Why Isn't Chicago (the band) Considered Prog?

Sean Trane wrote: Atavachron wrote: tszirmay wrote: I saw them twice in Montreal once in the late 70s and then in the early 80s and both times, they were just plain terrible. Pop played by numbers, no flair, no excitement, barely any soloing (except for Seraphine doing a decent drum spotlight), truly nothing prog at all, not even fusion . They even forgot what city they were playing by stating "Hello Toronto"! Not a good idea in Montreal . Both concerts barely reached the hour mark, including only one encore. I went twice because I thought the first one was a glitch. It was a photocopy . One great debut album does not cut it for me. Kath was Chicago, as far as many proggers are concerned. Sounds like Pink Floyd circa '87/88, AMLoR tours I like the analogy (crappy Chicago era vs weakest Floyd era), but we got lucky when we saw Floyd on that tour, as they'd rehearsed three weeks in Toronto (in an airport plane shed), and then started with three shows at the CNE (I was there on two different evenings), so it was still quite fresh and energy-filled. Phil Collins did the opposite ("Bonsoir Montreal" in Toronto) in the very late 70's/early 80's and got booed as well - and Genesis were buying hockey shirt when playing in the arenas. of course, the endless mega-tours could be harrowing and numbing halfway through.

In the 70s Billy Cobham released a few albums that featured horn charting /horn arrangements.. One being Crosswinds and the other A Funky Thide Of Sings. When I first heard these albums they reminded me of an instrumental Chicago.
Chicago were known to be unpredictable as a Pop band. "The Devil's Sweet" was odd to be on an album with hits. It was reminiscent of Soft Machine.


The original line up of Chicago could have definitely pulled off the following instrumentals: "Panhandler", "Sorcery", "A Funky Thide Of Sings", "Some Skunk Funk","The Pleasant Pheasant ", "Spanish Moss- A Sound Portrait ", ..I have no doubt if Chicago rehearsed this material for a few weeks they'd nail it.

Edited by Jacob Schoolcraft - April 16 2022 at 12:05

Hi,

Chicago isn’t a prog band at all, it’s barely a fusion band, it’s a pop band pure and simple, at least to my ears.

Edited by Cinema - April 15 2022 at 15:23

A degree of their style was stylistically based off elements in Soul Music. ...things like the Funk groove in a James Brown song ...which is evident in certain songs they wrote on the early albums.


James Pankow was a phenomenal arranger. He was no joke and his abilities were astonishing. They were all skilled players , however what they were playing..I mean the end result or impression it left on people when they listened to C.T.A. or Chicago II..was not what the youth defined as Progressive Rock.

People often referenced The Nice or King Crimson as Progressive Rock. Chicago's music is Progressive in the sense that it's Progressive playing. The song "Introduction " is a fine example of how progressive they can be. Some of the breaks in that song are intimidating.. 😃 First try finding a drummer that can play it with the same "feel". The song is really difficult to pull off when you play it for a living and you have an off night.

I can't recall one person between 69" and 72' referring to Chicago as Progressive Rock. It's always a possibility considering the times that people generally referred to Chicago as as Pop Music based on the band having a few hits. Especially back then when a snob attitude about any style of Rock felt like judgment day for the artist playing the music.


Chicago were skilled musicians not unlike musicians that played with Frank Zappa. Chicago could have played "Inca Roads" . If they had rehearsed it they could have played it no doubt..but as a band they were rarely recognized as Progressive Rock. They were mostly thought to be a "Horn Band" which is mainly a specific description than a title. People in the 60s and early 70s were generally impressed with Blood, Sweat, & Tears, Electric Flag, and Lighthouse but they often referenced them as "Horn Bands" So people often said..."You've got to hear this new group Chicago!!" "They are the best "Horn Band" to date." This sort of reaction is what you would get.

Hercules wrote: Chicago are not prog in any way.

I saw them twice in Montreal once in the late 70s and then in the early 80s and both times, they were just plain terrible. Pop played by numbers, no flair, no excitement, barely any soloing (except for Seraphine doing a decent drum spotlight), truly nothing prog at all, not even fusion . They even forgot what city they were playing by stating "Hello Toronto"! Not a good idea in Montreal . Both concerts barely reached the hour mark, including only one encore. I went twice because I thought the first one was a glitch. It was a photocopy . One great debut album does not cut it for me. Kath was Chicago, as far as many proggers are concerned.

Edited by tszirmay - April 14 2022 at 14:42

MortSahlFan wrote: Sure, they're on here, but this is THE place --- the PROG archives. But they're never talked about. But I imagine there's hundreds of Genesis conversations, who also are known for their singles, too. And yeah, bands change, but it doesn't remove those first few albums "prog credibility". And it was 1969 when their debut was out... To piggyback on what Moshkito was saying, in any artistic field, the first who do something seem to have to take the hits while they're knocking the doors down to give artists that come after them precedent. Unfortunately, too many in the avant-garde talking circles (which is what many do - talk more than work) think anything weird or indescribable "could sell and make millions of dollars!"

AFlowerKingCrimson wrote: BrufordFreak wrote: I'm not sure I understand the opening question: Chicago has a place here in the PA database--under Jazz-Rock/Fusion.  Personally, I only considered their first two albums as progressive rock, though elements of prog sounds and stylings pervaded lots of other songs of theirs.  P.S. Terry Kath didn't mean to leave the band, he left the planet: accidentally shot himself while cleaning his guns in January of 1978. (Not a suicide.) Those present at the incident were totally shocked because Terry was such a careful master of his weapons collection.     I could be wrong but I believe there was only one other person he was showing his guns to (possibly a roadie or guitar tech but I'm not entirely sure -I'd have to look it up again). Apparently, the guy he was with told him to be careful and Terry said something like "don't worry, it's not loaded. See.." and pointed the gun to his head and that was it. One of the biggest tragedies in all of rock imo. Even with what he did do on the guitar up to the point of his death he should still be ranked up there with Clapton, Hendrix, Page, etc but unfortunately he usually isn't. To prove that point I saw this poster today while walking around in the mall (I don't remember which store exactly) and Terry Kath is nowhere to be found. https://www.ebay.com/itm/333699168102

Necrotica wrote: Atavachron wrote: Not to belabor it, but as an example, when Heavy Prog was in its infancy we had to decide if Journey should be included in the PA database as a prog rock band, and if so whether they should be considered HP.   We concluded that though Journey had released several albums that contained some progressive rock and rock-fusion material, they had never released an album that could be considered a prog rock release.   So we rejected them and Admin voted them into Prog Related. That's kinda wild to me. I'm curious as why they were considered for heavy prog, when the jazz fusion category seems so much more applicable to their early work  Also, while I'm satisfied with Journey being prog-related because of their overall discog, I do think their debut is a full-on prog record