Quote
Gazza
'It Must Be Hell' would be pretty good - yeah. Although personally I'd prefer it's earlier incarnation, 'Soul Survivor'. Pretty much the same riff, no?

Those Riffs are in lots of the songs - Crazy Mama etc.
Soul Survivor is a bit slower.
By the way - some metnioned here about Ronnie and Too Though. Too tough is a copy of Cellophane Trousers. Was Ronnie on that song early 1975?

The problem of Dirty Work is one that's the most typical of the last decades (with exceptions, of course) and that kills the overall view of the album:
It's not the extraordinaries like Winnig Ugly and Back to Zero
(Harlem Shuffle is a masterpiece! - it's always one of their strenths to go like Anything-You-can-Do-We-Can-do-Better like Miss You), it's their original strength that sucks:
They don't have good up-tempo riff-rockers on this (and others) album. Some kind of hard rock instead.

the guitar playing is better than anything they've done since.one hit and had it with you are standouts.i also like too rude and harlem shuffle.if you're told something is crap enough it sort of ruins it but its a pretty good record.

"this album cooks just below the surface,its built for the road"-KEITH RICHARDS

Cellophane Trousers became Too Tough.

Yeah, the riff from "Too Tough" went back to the BLACK AND BLUE sessions, but Ronnie's solo (also heard on "Fight") was not part of the mid-seventies outtake.

Quote
mtaylor

Quote
Gazza
'It Must Be Hell' would be pretty good - yeah. Although personally I'd prefer it's earlier incarnation, 'Soul Survivor'. Pretty much the same riff, no?

Those Riffs are in lots of the songs - Crazy Mama etc.
Soul Survivor is a bit slower.
By the way - some metnioned here about Ronnie and Too Though. Too tough is a copy of Cellophane Trousers. Was Ronnie on that song early 1975?

Ronnie certainly played on the same sessions that produced 'Cellophane Trousers' - ie, Munich March/April 1975, but he wasnt there for the whole sessions. Wayne Perkins and Harvey Mandel were also there for part of the time. I'm sure someone with a better ear than myself would be able to figure out who the other guitarist on that track is (there's two versions - one of which has an extra lead guitar part)

'Too Tough' used pretty much the same riff, but it wasnt a 'Tattoo You-esque' overdub in the way that they patched the songs on THAT album together. All of whats heard on the song on 'Undercover' come from New York in 1983.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-16 23:27 by Gazza.

Quote
the_word
quite frankly it is better than Steel Wheels or Voodoo Lounge in my opinion...

agreed... and to me it has more integrity than IORR, with the band actually showing some reasons for existing (though not consistently). Integrity isn't a quality that one listens for, however.

Just wanna say: I like dirty work a lot, i am glad it exists!!!

And, nice one Pelle, thanks for this topic!!
greetings from a dirty work lover from Holland.

one hit- a great rocker with some punch.. has some balls and a nice guitar solo by JP. should be played live.
hold back- i thought it rocked and the lyrics were quite clever. loved the sound of keith's guitar. rhythm had a nice bite to it.
sleep tonight-a decent KR ballad, but nothing special and the start of the decline in the quality of keith's songs.
harlem shuffle- nice remake of an older song.

the rest of the album was pretty weak. no tour as a follow up spoke volumes about this recording. if DW was any good, they would have hit the road.

as of today, i have not heard a song from this CD on any FM radio station in over 20 years.

Jagger was not into this album at all and it shows on his vocals.

One Hit - The only really good song on the album
Fight - A complet throwaway
Harlen Shuffle - A good cover
Hold Back - Dreadful
Too Rude - Boring
Winning Ugly - Pure crap
Back to Zero = One of the worst songs by the Stones
Dirty Work - Ok nothing special
Had it With you - Ok
Sleep Tonight - Not Keith's best

"Winning Ugly - Pure crap" made me almost spit my beer out!

I used to LOATHE this album. Well, I still don't think very highly of it, but it as a few bright spots, namely 'Sleep Tonight', which is one of Keith's most underrated songs. I never liked "One Hit" at all, even though it was the first big single, etc. I think 'Too Rude' and 'Had It With You' are fun, while the title track is generic Stones but has nice guitar work on it.

Otherwise, for me, it's a load of badly produced, poorly written crap w/Jagger's worst singing on any album.

and the cover photo is, to me, about as charming as a pitbull chewing on my nuts.

There is nothing bad about Winning Ugly.

Stunning bass line.
Marvellous inventive lead guitar.

Jagger's vocals - huge range, power and playful invective - set against a lively, upbeat tempo. Hence the genius - a rollicking diatribe.

The Stones were again socially/politically relevant - and challenging themselves/us - the greed culture - in a personal way. (Not in an open and general 'Undercover' way).

