Dancing About Architecture

Were the 80's the last truly good decade for music on the radio?

Being a child of the 70's and 80's, I managed to notice this thing called music from an early age.
While I wasn't engaged in collecting anything until I was around 12, the earlier years were full of strange and wonderful sounds.

I still can remember some dark memory of an evening at home with the lights down and the stereo playing and the song was "Kiss You All Over" by Exile. The swirling background sounds, the deep sultry singing. Seemed strange to a kid who was old enough to understand what a kiss was but not old enough to want to kiss ANYONE all over!
The as I got older those sounds of Dancing Queen, Kiss You All Over, Hey Jude, and some song about a Park on Saturday became this mix of even more unusual sounds, but I started to like these!

I was hearing the Stalker song known as "Every Move You Make" by the Police. Songs by Toto, .38 Special, Huey Lewis, Air Supply and on and on. Yes it appeared I had been hit by the 80's ballad bug. But not just that. I found myself liking songs from Yes, Bon Jovi, The Jets, Blondie, the Eurythmics, Men at Work, Level 42, Metallica, even Aretha Franklin!

It wasn't until late in the 90's that it hit me, I wasn't listening to the radio anymore. Why? it all sounded kind of the same. Lots of rock and Hip hop but not much else. I had realized that one reason I had such a diverse musical taste was that in the 80's they actually played all kinds of stuff on the radio. I heard everything from love ballads to jazz tunes (like Herbie Hancock's "Rockit") even instrumentals like Chariots of Fire and Axel F. I cannot think of one radio played instrumental song since the 90's started. Can you!?

I don't mean on specialized stations, like the classical station. But on standard pop radio. In the 80's you could hear just about everything I have listed on the same station (obviously not all in the same year)

I honestly feel that CD sales went down because our exposure to different musical styles was taken away. the format changed into things being alike and less taking risks and being diverse. That is what made my growing up years just that more fun. The diversity of music where I could hear new songs by an old artist on the same station as a new song by a new artist. It would go from Rock to funk to ballad to new wave to rap to instrumental all on the same station.

So this is why I believe the 80's to be the last good decade for radio and consequently why older artists no longer had the impact they had carried up until the 90's. Also music sales began to fall in thr early 90's and only rebounded around 2000 when Napster was in full swing. Why would Napster have caused that? well, once again, you had access to every type of music at your disposal and they found in studies that people would find an old track on there and go to find the CD. Despite what the RIAA claimed, they actually increased sales not decreased and since Napster it has been down and stayed down. (I believe iTunes sales brought it back up some)

Do you long for the days when artists you never heard of were all over the airwaves? I do.

I think the 80's was a great decade for music. Good thing, since I was a child of the 80's. But really, who can forget zipping around the skating rink every Friday night to "Mr. Roboto", or "Take on Me".  And the videos! Thank God for You Tube. Of course, it's not the same as sitting in front of MTV for hours on end, hoping to catch that Dire Straits video, but it's better than nothing.

And I think you're absolutely right about the radio stations. Back then, the same station would play anything from Air Supply to Aerosmith (except Country). So we were exposed to more, and tended to listen outside our boxes. Then everything was cut up and compartmentalized (is that even a word); and then came the MP3 and Ipod, and who the heck needs FM anymore? I listen to my MP3, I listen to AM, and that's it. Maybe I'm just out of touch with the Now, but I really don't think there's anything on the FM dial I care to hear. These days, it's nothing but traffic reports, weather sensationalizm, celebrity updates, screaming appliance sale commercials, and the occasional whine fest song.

So I don't exactly long for the days artist I never heard of are on the stations, because they are. What I miss is hearing something I'd never heard, liking it, wondering who sang it, and wanting to hear it again. And going into Camelot or Musicland or wherever and reciting a few lines to a long haired, almond eyed, ear pierced, gender questionable person, who could promptly take me right to the album or cassette I was after; and then, if the price was right, I'd have discovered a whole bunch of new songs I liked but never would have heard of.

Me, too. I also miss connecting a song to a certain time and place. Nowadays, I hear songs on my iPod or on Youtube, but in the 70s and 80s you'd hear a song all summer, or every time you went to the local pizza place, or you'd remember a friend who played it all the time in the car.

Thank MTV.

They made the early 80s an interesting time for music, but by the late 80s, radio became nothing but rap, techno-pop, dance music and hair band rock.

When grunge came in 1990, I was completely disinterested in new rock music.

80's Flashback! You reminded me of going out to eat with my family at Pizza Makers- Dad would give us each a couple quarters for video games, and I always used one of mine in the juke box. 2 songs for a quarter- I'd just play Glory of Love twice.

And that reminds me when some friends got me to start roller skating with them I would have the disc Jockey play Hard Habit to Break every time I went there, he seemed quite annoyed after awhile but he did it anyway, it was after all a perfect "slow-skate" song.

As you can guess, this was right about the time I was about to make my first non 45, full album purchase "17", the rest is history (actually quite literally as the original lineups music was unknown to me at that time)

I find it funny Packercracker said
"So I don't exactly long for the days artist I never heard of are on the stations, because they are. What I miss is hearing something I'd never heard, liking it, wondering who sang it, and wanting to hear it again."

Which was what I was trying to say. I know even the 70's radio played more variety, but my memory of then isn't so strong due to being a smaller kid and not really paying much attention to things like variety. It just seems that in the 80's the variety was there in such a degree that the 90's became significantly noticeable how much they reduced that.

Also Packer, you said that the same station would play everything from "Air Supply to Aerosmith (except Country)" however I think you might be forgetting that these stations would also play songs like, Kenny and Dolly's "Islands In The Stream", Ronnie Milsap's "Lost in the Fifties Tonight", Alabama's "40 Hour Week (For a Livin')" and "Deep River Woman" w/Lionel Ritchie, Eddie Rabbit "Drivin My Life Away" and "I Love A Rainy Night" as well as others.

