I was listening the other day UNDERCOVER album, and I try now to put a bit what I heard and reflected on the context. I still remember the day when it came out. It was the first time I got a chance to buy a new Rolling Stones studio album (after being caught by “Start Me Up” and TATTOO YOU) and you know, be thrilled to do that. But honestly, it was a grand scale disappointment. I tried to think it as a great effort, and that I was happy to witness another peak era of The Stones, but in the end, I failed to fool myself. Of any their latter efforts, starting with DIRTY WORK and STEEL WHEELS, the feeling of disappointment was not been so huge (most likely because the expectations were not so high as after a follow up for TATTOO YOU. And in fact I was VERY thrilled of STEEEL WHEELS particular). I think what happened was the faith similar to GOAT’S HEAD SOAP and EMOTIONAL RESCUE. They just couldn’t live up the expectations created by the classic, profilic, and career-wise highly important albums they tried to follow. But now in retrospect we can say that all of those albums nowadays enjoy quite a new respected life. All of them represent The Stones in some interesting phases in their career, and they always sound vital when they try to say something new, or sound like they breath.

Okay, I leave the album aside, and discuss solely on one song, namely my point is: is “Undercover of The Night” the last big effort by the band to create something new and distinctive – a kind of last ‘big’ single? Well, at least I tend to think so. What is perhaps not so obvious at the time and no matter how great “Start Me Up” single and TATTOO YOU album were, they were basically quite retro-sounding efforts. And I think for that reason they were really loved so much. It felt like “aah, The Stones finally do what they do best”, after giving us disco songs, etc. The whole idea of SMU is the same formula like in “Brown Sugar” – a classical Stones song with a strong and catchy riff. There was no a inch of “Emotional Rescue” in it. In fact, it was the most Stones-like single since “It’s Only Rock&Roll”. So the Stones, rightly, triumphed with it.

But with “Undercover of the Night” they were seemingly leaving the easy ride with nostalgy aside. The band sounded like looking forward, and try catch up with times. One part of it was the MTV age with videos, and the song seemingly was planned with that visual aspect in it. Jagger seemingly wanted to give more insight into lyrics, showing some political conscience (forget the drunken and incohesive “Indian Girl”). One of the way to see the nature of its unique character is that it was Jagger’s last big effort to kick the band forward – he was STILL in 1984 using the band as his main instrument in providing his own intuitions and ideas. I think one could say that after that he lost that interest, and the most vital Jagger can be heard in his solo works – within Stones context he has accepted the conservative, nostalgic front man figure and soundscape (and sometimes the effort have been still impressive, no doubt of that, but certain Jaggerian spark and drive has gone, and replaced with more from eight-to-five-mentality).

Now, think of the singles since “U of the night”… With “Harlem Shuffle” they took really an easy ride – a catchy old dance song . Of course, it was a (sure) hit, but not something to be proudly remembered afterwards. Then “Mixed Emotions” – the song that has the nostalgic come back feeling all over it. Another easy-listener, half-radio-friendly that no one is thrilled to remember since that hectic year of 1989… “Highwire” tried to take the classical Stones-song frame and put some current political reflection into it, but it never turned out to another “Street Fighting Man”. The key song of retro VOODOO LOUNGE, “Love Is Strong”, with its archaic soundscape with (wonderful) harmonica was once again The Stones bringing the point back home , but the years not have been very friendly to this song either: the nice ‘cover’ can not hide the lack of musical inspiration and idea (plus the absolute failure in lyrics section). Since then the singles have been quite low-profile efforts, and sound more like compromises to release something to go along side the album (“Anybody Seen My Love”, “Don’t Stop”, “Rough Justice”…)

