Tricky one,huh. Stones at their most violent or ZZ Top at their most popular.

What is ZZ Top?

*danggg*

Kiddin', Rambler, I hope...

Next time someone will start a thread Tears For Fears
at their peak or Dirty Work?

I was thinking Abba or the Osmond Brothers.

I LOVE both albums, and I'm proud of it!! These two records helped me to survive the 1980's, an unpleasant decade. Both discs are an absolute pleasure from start to finish.

Drew

That's fine Drew. But it does lack the luster of Exile versus Physical. 2 of the greatest rock albums ever made. For the record I own both Undercover & Eliminator.

Eliminator was ZZ's most popular release and probably without it would not have survived in the 1980's. It's well documented that it was pretty much a Billy Gibbons solo album. Frank Beard from what I understand was replaced with a drum machine since he was unable to play due to bad addictions.

It was done around a time Billy was into techno, bands like Depsche Mode and he realized you do not have to have a live drummer in the studio, etc.

There is a 25th Anniver Edition of Eliminator coming out in late March on Warner Brothers. Comes with bonus tracks, live tracks and DVD of live clips and music videos. Best thing is that the edition has the original mixes. "Legs" was remixed on later versions of Eliminator to make it more danceable. The Original IMO was better...but, I still hate that song reguardless.

Undercover still is one of my fave Stones albums. The last real Stones album where they still had this mix of sex and violence.

Mathijs

Cover it up baybuh, coverit up tight - Undercover of the Night!!!!

Yesah, too less sex & violence these days... (I sense you're younger than me, Maestro Mahtijs) ><

ZZ Top was great UNTIL Eliminator...that represented the commercialization of that band. Please, give me "Bad & Nationwide" or "Jesus Just Left Chicago" anyday over anything on Eliminator.

Gimme a n y t h i n g by ZZ towards the sleepwalkin' ghosts from
the late 70s.. They, who made punk rock arise...

Quote
midnrambler
What is ZZ Top?

That's soooo funny - I almost wet my pants

Whats the next comparison gonna be?

"Honky Tonk Women" vs the song that replaced it at the top of the charts - 'In the Year 2525' for UK fans and 'Sugar Sugar' by the Archies for the Yanks ?

Here's how NME's Adam Sweeting reviewed the release of Undercover:

Eliminator was the end of Frank Beard as a drummer. It seemed that live in concert he was faking and not playing. Drum machine and guitar and bass. Undercover marked the end of the Stones ability to sell albums. Not entirely their fault, but the industry changed. Now they "survive" by income from live performances(lucky for us!)

I am a huge ZZ Top fan, but even I question Frank Beards role in the band during the last few tours. He comes off as very disinterested in performing where I ask if he is even playing live anymore. He was never an animated player, but when he plays now (if he's playing), his head in down and you just see him arms move.

At the end of the shows while Billy and Dusty take a final bow, Frank never waves goodbye or bows, he just walks off looking pissed. This is every show I've seen the last several tours.

Here's a couple photos I did back in the Spring.

A mean SOB.

Quote
LOGIE
Here's how NME's Adam Sweeting reviewed the release of Undercover:

I seem to remember another weekly music mag at the time (either Melody Maker or Sounds) ending their full page review by saying "this is the worst album the Stones have ever recorded", accompanied by a picture of Mick with the caption "not a glimmer of talent".....

I hate undercover of the night, song and singing. The Stones sometimes covered their own songs but with Must be hell covering Soul Survivor.....grumpf.

And I don't think the album sold more copies than DW, SW or VL and it didn't sell more than Bigger Bang ´(may be over the years but not in the instant).

I like Eliminator but prefer Undercover.

Side A of undercover is nothing less than perfect. Its perfect like side B of bleed, side A of stiky, side 1 & 4 of exile. Same level.

Side B, is only a little bit weaker. It's not bad, the first two numbers are killers, the last 3 are good, but we have heard them before in better form.

C

Always thought Undercover was excellent. Not perfect, but a really great album. With better marketing and a tour it could have been huge.

Never liked ZZ Top much. That's a funny looking drumkit, though!

I Love ZZ but when the drum machine bit started I had to just be happy w/listening to the first few albums. No offense to Frank but ANY decent drummer could have filled the position.

Quote
Gazza

I seem to remember another weekly music mag at the time (either Melody Maker or Sounds) ending their full page review by saying "this is the worst album the Stones have ever recorded", accompanied by a picture of Mick with the caption "not a glimmer of talent".....

It was the NME and the review was by Barney Hoskyns.

Quote
jamesjagger
And I don't think the album sold more copies than DW, SW or VL and it didn't sell more than Bigger Bang ´(may be over the years but not in the instant).

According to Jagger the album sold 2+ million copies by June 1984, I guess it sold 2.5 million copies so far, not bad for an album without a tour behind it, but not too great when TY sold over 8 million copies.
I think the album was released too soon, TY was still a strong seller during 1982 and Still Life was still on the charts in early 1983. They also released LSTNT in 1983, too much Stones stuff in 2 years time. The people needed a rest, even Rewind barely made the top 100 in 1984.

About the other albums, DW sold the same, SW and VL about 6 million each, B2B 4 million and ABB 2.5m

Quote
BluzDude
ZZ Top was great UNTIL Eliminator...that represented the commercialization of that band. Please, give me "Bad & Nationwide" or "Jesus Just Left Chicago" anyday over anything on Eliminator.

I agree.

Quote
georgelicks

Quote
Gazza

I seem to remember another weekly music mag at the time (either Melody Maker or Sounds) ending their full page review by saying "this is the worst album the Stones have ever recorded", accompanied by a picture of Mick with the caption "not a glimmer of talent".....

It was the NME and the review was by Barney Hoskyns.

I thought it was the NME too (would have been their style around then), but the review Logie posted supposedly comes from that rag which made me think it was the other two of the big 3 weeklies at the time.

Surprising as it is, that write-up was definetly from the NME!

Gazza is spot on however, in that elsewhere, the music press generally, took the album to the cleaners.

Quote
BluzDude
Please, give me "Bad & Nationwide" or "Jesus Just Left Chicago" anyday over anything on Eliminator.

Let's have a P-p-p-p-p-p-party on the patio!!!!