Quote
withaheadfullofsnow
dear lem motlow... my point is that Mick cared more about his solo career than the stones at that point. That definitely affected the finished product... DW.

As far as your "little future hard core fans" comment goes, I've been collecting stones bootlegs for 15 yrs, have about 500 of them. I have nothing to prove to you and if you do not like my comments you don't have to be a douchebag about it. Try that keyword... douchebag.

i punched in the keyword,a picture of someone who owns 500 different versions of brown sugar came up.i got your point the first time.i know you go way back 15 years of collecting and all,but when exactly did mick tell you his personal feelings about his band and the things he cared about in his life?

Quote
keefbajaga
At the time when DW was released (march 1986) it was a huge disappointment for me. Had always very high expectations concerning The Stones...

But after 25 years (unbelievable, how time flies), I really do enjoy it.

Give me another 20 years and I will probably say the same about ABB.

It is about time that The Stones do re-invent themselves, just the way Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan did....

Easier to reinvent yourself when there's only one of you.

I do own 500 versions of Brown Sugar proudly. My bootlegs probably cover 75% of the '69,'72 & '73 tours. I love listening to the greatest rock'n'roll band in their prime. I would assume you do too.

My opinion on Mick during this period is my opinion. In 1984-1985 he did a video with Betty Midler (Beast Of Burden), single with the Jacksons (State Of Shock), solo album, movie to promote that solo album and then a single with David Bowie. He did Live Aid without the Stones and didn't want to tour with them behind Dirty Work. In Keith's bio it's mentioned numerous times how difficult Mick was to work with after the '82 tour. Now it's true, I do not know Mick, but in looking at this paragraph, I think it's logical to have the opinion that Mick was more interested in working outside the Stones than with the Stones in '84-'85.

Jagger is absolutely detached from this album his singing is rushed and like WTF am I still with these guys. Fight, Hold Back, Back To Zero, Winning Ugly are four of the worst songs in the Stones catalog. Too Rude is ok, Sleep Tonight is not one of the better Keith vocal songs. Harlem Shuffle, One Hit, Dirty Work and Had It With You are decent. One Hit is the only real standout. I really feel DW is the nadir of the Stones career. SW, VL, B2B and ABB blow it away.

NedKelly - Mick and Keith need to work together. Mick goes too mainstream and Keith's songs have an unfinished sound to them. If Mick was on Talk Is Cheap I think we would have had a classic and likewise with Wandering Spirit. Don't get me wrong I like those two as they are but imagine Keith on Don't Tear Me Up and Mick singing Take It So Hard

Quote
keefbajaga
It is about time that The Stones do re-invent themselves, just the way Johnny Cash and Bob Dylan did....

Easier to reinvent yourself when there's only one of you.[/quote] 71tele


I was thinking about that when I made my own personal box set of Dylan. In contrast to the Stones his last three albums have been late life brilliant reinventions. Much more so than Cash. And yeah, how do you change the basic Stones sound at this point? Are the musicians even capable? I can't imagine them taking the time to do a different sound. I have a hard time believing they're going to do anything more than the usual slapdash, make it sound like we did before. Personally I don't need any more slam bang songs. They could concentrate on more blues and I could be happy. It's doubtful that casual fans would buy their next work anyway. But of course Mick and Keith will probably see things 180 degrees differently. God, it's starting to seem like Dirty Work all over again. Not another crap album where they're barely in the same room together!!!

Quite simple: it's The Rolling Stones not functioning as a band - and they recorded it as so. It's possibly the least Rolling Stones sounding album of their entire discography. It's very forced. It does have some good things on it and some interesting things on it but overall it's the album they probably should've never made.

Quote
71Tele
It's basically a Keith and Ronnie "solo" album with lots of mediocre songs, "phoned in" contributions from Jagger, and trendy 80s studio sounds which have not aged well. Add to that the horrible cover and the rancor within the band at the time and you have an album I would rather forget.

Finally a voice of reason...I will say there are a helluva lot of closet Dirty Work lovers out there.

