns off potential voters, as they abandoned their early blues-rock upbringing that had featured Terry Kath's guitar pyrotechnics for a more mellow adult contemporary jazzy ballad persona that made them superstars in the 70's and 80's but resulted in often poor critical response. Whether the Hall embraces the oft-maligned image that pop-rock has remains to be seen, even twenty years in to the proceedings. Worth examining, but will often fall short.

Posted by RAKER on Monday, 03.2.09 @ 02:30am


this band was really big in the 70 's - i mean really big -but seeing all the different guys parading around like they were part of that band is strange.

i bet if they put this band to sleep 20 years ago = they would have been in

Posted by golfer on Tuesday, 03.3.09 @ 11:09am


Street Player....

Posted by Joe-Skee on Wednesday, 03.4.09 @ 15:28pm


Isn't it strange how the band that defines the critera isn't in the RRHOF? What's wrong with you guys?

Posted by Chuckago on Saturday, 03.7.09 @ 10:58am


After finding this website and reading all the comments, I have 3 things to say. First of all the RRHOF needs a complete makeover and someone needs to go back and induct all those that are so deserving and already past their eligibility dates. 2nd, I thought a HOF was also for the FANS! 3rd, All you naysayers prove exactly the points that Chicago should have been inducted a long time ago. Whether you realize it or not, you all took the time to make a comment instead of just letting it go by and you unconciously compare Chicago to the Beatles. Chicago is not a STATIC band and no two songs sound alike. Chicago has the ability to adapt to the times and have played every type of music known to Rock and Roll.

Posted by mountainfan on Saturday, 03.7.09 @ 11:19am


I'm sorry but, Chicago does not define the criteria. They're great accomplishments are more in the category of making "catchy" melodies that became huge hits. They're music was inspired by other influences. It's very difficult to write great music. But writing good music is one thing. To innovate a whole new sound is another. I'm not an RR Hall of Fame apologist. They're are a ton of great, innovative artists that have been left out(The B-52s, The Stooges, Deep Purple). But Chicago is not one of them... and Chicago will NEVER be compared to the Beatles.

Posted by ray on Saturday, 03.7.09 @ 13:21pm


"2nd, I thought a HOF was also for the FANS!"--mountainfan

You thought wrong. The museum is possibly for fans. But not the intangible HOF itself. This is about peer recognition only. Like the Acadmey Awards.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 03.7.09 @ 16:27pm


To Ray

If you have not listened to every single Chicago song from 1969-1979, please don't comment. You're an idiot if you think The B-52s should in The Rock Hall and not Chicago.

Posted by FAZ on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 04:51am


Chicago was innovative!! So what if no one ever copied their sound or style of a piano, two guitars, drums and three horns. So what if no one in the music industry that came after Chicago sites them as an influence. That does not matter in Chicago's case. Chicago's style is what matters.

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 05:07am
--------------------------------------------------
In some way aren't you shooting yourself in your own foot w/this kind of logic? You're repeatedly saying who cares if no one followed Chicago's lead, yet isn't that the point you're trying not to play up?

No Offense meant here; I like Chicago myself and have no issue w/them making the Hall. Just noting that anyone who feels they should not be in now has a stockpile of ammunition to work with here....

Posted by Cheesecrop on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 09:19am


"CHICAGO STARTED JAZZ-ROCK FUSION!!"- Roy

Actually, I think people like John Coltrane, Dave Brubeck, Wes Montgomery, and Miles Davis were experimenting with "Jazz/Rock Fusion" way before Chicago came along. Also, if we're purely talking about that kind of music, outside of the obvious bands that Chicago draws comparison to, during their heyday you also had Weather Report, Mahavishnu Orchestra, Return to Forever, etc..., who were all very good fusion bands, and none of which list Chicago as an influence. They were contemporaries who leaned more to the jazz aspect, but were more likely influenced by people like Davis and Coltrane & Co. To say Chicago "invented" Jazz/Rock Fusion isn't a very accurate statement, nor is saying they were the best. Looking at just the line-up of those three I mentioned, you have a "who's who" of artists who were/are the best to ever play their instruments. Chicago did, in fact, have more commercial success than the others, which could boil down to "right place/right time".

Please understand Roy, I'm not dissing Chicago in any way. I do, however, think they should be put in proper context. I'm not the one to even venture a guess as to why they haven't been inducted. I think it boils down to a limited group of people who are passing these sorts of judgements and who are in control of the situation, and they simply don't-like-them!!!!

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 10:55am


Let me edit my statement...they were/are AMONG the best to ever play their respective instruments...sorry for the oversight.

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 11:30am


Chicago's sound has never been copied!

Posted by asif on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 12:17pm


There's a whole lot of great bands who you could say the same thing about...what's your point?

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 13:19pm


To Faz,

What makes you think I haven't listened to Chicago? And what makes you think that I don't like them? It's not their music or "songs" that's the issue. And check out the B-52s chances of getting in. It's 44% compared to 9% for Chicago. What does that tell you? There's nothing wrong with sticking up for a group that you love. But you gotta be a little more objective about it.

Posted by ray on Sunday, 03.8.09 @ 15:34pm


Their statistics are staggering. They are virtually the only band on earth to have new material hit the charts through FIVE CONSECUTIVE DECADES. They also pioneered a sound that combined elements of jazz and rock with three simultaneous lead vocalists who all had distinct voices on radio. Their influence over musicians is impossible to calculate, from Terry Kath's contributions to rock guitar, to Danny Seraphine's massive inspiration to drummers, to their horn section's revelation to every high school band kid in America that THEY too could be rock stars - even if they never picked up a guitar. Lastly, Peter Cetera has one of the THE most recognizable "hit" voices on radio.

NOBODY on the "why not?" list here on this website deserve to be in the Rock Hall more than Chicago. Like prog-rock innovators Yes, Chicago have been kept out for political reasons. They pissed off the bigshots at Warners when they recorded their 22nd album, Stone Of Sisyphus, an artistic statement that could very well keep them out of the Hall forever. Chicago represents an undeniable injustice that surrounds the Rock Hall selection process and destroys the institution's credibility. It's a very, VERY bad joke.

Posted by Vince on Sunday, 03.15.09 @ 22:03pm


nice to see the originals perform at hof - will miss kath - but would be a good show vs the dud shows lately.

heart and par benatar both still can put on a show -they deserve it AND can perform still.

give us break stop putting people knowbody heard of its boring

Posted by ms on Wednesday, 03.18.09 @ 20:47pm


Chicago may not be in the Rock N Roll Hall of Fame, but I saw them perform summer 1971 in an intimate atmosphere in New Hope PA outdoors in the round with at most an audience of 1500 or so people.

They were absolutely incredible. I was a total rock/head who loved the Pink Floyd, The Who, Deep Purple, Hendrix, etc. One would not put Chicago in that group of music but seeing them live they totally rocked out. Kath's guitar work was scorching, as good as Clapton, Trower, Blackmore, Frampton or any of the other guitar wizards of the day.

Tight, tight instrumentation, great compositions. They performed mostly CTA material from start to finish. I loved Kath's solo's in "I'm A Man" and "Questions 67 & 68". What a great show they put on. I thinked they were peaking then. Tons of feedback and distortion. Unexpected and tenacious.

Posted by Ed on Tuesday, 03.24.09 @ 19:36pm


Roy - if you read my comment on (About the eligibility class of 2010, Dameon wrote), I copy/pasted an e-mail which Dave Marsh sent me regarding certain bands that I am in favor of. I am fine with opinions of all; but he makes it very clear that there is in fact no objectivity in the voting process and that I & I in fact are not the sole basis of induction. Personal taste of the voting board rules!

Posted by Dameon on Thursday, 04.9.09 @ 07:08am


I'd say they were interesting from 1969-1973.

After that most classic rock bands had to develop a much more commercial sound. The whole music industry changed. Most of these bands simply became too partied out. They lost the edge that made them great to begin with.

What about the Rolling Stones? Did they ever do a song as good as "Gimme Shelter" after their 1969 "Let It Bleed" release. "Sticky Fingers" had some great stuff but they made a lot of "uninteresting" music throughout most of the 70's, 80's to the present.

Did Pink Floyd ever come close to duplicating "Dark Side Of the Moon", a 1973 release? Not in my book.

Paul McCartney's best solo recording "Band On The Run", came out around 1973. After that McCartney was a poser. He didn't even try to write creative stuff throughout the seventies.

John Lennon made one great album, his first. George Harrison made a fantastic album "All Things Must Pass" in 1970. After that he pretty much disappeared in the music scene. There were even rumors that he retired. I believe John Lennon followed George into retirement.

It is all pretty similar as the times changed these classic bands no longer were relevant in their genres.

Yes I'll agree with Dave Marsh that many artists had their "interesting" periods but I feel the same about all of the other artists above I mentioned and guys like Dave Marsh would never doubt their rock hierarchy.

Posted by ed on Thursday, 04.9.09 @ 20:35pm


CHICAGO'S ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME INDUCTION SCENARIO:

Song that plays while Chicago is walking up to the stage to take their trophies and give their speeches: Saturday In The Park

Chicago Performance: Beginnings, Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is, If You Leave Me Now, Baby What A Big Surprise

The All-Star Jam: Feeling Stronger Everyday, Dialogue 1 & 2, Free

Posted by KOOK on Thursday, 04.23.09 @ 09:38am


Chicago should have been inducted by now. They were an inspiration to me back in 1970 and are an inspiration to my children today.
Lets please show some respect to one of the greatest rock bands of all time "CHICAGO".

Posted by Ron on Monday, 05.25.09 @ 20:13pm


I think that CHICAGO should have been
in years ago!!!

I think PETER CETERA should be in the hall of fame also because for years he was the voice of CHICAGO!!

TulsasGinaG

Posted by GINA G on Thursday, 05.28.09 @ 19:45pm


The fact that there even needs to be a discussion is appalling. The RRHOF is just another museum until they start putting in all the people that deserve it. Let the fans vote.

Posted by Chuckago on Friday, 05.29.09 @ 10:53am


THE BLACK HAWKS SUCK

AND SO DOES JANN "MR. I'M TOO COOL FOR SCHOOL" WENNER

Posted by OKTOBERFEST on Tuesday, 06.9.09 @ 19:11pm


Wow, Roy, you should be called Dr. Roy after that music history dissertation. (smile) Okay, I'll give you my Yes vote for Chicago already! I've been watching a lot of James Brown videos recently and the Godfather of Soul certainly did have impressive horn arrangements behind him.

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 07.29.09 @ 15:39pm


Hey Roy, care to cite your source there? Plagiarism is still a crime.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 08.1.09 @ 17:19pm


Hey Roy, care to cite your source there? Plagiarism is still a crime.

Posted by Gitarzan on Saturday, 08.1.09 @ 17:25pm


Git, that took me a minute to get, but ROFL!

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 08.1.09 @ 17:40pm


Said it before and I still believe it- the slick shift in sound come the 80s hurt Chicago's chances. Granted, the band's pre-80s music as a whole hasn't received all that much in the way of acclaim, but I think the pre-80s work definitely stood out more than what came in the 80s and beyond.

Now, I enjoy "Hard Habit to Break" and "You're the Inspiration" fine enough, but that kind of materail is not HOF-worthy.

Posted by JR on Tuesday, 08.18.09 @ 21:13pm


Though they formed in Chicago, the band moved fairly swiftly out to L.A. to work with producer/manager James William Guercio and it was Hollywood rather than the Windy City that set the tone for their jazz-rock fusion. Their first outings had been relatively earthy under the name Chicago Transit Authority, but after their name had been shortened and their logo created, it was showbiz (and a string of hits) all the way, including 1976's smoochadelic 'If You Leave Me Now'. Much derided for naming their albums like Rocky movies - their line-up for such a large band was astonishingly stable, broken after eleven albums only by the death of guitarist Terry Kath. Fellow jazz rockers like Blood, Sweat & Tears and Electric Flag had long since foundered and cynical onlookers considered Chicago by far the smartest outfit for wising up to the limitations of the genre and opting for commercial success.

Posted by QAZ on Sunday, 08.30.09 @ 19:42pm


How in the world is CHICAGO not in the hall yet. What an crime!!! Rock On Guys, and I personally will never go to the rock hall until they are inducted!!!!

Posted by Pete Selvaggio on Wednesday, 09.9.09 @ 16:35pm


Put CHICAGO in the Hall!

It's the best band ever!
They really deserve that!

Long live CHICAGO!

Posted by Jen on Saturday, 09.12.09 @ 06:20am


WE ARE ALL HERE FOR ONE REASON, FIGHTING TO GET CHICAGO THE BAND, INTO THE HALL OF FAME. SO WHAT IS THE ACTUAL PROBLEM, WHY AREN'T THEY IN THE HALL OF FAME?

WHAT CRITERIA DOES THE HALL OF FAME BOARD GO BY TO BE INDUCTED IN? I DO THINK IT'S POOR TASTE, BAD JUDGEMENT TO TAKE SUCH TALENTED MEN THAT WRITTEN, PRODUCED SO MANY WONDERFUL SONGS OVER THE MANY OF YEARS, HOW DOES THIS GET PASSED BY. I HAVE ALWAYS SAID CHICAGO MUSIC IS ALL THE COLORS OF THE RAINBOW FROZEN IN TIME, AND IT REALLY IS.

BOARD MEMBERS GETS YOUR ACTS TOGETHER AND STOP THE NONSENCE, LESSER GROUPS WHO DON'T MAKE THE CUT HAVE GOTTEN IN. I AM SORRY BUT YOU ARE MAKING A BIG MISTAKE. RECONSIDER AND GET THEM IN THE HALL OF FAME WHERE THEY BELONG, HOME SWEET MUSIC HOME................^j^ TAMMY MICHAEL

Posted by TAMMY MICHAEL on Saturday, 09.12.09 @ 06:50am


Was it Jann Wenner, publisher of Rolling Stone and rainmaker for the RRHOF? He never "got" CHI.....

I'll repeat my argument against Wenner, who has asserted that the band became a ballad band and forfeited its place as an avant-garde rock band: then how do you allow the disco-king Bee Gee's in?!?!

I agree that the Bee-Gee's deserve to be in based upon their earlier work....and ditto CHI....


The Bee Gees have some things going for them - even when compared to Chicago. They started making hits even earlier. Nothing Chicago ever did came close to defining an era like Saturday Night Fever (love it or hate it) did. The Bee Gees have written many hits for other artists (Chicago has not), the Bee Gees have been highly successful producers and the Bee Gees songs have been covered thousands of times. And yes, they've sold a pile of records and had a very long career.

While Chicago deserves to be in, there is no question in my mind that the Bee Gees deserve their induction completely.

Posted by jammin@50 & DrackIsBack on Saturday, 09.12.09 @ 14:02pm


To Roy,

Here's the criteria: Basically influence and innovation. Roy, maybe you should start making a case for an artists' induction by addressing what they have to offer in these categories. Not that I'm saying Chicago don't belong, but Roy you usually just state Billboard Chart history or make lists rather than the criteria at hand.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 09.28.09 @ 20:30pm


Alright, then good luck with that.

Posted by Dude Man on Monday, 09.28.09 @ 21:09pm


No Chicago? Hello??? Their influence on getting horns off of AM radio and onto FM cannot be missed.

Posted by QAZ on Tuesday, 09.29.09 @ 10:16am


Street Player

Posted by Joe-Skee on Friday, 10.2.09 @ 13:27pm


"Those two portions of the song Hold On that I mentioned above would also make a great way to annoy someone who is not a Chicago fan." - Roy
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Roy, arent you an advocate for Chicago? And why did you keyput all the same lyrics twice (2x)??? Excess verbiage!

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 10.8.09 @ 08:32am


This is exactly what makes this HOF a big joke.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1801712/posts

In this the complete corporate & political age
we are saturated with garbage & told that it is great.
It doesn't work on people who actually think.
However for this & future generations weened on the media machine it's words are the reality.

It is proven over & over & over that this band should have been on this list years ago.
On just the strength of their 70's work alone.

However with the bias, politicking & general bull,
we see that they are not.
I only pray more that when the quality acts are nominated in the future, they will tell this committee to stick it where the sun does not shine.

Posted by Kenny on Sunday, 11.15.09 @ 11:57am


In terms of Influence....Chicago & Blood Sweat & Tears Horn dominated "Jazz Rock" sound was duly influenced, by their own admission by The Beatles "Got To Get You into My Life" (1966)....a song Chicago did live and B,S & T later covered...

