Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

What's wrong with Tie You Up?

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

They are REAL, in your face rockers. Simple direct lyrics sung with a real passion, fire and commitment.


They knock the socks off the cliched and pastiche (musically and lyrically) rockers on Undercover.

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

They are REAL, in your face rockers. Simple direct lyrics sung with a real passion, fire and commitment.


They knock the socks off the cliched and pastiche (musically and lyrically) rockers on Undercover.

I agree, but it boils down to:

"I love you, dirty fvcker" vs. "Feel the hot cvm, dripping on your..."

Both are pretty in-yer-face, I'd say

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

They are REAL, in your face rockers. Simple direct lyrics sung with a real passion, fire and commitment.


They knock the socks off the cliched and pastiche (musically and lyrically) rockers on Undercover.

I agree, but it boils down to:

"I love you, dirty fvcker" vs. "Feel the hot cvm, dripping on your..."

Both are pretty in-yer-face, I'd say

Personally I love the part "the old maid is rouging up, applying final touches...,". I don't know why, I just think it's witty, original, very depicting and degenerate and the way it's sung combines very well with the overall grooviness of the song.

(And oh, as far as greatness on Dirty Work is concerned, I'd agree with sonomastone, if only he'd have included One Hit in the small list of listenables)

They just should combine the best of Undercover and the least bad from Dirty Work into one single new album, put a new cover in front, do a bit of re-production to get rid of the eighties sound and they might get their best post-Tattoo You album yet.

Harlem Shuffle, Sleep Tonight and One Hit would have easily made a spot on TY without detoriating the quality of the album, imo.

The difference with Undercover was the freshness in sound, and the fact that it was new music from a band experimenting in the studio.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

They are REAL, in your face rockers. Simple direct lyrics sung with a real passion, fire and commitment.


They knock the socks off the cliched and pastiche (musically and lyrically) rockers on Undercover.

I agree, but it boils down to:

"I love you, dirty fvcker" vs. "Feel the hot cvm, dripping on your..."

Both are pretty in-yer-face, I'd say

No,I don't think that it boils down to that.
In Had It With You you can believe that Mick is singing about a real person.
He conveys genuine angst and fury.
The Harmonica is stellar. Not to mention the drums. No bass. Now that IS different/remarkable.

Tie You Up is just some imaginary scenarios - generalised not specific.
Guitars on that are great however. Ron's bouncy bass is just a bit too playful - so all in all it's a bit tongue in cheek (!) and just Jagger having some frivolous fun.

Had It With You ain't frivolous. it's diirect, minimalist and powerful.

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

They are REAL, in your face rockers. Simple direct lyrics sung with a real passion, fire and commitment.


They knock the socks off the cliched and pastiche (musically and lyrically) rockers on Undercover.

I agree, but it boils down to:

"I love you, dirty fvcker" vs. "Feel the hot cvm, dripping on your..."

Both are pretty in-yer-face, I'd say

No,I don't think that it boils down to that.
In Had It With You you can believe that Mick is singing about a real person.
He conveys genuine angst and fury.
The Harmonica is stellar. Not to mention the drums. No bass. Now that IS different/remarkable.

Tie You Up is just some imaginary scenarios - generalised not specific.
Guitars on that are great however. Ron's bouncy bass is just a bit too playful - so all in all it's a bit tongue in cheek (!) and just Jagger having some frivolous fun.

Had It With You ain't frivolous. it's diirect, minimalist and powerful.

Put another way, Had it With You I can listen to once, and not feel the need to go back to for more. Tie You Up I can listen to repeatedly.

I love both tracks, great guitars!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

What's wrong with Tie You Up?

This is what's wrong with it. (Overdone, dated production. Is that Bill on bass? One of his sub par performances if so.)

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

Had It With You is just that 80s disease of saying the name of the song over and over and over ala Bob Seger's Against The Wind, over a lazy Chuck Berry riff.




And Dirty Work is almost as lazy.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Harlem Shuffle, Sleep Tonight and One Hit would have easily made a spot on TY without detoriating the quality of the album, imo.

