A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...

Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-16 18:21 by Doxa.

Quote
matxil

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.

I don't agree.

A turd remains a turd even if is played day after day. A great groove alone won't make a great song unless you have a great hook or riff or chorus or whatever that makes it distinctive.

Miss You is a great song, a great groove, but what what drills a hole in your head is the intro theme/riff.

Again, the work process you describe, for example, characterized the making of Voodoo Lounge, as is well documented in the mass of outtakes. Yet Voodoo Lounge is no Exile.

Satanic and Exile are dense with layers and layers of overdubs. It's part of their charm!

Undercover features a super tight band, tempered by a two-year long world tour. The arrangements show this: if you dissect the songs, the single contributions are all great, no cliches at all. But, above all, in the very best tradition of the best stones works, each song is based on great riffs, hooks etc.

Yes, the structure of the songs is basic, more rooted in funk rather than the European pop song tradition. No harmonized chord progression, no gentle embellishments. So what?

That's the way I like it!

Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.

People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.

There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.

What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.


C

We are all trying to process, rationalize, and explain the decline of a great band. Did it start with the death of Brian jones? Keith's decline in the early 70s? The success and excess of 72? A few stylistic wrong turns in the mid 70s? Anita and Keith splitting up and/or Toronto 77? Keith sobering up and challenging mick? The mick/Keith feud of the 80s? The 90s? The 00s? Or was it just old age.

I view most of the debates like the one about undercover to essentially boil down to us trying to understand and mourn the fact that the band is out of gas and has been for a while - the band hasn't recorded a new album in 10 years and has had multiple tours with below par performance (I'm not counting this one).

And of course finally in understanding and mourning the passing there is a secret hope that somehow they will find the groove one more time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-17 03:48 by sonomastone.

Quote
liddas

Quote
matxil

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.

I don't agree.

A turd remains a turd even if is played day after day. A great groove alone won't make a great song unless you have a great hook or riff or chorus or whatever that makes it distinctive.

Miss You is a great song, a great groove, but what what drills a hole in your head is the intro theme/riff.

Again, the work process you describe, for example, characterized the making of Voodoo Lounge, as is well documented in the mass of outtakes. Yet Voodoo Lounge is no Exile.

Satanic and Exile are dense with layers and layers of overdubs. It's part of their charm!

Undercover features a super tight band, tempered by a two-year long world tour. The arrangements show this: if you dissect the songs, the single contributions are all great, no cliches at all. But, above all, in the very best tradition of the best stones works, each song is based on great riffs, hooks etc.

Yes, the structure of the songs is basic, more rooted in funk rather than the European pop song tradition. No harmonized chord progression, no gentle embellishments. So what?

That's the way I like it!

Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.

People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.

There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.

What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.


C

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

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

First time I read it in over 30 years...yes a lovely read and certainly mirrors my feelings on the album.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas
Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.

People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.

There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.

What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.


C

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

The problem is taste, which is a damn private thing and varies from person to person. So to not hurt anyone's personal feelings, I have rejected the best I can to make any judgements based on my own taste, and just concentrate on "rationalizing" historical facts... So I can very accept the moral of liddas' sayings here. Wise words. Describing music is easily evaluative, and that will lead us to trouble...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-17 15:59 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas
Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.

People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.

There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.

What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.


C

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

The problem is taste, which is a damn private thing and varies from person to person. So to not hurt anyone's personal feelings, I have rejected the best I can to make any judgements based on my own taste, and just concentrate on "rationalizing" historical facts... So I can very accept the moral of liddas' sayings here. Wise words. Describing music is easily evaluative, and that will lead us to trouble...

- Doxa

But if you're actually describing it, it shouldn't matter if there is an evaluation, because if you're describing it accurately I can read the description and go, "yeah, he doesn't like it but that is right up my alley".

Quote
treaclefingers

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!


C

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!


C

That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.

Quote
treaclefingers

But if you're actually describing it, it shouldn't matter if there is an evaluation, because if you're describing it accurately I can read the description and go, "yeah, he doesn't like it but that is right up my alley".

But you are describing it from your point of view!

To make an example, if in my head, Brown Sugar is the archetypal Stones rock song, it is very likely that I would "describe" Start Me Up like a "classic". But what if Keith Richards had used a Oberheim synth for Start Me Up? Would I have recognized the inner qualities of that piece of music?

I tell you: no way. No guitar riff, no Stones!

Here on IORR 99% of the productions that come from the 80's are labeled as "atrocious".

Yet, to go back to my example, the Oberheim synth made the fortune of VH's Jump. So to say, an instrument, or a "production" can't be "bad" in itself!

C

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!


C

That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.

Exactly.

That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.

Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!


C

That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.

Exactly.

That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.

Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!

C

subjective measurement is a tool to use to simplify things. you can lament that it exists but it can be useful.

It's impossible to go to every movie, or listen to all music created. Reviews can be very helpful as an efficiency mechanism.

just don't guide your life simply by what everyone tells you. In fact, you should ignore the fact that I'm saying this. Oh, you are.

