A few weeks ago, I read this interview (by Debbie Kruger) with Robert Lamm and James Pankow. This was after they were rich, by the way. But one of them said, "We still haven't made the album we want, or the concert we want" and when she asked why, someone replied, "The suits".

What is the point of making money if you can't do what you want?? Speaking of those two, I read in a book that Pankow told Lamm, "Every time you wanna be artistic, we lose money!" .. I'm sure Jimmy is scrounging for rent! Especially as these guys are nearing 80. They're the only band to play every single year for 56 years straight, but they can't do the show they want? The whole "The fans came to hear the hits" even though everyone I ask want to hear the non-hits. It takes time to cultivate an audience, so when fans hear something truly different, they aren't going to be cheering or screaming, and instead, listening and taking it all in. And I listened to Chicago VII concerts and the fans cheered like hell even when they played the first 30 minutes of that album (all instrumentals).

I just can't imagine a band losing so much money because they played a few songs they don't play every single night. I just find it condescending to constantly hear, "Well, you and me are sophisticated enough to hear that, but it won't play in the Midwest" or constantly being the arbiters of taste when they're proven wrong over and over. I don't know why cable doesn't become more experimental ala FM in the 1960s to AM radio.

Grumpyprogfan wrote: Plenty of bands/artists have controlled their destiny. Zappa, Rush, Allan Holdsworth, Pat Metheny, French TV, etc. Those that let the "suits" control their path, well that was their choice.

I notice the names you mentioned are all kinda proggy and wonder if it's because a low investment means they can take more chances considering the financial return.

I also think those in prog are more independent, too. Pink Floyd is probably the most popular prog-rock group and their 70s stuff is great and if many people love it, I look at is as a triumph for great taste.

I suspect 'The Suits' is more of a thing in America especially with the rise of 'Corporate Rock' in the seventies most usually subscribed to say a band like Boston but even they spent 6 years recording one of their albums. If that wasn't what they wanted then I do wonder why they bothered at all!

Good points!

Do you think the UK doesn't have to deal with so much because it's not so close to Hollywood (not investing as much). Most of my favorite bands are from that tiny island, and Kate Bush hiring her brother turned out to be a good idea, although a lot of family is ruined because of business.

Is it just me, or when I listen to Kate Bush, I have no idea which album it's in, and what else is on it, which I like. It's funny, critics either say "It lacks cohesion" if its diverse, or "It's not diverse enough".