Quote
owlbynite

Quote
GravityBoy

By all means, call Scully! And where's Muldar when we need him?

He's Californicating.

Quote
71Tele

Quote
owlbynite

Quote
GravityBoy

By all means, call Scully! And where's Muldar when we need him?

He's Californicating.

Yes, that's his thing now.

Back to undercover!

Remember buying the LP in LA and not being able to listen to it until I was back in Italy a month later. Quite frustrating!

The only thing that I don't like is the flow of the songs. The last 3 in particular individually are great, but having a more traditional sound all grouped up at he end always seemed out of contexts.

But it's details.

This is an album with huge hairy balls!

C

It doesn't get more groovy than this!

I wrote it enough about it yesterday... wasted bullets..

- Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It doesn't get more groovy than this!

I'm not sure what I'm hearing here.

Is it being played backwards?

Quote
GravityBoy

Quote
DandelionPowderman
It doesn't get more groovy than this!

I'm not sure what I'm hearing here.

Is it being played backwards?

You've been listening to shitty mp3s for too long

Quote
Marhsall
I personally love Undercover. I can listen to that all the way thru/..better than Voodoo, S.W., E.R....just my opinion

great record. for me the most underrated stones-album. while VL, SW, BTB and ABB are just collections of songs, Undercover is an album (maybe their last) with character, power and a clear line yet quite versatile (feel on baby, tm blood, undercover)

Quote
kammpberg
Stones Fan – ****
Casual Listener - **


After the gargantuan success of Tattoo You and its corresponding tours, The Stones entered their darkest period of their career with Undercover. MTV had become a huge force, and the band responded by producing three of their greatest videos for this album. But all was not great within the Stones camp, and it showed on what is their bleakest, darkest album.
If you’re a Stones fan, Undercover has legs. Each listen adds additional depth to the album, and the Universal remaster especially sounds really powerful. The album is filled with great album tracks, and because there are no major classic tracks, so to speak, the album never feels overplayed. The Stones have only played three of the tracks live (and rarely). It’s not an entry point, but for the Stones fan, this is a diamond, buried in the rough.

kammpberg, i'm not so sure it is accurate to describe UNDERCOVER as the Stones 'bleakest, darkest album'. If you mean what was happening around them was bleak and dark, in terms of Mick and Keith not getting on, then maybe, you have a point, and also considering the tone of the subject matter - 'Undercover Of The Night', 'Too Much Blood' 'Pretty Beat Up', 'Too Tough', etc. However, as an album as in a bunch of songs, in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts
(until of course the later years), where a real lack of conviction seems to be its major problem. When the Stones feel inspired, as so often in those earlier times, the results can seem so utterly riveting, yet when they are coasting, which is UNDERCOVER's major flaw, it's hardly worth getting up to place the needle on the vinyl. Maybe it's an exaggeration to imply UNDERCOVER to be quite that bad, after all it does contain 'Undercover Of The Night' in addition to perhaps the odd other worthwhile track (perhaps 'Too Much Blood'). However, as a whole, the album fails to deliver.

My immediate thoughts at the time was it belonged alongside IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL and perhaps EMOTIONAL RESCUE, as one of the Stones most forgettable albums, because it felt like the album was recorded because it simply seemed like the thing to do. Underdeveloped ideas, and too many simplistic slapdash arrangements, rendered many of these songs pretty ineffective and hollow after initial listens, in addition to too much cheap sloganism within the songs titles/lyrics which to a degree is an effective way of grabbing the listener/viewer's attention (as in the tacky stripper album cover also), but there is simply very little to follow this up. The Stones try for a contemporary sound for some of the time, as in a sense also with regards to the use of video (to suit the MTV generation), but it all seems like simply a stunt to gain publicity, without anything of substance or any real sense of conviction to use to back it up.

If there is a plus with regards to UNDERCOVER, as in relating to hindsight, it is that the Stones were still young and vital enough with regards to them sounding raw and spontaneous. In a sense, and despite the tacky marketing ploys, the Stones still have an air of authenticity about them here, as though they haven't quite got swallowed up by big business. The slickly clean ultra conservative Stones were still a few years away.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-21 15:01 by Edward Twining.

<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-21 15:18 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.

For many reasons I regard Undercover as a stronger album than ER, IORR, GHS and BAB.

Firstly, the will to experiment - IMO with success.

Secondly, because of the sound: Drums and guitars in particular

Thirdly, because of the songwriting: This goes hand in hand with the experimentation, but songs like the title track, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby and Pretty Beat Up are a beautiful mix of great songs.

Finally, because of Mick's singing. This is imo the ultimate high point in his career.