...and even THAT Beatles song was in turn itself influenced by The Beatles Fellow Merseybeat Band The Fourmost...who in 1964 had done a cover of "Baby I Need your Loving" and in 1965 did "The in Crowd", & "Yakety Yak" with heavily featured Additional Brass ...from the Band Sounds Incorperated....over their Beat Group Sound.

The Fourmost also did Carl Perkins "Sure To Fall" with Country Fiddles over Beat Group sound anticipating The Byrds Country Rock sound by some three years !

The tracks "Sure to Fall", "The in Crowd" & "Yakety Yak" were all on The Fourmost 1965 Parlophone album "First and Fourmost" Produced by Beatles producer George martin.

Thus that "Jazz Rock" sound always credited to B,S & T... was in fact being made back in 1965 !

Both B,S & T and Chicago SHOULD be inducted into the Hall of Fame however for their influence on others and sheer Track Record of worldwide Sales etc....

If he does hold a silly Grudge against Chicago from way back... then Maybe Jann Werner ought to be REMOVED from his position.....?

Posted by Zeke on Monday, 12.14.09 @ 05:13am


It's a disgrace that Chicago has not been inducted. But, hey go figure, if Linda Ronstandt can't get in, do you think Wenner is going to let Chicago in? Jann Wenner you are beyond cruel and mean, grow up.....

Posted by dee on Saturday, 12.19.09 @ 17:34pm


Chicago is one of the most talented bands around.
They deserve the chance to be recognized for their accomplishments.

What do we have to do to get them there? They have been overlooked far to many times.

Pat

Posted by Pat on Sunday, 12.27.09 @ 15:34pm


80 million records sold - somebody must like this band

Posted by golfer11 on Saturday, 01.16.10 @ 16:55pm


The reason that Chicago is not in the rock Hall of Fame is because the Hall wants a reunion of the band with all original members. Pete Cetera refuses to do that. Since they pay the bands to perform Pete considers himself "another band" and demands half the money. That is the only reason that they are not in.

Posted by gary walker on Thursday, 01.21.10 @ 05:01am


gary walker, that's interesting if true. However, there can never be a reunion of 'all original members'. It's been that way since 1978.

The Hall has inducted ABBA & I can assure you there will be no reunion at their induction.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 01.21.10 @ 06:42am


Just so we are all clear! All of Chicago's songs and suites are available in their entirety on all their albums. I have them all. Those were never shortened or butchered. It's only the radio and singles versions of their songs that are shorter.

Posted by RAKER on Sunday, 01.24.10 @ 10:10am


I've followed them since they started playing in the late 1960's. i have all there albums through "Stone of Sisyphus". They've been around longer then some of the other bands that are already in the hall now. They should have been elected in the first year they were eligible. Earth, Wind and Fire, a band with the same setup as Chicago(keyboards, brass, percussion & guitars), is already in, so WHY NOT CHICAGO. they paid their dues!!!!!

Posted by jimbo on Monday, 01.25.10 @ 12:30pm


Hey Roy...

Just direct us to the IMDB page and we'll read it there. No need for a novel.

Posted by Chris on Monday, 02.15.10 @ 13:22pm


Geneis is sorta a similar case- where the latter era was not as well-regarded as the early era (the Phil Collins years vs. the Peter Gabriel years).

However, early Genesis was progressive and such, whereas Chicago was more of a pleasant, lighter group. And then those 80s years and beyond probably hurt the group's chances for induction.

Eligible since 1994 and not a single nomination? Would be surprising if the group was considered any time soon. We have seen acts be eligible for some time and then score a nomination, but that's not the norm.

Posted by JR on Monday, 02.15.10 @ 14:45pm


“Ranked in Golf Digest's "Top 100 in Music" (December 2006 issue) as tied for 15th place with Darius Rucker and Justin Timberlake, with a 6-handicap.”

Well that makes all the difference in the world! If he had a 7 handicap, I’d say no, but a 6? Open the doors!

Posted by Ralph on Tuesday, 02.16.10 @ 07:01am


Roy...there are some of us who were growing up during Chicago's heyday that just didn't think they're all that hot (for my part, I liked songs by Blood, Sweat, and Tears, Tower of Power, The Ides of March, and Sly & the Family Stone a little better)...even though I thought the world of Terry Kath as a guitarist (I thought a big part of that group died with him). As for the Hall of Fame, they're kind of a "hard sell" for me (if our high school band would've played "25 or 6 to 4" one more time, I would've been physically ill).

Why don't you just keep it down to your personal thoughts on them and quit posting these "novels"...some of actually experienced their heyday, and can draw our own conclusions...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 03.7.10 @ 08:03am


Roy
Unlike some.. I like Chicago .I ALSO LIKE BLOOD SWEAT and TEARS..Chicago are still making music and they are really good..! I would not be surprise if they get In. Time will tell.

Posted by mrxyz on Sunday, 03.7.10 @ 08:27am


"In my opinion they are the worst snub for a group, as far as solo artists go you tell me how Neil Diamond isn't in the Hall." Everyone keeps complaining about this but don't bother with specifics, which I do for my snubs. Care to make a case for Mr. Diamond (aside from longevity)?

"No Moody Blues, no Yes, no Chicago, no ELP, no Rush, no Tull, no Purple, no Alice, no Hall and Oates, no ELO, no Cars, no Feat...." Since you brought up prog, what about King Crimson? You forgot some other major artists.

"Perhaps the most embarassing thing to the Hall I can think of is that this band is not in the Hall of fame. And it is compounded yearly with the grandmaster flash's- and bogus inductees that follow." Not the most embarassing by any means. Sales isn't everything.

"Well, you can't use Grandmaster Flash as a basis of comparison since that's a completely different genre. Flash was a pioneer in hip-hop and deserves to be in." Someone sees sense, unlike the overweight wimpy 40-year old soulless whites (I'm 20 and white myself)/aging hippies that visit these boards.
"It makes more sense to compare Chicago to other '70s classic rock bands that are in, such as Traffic, Skynyrd, or Bob Seger. It's unclear to me why any of those three are in and Chicago is out. I'm not even a big fan but the numbers don't lie." Ditto. Some people have been scratching their heads over Traffic, and I'm not sure Seger did anything that Bruce didn't do better. Skynyrd's okay because they helped bring Southern Rock to the masses, and are one of the quintessential Southern bands.

1) "Are Chicago REALLY the most successful band of all time?" No, not even close.
2) "Does touring for forty years automatically warrant induction?" It's not part of the criteria.
3) "The Rolling Stones are already in the Hall Of Fame. First ballot. Who woulda thunk it?" Yep, try doing research before posting.

IF Chicago were the first to mix jazz and rock, and were the first to use a horn section, then they should be in. If they didn't do either of those then it's going to be a hard sell for me, because I don't hear much about their influence. Actually, I'm almost prepared to say no right now unless someone either destroys Roy's computer or blocks him from the site. Direct us to the bloody site and stop giving us novels. Twat.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 03.7.10 @ 15:49pm


But that isn't what happened. I'm not sure that I agree with your perspective. I find Danny's comment very interesting. In the first clause, he speaks from the perspective of someone who wasn't a member of the band and part of the decisions that "cost them" a huge following in his opinion. Certainly that was not the case. And now he performs covers of some of the very songs that his comment appears to criticize because they were popular on the radio.

Hindsight's always 20/20. In this case, I am not sure I agree with your conclusion.

Posted by chinolefan on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:12am


Interesting thoughts. I know I was one fan they lost when they got too "radio-oriented."

Posted by ftg3plus4 on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:13am


Fair enough, but there are probably also a number of fans who became fans because of airplay on popular radio, too.

Posted by chinolefan on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:14am


With all due respect, chinolefan, I don't see Danny's comments as negative at all towards the band - just the opposite.

It would have been great had Chicago had that attitude with the biz in the beginning, and I remember Robert saying that they never intended to be a Top 40 singles band. They were innovative and daring with their writing in the beginning but they strayed from that, I'm sure largely in part from pressures from the label to crank out more radio-friendly songs. This was a sacrifice that was necessary (at least from the way they viewed things) in order to get more radio play and to reach a wider audience.

However, once Chicago turned to more ballads and more music that abandoned their original vision, it's no secret that a number of the diehards from the early days became confused and Chicago's loyal fan base changed. Yes, they developed a new following with a new generation of fans. But I believe what Danny says is true to a certain degree. It's disappointing that Chicago can't sell out stadiums like they did in the '70's and early '80's because they should be able to. The majority of their audience is different now, I think, as there are many more casual fans that just want to enjoy some great music on a summer evening and not nearly as many diehards like you and me that have followed the band through most if not all of their career and been there for them through all the changes through the years.

I don't think Danny is criticizing the band's work at all. Rather, he is paying tribute to all the great music from the early days of the band and wants to keep it alive (as well as throwing in some GREAT covers from other groups as well in his fantastic live shows). I believe he is proud of what he and the band accomplished in the '70's and I admire and respect him for what he is doing today.

I also respect your view on this issue as well. This is just the way I see it.

Oh, and Roy, I understand what you are saying about what the band should have said. However, the music business doesn't exactly work that way. Artists signed to a major label do not call the shots. It might be a little more liberal today, but it definitely wasn't in the '70's. Artists back then were at the mercy of a record label and if they didn't agree with what the label wanted for them, there would have been no chance of being signed. If Chicago had not gone the route of going through a major label like Columbia (thanks to Jim Guercio's connections) there would have been no way they would have become as popular as they did in such a short time. They would have struggled a lot in the beginning for recognition without that influence. Record companies spend a lot of money to promote musicians and that is why they exert so much power over them if they are signed. I'm not saying I necessarily agree with major labels and all their decisions. I am just stating facts.

Posted by stratwoman on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:15am


Thanks for your perspective, stratwoman. I am not trying to be overly critical of Danny - I enjoy his new work, and I greatly respect his contributions to the legacy that is Chicago. Whether or not he's "criticizing" the band isn't really the point. I just find his comments and his actions are somewhat in conflict with one another.

I also recognize and agree that there are a number of original fans who couldn't or wouldn't accept that the band has changed over the years. Furthermore, I agree that some members of the band (past and present) may not have liked the more commercial direction that was taken. They didn't have complete control over their future - there were some trade-offs.

Where our perspectives diverge relates to what the band's following might be today if they hadn't made some of the afore-mentioned changes and even some trade-offs throughout the years. One of the many reasons that I continue to be a die-hard fan of Chicago is that their musical history is diverse, and they continue to tour extensively. With all due respect to Grateful Dead (since that is the example shared in the original post), there is no comparison on those terms.

Posted by chinolefan on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:16am


Art and money have always been an uneasy mix. My main problem with the music industry, particularly in regards to how a band like Chicago got treated by it, is that it's primarily concerned with selling to the vast majority of consumers who are not truly "music" people.

Posted by ftg3plus4 on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:17am


It's always easy to revert to the "what if" in life and to project our own opinions into what we believe would have happened if decisions were different. No one (including Danny and the band members themselves) has any idea how their career would have turned out if they remained an album oriented band and did not modify their songs to fit radio airplay.

In fact, if it wasn't for these choices, the band may have fizzled out (as so many other bands have) as a result of not going in that direction. I think that the airplay gave the band a wider audience and, although the prevailing view is that being labeled a "ballad band" was a detriment, it couldn't have done that much damage if they're still touring.

Obviously, the music industry has changed over the years and if Chicago would have remained "true" to their roots, they may not have been able to survive as long as they have. I agree that they've experienced difficulty in selling new material, but the true fans value what the band has put out over the years. I don't know that many musicians start out with the goal of being a "Top 40" band, but that's not necessarily a negative means to an end. It's the Top 40 stuff that has kept the band alive and well in the eyes of the paying public and allows them to live the lifestyle that they have become accustomed to. Nothing wrong with that!!!

Lots of people love the classic Chicago songs and that's all part of their longevity. The fact that the band still fills venues; albeit not the arenas that they did in the past, is a testiment to their musical legacy. Speculation about what would have happened had they not deviated from their original innovations is wishful thinking at best. You can't rewrite history and fantasizing about what could have been can be fun, but I accept the band just as they are....warts and all!!

Posted by Carollugiano on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 10:18am


Reading back, I am jarred by the comment that Leonard Cohen "is in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Chicago isn't!" That has nothing to do with the path chosen by Chicago and its "handlers" in my humble opinion. Obviously, there are plenty of artists in the RRHOF who are known ONLY because they were on the radio. That issue is way to tedious to waste on this board.

Posted by chinolefan on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 17:39pm


"Sam

If you were talking to me, I don't know what I wrote to make you think that I didn't know the Rolling Stones were in the Rock Hall. I know they are." Sorry about that Roy. I was not talking to you. This was the quote in question:

ON ANOTHER NOTE: WHAT ABOUT THE ROLLING STONES AND THE DO0BIE BROTHERS?

WHO IS IN CHARGE OF THIS CIRCUS?

MJB...SEATTLE

Posted by MJB on Saturday, 06.23.07 @ 14:46pm

I saw that and I wrote that people should do their homework before they come on here. I think I'd pick Deep Purple and T. Rex before the Doobie Brothers (part of that's logic and part of that's personal taste.)

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 03.9.10 @ 20:07pm


What makes a band legendary, IMHO, is that their music holds up over time. The Stones, the Beatles, so much of it could have been written last week or 40 years ago. That's what I enjoy about Chicago. Whether it be "Beginnings" or some of the songs on "Sublety & Passion", it still sounds good. And every band has some period in time when it wasn't what some of us wanted it to be. Looks at the crowds they attract to their shows, from age 14 to the AARP members. And the fans still keep coming back. Can we get past the "what they should have sounded like, or what they should have done" phase please? Judge them for their sound, influence, fans and lasting energy.

Just my thoughts.

Posted by Kathy on Thursday, 03.11.10 @ 13:12pm


Who's Leonard Cohen? Without radio that's what we'd be saying about Chicago. Sorry to disagree but I knew very few "underground" types back in the day. My first taste of Chicago was hearing "Beginnings" on the radio. IMO Chicago took the correct career path.

Posted by Beginnings on Thursday, 03.11.10 @ 15:40pm


Correct career path? are you kidding me? Why are they on shows like the Bachelor, skating specials??? thats not a band, thats a circus act that does whatever they can to make money, or to sneak their way into everyones tv sets since now they can't even get much radio play!!

I agree with the original post and what Danny said, they shoulda been loyal to their real fans, and themselves as musicians.

Suck ups don't get much praise, and they deserve to be in the position they're in.

All these inspiration/hard habit/ hard to say im sorry/80's lovers....we don't need you. That's not Chicago. Chicago didn't write those songs as a democracy, Chicago didn't even fully play those songs on album either. It's a disgrace.

Nuff said

Posted by geraci89 on Thursday, 03.11.10 @ 15:41pm


I'm just ornery enough not to consider your comments as "nuff said" geraci89. The point is, it is YOUR opinion, and you are entitled to it, but your post is stated in a totally unacceptable manner. "Circus act?" Guess I must like the circus after all. As for the band "deserving" the position that they are in - I haven't heard a great deal of concern raised by any of the band members regarding their current position.

Posted by chinolefan on Thursday, 03.11.10 @ 18:03pm


I first saw Chicago at the Aire Crown theater and remember how they used to play for hours and played with an in-your-face attitude. Now is almost seems like they rent out the Chicago logo for dates, sometimes there seems to be more people that aren't in the band as there are members.

I have to give it to Robert, he is the only one with the commitment to the fans that is always with the band.

Just for comparison, listen to live versions of Free, Introduction, Dialogue or really any of the tunes from when the original band played and compare them to any live versions of the songs now. There is no comparison! The songs are so laid back and jazzy it could be elevator music.

And for those who say well the band is older now, listen to current music from Paul Rodgers, Robert Plant, Jimmy Page, Robin Trower or many of the people who have been around for decades and still rock.

Posted by mja1951 on Friday, 03.12.10 @ 03:39am


Sadly..as like years gone by Chicago is again "forgotten" in the Hall of SHAME. As Terry said years ago "!F JAN"
Sadly they will never get in, sadly the idiots will pay to go there to see rappers and goofs.
The Chicago touring is not one tenth of the old Chicago..but.bottom line is this.Since 1995' we fans have been f-ed over and they have too!
Nomore $$ to cleveland and to this second rate full of shit Hall of Shame!