Many find Undercover an excellent album. That's indisputable, no matter if others want to belittle it

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!


C

That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.

Exactly.

That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.

Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!

C

subjective measurement is a tool to use to simplify things. you can lament that it exists but it can be useful.

It's impossible to go to every movie, or listen to all music created. Reviews can be very helpful as an efficiency mechanism.

just don't guide your life simply by what everyone tells you. In fact, you should ignore the fact that I'm saying this. Oh, you are.

Right: Subjective measurement is a very useful tool.

Wrong: I will not ignore your suggestions, more so now that I know that you too like Undercover!

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
liddas

Quote
treaclefingers

While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.

Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!


C

That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.

Exactly.

That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.

Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!

C

subjective measurement is a tool to use to simplify things. you can lament that it exists but it can be useful.

It's impossible to go to every movie, or listen to all music created. Reviews can be very helpful as an efficiency mechanism.

just don't guide your life simply by what everyone tells you. In fact, you should ignore the fact that I'm saying this. Oh, you are.

Right: Subjective measurement is a very useful tool.

Wrong: I will not ignore your suggestions, more so now that I know that you too like Undercover!

C

Lovely discussion...I actually need to get up from the computer now and DO something. Have a good one!

Quote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...

Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...

- Doxa

Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.

Some count US releases (Now, December's Children, Flowers) as studio albums - hence the confusing numbers, I think...

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...

Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...

- Doxa

Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.

Those RS reviews and others of the same kind sometimes hit the mark, othertimes they clearly don't.,

As to your own demanding point of view here, GasLightStreet, there is one vital distinction to make.

1) At certain various points in their career the Rolling Stones contributed to define what rock and other genres of popular music were, and to develop them further.

2) As one band that during their career has vitally contributed to the genres of popular music and defining them, the Rolling Stones has had a further development within their own project, even when it did no longer have that defining capacity outside the band itself.

For instance, the four albums of '68 - '72 probably might be said to have that genre defining and developing quality.

UNDERCOVER probably might be said not any longer to enable the Rolling Stones themselves to define genres of popular music and further develop them in a defining way. However, within the Stones scope of music, it might be said that almost as much as albums that were defining what the relevant genres are or were, UNDERCOVER contributed to develop the Rolling Stones' own project further.

Then I will state that, not according to 1), but certainly according to 2), with my view on it, UNDERCOVER is a GREAT album. That is, under 2) also almost as much as those albums that are great, according to 1).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-17 22:11 by Witness.

Quote
Witness

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...

Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...

- Doxa

Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.

Those RS reviews and others of the same kind sometimes hit the mark, othertimes they clearly don't.,

As to your own demanding point of view here, GasLightStreet, there is one vital distinction to make.

1) At certain various points in their career the Rolling Stones contributed to define what rock and other genres of popular music were, and to develop them further.

2) As one band that during their career has vitally contributed to the genres of popular music and defining them, the Rolling Stones has had a further development within their own project, even when it did no longer have that defining capacity outside the band itself.

For instance, the four albums of '68 - '72 probably might be said to have that genre defining and developing quality.

UNDERCOVER probably might be said not any longer to enable the Rolling Stones themselves to define genres of popular music and further develop them in a defining way. However, within the Stones scope of music, it might be said that almost as much as albums that were defining what the relevant genres are or were, UNDERCOVER contributed to develop the Rolling Stones' own project further.

Then I will state that, not according to 1), but certainly according to 2), with my view on it, UNDERCOVER is a GREAT album. That is, under 2) also almost as much as those albums that are great, according to 1).

I would like to think of it as a GREAT album ie BEGGARS-EXILE - maybe it is. Held up to those four, probably not, but that's a whole different band. But in regard to what you said, it's probably their funkiest (daring) album of their catalogue. Genre mutating for sure.

Quote
Witness

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...

Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...

- Doxa

Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.

Those RS reviews and others of the same kind sometimes hit the mark, othertimes they clearly don't.,

As to your own demanding point of view here, GasLightStreet, there is one vital distinction to make.

1) At certain various points in their career the Rolling Stones contributed to define what rock and other genres of popular music were, and to develop them further.

2) As one band that during their career has vitally contributed to the genres of popular music and defining them, the Rolling Stones has had a further development within their own project, even when it did no longer have that defining capacity outside the band itself.

For instance, the four albums of '68 - '72 probably might be said to have that genre defining and developing quality.

UNDERCOVER probably might be said not any longer to enable the Rolling Stones themselves to define genres of popular music and further develop them in a defining way. However, within the Stones scope of music, it might be said that almost as much as albums that were defining what the relevant genres are or were, UNDERCOVER contributed to develop the Rolling Stones' own project further.

Then I will state that, not according to 1), but certainly according to 2), with my view on it, UNDERCOVER is a GREAT album. That is, under 2) also almost as much as those albums that are great, according to 1).

Actually I don't think that Undercover further developed their project.
I liked and quite like it. But it showed no development. It just reaffirms their 'being' - but does not develop, (i.e innovate - or in evolutionary terms ' mutate!)

