One reason could be:

1."One Hit (To the Body)" (Mick Jagger/Richards/Ronnie Wood) – 4:44 -
2."Fight" (Jagger/Richards/Wood) – 3:09 -
3."Harlem Shuffle" (Bob Relf/Ernest Nelson) – 3:23 -
4."Hold Back" (Jagger/Richards) – 3:53 -
5."Too Rude" (Lindon Roberts) – 3:11 -
6."Winning Ugly" (Jagger/Richards) – 4:32 -
7."Back to Zero" (Jagger/Richards/Leavell) – 4:00 -
8."Dirty Work" (Jagger/Richards/Wood) – 3:53 -
9."Had It with You" (Jagger/Richards/Wood) – 3:19 -
10."Sleep Tonight" (Jagger/Richards) – 5:10 -
11. "Piano Instrumental/Ian Stewart - 0:33 -

2 1 2 0

Quote
whitem8
Stone in the 80's it is. And you know, some of the stuff really had a lot of potential, but it is almost as if Mick is sabotaging it with his horrendous singing. He is pissed. And sometimes when there is a lot of adversity, it challenges the band to really put out. But in this instance the schism is so deep, even the quality of the writing and the performances are hindered. There are a handful of great songs that haven't dated badly. One Hit To the Body, Had it With You, Harlem Shuffle, Sleep Tonight, and Dirty Work, are all stellar hard core stones songs! But then there is some just really badly produced, sung and lackluster lyrics. I can't hold it up as a fav, but it isn't as bad as the urban legend wants you to believe it is. I mean hell, with the level of anger, it is a lot more passionate than their make up album! Steel Wheels.

In a roundabout way, whitem8, you sort of confirm my point. Whatever else may be wrong with 'Dirty Work', the bottom line for me is it still sounds like a less contrived album than all of those that have followed, in terms of it not sounding like someone's vision of an album recorded to maximise profits. 'Dirty Work' lacks the gloss and professionalism of those later albums, which are more geared to focusing on the Stones tried and tested formula, but are stifled in a sticky professional slickness, which pretty much renders them sterile. For all 'Dirty Work's attempts to deliver a more contemporary sound, it still lives and breathes on its own terms, without being inhibited within the spectre of mass marketing and sounding professional in a corporate type of way. Jagger's vocals do not sound in any way like a clinical attempt to brand the Stones in some globalised money making venture, far from it. Jagger does sound bored, for sure at times, and he's not always sensitive to the songs needs, which of course is the other side of the argument. However, the Stones professionalism and branding was yet to come. 1989 was the year everything changed.

This thread should be renamed;
THE TERMINATOR
The only way to stop this thread is
to go back intime and stop NedKelly
from ever getting a screen name.

""Listen, and understand.""
"That Terminator" (Dirty Work thread) "is out there.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity,
or remorse, or fear... and it absolutely will not stop, ever." www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKbZMIP4XUE






Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-19 10:13 by Max'sKansasCity.

could have been a great album. take the released songs:
One Hit
Fight
Harlem
Too rude
Dirty Work
Had it with you
Sleep tonight

add three of the outtakes (you´re too much, trat me like a fool, Crushed pearl, Breakin´)

and you´ll hava an rough sounding album

I know, it didn´t happen that way but there could have been the possibility

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
This thread should be renamed;
THE TERMINATOR
The only way to stop this thread is
to go back intime and stop NedKelly
from ever getting a screen name.

""Listen, and understand.""
"That Terminator" (Dirty Work thread) "is out there.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity,
or remorse, or fear... and it absolutely will not stop, ever." www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZKbZMIP4XUE

As I said earlier, I don't defend nor bash DW. I just find it interesting that it does, since it is an all Keith album....

Some Of Us Are On Our Knees .......Lurv ta hear a good quality release of that gem...



ROCKMAN

Quote
Come On
4."Hold Back" (Jagger/Richards) – 3:53 -
5."Too Rude" (Lindon Roberts) – 3:11 -
6."Winning Ugly" (Jagger/Richards) – 4:32 -
7."Back to Zero" (Jagger/Richards/Leavell) – 4:00 -

My god! I ´have only listend the album via LP, so this CD sequence made a following click in my mind: is this the nadir of the recording career of the Stones? Are there any´such below the standard songs in sequence (four!) in any other album or product? Back in the vinyl times we didn't notice it so clearly since we had a short breathing break after "Too Rude" when we were going to turn the record side but now listenig to CD without a break must be a hell to get through...