Posted by David Booth on Monday, 03.15.10 @ 19:09pm


"No band since Chicago has had a piano player, a drummer, two guitarists and three hornsmen."

Uh Roy, The Blues Brothers are holding on Line 1 for you.

Posted by Ralph on Thursday, 03.18.10 @ 09:25am


BOSTON HERALD

Omission accomplished

15 acts that should be in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

4. Chicago (eligible since 1994)

Chicago pioneered horn-fueled rock (along with Blood, Sweat & Tears, another band unjustly shut out of the Hall of Fame). You mean the 120 million records they’ve sold worldwide just isn’t enough? Guess not. Instead, we’re inducting ABBA. At this rate, KC and the Sunshine Band has a better shot of being inducted before powerhouse Chicago.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 03.15.10 @ 09:18am

First of all, if you're using sales as your reasoning, then why aren't you making a stand for Celine Dion, Journey, and lightweights such as the Backstreet Boys? (Rhetorical question.) Secondly, did you actually read that article you posted? I love Stevie Ray Vaughan, but there's no way you can convince me that he's the number one omission. Likewise, KISS should be in, just like Stevie, but if anyone believes that they're the biggest omission in their genre they're just uninformed. Ditto for Def Leppard and Heart. They say about Three Dog Night: "Lead singer Chuck Negron wrote the book on rock-star excess." I believe Zeppelin and the Rolling Stones would like a word with you. That's their 15th. 14: Heart. "How many kick-butt rock bands fronted by women have been inducted into the Hall of Fame? One: The Pretenders, in 2005." True, but from what I can tell The Runaways had the bigger influence on female rockers, and prior to The Runaways females singing about sex and excess and rocking just as hard as the guys was for the most part taboo, which is why they weren't as big as they should've been. #10: Dire Straits. I like Dire Straits, and Mark Knopfler is a fantastic guitarist, as they say, but they only make a case for them based on the music, which is nice but not enough. 9: Def Leppard. "Black Sabbath's already in, so let's give their latter-day Birmingham counterparts their due. Sabbath's Tony Iommi lost the tips of two fingers, but Rick Allen lost an arm and is still Def Leppard's drummer." (Screams, paces around the room breaking things.) As a Brit, I can say first that this lack of research destroys any credibility that the article might've had, as Def Leppard are from Sheffield, which is in the county of South Yorkshire, whereas Birmingham is in West Midlands county. They might have DL confused with Judas Priest, who are way ahead in the line. Where's T. Rex, Deep Purple, Priest, Iron Maiden, Joy Division, Alice Cooper, The Smiths, I could go on. It seems their list was put together based on personal taste rather than research or logic, but what do you expect from a Boston newspaper? Only kidding :) Go Yankees!

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 03.20.10 @ 17:40pm


If ever Chicago will be inducted, it's ONLY because of their body of work during the Terry Kath-era (some may call it the producer Guercio-era Columbia -era) from 1969-1977 or in terms of albums, from "Chicago Transit Authority" to "Chicago XI".
Honor should only be given to the seven original members and their original producer James William Guercio.

The seven original members who have made Chicago a legend are:

Terry Kath (guitar - vocals)
Robert Lamm (keyboards- vocals)
Peter Cetera (bass - vocals)
Danny Seraphine (drums)
James Pankow (trombone)
Lee Loughnane (trumpet, flugelhorn)
Walt Parazaider (woodwinds, flute)

Special mention:
Laudir de Oliveira (percussion)

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 04.1.10 @ 16:52pm


Chicago's body of work from 1986- present is anemic compared to the legendary Terry Kath-era Chicago from 1969-1977. The middle period from 1978-1984 are very good in commercial terms.
My point is, the band's longevity has nothing to do with their induction chances. Some bands who have been inducted already were only together for a few years.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 04.1.10 @ 16:56pm


I will repeat my previous post.

"Chicago's body of work from 1986- present is anemic compared to the legendary Terry Kath-era Chicago from 1969-1977. The middle period from 1978-1984 are very good in commercial terms.
My point is, the band's longevity has nothing to do with their induction chances. Some bands who have been inducted already were only together for a few years."

So, Champlin and specially Scheff don't deserve to be inducted together with the original 7. When they joined the band, they were no longer releasing important albums. Their album releases from the 90's to the present are mostly "best of" and "greatest hits" compilations.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 04.8.10 @ 10:44am


Only those who were members while Terry Kath was alive should be inducted.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 04.8.10 @ 12:00pm


"They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band. It ain't what they call rock and roll."

Posted by joker on Thursday, 04.8.10 @ 12:08pm


"They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band. It ain't what they call rock and roll."

Posted by joker

Joker, you are too funny, bro

Posted by Jonny on Thursday, 04.8.10 @ 12:43pm


Champlin and Scheff has nothing to do with Chicago's body of work during their prolific years from 1969-1977 and these era is the ONLY reason why we are still talking about them.


Posted by AudiophilePhil on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 14:27pm


Champlin and Scheff have nothing to do with Chicago's body of work during their prolific years from 1969-1977 and this era is the ONLY reason why we are still talking about them.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 14:28pm


People are still talking about Chicago not because of the songs "All Roads Lead To You" or "Look Away" but because of their body of work from the late 60's to the 70's.

People want Chicago to be inducted not because of the song "Bigger Than Elvis" or the album "XXX" but because of the album "CTA", "Chicago II" or the song "Beginnings" or "Saturday In The Park."

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 14:33pm


As I explained above, Champlin and Scheff does not deserve to be included if ever Chicago is inducted.

Only the original seven plus Guercio should be inducted as Chicago.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 14:50pm


As I explained above, Champlin and Scheff do not deserve to be included if ever Chicago is inducted.

Only the original seven plus Guercio should be inducted as Chicago.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Saturday, 04.10.10 @ 14:50pm


Chicago became a supergroup when Bill Champlin of Sons of Champlin joined them. The Rock Hall eats that kind of stuff up. You could say the same about when Laudir De Oliveira of Sergio Mendes joined Chicago even before Champlin. The Rock Hall likes inducting supergroups: Cream, Yardbirds, Buffalo Springfield, Crosby, Stills and Nash. If they inducted Terry Sylvester with The Hollies, I'm pretty sure they will induct Bill Champlin and Jason Scheff with Chicago. You'll be sure to see the Beatles, The Rolling Stones, the Beach Boys, the Bee-Gees, the Grateful Dead, Sons of Champlin, Sergio Mendes, Miles Davis, Blood, Sweat & Tears, Earth, Wind & Fire, Electric Flag, Tower of Power, Ten Wheel Drive, and Ides of March mentioned somewhere in Chicago's Rock Hall biography.

Posted by QAZ on Wednesday, 04.14.10 @ 08:21am


Who the Hell is Bill Champlin?!

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 04.14.10 @ 12:28pm


Just ask Roy. He'll copy/paste a bio for you. Just don't expect any context and/or opinion.

Posted by Big Willie on Wednesday, 04.14.10 @ 13:56pm


Thinking about it, the first Jazz-Rock was done by The Doors on the album The Soft Parade, so technically Chicago weren't that innovative.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 04.15.10 @ 19:39pm


The only reason why people are still discussing or talking about Chicago is because of their late 60's and 70's albums and singles.

Longevity does not guarantee induction.

When Champlin and Scheff joined Chicago, the band became a cover band or a "karaoke" band.

The original lineup of Chicago is the only reason why people want them to be inducted in the R&R Hall Of Fame.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 04.19.10 @ 01:37am


Chicago has a chance for to be inducted to the R&R Hall Of Fame because of "Chicago Transit Authority", "Chicago II", "Chicago III", "Saturday In The Park" or "Chicago VII" and not because of "Will You Still Love Me" or "Look Away".

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 04.19.10 @ 01:40am


Chicago's chances for induction in the R&R Hall Of Fame rest on the body of work from the late 60's and the 70's such as "Chicago Transit Authority", "Chicago II", "Chicago III", "Saturday In The Park" or "Chicago VII" and not because of "Will You Still Love Me" or "Look Away".
We have to face the reality that when Champlin and Scheff joined the band they became uncool.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 04.19.10 @ 01:43am


Champlin and Scheff don't deserve to be inducted if ever the original Chicago lineup is inducted to the R&R Hall of Fame.

They have 'zero' contribution in Chicago's real legacy and body of work from the late 60's and the 70's. The body of work Chicago has made during the Terry Kath years (1969-1977) is more than enough to put the band in the R&R Hall of Fame. Actually it would have been bettter if they disbanded right afte Terrys's death. Continuing as a 'karaoke' band only harmed their reputation and their chances for induction.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 04.19.10 @ 11:45am


Would the band be upset if the person who is chosen to give the induction speech for Chicago decides to talk about everything and leaving nothing out: the good, the bad and the ugly? No sugarcoating, because this is Rock and Roll mthrfckrs! A real diehard fan.

EXAMPLES:

01. Talking about the Chicago logo, the album covers, numbering the albums instead of giving them names, the whole democracy/group as a whole thing and defending those decisions.

02. Talking about what critics have said about Chicago.

03. Talking about how Terry Kath died.

04. Talking about how and why Peter Cetera left Chicago and how Peter wanted a Phil Collins/Genesis relationship, but the band and the record company wouldn't have that.

05. Talking about the circumstances surrounding Danny Seraphine's departure from Chicago.

06. Talking about the cheesy 80s love balladry.

07. Talking about Chicago's early management and record company executives and how they forced Chicago to change their music style.

08. Saying its about fckng time!

Posted by RAKER on Monday, 04.26.10 @ 11:59am


Chicago blows!

Posted by Chemical ALI on Monday, 04.26.10 @ 12:02pm


Yea, they use horns.

Posted by Lepre_Khan on Monday, 04.26.10 @ 12:03pm


No, they just suck.

Posted by Chemical ALI on Monday, 04.26.10 @ 12:04pm


If ever Chicago is inducted to the Rock "N Roll Hall Of Fame , it's just becyase of their body of work from 1969-1977 nothing more nothing less.

Only the original seven plus Guercio and Laudir de Oliveira will be inducted.

I miss the original Chicago. Please YouTube video below:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-LoRtUB510&feature=related

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Wednesday, 04.28.10 @ 01:13am


If ever Chicago is inducted to the Rock 'N Roll Hall Of Fame , it's just because of their body of work from 1969-1977, nothing more nothing less.

Only the original seven plus Guercio and maybe Laudir de Oliveira will be inducted.

I miss the original Chicago. Please see the YouTube video below showing Terry Kath on lead guitar and lead vocals.

He smokes Stevie Ray Vaughan and Eric Clapton in both guitar playing and vocals.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-LoRtUB510&feature=related

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Wednesday, 04.28.10 @ 01:17am


Hey Roy, you forgot guitarist Mick Taylor, a later member of the Rolling Stones. He was inducted too!

Posted by Asif on Wednesday, 04.28.10 @ 10:36am


Am I missing something here? When I read that Chicago was NOT in the RRHOF I thought I had bad information. But I looked it up and it’s true. Now I will grant you, the band they eventually became is a shadow of what they started out as,churning out some pretty sappy AM crap culminating in the pussy ballad “If You Leave Me Now”. But their first five or six albums fused rock and jazz in a way never heard before. I know Blood, Sweat & Tears did it before them but they just didn’t have staying power. Chicago’s early records were a staple of airplay in the late sixties and early seventies on free form FM radio. They eventually became a veritable hit machine. Billboard cites them as the second most successful American band after the Beach Boys. I admit that their best music was at the beginning of their career and if you drew a chart of their rock quotient, it would probably be a straight line down. Still they have longevity and success. I think they should be in.

Posted by Baba Booey on Wednesday, 04.28.10 @ 13:51pm


What did Patti Smith or the Dave Clark Five do that is better than 25 or 6-2-4 or Beginnings? Glad All Over? Excuse me? Chicago should have been inducted its first year. Right now this site shows them as 9% chance of induction. Every year Chicago isn't inducted, the credibility of the R&RHOF goes down.

Posted by Indy Steve on Saturday, 05.1.10 @ 22:23pm


The Dave Clark Five were part of the original "British Invasion", were giving the Beatles a run for their money for a bit popularity-wise, and at the time were considered better than the Stones (anyone who says otherwise obviously wasn't alive during that time).

Now, will someone tell me how Chicago was so influential and innovative (DC Five also had a sax player...FYI)...???

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 08:54am


Per the criteria set forth by the Hall of Fame...THAT is no reason to induct them. Once again, what innovation and influence did they have? From my vantage point (having grown up in their heyday, I might add) they were just kinda THERE, know what I mean...????

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 14:26pm


Yep. As I pointed out (though everyone conveniently chose to overlook it), The Doors were actually the first to do Jazz-Rock on the "Soft Parade" album (you know, like that song "Touch Me" that gets heavy play on classic rock radio.) So, technically, neither Chicago or Blood, Sweat & Tears can be given credit for innovation. Gitarzan's defense of DC5 seemed reasonable, and... Since I haven't really listened to Patti Smith I can't defend that choice knowledgeably, but she apparently has had an influence on some of the punk that's followed and was one of the first CBGB performers. My guess would be that some of the female Punks that followed her were influenced by her, and she was an inspiration to a little band called R.E.M. (you may have heard of them.) However, even as one of her biggest critics, Dameon pointed out way up above on this page that she is now in so there's no point in discussing her. If you really did have a strong argument you wouldn't need to bring inducted artists into the discussion. I know I don't need to.

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 20:20pm


Well that might be what's keeping them out. If they're having trouble with it they just should induct the original lineup, right? That might be what's stopping them from even nominating Deep Purple, because I know they've got every bit of criteria down.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 05.4.10 @ 21:20pm


"Once an artist (group) is selected for induction, a separate committee oversees who is inducted in the group. Relevant factors are who started the group and who played on the songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group. To speculate about this relative to Chicago at this point is just not possible."

1. Who started Chicago?

Danny Seraphine
Walter Parazaider
Terry Kath
Lee Loughnane
James Pankow
Robert Lamm
Peter Cetera

2. What songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group?

"25 Or 6 To 4"
"Make Me Smile"
"Beginnings"
"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?"
"Saturday In The Park"
"Questions 67 & 68"
"I'm A Man"
"Feelin' Stronger Everyday"
"If You Leave Me Now"
"Old Days"
"(I've Been) Searchin' So Long"
"Call On Me"
"Wishing You Were Here"
"Dialogue Part 1 and Part 2"
"Free"
"Just You 'N Me"

3. Who played on these songs?

Robert Lamm (keyboards, vocals, songwriter)
James Pankow (trombone, songwriting)
Terry Kath (guitar, vocals)
Peter Cetera (bass, vocals, songwriting)
Danny Seraphone (drums)
Lee Loughnane (trumpet, songwriting)
Walt Parazaider (woodwinds, flute)

and

Laudir de Oliceira (percussions)

4. Recognition should also given to their original producer:

James William Guercio

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 12:41pm


What members of Chicago should be inducted?

This is very easy to figure out. I've been pointing this out several times in all my previous posts.

"Once an artist (group) is selected for induction, a separate committee oversees who is inducted in the group. Relevant factors are who started the group and who played on the songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group.


1. Who started Chicago?

Danny Seraphine
Walter Parazaider
Terry Kath
Lee Loughnane
James Pankow
Robert Lamm
Peter Cetera

2. What songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group?

"25 Or 6 To 4"
"Make Me Smile"
"Beginnings"
"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?"
"Saturday In The Park"
"Questions 67 & 68"
"I'm A Man"
"Feelin' Stronger Everyday"
"If You Leave Me Now"
"Old Days"
"(I've Been) Searchin' So Long"
"Call On Me"
"Wishing You Were Here"
"Dialogue Part 1 and Part 2"
"Free"
"Just You 'N Me"

3. Who played on these songs?

Robert Lamm (keyboards, vocals, songwriter)
James Pankow (trombone, songwriting)
Terry Kath (guitar, vocals)
Peter Cetera (bass, vocals, songwriting)
Danny Seraphone (drums)
Lee Loughnane (trumpet, songwriting)
Walt Parazaider (woodwinds, flute)

and

Laudir de Oliceira (percussions)

4. Recognition should also given to their original producer:

James William Guercio

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 12:46pm


Correction

Oliveira not Oliceira

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 12:49pm


5. What albums that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group?

"Chicago Transit Authority" (1969)
"Chicago" (1970) aka "Chicago II"
"Chicago III" (1971)
"Chicago V" (1972)
"Chicago VII" (1974)
"Chicago IX - Greatest Hits" (1975)
"Chicago At Carnegie Hall" (1971)
"Chicago VI" (1973)
"Chicago XI" (1977)
"Chicago X" (1976)
"Chicago VIII" (1975)

The first album "Chicago Transit Authority" is included in the two books that list albums that everyone should hear before he or she dies.
It is also among the top selling albums from the 60's with at least 2 million copies.

