Not all mainstream bands are the sum of their hits
It is understood, or should be, that this space is generally dedicated to local and regional acts. That is its raison d'être after all. Still, once in a great while, it serves a purpose to take a different approach and discuss a more traditional, established mainstream act.
So, when I checked my mailbox at work and saw that I had received an advance copy of Rhino Record’s newly remastered Chicago II album, I gave it some serious consideration and decided that yes, there is a good reason to talk about it, particularly in the interest of making a much larger point.
In the first place, if you are a fan of Chicago, there’s nothing much I can tell you that you don’t already know except to say that the remastered tracks add a fresh, crisp take on the classic recordings. In other words, there is a worthwhile difference and fans ought to be delighted.
If you aren’t a fan of Chicago, well, maybe it’s worth a second listen. There is a truism in music that is easily recognized but often forgotten which states that what makes it to the airwaves is often not the best representation of who a band is or what it does.
Thom Yorke has a particularly vocal opinion on that matter regarding the song “Creep.” For a lot of folks (and I know “true” Radiohead fans are already rolling their eyes) “Creep” is that one Radiohead song they know, and their impression of the band is based solely on that genuinely non-representative work.
Jethro Tull has been one of my personal favorites for three decades, a love affair sparked by an album that produced no radio hits whatsoever. On the other hand, if your impression of the band is derived solely from their radio hits you have, at best, a fundamentally skewed idea of what the band is really like.
And so we come to Chicago, a band whose chart success is undeniable, a perennial favorite of classic rock stations, a monster touring act, and yet…my own experience with Chicago was limited almost entirely to my tenure as a jockey at a classic rock station, and it colored my impression of the band in predictable fashion.
In reviewing the remastered Chicago II I have been reminded of the point I am trying to illustrate here, that while radio chart success may certainly enhance the bank account of a group, it too often belies the band’s depth. I had no idea that Chicago, particularly some of their earlier work, had such a strong foundation in R&B, blues and jazz.
Put simply, an opportunity to delve further in to the catalog of the band has given me an appreciation I just didn’t have beforehand.
So, again, if you’re already a fan of the band, the message is straightforward and uncomplicated. Buy the album, you’ll love it. It’s everything you already like and then some, remastered to give it a sound that’s worth spending money on a second or third time.
The more important point is that if your experience with the band is limited, if your opinion is derived from what is essentially an out-of-context snapshot of those tunes that always seem to be playing when you’re cruising the dial, there is quite a bit you’ve missed and it’s quite likely that you will find a new-found love and appreciation of a group that has been consistently recording and touring for fifty years.
Check them out next Wednesday at the Tivoli Theater, and find out for yourself if the 2018 version of the well-traveled band lives up to their seminal roots.