TERRY KATH A Question?

[burk48237]

Why isn't this mans name mentioned with the greats of Rock and Roll?
He died in the prime of his career, He was a phenomenal player and singer. You can certainly argue he was the equal of Jimmi and Clapton during their heyday and he was probably ahead of them in his ability to solo over changes. We hear about Hendrix, Page and Clapton all the time. Here's a nomination that Kath is more then deserving to be included as one of the greatest rockers in history.

25 or 6 to 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2y5-DY5oU4

State of the Union, (solo at the end is killer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JI9tS9b9drI

Better end soon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly1H_tk2fMg

[syciprider]

Because of his Darwin Award death.

What a dumb@$$

[Munjibunga]

Dunno, I never thought Kath was that good of a guitar player. His solos lack continuity ... they just sound like him doing the same pattern fast on different frets. It's hard to explain. There's very little accuracy and discernable individual notes.

[ibnzneksrul]

I really don't think he was on the level of a Hendrix or Clapton.

[Munjibunga]

Also, that 25 or 6 to 4 is the album version being played behind a video of who knows what. It's not a live recording, in fact, I don't even think the video is of the same song. If you want to see a real live version, click here. Then you'll see what I mean about Kath's playing. In fact, this performance may one of the reasons Chicago had a reputation for sucking in concert. I've seen them lately, and they suck less.

[Busker]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Why isn't this mans name mentioned with the greats of Rock and Roll?
He died in the prime of his career, He was a phenomenal player and singer. You can certainly argue he was the equal of Jimmi and Clapton during their heyday and he was probably ahead of them in his ability to solo over changes. We hear about Hendrix, Page and Clapton all the time. Here's a nomination that Kath is more then deserving to be included as one of the greatest rockers in history.

It could be argued that he was past his prime, not in his prime. He died in Jan. 1978. Chicago's best music was well behind them by then. But if you read interviews with the other band members they would say he was the heart and soul of that band. How they could continue another (almost) 30 years with only a few original members left I don't know.

[Busker]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

Also, that 25 or 6 to 4 is the album version being played behind a video of who knows what. It's not a live recording, in fact, I don't even think the video is of the same song. If you want to see a real live version, click here. Then you'll see what I mean about Kath's playing. In fact, this performance may one of the reasons Chicago had a reputation for sucking in concert. I've seen them lately, and they suck less.

One of the reasons they may have sucked in concert, at least later on, could've been their drummer. As time went by, he seemed to lose interest in practicing and rehearsing, and his timing and chops suffered, according to what I've read. After some embarrassing shows in the UK, where he spent most of his time sightseeing rather than getting some rest before the shows, they let him go. Again, just what I've read in interviews with some of the other band members.

I do disagree with your take on Kath's playing though, Munji. I think he was better than you think he was. Check this one out, circa 1969 or so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOvGa...elated&search=

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by syciprider

Because of his Darwin Award death.

What a dumb@$$

So dying of a drug overdose or choking in your own vomit makes you more worthy?

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Munjibunga

Dunno, I never thought Kath was that good of a guitar player. His solos lack continuity ... they just sound like him doing the same pattern fast on different frets. It's hard to explain. There's very little accuracy and discernable individual notes.

I don't believe Clapton on his best days could have ever played with the dexterity and speed that Kath showed on Make Me Smile. And the solo on South California Purples is one of the finest Blues Rock solos ever.

As far as live, I saw Zeppelin and Chicago both in 76. Guess which bands guitar player was out of tune, off time, and consumed a fifth of Jack during the concert? I'll give you a clue, they didn't have a horn section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kMT4m8QKT4

[Busker]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I don't believe Clapton on his best days could have ever played with the dexterity and speed that Kath showed on Make Me Smile. And the solo on South California Purples is one of the finest Blues Rock solos ever.

As far as live, I saw Zeppelin and Chicago both in 76. Guess which bands guitar player was out of tune, off time, and consumed a fifth of Jack during the concert? I'll give you a clue, they didn't have a horn section.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9kMT4m8QKT4

But Burk, your two examples were of Kath during the early (for the band) 1969 period, when he was at his best. Can you give some very late examples from the very last album or two he played on? Because I think, by that time, they were on the downslide, as a band. Probably getting bored, tired... no longer rocking like the early days.

