Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

substance abuse contributed mightily to some of the greatest rock and jazz music ever. please reconsider.

Certainly not in this particular case. Specifically having Charlie join the junkie club tipped the balance in the wrong direction, IMO...

charlie ain't the prob with the album, unless he wrote the tunes this time...

His drumming was far too "heroin chic-80's"

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

substance abuse contributed mightily to some of the greatest rock and jazz music ever. please reconsider.

Certainly not in this particular case. Specifically having Charlie join the junkie club tipped the balance in the wrong direction, IMO...

charlie ain't the prob with the album, unless he wrote the tunes this time...

His drumming was far too "heroin chic-80's"

another way of saying it smacked of the 80's?

It was a turd then. It's just a white turd now,

I love this record. It's angry, it's raw, it's exactly where they were at that stage in time imo.

Call Mick's vocals whatever you like, but it suits the songs and, most likely, how they were intended by Keith and Ronnie.

Out of interest, does anyone know the specific drumming credits for the individual songs? I know Ronnie plays drums on Sleep Tonight (which I think adds to the charm of this great track), but which ones do Steve Jordan and others play on? Thanks.

Quote
OneHit
I love this record. It's angry, it's raw, it's exactly where they were at that stage in time imo.

Call Mick's vocals whatever you like, but it suits the songs and, most likely, how they were intended by Keith and Ronnie.

Out of interest, does anyone know the specific drumming credits for the individual songs? I know Ronnie plays drums on Sleep Tonight (which I think adds to the charm of this great track), but which ones do Steve Jordan and others play on? Thanks.

"Charm" is one word for it. "Amateur Hour" is another (I have no need to hear Mr. Wood busk on the drum kit, thank you very much). A Keith/Woody "solo" album with reluctant participation by Mick Jagger. Too much Wood, too much 80s production, too little actual songwriting. This record is the "anti-Exile" for me. It's not much more a real Rolling Stones record than "Jamming With Edward", in my opinion (which I understand is not universally shared here). "Harlem Shuffle" was ok as a pop single with a decent groove, and the disc makes a lovely drinks coaster. There, I found two positive things to say about DW.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-19 05:45 by 71Tele.

It was one of the first stones albums I bought. I was 17, just geting into their music and " hey the stones have a new album out!"Once I started getting into their back catalogue it didnt get played as much - well it doesnt get played much these days either - just too many other great albums to listen to.

"substance abuse contributed mightily to some of the greatest rock and jazz music ever"

right, but C.Watts fell off his drum stool while recording one track... You cannot salvage THIS!

Imho "One Hit" is their last great great song. Too bad they never could pull off a decent live version...

Pradojically, One Hit was never a hit.
But it was a strong strong song that i loved in that moment, as well as fight..............
At the beginning i was more on this album than in the previous undercover, becxause one hit ang fight were dynamite for me

Quote
klrkcr
It was one of the first stones albums I bought. I was 17, just geting into their music and " hey the stones have a new album out!"Once I started getting into their back catalogue it didnt get played as much - well it doesnt get played much these days either - just too many other great albums to listen to.

You became a fan DESPITE this album. GOOD ON YOU!

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

substance abuse contributed mightily to some of the greatest rock and jazz music ever. please reconsider.

Certainly not in this particular case. Specifically having Charlie join the junkie club tipped the balance in the wrong direction, IMO...

charlie ain't the prob with the album, unless he wrote the tunes this time...

His drumming was far too "heroin chic-80's"

another way of saying it smacked of the 80's?

Tip of the hat, and top of the morning to ya!

"A Keith/Woody "solo" album with reluctant participation by Mick Jagger. Too much Wood, too much 80s production, too little actual songwriting."

Supeerrrbly put Tele71. Although I must admit to loving the two singles....

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

Does the removal of Maggie Mae and Dig it from 'Let It Be... Naked' count?

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

Does the removal of Maggie Mae and Dig it from 'Let It Be... Naked' count?

Count as what?

Ok, I hate to throw cold water on this heated debate: but the Stones themselves know just how bad this record really is. When the Stones were announcing that Exile would be released with bonus tracks, Mick Joked with reporters by saying that the band would release unreleased songs from one of the most productive and creative periods in the bands history: Dirty Work! He tried to keep the joke going, but caved in two seconds and announced the Exile release. So The Stones even know how pathetric this record really is. I also remember that in 1989 Mick was talking about the set list for American part of the Steel Wheels Tour. He said thay we were even able to pull something(Harlem Shuffle) from the Dirty Work album.

Charlie



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-20 09:02 by soulsurvivor1.

Actually DW sold about the same as Undercover in the US. Undercover peaked at #4 (23 weeks total), DW also peaked at #4 (25 weeks charted). Harlem Shuffle was a top 5 hit single, too.

That is what one might consider, what's the saying, the benefit of the doubt? No hits on Undercover but a pretty decent album, nothing like the past few, so we'll get the next one, maybe it will have something...

...Oh it has something alright - horrible cover, horrible liner notes, horrible production, horrible singing and last but not least, (not all) horrible songs. The videos were decent though.

...two reissues later, less people have bought it from the previous time - I bet Virgin Undercover outsold the Virgin Dirty Work and also UMe's reissues have done the same!

Quote
71Tele

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

Does the removal of Maggie Mae and Dig it from 'Let It Be... Naked' count?

Count as what?

