Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rev. Robert W.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
71Tele
Because Jagger is always looking at current trends, he didn't want to be left out of the whole mid-80s phase of awful music.

valid....but it may be the same motivation (trends) that produced albums that we deem to be masterpieces. In his mind, he may have been following a trend (or trying to stay one step ahead of one) when making Beggars Banquet & Some Girls just as he was following a trend for those deemed to be awful... like Their Satanic Majesties or Dirty Work.

personally....there are things I like on every Stones album even TSMR & DW.

when you think about an artist/musician in a room...creating......whether it's Sympathy for the Devil or Back to Zero.....there's no guarantees that it's something that is going to hit a positive or negative chord with the intended audience. In the studio
the only feedback is from fellow bandmembers, producers and ass-kissers. I think there's a lot of finger-crossing.

Sometimes an artists swings and misses......that doesn't always mean that the effort was less.

Excellent post, one of the best I've read in a long time.

Yes I agree with this too. It's fun to slag Dirty Work but artists are allowed to produce crap from time to time, just not all the time.

It just surprises me that they themselves listened to the album and thought, yeah, this is good. Mick really wasn't a major part of that decision though, or so it seems...having said that, he saved his energy for Primitive Cool.

It was a bad period.

The problem with artsits making crap is after you buy it you can't say to the artist, This sucks I WANT MY MONEY BACK. If it was up to me, I'd ask my money back to She's The Boss and Dirty Work... for starters.

I say that, getting my money back, even though I do like some songs on both of those releases. In a restaurant, if you like 2% of your meal, well, you don't pay for it.

Quote
GasLightStreet
I say that, getting my money back, even though I do like some songs on both of those releases. In a restaurant, if you like 2% of your meal, well, you don't pay for it.

McDonald's then, owes me literally thousands of dollars.

Quote
peoplewitheyes
yes, after listening to it, we´ve all asked this.

but, i mean it as a serious question. Jagger clearly wasn´t in to it, Undercover hadn´t been that well received, they hadn´t toured in several years.

was it purely contractual? ie. they had to deliver some product by a set date?

(cue StonesTod with his ´hilarious´comments)

yikes.

Simple reason they made Dirty Work. They had a contract to fulfill. Keith and Ronnie wanted to record, but knew only the name of The Rolling Stones with Mick would sell anything and the record company would accept. It was/is the corporate machine Rolling Stones inc. they had to.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rev. Robert W.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
71Tele
Because Jagger is always looking at current trends, he didn't want to be left out of the whole mid-80s phase of awful music.

valid....but it may be the same motivation (trends) that produced albums that we deem to be masterpieces. In his mind, he may have been following a trend (or trying to stay one step ahead of one) when making Beggars Banquet & Some Girls just as he was following a trend for those deemed to be awful... like Their Satanic Majesties or Dirty Work.

personally....there are things I like on every Stones album even TSMR & DW.

when you think about an artist/musician in a room...creating......whether it's Sympathy for the Devil or Back to Zero.....there's no guarantees that it's something that is going to hit a positive or negative chord with the intended audience. In the studio
the only feedback is from fellow bandmembers, producers and ass-kissers. I think there's a lot of finger-crossing.

Sometimes an artists swings and misses......that doesn't always mean that the effort was less.

Excellent post, one of the best I've read in a long time.

Yes I agree with this too. It's fun to slag Dirty Work but artists are allowed to produce crap from time to time, just not all the time.

It just surprises me that they themselves listened to the album and thought, yeah, this is good. Mick really wasn't a major part of that decision though, or so it seems...having said that, he saved his energy for Primitive Cool.

It was a bad period.

The problem with artsits making crap is after you buy it you can't say to the artist, This sucks I WANT MY MONEY BACK. If it was up to me, I'd ask my money back to She's The Boss and Dirty Work... for starters.

What else?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Rev. Robert W.