It's not awful (although parts are, Winning Ugly, Back to Zero, Hold Back...I mean, COME ON!), just REALLY mediocre. The Stones have too much other really good material to choose from.

Quote
slew
Jagger is absolutely detached from this album his singing is rushed and like WTF am I still with these guys. Fight, Hold Back, Back To Zero, Winning Ugly are four of the worst songs in the Stones catalog. Too Rude is ok, Sleep Tonight is not one of the better Keith vocal songs. Harlem Shuffle, One Hit, Dirty Work and Had It With You are decent. One Hit is the only real standout. I really feel DW is the nadir of the Stones career. SW, VL, B2B and ABB blow it away.

NedKelly - Mick and Keith need to work together. Mick goes too mainstream and Keith's songs have an unfinished sound to them. If Mick was on Talk Is Cheap I think we would have had a classic and likewise with Wandering Spirit. Don't get me wrong I like those two as they are but imagine Keith on Don't Tear Me Up and Mick singing Take It So Hard

THAT would be very interesting indeed.

Ned Kelly you are SPOT ON! Can't slag Keef and Mick off at the same time!

DW is a GREAT Album, wanna play it now thanx to the missus' nasty beahviour!

I think the main reason most people don't dig it, is the production. The U2 sound just doesn't work. The lead engineer (or producer, can't remember which) is the guy who pioneered the U2 snare sound. Where it has a slow decay, heavy reverb, noise gate after the verb. I think thats its downfall.

If they sent me in and let me remix the album, it could be a decent record. BUT... Winning Ugly, Back to Zero, Hold Back... Those are just mediocre songs. They don't really go anywhere. Winning Ugly sounds like someone else's song. It sounds so generic I can't believe no one else has stepped up and said 'you stole my melody'. Back to Zero just sounds like porn music, not that I'm educated in that field, only that it sounds like crap. Hold Back could have been decent, if it weren't for the fact that Jagger is just screaming at the top of his lungs.

Had It With You is the hidden gem on that record. Personally I've hoping that they'd pull that one out on the b-stage...

-- catwalk to the b-stage --
Under The Radar
Had It With You
Jump On Top Of Me
-- walk back to main stage --

Overall, DW sucks! I hadn't played it in 20 years so I put it on and gave it another listen. It didn't age well because it still is a weak effort. As I listened I felt as if I was sitting in a lounge in Vegas listening to a band that came on at 4:30 to warm the crowd up for the evening performance by Wayne Newton. Overall it seems like a departure from their roots. There is no cohesion. It was a total disappointment the first time I played it. One Hit and Had It With You are about the only things I care to listen to. Basically it is a notch lower in listenability than Bridges.

Quote
UnionHall
Overall, DW sucks! I hadn't played it in 20 years so I put it on and gave it another listen. It didn't age well because it still is a weak effort. As I listened I felt as if I was sitting in a lounge in Vegas listening to a band that came on at 4:30 to warm the crowd up for the evening performance by Wayne Newton. Overall it seems like a departure from their roots. There is no cohesion. It was a total disappointment the first time I played it. One Hit and Had It With You are about the only things I care to listen to. Basically it is a notch lower in listenability than Bridges.

As much as I dislike B2B, I'd say DW is several notches lower.

Well, I've always liked the cover--but you need the red cellophane to go with it.
Anyway, perhaps it could have been more interesting if Bill was on more than 3 of the 10 tracks. Bill was never needed more than on this album. Compare the bass on Fight and then on Harlem Shuffle. There's a lot of potential in the material that was left off--Strictly Memphis being the obvious choice, but just adding that one might not have salvaged the whole record.

So who's to blame? The Glimmer Twins or Steve Lillywhite?

And in closing, I've always had a soft spot for DW as my college girlfriend broke up with me the day I bought it, and I moved into my first place about 5 weeks later.

I remember very distinctly that this album was released the exact same day as 5150 by Van Halen. All my friends loved VH. I loved the Stones. But all could do was sorta go, "well, this isn't their best showing!"