Okay, that was my story of “Undercover of The Night”. The song never turned out to be classic – perhaps the urge to do something current is too available, and its soundscape was a shock to many who have loved the archaic sound of “Start Me Up”. There was no tour to give the song more profile, even though I am quite sure it would never achieved the status of “Start Me Up” as a high-profile signature song. But I think that it is no a bad effort: it is basically a nasty Muddy Waters number with quite catchy chorus, and Jagger delivers the song with a passion and anger and conviction, and despite its 80’s production, the band has a groove going on. They sound like no hostages taken… a bad ass Rolling Stones. The Stones tried to hit the 80’s and reshape their sound, and even image, but somehow they never succeeded. In fact, the positive vibes surrounding them in 1981/82 quite quickly disappeared by 1983, and the big audience were no so keen on their new, controversial stuff, even though they usually got quite good reviews (if I remember right). But let me repaet: perhaps it was their last effort to really provide something unique, something with a surprise.

Any thoughts?

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-25 12:31 by Doxa.

I think you're dead right, Doxa, Undercover Of The Night was the last time the Stones did something a little different, which exuded a degree of enthusiastic creativity, even if the results were not quite classic status. I actually feel though the last single the Stones released (discounting the retro sounding Start Me Up) which actually worked on all levels (although it's not always popular with the fans) was Emotional Rescue who's half reggae rhythm and Jagger's falsetto, in addition to some inspired bass playing (from Ronnie i believe) was the last truly originally creative single they released and is light years away in term of quality from Mixed Emotions and Love Is Strong. Even the slight She's So Cold has some greatly inspiring guitar parts even if the song overall lacks a little in substance. Post Undercover Of The Night though the Stones inspiration had well an truly burned out with very little in terms of experimentation and an occasional tendancy to revisit old sounds with very shallow unenduring results.

All I know is, I have always been a huge Stones fan and I grew up in KY. I remember my brothers getting to go see the Stones during the "Tattoo You" tour. It crushes me now to think about my one brother tearing apart the tour book to hand up pictures of the individual band members. While I thought it was cool at the time, now I'm like, "You destroyed the tour book!" When I was finally old enough, I got to see the boys on the Steel Wheels tour. One of my favorite songs was "Undercover." It was such a great song live. The drums were awesome live. It became one of my favorite live Stones songs. Unfortunately, I haven't heard it much since then.

Hey, what about DIRTY WORK? Hard and agressive tunes with soulstyle and lots of great guitar work. In my opinion THESE were the last creative Stones

Quote
deardoctor
Hey, what about DIRTY WORK? Hard and agressive tunes with soulstyle and lots of great guitar work. In my opinion THESE were the last creative Stones

lol

Quote
deardoctor
Hey, what about DIRTY WORK? Hard and agressive tunes with soulstyle and lots of great guitar work. In my opinion THESE were the last creative Stones

Yeah, I know what you mean. When the album was released I was so fascinated of its sounds: for example, I remember thinking when hearing "One Hit To The Body", the profilic opener, for the first time, that "wow, the Stones like a current hard rock group ready to conquer all the stadiums". The old masters show how guitar should be played!!! Especially that song belongs to te category that had a lot of potential, but still failed to make itsef a classical, epochic song to be remembered.

After years of listening the album - and getting know some factual happenings at the time - I think the reason why DIRTY WORK turned out to be solely a secondary quality and transformatial work not to be remember much, is that Mick Jagger is not fully hearted present there. And when Mick is not 100% on, that will be heard in the Stones music, no matter how omnipotent figure we think Keith Richards to be. I think Jagger 'ruined' the song like "One hit" one or other way: the first is that his vocal delivery is quite forced sounding, no true conviction. He is not 'home' there, at that hard rock (and no roll) context. Other thing is that he does not care enough to make IT his home ground. He doesn't mind which way the band sounds like in "Keith's album" (as it was called at the time). I think the comparison to EXILE is not quite fair here - Jagger did work his ass off for that legendary album - especially in its final over-dubbing, mixations in LA. Keith created a foundation which Jagger helped to build up into superb heights. That trick never happens with DIRTY WORK.

