New Chicago Album Coming July 15, 2022

[downbyariver]

Chicago XXXVIII: Born for This Moment is coming on July 15.

This will be Chicago's first new album of non-Christmas music since 2014's Chicago XXXVI: Now and will be the rock and roll Chicago debut in the studio for a lot of the touring band, though Robert Lamm on keyboards and select lead vocals has been around since the beginning, as have one or two members of the brass section.

Here is the official press release and track listing:

https://chicagotheband.com/js_albums...ble-july-15th/

And the first two singles:

[pianozach]

Interesting tracks.

They lost their way for awhile. They seem to have found some mojo.

[John Vehadija]

Wow, great news!

[downbyariver]

We're only days away now. The official release date is this Friday. Have any reviews from the music press been published yet? I couldn't find any.

[Mr. Holland]

I like the first track. Nice and funky. Second track not so much. Kind of a thirteen in a dozen ballad. I do find that both tracks have very little to do with rock music ("rock and roll" Chicago debut in the studio).

[True]

I really like the bass sound in the first tune - talented players for sure

The second tune sounds a bit like Boys II Men performing a Sitcom opening theme song.

A long way from bold rock meets funk of the Terry Kath days but still some pretty sounds in there

[downbyariver]

If I had a concern, it might be that this is only the second (non-Christmas) studio album since Bill Champlin left, and the first album since Jason Scheff left, and I'm worried that the sound that first Peter Cetera and Champlin and later Scheff and Champlin brought to Chicago in the 1980s and beyond could be missing in action on the new record, potentially.

Obviously, they have people peforming those parts live on the big 80s hit songs, and those same performers will be on the album, but I don't really know whether their writing style (as opposed to just the way they sing and play their instruments on existing songs) is similar to their predecessors or not and, if it is, whether or not they'll be given a significant amount of album space and the latitude to do the type of songs that might have fit on Chicago 17 or not.

I felt like Chicago XXXVI had a lot less of those type of songs than Chicago XXX and Chicago XXXII. It could just be that Champlin was gone and Scheff's voice was changing with age, but I also wonder if part of it was that some of the older band members didn't really seem all that interested in that type of music anymore.

The first guy they brought to do the old Cetera/Scheff vocal parts sounded very good on the 70s stuff where he had lines, but wasn't really good on the 80s ballads (At least on YouTube). It seemed like maybe the hiring proccess put the emphasis on what the band may have cared most about, which may have been different from what I might have cared about the most, and maybe a bit different from what makes the most sense objectively. That guy actually had kind of a country accent. I'm not saying he wasn't talented, he was just an odd pick considering his main job was singing "You're the Inspiration", "Hard for Me to Say I'm Sorry", and "If You Leave Me Now" every night, and his specialty was nailing secondary vocals lines on older songs.

That gentleman then got replaced by another guy (Sort of the 4th in the Cetera line) before a (Non-Xmas) studio album was made (He did wind up on a couple live albums), though, and the new guy does sound better on YouYube doing the 80s material than the third guy did.

So, we'll see if any songs are throwbacks to that 80s era or not. I hope they at least give us 2 or 3 songs like that in the mix.

I wouldn't mind a few rock songs where they really tear it up (By Chicago standards) either.

Still, I'm just excited that Chicago is back with a real non-holiday studio album. I think they'll deliver something worth having whether it has any homages to my favorite era of the band or not. It's not like the other eras of the band weren't good.

It's very exciting to have them back doing a new album regardless.

[soundchaser09]

not very imaginative album titles eh?

[downbyariver]

not very imaginative album titles eh?

Many long-time Chicago fans are really into the numbering thing, which is actually inclusive of some live and compilation albums as well as original studio albums.

The first time Chicago tried to move away from it (Unless you count their debut album, which was titled Chicago Transit Authority, or their second album, which was initially titled Chicago, but was titled Chicago II on some re-releases) was in 1978, when they released Hot Streets. Fans did not react well to Hot Streets for numerous reasons, but the naming thing was seen to be a big enough factor that their next studio album went right back to the numbering scheme (Chicago 13). In retrospect, Hot Streets is considered to be Chicago 12, though it's never been released that way AFAIK.