The difference with Undercover was the freshness in sound, and the fact that it was new music from a band experimenting in the studio.

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

Quote
big4

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

I put on bold the words which might answer to your wonder why the fans of the golden era weren't weren't or aren't particularly thrilled by UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Probably in 1968-72 the band didn't need to "attempt" or "show" that they were "in touch with the world", since they were there more or less by nature. I think the problem simply is that after mastering and topping for years "ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset life", and with no any shame, one is probably not too convincing when one suddenly presents a social and political consciousness... But a good point to emphasize the special 'serious' nature of those albums in compared to most they did since... actually when... LET IT BLEED?

But I don't think the rather lame reception (now and then, and both by hardcore fans and casual listeners) of those two mid-80's albums is especially due having or lacking a certain thematic content, but more with the music they over-all present.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-14 22:00 by Doxa.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

What's wrong with Tie You Up?

This is what's wrong with it. (Overdone, dated production. Is that Bill on bass? One of his sub par performances if so.)

Overdone? Dated? The only thing that isn't timeless on this track is the drums in the chorus.

A perfect r&b-track, imo.

It's Ronnie on bass.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

Had It With You is just that 80s disease of saying the name of the song over and over and over ala Bob Seger's Against The Wind, over a lazy Chuck Berry riff.




And Dirty Work is almost as lazy.

Thanks for posting DW. What a Tonic/

Lazy? It's ALIVE.

Fantastic intricate use of a number of guitars to maximum effect.
They were being innovative (keith and Ronnie). They are breaking new ground.

Much of UC is enjoyable - good guitars and all - but they are very largely covering the same ground they've trodden before. The title track and Too Much Blood are braeking from the mould somewhat.

Since when had they stripped it right back and done a bassless rocker before? (HIWY).
You may not like the result - but that's bold and brassy.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
big4

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

I put on bold the words which might answer to your wonder why the fans of the golden era weren't weren't or aren't particularly thrilled by UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Probably in 1968-72 the band didn't need to "attempt" or "show" that they were "in touch with the world", since they were there more or less by nature. I think the problem simply is that after mastering and topping for years "ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset life", and with no any shame, one is probably not too convincing when one suddenly presents a social and political consciousness... But a good point to emphasize the special 'serious' nature of those albums in compared to most they did since... actually when... LET IT BLEED?

But I don't think the rather lame reception (now and then, and both by hardcore fans and casual listeners) of those two mid-80's albums is especially due having or lacking a certain thematic content, but more with the music they over-all present.

- Doxa

[Once again limited to and restricted by writing on a phone.]

The following I do not know for sure, but believe might be in the direction of the asserted:

The reserved reception during the mid-'80s may have to do with the developing age distribution of fans, where many of the older from different age layers preferred the Stones music from their own forming years as fans. While the band of older individuals than they were during the early '70s, now had greater difficulty to more or less shift out the fanbase once more with new younger generations. Some will hold that this was mainly due to the music. An alternative mechanism, however, could be the greater difficulty of obtaining identification from younger people at large for a somewhat older band that they had become. This difficulty would be the consequence of the fact that the band had a history and an image with a mythology that involved different cultural codes than prevailed during the '80s with a commercial "overground" scene and an alternative underground scene with independent labels etc..

The Stones tried to modernize their image, like they had succeded with before even with the arrival of punk and the broader "new wave". Older and new customers would not let them do so in the manner they had achieved to bring about on former occasions. In some way this was an anticipation of how the band later was to be made during their reunion towards '89 to celebrate live what they had formerly created. Not out of their own preference, but compelled by their customers and even fans. What could they else have done? Their effort was then to earn them a new tag, " the Las Vegas" epithet. On some new crossroads the band has tried to break out and create something new, especially in the studio, probably in the hope that the tide would be turning as to attitudes among fans and customers towards new Rolling Stones music. Most times their chains have instead bound them even closer than before.

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Deluxtone

Quote
24FPS

Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)

Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.

You forgot to mention the genuine, urgent immediacy of Had It With You and Dirty Work itself.

Had It With You is just that 80s disease of saying the name of the song over and over and over ala Bob Seger's Against The Wind, over a lazy Chuck Berry riff.