And remember, Winning Ugly is just an expanded version of Tumbling Dice! (Well, according to Keith). --- uh, yeah, right Keith. Sure. Sort of like how SW, VL, and well, B2B and BB were all "very similar" to Exile. Uh-huh, yeah, I can see that.


(Not!)

Quote
NedKelly
This is Keith all the way - everybodys favorite Stone - and still many consider it an album of half decent songs. I just find it interesting, since most people hate Jaggers songs.... :-)

I don't quite agree; we've seen what happens when Keith really finishes an album: either with Jagger as a full partner ( the Golden Era), or alone (Main Offender and Talk is Cheap). All really good stuff.
Problem with DW it doesn't really know what it is or was to be. You got the rough beginnings of guitars on fire; maybe Keith and Ron wanted to take this album in the direction of the New Barbarians - a tumbling mess of fun.
But then you also got too much input from an 80's Jagger; when he was in his lost period. So there's Jagger pulling from one end with "Back to Zeros and Winning Ugly", and Keith on the other end with Too Rude and Had it With You".
A rough circular guitar phrase ("Hold Back") that badly needed some 'real' input from Jagger to turn it into a song with dynamics and shape becomes a howling mess. It almost would be better as an instrumental, or with some Keith-ian rap.

Becuase, other than UnderCover, it's their worst studio album. Between these two worst albums, we might have 1/2 to 2/3 of an album.

Quote
withaheadfullofsnow
I do own 500 versions of Brown Sugar proudly. My bootlegs probably cover 75% of the '69,'72 & '73 tours. I love listening to the greatest rock'n'roll band in their prime. I would assume you do too.

My opinion on Mick during this period is my opinion. In 1984-1985 he did a video with Betty Midler (Beast Of Burden), single with the Jacksons (State Of Shock), solo album, movie to promote that solo album and then a single with David Bowie. He did Live Aid without the Stones and didn't want to tour with them behind Dirty Work. In Keith's bio it's mentioned numerous times how difficult Mick was to work with after the '82 tour. Now it's true, I do not know Mick, but in looking at this paragraph, I think it's logical to have the opinion that Mick was more interested in working outside the Stones than with the Stones in '84-'85.

i was just winding you up, that is an awesome collection.i understand your viewpoint on mick perfectly but as i've tried to explain many times lately,as i got older i looked at jagger in a different light.
mick was in top mental and physical shape at that time and ready to work.tell me,how about the rest of the band? if you gave a project your all and your partners f/cked off and partied so much they couldnt function you we be difficult? i think the word is livid.
have you ever hung out with drunks and drug addicts?imagine trying to work with them.

[on a side note-that jagger/bowie single went #1 the world over and they gave all the money to charity.shes the boss was also a success going platinum,yet we hear the same mantra over and over about the" failed solo career"]

Quote
allaboutyou
Becuase, other than UnderCover, it's their worst studio album. Between these two worst albums, we might have 1/2 to 2/3 of an album.

I really can't understand how so many fans prefer Emotional Rescue over Undercover / Dirty Work. Even the songs that sounded good live (She's So Cold, Let Me Go) are limp & lifeless on that album.

I must admit I very rarely listen to this album, the worst ever produced by this band. Like Undercover, I blame because it had no musical direction at all. This Band was under water during 7 years after 2 decades of intense activity to say the least. A burst was evocated several times as everyone know. Fortunately for them and us the strength of Tatoo You and SMU was on a,d allowed them to span over the 80's.

My main issue with it is the awful 80s production.
But then again, production and mastering issues have handicapped much of their recorded work in this digital age !

OMG.... still?? more?? and on and on...???

WHY is the color blue bashed??

WHY is Picasso bashed?

Why is Renoir bashed?

Why are cats bashed?

Why are movies bashed?

Why is this bashed?... why is that bashed??? WHY IS ANYTHING BASHED??

BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT SHUT THE FK UP.
SOME PEOPLE JUST FEEL OBLIGATED TO CHIME IN WITH THEIR "EXPERT", "ALL KNOWING", "OH SO WISE" OPINIONS AND THEY BASH BASH BASH BASH THIS... BASH THAT... BASH EVERYTHING....

Look at whom posts on these types of threads.... it is the same "usual suspects"... and they seem to hate everything, they never a say kind about anything,.. all they do is bash... it seems to be their only purpose on Earth, to bash and spout meaningless, mean spirited, drivel... IF they EVER said a good thing about ANYTHING, it might matter, but they dont.... so it is meaningless drivel.

THAT IS WHY DIRTY WORK IS BASHED.
As far as I am concerned, if it is was good enough for The Rolling Stones to release, it is good enough. period. wtf? No need to put it under a fking microscope..... "The usual suspects" here are a bunch of grumpy old hens.

Dang.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
OMG.... still?? more?? and on and on...???

WHY is the color blue bashed??

WHY is Picasso bashed?

Why is Renoir bashed?

Why are cats bashed?

Why are movies bashed?

Why is this bashed?... why is that bashed??? WHY IS ANYTHING BASHED??

BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT SHUT THE FK UP.
SOME PEOPLE JUST FEEL OBLIGATED TO CHIME IN WITH THEIR "EXPERT", "ALL KNOWING", "OH SO WISE" OPINIONS AND THEY BASH BASH BASH BASH THIS... BASH THAT... BASH EVERYTHING....

Look at whom posts on these types of threads.... it is the same "usual suspects"... and they seem to hate everything, they never a say kind about anything,.. all they do is bash... it seems to be their only purpose on Earth, to bash and spout meaningless, mean spirited, drivel... IF they EVER said a good thing about ANYTHING, it might matter, but they dont.... so it is meaningless drivel.

THAT IS WHY DIRTY WORK IS BASHED.
As far as I am concerned, if it is was good enough for The Rolling Stones to release, it is good enough. period. wtf? No need to put it under a fking microscope..... "The usual suspects" here are a bunch of grumpy old hens.

Best post of the day Max's. Although I was under the impression they were a bunch of grumpy old trolls. This is what happens when you get lack of product or shows to discuss. Ain't nothing else to do but sit around and moan.

Quote
Silver Dagger

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
OMG.... still?? more?? and on and on...???

WHY is the color blue bashed??

WHY is Picasso bashed?

Why is Renoir bashed?

Why are cats bashed?

Why are movies bashed?

Why is this bashed?... why is that bashed??? WHY IS ANYTHING BASHED??

BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT SHUT THE FK UP.
SOME PEOPLE JUST FEEL OBLIGATED TO CHIME IN WITH THEIR "EXPERT", "ALL KNOWING", "OH SO WISE" OPINIONS AND THEY BASH BASH BASH BASH THIS... BASH THAT... BASH EVERYTHING....

Look at whom posts on these types of threads.... it is the same "usual suspects"... and they seem to hate everything, they never a say kind about anything,.. all they do is bash... it seems to be their only purpose on Earth, to bash and spout meaningless, mean spirited, drivel... IF they EVER said a good thing about ANYTHING, it might matter, but they dont.... so it is meaningless drivel.

THAT IS WHY DIRTY WORK IS BASHED.
As far as I am concerned, if it is was good enough for The Rolling Stones to release, it is good enough. period. wtf? No need to put it under a fking microscope..... "The usual suspects" here are a bunch of grumpy old hens.

Best post of the day Max's. Although I was under the impression they were a bunch of grumpy old trolls. This is what happens when you get lack of product or shows to discuss. Ain't nothing else to do but sit around and moan.

