Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

They did 'tour' GHS - Europe '73 featured
Dancing with Mr D.
Heartbreaker
Angie
Star @#$%&
Silver Train x 3
& 100 years ago x 2

& also Black & Blue.......Europe '76 featured
Hey Negrita
Hotstuff
Fool to cry
Hand of fate........all in every show
& Cherry Oh baby once at least



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 03:43 by EddieByword.

Can't understand all the love for UCOTN. It fizzled as a single for one very good reason - it blows!

The album as a whole is mediocre.

Some great stuff - Hot, Pain of Love, Feel On, Too Tough, Down.

Average - Wanna Hold You, Blood

Crap - UCOTN, Beat Up (AKA Dogshit), Hell (worst lyrics til that time)

Is the cover girl anyone famous?

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like Wanna Hold You, as well as some of the songs you call fillers, very much.

It's probably no use in debating this if we're at each end of the scale here.

I will point out, though, that a rocker, a funk tune and a pop song can be absolutely fantastic, even though they're not necessarily a step forward in a band's "artistic development".

I'm not so sure the band evolved from album to album on SG, ER and TY either...

Fair points.

I just make some comments.

First, and most importantly, I do like some of the songs I call 'fillers' quite a lot ("All The Way Down" and "Too Tough" especially)! And I do like UNDERCOVER as an album, if that has been doubted... But I try see its ups and downs, to rate it how it manages if compared to great Stones catalog as a whole... I mean, it's no EXILE ON MAIN STREET or SOME GIRLS exactly, and I think recognizing that 'fact' needs to be taken as a starting point in evaluating the album. I think it is interesting to open up the very reasons why it is not such a masterpiece, or fails to make the list of top class Stones albums. But that doesn't mean it is a bad album. Not at all, more like: not that good.

I agree that for a song to be fantastic, it doesn't need to show any "artistic development". For example, TATTOO YOU is rather 'retro album' or recicling familiar ideas, but it still contains fantastic songs. Gems like "Start Me Up", "Waitin' On A Friend", "Worried About You" or "Slave" doesn't much add to Stones' musical vocabulary', but they work simply in terms of their own.

I don't ask "artistic development" from UNDERCOVER either, but unfortunately the new songs based on the variation of old ideas, are not that inspired this time. I think only the funnily retro "She Was Hot" is actually the only gem in that album, in where they get close to a real greatness (or the caliber of best TATTOO YOU songs). The rest are 'okay' at best, but not very memorable. If we forget the 'unfair' TATTOO YOU, I think the 'basic', non-adventurous UNDERCOVER groove material does not quite match in quality with the EMOTIONAL RESCUE material either (thinking of "She's So Cold", "Let Me Go", "Down In The Hole", "All About You"). To my ears The Stones as a band and Jagger/Richards as song-writers were still a bit sharper, fresher, edgy and focused in EMOTIONAL RESCUE than in UNDERCOVER. Not much, but enough.

Yeah, maybe the term 'evolve' is not a good one to describe their transition from SOME GIRLS to EMOTIONAL RESCUE - via TATTOO YOU - to UNDERCOVER, but what I meant was that they did change from one album to other but still having that typical Pathe Marconi sound of theirs. They did not have that in BLACK & BLUE nor again in DIRTY WORK. I think it is a fascinating period in their story.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-21 22:25 by Doxa.

dear lord you two split hairs.

Quote
MingSubu
Is the cover girl anyone famous?

Jaggers niece
jeroen

I like the songs on the lp, but the production is where they blew it.

[savoirfaire-hoorayforhollywood.blogspot.com]

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I like Wanna Hold You, as well as some of the songs you call fillers, very much.

It's probably no use in debating this if we're at each end of the scale here.

I will point out, though, that a rocker, a funk tune and a pop song can be absolutely fantastic, even though they're not necessarily a step forward in a band's "artistic development".

I'm not so sure the band evolved from album to album on SG, ER and TY either...