The point is that to save DIRTY WORK from being an all-time low is that the beginning and the end is quite good actually: a purported effective opener "One Hit" (that didn't quite match with its aim), then a throaway but 'not so bad' song "Fight" followed by the obvious hit song, danceable "Harlem Shuffle". The end starts with a typical STones rocker "Dirty Work" that has some 'dirty' edge and swing, then funnily archaic (remenber it was the middle 80´s!) anti-song "Had It With You" to end with okay-Keith ballad "Sleep Tonight which wasn't the norm or even a cliche yet.

But it is those four songs in the middle - the bulk of the album - that actually kills it, and makes DIRT WORK a hard - maybe the hardest Rolling Stones - listening experience over-all... It surely wasn't planned for CD market yet!

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-19 13:22 by Doxa.

I remember a review when this album was new saying that if this album had been made by a lesser known group than the Rolling Stones it wouldn't have been released at all. Somewhere down the line it would have been stopped. Maybe Jagger let i through so that his solo-work would shine in comparison?

After reading all these superfluous comments and analysis my question is:

Where to put the beautiful asteroïde "Black and Blue"?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-19 15:26 by Amsterdamned.

Even though the album wasn't one of the best. people still bitch just for the sake for bitching. Even if the Stones put out their album ever. People will bitch and complain that they "don't like a lyric" or "Ronnie's lead" or "too many trakes".....etc

Quote
Amsterdamned
After reading all these superfluous comments and analysis my question is:

Where to put the beautiful asteroïde "Black and Blue"?

Black and blue is one of my absolute favourites, alongside these eleven:
The Rolling Stones - Out of our heads - Aftermath - Let it bleed - Sticky fingers - Exile on main st. - Goats head soup - It's only rock'n roll - Some girls - Tattoo you - Voodoo lounge.

Memory Motel! That's Black and Blue...

2 1 2 0

Quote

But it is those four songs in the middle - the bulk of the album - that actually kills it, and makes DIRT WORK a hard - maybe the hardest Rolling Stones - listening experience over-all... It surely wasn't planned for CD market yet!

- Doxa

With this kind of arguments the discussion can go on endlessly. First rating too rude with 2 stars is blasphemy. winning ugly is also more the a 3 star rating. So IMO there is no string of 4 under par songs on this cd.

If you ask me and you are looking for a string of under par songs, give a spin the some girls cd. after miss you there are enough IMO.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-19 17:37 by mrD.

Quote
Max'sKansasCity
This thread should be renamed;
THE TERMINATOR
The only way to stop this thread is
to go back intime and stop NedKelly
from ever getting a screen name.

""Listen, and understand.""
"That Terminator" (Dirty Work thread) "is out there.
It can't be bargained with. It can't be reasoned with. It doesn't feel pity,
or remorse, or fear...

Bitch Bitch. Moan Moan. Wasn't that essentially your complaint a few posts back?

No need to sour an interesting discussion--just go elsewhere and weigh in on how great the '73 tour was...

Edward: I was probably a little bit harsh in my comment, so I apologize. I didn't think that IORR deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Dirty Work. The first 3 albums I owned were IORR, Goat's Head Soup and Ya Yas. Based on these 3 records, I was pretty much convinced that Sam Cutler's intro about the Stones being the greatest R&R band in the world was correct. So I submit that indeed there is somethimg special about IORR and Goat's Head, certainly when bundled with Ya Yas. It's kind of like the Stones were marketing themselves as a bit decadent and self absorbed in their musical tastes and lifestyle, like they felt they could do anything and get away with it. I bought it, and it worked. Both albums are a great listen from start to finish. The music is enjoyable. Different from Exile and Sticky Fingers, but still good nontheless. There are no shortages of amazing guitar licks, and the guitar tones are about perfect. The lyrics are interesting, at least they seem to tell a story or let us feel like we're getting a glimpse of the Stones lifestlye. They've also got great contributions by some key sidemen, like Nicky Hopkins and Billy Preston. Anwyay, I've tested them on my kids and they seem to agree, particularly in comparison to a lot of the later material.

if you google Dirty Work it isn't even on the first page...that's how insignificant a Rolling Stones record it is.

