Or not? I'd put em around 12 0r 13th place.

Both were good bands when they were producing music for the 1970's. One of the groups had a little better guitarist than the other and both groups, like many 60's and 70's hold outs, did not do well to compete in the 1980's.
I have to say that I do like Electric Light Orchestra considerably more than Chicago. With Chicago, I am happy to hear music from an extensive radio classics catalog that would probably fit onto one disc but would feel greatly short changed if the same treatment were expected from E.L.O.
E.L.O. is another group from the 70's that I enjoy enough to have the majority of their records and Afterglow just to have some of the stuff on digital disc in a nice package.
When I listen to Chicago lately, I pay more attention to the guitar work of the late Terry Kath. He has some overlooked licks in many of their songs. But when sappy love songs and Peter Cetera became the groups focus in the 80's, their music tanked for me. At least E.L.O. had a good album still in 1983 with Secret Messages which would be in my top five E.L.O. records.
And when it comes to big, loud horns and trumpets in rock and roll music, I love Blood Sweat and Tears compared with Chicago. But that is another discussion.
I often get addicted to the Eldorado album and Face The Music.
Are the groups in my top ten from the 1970's? Well E.L.O. probably comes the closest and their are a great many in front of Chic in the car and the car won't go. (that last bit was for the amusement of 3 people; myself included)

So for those of you scoring at home (and those of you who are alone)
Chicago = two studio albums, a live box set and perhaps 10 downloaded songs

Electric Light Orchestra = eight studio albums (multiple copies of four of those) one vinyl box set and one cd box set

Chicago in the late 60s through the 70s, perhaps. But down the line you get dreck like "You're The Inspiration"...

Never got on board with ELO. It's not that it's terrible, I've been contemplating picking up some of their records since I was maybe 12, but, it's just not particularly phenomenal to me.

This below is interesting, more a US success than overseas it would seem. They had plenty of hits, but don't seem to garner much favor with your typical hardcore rock fans.



Chicago IX (Columbia 33900) reached #1 in the US during a chart stay of 72 weeks. It did not chart in the UK.

Chicago VI and X are the studio releases I have.
I am sure that to many, groups like Chicago, Doobie Brothers and even REO Speedwagon are thought of as "your dad's music" or the typical "classic rock" band. Their music just does not reach the interest of many younger than 30 I would suspect and at the opposite end, many between the ages of 50 and 60 have seen bands such as Chicago and REO Speedwagon at least three times in live performances.
No offence should be taken by anyone when reading this post. I am merely stating my generalizations based on personal experiences alone and understand that there are always acceptions.
I have a friend who saw E.L.O. in live performance but today has nearly none of their albums.
When I have carefully considered the ranking and placement on my list of favorite groups, I will be sure to report back here with the assessments. But don't hold your breath. As far as groups from the 70's go, E.L.O. was as good as many and better than a few.

A New World Record has many songs that have been in circulation on radio playlists while albums like On The Third Day, Eldorado and maybe Secret Messages don't really grab people the first time. Discovery is not all the great in my opinion.
The Afterglow box set, naturally is a wonderful introduction to the music of E.L.O. but if you do not care to subject yourself to that much music before you jump in head first, A New World Record or Face The Music would be alternatives to sampling their music.
Eldorado is terribly infectious but not for everyone.
Someone else's turn now.

Good point on Speedfagon, I mean wagon. They & Journey aren't the thing like Doors, Sabbath & Zep are with todays youth.

And it is strange in some ways.
Why are kids even today, at age 13 so attracted to Led Zeppelin, Black Sabbath and Pink Floyd but probably never consider Chicago or REO? True that this is not a fair comparison in the eyes of some and perhaps how the groups responded with so many love songs has more to do with it.
I do like Journey, REO but I know that they are somewhat pale by comparison to Floyd and Zeppelin.

We know that a lot of young people are influenced by their parents music often. And the filter is different for many also. Some kids grow to detest Chicago and REO 'cause their parents listen to is a lot and peer pressure dictates that this is music kids do not like.
On the other hand, just as often a kid's father with listen to Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd and will dig them.

Geeze, I have "Out of the Blue" and I love that album. It and XTC's Skylarking are my CD's of choice for thunderstorms.

I also have Chicago 16 and 17...sue me.

It is strange, yet also refreshing that they gravitate towards good quality bands. It also amuses me that Devo considered themselves the "new thing", & Depeche Mode fans always said; New music takes over! & all that. Well, they never did, even in their heyday, Van Halen filled the stadiums.

Robert Plant has had the last laugh on Johnny Rotten.

30 years from now are some young adults more likely to be discovering classic White Stripes or Fall Out Boy albums or E.L.O.?

Out Of The Blue is a very good album from E.L.O. but has a few misses for me. A New World Record would have to be the most complete and widely satisfying for even the most casual E.L.O. listeners or first timers. I loved Secret Messages and Eldorado the very first times I listened to those albums.
For Chicago, I grew up hearing all those great singles and album cuts on the radio and it was not until much later that I actually became interested in hearing what else they had to offer that was not played on the AM and FM.