Ditto with BTZ - with some good, subtle guitar conversations, other imaginitive touches and a Real rootsy funk bass-line. Compare with the lame and meaningless Pretty Beat Up.

Jagger on top form vocally again.

DW album was a blast of fresh air after the largely stylised (vocally and guitar-wise), formularised and mannered 'Stonesrock' of Undercover. Going through the motions and out of fresh ideas.

DW is Authentic. Many don't like Mick's 'growling' - but the man was singing as if he gave a damn.

And their use of an eclectic mix of other flavourable talents - very nice mixed vibe going on - like end of the sixties.

I like a bit of Tom Waits, Kirsty MacColl, Jimmy Page, Jimmy Cliff, Ivan Neville.

Great little melting pot, Some interesting chemistry.

All such ingredients lacking on their other 80s albums.

"There is nothing bad about Winning Ugly."

OK dude.

Dirty Work makes about as much sense as Sarah Palin.

THAT is how bad of an album it is.

the production, the cover and jaggers singing...BAAAAAAAD...

3 good songs: one hit, dirty work, sleep tonight.

the rest is how skipstone pointed out: the antithesis of the rolling stones.

the only thing i like about the album (besides the 3 mentioned songs) is the fact that in a way i'ts an honest piece. shity but honest. it has a certain mood and vibe (unlike BTB or AB and it shows the indifference of jagger and his desperate attempt of being/sounding contemporary. his voice is just ridiculous, as if he wanted to show that he still is THE alpha-man in rockbizz...and it also shows the fight they had within the band.

Quote
guitarbastard
the production, the cover and jaggers singing...BAAAAAAAD...

3 good songs: one hit, dirty work, sleep tonight.

the rest is how skipstone pointed out: the antithesis of the rolling stones.

It was the antithesis of what the Stones had become since before Some Girls and soon after it. Lazier and less inspired in the studio.

It was everything that they once had been - Keith gutsy and on fire in some places, soulful in others while being the core creator of a Stones album for the first time since Exile. Jagger singing as if it mattered and as if he meant it - being challenged by Keith's new-found form. Two guitarists working well together. A live vibe. That is the 'thesis' of classical Stones - not the antithesis.

One Hit (to the Body) is one of my favorite 80s songs, unfortunatly I've never heard it live. But maybe someday in the future?

Quote
Midnight Toker
the rest of the album was pretty weak. no tour as a follow up spoke volumes about this recording. if DW was any good, they would have hit the road.
.

They didnt hit the road with Beggars Banquet either. Or Sticky Fingers.

The quality of the record had nothing whatsoever to do with their decision not to tour.

Winning Ugly is HORRIBLE!

Gazza- Mick didn't think it was strong enough to tour on. I recall an interview in the mid 1980's wherein Jagger had spoken about this. He was not really happy with the way the record turned out. Keith wanted to go out and tour. This further soured their relationship until they patched things up and recorded Steel Wheels.

Quote
Four Stone Walls
It was everything that they once had been - Keith gutsy and on fire in some places, soulful in others while being the core creator of a Stones album for the first time since Exile. Jagger singing as if it mattered and as if he meant it - being challenged by Keith's new-found form. Two guitarists working well together. A live vibe. That is the 'thesis' of classical Stones - not the antithesis.

What, Some Girls? Yes. But no way is that about Dirty Work. Keith the core creator? And that's how they wound up with Winning Ugly and Back To Zero on it? Yeah I know there's guitar on those tracks but the way they turned out, no way. That's Mick's doing - and it's awful.

You say Mick sang as if he meant it. Apparently from what I've read about the recording sessions he was very busy with She's The Boss. He had little interest in the Stones album. If they did it to impress the new record label they failed. Because that deal didn't last long.

the keith groupies need to get their story straight,if mick wasnt there why wasn"t this the great keith/exile part2 that jagger was supposed to move over and let him make all these years.he laid down the vocals and adios

i thought he did a pretty good job and i like the record o.k. but make no mistake this IS keiths record.mick as much as said-"you want to run the band,do it"

Quote
Rocky Dijon
Yeah, the riff from "Too Tough" went back to the BLACK AND BLUE sessions, but Ronnie's solo (also heard on "Fight") was not part of the mid-seventies outtake.

There's no Ronnie solo on Fight. Keith is playing that one. A classic, imo.

Quote
Midnight Toker
Gazza- Mick didn't think it was strong enough to tour on. I recall an interview in the mid 1980's wherein Jagger had spoken about this. He was not really happy with the way the record turned out. Keith wanted to go out and tour. This further soured their relationship until they patched things up and recorded Steel Wheels.

I think there were many reasons; Mick & Keith couldn´t stand each other, Mick wanted to promote his own album, Charlie wasn´t in any shape to tour etc.

