Quote
sonomastone

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)

Possibly. However, I did not mention MTV before you did (added: after big4 also had done so), but then and therefore commented on your response in all shortness. I mentionned in my post that some would point to the music as reason for the reserved reception to their releases in the mid-'80s. I tried to give an alternative perspective, the generation viewpoint.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-15 10:57 by Witness.

I love undercover
its in my top 10 stones albums

Feel The Fear
And Do It Anyway

Did Undercover fail? The album did well, as did the lead single.

We gotta remember that the market had expanded and changed dramatically since TY (there were at least two musical styles newly introced that were more popular than rock'n'roll at that time). Considering that, the album actually was seen as pretty successful at the time. There were mostly good reviews as well.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Undercover fail? The album did well, as did the lead single.

We gotta remember that the market had expanded and changed dramatically since TY (there were at least two musical styles newly introced that were more popular than rock'n'roll at that time). Considering that, the album actually was seen as pretty successful at the time. There were mostly good reviews as well.

The reviews were good in fact, but the album did fail, relatively when you compare it with the previous 3. I recall the album being a commercial disappointment, especially after all the hype they received on the video, and it being banned and everything.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Undercover fail? The album did well, as did the lead single.

We gotta remember that the market had expanded and changed dramatically since TY (there were at least two musical styles newly introced that were more popular than rock'n'roll at that time). Considering that, the album actually was seen as pretty successful at the time. There were mostly good reviews as well.

The reviews were good in fact, but the album did fail, relatively when you compare it with the previous 3. I recall the album being a commercial disappointment, especially after all the hype they received on the video, and it being banned and everything.

That was my point. The market and what the kids regarded as hip music changed considerably in the early 80s. Duran Duran and hair metal...

That's why we can't compare with the SG, ER and TY successes, imo.

The Stones presented three controversial videos, one of them being a single "everyone" liked at the time. The album got good reviews and sold millions.

Everything taken into consideration, hardly a failure, imo.

They didn't top the charts this time, though..

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?

Tie You Up is one of their best songs I think. Great guitar work, great vocals and lyrics. And as far as I can recall the only song they ever released that features the room mics up in the corner only for the drums after the breakdown when Charlie rolls back in.

My memories of those years are quite confused.

For sure I can remember the videos of Undercover and She Was Hot being quite popular at the time. But that was Video Music (Italian version of MTV). Radio? Can't remember a great airplay. At least, nothing comparable to Start Me Up.

I checked the top 100 LP list for 1983 in Italy. Undercover was #58.
But Start Me Up notwithstanding, Tattoo you reached only #28.

Italy always was and still is a Beatles country ...

What I can remember is that I truly always loved Undercover. Much more than TY. And I loved DW too. And I can remember that everybody did (unsurprisingly DW was #21 bestseller of 1986!).

In retrospect, both LPs are really well done and show a truly high level of musicianship. This is undeniable. One can not like the songs, fair enough. But for sure the band was not resting on the laurels of the "retro" feel of side one of TY.

Thriller and Synchronicity were HUGE then. But Undercover proved to be just as great.

C

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Undercover fail? The album did well, as did the lead single.

We gotta remember that the market had expanded and changed dramatically since TY (there were at least two musical styles newly introced that were more popular than rock'n'roll at that time). Considering that, the album actually was seen as pretty successful at the time. There were mostly good reviews as well.

To some it did - first LP to not make #1 on both sides of the Atlantic since Let It Bleed.

UOTN is a strange song in their discography. On all the hits comps, when I bothered to listen to the ones I have that have the track on them, it seemed out of place somehow. Yet on the album it's perfect.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Did Undercover fail? The album did well, as did the lead single.

We gotta remember that the market had expanded and changed dramatically since TY (there were at least two musical styles newly introced that were more popular than rock'n'roll at that time). Considering that, the album actually was seen as pretty successful at the time. There were mostly good reviews as well.

The reviews were good in fact, but the album did fail, relatively when you compare it with the previous 3. I recall the album being a commercial disappointment, especially after all the hype they received on the video, and it being banned and everything.