So yeah, you could find just about every type of music on the dial and many on the same station! I noticed as well in the 90's (in our area at least), that the stations as a whole began to tighten their focus with one even editing the "rap" portions of Sugar Ray's "Fly" out of the song to fit their no "No rap ever" format (something they had to eventually drop to play anything new)

The biggest thing for me was because of this diversity there were a ton of one hit wonders, you must admit that there are quite a few groups from then you'd be very unhappy to have missed that big single of theirs yet you never heard them again, or what came later just wasn't that good. Now it seems more like you can only get on the radio if you sound like most everyone else virtually guaranteeing you will be around for awhile. Which is why I think most R&B-Rap and Rock sounds so mush the same. Listen to "Halo" by Beyonce and "Already Gone" by Kelly Clarkson. I can never tell which one is which cause to me they sound virtually identical until the words begin.

When I hear the lyrics to the Black Eye'd Pea's " I got a Feeling" and heard how they basically filled in the lyrics with everything but the kitchen sink, I realized even though 80's songs sometimes had bizarre lyrics (heck many songs in many decades) this song has to be a new low in terms of just saying words to complete the rhyme. And it seems like the song is a hit!

Here's an 80s flashback to the dance clubs (and the days of 12" singles):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cJs1lJzFW0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWtkuyrMPjc

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSGvqjVHik8

To me the 80s were the worst decade in the history of recorded music!

Graduating high school in 1979, my formative junior high (remember when we still had those?) and high school years were spent listening to 70’s FM radio (Seger, Skynyrd, Eagles, Earth Wind & Fire, Boston, Kansas, Doors, Journey [when Greg Rolie was in the band],Boz Scaggs, Kenny Loggins) … buy my college years in the early 80’s were just as great for me … discovering the music of Bill Champlin, David Foster, Jay Graydon, and Steve Lukather and the rest of the guys from Toto –all as a result of Bill Champlin  joining the band CHICAGO ®  … discovering and going back to find the Bill co-wrote AFTER THE LOVE IS GONE with Graydon & Foster and TURN YOUR LOVE AROUND with Graydon & Lukather … and finding out that Lukather & Foster & Champlin were all over albums like Boz Scaggs’ MIDDLE MAN and Graydon & Champlin were helping Benson and Al Jarreau make songs like NEVER GIVE UPON A GOOD THING & ROOF GARDEN … and that Lukather & Foster were co-writing songs like BREAKDOWN DEAD AHEAD with Scaggs and TALK TO YA LATER with The Tubes (and they would later go on to co-write maybe my all-time favorite rock n’ roll song ever- The Tubes SHE’S A BEAUTY)…in my mind 1982 was just about my favorite year for music … catching up on LP’s  from ’80 and ’81 that Champlin, Foster & Graydon and the rest of this bunch of musicians had produced  and/or helped release (stuff like MIDDLE MAN, THE COMPLETION BACKWARD PRINCIPLE, Jarreau’s BREAKIN’ AWAY, Champlin’s RUNAWAY, Lee Ritenour’s RIT) …and then in ’82 comes the release of CHICAGO’s 16, TOTO’s IV, Don Henley’s I CAN’T STAND STILL, Kenny Loggin’s HIGH ADVENTURE, Michael McDonald’s IF THAT’S WHAT IT TAKES, Glen Frey’s NO FUN ALOUD (with Champlin helping on backing vocals on the song “I VOLUNTEER”) … the Henley & Loggins LP’s in particular having some of my favorite guitar tracks from the era – songs like “YOU BETTER HANG UP” and “SWEAR YOU LOVE” were right up my alley as far as what a great rock n’ roll song should sound like …   that year we also had Crosby, Stills & Nash release  DAYLIGHT AGAIN, Bob Seger released THE DISTANCE – and Nicolette Larson (one of my favorite female vocalists) released her fourth LP – ALL DRESSED UP AND NO PLACE TO GO (which had a version of Lowell George’s TWO TRAINS – along with Champlin, George is one of musical heroes)  … and you had John Cougar’s AMERICAN FOOL LP…  and one of my college buddies [the same one who turned me on to The Doors in high school] turned me on to Peter Gabriel’s song SHOCK THE MONKEY … And there was my all-time favorite Paul Carrack song – I NEED YOU (which IMO -along with TEMPTED by Squeeze - are two of the coolest pop songs ever recorded –anytime, anywhere )   

And just a little after this in 1983 we got hear the Jay Graydon-produced JARREAU (with TROUBLE IN PARADISE & BOOGIE DOWN among others) and The Tubes OUTSIDE  INSIDE (with SHE’S  A BEAUTY, TIP OF MY TONGUE – which had the help of E, W & Fire’s Maurice White, and their version of THE MONKEY TIME –which had the help of Martha Davis on vocals),and Russ Taff’s WALLS OF GLASS (with the help of Bill Champlin on some of the tracks’ backing vocals) … and even Prince’s 1999 LP (which along with my love of the song The Tubes SHE’S A BEAUTY, I also think that Prince’s “LITTLE RED CORVETTE” is one of the best pop songs IMO ever recorded)  … and ZZ TOP’s ELIMINATOR (with the triumvirate of “Legs”, “Sharp Dressed Man” & “Gimme All Your Lovin”) ... And there was my all-time favorite Lindsay Buckingham song – HOLIDAY ROAD –that was on the National Lampoon VACATION Soundtrack   

… and so for me, 1981 -1982 -1983 - this was all a great time to be a fan of the WEST COAST STYLE of pop/rock/R &B that Lukather, Champlin, Foster& Graydon were popularizing  … and to hear a rejuvenated CHICAGO ® was cool … and getting to hear members of The Eagles either putting out their own solo material, or helping others like Seger & C,S & N make music –this was all ”good” for me