To sum it up: A daring and well-crafted record, coming out in a time where the Stones once again had to prove themselves to a new audience (the new wavers and the poodle rockers). There is stuff for everyone on this album, but it still sounds very much like the Stones.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.

"Worst" is not the correct word, with music there is no good or bad: it's just a matter of taste. That said, excluding the 60s output, I like Undercover more than GHS, IORR, B&B and ER. Probably even more than SG too. On second thought, take away the probably.

But we can stay here and discuss for ages, there is no objective argument that can overcome personal tastes in music.

Even if Keith Richards in person told me that Undercover is a pile of shit (and probably that is not too far from what he thinks) I would still like it. Same for Dirty Work.

C

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.

For many reasons I regard Undercover as a stronger album than ER, IORR, GHS and BAB.

Firstly, the will to experiment - IMO with success.

Secondly, because of the sound: Drums and guitars in particular

Thirdly, because of the songwriting: This goes hand in hand with the experimentation, but songs like the title track, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby and Pretty Beat Up are a beautiful mix of great songs.

Finally, because of Mick's singing. This is imo the ultimate high point in his career.

To sum it up: A daring and well-crafted record, coming out in a time where the Stones once again had to prove themselves to a new audience (the new wavers and the poodle rockers). There is stuff for everyone on this album, but it still sounds very much like the Stones.

Well Dandelion, you see things very different to me!

Maybe IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL is the weakest of all the albums you mentioned there, but i'm not sure i'd go as far as to say it's as weak as UNDERCOVER. GOATS HEAD SOUP and BLACK AND BLUE i would say are considerably stronger, and EMOTIONAL RESCUE suffers at times from UNDERCOVER's lack of effective writing/arranging - these songs also sound decidedly sketchy - although there are a few very interesting ideas (especially the title track). I'll admit THE ROLLING STONES NO2 isn't a favourite of mine.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-21 15:49 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.

For many reasons I regard Undercover as a stronger album than ER, IORR, GHS and BAB.

Firstly, the will to experiment - IMO with success.

Secondly, because of the sound: Drums and guitars in particular

Thirdly, because of the songwriting: This goes hand in hand with the experimentation, but songs like the title track, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby and Pretty Beat Up are a beautiful mix of great songs.

Finally, because of Mick's singing. This is imo the ultimate high point in his career.

To sum it up: A daring and well-crafted record, coming out in a time where the Stones once again had to prove themselves to a new audience (the new wavers and the poodle rockers). There is stuff for everyone on this album, but it still sounds very much like the Stones.

Well Dandelion, you see things very different to me!

Maybe IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL is the weakest of all the albums you mentioned there, but i'm not sure i'd go as far as to say it's as weak as UNDERCOVER. GOATS HEAD SOUP and BLACK AND BLUE i would say are considerably stronger, and EMOTIONAL RESCUE suffers at times from UNDERCOVER's lack of effective writing/arranging - these songs also sound decidedly sketchy - although there are a few very interesting ideas (especially the title track). I'll admit THE ROLLING STONES NO2 isn't a favourite of mine.

Sometimes simple grooves work better than advancly crafted songs, sometimes not.

Shake Your Hips has one chord, and it is wonderful. Pretty Beat Up has two chords, and that one is brilliant, too. Feel On Baby has a hypnotizing effect on me - the dub version in particular.

She Was Hot may seem like a trad rocker, but it has indeed a complex chorus pattern, for being a Stones track. And the song is more dynamic than most Stones tunes.

In the end, it's a matter of taste - but Undercover will always be high up on my list.

My strongest memory of this is, this is the first record that I, as a twelve year old, went to the cool indie local record store, talked to the cool, hip guy running the place,(in hindsight, "burnout"lol), and ordered it. When he called, he had it on in the background, and sounded thrilled to be the dude turning the preteen on to the new Stones record. I went immediately, but because he had it on, I stayed there! He recued it back to track one and we did the whole thing! Aahh, the smell of incence in a dirty record store, with the latest stones record........I was growing up....lol. miss those days!

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Sometimes simple grooves work better than advancly crafted songs, sometimes not.

Dandelion, the point i'm really trying to make is the Stones were still young enough to sound good on UNDERCOVER, even if the song/arrangement content was often fairly mediocre. That's my thought on 'Pretty Beat Up', also. The song tends to get stuck in a groove but never really expands on its potential, almost as though the Stones are only willing to perserve with it only so far (when it was hardly out of its sketchy stage), before moving on. Over a decade earlier they would have shown a much greater level of commitment in the way they applied themselves, and wouldn't have let up until they had the song gleaming. That's pretty much the story with most songs on UNDERCOVER (and to a smaller degree on everything post EXILE ON MAIN STREET, with the possible exception of SOME GIRLS and TATTOO YOU). GOATS HEAD SOUP was the first album since THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST that at times felt as though the songs hadn't been worked on to their full potential. However, with GOATS HEAD SOUP the Stones were lucky enough to have Mick Taylor's intuitive guitar skills to ornament those songs with some beautifully melodic touches ('Hide Your Love' Winter' etc), partly, perhaps, as a way of distraction. With IT'S ONLY ROCK 'N' ROLL he is less consistently evident, in terms of him not taking on such a vital role (in its predominantly more rocking form), aside from obviously 'Time Waits For No One'.