And Dirty Work is almost as lazy.

Thanks for posting DW. What a Tonic/

Lazy? It's ALIVE.

Fantastic intricate use of a number of guitars to maximum effect.
They were being innovative (keith and Ronnie). They are breaking new ground.

Much of UC is enjoyable - good guitars and all - but they are very largely covering the same ground they've trodden before. The title track and Too Much Blood are braeking from the mould somewhat.

Since when had they stripped it right back and done a bassless rocker before? (HIWY).
You may not like the result - but that's bold and brassy.

With Feel On Baby there were breaking new ground as well...

I find it interesting that a lot of people posting are either in the 'Undercover' camp, or the 'Dirty Work' camp, or possibly the 'neither' camp, but probably not 'Both!'.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.

HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!

The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.

Yes. Absolutely. It's beyond bizarre what they chose to release and to not finish.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.

HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!

The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.

Yes. Absolutely. It's beyond bizarre what they chose to release and to not finish.

Simply put, the blew it with Voodoo because the music was there to make that great "latter day" Stones album. They got too caught up trying to sound "retroish" and self-consciously making a "Stones-sounding" album.

Quote
big4

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.

HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!

The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.

Yes. Absolutely. It's beyond bizarre what they chose to release and to not finish.

Simply put, the blew it with Voodoo because the music was there to make that great "latter day" Stones album. They got too caught up trying to sound "retroish" and self-consciously making a "Stones-sounding" album.

Was that a Don Was/Keith decision?

I think I read MJ was annoyed by how the album turned out.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
big4

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

I put on bold the words which might answer to your wonder why the fans of the golden era weren't weren't or aren't particularly thrilled by UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Probably in 1968-72 the band didn't need to "attempt" or "show" that they were "in touch with the world", since they were there more or less by nature. I think the problem simply is that after mastering and topping for years "ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset life", and with no any shame, one is probably not too convincing when one suddenly presents a social and political consciousness... But a good point to emphasize the special 'serious' nature of those albums in compared to most they did since... actually when... LET IT BLEED?

But I don't think the rather lame reception (now and then, and both by hardcore fans and casual listeners) of those two mid-80's albums is especially due having or lacking a certain thematic content, but more with the music they over-all present.

- Doxa

Were they trying too hard? Maybe. That could be why the albums both musically and lyrically have this gratuitious quality to them, subtltely is tossed out the window. DW and UC are loud and brash, brassy in ways the Stones never were before or after. I really think that if you strip away the production these two albums are remarkably similar. It was the only time the band recorded two albums with no tours either in between or after.

UC brought their '78-'82 resurgence to a screeching halt. By Stones standards the album flopped despite the investment in Julian Temple video productions, fancy packaging and all the modernized recording flourishes. I honestly think they were blindsided by the failure and it escalated tensions even higher between Mick and Keith. There was a malaise in the mid-70s but the albums still hit #1, but UC was the first real Stones miss since TSMR chartwise.

Despite all this I like both albums for different reasons. If I were born 15 years earlier and grew up in the BB-GHS time period maybe I'd feel differently.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
big4

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.

HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!

The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.

Yes. Absolutely. It's beyond bizarre what they chose to release and to not finish.

Simply put, the blew it with Voodoo because the music was there to make that great "latter day" Stones album. They got too caught up trying to sound "retroish" and self-consciously making a "Stones-sounding" album.

Was that a Don Was/Keith decision?

I think I read MJ was annoyed by how the album turned out.

I remember reading at the time that Don Was wanted no "groove" oriented songs. He thought the band had become too reliant on groove at the expense of song construction or something. It was in Rolling Stone. Personally I think he wanted to create his own Exile On Main Street.

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
big4

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

I put on bold the words which might answer to your wonder why the fans of the golden era weren't weren't or aren't particularly thrilled by UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Probably in 1968-72 the band didn't need to "attempt" or "show" that they were "in touch with the world", since they were there more or less by nature. I think the problem simply is that after mastering and topping for years "ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset life", and with no any shame, one is probably not too convincing when one suddenly presents a social and political consciousness... But a good point to emphasize the special 'serious' nature of those albums in compared to most they did since... actually when... LET IT BLEED?