That was my point. The market and what the kids regarded as hip music changed considerably in the early 80s. Duran Duran and hair metal...

That's why we can't compare with the SG, ER and TY successes, imo.

The Stones presented three controversial videos, one of them being a single "everyone" liked at the time. The album got good reviews and sold millions.

Everything taken into consideration, hardly a failure, imo.

They didn't top the charts this time, though..

Well I guess that was my point, you said the album did well as did the single, and relatively speaking, that isn't the case.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-15 20:44 by treaclefingers.

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

But it wasn't an optimal production. .

Yes, it does suffer a bit from that mid-to-late-80s production, but nowhere near as badly as Undercover & Dirty Work, which are practically unlistenable in parts. I like Steel Wheels because it's a return to a varied, interesting collection of songs. There is no massive single, but the album as a whole works quite well. Blinded By Love is the apex of Rolling Stones country experiments, even transcending it. And Slipping Away is simply a beautiful song that sounded like the final Rolling Stones song, akin to the Beatles statement of 'And in the end....'

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.

You can subjectively view UC as a collection of CRAP songs delivered slapdash, however, as I'm listening to it right now seven songs in, aside from She Was Hot there is nary a Chuck Berry riff to be found. There are very interesting guitar parts on UCOTN bouncing in and out and all around the song, the solo has some Berry licks but played in an imaginative and fresh way. The same can be said of She Was Hot. Pain of Love lacks a distincive melody but it's loaded with groove and a fresh, at times metalish guitar sound. One things for sure three songs in UC is a return to the more funk-oriented, dance oriented sound of B&B, they'd left punk and new wave behind. It's as if SG/ER/TTY never existed.

After the obligatory Keith cameo on the Beatle-like Wanna Hold You, it's a return to the non-stop groove train ride through dub-reggae on the still fresh-sounding Feel On Baby (the Stones most realized excursion into reggae), horn-fueled dance music unlike anything else in the Stones canon, the stil-polarizing Too Much Blood, and the monstrous cacophony of groove and riffs that is Pretty Beat Up. Rather you like the album or not you can't say the Stones weren't taking chances and being creative on UC. UCOTN, Pain of Love, Feel On Baby, and Too Much Blood-those aren't the sound of a band treading water, resting on it's laurels or trying to just slap together an '80s sound.

UC was a huge departure from the SG-TTY era and an adventurous album. They don't hit a tried and true Stones riff rocker till the Cellaphane Trousers redo on Too Tough-8 songs in, on it those guitars are weaving like crazy, and the solo breaks stab like a knife. This is followed by the should've been single All The Way Down-the first real hooky punkish Stones rocker in the vein of the SG-TTY era. Even then there is an imaginative structure with two bridges, subtle acoustic guitar flourishes, and some nice Mick/Keith harmony vox on the chorus.

I'm still not hearing much, if any, reheated Berry licks until the final song, the derivative Soul Survivor redux on It Must Be Hell. The stop-start riffs are the closest the Stones ever came to sounding like AC/DC. You can dislike UC but the idea that it is a tossed off album full of CRAP songs, old ideas or lacking interesting guitar interplay is way off the mark. It's more adventurous than anything they'd do again.

Maybe they relied too much on groove over melody and hooks but at least they were still taking chances with their sound instead of re-visiting past sounds and grooves-a trend that would begin on DW and continue to present-with the exception of B2B and the VL outtakes.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-15 20:51 by big4.

Quote
big4

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.

You can subjectively view UC as a collection of CRAP songs delivered slapdash, however, as I'm listening to it right now seven songs in, aside from She Was Hot there is nary a Chuck Berry riff to be found. There are very interesting guitar parts on UCOTN bouncing in and out and all around the song, the solo has some Berry licks but played in an imaginative and fresh way. The same can be said of She Was Hot. Pain of Love lacks a distincive melody but it's loaded with groove and a fresh, at times metalish guitar sound. One things for sure three songs in UC is a return to the more funk-oriented, dance oriented sound of B&B, they'd left punk and new wave behind. It's as if SG/ER/TTY never existed.

