There might well be some decent guitar work in there - but for me it's practically impossible to listen to it because of those horrible echo-ey drumbeats bashing away in my ears.

I do not dislike this song. It's not one of my favourites, but when listen to DW I never skip it.
In fact, there are only two songs of the Stones' catalogue that I really dislike: Winning Ugly and Back To Zero.

With Dirty Work some of the main problems in my view are the vocals, the production and the lyrics. It all needs work and it's just as much Keith's fault as Mick's. They have to put their feet down when they see a problem and say "No, that doesn't work, we need to work on this more."

Oh and Main Ofender has many inspired songs, Rock songs, pop, and ballads.

While not up to the usual high standards, BTZ is the only unlistenable thin gon there to me.

I think the song "Dirty Work" is awesome. Nice guitar interplay.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
71Tele

Quote
DandelionPowderman
Some great guitar playing in there. Seems to be forgotten or overlooked, because of Mick's vocals, Charlie's drum sound etc.

IMO, the guitars are top notch. The track is mediocre at best, but nowhere near as bad as many on this board point out.

It's "forgetten or overlooked" because the song stinks.

I know you think the song stinks already, Tele. But as a Stones fan, do you really think Keith's licks on this track stinks?

It doesn't have to be either superb or horrendous, you know. There's always (or at least, very often) some good stuff in there for the ones who'll listen...

To answer your question, I can't listen to just guitars. The whole song has to work. Good guitar licks in the service of a bad tune are wasted and give me no real pleasure.

I understand that. However, I'm having great pleasure listening to harmonies created by the bass and guitars even on Cherry Oh Baby.

Cherry Oh Baby is not nearly the horror that Hold Back is.

i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-02 18:31 by 71Tele.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-02 18:43 by StonesTod.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Right. Good example is some of their early pop songs have all sorts of weaknesses. Out of tune 12-string on Singer Not The Song, for example, but it doesn't matter because the quality of the material and the charm and feel far outweigh any deficiencies technically.

charm. i like that word and it's a good one to describe many of the best stones tunes...and it's the quality that's been absent on maybe 90% of their tunes the last 3 decades. and i think it's a word that applies to the very few on ABB that i actually like: SSMC, We Don't Wanna Go Home, Under the Radar....the only 3 redeemers on the album for me...none of them great songs by any stretch, but each has a certain charm quality....

I actually really like Mick's vocal on this track, but then I like most of 'Dirty Work' & find it far more fun than the 'Emotional Rescue' & 'Undercover' (& 'She's The Boss'!) albums...

"Stalin and Roosevelt" obviously refers to when the two leaders were WW II allies, but Stalin murdered millions of his own people and imprisoned millions more, so I'm not too keen on that line.

Keith has referred to the importance of the "roll" as well as the "rock." HOLD BACK and FIGHT lack that "subtlety" that even the hardest Stones songs usually have. But I do listen to those two songs when I'm exercising. So I have to credit them there. They get me moving, even though I don't listen to them much otherwise.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
Richard from Canada
I love the song - the melody,

as gazza suggests - there IS no melody. it's completely tuneless tune.

I'm a little late to the party on this one.

What an adorable observation...
I also 'love' the melody. Why, I was just humming it to myself softly the other day.

So much of the album sounds so slapdash. You can hear the seams. They sound like nobody wanted to spend much time on them. It sort of reminds me of their current predicament. Mick can still write genius lyrics. (Plundered My Soul is pretty damn good). But there's some intangible missing in the music itself. Hold Back could have been better. Winning Ugly has some Grade A lyrics, but you can't hide that something was horribly wrong with the band.

I just did a quick listen to the "songs" of Dirty Work..............I think the drummer is the one to blame.......it's really awful.......is it really Charlie who plays the drum?????

__________________________

Except for BTZ a great record, which, as a couple of people already have said, works GREAT in the gym.

You're a rag trade girl, You're the queen of porn, You're the easiest lay on the white house lawn!!

Quote
Title5Take1
"Stalin and Roosevelt" obviously refers to when the two leaders were WW II allies, but Stalin murdered millions of his own people and imprisoned millions more, so I'm not too keen on that line.

thought that was Saddam...

Quote
StonesTod
charm. i like that word and it's a good one to describe many of the best stones tunes...and it's the quality that's been absent on maybe 90% of their tunes the last 3 decades. and i think it's a word that applies to the very few on ABB that i actually like: SSMC, We Don't Wanna Go Home, Under the Radar....the only 3 redeemers on the album for me...none of them great songs by any stretch, but each has a certain charm quality....

And only one of those songs is actually on the album.

Personally, I find way more charm in This Place Is Empty, Back Of My Hand and Biggest Mistake than on the two outtakes you mention. You almost have to be a detective to spot that charm, though,

Quote
ManuelStones
I do not dislike this song. It's not one of my favourites, but when listen to DW I never skip it.
In fact, there are only two songs of the Stones' catalogue that I really dislike: Winning Ugly and Back To Zero.