But I don't think the rather lame reception (now and then, and both by hardcore fans and casual listeners) of those two mid-80's albums is especially due having or lacking a certain thematic content, but more with the music they over-all present.

- Doxa

[Once again limited to and restricted by writing on a phone.]

The following I do not know for sure, but believe might be in the direction of the asserted:

The reserved reception during the mid-'80s may have to do with the developing age distribution of fans, where many of the older from different age layers preferred the Stones music from their own forming years as fans. While the band of older individuals than they were during the early '70s, now had greater difficulty to more or less shift out the fanbase once more with new younger generations. Some will hold that this was mainly due to the music. An alternative mechanism, however, could be the greater difficulty of obtaining identification from younger people at large for a somewhat older band that they had become. This difficulty would be the consequence of the fact that the band had a history and an image with a mythology that involved different cultural codes than prevailed during the '80s with a commercial "overground" scene and an alternative underground scene with independent labels etc..

The Stones tried to modernize their image, like they had succeded with before even with the arrival of punk and the broader "new wave". Older and new customers would not let them do so in the manner they had achieved to bring about on former occasions. In some way this was an anticipation of how the band later was to be made during their reunion towards '89 to celebrate live what they had formerly created. Not out of their own preference, but compelled by their customers and even fans. What could they else have done? Their effort was then to earn them a new tag, " the Las Vegas" epithet. On some new crossroads the band has tried to break out and create something new, especially in the studio, probably in the hope that the tide would be turning as to attitudes among fans and customers towards new Rolling Stones music. Most times their chains have instead bound them even closer than before.

Very spot-on analysis and well-stated. The only thing is that following TTY and the '81 tour the Stones were huge with the younger demographics. But two years away was a long time, especially considering the explosion of MTV, early hair metal, synth-pop, and like you stated the burgeoning college-rock scene, and as a result by November of '83 they were viewed as old men trying too hard to stay relevant.

Quote
big4

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
big4

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

I put on bold the words which might answer to your wonder why the fans of the golden era weren't weren't or aren't particularly thrilled by UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Probably in 1968-72 the band didn't need to "attempt" or "show" that they were "in touch with the world", since they were there more or less by nature. I think the problem simply is that after mastering and topping for years "ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset life", and with no any shame, one is probably not too convincing when one suddenly presents a social and political consciousness... But a good point to emphasize the special 'serious' nature of those albums in compared to most they did since... actually when... LET IT BLEED?

But I don't think the rather lame reception (now and then, and both by hardcore fans and casual listeners) of those two mid-80's albums is especially due having or lacking a certain thematic content, but more with the music they over-all present.

- Doxa

[Once again limited to and restricted by writing on a phone.]

The following I do not know for sure, but believe might be in the direction of the asserted:

The reserved reception during the mid-'80s may have to do with the developing age distribution of fans, where many of the older from different age layers preferred the Stones music from their own forming years as fans. While the band of older individuals than they were during the early '70s, now had greater difficulty to more or less shift out the fanbase once more with new younger generations. Some will hold that this was mainly due to the music. An alternative mechanism, however, could be the greater difficulty of obtaining identification from younger people at large for a somewhat older band that they had become. This difficulty would be the consequence of the fact that the band had a history and an image with a mythology that involved different cultural codes than prevailed during the '80s with a commercial "overground" scene and an alternative underground scene with independent labels etc..

The Stones tried to modernize their image, like they had succeded with before even with the arrival of punk and the broader "new wave". Older and new customers would not let them do so in the manner they had achieved to bring about on former occasions. In some way this was an anticipation of how the band later was to be made during their reunion towards '89 to celebrate live what they had formerly created. Not out of their own preference, but compelled by their customers and even fans. What could they else have done? Their effort was then to earn them a new tag, " the Las Vegas" epithet. On some new crossroads the band has tried to break out and create something new, especially in the studio, probably in the hope that the tide would be turning as to attitudes among fans and customers towards new Rolling Stones music. Most times their chains have instead bound them even closer than before.