Hey! Ow! Silver Dagger kind of hit the nail on the head - not much else to get on here and post about. I saw the DW thread and had strong feelings about how worthless this effort was, so tossed in my 2 cents. There are tons of things about the Stones that I could get on here and rave about - always have Stones cd's playing in my car and no matter how often I hear them (Let It Bleed, EOMS, e.g.) I never tire of the songs. They still are as fresh and exciting to listen to as the first day I heard them. So why not get on here and post about these classics? It's all been done before and I try not to create a topic that has been dragged through the coals countless times. If there is a current thread on something that I have an opinion on, I will post on that. Anyway, you all have a great day, whether we agree or not!

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
OMG.... still?? more?? and on and on...???

WHY is the color blue bashed??

WHY is Picasso bashed?

Why is Renoir bashed?

Why are cats bashed?

Why are movies bashed?

Why is this bashed?... why is that bashed??? WHY IS ANYTHING BASHED??

BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE JUST CANT SHUT THE FK UP.
SOME PEOPLE JUST FEEL OBLIGATED TO CHIME IN WITH THEIR "EXPERT", "ALL KNOWING", "OH SO WISE" OPINIONS AND THEY BASH BASH BASH BASH THIS... BASH THAT... BASH EVERYTHING....

Look at whom posts on these types of threads.... it is the same "usual suspects"... and they seem to hate everything, they never a say kind about anything,.. all they do is bash... it seems to be their only purpose on Earth, to bash and spout meaningless, mean spirited, drivel... IF they EVER said a good thing about ANYTHING, it might matter, but they dont.... so it is meaningless drivel.

THAT IS WHY DIRTY WORK IS BASHED.
As far as I am concerned, if it is was good enough for The Rolling Stones to release, it is good enough. period. wtf? No need to put it under a fking microscope..... "The usual suspects" here are a bunch of grumpy old hens.

Some paintings, films, concerts, records, are better than others. It's interesting and even important to inquire and to debate as to what works and why. The question was asked: "Why is Dirty Work bashed?" And a bunch of passionate and loyal Stones fans came forward to give their passionate views on the album.

Is that not a good use of the site? Do tell, Number One Rolling Stones Fan...

Yeah, I don't get the hostility expressed by some here toward critical comments about certain records, etc. Are we all supposed to suspend judgment and pretend all the work is equal in quality? It would be a pretty boring site if that's what we did. I think "how could a band that's so good put out an album that's so bad" is a valid and legitimate question. And if some people love the album and passionately defend it, that's cool too. Why do some people take such offense at the mere fact of others criticizing things?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-15 00:02 by 71Tele.

The problem with Dirty Work is first the production is horrendous. Second, the bad songs are so bad that they overwhelm the album's good stuff. Take the title track. Could have been promising but the production is just awful. Back to Zero, Winning Ugly, and Fight are just wrong. One Hit's production is terrible. The only ones that aren't messed around with are Sleep Tonight and Too Rude.

I would pose the same question regarding "Undercover".

Why is it so bashed?

I do think this is a good album, not a great one. Its fun, and kind of dated sounded like 'Dirty Work'.

Some good debate going on in this thread. Maybe the "Why is Undercover bashed should be separate.

Undercover has one of the Stones coolest experiments, "Feel On Baby". Also one of their nastiest rockers, 'She Was Hot".

The fun, silly songs like 'Too Much Blood', and 'Pain Of Love' are the clunkers, but then they're still kind of fun.

A Beatles nod is even on it, 'Wanna Hold You'.

Interesting record, but I understand why there's some disdain for it, like 'Dirty Work'.

My favourites are probably Dirty Work, Fight & Hold Back. None of them are great songs, but the overall sound is exciting to me (they're great exercising songs, fantastic for running to!).

The Stones were always a great band. Great guitars, drums, vocals, attitude, etc. But none of that would have mattered if they had not come up with great songs. The reason DW (and Undercover) are so disparaged is that the songwriting really started to slip: Repetition of past glories, trendy stuff that didn't age well, experiments gone wrong. The songs just weren't there! I can't get any pleasure listening to a lousy song no matter how great the guitars sound. The Stones without optimal original songs are not much more interesting than Aerosmith.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-15 00:02 by 71Tele.