Peter Cetera on CNN Chicago special

[buldog5151bass]

Think of it this way. You own a company, and employ a VP. He not only wants to start a business in the same field as you, but wants to be able to take time off from you (maybe 50% of the time) whenever he wants to work on his own business, and you have to suspend your own operations until he decides it's time to come back to you. Is it unreasonable for you to say no?

 

[CryingBass]

Beginnings was not just a bass-cool song that I played in the 70's, but it was also a damn-good bar/venue in Schaumburg IL for a time too! ( either Saraphine or Cetera owned it I believe ). Saw Brand X there! ( and have wanted a Wal ever since! )

And here is what I was talking about

 

[mellowinman]

Think of it this way. You own a company, and employ a VP. He not only wants to start a business in the same field as you, but wants to be able to take time off from you (maybe 50% of the time) whenever he wants to work on his own business, and you have to suspend your own operations until he decides it's time to come back to you. Is it unreasonable for you to say no?

I'm sorry. I REFUSE to think of it that way. I offer a counter proposal.

Think of it this way. You're a piece of candy, sitting on a barstool made of glass. You can hear yodeling, but it appears to be coming from a horse named Wanda. She not only wants to be a dancer someday, she also is running for President of Khazistan, a fictional country filled with lemonade and cotton candy. Sixteen Irish sweaters start writing Haikus about piranha, and you are almost out of gum. How many apples does little Johnny have?

 

[buldog5151bass]

I'm sorry. I REFUSE to think of it that way. I offer a counter proposal.

Think of it this way. You're a piece of candy, sitting on a barstool made of glass. You can hear yodeling, but it appears to be coming from a horse named Wanda. She not only wants to be a dancer someday, she also is running for President of Khazistan, a fictional country filled with lemonade and cotton candy. Sixteen Irish sweaters start writing Haikus about piranha, and you are almost out of gum. How many apples does little Johnny have?

This post makes as much sense as your posts usually do. As always, I consider the source.

 

[mellowinman]

This post makes as much sense as your posts usually do. As always, I consider the source.

Yes, my post is an attempt at COMEDY, in the form of SATIRE. Unfortunately, it makes no less sense than the post I responded to. As always, I ignore the source, and just continue churning out nonsense, as I am wont to do. So you did right in considering the source. You should be very proud. This has to be a big day. For me, any day I am alive is a big day.

 

[buldog5151bass]

Yes, my post is an attempt at COMEDY, in the form of SATIRE. Unfortunately, it makes no less sense than the post I responded to. As always, I ignore the source, and just continue churning out nonsense, as I am wont to do. So you did right in considering the source. You should be very proud. This has to be a big day. For me, any day I am alive is a big day.

Nonsense - yes. Satire - no. Par for the course - yes.

 

[mellowinman]

Nonsense - yes. Satire - no. Par for the course - yes.

This has got to be very difficult for you.

For the record:

Satire

[sat-ahyuh r] /ˈsæt aɪər/

noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions.

OP: Think of it this way. You own a company, and employ a VP. He not only wants to start a business in the same field as you, but wants to be able to take time off from you (maybe 50% of the time) whenever he wants to work on his own business, and you have to suspend your own operations until he decides it's time to come back to you. Is it unreasonable for you to say no?

Satire: Think of it this way. You're a piece of candy, sitting on a barstool made of glass. You can hear yodeling, but it appears to be coming from a horse named Wanda. She not only wants to be a dancer someday, she also is running for President of Khazistan, a fictional country filled with lemonade and cotton candy. Sixteen Irish sweaters start writing Haikus about piranha, and you are almost out of gum. How many apples does little Johnny have?

In order to be helpful, I randomly italicized and bolded text. I can't explain the coloring. That was outside my control. Possibly gremlins. Or pacers. Not sure.

 

[buldog5151bass]

This has got to be very difficult for you.

For the record:

Satire

[sat-ahyuh r] /ˈsæt aɪər/

noun
1.
the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.
2.
a literary composition, in verse or prose, in which human folly and vice are held up to scorn, derision, or ridicule.
3.
a literary genre comprising such compositions.

OP: Think of it this way. You own a company, and employ a VP. He not only wants to start a business in the same field as you, but wants to be able to take time off from you (maybe 50% of the time) whenever he wants to work on his own business, and you have to suspend your own operations until he decides it's time to come back to you. Is it unreasonable for you to say no?