Very spot-on analysis and well-stated. The only thing is that following TTY and the '81 tour the Stones were huge with the younger demographics. But two years away was a long time, especially considering the explosion of MTV, early hair metal, synth-pop, and like you stated the burgeoning college-rock scene, and as a result by November of '83 they were viewed as old men trying too hard to stay relevant.

No, no, no. The problem was C R A P songs, delivered slap dash with uninteresting production methods. There's no great, intricate guitar weaving going on here. The Emperor Has No Riffs. The reason the long time, older fans, of which I'm one, didn't, and still don't like much of DirtyUndercover is lack of Quality. Both albums are big steps down from. They are the 80s version of GHS, IORR and Black & Blue sucking after LIB/STICKY/EXILE.

Some Girls (to a much lesser degree Emotional Rescue), and TTY brought a higher expectation that the Stones failed to fulfill. Fans didn't expect them to always sound the same, they expected them to be good, not fill out albums with Chuck Berryish trash like Had It With You.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
big4

Quote
Witness

Quote
Doxa

Quote
big4

Both albums were also outward looking, lyrically very topical with many songs tackling societal and political issues. I guess that makes them more serious in theme than anything since maybe the BB-LIB period. On both albums the band seemed to be wanting to make statements about the state of the world maybe in reaction, partly, to the state of the band. I think on DW and UC the Stones were attempting to stay relevant, show that they were in touch with the world, not just ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset lives. I'm often surprised that fans of the BB-EOMS run weren't more fans of these two albums. On DW and UC it was a return of the socially and politically conscious Rolling Stones. It was the last period of being a regularly recording band. The UC-DW time an underrated period in the Stone's history.

I put on bold the words which might answer to your wonder why the fans of the golden era weren't weren't or aren't particularly thrilled by UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Probably in 1968-72 the band didn't need to "attempt" or "show" that they were "in touch with the world", since they were there more or less by nature. I think the problem simply is that after mastering and topping for years "ivory tower-residing million rockstars living jetset life", and with no any shame, one is probably not too convincing when one suddenly presents a social and political consciousness... But a good point to emphasize the special 'serious' nature of those albums in compared to most they did since... actually when... LET IT BLEED?

But I don't think the rather lame reception (now and then, and both by hardcore fans and casual listeners) of those two mid-80's albums is especially due having or lacking a certain thematic content, but more with the music they over-all present.

- Doxa

[Once again limited to and restricted by writing on a phone.]

The following I do not know for sure, but believe might be in the direction of the asserted:

The reserved reception during the mid-'80s may have to do with the developing age distribution of fans, where many of the older from different age layers preferred the Stones music from their own forming years as fans. While the band of older individuals than they were during the early '70s, now had greater difficulty to more or less shift out the fanbase once more with new younger generations. Some will hold that this was mainly due to the music. An alternative mechanism, however, could be the greater difficulty of obtaining identification from younger people at large for a somewhat older band that they had become. This difficulty would be the consequence of the fact that the band had a history and an image with a mythology that involved different cultural codes than prevailed during the '80s with a commercial "overground" scene and an alternative underground scene with independent labels etc..

The Stones tried to modernize their image, like they had succeded with before even with the arrival of punk and the broader "new wave". Older and new customers would not let them do so in the manner they had achieved to bring about on former occasions. In some way this was an anticipation of how the band later was to be made during their reunion towards '89 to celebrate live what they had formerly created. Not out of their own preference, but compelled by their customers and even fans. What could they else have done? Their effort was then to earn them a new tag, " the Las Vegas" epithet. On some new crossroads the band has tried to break out and create something new, especially in the studio, probably in the hope that the tide would be turning as to attitudes among fans and customers towards new Rolling Stones music. Most times their chains have instead bound them even closer than before.

Very spot-on analysis and well-stated. The only thing is that following TTY and the '81 tour the Stones were huge with the younger demographics. But two years away was a long time, especially considering the explosion of MTV, early hair metal, synth-pop, and like you stated the burgeoning college-rock scene, and as a result by November of '83 they were viewed as old men trying too hard to stay relevant.