Quote
nomis
But... regarding the comment below, the way I look at it, is if you don't like an album like It's Only Rock n Roll, then you can't be a Stones fan. IORR indeed has some simple and sloppy songs, but that's exactly what makes the Stones great. It's in the feel and attitude, and IORR has it. Take Dance Little Sister, which is about as simple as you get. But to do that and pull if off takes attitude and something special, like chemistry, which the Stones had.

"The Stones least inspiring albums - starting with 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll', through 'Emotional Rescue', on to 'Undercover', 'Dirty Work' and beyond all suffer from sketchy, and underdeveloped songwriting/arranging>"

It is rather mindnumbing to think there are RS fans that don't like IORR as an album. It doesn't touch the 'big 4'...that's fine, but it still is a helluva good slab of vinyl.

Quote
nomis
Edward: I was probably a little bit harsh in my comment, so I apologize. I didn't think that IORR deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Dirty Work. The first 3 albums I owned were IORR, Goat's Head Soup and Ya Yas. Based on these 3 records, I was pretty much convinced that Sam Cutler's intro about the Stones being the greatest R&R band in the world was correct. So I submit that indeed there is somethimg special about IORR and Goat's Head, certainly when bundled with Ya Yas. It's kind of like the Stones were marketing themselves as a bit decadent and self absorbed in their musical tastes and lifestyle, like they felt they could do anything and get away with it. I bought it, and it worked. Both albums are a great listen from start to finish. The music is enjoyable. Different from Exile and Sticky Fingers, but still good nontheless. There are no shortages of amazing guitar licks, and the guitar tones are about perfect. The lyrics are interesting, at least they seem to tell a story or let us feel like we're getting a glimpse of the Stones lifestlye. They've also got great contributions by some key sidemen, like Nicky Hopkins and Billy Preston. Anwyay, I've tested them on my kids and they seem to agree, particularly in comparison to a lot of the later material.

nomis, we are probably closer in our analysis than you may imagine, despite my earlier comment.

'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' and 'Goats Head Soup' do have a more decadent feel to them, no doubt, which i actually find quite intoxicating. 'Goats Head Soup' is the more consistent of the two in my opinion, yet 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' does have that same irrepressible feel intermittently, even if, for me, the contents lack focus and depth in many instances. There was a magic ingredient in music back then, and not just exclusively belonging to the Stones, either, which has been lost as the music, and production, has been cleaned up. Whatever may be 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll's weakness, and i am prone to think it is their weakest album of the seventies, it does make for a rewarding listen, unlike much of the Stones output post 'Tattoo You'. I even enjoy it stylistically more than 'Some Girls' in some ways, although i have to say i believe 'Some Girls' seems the much more fully realised album of the two. I still think 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' beats anything the Stones have released post 'Tattoo You', and easily at that!

Quote
Come On
Memory Motel! That's Black and Blue...

That overall bluesy /rock/graveyard atmosphere, a necessary ingredient vanished after black and blue, and came back only occasionally..in an overproduced & polished way. Simple as that .

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
nomis
Edward: I was probably a little bit harsh in my comment, so I apologize. I didn't think that IORR deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as Dirty Work. The first 3 albums I owned were IORR, Goat's Head Soup and Ya Yas. Based on these 3 records, I was pretty much convinced that Sam Cutler's intro about the Stones being the greatest R&R band in the world was correct. So I submit that indeed there is somethimg special about IORR and Goat's Head, certainly when bundled with Ya Yas. It's kind of like the Stones were marketing themselves as a bit decadent and self absorbed in their musical tastes and lifestyle, like they felt they could do anything and get away with it. I bought it, and it worked. Both albums are a great listen from start to finish. The music is enjoyable. Different from Exile and Sticky Fingers, but still good nontheless. There are no shortages of amazing guitar licks, and the guitar tones are about perfect. The lyrics are interesting, at least they seem to tell a story or let us feel like we're getting a glimpse of the Stones lifestlye. They've also got great contributions by some key sidemen, like Nicky Hopkins and Billy Preston. Anwyay, I've tested them on my kids and they seem to agree, particularly in comparison to a lot of the later material.

nomis, we are probably closer in our analysis than you may imagine, despite my earlier comment.