All of the albums I listed above (first eleven albums) went platinum in the Billboard album chart. All of these albums featured the late great Terry Kath with his very innovative guitar playing.

They had five (5) consecutive No. 1 albums on the Billboard chart from 1972 to 1975. These albums are:

"Chicago V" (1972)
"Chicago VI" (1973)
"Chicago VII" (1974)
"Chicago VIII" (1975)
"Chicago IX - Greatest Hits" (1975)

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 13:13pm


"You're the Inspiration" is pretty wimpy I must say.

Posted by Sam on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 21:57pm


"My Rock Hall speech for Chicago is coming soon!"

Those wimpy Chicago ballads in the 80's and 90's should not be mentioned at all when trying to convince the Hall of Fame committee to induct them.
Those post Terry Kath ballads (80's, 90's, 2000's)have tarnished the legacy of the original band and kept them from being inducted.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Thursday, 05.6.10 @ 23:53pm


Question #6. What were the years when Chicago created their most important legacy?

Answer: 1969-1977

Question #7. Who were the members of Chicago from their most important years as a group 1969-1977?

Danny Seraphine (drums, songwriter)
Walter Parazaider (woodwinds, flute)
Terry Kath (guitar, main vocals, songwriter)
Lee Loughnane (trumpet, flugelhorn,songwriter, vocals)
James Pankow (trombone,vocals)
Robert Lamm (keyboards, main vocals, songwriter)
Peter Cetera (bass, main vocals, songwriter)

and

Laudir de Oliveira (percussions)

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Saturday, 05.8.10 @ 01:29am


That writer is misinformed.

Peter Cetera was already with Chicago starting with their very first album "The Chicago Transit Authority" (1969).

He was an underappreciated melodic bass player and has a very distinctive soaring tenor voice that's more suited to rock numbers than ballads.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Sunday, 05.9.10 @ 18:30pm


"You're The Inspiration" (1984) and "Along Comes A Woman" (1984) are two Cetera songs that were written and recorded when Chicago was already over the hill or past their prime.

Their prime was in the late 60's and the 70's.

If you really want Chicago to be inducted in the R&R Hall of Fame, you should only mention their real legacy from the late 60's to the 70's.
Mentioning their 80's output without Terry Kath as guitarist and Guercio as producer is useless.

Mentioning the later members (1982-present) would not help them get inducted and would even harm their real legacy because these later members were not with the group when Chicago was in its prime from 1969-1977.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Sunday, 05.9.10 @ 18:45pm


Chicago's real legacy from the late 60's to the 70's is more than enough to qualify them for induction into the R&R Hall of Fame.

What the new members (1982-present)have done is to transform Chicago into a "karaoke" band.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Sunday, 05.9.10 @ 19:03pm


What members of Chicago should be inducted?

This is very easy to figure out. I've been pointing this out several times in all my previous posts.

"Once an artist (group) is selected for induction, a separate committee oversees who is inducted in the group. Relevant factors are who started the group and who played on the songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group.


Question #1. Who started Chicago?

Danny Seraphine
Walter Parazaider
Terry Kath
Lee Loughnane
James Pankow
Robert Lamm
Peter Cetera

Question #2. What songs that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group?

"25 Or 6 To 4"
"Make Me Smile"
"Beginnings"
"Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?"
"Saturday In The Park"
"Questions 67 & 68"
"I'm A Man"
"Feelin' Stronger Everyday"
"If You Leave Me Now"
"Old Days"
"(I've Been) Searchin' So Long"
"Call On Me"
"Wishing You Were Here"
"Dialogue Part 1 and Part 2"
"Free"
"Just You 'N Me"

Question #3. Who played on these songs?

Robert Lamm (keyboards, vocals, songwriter)
James Pankow (trombone, songwriting)
Terry Kath (guitar, vocals)
Peter Cetera (bass, vocals, songwriting)
Danny Seraphone (drums)
Lee Loughnane (trumpet, songwriting)
Walt Parazaider (woodwinds, flute)

and

Laudir de Oliveira (percussions)

Question #4. Recognition should also be given to their original producer:

James William Guercio

Question #5. What albums that had the greatest impact and created the legacy of that group?

"Chicago Transit Authority" (1969)
"Chicago" (1970) aka "Chicago II"
"Chicago III" (1971)
"Chicago V" (1972)
"Chicago VII" (1974)
"Chicago IX - Greatest Hits" (1975)
"Chicago At Carnegie Hall" (1971)
"Chicago VI" (1973)
"Chicago XI" (1977)
"Chicago X" (1976)
"Chicago VIII" (1975)

The first album "Chicago Transit Authority" is included in the two books that list albums that everyone should hear before he or she dies.
It is also among the top selling albums from the 60's with at least 2 million copies.

All of the albums I listed above (first eleven albums) went platinum in the Billboard album chart. All of these albums featured the late great Terry Kath with his very innovative guitar playing.

They had five (5) consecutive No. 1 albums on the Billboard chart from 1972 to 1975. These albums are:

"Chicago V" (1972)
"Chicago VI" (1973)
"Chicago VII" (1974)
"Chicago VIII" (1975)
"Chicago IX - Greatest Hits" (1975)

Question #6. What were the years when Chicago created their most important legacy?

Answer: 1969-1977

Question #7. Who were the members of Chicago from their most important years as a group 1969-1977?

Danny Seraphine (drums, songwriter)
Walter Parazaider (woodwinds, flute)
Terry Kath (guitar, main vocals, songwriter)
Lee Loughnane (trumpet, flugelhorn,songwriter, vocals)
James Pankow (trombone,vocals)
Robert Lamm (keyboards, main vocals, songwriter)
Peter Cetera (bass, main vocals, songwriter)

and

Laudir de Oliveira (percussions)

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 09:45am


I am going to have to agree with AudiophilePhil on the whole who should be included if Chicago ever gets inducted. The one thing that Roy has going for him is the recent example of Metallica. They included everyone that ever recorded on an album. This included their newest bass player, Robert Trujillo, who joined the band in 2003 and only played on their newest album 'Death Magnetic'.

Posted by Gassman on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 10:41am


The DC5 used studio musicians or session players in most of their studio recordings.

On the other hand, Chicago's members all played their own instruments in the studio without any help from session or outside musicians. They also sang their vocal parts without any help from guest vocalists.

So, tell me who deserves to be inducted to the R&R Hall of Fame, Chicago or DC5?

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 14:28pm


Why don't you name these "studio musicians" that the Dave Clark Five used and what songs they were used on (also, back it up with proof). I can't say that I ever heard that about them. In Chicago's case, they've had such a revolving door of musicians it's hard to tell who was actually a member and who was a "sub".

Quit comparing and downgrading other artists to bolster Chicago...if they can't stand on their own merits, then they probably won't get inducted, anyway (which, at this point in time, seems to be the case)...

Posted by Gitarzan on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 20:22pm


I agree with Gitarzan... try and just talk about Chicago, and you'll be taken more seriously.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 21:54pm


I am new to the forum.. I love Chicago an DC5 who cares who played on their stuff it sounds great!the more musicans the better....

Posted by X15 on Monday, 05.10.10 @ 22:02pm


Tarzan, you are ignorant about Chicago. From 1969-1973, they only had seven members.

Their personnel remained intact from 1969-1977 until Terry Kath's death in early 1978. In this regard, they were like the Beatles with a horn section.

The only change in their lineup was the addition of the Brazilian percussionist in late 1974 and he eventually became a full-time member.

Where did you get the idea that they were using sub? If you referring to the current incarnation of Chicago that became a 'karaoke' band, you are right.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 10:41am


Ignorant????? I'd rather be ignorant than clueless!!! As far as I'm concerned the essence of Chicago...their heart and soul...died with Terry Kath (who, by the way, was one of my favorite players). Since then, their music for the most part has been so syrupy that it'll make your teeth rot listening to it, and let's face it, their line-up has been a revolving door for a number of years. they still tour, year after year, trying to pawn themselves off as "Chicago", where in reality they are a caricature of what they once were. they're as bad as the Beach Boys, and every time they walk on stage now they further tarnish their legacy, To that band Terry Kath was irreplacable...period.

Posted by Gitarzan on Tuesday, 05.11.10 @ 18:58pm


So we both agree that Chicago's heart and soul died when Terry Kath died in 1978.
Terry Kath has remained as one of my favourite guitarists and vocalists of all time and the Terry Kath-era Chicago was one of my favourite bands of the rock era.
There's no disagreement here as we both like the original band.
I have to tell you also that I hate the current Chicago and I agree with you that the new lineup has tarnished the band's legacy from 1969-1977.

In my previous posts, I was pointing out that if ever they will be inducted in the R&R Hall of Fame, only the seven original members deserve to be inducted plus the original producer Guercio and theor percussionist Laudir de Oliveira.

What I don't understand is why you are telling Roy that Chicago does not deserve to be inducted.

Are you referring to the original Terry Kath-era Chicago or the current 'karaoke' version of the band?

IMHO, the Terry Kath-era Chicago deserve to be in the R&R Hall of Fame.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 03:32am


I agree with Gitarzan's comments up above regarding Terry Kath. The band should have broken up when he died, IMO.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 05:56am


We're on the same page Tarzan and Paul.
Chicago should have disbanded after Terry Kath's death in 1978 and therefore preserved their legacy.

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Wednesday, 05.12.10 @ 10:45am


Roy you better stop mentioning any post Terry Kath Chicago videos, albums, or even members. You are just hurting Chicago's chances to be inducted in the R&R Hall Of Fame. You cannot ignore them but they should only be mentioned in passing.

Chicago Music Videos that are worth seeing are those of the original band from the 70's such as "At The Rockies" (1973), "Meanwhile Back At The Ranch" (1974), "Rockin' New Years Eve" (1975) and their concert videos when the original band performed in Germany (1977).

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Wednesday, 05.26.10 @ 17:11pm


I see where AudiophilePhil is coming from simply because of the wimpiness of "Your the Inspiration".

Posted by Sam on Friday, 05.28.10 @ 19:00pm


Dude, you've really lost it this time.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 05.30.10 @ 14:00pm


Philip...I'm also expecting an alien invasion, a visitor from the future (I wonder why they haven't come back up to this point), and people to have an intelligent conversation on the Steve Perry and Bon Jovi pages...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 05.30.10 @ 14:12pm


Reading Roy's posts makes Alcoa's stock jump, especially with their newly announced line of fashionable headgear.

Posted by Philip on Sunday, 05.30.10 @ 14:16pm


Steve Perry and Bon Jovi ! Yikes!

Posted by AudiophilePhil on Monday, 05.31.10 @ 11:50am


Now you are really losing it. I guess the fate of that entire conspiracy depends on the outcome of the Stanley Cup. And I thought the Backstreet Boys page was bad.

Posted by Sam on Monday, 05.31.10 @ 20:41pm


"Most of what passes today as 'music' is really just 1 note repeated in a synthesized blend of reverberated echo style vocals." - SG

What a load of bollocks. There's some great albums that I've heard from the 2000's that say otherwise. Clearly you're not looking hard enough. Anyway, most of the important music during the 1980s was by artists from the 60s and 70s who were still making albums.


"Actual acoustical musical instruments are virtually unheard on commercial radio." - SG

First, on my local rock radio station there's a cover of "Simple Man" completely acoustic that's played quite often. Second, don't John Mayer and Dave Matthews use plenty of acoustic guitars? Third, mainstream radio is quite often not the best place to find new music.

"Most public schools today don't teach much music education and the ones that do are declining in number at a fairly rapid pace."

It's true that quite a few schools are cutting back on music now, but we're in a recession, so we have to do something. My sister plays saxophone so she's getting plenty of music.

"Thus if a young person was played a song like 'Color My World' they would start convulsing into a state of sensory overload-not knowing how to process this information." - SG

I don't know how you plan to prove that it's true for all of them, and I know plenty of young people who are musically well-adjusted (albeit plenty of them listen to plenty of crap.) As for the artistic integrity thing, thrash metal made a brief splash in the mainstream without catering to trends. Not to mention Alice in Chains, Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, R.E.M. U2, Blur, Suede, Oasis, Radiohead, Smashing Pumpkins, New Order (actually an outgrowth of Joy Division) and The Libertines... that's a shortlist of bands who made the jump into the mainstream in either the US or the UK (or both) without sacrificing too much of their initial sound (and in some cases none of their sound), without conforming to public tastes or doing anything they didn't want to do (with the exception of Blur, who kind of started out aping the Mancester scene but then got even bigger and more critical acclaim once they developed their multiple identities.) I understand the sentiment that the charts are in awful shape; in fact, I share it. However, maybe if some of the old people were capable of pulling away from the radio they'd find some great music around them.

"Anyway, most of the important music during the 1980s was by artists from the 60s and 70s who were still making albums."

If by artists from the 60's and 70's you mean artists who's first albums were in the 60's and 70's then not even close. To make such a statement displays a lack of knowledge of the 80's.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 06.8.10 @ 20:34pm


*cuckoo clock chimes for midnight*


Posted by Philip on Thursday, 06.10.10 @ 11:34am


"...And now, Peter Cetera will be giving the induction speech and performance for David Foster at the 2010 Songwriters Hall of Fame induction ceremony.

Posted by Roy on Friday, 06.11.10 @ 12:13pm"


...and it still doesn't make Chicago a Hall of Fame band.

Posted by Joe Six String on Friday, 06.11.10 @ 12:32pm


I can't wait to see which artists from the 50s, 60s and 70s get inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame after Chicago gets inducted!

Posted by 6996 on Tuesday, 06.22.10 @ 14:52pm


THE TOP 4 CHARTING ROCK AND ROLL BANDS OF ALL TIME ON BILLBOARD

01. The Beatles
02. The Rolling Stones
03. The Beach Boys
04. Chicago

Posted by Roy on Sunday, 05.2.10 @ 14:17pm

Hey Roy

The difference between Chicago and those 3 other bands is that those 3 other bands still sell millions of records and they still chart high in the Top 10 on Billboard, if not number 1, whenever their record company releases a greatest hits or rarities album. In the Rolling Stones case, they still produce and chart new music. Don't expect Chicago to hold that number 4 position forever. The Bee-Gees are falling too! Be on the look out for the Grateful Dead and Aerosmith. They could still surpass Chicago! The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, and The Beach Boys will hold those number 1, 2, and 3 positions forever!!!

Chicago's last 10 charting albums:

21. 1991 - # 66 Twenty 1
22. 1995 - # 90 Night and Day
23. 1997 - # 55 The Heart of Chicago 1967-1997
24. 1998 - # 154 The Heart of Chicago II 1967-1998
25. 1998 - # 47 Chicago's First Christmas
26. 2002 - # 38 The Very Best of Chicago: Only the Beginning
27. 2003 - # 116 Christmas: What's It Gonna Be Santa?
28. 2005 - # 57 Love Songs
29. 2006 - # 41 Chicago XXX
30. 2007 - # 100 The Best of Chicago: 40th Anniversary Edition
31. 2008 - # 122 Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus

That's very low!!

Plus, correct me if I'm wrong, but the Beatles, the Rolling Stones, and the Beach Boys have each been with the same record company for their entire career, while Chicago has gone from CBS/Columbia, to Warner Brothers, to Reprise, to Chicago Records, to Rhino, and currently no label at all wants them or any new material from them. Chicago is currently working on a new Christmas album to be released in 2011 on Robert Lamm's independent label, Blue Infinity, and it will most likely be available only for download on the internet according to Chicago's official site. The band has also stated that they won't be writing anymore new material. Kiss BILLBOARD goodbye! Goodnight Chicago! It's been a great 45 years!

Posted by 6996 on Friday, 07.9.10 @ 17:49pm


I just saw these guys at the Jones BEach Theater last nignt.

It is an absolute travesty they are not already in the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame.

Clearly they rival the Eagles, Beatles, Beach Boys and Stones as one of the greatest harmony gorups of all time, not to mention thei inovatoive use of horn instruements, blended with other traditional rock sounds.