BUT HAVING SAID ALL OF THIS ABOUT WHAT I LIKED ABOUT THE EARLY half of the decade’s music (i.e., my college years) … I honestly did not like the use of electronics and the drum machine that predominated a lot of the pop music of the decade … not all of it was terrible … some of my favorite female vocalists of the time – MARTHA DAVIS of The Motels & PATTY SMYTHE of Scandal -  were in bands making that style of music… but I can’t say that I enjoyed the trend in music  that a lot of the European pop bands were making at the time       

HOLIDAY ROAD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9M4iLZCAKBI    

SWEAR YOUR LOVE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4diK2tP4vk&feature=PlayList&p=5AD2C19583073CB3&playnext_from=PL&playnext=1&index=36

SHE'S A BEAUTY  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1T45PClSTU

GOODBYE ELENORE (Toto)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uj-AXbWrsk

I NEEED YOU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7T8c23eBuMo

Instrumental hits: did Kenny G have any in the 1990s?  I know he racked up a ton in the 1980s...but most of his big hits from the 1990s were with vocalists, a method pianist Jim Brickman has used to great effect commercially.

There was much more diversity in the 1980s as to what was played on the radio.  I get a kick out of the '80s Pop channel at Xsport when I'm on the treadmill or aerobic stepper and am astounded as to the variety of music that was "pop" back then.  Now it's either Rap, soundalike bands like Nickelback and their endless imitators, Madonna wanna-bes like Lady Gaga (who seems to own the pop world at this moment), Beyonce's Soul Diva act with annoying song hooks or Katie Perry/Colbie Calliet types who get by on their looks.

After two years in a rock cover band grinding out 3-chord "modern adult alternative" tunes like Matchbox 20 and the like, I'm glad to be back playing jazz for a smaller, sober, more fun and more appreciative audience.

Worse than the 90s?

Not initially... the early 80s brought out a second British invasion which provided a lot more diversity on air than the late 70s.

I would agree as the 80s wore on and the music evolved into more drum machines and keyboards, sampling, rap, dance and hair band rock, the music got progressively worse.

But the same could be said of the disco era of the late 70s -and I like a lot of disco.

The 80s was just as hit or miss as any other decade, imho.  I think the biggest problem with the 80s was the new technology.  Initially all the producers and what not went tech crazy they wanted to do all the MIDI sequencing and drum programming they possibly could in order to take full advantage of all these wonderful (then) new techologies.  It was sort of their way of padding their resumes (well look what "I" can do with a MIDI sequencer and drum machine!).  The listening public inevitably revolted against this trend and thus the music moved away from that over-synthesized/computer happy sound and back to a more organic and less electronic sound. 

I think with the advent of ProTools in the last decade (the 'aughts/'00s) there was a bit of a resurgence of this ugly trend but I'm hoping that it has passed or that it's about to pass/has started to wane.

Yes, the synthesizer ruined the decade, especially the first half.  I'll post some great 80s stuff when I have more time

As I've mentioned before, I pretty much quit listening to the radio around 1985. "current" radio, anyway, it was the beginning of "classic rock" stations, which I enjoyed.

I'll argue the point about synthesizers necessarily being "bad", it all depends on what they were used for. When used as an instrument in its own right, I like them (love electronica). Two examples, one obscure to most, the other popular:

Vulcan Worlds from my #5 all time favorite album (an acquired taste, I admit) :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPv5P-G4tQ&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8WPv5P-G4tQ&feature=related)

And one I'm sure we all remember:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arUqoKjU3D4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arUqoKjU3D4)

When synthesizers are used as a replacement for strings or drums or piano  or any other instrument, it makes me cringe. Another thing that bugged me no end, was how most of the songs (including Chicago's) had that damn "beat" that sounded like a funeral dirge, always with the final WHOMP on the beat. I was always mystified that if it was programmable, why was everyone using the same one?

Here's something a little more accessible from Where Have I Known You Before?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85lmecrHduQ&feature=related (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85lmecrHduQ&feature=related)

Pegs, You're exactly right.  When it was used as another instrument it could be fine.  When it replaced a bnd the songs sounded so stiff and robotic.  I love how the synth was used on Van Halen's "Jump."  That's an example of the former.     

That's a great example of the musical use of a synthesizer!  Too often as the 80s wore on, they were used as replacements for horn sections (and sounded pretty cheezy in both live and studio settings) and bass guitars.  Lord have mercy, how I LOATHE synthesizer bass (and drums while we're at it, with a special hatred for "cannon shot" snare drums!).  If a tune has those elements, it's really gotta have something else to hold my interest, because I'm immediately turned off by that stuff.

Sade, an artist whose early work I really admire, used a lot of drum machines on the early recordings, but at least there was some tasty fretted and fretless electric bass, percussion, keys, guitar and expecially sax work to hold one's interest (note my screen name, LOL!).

A lot of producers starting using those as cheaper alternatives to hired guns/studio muscians... and there was a control aspect that they had with electronics that they didn't have with studio musicians.

The problem was it became the "sound" by the mid-80s because of overuse...

Then, as dance music became popular, remixes began to feature all of the tricks as a way to extend a 3 min song in 15 minutes (i.e. the remix of "Dancing In The Dark" by Bruce Springsteen):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAcLVcfcPrA

Speaking of 80s dance remixes there's also an 8+ minute dance remix of Level 42's Something About You and the dance remix of Chicago's Along Comes a Woman stretched the song from about 4 minutes to almost 6 minutes.

