For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
Rev. Robert W.Quote
sweet neo conQuote
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.
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.
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)
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rev. Robert W.Quote
sweet neo conQuote
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.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
treaclefingersQuote
Rev. Robert W.Quote
sweet neo conQuote
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.
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.
Quote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
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
StonesTodQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
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
uhbuhgullayewQuote
StonesTodQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
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
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.
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
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
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.
Quote
StonesTodQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
StonesTodQuote
uhbuhgullayewQuote
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
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).
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
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
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?"
Quote
StonesTodQuote
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?
Quote
StonesBlakeQuote
StonesTodQuote
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
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.