After the obligatory Keith cameo on the Beatle-like Wanna Hold You, it's a return to the non-stop groove train ride through dub-reggae on the still fresh-sounding Feel On Baby (the Stones most realized excursion into reggae), horn-fueled dance music unlike anything else in the Stones canon, the stil-polarizing Too Much Blood, and the monstrous cacophony of groove and riffs that is Pretty Beat Up. Rather you like the album or not you can't say the Stones weren't taking chances and being creative on UC. UCOTN, Pain of Love, Feel On Baby, and Too Much Blood-those aren't the sound of a band treading water, resting on it's laurels or trying to just slap together an '80s sound.

UC was a huge departure from the SG-TTY era and an adventurous album. They don't hit a tried and true Stones riff rocker till the Cellaphane Trousers redo on Too Tough-8 songs in, on it those guitars are weaving like crazy, and the solo breaks stab like a knife. This is followed by the should've been single All The Way Down-the first real hooky punkish Stones rocker in the vein of the SG-TTY era. Even then there is an imaginative structure with two bridges, subtle acoustic guitar flourishes, and some nice Mick/Keith harmony vox on the chorus.

I'm still not hearing much, if any, reheated Berry licks until the final song, the derivative Soul Survivor redux on It Must Be Hell. The stop-start riffs are the closest the Stones ever came to sounding like AC/DC. You can dislike UC but the idea that it is a tossed off album full of CRAP songs, old ideas or lacking interesting guitar interplay is way off the mark. It's more adventurous than anything they'd do again.

Maybe they relied too much on groove over melody and hooks but at least they were still taking chances with their sound instead of re-visiting past sounds and grooves-a trend that would begin on DW and continue to present-with the exception of B2B and the VL outtakes.

The reheated berry licks are more to be found on Dirty Work. I just forced myself to listen to Pretty Beat Up and it sounds more like an Emotional Rescue outtake, like Dance Part 1 not quite finished. As for the song Undercover of the Night, I try not to think of it as part of the Undercover album. It's such a good, strong Stones creation that it doesn't deserve to be stuck with the rest of the record. She Was Hot can be the B-side, and the rest can slide off a 1983 cliff. And 'You Don't Have to Mean It' is their best ever reggae groove.

Glad my question about Undercover contributed to so much conversation. I still like most of Undercover. Great conversation Stones fans everywhere.

Undercover is a GREAT record. Why do anyone wanna have 2 LIB:s or 2 EOMS or 2 ER:s??

Quote
MadMax
Undercover is a GREAT record. Why do anyone wanna have 2 LIB:s or 2 EOMS or 2 ER:s??

Two Emotional Rescue's??

For whatever reason...unlike the previous three albums SG/ER/TY...I never felt that I wanted to play the album. I still listen to the previous 3 often....but Undercover? I don't know...once, maybe twice, since it came out. At the time I remember thinking that they were trying too hard. Undercover of the Night was a cool video....She Was Hot was funny....Too Much Blood was awful.
Too much bloody Mick production actually...not enough Keith. Heck, the B-side to She Was Hot...'Think I'm Going Mad' was what we really wanted. Great song! Even back in '83 we preferred the Stones to be....well, the Stones. Not an '80's band. I can live...and have lived , without this album. The album cover was good though....

UNDERCOVER goes against the grain of Stones LPs, much like EXILE does (and even BRIDGES) in terms of "sounding" like the Stones. Almost like EXILE (there are just a few exceptions - Rocks Off, Tumbling Dice, Happy, All Down The Line) it doesn't have any typical Stones big tunes or "the Stones" sounding songs on it.

I listen to it often. More so than most of their LPs. It's different AND good, unlike DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO. Hell, for that matter, BRIDGES is the proper follow up to UNDERCOVER!