Quote
sweet neo con

Quote
71Tele
Because Jagger is always looking at current trends, he didn't want to be left out of the whole mid-80s phase of awful music.

valid....but it may be the same motivation (trends) that produced albums that we deem to be masterpieces. In his mind, he may have been following a trend (or trying to stay one step ahead of one) when making Beggars Banquet & Some Girls just as he was following a trend for those deemed to be awful... like Their Satanic Majesties or Dirty Work.

personally....there are things I like on every Stones album even TSMR & DW.

when you think about an artist/musician in a room...creating......whether it's Sympathy for the Devil or Back to Zero.....there's no guarantees that it's something that is going to hit a positive or negative chord with the intended audience. In the studio
the only feedback is from fellow bandmembers, producers and ass-kissers. I think there's a lot of finger-crossing.

Sometimes an artists swings and misses......that doesn't always mean that the effort was less.

Excellent post, one of the best I've read in a long time.

Yes I agree with this too. It's fun to slag Dirty Work but artists are allowed to produce crap from time to time, just not all the time.

It just surprises me that they themselves listened to the album and thought, yeah, this is good. Mick really wasn't a major part of that decision though, or so it seems...having said that, he saved his energy for Primitive Cool.

It was a bad period.

The problem with artsits making crap is after you buy it you can't say to the artist, This sucks I WANT MY MONEY BACK. If it was up to me, I'd ask my money back to She's The Boss and Dirty Work... for starters.

And that's why downloading and sharing is great! ><

i agree with michael lawsons review,great record,only reason people feel that way is no tour.can you imagine if the toured and opened with one hit.

Si, if Mick saved his energy end whatever for his solo stuff, I thnik it´s a good decision. Anything of Primitive cool would make DW worse...

I never liked Keiths first solo album "talk is cheap". Hardly any rock songs on it. He should have done Dirty Work his soloalbum since he and Ronnie wrote most of the tunes. The best songs from Talk is cheap and Dirty work and you would had a good soloalbum for Keith.

well, I of course am on record as supporting the album big time:

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

But in the context of this discussion, which is fascinating to me, I'll throw in my two cents, which is that we look at DW in context of the times and the overall career of the stones and ask, why did this get made? It seems logical, looking back, that this wasn't the right time for a stones album.

HOWEVER, go back to the times. The Stones were still on the album every couple years and followed by a tour cycle. They were still a working, gigging band, at least as far as keith was concerned. His expectation is that his band would follow up Undercover with a new album and tour, because they were due to do so. This is why the Jagger solo stuff was so shocking, compounded by the way it was handled. So the way I see it, Keith's expectations were just to do what the band did, and that included gearing up for a new album and (in his mind) a much-delayed tour. The drugs? Charlie's addiction? Well hell, they're the Rolling Stones, they've overcome lots of crap before, what's the big deal?

I think that would capture keith's perspective as he gathered the boys in the studio. Time for our band to go to work. Mick, on the other hand, was thinking beyond the Stones - it had been over 20 years now - and was probably tired of keith and (in Jagger's mind) his irresponsibility and unreliability. Call it ego or whatever but yeah, Mick wanted to spread his wings. And he saw the big picture. He could see the state of the band where Keith just seemed to avert his eyes. He went along with the album - which he probably views as a mistake now - but a tour? A year on the road with these guys? No. Not where his head was at, and no way these guys were in any shape for the rigors of it.

So why did it get made? I think in the context of the times, it was the thing to do - and like it or hate it, it certainly reflected the state of the band at the time. Certainly in Keith's mind, that was why it got made - the Las Vegas stones didn't exist yet. That's why he saw Mick's behavior as a betrayal. But Mick needed to branch out, go through his solo nonsense, and most importantly, put some space between himself and those losers. and while it's always easy to criticize Mick for walking away, even for just a couple years, in perspective of the times one can see his point of view.

That's why it got made - Keith believed it was the thing to do.

Quote
MrMonte
well, I of course am on record as supporting the album big time:

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

But in the context of this discussion, which is fascinating to me, I'll throw in my two cents, which is that we look at DW in context of the times and the overall career of the stones and ask, why did this get made? It seems logical, looking back, that this wasn't the right time for a stones album.

