Chicago

There is no way this band should not be in the Hall. Basically created jazz/rock fusion genre of rock and roll. One of the best selling bands ever and widely played for over 30 years on radio. I don't know if the industry feels they "sold out", but I'm tired of hearing that about commercially successful bands. The musicians are a highly talented and musically educated. Maybe instead of pinheads voting, they should poll producers, composers and musicians who have played their compositions to judge their Hall of Fame worthiness.

Five stars because they're famous.

Couldn't stand their annoying records myself, but who am I to stand in the way of popularity?

First of all, you posted the wrong photos of the band. WHOEVER POSTED THE BAND PHOTO ABOVE, PLEASE REPLACE IT WITH THE PHOTO OF THE ORIGINAL BAND (1969-1977).

That's not the Chicago lineup that we are hoping to be inducted in the Rock & Roll Hall of Fame. They have nothing to do with the real Chicago legacy.

The real legacy of Chicago came from the Terry Kath -era Chicago (1969-1977) when they were recording for Columbia Records and produced by James William Guercio.

The original Chicago lineup that deserves to be inducted are Terry Kath (guitar/vocals), Robert Lamm (keyboards/vocals), James Panlow (trombone), Peter Cetera (bass/vocals), Danny Seraphine (drums), Lee Loughnane (trumpet/flugelhorn), and Walt Parazaider (woodwinds/flute). The current lineup who are still performing but not making any memorable albums since the late 80's does not do any good for "Chicago". They just drag down Chicago's chances of being inducted. Yes, it's true that the current incarnation of the band who still call themselves "Chicago" extends "Chicago's" longevity, but it actually does more harm than good to the band's real legacy from 1969-1977. Longevity is not so important to the Hall because there were other bands who are already inducted even with much shorter existence as a band or group. The more important aspect is the quality of works and not quantity (no. of years of existence).

Chicago should have been in years ago. A great combination of hits, musicianship, and longevity. The RRHOF needs to get it together and put them in ASAP!!!!

ABSOLUTELY they should be inducted! Now they let in these anything-but-rock artists such as Grandmaster Flash into the ROCK HOF? Yes, Chicago should be inducted ASAP, and have a one time reunion with Cetera taking the vocals for a song or two on the night they go in.

Adult contemporary HOF, yes. Rock HOF, no way.

Absolutely. These guys revolutionized the horn section in Rock. And they've paid their dues.

25 or 6 to 4

Their longevity and their early recordings were ahead of their time. It's not everybody's music but this is not a popularity contest.

Despite their afwul 80s and 90s material, this band should already be in based on their groundbreaking 60s and 70s work which along with Blood Sweat and Tears helped fuse jazz and rock together and pave the way for Steely Dan, who are already in!

Only the Beginning!

25 or 6 to 4

I had written the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame last year suggesting their induction. In the early days, Chicago was one of the most innovative rock bands out there. They actually came before Blood, Sweat and Tears, though BST's album came 1st. Though 2 key members are no longer in Chicago (the late, great Terry Kath and Peter Cetera), they continue to make music to this day. One guy said they were uninteresting and unoriginal. I wonder if the guy ever heard their version of Steve Winwood's "I'm A Man" the entire "Ballet For A Girl In Buchanon" or "Dialouge Parts 1 and 2." If not, that's his loss. Anyways, that's all I need to defend this band. We want to see some progress in 2010 for Chicago!

"We can make it happen"

This group has a unique and accessible sound, and Peter Cetera is one of the top 5 rock singers of all time!

They made an entire musical tradition. How can they NOT be in? I give the fact that since Peter left they were never the same, but I mean REALLY?

Chicago V is a classic!

I grew up on 80's music and listened to a lot of Chicago. I like them fine but they are not Hall of Fame material.

Maybe I just don't know their music as well as I should but what exactly is original about Chicago? Cheesy songs and mediocre musicianship. They definitely don't belong.

Two words: Terry Kath.

Terry Kath era Chicago should be reason enough why they should already be in. The Rock Band With Horns, indeed.

Chicago has been around for over 40 years now!

The 60's and 70's list of songs was ground breaking.  In the 80's in the david foster era, Chicago did ALOT with Love songs and ballads while mixing them in with some rock as well.  in the 90's and 2k's, they have toured almost every year to sold out houses and venues around the world and contine to be a STRONG vegas act that draws in fans old and new.

Both my daughters Love chicago and keep turning on there friends to the wide variety of songs and the Unique sounds of the horns that you only hear in a handful of songs today.

Why they are NOT in the RnRHoF is BEYOND me?  Much lesser srtists like have been inducted when were 1 hit wonders?

It is an injustice for Chicago to be left out.
 

One of the singularly LEAST unique groups of all time. Every song to me sounds the same. And forgettable.

How can they not be included in the Hall of Fame.  They were on top in the 1970's and 1980's and are still around today.  Although they had numerous hits, their early stuff was groundbreaking.  How many other bands merged the big band sound with rock and roll, prior to them?  In the baseball hall of fame there is some sort of criteria to make it.  The subjectiveness used for the Music Hall of Fame has no rhyme or reason.  Grand Master Flash is more of an influence on music then Chicago?  Chic? Get real.