Yeah, it has a great Keith-Ronnie guitar duets, but seemingly that it is not good enough to rise the product into Stones heights.

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-25 14:24 by Doxa.

Disagree. The latter albums doesn't sound like the earlier stuff, but sure there's lots of work behind them. They're great.

JumpingKentFlash

>> a lot of potential, but still failed to make itself a classical, epochal song to be remembered. <<

sorry if i've misunderstood you: isn't that pretty much what you're saying about Undercover as well -
that it's a splendid effort that isn't currently in the "widely-hailed" category (or however to phrase it)?
(i'm avoiding the term "classic" on purpose)

Quote
JumpingKentFlash
Disagree. The latter albums doesn't sound like the earlier stuff, but sure there's lots of work behind them. They're great.

Surely there is a lot of work behind them, but sometimes one is not always full heart present with 100% present at work from-nine-to-five...

Anyway, I remember reading when The Stones came back with STEEL WHEELS they were so proud how quickly they did the album, including the song-making sessions etc. They not lived months in the studio anymore, the expensive treand they started by the times of BEGGARS BANQUET or something. And I've been seeing signals of that kind 'the quicker the better' philosophy heard ever since. A BIGGER BNG is the swang song of that philsophy. I think the amount of energy wasted in that album is something comparable to their first album or something...

I think the quicker-the better philosophy is one-sided order from Mick's camp: he is not going waste time and energy with (fighting with 'artistic') Keith and the others more than is minimally needed. Keith has seemed to be happy with it - seemingly, there is not much teasing from his muse lately.

To me, A BIGGER BANG sounds like the most from-nine-to-five-effort with no true inspiration (or urge or motivation) the Stones have ever made.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-25 14:44 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa
I think the amount of energy wasted in that album is something comparable to their first album or something...

ABB was indeed "back to basics". Many tunes on it are very good I think.

JumpingKentFlash

Quote
with sssoul
>> a lot of potential, but still failed to make itself a classical, epochal song to be remembered. <<

sorry if i've misunderstood you: isn't that pretty much what you're saying about Undercover as well -
that it's a splendid effort that isn't currently in the "widely-hailed" category (or however to phrase it)?
(i'm avoiding the term "classic" on purpose)

You rise a good point, and I don't have a strict answer to provide . I think "One Hit" was not so controversial or brave effort to offer something original as "Undercover of The Night" was. I think with it the band took quite an easy road for them, by putting the guitars upfront, forget the roll (where is Charlie?) and 'rock just like that'. Well, to make it really easy, ask your old buddy Jimmy Page to play the parts where Keith's and Ronnie's fingers are not guick enough. To an extent that is an idea to be 'comtemporary', and providing no any better results than "Undercover of The Night". I think the problem with the song not being one of 'widely-hailed' ones, is that the band does not success to make the song sound like their own - they sound like attempting something, but seemed to forget the essentials, and ended up driving without direction. But "Undercover of The Night" sounds strong and effective - it's pure 'bas ass' Stones. And seemingly, the band didn't have enough trust on "One Hit" to release it as a first single of the album. I don't think that even Keith Richards rates the song very high these days. It seems to violate many of his ideas of what good music supposed to be like.

- Doxa

Here's my 2 cents...

As has been discussed on this board before, Undercover was the last album the Stones recorded when they were brimming with confidence that their every studio effort would be met with huge record sales. This confidence freed them up from being overly-calculating and is reflected in the cocky swagger of everything from MR and BS to SMU and UOTN.

When Undercover disappointed, commercially, it really shook up the band (or at least Mick). After reliably lapping up every Stones studio effort for over 15 years, the mass public had finally moved on, and the band clearly could no longer count on commercial dominance. To make matters worse, Mick had a hard time with the notion that he was now 40 years old. To prove that he was still relevant, Mick decided it was time to strike out on that solo career that was beckoning him, and we all know how successful he was in that department.