HOWEVER, go back to the times. The Stones were still on the album every couple years and followed by a tour cycle. They were still a working, gigging band, at least as far as keith was concerned. His expectation is that his band would follow up Undercover with a new album and tour, because they were due to do so. This is why the Jagger solo stuff was so shocking, compounded by the way it was handled. So the way I see it, Keith's expectations were just to do what the band did, and that included gearing up for a new album and (in his mind) a much-delayed tour. The drugs? Charlie's addiction? Well hell, they're the Rolling Stones, they've overcome lots of crap before, what's the big deal?

I think that would capture keith's perspective as he gathered the boys in the studio. Time for our band to go to work. Mick, on the other hand, was thinking beyond the Stones - it had been over 20 years now - and was probably tired of keith and (in Jagger's mind) his irresponsibility and unreliability. Call it ego or whatever but yeah, Mick wanted to spread his wings. And he saw the big picture. He could see the state of the band where Keith just seemed to avert his eyes. He went along with the album - which he probably views as a mistake now - but a tour? A year on the road with these guys? No. Not where his head was at, and no way these guys were in any shape for the rigors of it.

So why did it get made? I think in the context of the times, it was the thing to do - and like it or hate it, it certainly reflected the state of the band at the time. Certainly in Keith's mind, that was why it got made - the Las Vegas stones didn't exist yet. That's why he saw Mick's behavior as a betrayal. But Mick needed to branch out, go through his solo nonsense, and most importantly, put some space between himself and those losers. and while it's always easy to criticize Mick for walking away, even for just a couple years, in perspective of the times one can see his point of view.

That's why it got made - Keith believed it was the thing to do.

Seems like Mick was more proactive for Undercover and Keith didn't bring much to the table at that time & the reciprocal can be said for Dirty Work with Keith ready to rock and Mick being preoccupied with solo material, etc.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
MrMonte
well, I of course am on record as supporting the album big time:

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

But in the context of this discussion, which is fascinating to me, I'll throw in my two cents, which is that we look at DW in context of the times and the overall career of the stones and ask, why did this get made? It seems logical, looking back, that this wasn't the right time for a stones album.

HOWEVER, go back to the times. The Stones were still on the album every couple years and followed by a tour cycle. They were still a working, gigging band, at least as far as keith was concerned. His expectation is that his band would follow up Undercover with a new album and tour, because they were due to do so. This is why the Jagger solo stuff was so shocking, compounded by the way it was handled. So the way I see it, Keith's expectations were just to do what the band did, and that included gearing up for a new album and (in his mind) a much-delayed tour. The drugs? Charlie's addiction? Well hell, they're the Rolling Stones, they've overcome lots of crap before, what's the big deal?

I think that would capture keith's perspective as he gathered the boys in the studio. Time for our band to go to work. Mick, on the other hand, was thinking beyond the Stones - it had been over 20 years now - and was probably tired of keith and (in Jagger's mind) his irresponsibility and unreliability. Call it ego or whatever but yeah, Mick wanted to spread his wings. And he saw the big picture. He could see the state of the band where Keith just seemed to avert his eyes. He went along with the album - which he probably views as a mistake now - but a tour? A year on the road with these guys? No. Not where his head was at, and no way these guys were in any shape for the rigors of it.

So why did it get made? I think in the context of the times, it was the thing to do - and like it or hate it, it certainly reflected the state of the band at the time. Certainly in Keith's mind, that was why it got made - the Las Vegas stones didn't exist yet. That's why he saw Mick's behavior as a betrayal. But Mick needed to branch out, go through his solo nonsense, and most importantly, put some space between himself and those losers. and while it's always easy to criticize Mick for walking away, even for just a couple years, in perspective of the times one can see his point of view.

That's why it got made - Keith believed it was the thing to do.