'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' and 'Goats Head Soup' do have a more decadent feel to them, no doubt, which i actually find quite intoxicating. 'Goats Head Soup' is the more consistent of the two in my opinion, yet 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' does have that same irrepressible feel intermittently, even if, for me, the contents lack focus and depth in many instances. There was a magic ingredient in music back then, and not just exclusively belonging to the Stones, either, which has been lost as the music, and production, has been cleaned up. Whatever may be 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll's weakness, and i am prone to think it is their weakest album of the seventies, it does make for a rewarding listen, unlike much of the Stones output post 'Tattoo You'. I even enjoy it stylistically more than 'Some Girls' in some ways, although i have to say i believe 'Some Girls' seems the much more fully realised album of the two. I still think 'It's Only Rock 'N' Roll' beats anything the Stones have released post 'Tattoo You', and easily at that!

Yes siree Edward, well written.

Dirty Work came when the band hadn't been a functioning 'real' band for a few years. It was cranked out after a HUGE corporate record deal that was signed long after they'd stopped artistically mattering any more. The band was in bad shape, hated each other's guts, and it shows.

They put the album out not to make a statement, nor for the enjoyment of creating music, but because of legal obligations. How anyone can get joy from this only proves some suits correct 25 years ago. To me that's not a fan, but a blind fan-boy (not unlike people who still insist that the Star Wars prequels are actually good movies).

Still, in 1986 they hadn't yet been trained to be 100% commercial whores by Michael Cohl (and not just Mick - Keith too, my friends).

Dirty Work - their last pre-Vegas stab at things, brought on only by contractual obligations. And it sucks, hard.

[thepowergoats.com]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-20 01:15 by jamesfdouglas.

Quote
71Tele
"If they could have subbed a couple of songs, including Dandelion, We Love You and Child of the Moon, this would have been an absolute classic, and we'd be talking about the big 5 (or big 6 if we're including Ya-Ya's)."

Exactly. Lose "See What happens", add "Child of The Moon" and/or "Dandelion" and "We Love You" and we get another classic Rolling Stones album.

Well, you do wonder how the critics would have regarded Beggar's with the inclusion of JJF, or if Let it Bleed had HTW.

I mean, how much more can you love these albums?

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Come On
4."Hold Back" (Jagger/Richards) – 3:53 -
5."Too Rude" (Lindon Roberts) – 3:11 -
6."Winning Ugly" (Jagger/Richards) – 4:32 -
7."Back to Zero" (Jagger/Richards/Leavell) – 4:00 -

My god! I ´have only listend the album via LP, so this CD sequence made a following click in my mind: is this the nadir of the recording career of the Stones? Are there any´such below the standard songs in sequence (four!) in any other album or product? Back in the vinyl times we didn't notice it so clearly since we had a short breathing break after "Too Rude" when we were going to turn the record side but now listenig to CD without a break must be a hell to get through...

The point is that to save DIRTY WORK from being an all-time low is that the beginning and the end is quite good actually: a purported effective opener "One Hit" (that didn't quite match with its aim), then a throaway but 'not so bad' song "Fight" followed by the obvious hit song, danceable "Harlem Shuffle". The end starts with a typical STones rocker "Dirty Work" that has some 'dirty' edge and swing, then funnily archaic (remenber it was the middle 80´s!) anti-song "Had It With You" to end with okay-Keith ballad "Sleep Tonight which wasn't the norm or even a cliche yet.

But it is those four songs in the middle - the bulk of the album - that actually kills it, and makes DIRT WORK a hard - maybe the hardest Rolling Stones - listening experience over-all... It surely wasn't planned for CD market yet!

- Doxa

You are correct!
How though, come on, can you rationalize so many smoking smiley's for Winning Ugly?

I've been listening SACD version of Dirty Work today.
The last song title appears on the display as key to the highway.
I've noticed Keith's hum and the sound of harp at the last part of this song for the first time.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Come On
4."Hold Back" (Jagger/Richards) – 3:53 -
5."Too Rude" (Lindon Roberts) – 3:11 -
6."Winning Ugly" (Jagger/Richards) – 4:32 -
7."Back to Zero" (Jagger/Richards/Leavell) – 4:00 -

My god! I ´have only listend the album via LP, so this CD sequence made a following click in my mind: is this the nadir of the recording career of the Stones? Are there any´such below the standard songs in sequence (four!) in any other album or product? Back in the vinyl times we didn't notice it so clearly since we had a short breathing break after "Too Rude" when we were going to turn the record side but now listenig to CD without a break must be a hell to get through...