WU and BTZ are terrible. i'll add streets of love, keys to your heart, suck on the jugular, dont stop....

Quote
cc

Quote
Title5Take1
"Stalin and Roosevelt" obviously refers to when the two leaders were WW II allies, but Stalin murdered millions of his own people and imprisoned millions more, so I'm not too keen on that line.

thought that was Saddam...

"Saddam actively studied Stalin, having an entire library of books on one subject: Stalin. He was quoted before his ascension to power as stating he would make a Stalinist state out of Iraq. People didn’t take him seriously then, but history shows just how serious Saddam Hussein was."
(From Trifter.com)

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Right. Good example is some of their early pop songs have all sorts of weaknesses. Out of tune 12-string on Singer Not The Song, for example, but it doesn't matter because the quality of the material and the charm and feel far outweigh any deficiencies technically.

I just want to thank you both for this intelligent, perceptive, insightful dialogue. Occasionally I read stuff and it opens my eyes (and ears). This is one of those times.

Drew

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Right. Good example is some of their early pop songs have all sorts of weaknesses. Out of tune 12-string on Singer Not The Song, for example, but it doesn't matter because the quality of the material and the charm and feel far outweigh any deficiencies technically.

I just want to thank you both for this intelligent, perceptive, insightful dialogue. Occasionally I read stuff and it opens my eyes (and ears). This is one of those times.

Drew

well, we both used ghost writers, so we'll pass the compliments along in due time....

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Right. Good example is some of their early pop songs have all sorts of weaknesses. Out of tune 12-string on Singer Not The Song, for example, but it doesn't matter because the quality of the material and the charm and feel far outweigh any deficiencies technically.

I just want to thank you both for this intelligent, perceptive, insightful dialogue. Occasionally I read stuff and it opens my eyes (and ears). This is one of those times.

Drew

well, we both used ghost writers, so we'll pass the compliments along in due time....

Are there any fees when joining this Mutual Admiration Society?

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Right. Good example is some of their early pop songs have all sorts of weaknesses. Out of tune 12-string on Singer Not The Song, for example, but it doesn't matter because the quality of the material and the charm and feel far outweigh any deficiencies technically.

I just want to thank you both for this intelligent, perceptive, insightful dialogue. Occasionally I read stuff and it opens my eyes (and ears). This is one of those times.

Drew

well, we both used ghost writers, so we'll pass the compliments along in due time....

Are there any fees when joining this Mutual Admiration Society?

fees? no. fleas? yes.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
drewmaster

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
71Tele

Quote
StonesTod
i agree with tele - the saddest part about this album as whole is that it's the last time both guitarists had their full complement of chops working....yet, as tele says, it's in the service of very substandard song material. i can handle the production quality and even some of mick's grating vocals, but a bad song is a bad song is a bad song, regardless of the quality of the instrumentation or singing....

Rolling Stones music is about songs. They are a guitar-based band, but not a guitarist's band. In other words not Beck or Clapton. It is about the sum of the parts, not some of the parts (guitars or drums or whatever). When they fail to deliver good songs, they fail, period. The reason we love Brown Sugar is that it has a great riff, the band is fantastic, all the parts of the performance fit together perfectly, and it's all in service of a well-written song. If I could be satisfied with mere guitar or drum sounds, riffs, etc., there are a hundred other artists I can listen to. They set the standard for their recordings very high from the beginning through at least the early 70s, so I can personally take little pleasure in the nuggets and crumbs of guitar parts and drum parts (however great they sound) in the service of mediocrity.

well-said. they were on such a roll with well-crafted songs for so many years - i'm not so sure we all fell in love with the "parts" or players of the songs as much as the songs themselves. at least i didn't. i remember very vividly being - for the first time - unnerved a bit when i first heard Undercover (the album), cos it was clear to me the songwriting level had dropped off considerably since the last set of albums. yeah, i tried to moderate my disappointment by delighting in the playing/players, but that only works for so long. i always come back to "songs," not to playing alone. as a result, when i play the stones these days - and i don't play them very often anymore - i almost always go back to their golden period(s) of the 60's and 70's. life's too short and there's way too much wonderful music yet to be discovered to waste on mediocre (or worse) albums, just because i like the band.

Couldn't agree more, Tod...and when the song is great, i.e. every single song on EOMS, for example, then I revel in all the little parts that help make it so - a little guitar riff on Casino Boogie, or an organ run on Shine A Light, even Bill will amaze me with something on When The Whip Comes Down. The parts are great. But they need to make up a great whole, and that's kind of what they stopped doing starting with (in my opinion) Undercover. Getting back to Dirty Work, what makes that record so egregious is that not only do we lack good songs, but the poor songs are made all the more noticeable by the desperate-sounding "of the moment" production, particularly the drums.

yep - but if the songs themselves were better, maybe those little annoyances wouldn't be so noticeable or annoying...it's one of those tough cart/horse or chicken/egg deals....