Not having these guys in the hall of fame is equivalent to keeping Pete Rose out of the Baseball Hall of Fame based on talent.

And another thing, Bill Joel should be in the top 100 artists list by Rolling Stone. Please tell me how friggin Kurt Cobain gets raked in the top 50 and they leave out Billy Joel??????

Posted by NYFAN001 on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 10:24am


Will say it again. It is an absolute discrace Chicago is in already in the Hall of Fame.

It is all political. Jan Wenner keeps them out for personnel reasons????

Billy Joel bashed the Rolling Stone 30 year ago when the said his album at the time was too commerial. He did not play well in the sandbox politically with the Rolling Stone, and gee, what a surprise he is not in theor top 100 list.

Music like any industry or job is highly poitical. If you burn bridges on a job, you may get blacklisted in the profession for the rest of your life.

Posted by NYFAN001 on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 10:35am


One thing I don't get.

One of the criteria for the Hall of Fame is someone who brought innovation to Rock n Roll.

Chicago brought the brilliant use of horns into traditional rock instruments. Not to mention all of their hits and great song writing.

I think Bill Joel and Chicago suffer from the same stigma with the Rolling Stone and the Hall. They were considered too popish, and not cutting edge.

It pisses me off when someone like Curt Cobain gets ranked higher tham these guys. Cobain can't shine Chicago's shoes.

Posted by NYFAN001 on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 10:42am


"Chicago brought the brilliant use of horns into traditional rock instruments. Not to mention all of their hits and great song writing."- NYFAN001

The use of horns in rock & roll started way before Chicago came along...

Posted by Gitarzan on Sunday, 07.11.10 @ 10:45am


How many times have you copy/pasted that same bio?

Posted by amazon on Monday, 08.23.10 @ 07:36am


In response to those who have poined out BS&T and The Doors in oppositon to Chicago's innovation, I don't think you should discredit one groups contributions because someone else did it first. You wouldn't discredit Black Sabbath's contribuitons to metal beacuse The Beatles and Iron Butterfly did it first would you (with Helter Skelter and In-A-Gadda-Da-Vida respectively). Chicago definitely pushed the boundaries for jazz rock but deftly blending jazz, hard rock, adult comtemporary and even a little R&B to create a totally unique sound. That should count as innovation, especially since The Doors and BS&T didn't experiment with jazz rock the same way either.

Posted by Jimbo on Thursday, 09.9.10 @ 17:44pm


Happy 66th Birthday, Peter Cetera, Baby What A Big Surprise.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Monday, 09.13.10 @ 14:13pm


My induction speech for Chicago, coming this week!

Posted by Roy on Monday, 09.13.10 @ 12:29pm

Oh goody, I can`t wait for the madness!

Posted by Qaz on Sunday, 09.19.10 @ 06:41am


They will wait until most of the members are dead before they induct them just like they did with the Dave Clark Five.

Posted by Cathy on Sunday, 09.26.10 @ 12:00pm


The Top 5 of artists who started out fairly decent and then jumped the shark big time:

5) Kenny Rogers
4) Lenny Kravitz
3) UB 40
2) Sting
1) Chicago

If they'd left us then, before 1976 (you know what record I'm talking about), I wouldn't exactly object to their induction. But as it is, they should be rather put under quarantine.

Posted by Rob Fleming on Sunday, 09.26.10 @ 17:56pm


The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame will remain incomplete without this classic rock band.
Incredible brass influenced sound, mega hits, and over 40 years of staying power. What more do the Hall voters need??

Posted by John K on Tuesday, 09.28.10 @ 16:05pm


The band is still fantastic.Magnificent musicians and in te sixties years, they played a strong rock 'roll. Songs like "I'm a man", "Make me smile", "25 or 68", "Free", "Beginnings" and many , many others show it.Chicago should have been in years ago. Five different lead singers. The horns, oh lord...fantastic,mixed with guitar, arrangements...James Pankow- God blees you.Please include them now.


Posted by jose gaspar Ramos on Tuesday, 09.28.10 @ 21:42pm


The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame will always be a joke until Chicago and the Doobie Brothers get in. They became eligible in 1994 and 1996, respectively. Unbelieveable to me....

Posted by Jeff on Wednesday, 09.29.10 @ 11:39am


http://board.petercetera.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6333

A hypothetical conversation between Peter Cetera & Phil Collins.

Peter : " Hey Phil, how are you doing ?"
Phil : " Great Peter, and yourself?"
Peter : " Doing great. I have a symphony gig going on, an electric band of "Bad Daddies" too
and I'm also going on tour with my old buddy David Foster and friends."
Phil : " I'm still hanging out with my chaps from Genesis and I'm also doing the solo thing
and releasing some solo work CD's."
Peter : "Wait a minute..... you mean you STILL play with the guys in Genesis AND they
give you an opportunity to release solo stuff? Wow, how cool that would be.
I wish I knew some understanding guys like your boys in Genesis."
Phil : "Hey Peter , not to change the subject but I was thinking... maybe you and me
should remake my hit song "Easy Lover". You remember that tune don't you?
It was my duet with Phillip Bailey from Earth Wind & Fire."
Peter: "Yeah , great song. Besides, I owe Phillip Bailey one since he sang "If You Leave
Me Now" for 2 years while touring with my old mates. That song is my baby, my first # 1 hit!"
Phil : " Great. I'll have my people talk to your people and maybe we can set something up."
Peter : "Sounds great. Nice seeing you again Phil. Say hello to the guys in Genesis for me."
Phil: " Great seeing you again Peter. Say hello to the guys..... what the hell am I saying? Take care."

Posted by 6996 on Sunday, 10.3.10 @ 20:53pm


For, I don't know, the 167th time, chart success is not a major factor in terms of induction. :-) A number of inductees have had it, but that was gravy for them. (Not sure where that list is from, anyhow, as Billboard hasn't had a list- at least in recent times- combining albums and singles performance).

I'm telling you that Chicago's slick, 80s-on material may have left a bad taste in the mouths of HOF committee members, so don't continue to be surprised to see the committee snub the group.

Posted by JR on Sunday, 10.10.10 @ 06:53am


Number of posts: 489
Number of posts by Roy: 191 (and counting)
Number of posts by Roy in the past year: an even 100.
Number of times Roy has made 4 or more consecutive posts: 6

Posted by Teller on Monday, 10.11.10 @ 14:44pm


While the snubbing of all-time great artists like Yes, Rush, and the Moody Blues, not to mention artists not even mentioned here like the Doobie Brothers, is incredible, the most outrageous omission is Chicago. True, although they were the most popular American band in the 70's and had continued success in the 80's, and "popularity" is not supposed to factor into the RnRHOF equation (allegedly), Chicago was innovative with their unique blend of rock, jazz, r&b and pop fuled by the greatest horn section in history. Not influential? Any musician who lived through Chicago's prime 70's era knows differntly, as numerous musicians who went on to pursue their craft and "perpetuate" the genre of rock music were inspired and influenced by this amazing band of seven incredible pro musicians/ singers. Oh, I forgot. The clowns that vote for this Hall of Fame sham are writers, not musicians.

Posted by tac239 on Friday, 10.15.10 @ 19:21pm


According to Billboard Magazine's Hot 50th Anniversary Top 100 artists, Chicago is now tops among all the American bands, at 13.

Among the bands or groups, only the Bee Gees, Paul McCartney & Wings, Rolling Stones and The Bealtes are ahead of them.

These guys still rule!!!

Posted by Larry Launstein Jr on Friday, 10.29.10 @ 14:33pm


Not much I can add here other than to say that Chicago pretty much dominated either rock or adult contemporary radio for large parts of the late 60's, going into the early 90's. To have that type of longevity, albeit without the critical respect of The Stones and the like, and to put out quality material with great musicianship makes them a more than deserving choice. I wasn't aware of the Jann Wenner grudge issue, and that may well keep them out, but taken song for song, hit for hit, decade by decade, this is a no brainer!

Posted by David Balzano on Saturday, 11.13.10 @ 08:33am


We get it roy, they have horns.

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 11.20.10 @ 09:44am


I can understand (trying to be objective) why they might struggle with Chicago, Yes, Journey, and the Doobies – WHICH members get inducted? For example, the current members of Chicago haven't contributed much beyond be "replacements", but are considered "official" members. Past Chicago member Bill Champlin certainly deserves to be inducted, because he brought something original to the band. But does Jason Scheff, Peter Cetera's replacement? He sang on a couple minor hits, and did nothing to innovate.

Posted by Vince on Monday, 11.22.10 @ 06:41am


I'm just double posting the way Roy does!

Hey Roy, here's one for you...

In recent years, Van Halen has toured with both David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar together at the same time. David Lee Roth and Sammy Hagar have also toured together without the rest of Van Halen.

Chicago has yet to tour with both Peter Cetera and Jason Scheff together at the same time. Peter Cetera and Jason Scheff have not toured together without the rest of Chicago.

Posted by 6996 on Tuesday, 11.23.10 @ 09:11am


Chicago is the biggest Rock Hall snub ever!

Posted by Airport Hospital on Tuesday, 11.30.10 @ 13:26pm


"Chicago is the biggest Rock Hall snub ever!"

Not really.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 12.1.10 @ 16:48pm


And how exactly did you figure this out?

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 12.18.10 @ 05:44am


Chicago Where and are a magnificent band !

Jimi Hendrix rated the Late Great Terry Kath as a phenominal guitarist.

later guitarists like Donnie Dacus (also in Steve Stills band), Chris Pinnick, DaWayne Bailey & now Keith howland are all tremendous axemen as well....not forgetting friends like Michael Landau & Toto's Steve Lukather who guested with the band.

Robert Lamm is a tremendous songwriter.

Peter Cetera a memorable Lead vocalist and girted songwriter too.

The Brass section of Jimmy Pankow, Lee Loughnane & Walter Parazaider are instantly recognisable...

Danny Seraphene was a brilliant Drummer

Later recruits such as Bill Champlin & Jason Scheff (son of Elvis' Bass player Jerry) duly added their own distinctive input in songs, playing & vocalising, making them a part of the band's history as well.

The band let their music do the talking for them, being one of the most professional outfits in a tremendously long career selling zillions of records....

they recorded in many differing styles, from Jazz-Rock, Jazz, Rock, Pop ballads, etc....ranging from Improvisational long pieces, Protest songs, social comment songs,to short memorable love songs and funkier type items etc...

there is 'something for everyone' in Chicago's back catalogue...if people put aside prejudices & just.... 'Listen'

add to that their great Charity work, their work for young aspiring Musicians, work to promote both their city & country, their work on fellow artists records, their sheer scale of records & concert tickets sold worldwide, together with tremendous creative output in a career stretching back to the mid sixties as 'Chicago Transit Authority' ....

...and their continued omission from the hall of Fame seems Laughable if it were not so utterly embarressing...
(rather like those pompous Hollywood film bods 'forgetting' to give Iconic Actors like say John Wayne and Henry Fonda etc, an Oscar for many years eh ?)

The Hall of Fame committee should wake up....!

Posted by Rob on Friday, 12.24.10 @ 12:49pm


"The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Grateful Dead, Jefferson Airplane, Crosby, Stills and Nash, The Jackson Five, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, The (Young) Rascals, Queen, Tom Petty and the Heartbreakers, Talking Heads, The Ramones, AC/DC, The Clash, The Police, Traffic, ZZ Top, Elvis Costello & The Attractions, The Pretenders, The O'Jays, Blondie, Black Sabbath, Lynyrd Skynyrd, Genesis, The Hollies, The Stooges, Alice Cooper, Neil Diamond, Jeff Beck, Leonard Cohen, Patti Smith, Paul Simon, Bonnie Raitt, Eric Clapton, Neil Young, James Taylor, Bob Dylan, Joni Mitchell, David Bowie, Rod Stewart, Elton John"

How do you know that? By the way, Bowie doesn't care about the Hall. I'm pretty sure he didn't attend his induction.

"Van Halen, R.E.M., U2, John Mellencamp, Madonna and Metallica are fans of Chicago"

This Van Halen, R.E.M., U2 and Metallica fan would like to know where you found that out.

Posted by Sam on Friday, 12.31.10 @ 05:47am


I'm an Elton John fan and I loathe Chicago.

Posted by DarinRG on Monday, 01.10.11 @ 19:55pm


Chicago's use of brass/woodwinds was like no other band. They took what is called a "melodic" approach to the horns versus a "harmonic" approach. The horns actually acted as an additional vocal line, not just performing fill rifts. This is what was innovative about Chicago. And to boot...the fact that their first 7 albums were all double disks is a feat that no other band that I am aware of has ever attempted. Despite the 2-albums (higher costs to buy) they still managed to sell truckloads of them. According to some sources, Chicago has managed to chart an album in the Top 40 in five different decades. Who else has done that?
As far as the type of music they play...rock/jazz/pop...the fact that Jimi Hendrix was put on tour with them is an idication that they were considered "rock n roll" at the time they emerged on the scene.
Chicago is very deserving of a Hall of Fame induction. I didn't even touch on the number of hits, platinum records, total records sold (+100 Million)as a factor to consider. Those stats are available online.

Posted by Steve on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 07:33am


Many people have gotten albums into the top 40 over 5 decades. It's not that amazing.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 09:38am


My guess is only the elite have done so (Beatles, Stones, Elvis, Elton and the like). When AC/DC and Aerosmith release new albums (which they probably will at some point) then they'll join that group. I don't know for sure, but I'd guess it's not that common.

Oh and Roy, I don't know what you're getting at. I asked you how you know that all those people will vote for Chicago, and you said the same thing again, plus you said that if you like Elton John you like Chicago. You're avoiding the question.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 01.11.11 @ 14:38pm


Roy, you've posted it already. How many times are you gonna keep re-posting it?

Posted by Philip on Thursday, 01.13.11 @ 18:53pm


Nice writeup, Roy. Hope they get inducted some day (Terry Kath years only).

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 01.14.11 @ 06:40am


I'm finished now! You won't hear from me again until Chicago is inducted!

Posted by Roy on Thursday, 01.13.11 @ 18:58pm

i thought you're done.

Posted by attention deficit disorder on Sunday, 01.16.11 @ 23:20pm


Considering the speeches are normally, from what i've seen, around 2 -4 minutes yeah that wouldn't fly.
also, hootin all up in this bitch.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 11:06am


25 minutes still sems to be a lot...

Posted by GFW on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 11:41am


2008 was a great ceremony... yeah Billy Joel and Tom Hanks had long speeches, but theirs were GOOD because they were never boring. JT tried to be funny and failed miserably, that it got painfully long. Lou Reed was just fricken unrehearsed and took up extra time as a result. The DC5 members' speeches weren't that long though.

Posted by Philip on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 13:08pm


Roy is the Brett Farve of Future Rock Hall. The joke may be old, but just sayin....

Posted by Jim on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 14:11pm


i won't be bothered if you make Kelis' induction speech but your Chicago speech bores me to death, no one will listen to it and if ever they're gonna use your script everyone would go to the washroom.

im just annoyed you took half of the page.

Posted by attention deficit disorder on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 15:53pm


Will Chicago ever get in? Who knows- but the fact that the band's been eligible since 1994 and has not been inducted (has it ever been nominated?) indicates the the HOF does not consider the band an essential, impactful band, at least on the level of other acts who have been inducted. I happen to enjoy Chicago's music (even the slick, overly commercial 80s ballads era- which may have hurt its chances)- but, it is what it is.

Posted by JR on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 16:01pm


i won't be bothered if you make Kelis' induction speech but your Chicago speech bores me to death, no one will listen to it and if ever they're gonna use your script everyone would go to the washroom.

im just annoyed you took half of the page.

Posted by attention deficit disorder on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 15:53pm


Wouldn't how boring you find it depend on your amount of interest in Chicago? Someone who hates the band would obviously rather receive paper cuts on their eyelids than listen to it. Whereas a diehard fan would be hanging on to every word. Personally, if that same speech length-wise was about the Rolling Stones, obviously I'd sit through it as I'm a fan but if it was about, say New Kids on the Block (which will never happen), I'd rather sit through a sequence of bad Eddie Murphy movies.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 02:34am


And to add I don't think anyone would listen to a speech that length on Kelis, of course you probably wouldn't have enough on Kelis' "career" to put one paragraph together let alone a dozen or however many Roy has.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 02:36am


And to add I don't think anyone would listen to a speech that length on Kelis, of course you probably wouldn't have enough on Kelis' "career" to put one paragraph together let alone a dozen or however many Roy has.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 02:36am

if roy would be making a serious speech for kelis, i won't be bothered but i'll be LMAO. i was just being sarcastic Tahvo when i posted something about kelis. no need to be serious, you need to take care of your heart, hehe

Posted by attention deficit disorder on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 08:44am


one more thing Tahvo, i don't have a problem with chicago getting in, in fact that would be wonderful. i was just annoyed with the long speech.

