Quote
Gazza
Its only a 'bad' album by Stones standards. If any other band had released it, it would have been deemed passable.

Whats wrong with it?



2) Mick's input was minimal at best, and half arsed at worst

LOL, the King of the one-liners.

Well, it is special for me because my girlfriend at the time got busted for shoplifting it.

When it was released I liked it. I loved One Hit, Harlem Shuffle, Fight, Dirty Work and Had It With You. The rest of it was...odd.

When I bought the Virgin reissue I just chuckled. The only thing I hoped for was that it, and I don't really know why, sounded better. It did/does than the original. But you can't shine a turd, it just spreads it out.

Quote
parislocksmith
"... chewing an old sock"
QED.
From my perspective, Jagger has seldom sounded so raw and convincing.

Quite agree. The band sounds raw and convincing too. The essence of Punk - with real lyrical substance.

Whereas most stuff of Some Girls was Stones being influenced by Punk - but still leaning on the Berryisms - on Hold Back - and other DW tracks - you have Stones delivering authentic punk anger and angst, with more genuine power and thrust than the young band had delivered 10 years earlier.

And ofcourse with the tensions within the band that's what makes the whole album more agressive, abrasive, raw real - infact, Rock and Real Roll.

yeah, Let It Loose was nice in its way back in '72 - but hardly the first track that comes to mind for comparison with the urgent protest spirit that inspires many tracks off DW.

While most bands were mellowing out and soaking up the the monetarist, capitalist, greed cultue of the eighties - here were the Stones protesting about it - abrasively.

DW album was their last Hoorah! - before the corportate approach that has dominated since end of eighties to present.

A totally uncommercial album from the middle of a bland, hyper-commercial decade.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-28 02:38 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
MKjan
Well, it is special for me because my girlfriend at the time got busted for shoplifting it.

Did she plead insanity?

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

Quote
sweetcharmedlife

Quote
MKjan
Well, it is special for me because my girlfriend at the time got busted for shoplifting it.

Did she plead insanity?

LOL, I told her to stick the cassette down her pants, but no, she just put it in
her jacket. Ended up costing $250.00

...the cover, otherwise it's actually not too bad an album.

Quote
Four Stone Walls

Quote
parislocksmith
"... chewing an old sock"
QED.
From my perspective, Jagger has seldom sounded so raw and convincing.

Quite agree. The band sounds raw and convincing too. The essence of Punk - with real lyrical substance.

Whereas most stuff of Some Girls was Stones being influenced by Punk - but still leaning on the Berryisms - on Hold Back - and other DW tracks - you have Stones delivering authentic punk anger and angst, with more genuine power and thrust than the young band had delivered 10 years earlier.

And ofcourse with the tensions within the band that's what makes the whole album more agressive, abrasive, raw real - infact, Rock and Real Roll.

yeah, Let It Loose was nice in its way back in '72 - but hardly the first track that comes to mind for comparison with the urgent protest spirit that inspires many tracks off DW.

While most bands were mellowing out and soaking up the the monetarist, capitalist, greed cultue of the eighties - here were the Stones protesting about it - abrasively.

DW album was their last Hoorah! - before the corportate approach that has dominated since end of eighties to present.

A totally uncommercial album from the middle of a bland, hyper-commercial decade.

The discussion was about a vocal being 'raw and convincing', which is an entirely different thing. I used Let It Loose as an example because its probably the most impassioned vocal Jagger ever committed to tape.

Good for them that they did an angry 'protest' song. Too bad that - as was the case with 'Sweet Neocon' two decades later - it turned out to be a poor one.

Nothing.

Sounds and looks like the year it was made with the exception of a few tracks.

Decent album.

Not completely dated.

However we all know that UC was the last great Stones album anyway.

But thats another topic

It's bloody fantastic - nothing wrong with Dirty Work.

Tough / hard / angry / loud & Stones as you would hoped in 86.

Can you imagine if they did whatever all the other crap was being done right around those few years? Spare me.

It gets a pretty bad wrap around here at times, but I would hate to hear the comments if it sounded like 99.9% of the garbage that was classified as music in the mid 80's. Always a few exceptions of course, early GNR [not sure they had broken through huge as at Dirty Work release time, and early BLACK CROWES, again I think SYMoneyMaker wasn't out until around 87/88?

Stones leading the charge once again for tough hard Rock'n'Roll.

Might not be their best ever, but as often stated, even the not so liked Stones albums have it 10 times over the rubbish it is up against at the time.