I remember those dance mixes!  How funny to think about them now!  Santana had a very minor dance hit in 1985 with a tune called "Say It Again," from their "Beyond Appearances" album.  Anyway, the dance mix extended the song from about 3 minutes to perhaps 7 IIRC, featuring a long percussion break which sounded like something from the Woodstock era Santana (a GOOD thing).  The funny thing was, the break was grafted on by a bunch of studio musicians.  I always thought that was odd, not unlike Chicago bringing in Maynard Ferguson to play a trumpet solo on "Street Player."  Was Lee Loughnane doing his laundry or scoring some blow while they were recording?   :D

I've got a stack of those 12" singles... including the Along Comes A Woman one. Nothing really special about it other than it's just a longer version of the 45" single.

They didn't even include the verse they deleted from the album version.

Having been a trumpet player and owning a few of Maynard's albums all I can say is that even if Lee was there, sober and so at the top of his game that he could play 200% better, he still could not have played that part. Maynard's strong suit was his abnormally high playing. Lee could never have pulled it off. Pardon the pun here but not to toot my own horn, I managed to play notes that high (C was our low note next octave up was tuning note C then what we called "High C" which the average players never could reach, I managed a "High E") once and only once. To which the senior sitting next to me stopped playing in mid song and high fived me cause no one had ever done that to anyone's knowledge in my high school. Sadly a month or so later was "the accident" of which destroyed my ability to ever do that again or continue to improve.

Maynard could probably play that note in his sleep. I know the guy he had in the band with him the one time I got to see him might actually have blown Maynard away, he was hitting notes so high I stopped watching Maynard and kept my eyes on him, and it didn't even look like he was trying hard!

I didn't make myself clear: I am of the now - outdated opinion that you use the people in your band.  I know Lee has no upper range.  I'm just saying he couldn't have played a little, non-screaming Herb Alpert-like solo on the tune?  Look at Rise: that was big at the time and Alpert plays in Lee's range.  R U kidding me?  Lee Thornburg, Lee's current sub and an ex-TOP member, would blow Lee out of the water, just as Chicago's trombone sub Nick Lane is 1000x better on trombone then Jimmy Pankow ever was in his prime.  Walt on sax and flute....don't even go there....as a woodwind player my only comment is "luckiest horn player in pop music history."  Kenny G would bury him and that's not saying a ton.

I understand what you are saying, but hey it was a guest spot, like the Pointer Sisters backing Skinny Boy and Chaka Khan/Rufus on Take Me Back To Chicago.
I see nothing wrong with that. It wouldn't even had been an issue except the band in question had a trumpet player.

While I agree they could have made the part to where Lee could have played it, it ultimately makes more sense and probably was the better choice to have Maynard guest on it. Maybe I am biased cause I discovered Maynard and Chicago independently of each other, and liking both was pleased to see they had a connection.

Being thoroughly unconversant in the mechanics, WHY couldn't Lee hit certain notes, no matter what? Besides having curly lips (I've heard it described) & hitting the valves correctly, what does one do to hit certain notes on a trumpet?

Anyone willing to take the time to inform me? Thank you in advance.   :-*

I would be most happy to explain. On a trumpet you have the three valves but your 8 notes are CDEFGA&B followed again by the next highest C.
Looking from mouth piece to horn bell ---> your valves are as follows (0 not pressed, x pressed)

C - 000   D - X0X   E - XX0   F - X00   G- 000   A- XX0   B - 0X0

While you may think (OK I don't need the stupid valves explained  LOL) the point is if you look at C's and G's you'll see they have absolutely no valve usage at all. (Which is how you can have a bugler play taps etc. no valves needed.)

These notes are made purely by your ability to tighten your lips. As you go up the range you have to keep making your lips tighter to make each successive G and C. You can also use alternate mouth pieces, which have a bowl like depression for you to play into. The higher the mouth piece number the shallower the bowl. Which can increase your range. The problem with this method is you lose tone quality.

The standard mouth piece that came with my trumpets were 7C. That had what I guess is considered to be a beginner or standard or something sized bowl in the mouth piece. I wanted to play higher, I was always told I had excellent tone so I thought maybe I could get away with it. So I got a 13a4a. That is what I hit was is considered a ridiculously high note. Why was it ridiculous?

Well, it's been said many times by many people other than myself that Lee is just an average player along for the ride. So let's say he's an extremely lucky me.
His range is likely limited to about CDEFGABCDEFGABC (3 note range as you can see that C appears 3 times). The last C is hard to hit from a lip tightness point of view. After all these years I am sure he's found the mouth piece that makes this relatively comfortable for his lips. But I had a hard time hitting this with a 7C. I could do it, it was just sometimes inconsistent. Use of another mouth piece like the 13a4a could let someone like Lee or myself got a couple of notes higher.

Now someone like Maynard, or other exceptional players (or as I was inching towards before my accident that pretty much destroyed my playing of the trumpet)
They seem to have impeccable control and ability and can high notes much higher with a much higher chance of not hitting it properly.

Instead of the above mentioned 3 note range, Maynard (as well as the few other exceptional players) had a 4 note range CDEFGABCDEFGABCDEFGABC. Keep in mind the highest note I ever hit and only once was 6 notes below this guys normal range, that's not right. It wasn't A high "E" that was the high note I hit it was a "G" which is only 4 notes back, and why I only hit it once. E would have been the highest extension of my normal range and not often. Sorry this error explains why I wondered why "E" would have been a big deal. I remember " High E" was my normal max, " High G" was never hit by any trumpeter within my 4 years in high school which must make it unusual as there were some much better overall players than me that went through there. I didn't try very hard.

Sorry "High" before the note is this part of the range cdefgabcdefgab CDEFGAB-C the last C being a "Double High C"

Anyway, Maynard could play in this range much more consistently and with much more skill. A double High C is just not a note the average trumpet player can play, even after 40 years it's likely Lee has never played that note even once. No reason to for him anyway. For Chicago songs his range is fine, but for the high range antics Street Player, Maynard was a natural choice.