Posted by attention deficit disorder on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 08:48am


LOL no worries ADD, I can assure you I was not harboring any strong emotions when I wrote that, quite the opposite actually

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 09:55am


I was just listening to Chicago Live in Japan...I just don't understand people who say that Chicago was not a Rock-n-Roll band. Listening to them jam at the end of the album on "25 or 6 to 4" can leave no doubt that this band could rock!!

And for the record, Roy, I enjoyed the speech. Nicely put together. I also agree with the list of inductees listed.

Posted by Steve on Tuesday, 01.18.11 @ 13:32pm


Roy is the Brett Farve of Future Rock Hall. The joke may be old, but just sayin....

Posted by Jim on Monday, 01.17.11 @ 14:11pm

I suppose that's referring to the times when he said "This really is my last speech on Chicago?" Or the fact that the same speech has been posted twice? Just a guess. As a Jets fan, I hope Brett really is done. First off, the "will he or won't he?" is annoying. Second, he's nothing to prove, he should just hang it up while he can still walk. Two more wins baby! Are you ready for a show to be put on tonight?

Posted by Sam on Sunday, 01.23.11 @ 07:06am


Greatest Hits Albums are for people with Attention Deficit Disorder.

Posted by ClashWho on Wednesday, 01.26.11 @ 06:26am


Neither Chicago or Jethro Tull in the Rock n Roll Hall of Fame? I guess I won't be visiting Cleveland anytime soon.

Posted by themayorn206 on Monday, 01.31.11 @ 03:50am


jann wenner is a total dick. he could not carry Chicago's jock strap, and makes the rock and roll hall of fame as much of a joke as its location.

Posted by kj on Sunday, 02.27.11 @ 19:35pm


From Roy's induction speech:

"Good evening! Let me just preface by saying I have been informed that all living members of Chicago are here tonight; the current members, the former members, the ones being inducted and the ones who are not being inducted, and they will all be performing tonight as well at different points during the ceremony. So don't expect to see the drama of a Creedence Clearwater Revival, the Sex Pistols, Blondie or Van Halen. There isn't going to be any bullshit drama here tonight folks because it's only Rock 'n' Roll mthrfckrs!"

I stopped reading after that because it's clear that you are an idiot.

Posted by Stephano on Sunday, 03.13.11 @ 19:46pm


Actually, it's a poll asking how much I'd pay to meet Charlie Sheen. Anyway, I'd say Chicago will be last of those to be inducted.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, 03.22.11 @ 09:55am


"Actually, it's a poll asking how much I'd pay to meet Charlie Sheen."

$0.00, baby.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Wednesday, 03.23.11 @ 03:41am


"In my opinion they are the worst snub for a group" - somebody way back when

Big snub? Sure. Biggest snub? Not by a long shot.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 03.23.11 @ 10:33am


I am final, I am sorry, but, in my opinion, there is other way of the decision of a question.
It is a pity, that now I can not express - it is compelled to leave. But I will return - I will necessarily write that I think.
In it something is. Many thanks for the information. You have appeared are right.

Posted by stertorgo on Friday, 04.22.11 @ 11:49am


Was there any need to post that induction speech 3 times?

Posted by Sam on Monday, 05.2.11 @ 07:06am


Minor edits isn't enough reason, it's kinda annoying scrolling down here though what is essentialy the same, long thing three times.

Posted by GFW on Monday, 05.2.11 @ 16:32pm


"They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band. It ain't what they call rock and roll."

Posted by joker on Monday, 05.2.11 @ 17:20pm


I think they are around #150 or so on my HoF induction list ,I think they might be higher on Charles' list.

I lost interest in them after '75,I'd put them in for their first five albums (except Carnegie Hall).

Even then,I still think their first album was/is their very best.

Posted by Underground Democrat on Friday, 05.20.11 @ 06:20am


Actually, they're #186 on my list of eligibles, and part of that was because of the massive popularity of their best albums during the early through mid-70s, a factor that won't be part of the equation next time I rank them. Artists who either cited Chicago as an influence or have covered their songs include Peter Cetera, of course, as well as Rufus, Stephen Malkmus (Pavement), Little River Band, Amy Grant, Air Supply, Leo Sayer, Rick Springfield, Toto and REO Speedwagon among others. The best I can say is that, influence wise, they're more influential than most acts, but compared to other influential acts, that list is slim pickings. I'd love to point to later horn driven acts like Oingo Boingo or Fishbone as having been influenced by Chicago, but the connection just isn't there as far as I can see. And their 80s output with all those Cetera ballads is horrid. For me, the best Chicago was what they created while Terry Kath was alive. After he died, Cetera drove them into an easy listening ditch that was on one hand very popular but on another hand made them lose all credibility. I hope you know this, but there is not a thing you said in that induction speech that almost all of the nominators would care about, with perhaps the singular exception of what Jimi Hendrix said about Terry Kath. The only nominator that might be swayed by that information is the newest one, Roy Trakin. He is all for Daryl Hall & John Oates, Bon Jovi and Neil Diamond, so Chicago is probably on his radar also.

Posted by Charles on Friday, 05.20.11 @ 06:23am


I am the exact right age to be a Chicago fan... I was so very cool with the horns in the Butterfield Blues Band when Bloomfield left and Bloomfield's Electric Flag. I loved the Al Kooper flavored first album of Blood Sweat and Tears. By the time Tower of Power was playing in my home area, I was in Texas, but I went to high school with Lydia Pense, and Cold Blood and ToP played together often so I picked up on both, loving Cold Blood completely. I always like James Brown's band whether the Famous Flames or the JBs, and listening to the Mar-Keys join Booker T & the MGs as both an instrumental group and as Otis Redding's backup band was always great. I think it started when I grew up listening to my mom's Glenn Miller and Dorsey Brothers records and I discovered Count Basie through Al Collins' Purple Grotto, leading me to Duke Ellington, Harry James, Gene Krupa, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, Don Redman, Cab Calloway, Louis Jordan, and many many others.

But I never cared for Chicago. Listening to the Chicago Transit Authority double disc debut album, I felt like more than half of it was crappy filler. This proved true after they changed their name and kept issuing two disc albums with a nice song or three and acres of bland stuff. I was stationed with a Chicago fan who kept insisting that I should love them, I just needed to know which cuts to skip on every album. I told him then and I repeat it now: why not release a single disc LP with good stuff instead of overblown albums with a lot of mediocre filler?

I recognize their influence, but like them less than I like the non-Kooper BS&T.

And, I cited a number of other rock bands which were horn based who released singles and albums before CTA. Chicago was early, but I saw the Electric Flag and the revamped Butterfield band debut at Monterey (June 1967) as well as the Mar-Keys play there... and JB's band was playing rock years before that... Oh, did I mention Checkmates, LTD? You mentioned Ray Charles in your speech.

Posted by Cliff on Friday, 05.20.11 @ 06:26am


You post enough of your weird-assed fantasy crap all over the place.

Posted by Kid on Saturday, 06.4.11 @ 09:07am


And you know what's funny? First, a Chicago politician named Barack Obama is elected the first black President of the United States of America in 2008. Then, in 2010, the National Hockey League's Chicago Blackhawks win their fourth Stanley Cup in franchise history, but their first Stanley Cup since 1961, the year of Barack Obama's birth. Then, what do you know, Chicago, the band, is finally inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 20??, during a Barack Obama presidency.

Posted by Roy on Wednesday, 05.11.11 @ 06:20am

Also, "Chicago" has seven letters and had seven members, till a game of rumored Russian Roulette. Then there were six, just like six letters in "Barack", who is an "ally" of Russia. Keeping one's nuclear rivals close can be seen as a six-lettered gamble itself, and gambling was born of the Chicago mob scene. Seven Blackhawks on the ice would have been too many. You dig?

Posted by inediblehulk on Wednesday, 06.15.11 @ 05:48am


Do tell us about it, Roy. I'm actually slightly curious, and I don't read magazines.

Posted by Sam on Wednesday, 07.6.11 @ 04:44am


Seeing that there was going to be a rare article on Chicago from a British publication I just had to go out and buy the magazine from a local store. I won't spoil the article for those who want to read it properly but it contains quotes from what I believe were separate phone interviews between the article writer and Peter Cetera, Robert Lamm and Lee Loughnane. From what I deduct in the article, there's certainly no love lost between Chicago and Peter Cetera, even after 26 years.

I'm a big fan of Chicago 16 and 17, so I'll give you a little glimpse of what was going on in those years...

Robert Lamm in the article states: "David Foster was talented but he was also smarmy. He bought into the whole ballad thing. Once Cetera had started [taking over the] writing and Foster was on board, then all those outsiders started affecting what we were doing," he says, irked by the various outside writing credits.

Peter Cetera rebuts this: "What the other guys are not telling you is that by that point the drugs and the drinking had taken over so much, along with David Foster, I was the only one that could still write. Except for the drummer Danny Seraphine they were all doing that stuff. I dare anybody to try to deny that it was a very dysfunctional time".

There are a few things I really don't understand about Mr. Lamm, who's apparently intelligent and quite articulate. The man loves to bemoan the ballads and enjoys implying to the wider musical community that he is a 'jazz' musician caught up in a band that was damaged by outsiders, yet at the same time he continues to play nearly one hundred shows a year with what essentially is a tribute band who play all the commercial songs of their once glorious hit-laden past, thanks in no small part to Peter Cetera! Furthermore, in the article he professes briefly that Jason Scheff was a 'good replacement', yet everyone knows that Jason Scheff, though probably a nice guy, is an inferior replacement to Peter in regards to singing and songwriting. If Robert Lamm was so despondent with the band’s direction, why didn’t he say something 25 years ago? In fact, Jason Scheff didn’t do anything to alter Chicago’s direction, littering especially Twenty 1 and XXX with his own inferior ballads!

Robert Lamm also comes across as spineless with regard to Bill Champlin in the article. He says that Bill kept himself to himself, brought the band down, and arguably should have left 20 years ago. Yet again, why didn’t Lamm say something 20 years ago? I mean Bill Champlin was in the band for over a quarter of a century!

For as long as the ‘superior’ Robert Lamm and the rest of the band members continue to ride the crest of the wave started by Foster and Cetera in the 1980s when Chicago were on their feet, I will treat their words with contempt!

Posted by Hysteria on Tuesday, 07.12.11 @ 21:55pm


Roy, I'm shocked they had the chutzpah to ask Sting to replace Cetera. At that time, Sting had just been in the biggest rock/pop band in the world & to think he would want to join Chicago!

I like Chicago, but they ain't The Police.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 07.13.11 @ 08:05am


Very unlike Peter to trash Chicago. He's usually very "pC" about it. humble, quiet and talks about a divorce... but the real story is already out... again, why re-hash this.... old news if you asked me. But the real show stopper line could read.... "Why Peter Cetera can't reunite with Chicago"... now that would get my attention. After 26 years, I don't expect any revelations. The group wanted to tour, Peter wanted to see his daughter grow up and do some solo projects. He seems to have enjoyed life and performs live when and if he wants to.

Posted by JK335 frb01 on Wednesday, 07.13.11 @ 22:01pm


What about that article? It's now Saturday.

Posted by Sam on Saturday, 07.16.11 @ 12:44pm


This group was the best of the jazz-rock bands. Before they scored their first number one single with If You Leave Me Now in the fall of 1976, Chicago already had ten Top 10 singles, according to The Billboard Book of Number One Hits. They went on to score two more number one hits, along with having five number one albums. With the exception of the Moody Blues, has there ever been a more successful rock band over so long a period that hasn't been put in the Hall of Fame? They meet all the criteria the Hall should be looking for: originality, huge record sales, high-grossing concert tours, longevity.

Posted by Henry Haynes on Tuesday, 07.26.11 @ 10:34am


These guys shared the spotlight with Led Zeppelin as the greatest rock bands of the 1970s. Sure, they relied heavily on ballads in the latter part of their career, but their early music was revolutionary. Although horns had always been a staple in rock, these guys found a way to integrate them into a rhythim section and vocal section. And, for the most part, they covered just about every musical genre out there. So, the reality is that they have defied categorization despite doing mainly ballads for the last 20 years. The album cuts in some cases are better than some of the hits.

These guys have been victims of changing tastes in the music industry and commercial radio, which seems lately to be only interested in the "flavor of the month" artist, and the music all sounds the same. These guys were a product of the late 60s and early 70s, when the music was far more diverse and imaginative. I blame the record companies and commercial radio for knocking out all diversity and imagination in the music these days. Chicago had to do what they did to survive.

These guys should have been in long ago.

Posted by dustylover on Sunday, 07.31.11 @ 00:05am


I love early Chicago. But they went from a really cool band to a super lame band in the 80s. Can early brilliance be outweighed by later multiple sins against music? Also they do come up short on the influence side of things. Popular music went in other directions. I think they should be in due to their early albums, but it's close.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 08.9.11 @ 14:32pm


The best I can say is that, influence wise, they're more influential than most acts, but compared to other influential acts, that list is slim pickings. I'd love to point to later horn driven acts like Oingo Boingo or Fishbone as having been influenced by Chicago, but the connection just isn't there as far as I can see. And their 80s output with all those Cetera ballads is horrid. For me, the best Chicago was what they created while Terry Kath was alive. After he died, Cetera drove them into an easy listening ditch that was on one hand very popular but on another hand made them lose all credibility.

Roy, I hope you know this, but there is not a thing you said in that induction speech that almost all of the nominators would care about, with perhaps the singular exception of what Jimi Hendrix said about Terry Kath. The only nominator that might be swayed by that information is the newest one, Roy Trakin. He is all for Daryl Hall & John Oates, Bon Jovi and Neil Diamond, so Chicago is probably on his radar also.

You found sympathetic ears in Roy Trakin and Terry Stewart. Robert Hilburn would claim rock history would be no different if Chicago did not exist. Anthony DeCurtis is a brown-nosing know-nothing who wouldn't vote for them unless others thought they belong, and Dave Marsh would be brutally honest and say he doesn't like most Chicago and would not vote for them either.

However, that speech was a waste of time. They're not interested in popularity, in band history or in sales. Besides, they already know all that stuff. Why would they want to read/hear something that they already know, and, considering most of them were covering the rock scene while all that was happening, they probably know about it firsthand? Emails and letters like this are about as useless as all those petitions going around. They have no sway.

You need to address the issue of who cites Chicago as an influence. As I showed you, there is very little record of that, and nominators like Hilburn are only swayed by that issue. And, you may be surprised by this, but they would also love to hear what Chicago means to you, like if you told a life story where Chicago's music played a big factor.

Posted by Charles Crossley Jr on Tuesday, 08.9.11 @ 19:22pm


Dear Gentlemen ,

Its an absolute joke that a Group as musically talented ; with 3 fantastic voices Lamm , Cetera & Kath haven't all ready been voted in !
Lamm is a hall of fame songwriter , James Pankow trombonist wrote some of there biggest hits
Chicago's music holds up to the test of time .
The group is in Billboards top 5 all time groups ;
Thanks God they never compromised quality for
quantity .
Listen to Chicago V , VI , & VII Playboys group of the year 3 years in a row .
A special bunch of gentlemen indeed !

Warmest Regards ,

Gary O'Connell

Posted by Gary O Connell on Sunday, 09.11.11 @ 00:24am


Dear Gentlemen ,

Its an absolute joke that a Group as musically talented ; with 3 fantastic voices Lamm , Cetera & Kath haven't all ready been voted in !
Lamm is a hall of fame songwriter , James Pankow trombonist wrote some of there biggest hits
Chicago's music holds up to the test of time .
The group is in Billboards top 5 all time groups ;
Thanks God they never compromised quality for
quantity .
Listen to Chicago V , VI , & VII Playboys group of the year 3 years in a row .
A special bunch of gentlemen indeed !

