>Because most of them are devoid of elements that distinguish a "song' from a glorified riff with some words added.


You apparently know more about songwriting than Keith Richards -- perhaps we could all benefit from some lessons you might share w/him?

Query: by your criteria did Chuck Berry write any "real songs"?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-16 11:16 by Glam Descendant.

Quote
Edward Twining
I'm not sure i'd quite go along with the notion that 'Dirty Work' is perhaps the Stones very worst album. In some ways, and despite the fact that Mick isn't really committed, and the production is typically falling into the trap of following those eighties trends too readily, 'Dirty Work' does mark very much the end of an era. Those later albums, beginning of course with 'Steel Wheels', have a very polished and ultimately artificial sound, which pretty much goes against the grain of what was contained within the Stones earlier output. Somehow, despite 'Dirty Work's obvious shortcomings, there is still an element of rawness, of spontaneity, a certain energy, however misquided it may be at times, which those later albums, beginning with 'Steel Wheels', just don't have. In some ways both 'Dirty Work' and its predecessor 'Undercover', display the Stones of old, but in a pretty sorry state. In a sense they are very much stand alone type of albums, within the context of the Stones history. By 1989, a new professionalism dawns for the band, and however bad the contents if those later albums, is glossed over in a pretty sterile, and ultimately lifeless package. I believe the Stones last impressive album was 'Tattoo You', but 'Dirty Work' was the final time the Stones displayed a level of authenticity. 1989, and onwards for me was merely a mirage, a contrived attempt for the group to sound like their old selves, but the remnants of the essence of the Stones, somehow finishes with 'Dirty Work'. In a sense it's not unlike trying to compare/contrast the Stones 81 tour with their 89 comeback. 81, for whatever shortcomings there may have been was still in essence the Rolling Stones. 89, was purely professionalism, pure and simple. The spark had somehow died. The Stones were just a corporate brand, and the albums were just a way of announcing an upcoming tour.

I think you are probably quite correct, particularly in the aspect of 'professionalism' making it's mark. I would argue though, that the low point of Dirty Work was the low point, not because of polish or lack thereof, but because of poor or underdeveloped material choices.

Quote
mrD
I guess it is all about timing too. Dirty Works was my first stones albums. I liked it very much and still play it more then any other stones album. All the remarks about over singing unfinished tracks may be true but to me the songs sound great with great lyrics. and most important I feel good when I listen to it.

I for one never understood the fuss about Tattoo you. not long ago there was a thread of the 2e site being the best of all times. but come on. It starts with a song about your neighbor? think about that!?!

Actually, side 1 ENDs with Neighbours, just so that we're clear...side two starts with Worried About You.

The album sucks. It's bad and the production stinks.

Ya can't shine a turd.

Quote
Glam Descendant
>Because most of them are devoid of elements that distinguish a "song' from a glorified riff with some words added.


You apparently know more about songwriting than Keith Richards -- perhaps we could all benefit from some lessons you might share w/him?

Query: by your criteria did Chuck Berry write any "real songs"?

Ridiculous comparison. Chuck Berry was a musical innovator and a gifted poet. You really want to compare Chuck Berry's sublime lyrics to Keith's variations of "baby' baby, baby"? Keith's songs on Main Offender are the same as most of his latter-day "songs". They are riff-heavy with throwaway lyrics and not much melody. Hardly "Ruby Tuesday", "You Got The Silver" or even "Before They Make Me Run". But if you like them you like them.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-17 01:06 by 71Tele.

Main Offender is one long goooooooooove .... just think of it as a riff-opera



ROCKMAN

Actually, side 1 ENDs with Neighbours, just so that we're clear...side two starts with Worried About You.[/quote]

Sorry my mistake, this is what ipods do to you. I haven't held the actual record in my hands for years.

What about the perspective of an international fan viewing this album from the internalizing of socio economic valuations at the time of the album compared with the digitizion of previouly analog albums?

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
What about the perspective of an international fan viewing this album from the internalizing of socio economic valuations at the time of the album compared with the digitizion of previouly analog albums?

I light of the social unrest due to the credit crunch and continuous danger of unstructured default swaps of nations debts and the unknown consequences to mankind I would say I play I "had it with you" really loud.