As someone said earlier in this thread, it is really the successor to Emotional Rescue. That had a couple of second rate rockers on - Boys Go and Summer Romance. They just followed in the Some Girls vein = but in a sub-par way. The development - surprise factors - differences - from the Some Girls album are its more restrained the laid back approach and overall sound. Understated really.

Undercover is a return to the blatant - with the exception of All The Way Down, which maybe with Wanna Hold You are the two tracks which do blend with ER album style. ER has a couple of dud rockers (IMO) - but is still a distinctive development from SG.

Goats Head certainly developed their project. Really new excursions and styles - (continued a bit on IORR album in FF and TWFNO).

Undercover has the convincing rockers - incl. its title track. But does it develop. I think not.

And here to stick my neck out again - I believe DW and SW do develop their project - as does Bridges. New ideas, new sounds, new styles. New life.

Keith is using his guitar in new ways on DW and SW and getting new sounds. I don't get that sense on Undercover. And Ronnie too - some lovely lead textures on SW. His lead on the Undercover track is gripping - but we kind of knew he could do that. But his chiming acoustic rhythm on One Hit - that is more resonant and remarkable.

What's more interesting is when they break from the obvious and safe and to the more interactive, subtle and intricate.

That explains some of the charm of ER - and I also maintain, to an even greater extent, DW and SW.

Leaving aside TY, there are 4 80s albums, each separated by 3 years.
Undercover maybe the most 'solid' - some great positive playing - but I think the others were more developmental.

Feel On Baby is tremendous. That's a kind of song they've never done since. That was an evolution of what they were doing, a dirty slow funky tune. Too Much Blood probably wasn't since it's just another dance song (with some interesting guitar work in it).

Probably the best track on the LP is Tie You Up (The Pain Of Love). I think that is supreme. It's funky, has a great groove, great vocals, it's blues based and has excellent guitar in it. One of Keith's finest pieces of work.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Many find Undercover an excellent album. That's indisputable, no matter if others want to belittle it

And many find Undercover one of their worst. That's indisputable, no matter if others want to glorify it.

I take that Loder review with a grain of salt. This is the same magazine that tore apart Some Girls, a universally acknowledged classic album, and praised Undercover, which is maybe their worst, at least of the 1964-1989 Stones.

There are many here that loathe SG. So there you go

Quote
24FPS
I take that Loder review with a grain of salt. This is the same magazine that tore apart Some Girls, a universally acknowledged classic album, and praised Undercover, which is maybe their worst, at least of the 1964-1989 Stones.

yeah, undercover is really the point where the reviewers began to hail every stones album as "their best since [exile or some girls]". the irony that both albums were panned is obviously rich.

reviews of stones albums from the 80s on can't be trusted. they have said that every single one was a return to greatness not seen since the 70s. i stopped falling for it after waiting in line to get my copy of steel wheels.

Tastes aside, Undercover WAS an evolving piece. Feel On Baby is mentioned. The use of technology is another thing. The melodic choruses of She Was Hot and Too Tough were also new additions. The single was fresh, and perhaps their most daring song to sell since the 60s.

How is all of this "by the numbers"?

And Tie You Up is excellent.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Tastes aside, Undercover WAS an evolving piece. Feel On Baby is mentioned. The use of technology is another thing. The melodic choruses of She Was Hot and Too Tough were also new additions. The single was fresh, and perhaps their most daring song to sell since the 60s.

How is all of this "by the numbers"?

And Tie You Up is excellent.

i agree with you about undercover

the main issue to me is songwriting. less risks taken, less creativity, more formulaic. we've seen how hard they worked on the structure of 'sympathy' in the goddard documentary. i think they just stopped pushing themselves to be great at a certain point and were satisfied with good. undercover is a good album. it's also below average for the stones and yes, i view it as no less derivative of the "stones" than the black crowes or aerosmith.

Upon release of Undercover I remember reading the Rolling Stone interview with Keith wherein Keith laments that the mix of the album version of Undercover was Mick's. The interviewer said that Keith was blasting his mix from the speakers before the interview started and that it was far rougher than Mick's.

I wonder whatever happened to that mix? Does anyone here happen to know anything about it - maybe even have the mix they can share?

Quote
MidnightPeanut
Upon release of Undercover I remember reading the Rolling Stone interview with Keith wherein Keith laments that the mix of the album version of Undercover was Mick's. The interviewer said that Keith was blasting his mix from the speakers before the interview started and that it was far rougher than Mick's.

I wonder whatever happened to that mix? Does anyone here happen to know anything about it - maybe even have the mix they can share?

I couldn't find the mix in question. I have no problem with the official mix. What I did find were some not so encouraging live versions. Bill had a hard enough time with the bass lines of that song on the Steel Wheels tour. And Darryl's versions are totally lost, as if he'd never bothered to listen to the record, or didn't get it.

1983 Interview. They don't talk about Undercover but it's one of the rare later era (relatively speaking) joint interviews with Mick/Keith.