Yup. Go back and dig out your copy of Chicago III. I think it's the band's strongest album and Kath drives nearly the whole damn thing. Sing a mean tune kid!

@@michaelpatrick6950 Totally agree that their 3rd album is the best.

S

Nothing!!!!

Danny Seraphine did an interview about their Carnigie Hall Performances. He said the hall itself was horrible for acoustics. Said they could not hear each other in "time" instead they were hearing the echo bouncing off of the walls.. So, basically this was each member playing/singing blindly and alone. Part of the reason Tanglewood is a cleaner performance is the acoustic setting. However, considering the acoustic nightmare of playing as a rock band in a classical concert hall, they sound damn amazing!!

And nothing ever will.

Indeed. I want to like this version. I really do, but absolutely nothing compares to Tanglewood. It's become my favourite concert of theirs.

@@lisacrance2082 I know the producer's of live albums clean the sound up, but Peter and Terry's sound a little sloppy, maybe too many drugs and alcohol, but what do I know, I don't play , I don't sing, and I don't dance, but I know go music when I hear it,

Me too!!!

Same here. Epic!!

In defence of David Foster & Chicago (who asked Foster to produce their album), the band truly missed Terry Kath's style of leadership, the entire band was deep into drug/alcohol addictions. Not only did the drugs destroy any creative output from Lamm & the rest of the band, but every band member had huge bills to pay (divorces, drugs, etc). And the entire band recognized that they did not fit into 'the 80s sound', so they were desperate & reached out to David Foster (who also was a big fan of the band). It was Foster who kept the band organized, motivated, and able to record/perform, it was Foster who basically wrote or co-wrote everything, and Lamm's drug problems were so bad that Foster played all the keyboard parts on the album. Finally, it was Foster who recognized that Peter Cetera's voice & good looks were by far the most marketable aspect of Chicago, especially in light of the direction of radio/video music had taken, so everything was written with Cetera being the lead vocalist. So, while I agree 100% with your feelings regarding Chicago's music in the 80s, I also understand why the band ended up going in that direction, and I do not blame David Foster for it. Foster was doing what he did best, and Chicago needed that 'David Foster' sound for the band to survive & the members to - perhaps - avoid bankruptcy.

the best player of the 70s your kidding right? ever hear of Entwhistle?

Terry es Terry... Un tremendo guitarrista del Rock y Jazz muy inflavalorado (principalmente del Rock). Ya estoy ansioso por esta caja tan magnífica, saludos desde Venezuela ✌️.

@@g.e.m.gbrown8151 sí, así es, Terry era alguien fuera de serie y su voz ¡Ay! Única y eso que nunca estudio canto propiamente, lo hacía desde el alma, saludos desde México y un gran abrazo para ti.

@@karol7716 tal cual, esa voz de Terry era bastante potente, no por nada le decían "el Ray Charles blanco", igualmente ese abrazo te lo regreso ^^ , espero que esté bien.

I disagree the band evolved from a rock jazz influenced band to more rock and horns becoming less the forefront of the song and more of accents to the song; not the main melody. From 25 or 6, we hear songs like Does Anybody know what time it is, then slowly the songs have less horns, more piano/ early synth and less edgy songs. Saturday in the Park is where you notice the horns as fillers only. This pattern remained through the 70s. 1980 saw the David Foster influence on a dying band. Horns were"out" / not cool or dated. David wrote songs that reinvented Chicago 's sound, for a new generation,plus the fans of previous years. Starting with Chicago 16, then 17, Chicago was once again on top, but most of the hits were ballads and the horns were synthesizer, not real brass. The band hated playing all synths in the videos for songs like Hard Habit to Break. The horn players were all playing keys??? WTF? They wanted to be the "old Chicago ", but nobody wanted that sound anymore. Chicago made ay least 3 greatest hits records and were essentially the same songs on a new album. They were u happy with the position they were typecast into. Peter Cetera wanted to stay in this successful style, the rest of the band wanted to ROCK again. Peter quit and took this successful formula solo. Chicago got the first of many replacement singer/ bassists in Jason Scheff. He was the closest to Cetera's unique vocal quality. The crowd still wanted the 80s Chicago sound. The band was trying to break out of the David Foster ballad sound, but the crowd kept expecting both David's songs AND their now classic songs of the 70s era. The band fired the classic lineup members Cetera, Danny Seraphine. Next to be fired was Bill Champlin. The late 2000s saw Jason Scheff leave due to family medical issues. Then Walt Paramaribo the original sax player and founding member announced he would be retiring from tours due to health reasons but will stay on board with studio recordings. A little piece of the bands original style disappears with each loss of a member. Copies are NOT replacement for the original, and Chicago is now down to 3 remaining founding members; Robert Lamm ( keys), Lee Loughnane .. (trumpet), James Pankow(trombone). While I still love their music, the current lineup is more a karaoke or tribute version of the ORIGINAL band.

Sadly no

Apparently there was no video taken at these concerts.

Wasn’t everybody?

It is specific to this song.

Peter Cetera was trying to not overwhelm the song with his vocals. Too many singers over sing the tune and start competing with the musicians. Peter is actually trying to compliment the song and work with the band. He pulls it off. Masterful performance by Peter and the Chicago.

He was

Most likely was! I remember the 70's. Sorta.

I think your right about that yea

I got it for 20 lol

@@fannin8583 Where?

That was my exact thought the first time I listened to this remix.

@@CloverPhotoandVideo Unfortunate

I think this could have sounded better a lot better. I don't trust any of Tim Jessup's remix/remaster work after the horrendous CTA 50 mixes.

I blame Tim Jessup using almost 180 plugins (plus gating Danny's drums so he can separate tom fills and cymbals) on any given song. The original Carnegie Hall box set is way crisper and hi-fi, even if the horns have this brittleness to them that can get annoying.

Filmore East? I can’t find that show. I see Filmore West from 1969, is that what you’re referring to?

this.

I have to agree on the editorial part. This is A HORRIBLE VERSION but of one of my favorite songs by Chicago. Tell me... How in the world do you take such a power driving song, that's being played live, at Carnegie Hall with it's world-class acoustics no less, and mute it this much?? It sounds like I have all my speakers under several SUPER heavy blankets... Gotta agree he's ruining great music. You can tell songs he's gotten ahold of because they all sound so.... Wrong

@@zachinky Regarding Carnegie Hall, it was designed with acoustics that are complementary to classical music, just as great churches & opera houses are designed with acoustics that complement choirs & solo voices. In all those cases, the acoustics are much more reverberant, because amplification & P.A. systems didn't exist or weren't used in those sorts of performances. Furthermore, the acoustics in some halls are tweaked to ensure that voices retain clarity in the frequency range where consonants & vowels are produced, which means that the sound heard in the hall has an irreversible 'baked-in' EQ'ed that's only appropriate for the human voice (the 'nasal' sound of the horns on the original release of this show would be consistent with such an EQ-ing). Unfortunately for the band, all of these issues made their sound muddy as heck, the band members couldn't hear themselves or bandmates, and the recordings were a mess. (contrast this with some relatively low-tech recordings of early Chicago playing at an outdoor venue, which often sounded better). Last, I will not comment on Jessop's mixing/mastering style, because I haven't heard enough of it to tell if these Carnegie Hall recordings represent the only way that Jessop could retrieve some clarity from the muddy/messy master tape recording, and/or hide flaws in the recording, and/or hide artifacts from the processing he had to do to get that clarity...versus revealing Jessop's stylistic stamp on the final remastered version we hear.

I don't think it's that awful but the vocals are buried a little. I agree if Steven Wilson was producer it would have been exciting to hear what he would have done.