Warmest Regards ,

Gary O'Connell

Posted by Gary O Connell on Sunday, 09.11.11 @ 00:27am


Take Me Back To Chicago

Posted by Joe-Skee on Wednesday, 09.21.11 @ 19:09pm


The RRHOF is all about money. That said, its a shame that Chicago was not inducted long ago if only for the punters that think being in the "Rock And Roll Hall Of Fame" actually means anything. Screw the Hall Of Fame for their blatant basis and kudos to Chicago and bands like them for their perseverance despite their rejection by these clowns. Good music will always trump money grubbing businessmen with the heads up their %&/§%$s like the RRHOF.

Posted by JT on Sunday, 12.4.11 @ 06:59am


Unfortunately, when Terry Kath died, all hope of their induction into the Hall of Fame died for Chicago.

Posted by Fallopia Tuba on Wednesday, 12.7.11 @ 11:57am


Loughnane comes off as a complete tool in the AOR Classic Rock article. He can't hold a candle to Cetera's talents. He goes off about Cetera's derogatory remarks about the band, but has spent the past 25 years ripping Cetera and his legacy in the Chicago (all the while making money off his songs night in and night out).

And Lamm seems delusional at this point. The man doesn't live in reality. I hope his comment that "Anybody can write a song, etc" was taken out of context. B/C he's always given Peter high marks for his great melodic songs and his overall talent. If he was taking a shot, the man's an idiot.

I find Peter's recollection of hearing about Terry's death interesting. It sounds like he felt Terry was his only ally or friend in the group. I may be wrong, but that's my take on his comments.

I'm so tired of the band's "woe is us" attitude regarding their musical direction and their seeming lack of control of their own destiny. If you really wanted to do something about it, either stand up and take a stand or quit! But none of you did that. So Lee, "shut the **** up!"

If I recall Lamm was never happy about Champlin and that comes through yet again. I suspect Champlin did not integrate well but on the other hand I can't imagine they would have kept him that long if he really did drag everyone down all the time.

Foster's negative influence does come through as well. In many ways he saved the band, but he also created division and, I believe, fueled the fire for Cetera's departure. He didn't just produce, he meddled.

I also get the sense that maybe Lamm still doesn't get that at the time of Foster no one was writing jack in that band, especially him.

I think they need to thank Peter Cetera, Bill Champlin and Jason Scheff for being the voices of the hits 1976-1991 they don't accept but accept royalty checks and the cash from sold concert tickets.

The dynamics of the music business changed in the 1980's-MTV appeared, radio programming in the can appeared across the country and the AM band started its turn away from music. These were forces far bigger than the suits that were said to control Chicago.

I am Scheff's age, I can't imagine starting a business with a bunch of guys I went to college with and living the past couple decades on the road with those guys for most of a year, especially when it becomes 24 hours per day for days on end. It is impossible for 7 or 8 guys to all be friendly or remain friends so I understand the continued shots being taken at each other which will likely remain for the rest of their lives.

I think that Lamm, Pankow, Loughnane, and Parazaider have all been under a state of delusion-too many concerts filled of their hits over and over and over.

If there's one guy I've lost complete respect for over the years, it's Lee Loughnane.

I was a trumpet player in high school and used to listen to the records and learn his parts. Some of the stories about Lee certainly made me see him in a different light, but the "have a Coke and a smile..." comment is just ridiculous.

"No, we're not resting on our laurels, but let me remind you that we've sold 120 million albums and we appear on the Today Show once a year to play 25 or 6 to 4." What a dick.

And his use of "we" in his quotes ... does this mean he's now the group's official spokesman? Ugh!

He brings up that Cetera has been gone for 26 years - how many of those 120 million records have been sold in the last 26 years? I'd bet the percentage is quite small. They haven't had a real hit record since 1990!

While these guys rue the 'balladic direction they got sucked into' with Chicago X, they obviously forget that Columbia Records PAID THEM TO GO AWAY after Chicago XIV. They were over! I think the sales for Hot Streets, 13 and 14 pretty much show that direction they were going (if they really had a direction) wasn't working.

Two guys put that band back on the charts - Cetera and Foster. That's a plain and simple fact. And the band rode the crest of that wave from the time Cetera left in '85 into the '90s. They would've been playing the oldies circuit 15 years earlier if not for those two guys.

No they can thank Cetera and Foster for giving them the 1982-1991 royalties from those hits that made the alimony payments, the college educations for the kids, the extra house or two, the fancy cars in the driveways and a boost to their Chicago Inc retirement plan.

Not only that. Had Foster not been hired for Chicago 16, that album would have been a total disaster and pretty much what the band was remembered for. No Foster-Cetera hit machine equals NO Bill Champlin, NO Dawayne Bailey, NO Jason Scheff, NO Tris Imboden and so on and so forth. I think everyone's lives would have been much, much different. Pankow probably would have been the only one living a comfortable retirement.

In Peter Cetera's case he may never record again. He parted ways with his last two labels because they had financial issues or didn't live up to their end of the contract. Unless Cetera finds a small label or pays for it himself, I don't think they will be knocking down his door in this economy. Much like Champlin having issues finding a niche for the Sons right now. Remember XXX could only find a path through Rhino to support that project.

While it can be said of any horn player, Lee truly blows.

The more these guys talk, the less respect I have for them.

If you really are a group, one that has no leaders, and everyone is involved, then it takes some real stupidity to badmouth any part of your history. In this way every time they blame someone, they make themselves look stupid. He did this, he did that, but we made decisions as a whole. Well which is it then?

It looks like the whole group as individuals missed out
on integrity training.

I knew the horn section guys were pretty sorry in that regard.
But Cetera does not come off much better from what this article exposed.
I mean dealing under the table behind your band mates backs.

Danny for all his faults does come across as a pretty decent guy, and from what I have read
so did Terry. Robert seems to be a decent guy but I don't know sometimes his dealings with fans
are a little harsh and prima donna like. The same for Cetera.

In that regard most entertainers could take a lesson from older entertainers.

Jimmy Stewart always signed autographs for fans. He said they paid his salary and he owed it
to them. Sadly that outlook seems to be gone anymore.

Yeah, I wish Lamm would come out and say that he was in rehab during 16 and that was why he didn't contribute more. Instead of blaming Cetera and Foster. I also wish he'd own up to the fact that the collective band brought Foster in and kept paying him for three albums.

Posted by DB on Sunday, 12.18.11 @ 19:42pm


I'm going to start my own list of lists that you've posted showing how many times you've posted them.

Posted by joker on Wednesday, 12.21.11 @ 20:21pm


... and my mind just collapsed.

Posted by GFW on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 11:37am


Just a thought: If the 2012 induction of Chicago is truly predestined, isn't the world scheduled to end before their induction would be accomplished? I guess irony is written in the stars. It might even be worth it.

Posted by astrodog on Friday, 12.30.11 @ 17:04pm


They actually get more publicity but not getting voted in. Ive grown up with them and have listened to them since I was about 5 years old. Im 45 now, and have seen them a bunch of times in concert over the years. They have never put on a bad show, and truely love their fans. Jann Wenner needs to get over himself, and leave the past in the past. Shame on him.

Posted by Patricia on Friday, 01.27.12 @ 17:26pm


Thanks Roy! I was reading all these post the other day.They should be in...

Posted by Happy on Saturday, 02.18.12 @ 21:54pm


So are you saying that you want Chicago to be inducted? I couldn't tell.
I have to say that with a few classic songs there was also an awful lot of filler on even their earliest albums. And their 80's ballads were brutal. They sold albums, but that genre sells. I stand by thinking they deserve induction on balance, but they were very uneven.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 02.28.12 @ 18:01pm


Roy, stop copying other people's writing and passing it off as your own.

Posted by ken on Tuesday, 04.3.12 @ 21:34pm


Terry Kath's instrumental, "Free Form Guitar" on "Chicago Transit Authority" expresses his love for motorcycle riding with its use of feedback and makes you feel like you're on a motorcycle. This predates Montrose's "Bad Motor Scooter" by four years. Both Terry Kath and Ronnie Montrose would die of self-inflicted gunshot wounds.

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Saturday, 04.14.12 @ 10:06am


What an outrage that these guys haven't even been considered. 122 million albums and some of the best Rock songs along with outstanding musical abilities.. an incredible band. Over half of those already inducted don't hold a candle to this band, have seen them over a dozen times live and it's just an outrage they have been left out. The only ones that I consider as bad or worse is Rush. Bon Jovi too but the will be in there next year or two, guaranteed. Chicago is a legendary band. Seems their touring partner EWandF got in long before.

Posted by Paul Thomas on Saturday, 05.12.12 @ 19:35pm


https://www.facebook.com/InductChicagointoRRHOF

If we have our way they will be inducted in theres and our life time. Please show your support and join us on Face book to move the Hall of Shame to do whats right.

Posted by KAREN on Sunday, 06.3.12 @ 00:20am


That sounds all kinds of awesome, Roy.

Posted by DarinRG on Tuesday, 06.12.12 @ 23:30pm


Wow Roy lot of jawin. I agree they should be in
After reading most all of the stuff on this sight I must say I never new so much about them until now lol!

Posted by Happy on Wednesday, 06.20.12 @ 14:43pm


I'm not as big of a Chicago fan as I used to be (I still enjoy the occasional song), I admire Roy's enthusiasm and desire to see them get inducted into the RRHOF. Chicago is one of the most glaring snubs in RRHOF history. Perhaps Chicago's mediocre '80s output has something to do with that.

I can't add much to what Roy has posted, but I will say that I think Chicago expertly melded rock and jazz better than any other band. Roy has gone to great lengths to document Chicago's impact and success. I respect him greatly for that.

Posted by Zach on Wednesday, 06.20.12 @ 22:24pm


Roy-Please take this in a good natured way because I admire your passion, but has a band you've championed ever gotten in?
Anyway from my previous comment on this page I was initially on the fence about Chicago but ultimately decided that they were worth inducting. But I've gone back and looked. Really they had a great first album and a bunch of uneven albums after that with a few good songs mixed in. Then they became AC. I know they sold a lot of albums, but as of now I would say no. They were not the first band to engage in jazz/rock fusion. And their later commercial success was painful. Let's just say that I can see the other side of the coin, although no, I cannot explain why Laura Nyro is in and they are not.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 08.14.12 @ 01:15am


About Chicago, astrodog wrote:
"Roy-Please take this in a good natured way because I admire your passion, but has a band you've championed ever gotten in?"

I can think of one that Roy championed that got in.

The same one I championed.
"The Miracles" .

Posted by Bill G. on Tuesday, 08.14.12 @ 22:25pm


Roy been doing your "homework" and still carrying the torch for Chicago. Amen brotha! I was/am big fan of 70s era (Terry Kath yrs) Chicago and also want them in the Rock Hall. Guess I would go with your Scenario 2 or 3 ... probably would include Champlin (?) but nobody coming after him.

Posted by telarock on Friday, 08.24.12 @ 09:13am


I sure hope they get in Is long over do

Posted by Happy on Wednesday, 09.19.12 @ 22:30pm


When Chicago first came out they were great and innovative. Then they put out pop crap. I say thumbs down for the HOF. Although I will say that they are more deserving than some in the HOF but that's another story.

Posted by GB on Thursday, 10.18.12 @ 09:48am


"They don't give a damn about any trumpet playing band. It ain't what they call rock and roll."

Posted by joker on Thursday, 04.8.10 @ 12:08pm

Gets me every time.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 10.27.12 @ 10:41am


Am I the only one who hates "If You Leave Me Now"

Posted by GFW on Saturday, 10.27.12 @ 12:17pm


Not my favorite, but not their worst song.

Posted by Philip on Saturday, 10.27.12 @ 12:33pm


I don't really care for "If You Leave Me Now" to be honest, but I wouldn't say I hate it.

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Saturday, 10.27.12 @ 12:35pm


If You Leave Me Now is a classic. Very well written-music, lyrics and production. Fans and critics agree. This is not cheese! This is not You're the Inspiration.

Posted by Roy on Saturday, 10.27.12 @ 19:48pm

Well I can't argue with that! "If You Leave Me Now" is certainly better than "You're the Inspiration!"

Posted by Tahvo Parvianen on Sunday, 10.28.12 @ 03:33am


Ah, you've left out the truly scary part of Baby What a Big Surprise -- the sound of the great Robert Lamm and the great Terry Kath singing "shooby dooby wah" behind Cetera's mindless lyrics. At least it scared the hell out of me -- have never fully recovered.

Posted by PeteDC on Sunday, 12.9.12 @ 22:57pm


The girl in the song is dead. It's very clear in the lyrics:

"Right before my very eyes /I thought that you were only fakin' it
And like before my heart was takin' it / Baby what a big surprise
Right before my very eyes...

"Just to be alone / Was a little more than I could take...
Now and then just like before / I think about the love I've thrown away
But now it doesn't matter anyway"

(Hey, if they can make sh*t up, I can, too).

Posted by billfleck on Sunday, 12.9.12 @ 22:58pm


https://www.facebook.com/InductChicagointoRRHOF?sk=wall&filter=2¬if_t=share_wall_create

Probably wont be inducted in there life time. Join us on face book.....

Posted by karen on Monday, 12.10.12 @ 21:55pm


Roy, they probably should get in first...no, wait...be nominated first before we need to ponder possible induction speakers. And I do not see a nomination or induction in the near future.

Posted by Dezmond on Saturday, 02.2.13 @ 13:12pm


Its gonna take some sort of new guard on the R&R Hall Committee to get Chicago in. There is no way its gonna happen with the current regime, they clearly hate the band as the acts that are getting in/nominated now are a joke and pale in accomplishments to Chicago. Your telling me Randy Newman who is a good composer was/is more influential than Chicago? Really, with a straight face? Not on his best day and I'm sure he would tell you the same thing.

Posted by Pete on Monday, 02.18.13 @ 01:58am


Roy, the only thing I don't like about the picture posting is that when I come here I usually click on the 'Most Recent Comments' tab & if you use alot of vertical bandwidth by posting those pictures, it means that alot fewer comments are within the block set aside for Most Recent Comments (so I think).

Nice picture of the President, BTW.

Posted by Paul in KY on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 07:42am


Yea I agree with you Paul in KY, thats what I usually do is read the recent comments and when he puts up stuff like that and all of the same comments on different artists it wipes out alot of the recent ones.

Posted by bojanthebest on Monday, 02.25.13 @ 11:22am


Americans are obsessed with celebrity. Americans are obsessed with the bad boy aspect, all of the people rags, and celebrity obsession. This band focuses on the excellence of the art. The sensationalistic craving for celebrity is a boring journey. Nobody wants to talk about the art. Higher calling folks will acknowledge that. This obsession with celebrity leaves us out of the mix because it’s not about that with this band, it’s about this legacy of the music and there is nothing printable about that that is sensationalistic. There is a lot of value in what we have done over the years. It’s quite phenominal this legacy we have created but it is not sensationalistic. It’s not something you would want a typical reader of these rags to find interesting. They want to read about who did what to whom. Who went to jail for what. They want to read about somebody’s misfortune. They want to see that someone is worse off than they are.

--James Pankow


Posted by Roy on Sunday, 04.14.13 @ 23:22pm
--------------------------------------------------
Truer words have never been spoken, regarding art vs. sales hype. It's a real pity that hype & marketing won out.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 04.15.13 @ 06:58am


How can anyone take this so called Rock & Roll HOF serious... it has no credibility whatsoever!
to exclude Chicago is a disgrace, and an insult to 1 of the greatest bands ever. replace this committee post haste!!!!!

Posted by CC Golf on Thursday, 06.6.13 @ 05:31am


I just heard Green Day's "Brain Stew" on the radio and noticed the main guitar line borrows its chord progression from "25 or 6 to 4"

Posted by Aaron O'Donnell on Friday, 06.7.13 @ 17:14pm


Roy, was reading the Kickstarter writeup & although I had heard that Mr. Kath's death was more a drunken accident & being stupid with firearms than anything else, the writeup makes it sound like it was a concious suicide.

What is your take on Mr. Kath's death?

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 06.20.13 @ 12:37pm


First three albums were decent. After that the music was pure pap. We could put our babies to sleep by playing Chicago's albums. In contrast, they were awake, engaged and actively listening when we played The Beatles.

Posted by Bob Borzoi on Friday, 06.21.13 @ 16:55pm


If the Chicago Cubs ever win a World Series championship again, that would raise my hopes for Chicago getting in the RRHOF.