When next they attempted to divert from the numbering scheme on a studio rock album (Excepting some compilations, holiday albums, an album where they just played "big band" songs, and the like that had titles but were counted as sort of being silently numbered so that the next numbered album would receive a number after what those other things would have had), it was 2008 (They definitely weren't going to do it in 2006, because that one was a nice big round number- XXX). That album kind of had it both ways, with an official title of Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus, in part because it was a slightly modified release of a 1994 album that the band's record company initially rejected, and thus had sort of a mystique surrounding the name in fandom circles like the Beach Boys' Smile album (and had leaked on the Internet in a different form). I am not sure why it originally had a name, but I would imagine the record company had asked for a name in the 90s.

Next was Chicago XXXVI: Now (2014), which I vaguely remember someone in the band basically just describing as an attempt to appeal to modern sensibilities with an album name, without agitating long-time fans who viewed the numbering scheme as part of Chicago's brand.

To be honest, I don't think the upcoming album, Born for This Moment, has a number in any of the press releases, material on the band's site, pre-sale pages on retailers' websites, and so on and so forth, but I'd be surprised if fans and fan reviews didn't informally refer to it as a Chicago XVIII.

I like the numbering thing. I realize it's probably not all that creative, but because Chicago is the only band that does it (At least consistently- some bands like Toto have numbered the occasional album without making a general practice of it), it's sort of calling card for the band. It preserves a sense of continuity, especially as the years pass and the performers change.

[True]

I don't mind the numbering approach. It's pretty easy to follow which ones came before others that way! Better than having to come up with clever titles that all begin and end with the letter "A", for example.

I think the average Chicago fan probably does not know the names of many members. Terry Kath, Peter Cetera, Robert Lamm perhaps. They have had so many members since the 70's I lost track many years ago. I did not even know that Walt Parazaider had left the band until I looked up the current members today.

I read Danny Seraphin's book a few years ago. He shared some great insights on how their classic recordings came together. I remeber his comments on how he felt bad that the band all treated Donnie Dacus very badly - they were angry that Donnie was not Terry Kath and they made him feel like an outsider. Then some detail on the shift toward ballads and chart success and the problems it caused when Certera became the main member and received an outsized share of the publishing $$. I felt very bad for Seraphine when I read it, it was hard for me to figure why the band didn't want to work with him. But then I saw his speech at the R&R HoF and he was not very tasteful when sharing his sentiments, and I kept thinking "the band must be so glad to be rid of him"!

[downbyariver]

I felt very bad for Seraphine when I read it, it was hard for me to figure why the band didn't want to work with him.

For what it's worth, the story I heard is that the band was touring Europe and Danny was getting up early every day to spend the entire time seeing the sights with his romantic partner. When it came time to play the concerts in the evening, he was thus extremely tired and turned in some really bad performances. I think there was a tour stop in England that was so bad, and got such a bad review in a newspaper, that the band felt they had to stay away from that whole market for a while.

The band told him to knock it off and rest during the day. He said, essentially, it was his own time to do what he wanted with, and kept doing it. Eventually two of the younger guys (At the time, in the early 90s) got the rest of the band together and basically said "He goes or we go", because they felt like he was really damaging their ability to perform quality music and, as the younger guys, it was going to be seen to reflect really badly on them (As opposed to the longer standing musicians who already had what for some people would be considered full musical careers in the rearview mirror with reputations that would be harder to permanently damage) and that this wasn't what they wanted to spend their primes doing if the rest of the band wasn't going to be serious about putting on a good show every night.

The rest of the band agreed with the two younger guys and fired him.

I'm sure there's another side to that story. That's just the side I heard.

[OB1kenOB]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfhj4OMsQE

From "Clear History".
Chicago is a pretty big band!

[True]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VPfhj4OMsQE
From "Clear History".
Chicago is a pretty big band!

That's so funny. I had seen that film when it came out and often think about it when I hear Chicago music.

[pianozach]

[edit]

When next they attempted to divert from the numbering scheme on a studio rock album (Excepting some compilations, holiday albums, an album where they just played "big band" songs, and the like that had titles but were counted as sort of being silently numbered so that the next numbered album would receive a number after what those other things would have had), it was 2008 (They definitely weren't going to do it in 2006, because that one was a nice big round number- XXX). That album kind of had it both ways, with an official title of Chicago XXXII: Stone of Sisyphus, in part because it was a slightly modified release of a 1994 album that the band's record company initially rejected, and thus had sort of a mystique surrounding the name in fandom circles like the Beach Boys' Smile album (and had leaked on the Internet in a different form). I am not sure why it originally had a name, but I would imagine the record company had asked for a name in the 90s.