When he finally realized he couldn't make it without his fellow Glimmer Twin, Mick formed a new philosophy: hard work would make him, and the Stones, great again. Mick started working out like a demon, and brought the same ethos to the recording studio. This led to an incredibly successful comeback tour, and then another one and another one, and Mick has naturally continued to embrace this philosophy ever since. The albums, however, have been a bit overly-labored or calculated as a result. Thus, every disc from Steel Wheels on has had something of a craftsman-like feel to it (as opposed to pure inspiration), although I would argue that each album contains some absolute gems that rank up there with anything the Stones have ever recorded.

Drew

>> When Undercover disappointed, commercially, it really shook up the band (or at least Mick). <<

really interesting viewpoint, drewmaster - i too have a theory about a major blow to Mick's confidence
being behind a lot of things we perceive to this day. i see that loss in confidence
as coming a bit later than you outline here, but i will ponder what you're saying, so ... thanks!

>> each album contains some absolute gems that rank up there with anything the Stones have ever recorded. <<

that's what i hear too.

I remember this album getting a big build up, but then it was a bit of a let down imho, good not great

Doxa, thanks for explaining - maybe i see better what you're saying now, but:

>> I don't think that even Keith Richards rates [One Hit] very high these days. <<

can you explain what you're basing that perception on, please and thank you?
i think i recall him saying something at some point about being less than thrilled with Undercover,
but i'm not sure i've read his later/recent views of One Hit.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-25 20:10 by with sssoul.

I think Undercover was very much an album reflective of the times and one of the most dissapointing albums musically to fans that had been with the Stones from day one(just my opinion). I remember reading in a Guitar mag interview done right before the 40 Licks release with Keith where he stated "Tell you one thing, Undercover wont be on it."(Guess Mick won out) It was the same interview that he called Micks latest album "Dogsh-t In The Doorway".

although I like Undercover (the album), I was disappointed at the time. the single sounded fresh and inspring, but while listening to the album as a whole it dawned on me that the inclusion of Ronnie as a new guitar player only provided for an extremely short period of newfound creativity. Undercover finally trashed the hopes concerning a new "golden era".

its just like that his creative force & input had been spent with Some Girls already. Emotional Rescue was a major disappointment, and while Tattoo You was absolutely great, when it became apparent that it was made up of studio leftovers from 1972 to 1979, the feeling that not everything was right in the Stones creative department became apparent.

for Undercover, it seemed that they put everything into the single, and the rest of the album suffered a bit. song by song its not bad, but in general there was a kind of lacklustre feeling shining through.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-25 18:44 by alimente.

Undercover Of The Night is a Mick song, as has been stated by Keith. It's a great recording, studio wise. Live it's as flat as Don't Stop and Heartbreaker - it's just a waste of time. Almost title track aside, I found - and still do - Undercover to be a refreshing album - they weren't just playing guitars, they were getting some nice sounds. The entire album is full of interesting sounds, songs, rhythmd, melodies and it's different from the previous true studio effort, Emotional Rescue/Some Girls. So it's very different and I especially love She Was Hot, Tie You Up and All The Way Down.

As far as the band having its number 1 track derailed, this was it. They were possibly spoiled by having so many #1 studio albums in a row. What, did they just think it would HAPPEN?

They haven't had a #1 since Tattoo You. I doubt they will again. The public lost them with the Undercover Of The Night single - it wasn't classic Rolling Stones. The most classic Stones single since then? I dunno.

Love Is Strong was a weak choice for a single. I like the tune, a lot, but it's a terrible single.

Oh, got lost. Undercover probably was their last artistic big effort. Dirty Work was an effort all right - of pulling teeth. Steel Wheels was an effort of shedding some light. Voodoo didn't seem to be an effort at all - it sounds pretty laid back. Perhaps Bridges was their last big effort - there are some different things going on in that album - as much so as there is on Undercover, maybe just night as artistic.

I assume you mean "get lost"? Undercover their last artistic effort? Well I suppose ignorance truly is bliss.

