| REVIEWER | RATING & REVIEW |
 | Katrinabena (17)
07/05/2008 | 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.
(0 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Steamroller3 (7)
07/04/2008 | 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.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | bammbamm62 (0)
06/13/2008 | Two words: Terry Kath.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | Casperguylkn (0)
05/25/2008 | Terry Kath era Chicago should be reason enough why they should already be in. The Rock Band With Horns, indeed.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| Exp_Chiefs (0)
04/01/2008 | 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.
(1 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 2 agree) |
 | Travelerdiogenes (0)
03/30/2008 | One of the singularly LEAST unique groups of all time. Every song to me sounds the same. And forgettable.
(0 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 1 agree) |
 | fmflip15 (0)
03/11/2008 | 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.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | JandC (0)
03/08/2008 | I think that Chicago is one of the first American Bands that used horns.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | Pesky143 (0)
03/02/2008 | 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.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| CecilJaymz (0)
02/07/2008 | Chicago Rocks, unique with its blend of rock and roll and blues kicks it up a notch
(1 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 2 agree) |
 | detroitdiezel (1)
01/30/2008 | They should have been inducted years ago.
(1 voted this helpful, 1 funny and 1 agree) |
| sheasley (0)
12/26/2007 | 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.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | ILikePie (49)
12/15/2007 | 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..."
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | 93century (36)
12/14/2007 | 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!
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| twinlight7 (0)
12/14/2007 | 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).
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| jegoold (0)
11/20/2007 | Chicago is a great band and it is a shame that the Hall of Fame didn't induct them 14 years ago!
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
 | Sungold (0)
09/30/2007 | 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.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | yamahadrummer (0)
09/15/2007 | 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.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | MadeInCanada (2)
08/08/2007 | 25 or 6 to 4
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Sincopare (0)
07/12/2007 | 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.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| bubba1 (0)
06/03/2007 | biggest sellers not in RRHOF--what a crime!!!!!!!!!!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | DChristensen (0)
05/13/2007 | 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.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| martig (0)
04/16/2007 | 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.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Caspery (0)
04/07/2007 | Pros: Outstandingly long run of commercial success. Cons: Who can listen to a Chicago song without wanting to laugh at its corniness?
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| WuzUp (1)
03/27/2007 | Yes, after DEEP PURPLE
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| kingcrimsonfan (0)
03/18/2007 | pathetic band
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| beentalkingjesus (0)
03/16/2007 | get down & stay down
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Roadtez (0)
03/12/2007 | 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!
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| bfooteprints (0)
03/12/2007 | Consider them for their original music with Terry Kath...that's true rock and roll with some jazz and soul!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| garydavis9361 (3)
02/24/2007 | 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.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| mjhaag (3)
01/27/2007 | 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.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| TTomas (0)
01/24/2007 | There is no better music than Chicago 1-8.
The best of solos, harmony vocals, important lyrics, great horn arrangments.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| marto (3)
01/21/2007 | dont *let em in!*
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | waitsfan (1)
01/16/2007 | 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.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | watergrass (1)
01/16/2007 | Should had already been in 10yrs ago. Terry and his bandmates are among the most talented punks ever. The RNRHOF voters may had a keg of captain morgan before going to work. It's insane.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| wy7upr (0)
01/09/2007 | Regardless of your like or dislike of their style, they put out quality music in a unique style that sold a LOT of records and had huge airplay. When compared to many groups in the RRHF it is a crime they have been omitted. Give the remaining group members credit for sticking together and letting us enjoy them to this day. Blondie, Sting??? Give me a break!!!!!!!
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| lsgyger (0)
01/09/2007 | As usual, politics has been the factor that has kept a great band out of the RRHOF. Chicago should have been in YEARS ago. How can Grand Master Flash make it on the first ballot ('07) for one song when Chicago laid the groundwork for numerous groups to have brass in the band?
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| cdonald (0)
01/06/2007 | Chicago belongs in the Rock 'n' Roll Hall!!!!!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| abinlp (0)
12/26/2006 | This is absurd, 120 million albums sold and you don't make the hall of fame! Plain bizarre. Oh, stupid too. Alan Brown.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| TENofTEN (0)
12/24/2006 | I can't believe they R not in it yet!!
Does(n't) Anybody Know What Time It Is?
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Limpin' Trenchfoot (16)
11/17/2006 | Looking at the previous comments I cant see a single one offering a proper justification why this bunch should be let in. As with many others on the list, they're an anonymous crowd who you wouldnt recognise in the supermarket. What other famous bands have they inspired? Outside of the US what success have they had? Very little.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | FranksWildYears (48)
11/15/2006 | Any credit they built up for their first 5 albums was squandered by the time they got to their 25th.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | doobiesNhof (21)
11/09/2006 | The Terry Kath years were their best IMO but even after his death they continued great success. They have put out some great tunes through the years and they have something like 30 albums. Keep on truckin' guys as long as you can. They definitely deserve HOF induction!!
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| chefkelley56 (0)
11/02/2006 | i'm speaking of the band in it's original state. I have seen the ChicagoLite version today and while still being very good, the vocals are just not there with the loss of Cetera. It feels forced and imitated
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| zemongoose (1)
09/30/2006 | It's kinda shocking they're not already in.
Pros: Their first decade justifies their inclusion. Ear candy with ambition. One of the only bands that could write great ballads (at least'til that soulless hack David Foster got a hold of them.)
Cons: David Foster. Bill Champlain. That abomination of a remake of "25 or 6 to 4". Chicago 17 and onward.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| dennyd (0)
09/27/2006 | CHICAGO meets every induction criterea...including volume of work with many many megga hits, over extended time. Impact on the industry in creating a new sound...ie; brass meets super vocals. Their music is timeless... A bonified Super Group! Does anyone know what time it is????, Let CHICAGO in.....now!!!
