What a bunch of non-sense. We are going to take Robert Lamm's word on this. I can't believe after all this time since Steven Wilson REMIXED Chicago II we are having this debate. Even to the point of questioning the post of the liner notes that explains what he did. I guess we are all just trying to avoid the topic of Tim Jessup and the Carnegie Hall release....
Neither do you in your replies to my comments. Can you elaborate as to why your guess is that the members of Chicago have never heard the Wilson remix of Chicago II?
My apologies to everyone. I stand corrected. Someone mentioned liner notes and because I bought the Chicago II CD album as a digipak, I didn't even see the liner notes that were tucked deep into the digipak front panel fold which is where the above scan/screengrab was sourced from. SW did use the 16 track source as he says. But after reading what he says he could do with the 16 tracks..."I had every element from the recording sessions isolated"...recreating EQ, stereo placement...looking to gain definition and clarity...etc. I've played this album on all my listening devices...my vintage home system with big box speakers, on Sony monitor headphones off my MacMini and my 4 speaker amplified car stereo system with subs. It still sounds close to the Group Portrait versions. There is way too much subtlety in the changes I would think access to 16 tracks would make that album sound much better than the GP 4 disc comp versions. It's better on some songs and worse on others and some that are the same. So why doesn't Steve Wilson call out Lamm on his BS in the press about it not being a remix?
A) This is exactly the reason the SW remixes are so good, he stays faithful to the original but works out clarity etc B) why should SW care what Lamm says?
What stands out most to me about the Lamm interview is the sheer lack of enthusiasm or joy it reflects. If performing/recording/reissuing is such a chore for him, why do it after all the money they've been so fortunate to make? Chicago IV was one of my favorite albums. Ordinarily, I'd be eager to hear such an expanded version. But if the re-issues, remixes and remasters have been so uneven, I'll hold off for now until I can read more of others' feedback.
I'll answer only B) because A) is just way too subjective on what I consider is clarity due to my playing in brass laden similar bands to Chicago's. When a professional with a decade career of music arrangement, being present in a production studio environment calls a musician/audio engineer that they are lying, I believe that's liable and grounds for a civil suit. I don't find Lamm to be a clueless individual in regards to his involvement and knowledge about the music business. I mean he's been in longer than SW. But I think there are some details between both of them that may have been glazed over for marketing purposes. I still don't hear the results of a much more improved mix from 16 tracks. I've made more progress with a 32 band EQ in Audacity on other pop bands, but I'm stumped on how I can make Pankow's trombone (I'm a trombone player) sound like a trombone.
Why are we arguing about Chicago II? Let's get back to arguing about Chicago IV that's not even released yet! Personally I can't wait to hear the complete shows, although I'm not fully sure the missus feels the same way.....
Lamm misspoke. End of story. Wilson’s objective is to stay close to the original mixes, so it shouldn’t be any surprise that his remix of Chicago isn’t radically different from the original.
Let's argue instead why it was remixed AGAIN after John Kellogg had already remixed it for DVD-Audio. I find that really weird.
Just a quick question on Chicago III amongst the verbal carnage here although I respect everyones musical passion on the subject. Why has this been skipped over so many times over the years in audiophile formats lp/sacd etc. Even Friday Music only put it out on cd only? Thanks in advance
^^ I guess because III didn't have a big hit and is more obscure than their other early albums. I remember reading a Lamm interview once where he said that the debut, III and V were three of his favorite Chicago albums, but in another place I remember him mentioning that he wasn't as keen on the second album. This may be why he seems a bit detached in that interview about it linked previously.
Wasn't aware of the Chicago II DVD. Does it sound different or better than the SW remix? I bought the SW remix just to get the complete Pankow Ballet because Group Portrait didn't have the entire suite and certain tracks are cut at the end that don't allow one to transition into the other as it is on the remix.
Ok, I'll give it a go. Chicago IV is going to sound like crap because any Chicago live venue performance wasn't recorded by a professional who could make a soundboard sing or knew how to arrange mics for recording a live performance. I have the same standards of audio quality for live performances of ZZtop which always sounds like crap. I stick to the studio craft versions of pop bands until I can find a live performance that rises to the challenge of sounding better. Ya' know where I just heard one of those '70's brass laden pop bands that has an amazingly great sounding live performance? Tower Of Power on PBS listened through my Boston Acoustic satellite speakers from RCA plugs from my Spectrum cable TV box. Even the drum tim toms sound correct and clear and beefy! Let the arguing begin!
From the tone of that interview and the seemingly absence of any other band comment on the Wilson remix, I get a sense of band animosity toward the project. Perhaps Chicago wanted Tim Jessup to do the Chicago II 50th anniversary remix and Rhino overruled them?
What animosity are you sensing? Lots of artists don’t care that much about reissues of their material.
Like who? Most I’m aware of are usually pretty hands-off. There are of course exceptions, but I’d say those are in fact exceptions rather than the rule.
In the sense that they often aren’t even aware their material is being reissued, I’d call that not caring.
What artists are unaware that their material is being reissued? At the very least, all artists would have financial interest.