Living in a land (Italy) where Stones' music is not appreciated by the masses and therefore hardly covered by the press, I had to wait quite some years - actually until I joined the IORR board - to learn that one of my favourite Stones albums was so largely dismissed as one of their worst works.

Every time this topic comes up, I still can't believe how people can't recognize the masterpiece that it is!

I find that in a certain way with Undercover - just like Exile - the overall value of the LP is by far superior to the sum of the single songs. This makes it difficult to discuss the single songs per se. That said, Undercover - the song - sets the mood of the work, it builds up the groove and the tension so wonderfully resolved in the atomic bomb explosion of joy that is She was hot. But, as a single, out of the context of the LP, it suffers a little the fact that the tension it builds remains unresolved. Very much the same can be said of hot stuff.

As for the "last big effort" claim, if you measure by success of public, I dunno. But if you mean the artistic side, well, there have been more than one beauty since Undercover, that is for sure!

C

Quote
liddas
.
I still can't believe how people can't recognize the masterpiece that it is!

I find that in a certain way with Undercover - just like Exile - the overall value of the LP is by far superior to the sum of the single songs.

Agree 100%!

Drew

I agree with Doxa that Undercover--I think the album as a whole rather than just the single--has a feeling of ambition that's been lacking since. Maybe even more than that, it feels like the product of a working band, rather than Dirty Work, the product of a failing band (a fascinating listen) and the subsequent albums, the products of very rich guys who lead separate lives getting together to assemble a product around which to base the real product (the tours).

The thing about this view of Undercover the album is that even it fails. The album peters out on the second side. I know more conservative fans actually prefer the last few songs, and they're not bad, but they sound like they're on a different album. And there are comments from mick on timeisonourside about "It Must Be Hell," saying something like, "people aren't getting what I was trying to say on that song, and you know I listened to it for the first time the other day, and I don't really get it either. Oh well!" So calling the album ambitious must be taken as relative claim, adjusted for the distracted, enervated world of the Stones.

I think the band was actually this sloppy even in their better days, but their special talents--or the talents of others working on the albums, or something about the nature and scale of the industry, the way records were made--allowed them to get away with it and even thrive. There's a recent interview with bill somewhere on youtube where he shakes his head at how last-minute and disorganized everything always was. And of course this slapdash quality is a large part of the band's appeal, what keeps them "real" vs. tight-assed or artificial acts that wouldn't know rock and roll if it were played to them. The problems come eventually when the Stones were not living as a band anymore, or when they'd lost touch with what had them together as a band in the first place. All those last-minute writing sessions and "ahh, f!ck it" decisions started to come up empty, or at least emptier.

Another related problem, especially with "Undercover" the song, is keith's apparent uninterest from the get-go. He had to be at least somewhat involved in the production of this album, and with the dub influence it wears, you'd think he would be proud of it. But he seems buried on the title track, only has since only made disparaging comments about it, and never cites the rest of the material as something to remember, aside from playing "his" song occasionally. This speaks to a deep divide between him and mick, where keith is willing to contribute to mick's tunes only in order to get an album out so they can go tour on the old songs again (though 10 years later he eventually wrote a new one he likes to play, "You Got Me Rockin'".)

In fact the whole band has a distorted memory, seeming to remember nothing past Some Girls except for "Start Me Up." I don't know where this view comes from, whether having lazy press pieces read to them in preparation for interviews (about their own work!), or looking at their royalty statements, or just not caring.

Anyway, I do think that mick at least had grand designs for this album but was unable to carry them through, and got sporadic help at best from the others.

>> I assume you mean "get lost"? <<

i think he just meant that part of what he meant to say got lost, ie that he agrees with Doxa's main point.

one of my points maybe got lost as well: Undercover (the track and the album) grooves me a lot.
i was living in strange hard places when it came out, which meant it was a while before i had a chance to hear it,
but also meant i had no awareness that it was supposed to be a "disappointment". same with Dirty Work.

but i digress, sorry!