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| jschaak (0)
07/22/2006 | They were some of the best musicians around and were a nice blend of rock and blues and horns. Their attempt to keep going despite all the revolving members is admirable, if not less-than-successful. That alone will be a drawback to their entrance.
(0 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| boromax (0)
07/18/2006 | Are they kidding? Chicago is among the most innovative of the late '60s bands - not psychedelic, acid, folk, r&b - why on earth would they not have been inducted within the first 3 or 4 years of the Hall's existence????
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | MapleRock (3)
04/15/2006 | take me back to CHICAGO
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| MysticNights (0)
03/18/2006 | Chicago has been overlooked time and time again. It's time for Jann Wenner's little playtoy to be taken out of his hands
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| MysticNights (0)
03/18/2006 | These guys have been overlooked for way too long. While many other groups less deserving get in, Chicago just keeps rolling along making great music.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| lynnv (0)
03/15/2006 | Chicago should have been in a long time ago but has always been overlooked. Beurocratic hogwash whoever they are that decide who gets into the hall of fame or not. maybe they should do some research on Chicago before denying them entry.
(2 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| chrisr777 (1)
03/14/2006 | Jimi Hendrix once said their guitar player, the late Terry Kath, was better than he was. Number one hits, platinum albums....come on.
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| bullhornet (0)
02/25/2006 | If you think Chicago doesnt belong in the hall of fame then you have never listened to thier first 11 albums. The after terry kath chicago doesnt do much for me, but from 1969 - 1977 they were the best and made lots more good music and had more influence than almost every other band in the hall of fame.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Bigfanger (0)
01/29/2006 | Can't believe this band has not been inducted.
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| UrethraMiacin (4)
01/28/2006 | If they had stopped making music around '79, they would have been in long ago, but they continued on as a MOR band after that and that killed them in the hipness quotient that the Hall of Fame is so stupidly obsessed with.
(7 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Habs10 (1)
01/17/2006 | For about a decade and a half (give or take), Chicago was my kind of band. One could build a case to leave them out merely becasue of the less than rocking material they have released in the past decade and a half, but I think there are enough classic moments from the first albums to include them easily. I'd argue that they belong in there before George Harrison and I am a huge Beatle fan. Bands that introduced or incorporated horn sections -and I'd include BS&T here- deserve their day in the sun. Absolutely before jazzman, Miles Davis.
Here is a list of nice moments, and this is only the beginning...
Saturday in the Park
Does Anybody Really Know What Time It Is?
Call on Me
Colour My World
(I've Been) Searchin' So Long
If You Leave Me Now
Baby, What a Big Surprise
Just You 'N' Me
Old Days
Harry Truman
Feelin' Stronger Every Day
Dialogue, Pt. 1& 2
Questions 67 and 68
I'm a Man
South Califonia Purples
Wishing You Were Here
Fancy Colours
Make Me Smile
Free
(6 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| RickHenry (0)
01/16/2006 | Yes, by all means. They were one of the very best classic rock groups in the 70's. It was cool to like Chicago back in that time period. Their music was always outstanding and their vocals even better.
http://s3.phpbbforfree.com/forums/index.php?mforum=miscroom
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| Engstfeld (0)
12/11/2005 | Horns ain't my idea of rock and roll. Sorry. Their boring album names are reason alone to pan them.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| mamatake (0)
12/11/2005 | I give Chicago 5 stars! They are a deserving band.
I have always lurked around and never actually registered, but guitaraholic's comment about comments being moved around came to my attention. I have seen this very same comment below from sfalconer three different times! How is it sfalconer can move his or her comment from a couple of months ago to last week and then again to yesterday? I smell a rat!
(5 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| sfalconer (21)
12/10/2005 | Calling Chicago Rock is like saying Ozzie is easy listening. Once again there are no boundries!
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| relaxin (0)
12/08/2005 | And Habs10, you didn't even get into the music of the 80's! The is a division even among some of the Chicago fans about the 70's and 80's music, but I say it's all good! They are long overdue!
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | daedalus (33)
12/07/2005 | Let me counter that with a big hell no. Just not enough great songs to qualify.
There's something about there sound that always made me feel like I just spun around to many times on the tea cups carnival ride. Know what I mean.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| guitaraholic (0)
12/05/2005 | I noticed that some of the older negative posts have been updated and moved to more recent dates. I am here to add a positive post for putting Chicago into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. They have endured almost 40 years of constant touring, will shortly release their 30th album, and still have 4 of the original 7 members of the band. Their longevity, in addition to their loooong string of hits, should be enough to put them into the RRHOF, but Jann Wenner continues to be petty and vindictive toward one of the most original bands of their time. And yes, they integrated horns into a rock and roll band before Blood,Sweat, & Tears, who never considered itself a rock band.
(4 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 1 agree) |
| thisismyusername (0)
12/04/2005 | There are many more important artists that need to get in first, but maybe some time way in the future. Right now, no prog bands are in which shows how the Hall of Fame is a popularity contest. YES, GENESIS, JETHRO TULL, and RUSH have no reason that they aren't in yet.
(1 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
 | djdavem (12)
12/01/2005 | I echo most of the most positive comments--no doubt their later stuff's what's keeping them out. Until Terry Kath untimely passed away,they were THE American rock band of the 70's, BAR NONE.
Beginnings RULES!!!!!!!!!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |
| texwinsagain (0)
11/28/2005 | How could this group NOT be in?????
Some of the very best music of the rock era!
Whoever picks these things should be deeply ashamed!
(3 voted this helpful, 0 funny and 0 agree) |