Right. Good example is some of their early pop songs have all sorts of weaknesses. Out of tune 12-string on Singer Not The Song, for example, but it doesn't matter because the quality of the material and the charm and feel far outweigh any deficiencies technically.

I just want to thank you both for this intelligent, perceptive, insightful dialogue. Occasionally I read stuff and it opens my eyes (and ears). This is one of those times.

Drew

well, we both used ghost writers, so we'll pass the compliments along in due time....

Are there any fees when joining this Mutual Admiration Society?

fees? no. fleas? yes.

bed bugs perhaps?

Hold Back would have been an outtake if you consider the content of a Stones lp between Undercover and Steel Wheels - without Mick and Keith's WW III.

The high percentage of Keith's songs (even as official collaberations with Ron) can only be understood if She's the Boss is not added at the time.

So what about a "The Dirty Boss”?!
My suggestion compiled out of the following criteria:
- Which songs have been released a singles? Not only A's but B's too as I suggest that the band also regards these songs as of special importance.
- Which songs have been played live by the Stones, Mick and Keith? Surprisingly this includes the Keith/Ron song One Hit on Mick's tour. Plus: featured on tv or a as a music video.
- some speculation on the percentage of Mick songs, Keith songs, cover versions and the styles used as a follow-up to Undercover and a hint to Steel Wheels.

Some kind of track listing in accordance to the real two sides.
1 One Hit (To The Body)
2 Fight
3 Harlem Shuffle
4 Hard Woman
5 Too Rude

6 Lonely At The Top
7 Just Another Night
8 Lucky In Love
9 Had It With You
10 Sleep Tonight (hidden track Key To The Highway as the tribute for Stu)

As you see by these criteria I neglected Winning Ugly (single A only in - sorry, only minor market - Canada), Back To Zero (B-side but then there would have been too many "Mick songs" ) or Secrets and 1/2 A Loaf which Mick performed on tv.

I don't think Mick would have done a "video movie" like She's the Boss for/with the Stones. Therefore, I don't see the song's importance though songs as lp titles had been (with the interruption of Tattoo You) regular right before: Some Girls, Emotional Rescue Undercover.
Dirty Work, on the other hand, would have been an appropriate Stones lp title but I think there are enough hard rockers of more quality already on the imaginery album to include this song too.

This leaves Hold Back as the only song with no argument for.

P.S.: Would(n't) we call the record above - (o.k.) produced by someone else than used then - a masterpiece?!



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-02-15 23:17 by JJHMick.

Quote
JJHMick
Hold Back would have been an outtake if you consider the content of a Stones lp between Undercover and Steel Wheels - without Mick and Keith's WW III.

The high percentage of Keith's songs (even as official collaberations with Ron) can only be understood if She's the Boss is not added at the time.

So what about a "The Dirty Boss”?!
My suggestion compiled out of the following criteria:
- Which songs have been released a singles? Not only A's but B's too as I suggest that the band also regards these songs as of special importance.
- Which songs have been played live by the Stones, Mick and Keith? Surprisingly this includes the Keith/Ron song One Hit on Mick's tour. Plus: featured on tv or a as a music video.
- some speculation on the percentage of Mick songs, Keith songs, cover versions and the styles used as a follow-up to Undercover and a hint to Steel Wheels.

Some kind of track listing in accordance to the real two sides.
1 One Hit (To The Body)
2 Fight
3 Harlem Shuffle
4 Hard Woman
5 Too Rude

6 Lonely At The Top
7 Just Another Night
8 Lucky In Love
9 Had It With You
10 Sleep Tonight (hidden track Key To The Highway as the tribute for Stu)

As you see by these criteria I neglected Winning Ugly (single A only in - sorry, only minor market - Canada), Back To Zero (B-side but then there would have been too many "Mick songs" ) or Secrets and 1/2 A Loaf which Mick performed on tv.

I don't think Mick would have done a "video movie" like She's the Boss for/with the Stones. Therefore, I don't see the song's importance though songs as lp titles had been (with the interruption of Tattoo You) regular right before: Some Girls, Emotional Rescue Undercover.
Dirty Work, on the other hand, would have been an appropriate Stones lp title but I think there are enough hard rockers of more quality already on the imaginery album to include this song too.

This leaves Hold Back as the only song with no argument for.

P.S.: Would(n't) we call the record above - (o.k.) produced by someone else than used then - a masterpiece?!

I think 'Winning Ugly' was performed at some of Mick's 1988 Australian shows...wasn't it?

Quote
Title5Take1

Quote
cc

Quote
Title5Take1
"Stalin and Roosevelt" obviously refers to when the two leaders were WW II allies, but Stalin murdered millions of his own people and imprisoned millions more, so I'm not too keen on that line.

thought that was Saddam...

"Saddam actively studied Stalin, having an entire library of books on one subject: Stalin. He was quoted before his ascension to power as stating he would make a Stalinist state out of Iraq. People didn’t take him seriously then, but history shows just how serious Saddam Hussein was."
(From Trifter.com)

oh, I thought your first post was quoting Bush.