The point is that to save DIRTY WORK from being an all-time low is that the beginning and the end is quite good actually: a purported effective opener "One Hit" (that didn't quite match with its aim), then a throaway but 'not so bad' song "Fight" followed by the obvious hit song, danceable "Harlem Shuffle". The end starts with a typical STones rocker "Dirty Work" that has some 'dirty' edge and swing, then funnily archaic (remenber it was the middle 80´s!) anti-song "Had It With You" to end with okay-Keith ballad "Sleep Tonight which wasn't the norm or even a cliche yet.

But it is those four songs in the middle - the bulk of the album - that actually kills it, and makes DIRT WORK a hard - maybe the hardest Rolling Stones - listening experience over-all... It surely wasn't planned for CD market yet!

- Doxa

You are correct!
How though, come on, can you rationalize so many smoking smiley's for Winning Ugly?

Hell, I didn't! Those are Come On's smileys. I would give each of them one smiley, or none in the case that is allowed. If there is anything interesting in those four songs is that each of them is awful in its own terms (I won't go to details - too frustrating in a sunny day like this we have here in Finland!). But the Stones really show how they can suck in many ways. That's a kind of achievement for a band of their caliber!

(I need to say that even I don't believe that Jagger actually intentionally sabotaged the record to make his solo career look better, this sequence is not far from that conclusion. Since I think Jagger is always the brains and the person who finally decides these kind of matters - with Keith or tries to compromise with Keith's intuitions - it looks like he wasn't really aweke or interest in the quality of the product. Including "Too Rude" shows that Jagger didn't care a damn actually, even though he pays back with his "Back to Zero")

- Doxa

What´s wrong with Too Rude anyway? I like it. It was even better with the Winos, though.

The Stones actually planned to name the album Back To Zero (I remember from newspaper reports from the sessions back in the day), so I think even Keith liked this tune.

IMO, it´s an awful track, but Keith´s and Womack´s guitars are played brilliantly.

Too Rude is hilariously good.

Quote
Come On
One reason could be:

1."One Hit (To the Body)" (Mick Jagger/Richards/Ronnie Wood) – 4:44 -
2."Fight" (Jagger/Richards/Wood) – 3:09 -
3."Harlem Shuffle" (Bob Relf/Ernest Nelson) – 3:23 -
4."Hold Back" (Jagger/Richards) – 3:53 -
5."Too Rude" (Lindon Roberts) – 3:11 -
6."Winning Ugly" (Jagger/Richards) – 4:32 -
7."Back to Zero" (Jagger/Richards/Leavell) – 4:00 -
8."Dirty Work" (Jagger/Richards/Wood) – 3:53 -
9."Had It with You" (Jagger/Richards/Wood) – 3:19 -
10."Sleep Tonight" (Jagger/Richards) – 5:10 -
11. "Piano Instrumental/Ian Stewart - 0:33 -

One Hit 3, Dirty Work 2 (??!!), Had It With You 3 (!!!)

What exactly is wrong with those songs???

Back To Zero and Winning Ugly I can understand, but please... gimme a break.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
What´s wrong with Too Rude anyway? I like it. It was even better with the Winos, though.

Well, to my ears it is, if not boring, annoying... First of all, as a song is sounds like a children's song - well many reggae songs do which make them hard to handle, like the blues format by non-blues men - and despite its easy melody both Keith and Ronnie seem to struggle to keep in tune... the song and the melody 'hook' starts to repeat itself after about 30 secs or a minute... the production is full of ridiculous, artificial, dated ideas... was this Keith and Ronnie's idea to 'modernize' or 'update' reggae? I don't know that, but the results are simply horrible. And oh yeah, who needs Mick Jagger, Charlie Watts or Bill Wyman for a 'Rolling Stones' track? The suitable place would have been a less profilic Keith Richards, or better, Ronnie Wood solo album (or its third single's B-side).

Yeah, I admit, Wino's live version is much much better (but I think any version would be - it can't be any worse than what is presented in DIRTY WORK.)

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2011-07-20 16:36 by Doxa.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
The Stones actually planned to name the album Back To Zero (I remember from newspaper reports from the sessions back in the day), so I think even Keith liked this tune.

I just remember it was called to as "Keith's album" and "sounding like EXILE". Maybe "Back to Zero" was Mick's cynical interpretion of that idea without Keith realizing it...

- Doxa