Never mind the Blackhawks. Or the Bulls. Or the White Sox.

Posted by Jason Voigt on Tuesday, 06.25.13 @ 20:29pm


To be quite honest, I would rather see the band Chicago inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame than Nirvana next year.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Monday, 07.1.13 @ 01:27am


To be quite honest, I would rather see the band Chicago inducted into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame than Nirvana next year.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Monday, 07.1.13 @ 01:27am
--------------------------------------------------
I understand where you'd like to see Chicago get in. I have nothing against Chicago, & would like to see them get in as well. However, better they do it on the back's of someone else than Nirvana.

I used to see a lot of comments about "this band should have to wait until this group gets in". Nine times out of ten, they dealt w/a new band having to wait for an older act. Inevitably, I found that when I mentioned there were acts older than the favored group in question, the person clammed up.

My point was always this: if you know an act is a first ballot group, why wait to induct them? Look what happened w/Metallica, who were definitely a first ballot case. In a sports Hall of Fame, they don't wait to let in a player who has the definitive credentials. Imagine Michael Jordan having to wait a yr. cause they forgot someone from 1965?! No one in their right mind would propose that (at least I don't think???).

I agree, Chicago should go in. They should be there already. They probably should've made it within at least three to five classes, if not on the first ballot themselves. However, it's not any modern group's fault that the voter's have muffed this. Why punish the more modern group? Let them in - but don't do it on the back of a more modern act that deserves to be there themselves.

Posted by Cheesecrop on Monday, 07.1.13 @ 05:28am


Wow, I had never really heard Chicago's songs (other than those played on the radio) until earlier this year. Who would have known that they would be classified as a "progressive rock" band?

Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 07.11.13 @ 10:04am


IMO, Chicago is a pop band that also has released conventional rock songs as well.

They are definitely not 'progressive rock', as I understand the term.

Posted by Paul in KY on Thursday, 07.11.13 @ 15:17pm


This might work, Roy. I doubt they've ever gotten an email from a creepy Chicago fan. This is probably all that was standing in the way.

Posted by DarinRG on Thursday, 07.18.13 @ 03:01am


This might work, Roy. I doubt they've ever gotten an email from a creepy Chicago fan. This is probably all that was standing in the way.

Posted by DarinRG on Thursday, 07.18.13 @ 03:01am


Roy,

I only have two studio albums by Chicago thus far: "Chicago Transit Authority" and "Chicago." I also own the compilation, "Chicago The Very Best Of: Only The Beginning."

Peter Cetera had sung on quite a few of Chicago's greatest songs written by other individuals, in addition to quite a few of his own great self-penned songs. I do not think that Peter Cetera's pop oriented songs has been detrimental to their nomination, however.

Will "Clear History" have the same effect on Chicago that "I Love You, Man" had for Rush?

Posted by Enigmaticus on Thursday, 08.15.13 @ 02:49am


Roy,

The way that I see it, is that Peter Cetera is for many individuals- the voice of Chicago. After he left the band, Chicago was never the same. In order to get Chicago into the Rock & Roll Hall Of Fame, Peter Cetera will need to be invited back to work with Chicago in the studio. It appears that he really does not want to tour any longer, however a "one off" show recorded for DVD, BluRay that would be televised on VH-1 classic might be just the right thing to convince the nominating committee that Chicago is worthy of induction. Unfortunately "Clear History," however well intentioned, may just not do the trick. If my opinion about this film, at least the portions that i have seen, is similar to other reviewers, it could hurt Chicago.

The members of that major "progressive rock" band, who have recently been inducted, may hold the key. Has anybody ever asked the "holy triumvirate" what they think about Chicago?

Posted by Enigmaticus on Saturday, 08.17.13 @ 10:36am


Roy,

Has anybody ever created a documentary about Chicago (the band), in the same light as "Rush: Beyond The Lighted Stage?"

Has VH-1 Classic featured Chicago in an episode of their "Behind The Music: Remastered" series?

Posted by Enigmaticus on Saturday, 08.17.13 @ 17:54pm


Way over DUE

Posted by Happy on Saturday, 08.17.13 @ 21:54pm


I agree that Chicago should already have been in YEARS ago!

Posted by James on Saturday, 08.17.13 @ 22:06pm


Roy, that is fascinating. I would also like to know, for each member of Chicago:

1. Favorite color;
2. Favorite food; and
3. Age and location where each member lost his virginity.

Posted by Dezmond on Sunday, 09.8.13 @ 23:50pm


Whatttttttt? What do fans need to do to make this happen?

Posted by Bb on Saturday, 09.14.13 @ 20:21pm


How brutal would it be to have Chicago, Bon Jovi and Linda Ronstadt on the ballot? Throw Sonic Youth in there and I'll gag. (God I hate hipster heroes).

In seriousness, I think Chicago is borderline but it's defensible (Fine early career, wretched later career). Bon Jovi is one I would oppose (not enough quality imho), but I could still see the rationale. Ronstadt would be a travesty. Pure cronyism.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 10.15.13 @ 05:49am


On a ballot like that, Sonic Youth would be the one redeeming feature.

Posted by GFW on Tuesday, 10.15.13 @ 13:57pm


Chicago has NOT been nominated!!! LOOOOLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!!!!

Ok. That was a bit premature. Just anticipating the strange sense of satisfaction that will cause me. Not even sure why.

Posted by astrodog on Tuesday, 10.15.13 @ 17:59pm


CHICAGO COULD LESS ABOUT THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME.IT IS JUST A MUSEUM FOR DINOSAURS .AS IN THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY

Posted by greenbay ray on Thursday, 11.21.13 @ 13:57pm


CHICAGO COULD CARE LESS ABOUT THE ROCK AND ROLL HALL OF FAME.IT IS JUST A MUSEUM FOR DINOSAURS.AS IN THE MUSEUM OF NATURAL HISTORY.

Posted by greenbay ray on Thursday, 11.21.13 @ 14:02pm


"museum for dinosaurs"

protip: if your first album was in 1969, there's a 99% chance that you are, in fact, a dinosaur as well.

Posted by GFW on Thursday, 11.21.13 @ 14:33pm


Roy, was on teh internets yesterday & I came across a story in Washington Monthly about famous bad reviews. One of those profiled was a 1972 review by Lester Bangs of a Chicago live Christmas album (that they must have put out as a money maker) that he did for Creem.

Mr. Bangs wrote a scathing review of the band (and that album). You might want to read that (or you might not want to, as he really slagged the band). When I read that review (which reeks of condescending 'rockism'), I think I get a better idea why some of the Hall poohbahs don't want Chicago in their club.

Posted by Paul n KY on Tuesday, 12.3.13 @ 07:43am


You do know that Chicago wasn't nominated this year, right?

Posted by Dezmond on Sunday, 12.15.13 @ 10:05am


I guess the folks voting for bands going in to the Rock and Roll HOF haven't listened to music in the last 45 years. To leave CHICAGO out of the HOF is just plain ridiculous. They've only sold over 100,000,000 record (almost all ROCK AND ROLL).
Why dont you just close down the Rock and Roll HOF because it is not a HOF without CHICAGO. Its a JOKE!!

Posted by Mark on Wednesday, 12.18.13 @ 22:46pm


I am truly shocked that Chicago and the Moody Blues are not in the HOF !! That does not even make sense!

Posted by Danny on Friday, 12.20.13 @ 00:56am


Why?

Posted by Dezmond on Wednesday, 01.1.14 @ 08:22am


Chicago good enough to play at Carnegie hall but not in the HoF... Get real.

Posted by RJA on Wednesday, 02.26.14 @ 22:38pm


My boyfriend & I went to see Chicago at Carnegie Hall. It was a fantastic show. We got married in 1972 and Color My World was played for our First Dance. Chicago has so many fabulous songs, they should already be in the R & R Hall of Fame.
A Fan 4 Ever!

Posted by Eileen on Wednesday, 04.2.14 @ 16:25pm


I noticed, a lot of lesser known artists that opened up for Chicago in the 70s, have already surpassed them and entered the Rock hall. Billy Joel, Allman Brothers Band....


Back in June 1973, when Chicago played in Philadelphia, the audience booed the opening act really really bad. It was a fiasco. Now the act is in the Hall of Fame, whereas Chicago still isn't there.

So who was the unfortunate opening act? Bruce Springsteen!!!!

Posted by Barry on Wednesday, 05.7.14 @ 09:15am


I love Chicago first saw them in 1967. I do miss Peter Cetera but with that said I have started a Facebook page "Put the band Chicago in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. Please like and join.

Posted by Michael Denoyer on Wednesday, 05.21.14 @ 20:15pm



Chicago has some of the best musicians still working. Every concert is sold out and they are always working all over the world. They brought a unique combination of rock, blues, jazz and funk wrapped in a full sound we still enjoy today. Few bands are as deserving.

Get with it and induct them already.

Posted by Sylvie on Monday, 06.2.14 @ 03:57am


the group does not belong in. in high school, they senta dumb kid around telling people what songs to listen to. ive since gotten fair legal use of the dead pal al copyright, ive renamed the group the alfed e neuman band, with al bruckner the devils radio. tunes such as dialouge,qustions 67 and 67, which are guidance counselor material do not need recording,thunder and lightning homosexuals.the al bruckner bysblos kid ive disposed of at the lunch table in high school because of the 4 seasons and tommy roe,except for his homosexual air.my wife pam and i sustained apertinent hypothesis,i do not have to look at him unless in court, or the al prinipal disciplines him.the alfed e neuman band did not need to ask questions, a beginning counselor and therapist asks too many questions.

Posted by john jarvis on Friday, 06.13.14 @ 15:13pm


I agree that it is time for Chicago to be put into the Hall of Fame. Btw, their new album "Now" is going to be one of their best!

Posted by Dennis on Thursday, 06.19.14 @ 16:26pm


THEY ARE POP! AND THEIR GUITARIST SUCKS!!!

Posted by Karl Singleton on Thursday, 07.17.14 @ 23:00pm


Roy, I'm sorry, I know that you're one of their most passionate fans, but they haven't done anything relevant since the 70s, and what they've done since then has hurt their cause. Possibly irreparably. I'm not trying to be a dick, but when it comes to Chicago, you might need to start blaming Chicago.

Posted by DarinRG on Saturday, 08.16.14 @ 00:07am


Roy, who is Mr. Hilburn?

Posted by Paul in KY on Friday, 08.22.14 @ 07:42am


Roy, thank you for the link.

Posted by Paul in KY on Tuesday, 08.26.14 @ 14:21pm


I've always said: Just induct the Terry Kath years & to heck with anyone who got in later.

Posted by Paul in KY on Wednesday, 09.3.14 @ 15:01pm


Alright. I can't believe Chicago aren't in Rock n'Roll Hall of Fame. They were so popular in the 70's. You would think they up Hall's alley. Also their first 3 albums were great contributions to Rock. A couple years ago I was thinking it was because after the mid 70's they were pure Pop. I don't even like their 80's stuff. That would have been a good theory except Abba went in and Hall & Oates went in. They are pure Pop. They were certainly Pure Pop in the 80's. So what gives. Chicago therefore should certainly go in. The fact that they were a Solid Rock outfit early on makes them more worthy than the 2 artists I mentioned above. They certainly have a long career that shouldn't be ignored. No way. Their 70's stuff makes them worthy.

Posted by Ben on Friday, 09.19.14 @ 06:24am


* * * * * * * * * * * * *
To: FRL website monitor
Re: Roy

Help please! The poster "Roy" has effectively spammed up this Chicago page. It is now way beyond question. If you don't believe me, put the following into a search query:

Question: What do you get when you mix the voice of Ray Charles with the voice and the guitar playing of Jimi Hendrix?

How many times was it posted on this page? It is only a snippet of an extremely long "speech" which is posted many (many!) times! Making this page tedium extremis! BTW: I'm a huge fan of Terry Kath (may he r.i.p). Also, I like the open exchange format of the FRL site. However, at least some moderation is needed in this case. The page should be cleaned up and individuals should not hi-jack it. Ironically this mess is a turnoff.
* * * * * * * * * *

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 04:58am


"Question: What do you get when you mix the voice of Ray Charles with the voice and the guitar playing of Jimi Hendrix?"

Answer: I'll tell ya what you get. You get such masterpieces as "You're the Inspiration"! Although you also need to add the composing skills of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the lyrics of Bob Dylan and the melodic sense of Lennon/McCartney. THEN you approach Chicago! "When you love somebody! Always on my mind!" The pinnacle of human achievement in the arts, right there.

Posted by Arturo Fuentes on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 06:17am


Obviously the two commenters before completely disregarded my point. Roy you are only now bent on monopolizing communication, and have made yourself wearisome. Do you really imagine anybody wants to wade thru the yard-long posts which you are likely plagiarizing. I see several other people have indicated likewise with me, it's annoying! Are you nuts? You have made Chicago page a garbage repository!

FRL help!

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 09:16am


You're right, Telarock. It was way out of hand. It has been cleaned up.

Roy -- everything deleted had been posted by you on about eight other websites, so you can find it there.

Posted by FRL on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 09:44am


Mercí beacoup FRL. The thread here is still a mile long but it's navigatable. Now, let's go Chicago! Woohoo! Original 7 members only baby!

Posted by Telarock on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 10:20am


And think about poor folks like myself that sometimes visit FRL on my iPad and iPhone. It can be miserable to have to scroll and scroll. And then scroll some more.

Posted by Mike on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 11:06am


http://futurerocklegends.com/artist.php?artist_id=Chicago#post

The "post your own" comment link at the top of every comment list will get you to the bottom.

Posted by FRL on Wednesday, 10.15.14 @ 13:10pm


Arturo Fuentes do I sense sarcasm? lol
Hey, even Mozart had some less-than-inspiring compositions ... and he was working alone. But then, of course, his good ones were really Good!

Posted by Telarock on Thursday, 10.16.14 @ 05:55am


Perhaps just a tinge of sarcasm. I actually like Chicago, although I'm not a huge fan. I am aware that they are much more than the cheesy 80's period.

Posted by Arturo Fuentes on Thursday, 10.16.14 @ 07:16am


Roy,


An article about Chicago is being featured in the new issue of PROG magazine.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 10.21.14 @ 08:30am


Who is on the cover? Is Chicago mentioned anywhere on the cover?

Posted by Roy on Tuesday, 10.21.14 @ 08:46am


King Crimson is on the cover. Chicago is mentioned on the back cover.

Posted by Enigmaticus on Tuesday, 10.21.14 @ 08:49am


It's a crime that Chicago has been ignored for induction. Their music is a unique fusion of rock and classical(horns) and has been enjoyed by fans all over the world for 45 years. The play to sold out shows everywhere and have been doing so for all those years. Please give them their due. They should have been in the Hall since the late 90's. Seems like someone does not want them there. All of us fans sure want them there. Thanks.

Posted by Roger Peterson on Sunday, 10.26.14 @ 21:24pm


Can and should Peter Cetera be called blue-eyed soul for his vocals?

Lowdown, Old Days, Just You 'N' Me, Feelin' Stronger Everyday, I've Been Searchin' So Long, Wishing You Were Here, If You Leave Me Now, Baby What A Big Surprise, Love Me Tomorrow, Hard To Say I'm Sorry, Hard Habit To Break, You're The Inspiration, Glory Of Love, One Good Woman, Restless Heart.

His bass work was called Beatles-meet-Motown.

Posted by Roy on Monday, 10.27.14 @ 16:27pm


When you consider Rolling Stone and MTV completely control who gets in and who does not there is not surprise Chicago has not been inducted. They have a success record that no other group has had save the Beatles. A previous comment said it best....lack of education on GOOD music on the part of critics and the nomination board is the other reason why they will not let Chicago in. So Mr. Landau.....I challenge you to name one group that is still making music and touring every year that has been around for as long as Chicago has and has had the success they have had. Get off your God Damn high horse and pay some respect to a group who can run circles around any current "talent".

Posted by Raymond O Shanks on Tuesday, 10.28.14 @ 07:11am


Leave your comment:

Name:

Email:

Comments:


Security Question:

Which letter is Springsteen's band named after?
 

Note: Emails will not be visible or used in any way, but are required. Please keep comments relevant to the topic. Any content deemed inappropriate or offensive may be edited and/or deleted. Basically, this sums up our policy.

No HTML code is allowed.




This site is not affiliated with the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and Museum.