No, no, no. The problem was C R A P songs, delivered slap dash with uninteresting production methods. There's no great, intricate guitar weaving going on here. The Emperor Has No Riffs. The reason the long time, older fans, of which I'm one, didn't, and still don't like much of DirtyUndercover is lack of Quality. Both albums are big steps down from. They are the 80s version of GHS, IORR and Black & Blue sucking after LIB/STICKY/EXILE.

Some Girls (to a much lesser degree Emotional Rescue), and TTY brought a higher expectation that the Stones failed to fulfill. Fans didn't expect them to always sound the same, they expected them to be good, not fill out albums with Chuck Berryish trash like Had It With You.

Spot on analysis.
Regarding mtv - undercover and she was hot got massive promotion from MTV.

"Undercover" and "She Was Hot" getting massive coverage from MTV do not have to mean that those songs were embraced as their generation's song from younger rock fans.

By the way, 24FPS, I make a distinction between UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK, where I usually praise the former as the band's foremost post-EXILE album, whereas I put the latter together with STEEL WHEELS as comparatively weaker albums. (I don't say of any Stones album that it is crap.) You on the other hand hail STEEL WHEELS, with its to me awkward sound, as the band's only great album since SOME GIRLS. (I have, however, said that I find the somewhat weaker material on DIRTY WORK often rather well played.)

My own fanship, as you mentions yours, started gradually on the basis of the first three albums and a compilation of one early single and the two studio EPs (German Decca's AROUND AND AROUND.) That is the Stones background for my views

Steel Wheels was a brave album with good songs and lots of different music, imo.

But it wasn't an optimal production. .

Quote
Witness
"Undercover" and "She Was Hot" getting massive coverage from MTV do not have to mean that those songs were embraced as their generation's song from younger rock fans.

You missed my point completely. "MTV" has been cited as a reason for why the album and singles didn't strike a chord. I was simply pointing out that mtv actually tried to promote them hard, but to no avail. The failure of undercover was do to quality not music videos. (By the way the undercover video was actually pretty good for the times)

Quote
treaclefingers
I find it interesting that a lot of people posting are either in the 'Undercover' camp, or the 'Dirty Work' camp, or possibly the 'neither' camp, but probably not 'Both!'.

Treacly fingers,

I enjoyed each immensely when they came out - I'm an Undercover Agent and a Dirtyworker

BUT I genuinely feel that Keith and Ronnie were more fired up and committed to the later album and that it is showing new sounds and textures and use of guitars.
I feel it is an album with more heart, soul and fire - and genuine rock attitude.

Some graet guitar work on UC ofcourse - but many/most of the songs are more 'worked on', less immediate. I forgot to say that that one HUGE positive of most of UC is Bill's bass-playing, esp SWH and TMB.

Quote
big4

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.

HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!

The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.

Yes. Absolutely. It's beyond bizarre what they chose to release and to not finish.

Simply put, the blew it with Voodoo because the music was there to make that great "latter day" Stones album. They got too caught up trying to sound "retroish" and self-consciously making a "Stones-sounding" album.

I'd rather say, after STEEL WHEELS went astray to attain that aim, that VOODOO LOUNGE was their second album attempt to refind themselves, which they needed badly at the time.

There are probably two songs ON VOODOO LOUNGE that especially might be taken to represent Stones-by-numbers. Those are "You Got Me Rocking" and "I Go Wild". However, I understand the inclusion of those songs differently. They have the Stones character. The feeling and the sound. The limitation is that there is little substance, mostly surface. "I Go Wild" seems even to be of the type of those minimalistic Stones song that has magic. But in itself it to me is minimalistic without magic.

However, these two songs show the Stones reestablishing their ground. It displays the factory where that rediscovery takes place. As such, they have their place as navigation points on VOODOO LOUNGE. They start to emerge as seeming "Stones-by-numbers", but assume another character in contributing to the band's needed redefinition of themeselves as a creative unit, which is quite another matter than simply a retro album attempt made from a given stance.

Edit: Changed a vaguely expressed detail



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-15 11:17 by Witness.