Seems like Mick was more proactive for Undercover and Keith didn't bring much to the table at that time & the reciprocal can be said for Dirty Work with Keith ready to rock and Mick being preoccupied with solo material, etc.

where are you going with this? don't keep us hangin'

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
MrMonte
well, I of course am on record as supporting the album big time:

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

But in the context of this discussion, which is fascinating to me, I'll throw in my two cents, which is that we look at DW in context of the times and the overall career of the stones and ask, why did this get made? It seems logical, looking back, that this wasn't the right time for a stones album.

HOWEVER, go back to the times. The Stones were still on the album every couple years and followed by a tour cycle. They were still a working, gigging band, at least as far as keith was concerned. His expectation is that his band would follow up Undercover with a new album and tour, because they were due to do so. This is why the Jagger solo stuff was so shocking, compounded by the way it was handled. So the way I see it, Keith's expectations were just to do what the band did, and that included gearing up for a new album and (in his mind) a much-delayed tour. The drugs? Charlie's addiction? Well hell, they're the Rolling Stones, they've overcome lots of crap before, what's the big deal?

I think that would capture keith's perspective as he gathered the boys in the studio. Time for our band to go to work. Mick, on the other hand, was thinking beyond the Stones - it had been over 20 years now - and was probably tired of keith and (in Jagger's mind) his irresponsibility and unreliability. Call it ego or whatever but yeah, Mick wanted to spread his wings. And he saw the big picture. He could see the state of the band where Keith just seemed to avert his eyes. He went along with the album - which he probably views as a mistake now - but a tour? A year on the road with these guys? No. Not where his head was at, and no way these guys were in any shape for the rigors of it.

So why did it get made? I think in the context of the times, it was the thing to do - and like it or hate it, it certainly reflected the state of the band at the time. Certainly in Keith's mind, that was why it got made - the Las Vegas stones didn't exist yet. That's why he saw Mick's behavior as a betrayal. But Mick needed to branch out, go through his solo nonsense, and most importantly, put some space between himself and those losers. and while it's always easy to criticize Mick for walking away, even for just a couple years, in perspective of the times one can see his point of view.

That's why it got made - Keith believed it was the thing to do.

Seems like Mick was more proactive for Undercover and Keith didn't bring much to the table at that time & the reciprocal can be said for Dirty Work with Keith ready to rock and Mick being preoccupied with solo material, etc.

where are you going with this? don't keep us hangin'

OK, scrap the shows for 2013. Let's have a new solo album from Mick this year.

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
MrMonte
well, I of course am on record as supporting the album big time:

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

But in the context of this discussion, which is fascinating to me, I'll throw in my two cents, which is that we look at DW in context of the times and the overall career of the stones and ask, why did this get made? It seems logical, looking back, that this wasn't the right time for a stones album.

HOWEVER, go back to the times. The Stones were still on the album every couple years and followed by a tour cycle. They were still a working, gigging band, at least as far as keith was concerned. His expectation is that his band would follow up Undercover with a new album and tour, because they were due to do so. This is why the Jagger solo stuff was so shocking, compounded by the way it was handled. So the way I see it, Keith's expectations were just to do what the band did, and that included gearing up for a new album and (in his mind) a much-delayed tour. The drugs? Charlie's addiction? Well hell, they're the Rolling Stones, they've overcome lots of crap before, what's the big deal?

I think that would capture keith's perspective as he gathered the boys in the studio. Time for our band to go to work. Mick, on the other hand, was thinking beyond the Stones - it had been over 20 years now - and was probably tired of keith and (in Jagger's mind) his irresponsibility and unreliability. Call it ego or whatever but yeah, Mick wanted to spread his wings. And he saw the big picture. He could see the state of the band where Keith just seemed to avert his eyes. He went along with the album - which he probably views as a mistake now - but a tour? A year on the road with these guys? No. Not where his head was at, and no way these guys were in any shape for the rigors of it.