Quote
GasLightStreet
UNDERCOVER goes against the grain of Stones LPs, much like EXILE does (and even BRIDGES) in terms of "sounding" like the Stones. Almost like EXILE (there are just a few exceptions - Rocks Off, Tumbling Dice, Happy, All Down The Line) it doesn't have any typical Stones big tunes or "the Stones" sounding songs on it.

I listen to it often. More so than most of their LPs. It's different AND good, unlike DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS or VOODOO. Hell, for that matter, BRIDGES is the proper follow up to UNDERCOVER!

And there we have it, done & dusted, all wrapped up. The subject has been broached, approached, and now it's cooked. Until somebody else brings it up in 3 weeks when there's no new Stones news.

I would LOVE to have a re-release of Undercover w/ bonus tracks as they did Exile & SG. They could release 2 CDs of unreleased material w/ all that's out there from these sessions.

I like the change in direction they took w/ this album. It's all in context. Overproduced? Yeah, but more energy than GHS

"Well my heavy throbbers itchin' just to lay a solid rhythm down"

Undercover
The Rolling Stones
Undercover
Rolling Stones Records
Rolling Stone: star rating
Community: star rating
Tweet
Comment0
By KURT LODER
NOVEMBER 7, 1983
By now, the Rolling Stones have assumed something of the status of the blues in popular music — a vital force beyond time and fashion. Undercover, their twenty-third album (not counting anthologies and outtakes), reassembles, in the manner of mature masters of every art, familiar elements into exciting new forms. It is a perfect candidate for inclusion in a cultural time capsule: Should future generations wonder why the Stones endured so long at the very top of their field, this record offers just about every explanation. Here we have the world's greatest rock & roll rhythm section putting out at maximum power; the reeling, roller-derby guitars at full roar; riffs that stick in the viscera, songs that seize the hips and even the heart; a singer who sounds serious again. Undercover is rock & roll without apologies.

There is a moment early on in "Too Tough," a terrific song on the second side, that sums up all of the Stones' extraordinary powers. With the guitars locked into a headlong riff and Mick Jagger hoarsely berating the woman who "screwed me down with kindness" and "suffocating love," the track is already off to a hot start; but then Charlie Watts comes barreling in on tom-toms and boots the tune onto a whole new level of gut-punching brilliance. That the Stones are still capable of such exhilarating energy is cause enough for wondrous comment; that they are able to sustain such musical force over the course of an entire LP is rather astonishing. Undercover is the most impressive of the albums the group has released since its mid-Seventies career slump (the others being Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and 1981's remarkable Tattoo You) because, within the band's R&B-based limits, it is the most consistently and energetically inventive.

Although the hard-rock numbers that make up the bulk of the record have the Rolling Stones' stamp all over them, they are also distinguished by a heightened creative freshness that recalls their song-rich 1967 LP, Between the Buttons (from which such numbers as "Too Tough" and the sentimentally salacious "She Was Hot" could almost pass as outtakes). The raw vitality of the performances is matched by the thorniness of the lyrics, which glimmer with all the usual veiled allusions and inscrutable ambiguities.

When Jagger sings in "Tie You Up (The Pain of Love)" that "You get a rise from it/Feel the hot come dripping on your thighs from it," and that "Women will die for it," you might conclude that he's just being provocative (or, alternatively, that he's still the pathetic sexist @#$%& you always figured him for). But the song isn't simply about male domination of women; it's about the omnisexual oppressiveness of romantic obsession. Similarly, the black woman at the center of "She Was Hot" turns out to have been more than just a great lay — the simple sincerity of the singer's "I hope we meet again" adds a sudden emotional resonance to what at first appears an empty-headed sex anthem — while the title of the sinuously slippery "Pretty Beat Up" refers not to the song's female subject but to the singer's condition since she left him. And in between the shout-along choruses of "All the Way Down," where Jagger looks back on his beginnings and says, "I was king, Mr. Cool, just a snotty little fool" — and then slyly adds, "Like kids are now" — he sounds more self-aware than his detractors have ever given him credit for being.