[edit]

I like the numbering thing. I realize it's probably not all that creative, but because Chicago is the only band that does it (At least consistently- some bands like Toto have numbered the occasional album without making a general practice of it), it's sort of calling card for the band. It preserves a sense of continuity, especially as the years pass and the performers change.

Stone of Sisyphus actually had a specific assigned release date, March 22, 1994, which would have made it their 22nd album, or Chicago XXII, which would have, if released when scheduled, chronologically placed it right after Chicago Twenty 1.

When it was unexpectedly rejected as an album by their record label, they fired Dawayne Bailey as their guitarist, and recorded their Night and Day Big Band album instead: Bruce Gaitsch played guitar on that album, but the guitarist spot was filled with Keith Howland almost immediately after that, a spot he kept for 26 years. Strangely enough, Gaitsch has a guitar credit on Sisyphus.

When Stone of Sisyphus was finally released in 2008 as Chicago XXXII, it was curiously missing one of the songs, "Get on This" (written by Dawayne Bailey, James Pankow, and Walter Parazaider's daughter Felicia, whom Bailey had been dating at the time), was not included. No reason for this omission was given by Chicago or Rhino Records.

😳

I recall that Mannheim Steamroller used numbers for their first eight albums, naming them Fresh Aire I - VIII.

[pianozach]

. . . .I felt very bad for Seraphine when I read it, it was hard for me to figure why the band didn't want to work with him. But then I saw his speech at the R&R HoF and he was not very tasteful when sharing his sentiments, and I kept thinking "the band must be so glad to be rid of him"!

There's never been an 'official' justification, but there's been plenty of non-official explanations, the most believable of which (IMO) is that he was let go for "showing too much interest in the business end of things".

I think it's likely that he discovered that he was getting short-changed in the Paycheck department, and was asking too many questions, and making a stink about it. It's also possible he didn't like how the band's investments were being handled.

The band had already discovered that the loss of a founding member wasn't the end of the world; they managed to carry on without Kath, (and eventually Cetera), so . . . . Seraphine was fired.

Of course, drummers of bands often get shortchanged when it comes to royalties, as they usually don't get a lot of writing credits on their albums.

But it may have gone even beyond that. There are plenty of stories of members of some bands getting a larger share than others, with drummers often unknowingly getting a thinner slice of the pie.

Seraphine usually wouldn't go into details about why he was fired. "It's complicated", he'd say. Sure, part of it had to do with the direction of the band, but, “it was more of a power play with other people taking over the band,” he said. “It happens when there is good money and power and politics.”

Independent bassist Robert Gylling put it this way:

Kath’s death was indeed a final blow, but substance abuse had degraded the writing terribly a few albums before. Nothing against him, but when Cetera stepped up as the face and voice of Chicago, the band lost its real mojo forever. There were issues and differing opinions with their new softer sound, business management, and even existential questions about the direction they needed to take to remain relevant. Most were consuming prodigious amounts of recreational drugs on top of everything else.

Ultimately, the brotherhood started to crack, and when Kath passed, the band played on, but not all were happy. Seraphine saw himself as the guy to put things back business wise, which other members resented, and he soon became a target and later sank into a prolonged depression, fueled by deeper substance abuse. He “quit” a couple of times and in his absence the band started using drum machines in the studio, a technology he, and many fine drummers, hated. By this time much of the new material was written by outsiders and horns were rarely featured. When Seraphine returned, he was not healthy and never really came back to form and the other players decided he had to go. His playing post-Chicago has been the Seraphine of old, and it’s a pleasure to hear him again. He is still a phenom.

Yeah, well, it's true. Drum machines don't talk back. But Seraphine actually embraced the new "thing" of drum programming, although reluctantly. He figured if that was what it was all coming to, better to have a drummer programming than some other musician.

And, yes, drug use has broken up many successful bands.

But, in a 1994 interview, Peter Cetera told the interviewer that Seraphine had been fired because he "no longer fit in with the stage presentation". But that sounds more like Cetera didn't really have a decent explanation so just bullsh*tted an answer. Or, perhaps, that was the "official" explanation.

But there's yet another explanation, one that Seraphine admits in his 2010 book Street Player: A Chicago Story: He was fired for beating the crap out of a close associate of the band, and for generally being a loose cannon.

There's also the story told earlier in the thread by Downbytheriver, that he was playing poorly on tour, and the two younger members gave an "it's him or us" ultimatum.

Often this sort of threat gets you fired, unless it's a "last straw" sort of thing. Really, there's nothing like having a bad attitude to turn the tide against you.