You seem to be a diehard Terry Kath & Chicago fan. OK, fine and good. I still like some of their early stuff. The later stuff, after the 7th album, just doesn't interest me. For that matter, even their early records had plenty of B-side and throwaway material. Today, much of it sounds dated. But some of the songs were very well crafted and are still enjoyable to me.

[BenderR]

IMO Kath was a great player. I believed it back in the early days of Chicago and I believe it now. Hendrix greatly admired Terry Kath's playing and wanted to colaborate with Chicago.

I agree that Kath's death was a terrible and unecessary trajedy; one of many during an era of unbridled substance abuse. IMO, it was also the day that Chicago (as a band) ceased to function. Everything that has happened since then has been a mere shadow of what happened while he was part of the band. I bought the next album they released after his death and was very disappointed. It was the last new Chicago release I ever bought.

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by Busker

But Burk, your two examples were of Kath during the early (for the band) 1969 period, when he was at his best. Can you give some very late examples from the very last album or two he played on? Because I think, by that time, they were on the downslide, as a band. Probably getting bored, tired... no longer rocking like the early days.

You seem to be a diehard Terry Kath & Chicago fan. OK, fine and good. I still like some of their early stuff. The later stuff, after the 7th album, just doesn't interest me. For that matter, even their early records had plenty of B-side and throwaway material. Today, much of it sounds dated. But some of the songs were very well crafted and are still enjoyable to me.

I actually enjoyed Kaths playing on seven, quite a bit. I think the early stuff is the most impressive because it is technically so far ahead of many of his peers. And I think the whole band jumped the shark after seven, they got Fosterized much like EWF and decided syrupy radio hits were the ticket. No wonder he started using drugs. But the fact is that three quarters of his work (the first seven albums) contain some exceptional guitar work. I'm sure Clapton wishes he had about the same percentage.

I realize Chicago had other soloist and that obscured him a bit. But the fact is he was really one of the first true fusion guitar players, in an age when most of the rock players got brain freeze if the chord they were playing over had more then four notes. His chops and taste are certainly at a level anything that Hendrix (who loved Kaths playing), Clapton, or Page in the same era. I just think he might be one of the most under-appreciated players in Rock's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Kath

[burk48237]

Originally Posted by BenderR

IMO Kath was a great player. I believed it back in the early days of Chicago and I believe it now. Hendrix greatly admired Terry Kath's playing and wanted to colaborate with Chicago.

I agree that Kath's death was a terrible and unecessary trajedy; one of many during an era of unbridled substance abuse. IMO, it was also the day that Chicago (as a band) ceased to function. Everything that has happened since then has been a mere shadow of what happened while he was part of the band. I bought the next album they released after his death and was very disappointed. It was the last new Chicago release I ever bought.

Agreed, What a waste of the rest of their talent.

[Busker]

Originally Posted by burk48237

I actually enjoyed Kaths playing on seven, quite a bit. I think the early stuff is the most impressive because it is technically so far ahead of many of his peers. And I think the whole band jumped the shark after seven, they got Fosterized much like EWF and decided syrupy radio hits were the ticket. No wonder he started using drugs. But the fact is that three quarters of his work (the first seven albums) contain some exceptional guitar work. I'm sure Clapton wishes he had about the same percentage.

I realize Chicago had other soloist and that obscured him a bit. But the fact is he was really one of the first true fusion guitar players, in an age when most of the rock players got brain freeze if the chord they were playing over had more then four notes. His chops and taste are certainly at a level anything that Hendrix (who loved Kaths playing), Clapton, or Page in the same era. I just think he might be one of the most under-appreciated players in Rock's history.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_Kath

I do include the 7th album as being in their "good" period, but IMO, it was the end of the string. And I'll go along with Kath being under-appreciated. He does belong in the HOF.

If Kath would have played in a rock trio or quartet, he would have gotten more notice. Cetera got more notice for being a bass player than Kath did as a guitarist, but Cetera sang on more hits than Kath did, too.

[Lazylion]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Why isn't this mans name mentioned with the greats of Rock and Roll?...He was a phenomenal player and singer...Here's a nomination that Kath is more then deserving to be included as one of the greatest rockers in history.