Quote
Edward Twining
I'm not sure i'd quite go along with the notion that 'Dirty Work' is perhaps the Stones very worst album. In some ways, and despite the fact that Mick isn't really committed, and the production is typically falling into the trap of following those eighties trends too readily, 'Dirty Work' does mark very much the end of an era. Those later albums, beginning of course with 'Steel Wheels', have a very polished and ultimately artificial sound, which pretty much goes against the grain of what was contained within the Stones earlier output. Somehow, despite 'Dirty Work's obvious shortcomings, there is still an element of rawness, of spontaneity, a certain energy, however misquided it may be at times, which those later albums, beginning with 'Steel Wheels', just don't have. In some ways both 'Dirty Work' and its predecessor 'Undercover', display the Stones of old, but in a pretty sorry state. In a sense they are very much stand alone type of albums, within the context of the Stones history. By 1989, a new professionalism dawns for the band, and however bad the contents if those later albums, is glossed over in a pretty sterile, and ultimately lifeless package. I believe the Stones last impressive album was 'Tattoo You', but 'Dirty Work' was the final time the Stones displayed a level of authenticity. 1989, and onwards for me was merely a mirage, a contrived attempt for the group to sound like their old selves, but the remnants of the essence of the Stones, somehow finishes with 'Dirty Work'. In a sense it's not unlike trying to compare/contrast the Stones 81 tour with their 89 comeback. 81, for whatever shortcomings there may have been was still in essence the Rolling Stones. 89, was purely professionalism, pure and simple. The spark had somehow died. The Stones were just a corporate brand, and the albums were just a way of announcing an upcoming tour.

A good analysis. I agree that DIRTY WORK actually is the last album that has, even without the 100% contribution of the singer and co-writer, an "element of rawness, of spontaneity, a certain energy", which makes it 'better' or a head above any release since that. I also agree that with UNDERCOVER it shows the Stones in a "pretty bad state", which revails that creativewise the Stones were more or less done, that is, they could not any longer convincingly transform their sound to suit with the times, and maybe the songcraft ability of Mick and Keith had decreased quite dramatically. We need to point out that already EMOTIONAL RESCUE was not aný masterpiece either, and TATTOO YOU (the last, as quite many fans and critics think, actually great album) was based mostly on the old songs plus had quite a 'retro' feeling in it. Jagger's unfortunate (resultwise) solo career at the time showed also that Mick's compass to go along the trends was seriously misguided plus Keith's archaive TALK IS CHEAP - great by its own terms - showed that his ability to make songs was reduced to an attempt to create some way too familiar and obvious sounding riffs with some lyrical cliches and nonsense (I agree with 71Tele here - this was really made explicit in MAIN OFFENDER - we didn't notice it so well yet in TALK IS CHEAP, or we forgave it, since it was our hero's first solo album, but the symptoms clearly are there).

Now if any of that holds true (by the late 80s they didn't have anymore the skills - Jagger's nose and Keith's intuition - with which they achieved their incredible success in their first two decades of existence), we could ask that was actually the road of nostalgia, safe and sure, familiar sounding STEEL WHEELS, VOODOO LOUNGE etc. the only option the Stones (Mick and Keith) could take to keep their 'faces' and remaining 'big', since the guys had lost the touch to come up with anything creatively strong and effective? But it bored them almost to death since as the years went by, making new records seeemed to be harder and harder, the gaps became longer and longer, and the actual process of doing them just shorter and shorter.

Yeah, listening to DIRTY WORK is an odd experience, but it gives still something that not any other album ever since does. Maybe it is "bashed" because we can hear there so clearly that the band doesn't "have it" anymore. All we hear is a failed attempt to reinvent themselves (a bit like SATANIC MAJESTIES at its time). But they try something different. I guess for many, including myself, after that STEEL WHEELS was such a relief to go back (easy listening, safe and sure) form - from the first listening it was but the album was not to last many listenings because no albums without inspiration do. We know that now. The same impact that VOODOO LOUNGE made even stronger after that (that made STEEL WHEELS to sound like an odd 80's exercise of experimentation). We may now rate BRIDGES TO BABYLON as an attempt to make a difference, to 'experiment', but honestly, at the time to my ears I didn't hear any difference to VOODOO LOUNGE (expect some current production gimmicks in icing the cake that were way too seenable and almost ridiculous). It is all in nuances actually. Well, maybe, after hearing such a pastishe album like A BIGGER BANG we could really appreciate the 'innovativty' of BRIDGES TO BABYLON (but to same token, to see what how degenerated our criteria of quality now is, EMOTIONAL RESCUE or BLACK AND BLUE sound nowadays like masterpieces and works of creative geniouses compared to BRIDGES...)

- Doxa



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-17 10:58 by Doxa.

Quote
Sleepy City

Quote
Silver Dagger
...borne out by the fact that they have hardly ever played anything off the album on tour.

We could say the same thing about the Emotional Rescue & Undercover albums. The main reason all of these haven't been performed live much is simply because there were no tours to coincide with their releases.

Mick performed 'Harlem Shuffle' & 'Winning Ugly' in 1988, & Keith performed 'Too Rude' the same year; then both 'Harlem Shuffle' & 'One Hit' were performed during the 1989 reunion.