... count as an album whose 'special edition' removed songs. Maggie Mae and Dig It were removed by McCartney for the 2003 release. You'd said that Dirty Work would be the 'only one in history where some of the original tracks are deleted'.

[thepowergoats.com]

jj cale removed a track from one of his albums, too. not too kool....

listen the more tracks they delete the better...note to purists and collectors: sorry.

really dig it delete them all ! then find out where those front cover costumes are (they DO still exist that kind of material never breaks down in any kind of organic decomposition scenario)

and wrap little infants, swaddle them in those shiny outfits, then rocket one to krypton and name it kal el... well alright.

who designed those clothes btw? do they live in a country that sanctions capital punishment? just askin....

and thanks for the reminders everyone!! undercover kinda sucked just a bit less, well a whole lot less. but it still mostly not a good album...

now that one with dance little sister....there's a good one.

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
71Tele

Quote
jamesfdouglas

Quote
71Tele
I frankly wish that they had exercised some judgment and discretion and NOT made this album under those "difficult circumstances" (at least three of the band members having serious substance abuse problems at the time, and the band's two leaders barely on speaking terms). If they ever release a "Deluxe" edition of DW, it will be the only album in history where some of the original tracks are deleted. There are some things remixing cannot salvage.

Does the removal of Maggie Mae and Dig it from 'Let It Be... Naked' count?

Count as what?

... count as an album whose 'special edition' removed songs. Maggie Mae and Dig It were removed by McCartney for the 2003 release. You'd said that Dirty Work would be the 'only one in history where some of the original tracks are deleted'.

Sorry, I'm a little slow...yes, I suppose in a way it does, though they were sort of releasing a different version of Let It Be, which in its own way was as distorted from the original intent of the Get Back project as the Spectorized Let It Be album. Interesting that Lennon's bum bass notes seemed magically cleaned up.

On wikipedia it says that they auto-tune corrected Lennon's voice in 'I Dig a Pony'. THAT'S not very cool in my opnion!

They did add in Don't Let Me Down which wasn't on Let It Be. Still, it's a short-ass album at 35 minutes or so. They mish-mashed a lot of the versions from several pre-existing versions, apparently. And I'll never get used to the new lyric in The Long and Winding Road "anyway, you've always known the many ways I've tried".

If they do re-release DW... then they bet-
WHo are we kidding this will NEVER happen!!!

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
jamesfdouglas
On wikipedia it says that they auto-tune corrected Lennon's voice in 'I Dig a Pony'. THAT'S not very cool in my opnion!

They did add in Don't Let Me Down which wasn't on Let It Be. Still, it's a short-ass album at 35 minutes or so. They mish-mashed a lot of the versions from several pre-existing versions, apparently. And I'll never get used to the new lyric in The Long and Winding Road "anyway, you've always known the many ways I've tried".

If they do re-release DW... then they bet-
WHo are we kidding this will NEVER happen!!!

Yes, but I consider "adding" DLMD a correction from them ommitting it from LIB. It WAS on the original Get Back album, and they played it on the roof, so it makes much more sense on Let It Be than the bowdlerized slowed-down version of "Across The Universe" that ended up on LIB.

From my understanding, Paul saw to it that Let It Be(...Naked) was reissued the way it was intended to be.

That's just fine with me. What ol' Whack Hair did was criminal. So Paul removed the criminal aspect of it and released it proper. I think it's more about the integrity of the intent of The Beatles than anything and I for one am glad to have it that way. Because the horrendous version got reissued in 2009 anyway as it originally came out so there is the awful one and the good one.

ol' Whack Hair - LOL!

Yeah skip & 71, it was a 'ccorrection' for sure. I love how I Mean Mine sounds without the cheezy strings, Across the Universe is MUCH better. I'm still shocked how they squeezed yet another guitar solo out of Let It Be - that's 5 different solos in total (movies, albumk cuts, single versions....)! Geroge must have laid down a whole whack of them after apologizing for pouting and running away from Paul, lol!

[thepowergoats.com]

Quote
skipstone
From my understanding, Paul saw to it that Let It Be(...Naked) was reissued the way it was intended to be.

That's just fine with me. What ol' Whack Hair did was criminal. So Paul removed the criminal aspect of it and released it proper. I think it's more about the integrity of the intent of The Beatles than anything and I for one am glad to have it that way. Because the horrendous version got reissued in 2009 anyway as it originally came out so there is the awful one and the good one.

Well, it was reissued the way Paul intended it to be. I do like the non-orchestral LIB and LAWR though. Did you ever hear the "Get Back" album mixed by Glyn Johns? It has the full version of Dig It, which I am not sure the world would be better off hearing...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2010-06-23 02:23 by 71Tele.

Er, yeah, how Paul wanted it to be. I'll still err on the side of Beatles integrity with that though. It's better than ol' Prison Hair's version.

Have Get Back. Haven't listened to it in eons.

A very poor album the worst of their career. Hold Back, Fight, Winning Ugly and Back to Zero are awful.

Despite all of the various "problems" at the time, I really wish that they would have toured in 1986-87.

1982-1989 was way too long not to go on the road.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew
Despite all of the various "problems" at the time, I really wish that they would have toured in 1986-87.

1982-1989 was way too long not to go on the road.

I think they needed the break. Plus, the band was not in good shape physically and Mick and Keith were at each other's throats. If they had gone on the road, we may have ended up posting here about "1986" Worst Tour Ever".