Now More Than Ever: The History of Chicago

We can meet in this thread to discuss the movie. I just think that a band with such a great history, so enduring over decades with so many hits and classic albums, deserves to have their history recognized and told honestly. I really think that's what we're going to get, and Peter Pardini has presented it in a very engaging style with interviews, vintage footage, and cinematic recreations with actors.

As RL fans, we all want to understand why his material was marginalized in the 80s. We'll hear his story, and a variety of other perspectives, and come to some closure.  

You need to be a member of Robert Lamm: Official Fan Forum to add comments!

Join Robert Lamm: Official Fan Forum

Email me when people reply –


    • "Listen, if you think I'm here for the money ya could be right ya know "..........
    • I was referring mostly to stuff like "I Don't Wanna Live Without Your Love" which was not written by any band members and has one of the blandest and uninspired whole-note synth-chord openings ever.

      I meant to say in an earlier response that I tend to like 16 and 17, despite how different they were from past Colombia records. Maybe because they were the last to feature Cetera, and by extension the last incarnation of "the original members" other than Terry. Or perhaps because that period has aged well, relative to a lot of 80's stuff, and produced some of their more memorable post-70's hits. Or perhaps because I encountered Chicago during my formative early teen years and first saw them in concert when 17 came out (which makes me biased).

      So when I refer to the "wishy-washy" Chicago sound, it more often refers to the post-Cetera 80's and 90's period - basically 18-21, where it seemed the band (or their producers, at that point Foster took had moved on) were trying to reduplicate both the sound of Cetera's voice, and the string of "depressing love ballads." But to me those Diane Warren songs were never as interesting (as songs or arrangements) of the power ballads written or co-written by the members, like Hard to Say, Love me Tomorrow, You're the Inspiration, and even the non-band penned Hard Habit - which still has a very odd musical bridge I can only imagine was something the band and Foster created after they got their hands on the original sheet music.

      To me they were really milking it beyond 17. The most interesting "move" at that point was when Champlin started getting all the hit lead vocals, taking the focus off of Jeff and his continuation of the "tenor voice" that was supposed to be the lead voice of the band.

      A shame that their subsequent amazing albums Night and Day and Stone of Sisyphus were not more widely heard or appreciated.

    • Why did IV turn people off? 

    • I wasn't old enough to know what the initial reaction was when it was released but it was just sloppy performances from a band everyone was used to hearing perfection from. Great packaging but unfortunately too much quantity and not enough quality. Also not the greatest venue for them sonically and the quality of the recording left a lot to be desired. That being said you can still find some good stuff on those 8 sides
    • Interesting. I think they played well, just the acoustics were off.. hence the famous complaint by Jimmy that the horns sounded like kazoos.

    • It was seen as an excessive over the top self indulgent mess - I like it though I'd hasten to add. From then on the critics hated Chicago and presume RL wrote CC on the back of it.

    • All those inserts are neat. Now people go nuts over them! I have them all, even the voter info. form. 

    • 'Com on Andy - the Scott Muni intro was a classic. You U.K. guys gotta loosen up !

      TK's "In the Country" defiantly a highlight
    • Critics like Lester Bangs and Robert Christgau were functionally illiterate. 

    • the critics didn't like all the clapping and the slow intro ........success speaks for itself and I'm Scott Muni...etc in the UK this all got lost

This reply was deleted.