This admission of emotional vulnerability, so far removed from the usual phallic strutting of most hard rock, is a familiar theme from at least the last two Stones albums. And while it coexists here with the indomitable self-assertion of "Too Tough" ("But in the end, you spat me out/You could not chew me up"), it also achieves its most childlike expression in Keith Richards' unadorned declaration of love and hope, "Wanna Hold You."

One suspects the Stones wouldn't approve of all this rummaging around in their lyrics — they've never bothered to pose as poets, and their words have always melded with the music quite well. On Undercover, the music offers continuing proof of the band's commitment to black music. There are numerous young performers in Britain today who are lauded for adopting the trappings of Tamla-Motown or the dance-tested beat of black disco and pop reggae, but the Stones have been covering this turf (and more originally, at that) for years. It is a happy irony that at least two of the central songs on this album are prime examples of their commitment to the now-resurgent notion of black pop primacy.

On the flamboyantly grisly "Too Much Blood," they bring in Sugar Hill Records' former horn section (a four-man unit called Chops) for a rough and rambling rap tune that shows they've been listening to more than the occasional Grand Master Flash twelve-inch. The horns, coupled with the rampant clatter of Moroccan percussionists Moustapha Cisse and Brahms Condoul, plus reggae stalwart Sly Dunbar on electronic drums, churn up a marvelous, murky funk. And when David Sanborn comes screaming up on solo sax and Jagger rides in on a descending riff, singing. "I wanna dance, I wanna sing, I wanna bust up everything," the track transcends MTV-style racial considerations and emerges as a colorblind dance-floor hit.

And while there is a dark Jamaican dub groove running through "Feel on Baby," a somewhat poignant lament, the dub sensibility crops up most strikingly on the title track and single, "Undercover of the Night," a dance mix of which appears on the album instead of the less expansive 45 version. Like the careening "It Must Be Hell," "Undercover" exhibits a sense of political scorn that seems fueled by more genuine disgust than the Stones have spewed up in years. Rich in repugnant detail, the latter cut chronicles current Latin American political agonies, and its music, resounding with coproducer Chris Kimsey's sirenlike dub echoes, slams the message home with inarguable power.

If there are disappointments on Undercover, they can only be claimed in comparison to past Stones triumphs. If the album lacks the epochal impact of, say, Sticky Fingers, then perhaps it's because the mythic years of pop are past — by now, even the Stones have long since bade them goodbye. But Undercover seems to be more felicitously concentrated than Exile on Main Street, and while it may lack that album's dark power and desperate atmosphere, it does deliver nonstop, unabashed rock & roll crafted to the highest standards in the business. And that, rest assured, will do just fine.



Read more: [www.rollingstone.com]
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook

Feel The Fear
And Do It Anyway

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.

Can't agree more with both of you - this is also the point I tried with different words to explain why the album relatively speaking failed. The change in climate and trends was a rather huge one between 1981 and 1983. A retro-sounding TATTOO YOU fitted damn well to the vacuum of 1981, when the 'radical' trends of late 70's were fading away and there were not new big things on the horizon yet. The Stones in 1981/82 maybe the only time in their career actually were the biggest band in the world, with no clear competion.

But in 1983, as I put it earlier, the 80's hitted hard. And it hitted really hard especially on the old legendaric 60's/early 70's acts, who had dominated the rock scene, no matter what kind of new trends were coming and going. In 1983 they suddenly started really old, like the whole traditional main stream rock. I guess the bulk of buyers of big selling albums, like it had always been, consisted of rather young kids. Without charming a new generation of fans one couldn't have massive hit albums. The Stones - Jagger - knew that. They had tremendously succeeded with that in SOME GIRLS, and EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU were huge hit albums as well. But in 1983 The Stones didn't look 'cool' for those kids any longer. The time simply wasn't on their side any longer. But acts like David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen and Queen actually succeeded in which the Stones failed. But they weren't so old, and so 'yesterday's papers'.