The later years (post DIRTY WORK) finds the Stones in a performance decline also, where musically, age becomes ever more an issue, and where conceiveably it's less about them lacking dedication, than a more general decline brought on by their longevity. That's the reason why, for me, UNDERCOVER is infinitely more palatable than VOODOO LOUNGE, BRIDGES TO BABYLON and A BIGGER BANG, despite its shortcomings.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-21 17:07 by Edward Twining.

David Sanborne's magnificent sax solo and Mick's wild vocals are climaxes enough for me.

It's all about individual expectations and taste, Edward. I think of Feel On Baby as a musical masterpiece, you're obviously not there.

GHS is brilliantly produced (not sound-wise), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the songs are finished, song writing-wise. Hide Your Love is a piano jam with a blues guitar solo. Pretty Beat Up is a funk jam with a sax solo.

There are paralells between those two albums, though: Both have unexpected instruments in places, and both are accused of a dated-sounding production.

For me, there is a freshness in the songs on Undercover that surpasses that of GHS. But that's me

Quote
DandelionPowderman
David Sanborne's magnificent sax solo and Mick's wild vocals are climaxes enough for me.

It's all about individual expectations and taste, Edward. I think of Feel On Baby as a musical masterpiece, you're obviously not there.

GHS is brilliantly produced (not sound-wise), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the songs are finished, song writing-wise. Hide Your Love is a piano jam with a blues guitar solo. Pretty Beat Up is a funk jam with a sax solo.

There are paralells between those two albums, though: Both have unexpected instruments in places, and both are accused of a dated-sounding production.

For me, there is a freshness in the songs on Undercover that surpasses that of GHS. But that's me

Interesting, never made that parallel before! Both are a little "lost" as Stones albums, but are nonetheless interesting. Also, both have the element of what you like you love, what you don't, you hate. Cool

How the hell did GHS get dragged into this twist n shout?
It's brilliance is unrivaled...

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.

Maybe the 'Emotional Rescue' album is worse?

Quote
Munichhilton
How the hell did GHS get dragged into this twist n shout?
It's brilliance is unrivaled...

It was while you were dancing with Mr. D.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton
How the hell did GHS get dragged into this twist n shout?
It's brilliance is unrivaled...

It was while you were dancing with Mr. D.

That's just a rumor...I don't dance...

Quote
Munichhilton

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Munichhilton
How the hell did GHS get dragged into this twist n shout?
It's brilliance is unrivaled...

It was while you were dancing with Mr. D.

That's just a rumor...I don't dance...

well...if it wasn't dancing, then what was it?

Quote
nightskyman

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
<in terms of the quality of the writing, arranging, production etc. UNDERCOVER ranks as one of the Stones most underwhelming efforts>

By whom? The critics praised the album when it came out - mainly.

The fans enjoy many of the songs on it, and it usually is topping the list of "latter day Stones-albums".

UNDERCOVER does have a refreshing level of spontaneity about it, Dandelion, i grant you that, especially after listening to the Stones slick and sterile post DIRTY WORK output.

However, can you name a worse Stones album that preceded it?

I think that's a very tough call. UNDERCOVER was arguably the worst Stones album recorded up to that point.

Maybe the 'Emotional Rescue' album is worse?

i'd agree, except 'all about you' saves it.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
David Sanborne's magnificent sax solo and Mick's wild vocals are climaxes enough for me.

It's all about individual expectations and taste, Edward. I think of Feel On Baby as a musical masterpiece, you're obviously not there.

GHS is brilliantly produced (not sound-wise), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the songs are finished, song writing-wise. Hide Your Love is a piano jam with a blues guitar solo. Pretty Beat Up is a funk jam with a sax solo.

There are paralells between those two albums, though: Both have unexpected instruments in places, and both are accused of a dated-sounding production.

For me, there is a freshness in the songs on Undercover that surpasses that of GHS. But that's me

Dandelion, GOATS HEAD SOUP tends to work so well because it has a certain vibe running through it. Maybe it is the musicianship, the softer more melacholly sound etc, which eventually hits you. It is deep and impenetrable in places, sort of meandering and unfocused. There is a feeling for me that the Stones aren't quite so finely tuned than on their previous four albums, yet what tends to be lacking in one respect, is made up for with some interesting arrangements which sometimes i feel have been arrived at by accident. My thoughts with GOATS HEAD SOUP it that it was assembled at the mixing desk, instead of the Stones having a strong vision of where they were going from the outset. It sometimes sounds to me like a lot of things were thrown at it - some stuck - and others didn't.