Hope that explains it properly, if not I'll try to explain anything you didn't get, better... ;D

P.S. I have never heard of a curved lip problem, but just like anything I'm sure it comes down to some people can and some people can't. I can't seem to play a piano. I understand it I just can't do it.

Also, I'm about to explain my "accident" that destroyed my ability to play trumpet. Do Not read further if painful things make you squeamish.

We had the largest marching band in the city. But our band director had this idea, to form on the sidelines very tightly standing together. It was brilliant, it made us look so tiny from the other side of the field. It was amazing, looked like about 40 kids over there, then we spread out and there was 170 of us, all over. Neat effect. However it had us so close together that trumpet players were uncomfortably close, so close our horn bells nearly touched the head of the person in front of us (also made our head hurt when we had to play and someone was literally playing into your head). One day during practice, early one school morning, we were working the routine and a bee flew in front of the guy in front of me, he flailed and swatted at the bee instantly striking the bell of my trumpet, WE WERE PLAYING so it busted back into my mouth, bent both top and bottom teeth back and busted my lips top and bottom as well. I reached in quickly and pushed my teeth back in place and kept marching, stunned, until I realized the blood was all down the front of me and all over my hands etc. I walked off the field to find both my upper and lower lips were split open longways. Needless to say, it took months to get past my tuning note (cdefgab-C )and I never quite returned to normal. I was able to hit high "C" again a couple of times, but in general if I played more than say 10 minutes my lips began to burn, even a year afterward. Turns out my lips swelled, and it never went down making it permanently harder for me to play. So while it looked like I was getting the ability to play really well, I wasn't ever able to play much at all after that. too this day the scar is kinda visible where I got blasted. I couldn't even play along to my CHI albums.... :'(
So I eventually sold my trumpet. I miss playing it.

Poem,

I'm a woodwind player (saxes, flute, clarinet), so pardon my ignorance when asking this question in earnest, but I mean it with the best of intentions: could you possibly play the flugelhorn, which a lot of trumpeters with busted lips have taken up?  Some players such as Freddie Hubbard (who had a busted lip and developed cancer of the lip and licked it) were able to continue their careers playing flugelhorn exclusively.  Just a thought.

That's a real shame about the playing.  I'd go crazy if I couldn't play my horns.  I've picked up and dropped guitar and bass since the 1970s and have again picked them up, but the horns are sacred.

Saxman

...Wow.  And OWW!!  I'm so sorry...I never knew. :'(  WOW!!  That makes me sad...that was YOUR THING.  And it got snatched away by a bee, a scared fellow brass player, and a band director who wanted to SHOCK AND AWE...isn't it weird when ya think about it like that?  I'm sorry that you had to bring it up...but that chain of events changed your life..."sniff!" No, really...I'm not tryin' to be Debbie Downer, but I know you've probably thought about that more than once, ya know?  At least it was gonna be a physical injury that stopped you...And, NOW--since I said that--I'm gonna (somewhat) be funny now:

Be very glad I wasn't the individual standing in front of you--you would've had to have the damn thing surgically removed.  heh.

I'd really miss being able to sing...even though I don't sing as much as I used to, and granted it's not like it was, when I sang all the time; and I'd lose it occasionally, it CAME BACK.  Ya know?  I can still retrain it, to a degree...The range and pitch can be tweaked...but it could be gone (or not come back the same) at any given moment.  I mean, Look at JULIE ANDREWS... :'(   

And, since I've never "played" anything but the radio, and a little percussion, if coerced, I never really learned HOW and WHY instruments WORKED. ;)  So, like my post on DB's board asking about guitars (and several expert explainations!  Hey, I sing.  I don't know **** about all the other stuff, sad to say...), I truly appreciate the explaination of the mechanics.  I wondered how it all worked--and 7 notes with three buttons never made sense to me...thanks.   :-*

To address you both I must say yeah, actually Saxman, I did end up playing my senior year at Fulgelhorn although I had to sit out the first half of marching band. the only problem was I owned a trumpet and only "borrowed" the flugelhorn form the school. So after my senior year, I had no need to pay hundreds of dollars for one and had a trumpet I basically could not play. Also, even though the Flugelhorn helped it was only enough to get me through my senior year. The damage was to both my upper and lower lips so for whatever reason the pain was too much and the ability was just flat out gone. I had made great strides from my freshman year when I was told at practice before the year started by a senior "No freshman plays first trumpet" and I had to prove I was worthy, and I eventually hit that high G which made my senior section leader quit in the middle of the song to high five me as no one had ever done that. After that accident, even Flugel was a bit too much. To this day I cannot whistle more than a minute or two without cramps, I kid you not, the damage was that severe.

Kath, while I don't blame the band director (as I said it was amazing to see on video we looked like the rest of our city, teeny tiny band then we expanded out to be HUGE in comparison) But the senior in front of me could have ignored the bee and let it go by, or realized my trumpet bell was only inches behind his head, but being top dog trumpet as he was the senior, he was in front and did not see just how close our horns were from the next persons head. So it probably never occurred to him he would slam into me like that, and with his ego, I doubt he cared. I don't recall him being so concerned as to what he did. But at that moment, I doubt I could remember anything but the blood and pain. So, he may have been the most sorrowful person on earth and I won't remember. He's coincidentally the same one who high fived me for the highest known note ever played at my high school to that point. How ironic, no?

yeah it always left me with a what if feeling. My head band director wanted me in his concert and but I elected to join the flag girls and other band rejects for the embarrassing assistant band directors concert band as I didn't want people to know I couldn't play anymore. The sad thing is that the secondary band director canceled a concert as in his opinion I was the ONLY one capable of playing the material and went so far as to make the band play without me playing. they were so bad he basically singled me out and told them if I wasn't playing they sounded like crap. So how bad was that band if the guy who lost his chops WAS the one guy who played it right!!??!?

which of course had the WHOLE band staring at me like I did something wrong. Sometimes I wonder how I got out of High School alive!