I think that Chicago is one of the first American Bands that used horns.

They have been around for over thirty years and still fill the arenas all over the world. Yet, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame manages to induct Grandmaster Flash. I couldn't, off of the top of my head, recite too many of his "rock and roll" hits. There is a very blatant conspiracy that we don't know about that is keeping Chicago out of the Hall. I would love to know what it is.

Chicago Rocks, unique with its blend of rock and roll and blues kicks it up a notch

They should have been inducted years ago.

Chicago pioneered a new sound rock and roll with horns.  Jimmy Pankows' arrangements of the horns truely creates a distintive sound.  For this fact alone the group deserves to be in the hall.

I wouldn't say they're the band I'd most readily admit to liking, but they're better than a lot of the bands in the Hall of Fame, and they've been around for long enough...
"Just say you'll love me for the rest of my life..."

This guy at my work played trombone in junior high school, and was trying to support his family. I told him with his musical skills he should start a Chicago cover band.  He said "that was when i was in junior high"! Its like he acted like he was non professional or something. If he did start a cover band, i would hire him to play "Call On Me" at my future wedding. Right now i have no female companionship!

Well, OK, they did sell out to a certain extent with all those sappy ballads. But as far as success and staying power, they should've been in the Hall years ago. Their earlier albums were groundbreaking, Terry Kath was an influence to many guitarists (including Hendrix) and they proved that horn players could rock! Except for EW&F, the Hall of Fame really seems to shun bands with horns (Tull's not in there either).

Chicago is a great band and it is a shame that the Hall of Fame didn't induct them 14 years ago!

First rock concert I ever saw in 1971, and saw them again most recently in 2006...still awesome, with most of their original members. They need to be in there.

Ignor Chicago and admit the Sex Pistols, now that's logic in action.   I live in Ohio and have been to the HOF and there are a few in the hall that I scratch my head when I wonder where the logic came from when they were let in.  Chicago is second to only the Beach Boys in records, by an American band, sold.  They are currently in their 40th year of touring and still selling out arenas.  If you look at any sports HOF you will see that the main criteria for admission are the "numbers" that the player puts up during their career.  Chicago has certanily put up "the numbers".   They should be in the hall. 

25 or 6 to 4

They should be in. Listen to 9 (early greatest hits) and it's the soundtrack to life in the late 60s early 70s. Really diverse, too.  

biggest sellers not in RRHOF--what a crime!!!!!!!!!!

C'mon...Billy Joel, James Taylor, Simon and Garfunkle, Joni Mitchell, The Bee Gees, Martha and the Vandellas, Gladys Knight and the Pips, The Shirelles, Al Green....hmmmm. (Brenda Lee for GOD Sake?)

Not Chicago? Not Blood Sweat and Tears?

Where do you have go for lasting recognition once you have touched the "third rail" of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame: JAZZ/POP/FUSION?

Guess we just wait for Bobby Lamb and David Clayton Thomas to keel over, so the other band members can hobble up and in their names, pick up the "Sorry we missed you along the way, but you guys used horns" award from the RRHOF. What a load.

Even if you don't like the music (some of which appeals to everybody) and even if you feel they're a "sell out", that doesn't negate their incredible commercial and popular success. They ARE classic rock and pop of the 70s and 80s and DESERVE to be in. I mean...Van Halen is inducted and not these guys? Sounds like sour grapes to me.

Pros: Outstandingly long run of commercial success. Cons: Who can listen to a Chicago song without wanting to laugh at its corniness?

Yes, after DEEP PURPLE

pathetic band

get down & stay down

If Chicago isn't deserving of the hall, the this hall of fame is a sham! It's supposed to be about overall success and contribution...look at the numbers...enough said!

Consider them for their original music with Terry Kath...that's true rock and roll with some jazz and soul!

Can 100 million album buyers be wrong? Absolutely! That said, I have a few of the early Chicago albums myself. A few good years out of thirty-plus does not make a hall of fame career though. They weren't as influential as a few short lived groups that are in, such as the Doors and the Byrds and not quite as good either.

Used to be my favorite group way back when. Until I heard 'Saturday in the Park' and detected a certain lameness creeping into their music. It was all downhill after that. Should not be rewarded for wasting their talent.

There is no better music than Chicago 1-8. The best of solos, harmony vocals, important lyrics, great horn arrangments.

dont *let em in!*

The unfortunate part of Chicago is that when they do get in, many of the people (particularly vocalists) won't be the focus of the current edition of the group. It's not quite as it would be with the Temptations, where 4 of 5 originals (including all the main singers) are deceased, but the feel of the incredible Chicago IX, for example (though a greatest hits) will be long past. They deserve induction based on who they've been, and how they (along with Blood, Sweat and Tears) added a distinct style of jazz mixed with rock.