So why did it get made? I think in the context of the times, it was the thing to do - and like it or hate it, it certainly reflected the state of the band at the time. Certainly in Keith's mind, that was why it got made - the Las Vegas stones didn't exist yet. That's why he saw Mick's behavior as a betrayal. But Mick needed to branch out, go through his solo nonsense, and most importantly, put some space between himself and those losers. and while it's always easy to criticize Mick for walking away, even for just a couple years, in perspective of the times one can see his point of view.

That's why it got made - Keith believed it was the thing to do.

Seems like Mick was more proactive for Undercover and Keith didn't bring much to the table at that time & the reciprocal can be said for Dirty Work with Keith ready to rock and Mick being preoccupied with solo material, etc.

where are you going with this? don't keep us hangin'

OK, scrap the shows for 2013. Let's have a new solo album from Mick this year.

we been waiting for the sequel...time to unveil: primitive even cooler

Quote
sweet neo con


valid....but it may be the same motivation (trends) that produced albums that we deem to be masterpieces. In his mind, he may have been following a trend (or trying to stay one step ahead of one) when making Beggars Banquet & Some Girls just as he was following a trend for those deemed to be awful... like Their Satanic Majesties or Dirty Work.

personally....there are things I like on every Stones album even TSMR & DW.

Their Satanic Majesties Request is a unique, creative and fresh sounding album. The best parts of it are as good, if not better, than anything else they've done.

They some what continued it's sounds and vibe in to parts of Beggars Banquet(it's there in the lead guitars, tamboura and mellotron), but imo it was to the detriment of their sound and music that they didn't continue to include that flavour past 1968.

I think Dirty Work is Stones most underrated album. I'ts better then many of theirs 60's album and has som aggressive guitars and Jagger sings well. I think it's better than Voodoo lounge and Bridges to Babylon. Maybe the last decent Stones album. Nowdays I think Jaggers singing ruins all there studioefforts. I geuss the Sir title wasted his voice (or his head).

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet
I say that, getting my money back, even though I do like some songs on both of those releases. In a restaurant, if you like 2% of your meal, well, you don't pay for it.

McDonald's then, owes me literally thousands of dollars.

Ha ha. I'd like to agree with you. However, if yer dumb enough to eat at and continually go back to McDogshit's... you deserve to lose yer money!

Quote
talkcheap
I never liked Keiths first solo album "talk is cheap". Hardly any rock songs on it. He should have done Dirty Work his soloalbum since he and Ronnie wrote most of the tunes. The best songs from Talk is cheap and Dirty work and you would had a good soloalbum for Keith.

Hilarious! Especially since you practically named yerself after Keith's album.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
uhbuhgullayew

Quote
MrMonte
well, I of course am on record as supporting the album big time:

[montesnewblog.blogspot.com]

But in the context of this discussion, which is fascinating to me, I'll throw in my two cents, which is that we look at DW in context of the times and the overall career of the stones and ask, why did this get made? It seems logical, looking back, that this wasn't the right time for a stones album.

HOWEVER, go back to the times. The Stones were still on the album every couple years and followed by a tour cycle. They were still a working, gigging band, at least as far as keith was concerned. His expectation is that his band would follow up Undercover with a new album and tour, because they were due to do so. This is why the Jagger solo stuff was so shocking, compounded by the way it was handled. So the way I see it, Keith's expectations were just to do what the band did, and that included gearing up for a new album and (in his mind) a much-delayed tour. The drugs? Charlie's addiction? Well hell, they're the Rolling Stones, they've overcome lots of crap before, what's the big deal?

I think that would capture keith's perspective as he gathered the boys in the studio. Time for our band to go to work. Mick, on the other hand, was thinking beyond the Stones - it had been over 20 years now - and was probably tired of keith and (in Jagger's mind) his irresponsibility and unreliability. Call it ego or whatever but yeah, Mick wanted to spread his wings. And he saw the big picture. He could see the state of the band where Keith just seemed to avert his eyes. He went along with the album - which he probably views as a mistake now - but a tour? A year on the road with these guys? No. Not where his head was at, and no way these guys were in any shape for the rigors of it.