So yeah it was bittersweet, I had done so much to establish myself as the best player I could be, to have it ripped away and have to hide the fact that any playing was painful and far less technically proficient. But I made it. And always wonder just what I could have done if not for having that stupid bee fly by at that moment. I always had dreams of being Lee's fill in....

There are SO many band directors and school music teachers who are idiots and egomaniacs.  Half of those I know can't play any instrument worth a plugged nickel.  I know one who has a masters in music, plays EVERY instrument you can think of and none of them well or even mediocre.

I told my kids ex-music teacher the choral concert was great and his reaction was, "Yeah, yeah, yeah!  Go home!"  Moron.

What a rotten turn of luck with the trumpet.  What about the piano, drums, Latin percussion, vibes, bass or guitar?  You don't have to use the lips.  It's never too late to learn a new instrument.

well, before the accident I had an unusual ability. Before one of our Soap Box Derby parades (Yeah Akron, Ohio)

We would swap instruments for fun, I found out that I could play any note of any song on a Trombone...WITHOUT USING THE SLIDE AT ALL!!!!

I was also able to kinda sorta play a flute, but I don;t know if it's the ADD in me but guitar and Keys...well..I'm a one handed not close to wonder.

trumpet was THE only instrument I know, and while my wife says otherwise, I like to sing, but think I sound like a cow in sad need of execution.

So, no...pretty much not gonna end up doing anything musical anymore.

If I could get some sort of lip transplant I would love to give trumpet another go. If you are familiar with the term I could also triple tongue, which is apparently another one of those things considered a trumpet players attribute. I can still do it. and was working on a method to try to invent a quadruple tongue technique right before the "accident" I thought I was getting close...but probably just something only possible in my mind. The more I think of it it never was possible (ta,ga,da) was the tongue movement while playing that gave the fast note transitions needed to say play William Tell Overture and I could play it faster than anyone. Always thought If I could invent another possible "4th" movement I could play it even faster. come to think of it, If I ever played it faster, it would have been too fast to even be sensible. So it was in my head, but back then, hey what the hell give it a shot right?

Thanks so much for the detailed explanation!!! I had no idea the lips did more than blow into the mouthpiece.

I'm also sorry about your accident, it must have killed you to no longer have that outlet. : (

Sorry I'm just now replying, for some reason I'm not getting notifications either here or at Chi Music & More.  ???

The board company is having some issues after the move from one server to another. for a couple of days I couldn't Access the other boards topics as I was seeing some error about a board table being messed up and the directory was on the company's server and not something I could fix. At least the board fixing feature kept saying nothing was wrong, and I seem to be the only one who even saw the error, not sure why that is, but they got it fixed.

Yeah, when you play a horn you don't just blow into it. (you can actually try this and probably have) you press your lips together and make a raspberry like noise (or some might say a fart noise) and somehow that annoying sound reverberates through the metal tubes and becomes a much more pleasing musical note. I think it was the amount of control over this tightening and loosening of my lips which allowed me to play the Trombone without using the slide (could do it with a Tuba too as both of those had larger bowls in their mouth pieces. But tuba took way too much air for me. Gotta make a rather big lip raspberry to play those suckers!

Yeah, I went from respected playing my horn to trying my best to hide the fact I couldn't play. I mean I could play and eventually got back enough to play through the songs but I literally had to avoid practicing as playing before a performance would have me unable to hit anything before it was over. So warming up I had to fake entirely which didn't jive with your average band director. I managed, but after high school I realized the loss of ability was just not worth even keeping my horn as I would never be able to get it back or try to pursue any kind of even hobby playing for the future.
Thus my dream of being Lee's backup was gone forever....I kinda wonder if I even could play after all these years. I couldn't really read music well, and had to play by ear if you will, but I'd love to give it another go. Maybe someday my son wil want to play in school, and I might get a chance to try again.

It sounds like you (not unlike myself with Walt, the woodwinds player) were already better than Lee in high school.  They are the two luckiest, right time, right place horn players in pop music history.  I think Chicago made it because:

- Robert Lamm and Jimmy Pankow had an excellent grasp of commercial pop song forms (and pushed the envelop with those forms, especially during 1969-72)

- Jimmy wrote unique horn arrangements based on what the song composers were looking for.  

- Pankow really stepped in as the commercial pop song guy once Lamm started to falter after he exhausted his big batch of songs (let's not forget even the 1972 hit "Saturday in the Park" was written in 1970!) .  At least Lamm wasn't like George Harrison, who blew his entire backlog of songs on "All Things Must Pass" and pretty much faltered after that, with 1-3 decent tunes per album.

- Peter Cetera eventually developed into a world class and unique tenor vocalist, in addition to being a great bassist, later being the only hit songwriter in the band

- Terry Kath was a great, Hendrix-style lead guitarist with a great baritone voice who was pretty much edged out by Cetera by 1973 for single vocals

- Danny Seraphine was an exciting "lead" drummer with real technique, not the slop of Keith Moon

Point: they did NOT make it because ANY of the horn players were great soloists.  Jimmy and Lee were never more than "meh" soloists on a good day (and in Walt's case, not even meh), although Jimmy had a great tone at one time, which started going south as early as 1979.

Agreed Saxman... but I'd say that James Guercio had a good ear for selecting the wheat from the chaff... and while he was just as guilty as the rest of the band for not know when to say when (when it came to lengths of songs and how much should be included on an album), he did understand what it would take for Chicago to become the mega success it became in the 1970s.

And, those arrangements always put the trombone out front. He always wrote the most interesting parts for himself.