I never understood the negative critics, it is a raw and rude album with great rockers like "Hold on to Your Hat", "Dirty Work", "Fight" and the blues-like track "Had It with You". The opener is a typical "Keith-riffer", the Keith-Soul-ballad at the end is simply great. The only really negative point is that the hommage to Ian Stewart is ridiculously short.

Quote
Midnight Toker
Gazza- Mick didn't think it was strong enough to tour on. I recall an interview in the mid 1980's wherein Jagger had spoken about this. He was not really happy with the way the record turned out. Keith wanted to go out and tour. This further soured their relationship until they patched things up and recorded Steel Wheels.

If Jagger has had something to the effect don't believe him. He wasn't interested in the record nor touring 'behind it' in the mid-80's. His disinterest on the album in the first place can be very well heard in the album. If he would have wanted to tour behind it, he surely had made the album better. Now he didn't bothernearly at all, but let instead Keith and Ronnie mess in the studio together. Keith knew that all the way, and was angry as a hell. (The Live Aid incidence is a proof of that.)

I think that after leading the band alone for years Mick sent the message to Keith saying "there, have it. Do as you please without my guide". We have to remember that THE KEEF was the rising star of the band in the 80's - and seemingly wanted his share of the leadership of the Stones - that has been the tension since Keith cleaned up (and Mick and Keith's unhostile relations were famous since Exile sessions). Seemingly, by the early-80's Mick had lost his interested in the Stones - that is, to deal with spoiled kids like Keith (not to forget Ronnie) who also had a kind of moral support of the masses behind him now (Keith was recognized the 'true heart of The Stones' - and 1981/82 tour was Keith's publicity tour, in fact - he was the new-born star everywhere and got the biggest applauds). So, Mick got tired up and wanted to continue his career without dealing with Keith any longer. That was also mean to continue the story of the Stones by his own means - and Mick is Stones as much as Keith is. But the big audience voted with their feet, and Jagger's "solo career" turned out to be a fiasco (in Jaggerian terms).

People seem to think that THEN Jagger gave up and came back begging to Keith and said "okay, let's put the band on the studio and on the road again". It is partly true - Jagger understood that he is not superstar without the safe belt of The Rolling Stones - but when he reached Keith he had tough conditions Keith seemingly needed to accept. I think it was Keith actually who lost the balls in the 80's cold war and ever since he has concentrated merely to keep the image on he had created in his youth. The central point of 'new deal' of 1989 was: the band is totally run by terms of Mick, and Keith (with Ronnie) do not mess any longer with anything substantial of the band dealings. No endless jamming in the studio any longer waiting the inspiration to come; the musical directorship on stage of teh band is taken out of the hands of Keith - and his left-hand Ronnie, and to be taken by trusty, pro musicians. When Bill left, Mick even gave the full membership to Ronnie with a note: "yeah, pal, have the money, but do not think you can give any contribution but your image any longer to the band". Keith, actually, had signed the contract in 1989. The point is, that even Mick had realized he is not much outside the Stones, both Keith and Ronnie had realized through the 80's that they are totally hopeless without the guidance and determination of Mick Jagger. Mick is the one who makes things BIG. And seemingly, both Keith and Ronnie are addcted to the fame, big money and prestige the Stones present.

So listen carefully DIRTY WORK - that is the last album The Rolling Stones is a kind of band Keith and Brian once thought the idea of the band to be: two guitars working together as one, and all the rest is build upon that foundation. But the album also speaks volumes that what a mediocre rock band The Stones is without the super mind of Mick Jagger to really arise the band into higher level...

The story I described of the 80's is also a story of how the greatest rock&roll band of the world turned out to be a Las Vegas nostalgy tour circus. Perhaps that was a necessary development of events. I don't know. DIRTY WORK still has the Stones bark and spirit in it, but STEEL WHEELS is just ballsless compromise.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2009-12-18 13:14 by Doxa.

<3 good songs: one hit, dirty work, sleep tonight.>

Please tell us why Had It With You, Harlem Shuffle and Fight are so bad... And wtf is wrong with the title track, it's excellent imo!

I need to add (at least) one thing in respect to DIRTY WORK: that is teh last thing Ronnie Wood heavily contributed to the sound of the Rolling Stones. It's Ronnie's peak in many ways (having credits, etc.) but in long run it turned out to be wrong move or a kind of "Pyrhon's win". By siding so tightly with Keith, he turned out to be "Keith's man" and he seemingly was the pawn Keith sacrificed for coming to terms with Jagger in 1989. Ronnie is just a sideman ever since, contributing minimally.

Of course, all of this is my speculation, but it is base on the facts we all know (what happened to The Rolling Stones in 1989 on, what is Ronnie's role, etc.).

- Doxa

i just noticed that some people here are talking about dirty work as the worst album in history of music.. dont you think about that its your favourite bands album?? i get the deal that people think its horrible compared to the other albums,, but some people around here seem to like westlife's newest album more than one of the "weaker" albums of their favourite bands. lol!