The problem with UNDERCOVER i feel is there's really nowhere for the group to hide, such is the simplistic nature of the album's sound. Mediocre songs haven't got the option of being hidden by more elaborate means. The arrangements are very unimaginative on the whole (apart from maybe 'Undercover Of The Night'and perhaps 'Too Much Blood'), and the songs generally just don't stand up to repeated listens. Just compare or contrast this album with the Stones previous release, TATTOO YOU, which has a great deal of staying power.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-05-21 21:11 by Edward Twining.

Quote
Edward Twining

Quote
DandelionPowderman
David Sanborne's magnificent sax solo and Mick's wild vocals are climaxes enough for me.

It's all about individual expectations and taste, Edward. I think of Feel On Baby as a musical masterpiece, you're obviously not there.

GHS is brilliantly produced (not sound-wise), but that doesn't necessarily mean that the songs are finished, song writing-wise. Hide Your Love is a piano jam with a blues guitar solo. Pretty Beat Up is a funk jam with a sax solo.

There are paralells between those two albums, though: Both have unexpected instruments in places, and both are accused of a dated-sounding production.

For me, there is a freshness in the songs on Undercover that surpasses that of GHS. But that's me

Dandelion, GOATS HEAD SOUP tends to work so well because it has a certain vibe running through it. Maybe it is the musicianship, the softer more melacholly sound etc, which eventually hits you. It is deep and impenetrable in places, sort of meandering and unfocused. There is a feeling for me that the Stones aren't quite so finely tuned than on their previous four albums, yet what tends to be lacking in one respect, is made up for with some interesting arrangements which sometimes i feel have been arrived at by accident. My thoughts with GOATS HEAD SOUP it that it was assembled at the mixing desk, instead of the Stones having a strong vision of where they were going from the outset. It sometimes sounds to me like a lot of things were thrown at it - some stuck - and others didn't.

The problem with UNDERCOVER i feel is there's really nowhere for the group to hide, such is the simplistic nature of the album's sound. Mediocre songs haven't got the option of being hidden by more elaborate means. The arrangements are very unimaginative on the whole (apart from maybe 'Undercover Of The Night'and perhaps 'Too Much Blood'), and the songs generally just don't stand up to repeated listens. Just compare or contrast this album with the Stones previous release, TATTOO YOU, which has a great deal of staying power.

But this is just your opinion, and in my opinion, you're just plain wrong.

If Undercover and GHS had 'traded places' in history, we'd be talking about the BIG Five instead of the BIG Four, and GHS would have been joked about.

Dancing With Mr. D indeed!

Bottom line is that the Undercover album is the first Stones album I listened to, maybe once, maybe twice, and then never listened to it again. Even now when a cut is re-introduced, like in Pretty Beat Up a few posts back, my ears don't like it. There are novels you can re-read years later and get an entirely different perspective. Nothing changes with hearing the Undercover album, except to gain even more respect for 'Undercover of the Night' as the last great, original sounding Rolling Stones single.

Quote
24FPS
Bottom line is that the Undercover album is the first Stones album I listened to, maybe once, maybe twice, and then never listened to it again. Even now when a cut is re-introduced, like in Pretty Beat Up a few posts back, my ears don't like it. There are novels you can re-read years later and get an entirely different perspective. Nothing changes with hearing the Undercover album, except to gain even more respect for 'Undercover of the Night' as the last great, original sounding Rolling Stones single.

Try amping it up to 30 FPS, even 60 FPS.

That could be all the difference.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS
Bottom line is that the Undercover album is the first Stones album I listened to, maybe once, maybe twice, and then never listened to it again. Even now when a cut is re-introduced, like in Pretty Beat Up a few posts back, my ears don't like it. There are novels you can re-read years later and get an entirely different perspective. Nothing changes with hearing the Undercover album, except to gain even more respect for 'Undercover of the Night' as the last great, original sounding Rolling Stones single.

Try amping it up to 30 FPS, even 60 FPS.

That could be all the difference.

So....All The Way Down as sung by Alvin & the Chipmunks? Actually I first listened to the Undercover album in its entirety after transferring it from record to cassette. When I got bored I would fast forward the tape and I was shocked how many times they kept repeating the titles of the songs over and over. I just made myself go to YouTube and listen All The Way Down for the first time in 30 years. It really suffers from 80s-itis. It hurt to listen to it.