Congrats Stones on a total 80's masterpiece!.

I have combined the best tracks from Undercover and Dirty Work to compile an "album that never was" and that works f***ing great. Sometimes less is more.

Decent Wikipedia entry on the album -

[en.wikipedia.org])

My own thoughts - it sounded like a band truly going thru the motions - same aound and swagger, but without great songwriting. They sounded angry, for sure, but perhaps more so at one another than at the world. The weakest points (past an uninviting cover sleeve) were the anemic, funk work-outs like Winning Ugly or Back To Zero. Even Ray Parker, Jr. or Huey Lewis in their heyday could come up with something more convincing with that sound. Yet 'Dirty Work' it does have its merits: the fine, atmospheric opener in "One Hit", the urgent and gritty title track and, most of all, Keith's sweetheart of a closer "Sleep Tonight". The latter sound still makes me swoon. Hearing this album though, I hear a band of musicians gallantly charging on to the call of battle, while there's a leader in front who's less interested in the sound of the band and more interested in himself. I have a feeling that this May have been the point where Mick was ready in his heart & soul (if not as businessman) to move on and really pursue a solo career. I wonder if he approached this record as a contractual obligation more than another Great Stones Record so he could build upon his newfound status as Mick Jagger - Solo Artist. Either way, those ideas belie the possibility that DIRTY WORK'S perhaps not the failure it has long been regarded as. It is consistent, and it does contain its bright spots. But while heavy on the SOUND we had come to love from the Stones, it is lacking on the SOUL. It's arguable to say they ever got that Soul back with Voodoo, Bridges, or ABB - but they came close in places on to achieving it than on this, which is even harder to argue in some circles. For me it's still their worst album - but it has aged better to my ears than I thought it would. One more point for it - they put out a very guitar and drum-oriented album in an era dominated by synths and clever sonic tricks. Brave of them to do so, when those sounds of the time produced so many hits ... but then again, it's the Stones - somebody's gotta do the dirty work!



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-28 06:01 by theimposter.

You know I'm one of those who happen to think DW really isn't that bad. I'll go so far as to say I like it better than Steel Wheels, Voodoo Lounge or Bridges to Babylon....But that's just my humble little opinion.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

I actually liked the cover photo when it came out - reminded me of the 60's album covers with the group portraits on almost every one. But I still can't figure out the lame cartoon on the inner sleeve. Not sure who's to blame for that. And that drum sound - ugh! Sounds so 80's and dated now.

I'm looking forward to my first CD version because I'm tired of skipping all of side two and dropping the needle just before "Sleep Tonight". Some really great tracks as everyone has mentioned already, but overall a band in a bad mood.

Jagger kept his best songs to himself and giving the band "Back to Zero" and "Winning Ugly" (both my least favourite Stones songs, but nicely packaged back to back, so thanks for small mercies.) There's a negativity that runs through the whole thing, reflecting the tension and troubles at the time of course.

At least we're not asking "What Really was so Bad about the Dirty Work Tour"! That would have been painful.

Dirty Work is ok in my book, for the most part. I prefer it over Steel Wheels... But I guess the main gripe is the friggin production and the terrible hollow sounding drums. There are a few clunkers, Winning Ugly is terrible. Back to Zero isn't great as well. But on the other hand some steller songs full of bite! One Hit, Dirty Work, Had it With You, and the Ian's farewell piano ditty at the end. Love Sleep Tonight and wish Keith would to that or Too Rude over Slipping Away and The Nearness of You.
Ok, now onto the cover. Just a reflection of the bright pop '80s. I hate it! They look like clones of themselves, cleaned up, pasteled and homogonized for commercial consumption. Terrible!

I love it! Because of the anger...raw guitars and so on. Winning ugly -just listen to Keith...try to play like that if you can And Had it with you...my god...Fight...One hit...lots of power...So, No...there´s nothing wrong with this album (well, the production then, maybe...) from MY point of wiev!

The feeling I´d have to hide it behind the cupboard if I´d have a copy...
Harlem Shuffle is the only track I really like,but the rest ?

No,Gazza,veto : Even compared to "standards" beside the Stones,it´s an awful record.
Probably bands like REO Speedwagon would ´ve been proud...

What Really Is So Bad About Dirty Work?
Production of course.Those snares processed with gated reverbs mainly.The rest is interesting and similar to other contemporary Stones records.They have always their preferences in the term of recording guitars and vocals so the rest is really ok.Listen to Steel Wheels unmixed tracks - the same thing , the same value the same class.
DW contains the same quantity of good songs as some previous albums in my opinion.There is more experiment.
I think You could appreciate an album like this today.The Rolling Stones it is the story of life written by albums and thats fine.You win some , you loose some.....