So why did it get made? I think in the context of the times, it was the thing to do - and like it or hate it, it certainly reflected the state of the band at the time. Certainly in Keith's mind, that was why it got made - the Las Vegas stones didn't exist yet. That's why he saw Mick's behavior as a betrayal. But Mick needed to branch out, go through his solo nonsense, and most importantly, put some space between himself and those losers. and while it's always easy to criticize Mick for walking away, even for just a couple years, in perspective of the times one can see his point of view.

That's why it got made - Keith believed it was the thing to do.

Seems like Mick was more proactive for Undercover and Keith didn't bring much to the table at that time & the reciprocal can be said for Dirty Work with Keith ready to rock and Mick being preoccupied with solo material, etc.

where are you going with this? don't keep us hangin'

OK, scrap the shows for 2013. Let's have a new solo album from Mick this year.

we been waiting for the sequel...time to unveil: primitive even cooler

You mean it wouldn't be Primitively Cooler? Dammit. I guess I'd better find something to do with all the t-shirts I printed up in anticipation of his future solo album.

Quote
talkcheap
I think Dirty Work is Stones most underrated album. I'ts better then many of theirs 60's album and has som aggressive guitars and Jagger sings well. I think it's better than Voodoo lounge and Bridges to Babylon. Maybe the last decent Stones album. Nowdays I think Jaggers singing ruins all there studioefforts. I geuss the Sir title wasted his voice (or his head).

What galaxy are you from and when did you land on Earth?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
talkcheap
I never liked Keiths first solo album "talk is cheap". Hardly any rock songs on it. He should have done Dirty Work his soloalbum since he and Ronnie wrote most of the tunes. The best songs from Talk is cheap and Dirty work and you would had a good soloalbum for Keith.

Hilarious! Especially since you practically named yerself after Keith's album.

Well, he had a good name for the album but I was disappointed by its content. The problem with Keith (and Ronnie) is they didn't have people around them that dared to tell them if a song sucked.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-01-13 21:14 by talkcheap.

I wonder if on the Who board someone is asking why did they make "It's Hard" or on the Police page someone has asked why did they make "Reggatta de Blanc?"

I bet they made it because they are musicians and performers and that's what they do, write and record music. I also bet most artists are surprised by what they think will become popular and what actually does. Why did U2 make "Pop?"

Anyway, I like Dirty Work. There are some bad songs (Hold Back, Winning Ugly, Back To Zero) but overall it's a good effort by the band with some solid rockers from that era.

I feel bad for anyone who calls themselves a Stones fan and only listens to Exile or Sticky Fingers.

Quote
Shade
I wonder if on the Who board someone is asking why did they make "It's Hard" or on the Police page someone has asked why did they make "Reggatta de Blanc?"

If I were on The Police board, I would certainly ask what they were thinking about when they included the title track.

Nice "lyrics" Sting.

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
StonesBlake
Somehow DW has a couple of great stand alone songs but when one listens to the album as a whole it fails. Not sure why this happens.

have you checked all the settings on your system? do you get it serviced regularly?

Sorry I don't follow. ??

Quote
StonesBlake

Quote
StonesTod

Quote
StonesBlake
Somehow DW has a couple of great stand alone songs but when one listens to the album as a whole it fails. Not sure why this happens.

have you checked all the settings on your system? do you get it serviced regularly?

Sorry I don't follow. ??

just trying to help

Thanks for keeping this topic alive. Now i know what record i'm going to play for this late sunday evening. Dirty Work it will be. On LP.

Quote
barbabang
Thanks for keeping this topic alive. Now i know what record i'm going to play for this late sunday evening. Dirty Work it will be. On LP.

is that being done out of spite for us?

I wish there was a way to make the album start playing for anyone who opens this thread.

WINNING ... W I N N I N G- U G L Y !!!! SING IT!!!! SING IT LOUD!!!