25 or 6 to 4 by Chicago. What does it mean?

like most critics, i'd generally (and unfairly) dismissed chicago as aor drivel. however after listening to the steve wilson remaster i was curious enough to listen again to their first and third albums and was struck by how listenable they are. there's a lot of aimless instrumentals and the big hits are profoundly overexposed, but there's are a lot of good deep tracks (including an uncanny csny rip on the third record) and terry kath is sort of an overlooked ace on guitar.

joe crowe, you're better informed than me, so i appreciate your input. what i'm trying to convey is that unlike the excrable bs&t, the early chicago was kind of interesting and punk--the horns were sort of a disciplined counterpart to the wild guitar and bass. plus the singers were sort of off-key-but-good in a white guy with soul sort of way.