To my eyes UNDERCOVER was Jagger's test if the old machine still could adapt to the new trends convincingly. And it failed the test - the tricks they did - adding some new trend sounds to their traditional ones (like they had always have done), and especially serving that by the means of high-profile MTV videos - just wasn't enough to charm new audiences. Like I hinted above, I guess for many of teh old fans UNDERCOVER was a disappointment after TATTOO YOU, and the new tricks just didn't convince the old 'main stream', conservative rock audience, quite the contrary.

It is interesting to ask if UNDERCOVER had been a huge hit, would Jagger's solo career ever took place? As far as I know, they (him) were alraedy negotating a new record deal while still making UNDERCOVER - a deal that had that Jagger solo record option. My picture is that Jagger already had his mind elsewhere while making UNDERCOVER, and he really wasn't into that album so much. True or not, but what his next projects - SHE'S THE BOSS, DIRTY WORK and especially a real flop, PRIMITIVE COOL - would show, Jagger just couldn't find a right track after losing it in UNDERCOVER. Harder he tried charm new audiences, faster he was losing his old ones. If for anyone of old superstars, the 80's was hard times for Mick Jagger.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-16 09:42 by Doxa.

There were many more reviews like Loder's. A lovely read!

Quote
Doxa

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.

Can't agree more with both of you - this is also the point I tried with different words to explain why the album relatively speaking failed. The change in climate and trends was a rather huge one between 1981 and 1983. A retro-sounding TATTOO YOU fitted damn well to the vacuum of 1981, when the 'radical' trends of late 70's were fading away and there were not new big things on the horizon yet. The Stones in 1981/82 maybe the only time in their career actually were the biggest band in the world, with no clear competion.

But in 1983, as I put it earlier, the 80's hitted hard. And it hitted really hard especially on the old legendaric 60's/early 70's acts, who had dominated the rock scene, no matter what kind of new trends were coming and going. In 1983 they suddenly started really old, like the whole traditional main stream rock. I guess the bulk of buyers of big selling albums, like it had always been, consisted of rather young kids. Without charming a new generation of fans one couldn't have massive hit albums. The Stones - Jagger - knew that. They had tremendously succeeded with that in SOME GIRLS, and EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU were huge hit albums as well. But in 1983 The Stones didn't look 'cool' for those kids any longer. The time simply wasn't on their side any longer. But acts like David Bowie, Bruce Springsteen and Queen actually succeeded in which the Stones failed. But they weren't so old, and so 'yesterday's papers'.

To my eyes UNDERCOVER was Jagger's test if the old machine still could adapt to the new trends convincingly. And it failed the test - the tricks they did - adding some new trend sounds to their traditional ones (like they had always have done), and especially serving that by the means of high-profile MTV videos - just wasn't enough to charm new audiences. Like I hinted above, I guess for many of teh old fans UNDERCOVER was a disappointment after TATTOO YOU, and the new tricks just didn't convince the old 'main stream', conservative rock audience, quite the contrary.

It is interesting to ask if UNDERCOVER had been a huge hit, would Jagger's solo career ever took place? As far as I know, they (him) were alraedy negotating a new record deal while still making UNDERCOVER - a deal that had that Jagger solo record option. My picture is that Jagger already had his mind elsewhere while making UNDERCOVER, and he really wasn't into that album so much. True or not, but what his next projects - SHE'S THE BOSS, DIRTY WORK and especially a real flop, PRIMITIVE COOL - would show, Jagger just couldn't find a right track after losing it in UNDERCOVER. Harder he tried charm new audiences, faster he was losing his old ones. If for anyone of old superstars, the 80's was hard times for Mick Jagger.

- Doxa

good analysis.

however i believe equally the issue was songwriting quality.

perhaps the reason is mick confused the fact that he took over musical leadership in the mid-70s and beyond with the fact that he didn't need keith to write the songs. and perhaps in the 80s keith confused the fact that the band needed him writing songs with needing him to co-lead the band.

was beast of burden the last great stones song to be written?