I always loved Dirty Work. I think it´s the forerunner of a Keith LP. Some songs on it are real crap, yes that´s trua, but there are a few R&R tunes they are not any other album ie Had it with you. It´s really underrated and bad produced/mixed, could have been their best wok of the 80s (think of all the great outtakes/demos)

Some good energy and songs on it. It doesn't have as much of an 80s synth sound as many people often portray it to be - except for the opening of side two (Winning Ugly, Back to Zero). Although it does suffer from bad equalization - not enough bass (it helps if you turn it up). Blame Lillywhite.

Undercover may have a couple of better songs (the first three!) but as a whole Dirty Work sounds more ambitious, even if only half-successful, and has a stronger musical "direction", i.e. the album gradually moves from hard rock (One Hit, Fight), slowly into a more dancy middle part (watch how Hold Back changes from hard rock to funk at the end, then Too Rude, Winning Ugly, Back to Zero), before returning to hard rock.

Dirty Work, One Hit, Too Rude, Had It, Sleep are all very good tracks.

Winning Ugly could've used a bit more work (and less synth), while only Back to Zero drags the album down.

Dirty Work? Good album. But The Stones absolute worst, IMO.

Ross

As I stated in many previous posts about Dirty Work : it is the production.
The songs are mostly fine by me. To quote other posters before me : I like the raw guitars, some songs have great 'weaving' by Ronnie and Keith, I like the 'anger' in Mick's voice. And now I'm gonna play the (great) song Dirty Work (on vinyl

Who's going to play Streets Of Love right now?

I have to come out and admit it, but I have always liked the cover photo. Matter of fact..I really like it.

the production, micks singing, half-baked songs

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I have to come out and admit it, but I have always liked the cover photo. Matter of fact..I really like it.

tell us more

I like the cover photo too (although that's about the only thing i like about the album).

Great to have a (i think) cool photo of the band, and way better than the absolutely pittiful covers on the 3 albums that follow it.

Quote Stonestod:

Palace Revolution 2000:

"I have to come out and admit it, but I have always liked the cover photo. Matter of fact..I really like it."

tell us more

Less is more!

I really like the cover too. Stark and Honest - like the contents.

Far better than the naff UC cover, and the concept 'tour' covers of SW, VL and Bigger Bang.

Though B2B also qualifies as a concept 'tour' cover, I personally like the blue and gold theme - and a bit more care/love was taken with the design.


Gazza,

Yes - Let It Loose is an imapssioned vocal performance - but i took the original poster's 'raw' not to mean a tender, vulnerable rawness but a forthright, honest, unmannered, unstylised, direct, SCREAMING rawness. "HEY (hey) YOU (You) GET OFF OF MY CLOUD". Mother Baby - and their ilk.

And I think Neocon has Jagger's best vocal on BB. Especially the yapping bit at the end. A bit like the end of Monkey Man - but with a 'nasty' satyrical bite. Seems to be in his mischevous element. Spontaneous ad-libbing.
Musically too I think the track succeeds cos it's more relaxed than most of the others and creates an effortless, raunchy, lurching, groove. Harmonica is fab.
Juices flowing.

And it's the spontaneous, combustive element of Hold Back that makes it attractive to folks like me. Exploding. Drums, funk bass, vocals, scything Keith, and the tantalising 'live' jam section at the end. But what makes the vocal more convincing/honest/appealing/raw is that this 40+ man is not youthfully ranting at others (as per the sixties), but is RAGING at himself (among others) in the eighties - not to tread a safe, cautious and unadventurous path. (Which, unfortunately the Stones ultimately did!)



Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-29 02:35 by Four Stone Walls.

i'll give FSW credit for an impassioned defense of the indefensible...well done.

well done? Stone Waals always lend their support for poorly understood and much-maligned snarling Dirty UnderDogs

and it's the (raw) passion in the DW album that stimulates such stalwart defence of an album whose ATTACK is its own best defence.

Too bad that many find its attitude so offensive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-07-30 00:35 by Four Stone Walls.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
well done? Stone Waals always lend their support for poorly understood and much-maligned snarling Dirty UnderDogs

and it's the (raw) passion in the DW album that stimulates such stalwart defense of an album whose ATTACK is its own best defense.

Too bad that many find its attitude so offensive.

drivel....gotta know when to quit....