Fair points.

I just make some comments.

First, and most importantly, I do like some of the songs I call 'fillers' quite a lot ("All The Way Down" and "Too Tough" especially)! And I do like UNDERCOVER as an album, if that has been doubted... But I try see its ups and downs, to rate it how it manages if compared to great Stones catalog as a whole... I mean, it's no EXILE ON MAIN STREET or SOME GIRLS exactly, and I think recognizing that 'fact' needs to be taken as a starting point in evaluating the album. I think it is interesting to open up the very reasons why it is not such a masterpiece, or fails to make the list of top class Stones albums. But that doesn't mean it is a bad album. Not at all, more like: not that good.

I agree that for a song to be fantastic, it doesn't need to show any "artistic development". For example, TATTOO YOU is rather 'retro album' or recicling familiar ideas, but it still contains fantastic songs. Gems like "Start Me Up", "Waitin' On A Friend", "Worried About You" or "Slave" doesn't much add to Stones' musical vocabulary', but they work simply in terms of their own.

I don't ask "artistic development" from UNDERCOVER either, but unfortunately the new songs based on the variation of old ideas, are not that inspired this time. I think only the funnily retro "She Was Hot" is actually the only gem in that album, in where they get close to a real greatness (or the caliber of best TATTOO YOU songs). The rest are 'okay' at best, but not very memorable. If we forget the 'unfair' TATTOO YOU, I think the 'basic', non-adventurous UNDERCOVER groove material does not quite match in quality with the EMOTIONAL RESCUE material either (thinking of "She's So Cold", "Let Me Go", "Down In The Hole", "All About You"). To my ears The Stones as a band and Jagger/Richards as song-writers were still a bit sharper, fresher, edgy and focused in EMOTIONAL RESCUE than in UNDERCOVER. Not much, but enough.

Yeah, maybe the term 'evolve' is not a good one to describe their transition from SOME GIRLS to EMOTIONAL RESCUE - via TATTOO YOU - to UNDERCOVER, but what I meant was that they did change from one album to other but still having that typical Pathe Marconi sound of theirs. They did not have that in BLACK & BLUE nor again in DIRTY WORK. I think it is a fascinating period in their story.

- Doxa

Good points. However, there is definitely some Paris sound left on DW

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

On the 71 tour they played brown sugar I got the blues dead flowers and bitch maybe not I got the blues every night but they still played it

Quote
Godxofxrock9

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

On the 71 tour they played brown sugar I got the blues dead flowers and bitch maybe not I got the blues every night but they still played it

The "71 tour"? Was that the Nellcote tour? Sorry, I'm from the U.S.--there was the 69 tour, the 72 tour, the 75 tour. I'm sure they did a small farewell tour of Britain before going to France (wasn't that late in 1970?), but that's pretty obscure unless you collect concert bootlegs.

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
Godxofxrock9

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

On the 71 tour they played brown sugar I got the blues dead flowers and bitch maybe not I got the blues every night but they still played it

The "71 tour"? Was that the Nellcote tour? Sorry, I'm from the U.S.--there was the 69 tour, the 72 tour, the 75 tour. I'm sure they did a small farewell tour of Britain before going to France (wasn't that late in 1970?), but that's pretty obscure unless you collect concert bootlegs.

I bet you missed the 1986 Tour Of The America's as well...keep up buddy!

Looks like Undercover and Dirty Work are the most talked about albums here on IORR at least.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 01:18 by Stoneage.

Quote
Stoneage
Looks like Undercover and Dirty Work at are the most talked about albums here on IORR at least.

We can't get enough of them! I think we all wish it were the 80s again.

A world before Run DMC 'broke through'!

Quote
treaclefingers
dear lord you two split hairs.

Yes we do, but this is way too important issue to be sloppy or ambigious.... we are talking about the Rolling Stones here, man!