Satire: Think of it this way. You're a piece of candy, sitting on a barstool made of glass. You can hear yodeling, but it appears to be coming from a horse named Wanda. She not only wants to be a dancer someday, she also is running for President of Khazistan, a fictional country filled with lemonade and cotton candy. Sixteen Irish sweaters start writing Haikus about piranha, and you are almost out of gum. How many apples does little Johnny have?

In order to be helpful, I randomly italicized and bolded text. I can't explain the coloring. That was outside my control. Possibly gremlins. Or pacers. Not sure.

Actually, this is quite easy for me. Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

By the way, you can also find nonsense in the dictionary as well.

 

[mellowinman]

Actually, this is quite easy for me. Kind of like shooting fish in a barrel.

By the way, you can also find nonsense in the dictionary as well.

You can shoot fish in a barrel, but how do you avoid the ricochets?

 

[buldog5151bass]

You can shoot fish in a barrel, but how do you avoid the ricochets?

By knowing what you are doing. You should try it sometime.

 

[Gluvhand]

By knowing what you are doing. You should try it sometime.

I had to look at who you were going back and forth with. Now that I know I'm sorry I checked. I love the ignore feature.

 

[JimmyM]

Think of it this way. You own a company, and employ a VP. He not only wants to start a business in the same field as you, but wants to be able to take time off from you (maybe 50% of the time) whenever he wants to work on his own business, and you have to suspend your own operations until he decides it's time to come back to you. Is it unreasonable for you to say no?

If said VP was one of the biggest reasons, if not the biggest, why he and the rest of the board of directors became multi-millionaires doing one of the most fun jobs on the planet, and pretty much gave the company its public identity, at first I'd be inclined after 17 years to be pretty charitable to his request to take a little time off and do something for himself.

HOWEVER...

...as we all know, when someone who has been part of a successful group project for years wants to strike out on their own, it's almost always because they think they're strong enough to be just as successful and not have to split the money with anyone else anymore. So I can also see where the company's BOD would think this was a prelude to being left in the dirt, and would do a pre-emptive strike such as not allowing the person wanting to go off on his own to have the safety net of being able to waltz back in if their solo project tanks. Sometimes that strategy works if they person in question is insecure about how well they think they'd do, and sometimes it doesn't if that person is pretty confident about his chances. This time it didn't.

I don't blame anyone in the organization for doing what they did. By 1985, Cetera was clearly in the catbird seat as their voice and most identifiable member. Hell, I'd have done it, too. And if I were the other founding members of Chicago, I'd also be a bit alarmed about it. When a band member's solo project is successful, there is no need for them to go back to the band, and even if they decide to do it at a later date, they are going to insist on making way more money than anyone else because they don't want to take a pay cut. And the solo dude can insist that he wouldn't do it, but he most certainly would. At that point it was way more about a business relationship than a friendship, at least that's the way it seems to me. So all the other guys could do is what they did.

In the end, it worked out for everyone. Chicago remained pretty successful, and so did Peter Cetera, and they all still make more in one day than most of us make in a year. So screw them all

 

[sturoc]

Having been close to Caribou ( I live in CO) and just now watching a rerun of this CNN branded Peter Pardini 'special' on Chicago. A few things come to mind. Lamm's talk of all the drugs they were doing up there at the ranch, that being isolated they could do more than anywhere else because they had access to so much more being close to a university ( CU Boulder ) ?! I find that a bit over the top.
Every studio in the 70s and early 80s had the element of drugs hovering thru them. Caribou was not the epicenter of drug use for the band. Caribou was not the den of inequity he makes it out to be in this special. Did it occur ? sure, but not the way he talks about.

James Guercio was their 1st producer/manager. He found and signed them originally. He was instrumental in providing a studio for them, w/o distractions, so they could create those mega Lps Chicago VI, Chicago VII, Chicago VIII, Chicago X, and Chicago XI. The contract spoken of was one in place for many years and hey if the band does not think that as success increases that maybe we need to redo contracts or at least review then it's pretty much their own fault. They did realize at some point to do just that, but it was a bit late after they had really started having hits and knew $$$$$ was coming in, so hence the animosity towards Guercio. Lamm in another interview is quoted as saying 'we had to split with Jim because he was going off in some metaphysical philosophy direction , he just got weird'
Remember there 3 sides to every story : the band's, Guercio's and somewhere in between- the truth. He declined to be a part of this special, because he didn't want to get into a tit for tat, he said / they said, go around.
For me the bottom line is this: A group is a dynamic entity and individuals over time become bias and subjective in their views. I take issue with alot of what Bobby Lamm has said over the years. If there were major issues at Caribou Ranch it wouldn't have had the roster of musicians and groups that it did.The productions that came out of that studio and environment were one of a kind, history proves that.
As for the band itself: soo many years and the industry machine driving them for a better part of that time, of course there were conflicts. Cetera leaves and everyone is shocked . Well imagine being a band for a long time and not being able to do what you really want to do ? A 100 great groups have all gone thru the same exact scenario. Is it soo bad a thing ?

