Chicago II - Steven Wilson 2017 Remix

uwe · February 23, 2017, 03:42:30 PM

A resurrection!!! Those early Chicago albums weren't sonically the greatest - which was a shame considering how inspired the music was. Steven Wilson has now remixed the album from the bottom up - using the original 16-track master tapes, not (just) a remaster. It's not just Cetera's bass (lovely throughout - a Yank Macca with more rhythmic finesse) you will hear like you have never heard it before. It's like having a young, exhuberant Chicago in your living room. You can hear Terry Kath's pick hit the strings, yet it all sounds incredibly organic.

Grog · February 23, 2017, 04:37:23 PM

I just watched a CNN Special on Chicago. I forgot what a great band they were & are today. I had to watch it twice......

http://www.cnn.com/shows/history-of-chicago

Highlander · February 23, 2017, 11:48:16 PM

Terry "Don't worry, it's not loaded" Kath...

Still have my Chicago Carnegie boxset with a MONSTER poster... would decorate 2 or 3 sides of most rooms... and a big patch, central on the back of my nasty denim waistcoat from my metal (sic) days...

Hörnisse · February 24, 2017, 05:38:31 PM

I prefer the original 360 Sound first pressing myself. Probably my favorite record by them.

Basvarken · February 25, 2017, 02:57:36 AM

The bass is really loud in the mix. Was that also the case in the original?

uwe · February 27, 2017, 04:59:23 AM

It wasn't like you didn't hear it on the original mix, it just wasn't as pleasantly upfront. Wilson tried to recreate with the new mix what the old mix had attempted - he wasn't looking for something completely new but wamted to stay true to the record's history. The old mix had too much clatter in places and some instruments sounded unduly sharp, the new mix sounds actually warmer and smoother.

Hörnisse · March 01, 2017, 03:54:17 PM

Now Uwe has convinced me that I have to purchase the remix CD.

uwe · March 02, 2017, 09:47:34 AM

Wilson remixes are never anything less than an improvement. He really has an ear for making large instrumentation/many overdubs sound transparent. Chicago is in so far unusual as he is generally associated with remixes of "true prog": Caravan, King Crimson, ELP, Jethro Tull. But to him, he says in the liner notes, Chicago II was an eye-popping Prog album when it came out in 1969 - and I guess it actually was at the time.

I have never considered Chicago "prog" but I guess I'm guilty of considering prog as something very British: That idiosyncratic mix of complex music and commercial appeal seemed to happen mostly on British turf.

It's hard to come up with US bands comparable to Jethro Tull, Genesis, Yes, Pink Floyd, Emerson Lake & Palmer, King Crimson, Supertramp, Gentle Giant, Camel or Caravan in complexity and commercial appeal - the nearest I can think of is Kansas, but even they were always rated by me as "complex AOR" rather than prog which is doing them injustice I think. That is not to say that Yanks can't play complex music as one listen to Captain Beefheart or Zappa will prove - or Return to Forever if you want to include the jazz rock offshoots. And there were of course US bands such as Utopia or Starcastle who undoubtedly played prog music, but did not have the commercial relevance of their British counterparts.

I guess Rush fit the prog bracket and Max Webster, but while North American, they were both not US bands.