Little Jimmy (height wise) has always had a HUGE ego, hasn't he?  Yeah, sometime around V he started the "trombone choir" of overdubs and trombone section lead parts.  It got so bad that from VI-XI, most horn section parts sounded like a buncha trombones.  There are people who think Chicago's horn section is 4 trombones, not unlike Chase with 4 trumpets.  In the beginning the horn section and parts were  more of a unison ensemble thing.

Guercio?  How could I forget him?  He made it all happen as producer and manager. He also pushed the band to do better, until he lost interest around the time of VIII and was into other projects.  On the other hand, he also helped make a lot of their double albums padded single albums by allowing lotsa filler (suites that were filled with disposable parts like Travel Suite).

Now that's where I would disagree. One man's "Filler" is another man's good music. There are people who think the 4th side of III was total crap, I personally loved it. I always thought that when they took away the vocals it showed their strongest attribute. Their ability to play. They were able to show their musical side with this filler which is is one part what I enjoyed of the original band that got totally lost in later more radio oriented style and losing that ability to make albums with said "Fluff" is probably one of the reasons they ended up pigeon-holing themselves into the pop love song. Granted the "Travel Suite" wasn't Liberation, but it was more of their musical desire being expressed.

It goes back to the phrase "To each his own" but I think it was this very diversity that could draw so many people of differing musical tastes to the group. Alternatively I would have to admit that my entire foray into being open to more classical and jazz pieces were directly due to my enjoyment of these musical interludes from Chicago. They should have never stopped adding at least one totally instrumental jam to each album. "Playing with Fire" should have been on an album and "String of Pearls" should have been on N&D:BB in the US. Someone somewhere must have convinced them never to do an instrumental again (at least in the US), but when you consider just how much the hard core fans of today bark about the vocals, it makes even more sense that they should have been doing instruments on their albums.

One most things, I agree with you. But on this one, I cannot.

I will say also that Guercio was Chicago's George Martin. He just had some amazing ability to bring out the best with them. I think we all would agree no one has been as good since. Foster might have gotten the best "pop" sound out of them. But as a band, Guercio just "got it". Too bad they had to have issues, kinda makes you wonder what could have been if he remained at the helm for recording.

Guercio once said that Chicago only ever accomplished about 10% of what he believed they were capable of.  To this day I wonder what great music they could have created if they'd lived up to what Guercio had believed was their full potential.

Exactly, just imagine type of music they were capable of in the 80's. Especially when they had an Axe like DB on board they could have been every bit as rockin as anyone, but they just kept getting slammed by ballad lust. Not that I didn't enjoy the ballads. I too only felt they were scratching the surface of their potential. Which is pretty amazing when you consider just how good they were at a sub-par level compared to their ability.

Chicago made ballads because that's what sold for them... they would try uptempo tunes and record labels wouldn't release them because "it didn't sound like Chicago".

Chicago (as a band), Guercio and later HK management, Columbia and later Warner Bros., recorded/released ballads because that became the Chicago sound -just as it was increasingly obvious that Peter Cetera was the vocalist who stood the best chance of getting Chicago on the radio.

For Travel Suite, I was only thinking "Free Country" could have been chopped.  Yikes, LOL!  I liked the Cannon thing, too and feel Chicago lost a lot with the switch to a 10 song album being something to contain 10 potential hit singles.  But then again, I think TOP blows them out of the water.  Sorry if I offended.

I think a lot of Chicago's musical ambition was pushed by Guercio.  Once he was out of the picture, the band became a hit single chasing ballad machine, only interested in hits, musical ambition went out the window.

Well, Robert likes to invoke the spirit of Terry Kath as an ally to argue that both he and Kath wanted to do far more than just pop hit singles...

But keep in mind Guercio's demands:

Guercio would have the band record up in Caribou -let's say that takes five weeks in the winter, then they have some down time, then the spring/summer tour goes where the band plays an obscene amount of dates (well over 200) including a European and Asian tour, then an album comes out, there is the fall tour, then some down time with another trip back to Caribou to work on the next album.

In 1969/1970 the record/release Chicago II... by 1976, they have released Chicago XI. That's a hell of a lot of music to crank out within six years. They barely have time to catch their breath, much less consider the impact their decisions are having on their future.

As Terry's widow, Camela put it, it became a machine... a hit making machine.

Guercio might have been disappointed in what he got out of Chicago, but perhaps if he gave them more breathing space to compose and refocus on the music, instead of just printing money, perhaps the band could have accomplished more of what he wanted.

That is a given, my point was when the went from the style the originally started out with (and even did on 7) with having more than just vocal pop songs, that changed the type of music they were pursuing. So what I was getting at is that maybe if they had not gone to the 10 song all radio hit style and kept pursuing their instrumental side as well (which would have involved more than 1 album per record release and is why it didn't continue, they may have been able to keep the balance they had that allowed the "Colour My World" and "25 or 6 to 4" coexistence to continue. There are lots of band through the decades that could rock and throw in the ballads. Somehow in the usual Chicago shoot yourself in the foot way, they let themselves sacrifice this for that next big hit to the point that there was no return. So my comments were more of a what if they had found a way to be both, by the time the 80's rolled around they could have been the hard rocking with ballad machine, so many others were able to pull off. Which if you think of it, was exactly what they did for the first few years. So it was at least possible. I think. But the blame is really on the band, they could have chose do do both, but they were high and rich and wanted more of both so much that as well all know that machine was tearing them apart. If they had kept their integrity and refused to just convert to a pop band, I think they could have proven themselves capable of making the hits in both rock and pop and maybe the drugs wouldn't have been necessary for them to get through it, and they might have been as happy as they appeared to be early on.

I wonder if it was the unhappiness that make the drugs come in, or the drugs that helped them do the stupid things that made them unhappy. I know Robert said they were trying to be the rock stars they thought they were supposed to be and got into the drugs, but I wonder which came first. It seemed Terry wanted off the drugs and was very unhappy, yet as Camilia said, "he just kept going back". This suggests to me they didn't feel they were what they wanted to be. Maybe they just kept doing their thing hoping someday to be able to get back to what they wanted. Then Terry died and that never happened.