 

[mellowinman]

Having been close to Caribou ( I live in CO) and just now watching a rerun of this CNN branded Peter Pardini 'special' on Chicago. A few things come to mind. Lamm's talk of all the drugs they were doing up there at the ranch, that being isolated they could do more than anywhere else because they had access to so much more being close to a university ( CU Boulder ) ?! I find that a bit over the top.
Every studio in the 70s and early 80s had the element of drugs hovering thru them. Caribou was not the epicenter of drug use for the band. Caribou was not the den of inequity he makes it out to be in this special. Did it occur ? sure, but not the way he talks about.

James Guercio was their 1st producer/manager. He found and signed them originally. He was instrumental in providing a studio for them, w/o distractions, so they could create those mega Lps Chicago VI, Chicago VII, Chicago VIII, Chicago X, and Chicago XI. The contract spoken of was one in place for many years and hey if the band does not think that as success increases that maybe we need to redo contracts or at least review then it's pretty much their own fault. They did realize at some point to do just that, but it was a bit late after they had really started having hits and knew $$$$$ was coming in, so hence the animosity towards Guercio. Lamm in another interview is quoted as saying 'we had to split with Jim because he was going off in some metaphysical philosophy direction , he just got weird'
Remember there 3 sides to every story : the band's, Guercio's and somewhere in between- the truth. He declined to be a part of this special, because he didn't want to get into a tit for tat, he said / they said, go around.
For me the bottom line is this: A group is a dynamic entity and individuals over time become bias and subjective in their views. I take issue with alot of what Bobby Lamm has said over the years. If there were major issues at Caribou Ranch it wouldn't have had the roster of musicians and groups that it did.The productions that came out of that studio and environment were one of a kind, history proves that.
As for the band itself: soo many years and the industry machine driving them for a better part of that time, of course there were conflicts. Cetera leaves and everyone is shocked . Well imagine being a band for a long time and not being able to do what you really want to do ? A 100 great groups have all gone thru the same exact scenario. Is it soo bad a thing ?

Chicago formed in 1967. Peter Cetera lasted until 1985. That's 18 years with a mega-successful band that had 15 platinum albums in that time. By any measure, Chicago is one of the most successful bands in history. I don't think much of the "he said/they said" really matters much, does it? Guercio lasted 10 years; he was involved with the band's initial success, and managed them through all of their very best albums. I don't think anyone has much to complain about; at least not much I would care about, anyway!

I haven't watched CNN's "documentary" about this great band, and I doubt I would want to. I would much rather see "Chicago: The Terry Kath Experience" due for release some time in 2017.

 

[corinpills]

Well, there's also an interesting Caribou Ranch story that is separate from all the Chicago drama. Elton John, Earth Wind And Fire, Joe Walsh, Supertramp, Jeff Beck, etc. It was a major studio of the time and not totally a Chicago thing. Guerico had his own thing going on, too.

 

[Poodge]

Let me start by saying I was and am a big fan of the Terry Kath days of Chicago. And I lost interest after his passing. However I am irritated when I hear how the other surviving members didnt like the direction they were going with the Cetera ballads. Now Im no math major but Im thinking the other six guys could have overruled Ceteras songs and said nope we are going back to our roots. But the truth is they were happy to ride the gravy train for as long as it was running. Im certainly no expert on this but to me it looked like Cetera found his footing after the tragic death of Kath and at the same time Lamm seemed to be not producing the quality of songs he had contributed earlier. So over the next few years Cetera naturally became the focus of the band. And MTV came out and Cetera was built for that genre. Now they are basically a cover band of themselves, which is fine by me. I wouldnt pay to see them but I do not begrudge others from enjoying their version of Chicagos hits.