Originally Posted by Busker

...if you read interviews with the other band members they would say he was the heart and soul of that band.

Originally Posted by Busker

...some of the songs were very well crafted and are still enjoyable to me.

Originally Posted by BenderR

IMO Kath was a great player. I believed it back in the early days of Chicago and I believe it now...I agree that Kath's death was a terrible and unecessary trajedy; one of many during an era of unbridled substance abuse. IMO, it was also the day that Chicago (as a band) ceased to function.

Originally Posted by burk48237

...three quarters of his work (the first seven albums) contain some exceptional guitar work...the fact is he was really one of the first true fusion guitar players, in an age when most of the rock players got brain freeze if the chord they were playing over had more then four notes...I just think he might be one of the most under-appreciated players in Rock's history.

Originally Posted by Busker

...And I'll go along with Kath being under-appreciated. He does belong in the HOF.

+1
I saw them live at U of MD in the 70s, he tore it up!

[BenderR]

Originally Posted by burk48237

Agreed, What a waste of the rest of their talent.

The problem was that they were never able to replace him effectively. Ever since Kath died they've been a band with a generation gap. The first guitarist they hired was good, he did some fine work, but he didn't really fit in with the band overall, he was from a different background, a different ethic. Then Pete Cetera struck out on his own and the rest of the band was in even deeper yogurt. Two of the three most recognizable figures in the band were gone.

The last I saw of Chicago they had a guitarist and a bassist that were at least a generation younger than the rest of the band. They were good musicians, excellent in many respects but they simply didn't fit nearly as well as the originals did.

I'm glad that Chicago is still out there alive and kicking, they were a major influence on me when I was young and I'll always value their music. Sadly, just like any family that loses a member, Chicago will always have a gap that can never be totally filled.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by Busker

One of the reasons they may have sucked in concert, at least later on, could've been their drummer. As time went by, he seemed to lose interest in practicing and rehearsing, and his timing and chops suffered, according to what I've read. After some embarrassing shows in the UK, where he spent most of his time sightseeing rather than getting some rest before the shows, they let him go. Again, just what I've read in interviews with some of the other band members.

I do disagree with your take on Kath's playing though, Munji. I think he was better than you think he was. Check this one out, circa 1969 or so: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOvGa...elated&search=

Well, we still disagree. I didn't care for that either. He ain't no Skunk Baxter, that's for sure.

[Munjibunga]

Originally Posted by BenderR

The problem was that they were never able to replace him effectively. Ever since Kath died they've been a band with a generation gap. The first guitarist they hired was good, he did some fine work, but he didn't really fit in with the band overall, he was from a different background, a different ethic. Then Pete Cetera struck out on his own and the rest of the band was in even deeper yogurt. Two of the three most recognizable figures in the band were gone.

The last I saw of Chicago they had a guitarist and a bassist that were at least a generation younger than the rest of the band. They were good musicians, excellent in many respects but they simply didn't fit nearly as well as the originals did.

I'm glad that Chicago is still out there alive and kicking, they were a major influence on me when I was young and I'll always value their music. Sadly, just like any family that loses a member, Chicago will always have a gap that can never be totally filled.

I saw Chicago last year, and they sounded as good as I've ever heard them. Their bassist is Jason Scheff, son of Jerry Scheff, Elvis's bass player. Jason's voice is fine on the Cetera stuff, and he's a much better bass player. Chicago's pretty good for a bunch of codgers.

[Zooberwerx]

Terry Kath's best work was in "Electra Glide in Blue". At the end of the film, he shoots motorcycle cop Johnny Wintergreen (played by Robert Blake). Peter Cetera also has a bit part.

[saxofunk]

So, um, I recited "When All The Laughter Dies In Sorrow" in a high school poetry competition. Does that make an old-skool Chicago fan?

I actually have every cassette from CTA to 21 and a barely played LP set of Chicago "Live at Carnegie Hall" including the booklet and enormous poster.... due to this discussion it's time to dig them out again and get some of the early ones on CD. I agree that their early stuff was the best, though it has been a decade since I listened to any of it.

I will definitely pay closer attention to the guitar and bass parts, my early attraction to their music was for the horns.

Thanks for bringing up the topic.