Another reviewer states that DIRTY WORK is their 21st release... so from UNDERCOVER being their 23rd release to DW being their 21st... incredible how the Stones can even bend reality to get younger like that.

There they sit....Undercover, Dirty Work and all the other post Tattoo You cd's...nicely organized in my Stones CD case in the back seat of my car. Why is it that I don't have any enthusiasm to put them on and listem to them? I hate the production on all of them. I hate the 'sound'. Wasn't it Keith who wanted to keep it basic but Mick over-ruled him on production? Or is it that I'm not giving the album chance? Maybe, but I think it's because the previous stuff was also a whole lot better. I tried to like all the post Tatoo You albums when they came out...I really did. But when I look at that cd case on the back seat the only one I ever pull out is 'Stripped'....that's always a good listen.

After 1983 the only buzz I ever caught on the first listen of a new Stones tune was 'Love Is Strong'. "Yeah, they're back!" "Now that's the Stones!" I remember being disappointed by the rest of Voodoo Lounge when not much else sounded like that. I've often thought that if they had stuck to their sound and style, like AC/DC for example, they would have had just as much success as they did in the 80's, 90's, 2000's....Oh well, maybe I'll listen to Undercover today....just for the heck of it. See if I was right or wrong about it. It's been a while....a decade or two!

Quote
PaleRider

I've often thought that if they had stuck to their sound and style, like AC/DC for example, they would have had just as much success as they did in the 80's, 90's, 2000's....Oh well, maybe I'll listen to Undercover today....just for the heck of it. See if I was right or wrong about it. It's been a while....a decade or two!

Ok, now tell me what's the sound and style of the stones supposed to be?

There are no 2 albums in a row with the same sound and style and production and singing and songwriting and ...

C

Keith knows...it's all in his book....all about 'space'. They had it up to Tattoo You...

Quote
PaleRider
There they sit....Undercover, Dirty Work and all the other post Tattoo You cd's...nicely organized in my Stones CD case in the back seat of my car. Why is it that I don't have any enthusiasm to put them on and listem to them? I hate the production on all of them. I hate the 'sound'. Wasn't it Keith who wanted to keep it basic but Mick over-ruled him on production? Or is it that I'm not giving the album chance? Maybe, but I think it's because the previous stuff was also a whole lot better. I tried to like all the post Tatoo You albums when they came out...I really did. But when I look at that cd case on the back seat the only one I ever pull out is 'Stripped'....that's always a good listen.

After 1983 the only buzz I ever caught on the first listen of a new Stones tune was 'Love Is Strong'. "Yeah, they're back!" "Now that's the Stones!" I remember being disappointed by the rest of Voodoo Lounge when not much else sounded like that. I've often thought that if they had stuck to their sound and style, like AC/DC for example, they would have had just as much success as they did in the 80's, 90's, 2000's....Oh well, maybe I'll listen to Undercover today....just for the heck of it. See if I was right or wrong about it. It's been a while....a decade or two!

The best you can do is take all songs you like from the post-Tattoo You era and make your own album out of that.

The problem with the Stones is that they are not primarily "great songwriters" (like McCartney or something), but rather great "groove-players". There are a lot of not so special songs on Exile that sound great, just because they make them sound great. For this you have to play on and on and on and on the same song, the same grooves and licks and melodies again and again, which is what they did for years: Mick and Keith together and then joining with the band, hours on end, day after day. That's the only way they can get that sound and feel. Since Exile, they don't do this anymore and it shows. For Some Girls, for a bit they went back to that, and Tattoo You is a collection of outtakes from those better times, but all the other albums are just collections of "Mick-songs" and "Keith-songs" which they practiced for a while in a rented studio, then record it, and then, up to the next song. Some of these songs are still alright, but that's the most you can get.

Nicely put...yes...'space' and 'groove'---the steady, slow-moving chug of a train(or fast-moving train) on the tracks...the popping/knocking sound of Keith's guitar. Too much uneccessary texture, too many production layers post '83...and yes, there is some interesting stuff there...'