You're right about Mick and "Winning Ugly." Always wondered why he pulled out that particular song for his solo tour, only to bury it again.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-17 11:44 by stevecardi.

If Harlem Shuffle, One Hit, Sleep Tonight, Dirty Work or Had It With You had been on other Stones albums, people would have liked them, imo.

My guess is that people have a beef with this collection of songs in particular, the myth of the WW3 between Mick and keith + the band being on the verge of breaking up.

Isolated, many of the tracks on DW are quite good, imo.

We can speculate on this forever. It isn't worth it. The answer is very simple: It wasn't good enough. Can we move on to something else now?

But wait they have not yet discussed magnetic and gravational planetary orbital transmissions or luanar cycles as compared to the idealogical misconcetpion about the receptions and intercetions which may or may not have occured in conjunction with the juxaposition of the revolving media cycle.... so maybe 5-10 more pages should do it?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
If Harlem Shuffle, One Hit, Sleep Tonight, Dirty Work or Had It With You had been on other Stones albums, people would have liked them, imo.

My guess is that people have a beef with this collection of songs in particular, the myth of the WW3 between Mick and keith + the band being on the verge of breaking up.

Isolated, many of the tracks on DW are quite good, imo.

I like Harlem Shuffle & One Hit both fine. I also think I'm in the minority as I like Too Rude a lot. But other than Sleep Tonight, there is not even a decent filler track on the rest of the album, sorry.

Doxa - I like all four albums since Dirty Work they are all far superior to Dirty Work. i usually agree with your analysis but not on this one. The album pretty much rubbish.

Quote
Rockman
Main Offender is one long goooooooooove .... just think of it as a riff-opera

Exactly right. And for that it's not at all bad. It just doesn't have "songs" as one would normally think of them.

Edward, if DW is not the Stones' very worst album, what is?

ITS bashed because its dirty

Let's face it, the record doesn't work. We could pick it apart for years saying this or that song is ok, or the guitars on a particular track sound really good, but at the end of the day, it's just a pretty lousy Rolling Stones album. I am never in the mood to hear it. There are too many good ones to enjoy, so why bother with this one?

Quote
Zack
Edward, if DW is not the Stones' very worst album, what is?

Undercover

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Zack
Edward, if DW is not the Stones' very worst album, what is?

Undercover

Steel Wheels, imo.

Dirty Work at least had some kind of feeling or inspiration behind it. Steel Wheels (save for Slipping Away, Continental Drift and Almost Hear You Sigh) seems to lack motivation, and I feel is the only album that has been put out primarily as an excuse to tour.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-18 09:18 by OneHit.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Zack
Edward, if DW is not the Stones' very worst album, what is?

Undercover

never! you honestly think undercover is worse then steel wheels or ABB?

Quote
Zack
Edward, if DW is not the Stones' very worst album, what is?

WHY THE HELL WOULD THAT SUPID QUESTION EVEN GET ASKED HERE?!?!
WHY DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A WORST ALBUM??!!?? WTF??!!
WHAT IS THE POINT?, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT QUESTION?

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
WHY THE HELL WOULD THAT SUPID QUESTION EVEN GET ASKED HERE?!?!
WHY DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A WORST ALBUM??!!?? WTF??!!
WHAT IS THE POINT?, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT QUESTION?

Max'sKansasCity, I'm shocked. Your previous reflections were more profound. what happened?

Quote
mrD

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
WHY THE HELL WOULD THAT SUPID QUESTION EVEN GET ASKED HERE?!?!
WHY DOES THERE HAVE TO BE A WORST ALBUM??!!?? WTF??!!
WHAT IS THE POINT?, WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE OF THAT QUESTION?

Max'sKansasCity, I'm shocked. Your previous reflections were more profound. what happened?

iiittssss.... ttthhheeee.... hheeeeaaattt... tooooo hot... temporary insanity

Quote
LeonidP
Re: Why is Dirty Work bashed?

I ask, why is Dirty Work so defended by some? Trash is trash, it's easily their worst album, why not just come to grips w/ it. It's amazing how some just can't admit their rock gods made a piece of shit, but hey, shit happens.

If you are referring to me, I do not defend it, I just find it strange that fans on the one hand bash every song that Mick puts on a record and moans about how much they miss Keiths contribution, and then, when they get it, also moans about that. Somehow I don't get that.

Apart from that I always thought the Stones' absolute low point is Satanic....

Quote
Zack
Edward, if DW is not the Stones' very worst album, what is?

Satanic..... by far

Dirty Work is a shitty boring album, but it's not too bad....

2 1 2 0