So many what if's, never a way to know. I do fault them though for quitting after SOS. they finally decided to do it their way, and when it didn;t work, they basically gave up again. They always had a way of self defeat. THAT is the biggest thing to me that limited them.

Sorry if I didn't make sense, I'm tired and long past when I should have been asleep. Nite.

Poem: agree 100% and that lust for hits later on killed the band.  Chicago has been dead post SOS, the last sign of life from that unit.  In my mind they were finished in their own minds when Warner Brothers wouldn't release SOS.  It's all been cover albums, a live album and a lame attempt to remake 16/17 yet again (XXX).  Stick a fork in them: they're done.

Poem:

They were that hard rocking ballad band, which worked until Chicago Twenty-1... then tastes abruptly changed on radio, and Chicago was unable to adapt to the change -mainly because of management and the desires of the record label.

I'm sure you've read the interviews where the band complained about being driven out of their niche by younger, newer artists (who have since fallen by the wayside as well).

I think the biggest weakness was that Chicago's primary songwriters were coming up empty, or if they had anything, management/the decision makers thought it wasn't any good.

I know a lot of fans like Stone of Sisyphus, but I'm not one of them. I thought it had some promise -and it does have some good stuff on it- but to me it sounds like what someone does after they have just come out of rehab. It's a step back to normalcy, (so that effort should be applauded) but they still are a mess, and fall back into a lot of their old tricks (Here With Me/Candle For The Dark). Songs like "Gimmie Gimmie" and "Intensity" are much more of Chicago's sound  "clean and sober".

When I listen to SOS, David Foster's quote keeps coming to mind regarding the band c.1980: "I'm listening to them play, and the music is incredible... but the songs aren't any good."

Except you said they were the hard rocking ballad band. Which in my mind was part of the problem. They were more ballad than hard rocking and we blame radio for this, except radio was playing hard rock. Chicago wasn't. They had the capability, of course to play and be more. Except most of the hard rocking was watered down as compared to the early days and the ballads are the only song to really feel they were given any TLC. SOS just goes to show that when left to their own devices, they just no longer had that magic, likely due to letting others control them so long.

So yeah it seems we are all pretty much in agreement. even if we look at them slightly different as to why, and with that we are all speculating based on observations so we are all likely correct. To me it was their giving in to what others wanted that gave them the success of 17, but completely destroyed the very foundation of what the were, not what they were capable of, but what they became. Pride, desire for money and fame, whatever it was redirected their desires.
Maybe Terry's death as Robert stated was the end of Chicago. Maybe it would have been best for them to change the name, as it seems clear now that no matter what they were nothing of the former band, they weren't the rock band with horns, but the ballad band that could still rock, and sometimes horns, but usually only on ballads or whatever. The innovation of Roberts writing was gone and sadly now that it looks like he has it back, there's still no Chicago willing to play it.

Walt said at one point it was like they could fart on record and it would be a hit, after awhile it seemed they were so desperate for a hit, they would do anything including selling their soul to do it, now it seems they have no desire to do anything because they can't have a hit. It seems like every decision they have made since Terry departed, is the we need to go right, so go left! kinda thing. That is what I believe had truly hurt the band the most. they like to blame the ballads for messing them up, but in those 15 wasted years they could have done whatever they wanted...and nothing. Like I've said before, they are now selling soundboard songs for $2 a pop, what is keeping them from pulling a HIP and making some songs they feel is what they want and having Keith mix em on his Laptop and sell them? Nothing but desire, in my book. gotta be a radio hit attempt or they don't bother? Seems they just say what they think we want to hear, and after so long even they buy into it.

Even Lamm now buys into "the concert crowd wants only the hits, we only program the hits, why make new band music unless it's another Xmas album which will be a hit?"

No it won't.  Even Kenny G finally stopped making Xmas albums after the third one totally bombed. A band has maybe one big Xmas hit album in it and that's it.  WIGBS didn't sell beans compared to XXV, because it was merely XXV with a few more tracks and yet ANOTHER holiday album. Loreena McKennitt did the same thing and expanded her second Xmas recording and that tanked, too.  I doubt this new Xmas album will sell at all.

SOS: a few nice moments, mostly more of the same 80s production with the horns a bit more to the fore.  Even that "back to basics" release is weighed down with the sappy ballads "Bigger Than Elvis," "Let's Take a Lifetime" and "Here With Me."  So much for hard rocking.  A laughable attempt at rap by Lamm ("Sleeping in the Middle of the Bed"), a couple of decent Champlin tunes and yeah, again, as Foster said, for the most part, the songs aren't any good.

I must also say that in general I did like SOS. Maybe more so due to the fact that while the songs lacked that slick polished feel of the Foster Era, there was some raw, risky and down right odd stuff to that album. While it never made me think of the original band, I did think this was a unique attempt to be what that band currently was, right down to Lamm's floundering abilities. Yet, I do think "All The Years" sounds to me like the spark that got his mindset closer to the days of old (even using "the Whole Worlds Watching" again, (which could be interpreted kinda creepy as he technically was paying Homage to himself as if he was paying tribute to the him long since passed on...which most musical homages do.)) I think this might have been the mental reversal point that helped him find his way back to the level S&P proved. I know a lot to read into one song, but as before all my speculation is "a feeling, based on observation" so always keep that in mind about what I say ;D

I also think "All the Years" is the most solid song and maybe the most genuine "Chicago" song since the 70's. I may feel I am wrong later about this, but at this moment, admittedly not fully with it (Honestly and pun fully and unashamedly intended it's been: A Hard Risin' Morning Without Breakfast ) I believe this.