>> there has been more than one beauty since Undercover, that is for sure! <<

absolutely. i think Doxa is trying to focus just on the singles, though, and may simply be saying
that the singles since Undercover have been sort of "safer bets" than that track? sorry if i've misinterpreted again

You know me well, with sssoul! My brain is faster than my eyes but it IS blissful here in ignorance land! Heh-heh

Quote
Doxa
After years of listening the album - and getting know some factual happenings at the time - I think the reason why DIRTY WORK turned out to be solely a secondary quality and transformatial work not to be remember much, is that Mick Jagger is not fully hearted present there. And when Mick is not 100% on, that will be heard in the Stones music, no matter how omnipotent figure we think Keith Richards to be. I think Jagger 'ruined' the song like "One hit" one or other way: the first is that his vocal delivery is quite forced sounding, no true conviction. He is not 'home' there, at that hard rock (and no roll) context. Other thing is that he does not care enough to make IT his home ground. He doesn't mind which way the band sounds like in "Keith's album" (as it was called at the time). I think the comparison to EXILE is not quite fair here - Jagger did work his ass off for that legendary album - especially in its final over-dubbing, mixations in LA. Keith created a foundation which Jagger helped to build up into superb heights. That trick never happens with DIRTY WORK.

this is fascinating to imagine--are you saying mick should have--and if he were still mentally into the Stones, would have--toned down the hard rock that keith and ron were putting together, into something more humane for his vocals? So the songs would have evolved quite differently...

in a way then Dirty Work would be the reverse of Undercover, where keith claims he couldn't find his way in--and he should have found one, really, in order to make the sound gel into something more Stones-like. This time it was mick who felt frozen out, so he just forced himself to fit the material as it was already shaping up? Then again, he sings in the same style on contemporary non-Stones stuff like "Dancing in the Streets." (I actually like this style, the vocal equivalent of a clenched-fist, but I would agree that it's hardly musical or soulful.)

Quote
with sssoul
really interesting viewpoint, drewmaster - i too have a theory about a major blow to Mick's confidence
being behind a lot of things we perceive to this day. i see that loss in confidence
as coming a bit later than you outline here, but i will ponder what you're saying, so ... thanks!

and when is that, pray tell?

>> and when is that, pray tell? <<

a little before he cancelled a major chunk of his solo tour, cc

To get back to the original point of the thread, that "Undercover" the song was the last attempt at something "new and distinctive," I offer a different context.

The notion of different sounding singles -- i.e. not classic sounding, had begun with "Angie" in 73.
Look at these singles, forgive me if I'm off on any:

Angie
It's Only Rock n Roll
Hot Stuff
Miss You
Emotional Rescue
Start Me Up
Undercover
One Hit (to the Body)
Mixed Emotions
Love is Strong
Anybody Seen My Baby
Rough Justice

Look at how many of those singles made you go "What the F*@&? when you first heard them. From Angie to One Hit, only SMU and IORR are "classic sounding." Even One Hit had that acoustic opening, building to the riff. I recall reading when it came out that working with a new producer made the band work harder on middle eighths and interesting bridges.

My point is that the Stones have often tried to float something as the single that isn't "classic" sounding. If they went for the tried and true sound, you would have had very different singles: Star Star, Crazy Mama, Respectable, You Got Me Rocking just to name a few.

I would argue that Anybody Seen My Baby is an attempt to be new and distinctive. That song sounds like nothing else on the record, and was beyond dreadful live and that's being kind! I think "Love is Strong" with Jagger's delivery and the slow feel was pretty different too. I mean they could have picked You Got Me Rocking or Sparks Will Fly as the obvious single.

I would argue that the one thing they have succeeded in doing is defying our expectations with singles and albums. Bridges to Babylon is as much a departure as Some Girls sounded at the time.

Oops -- got the single wrong with Dirty Work, but I think the point remains...