- Doxa

Quote
Godxofxrock9

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

On the 71 tour they played brown sugar I got the blues dead flowers and bitch maybe not I got the blues every night but they still played it

they didnt. It was only played at the Marquee TV special a couple of weeks after the tour ended. It was never played at a tour gig until 1999.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

Quote
BILLPERKS
THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.

The fact that they didn't tour it tells you only that they'd just done one.

In those days, they toured every 3 years.

They also didn't tour Emotional Rescue, Black and Blue, Goat's Head Soup, or Sticky Fingers during that 1969 to 1982 touring cycle.

Nice b*tch-slap and I note you didn't use all capitals.

IT WOULD BE A BITCH SLAP IF YOU KNEW WHAT YOU WERE TALKIN ABOUT.
"YOUR MOTHER WAS A HAMSTER...."AND ALL THAT.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-22 02:03 by BILLPERKS.

Quote
treaclefingers
I bet you missed the 1986 Tour Of The America's as well...keep up buddy!

Damn! There's another T-shirt I'll never own.

Whats wrong with hamsters? Hamsters are people too,

It's pure crap except for the fantastic UCOTN. They shocked me with how bad this release was. They really need to explain why it was so bad. It's a dung-filled album from my perspective. Do I need caps?

Quote
Stoneage
Looks like Undercover and Dirty Work are the most talked about albums here on IORR at least.

True. Looks like UnderCover is perhaps the only Stones album that you either love or hate. No compromises

brilliant!

i don't have a youtube account, but for kicks just sped up Dear Doctor. Chipmunks version is A RIOT!

Quote
seitan
If you like Undercover...then this is right up your alley - production on Undercover sounds like this to me:

Chipmunks plays the rolling stones:

Ok they that was cruel for chipmunks. _ i think chipmunks have a bigger balls than stones on undercover.

I really can't fathom what many people find wrong with Pretty Beat Up. It's one of my favourite funky tunes.

The UNDERCOVER album is one of the very least interesting periods in the Stones history in my opinion, simply because, the level of musical commitment that was definitely on the wane on EMOTIONAL RESCUE, had pretty much reached rock bottom by the time of this release. Taken outside the context of TATTOO YOU being the previous release (which of course was made up predominantly of brushed up studio outtakes) one can see a definite curve in terms of decline from SOME GIRLS through EMOTIONAL RESCUE to UNDERCOVER. Many of the songs, to me, on UNDERCOVER, were merely gestures, of what they could have been, had the Stones been more meticulous in their approach. As it stands, and possibly outside of 'Undercover Of The Night' and perhaps 'Too Much Blood', many of the tracks are just too sketchy and underdeveloped, and the arrangements just too obvious and cliched to stand up to repeated listens. One gets the distinct feeling throughout that Jagger was pretty halfhearted about the direction the Stones should go in. They do incorporate a few modern eighties sounds here and there, but one gets the feeling that it was simply because it seemed like the thing to do, rather than in them finding any genuine motivation behind trying something new.

'Undercover Of The Night' isn't a bad track admittedly, and it possibly comes closest to a 'classic' Stones single release, post TATTOO YOU, but it still doesn't quite get there, for me, despite the fact that the more modern sound actually tends to work in the song's favour. 'Too Much Blood' works for me also, because it does tend to sound 'complete' (as in the arrangements sounding more meticulously organised) despite the fact that the song isn't wholly to my taste. However, many of the other songs tend to have bits and pieces of recognisable vaguely classic Stones sounds (riffs, etc), which unfortunately fails to translate into classic whole. The riff to 'It Must Be Hell' for example, just sounds too leisurely knocked off in the vein of 'Soul Survivor' but with little else to recommend it. As with the remarks i made concerning 'How Can I Stop' a few weeks back, 'It Must Be Hell' seems merely a sketch, when put alongside the Stones more inspiring releases. Dandelion enquires about 'Pretty Beat Up', and what people may perceive to be wrong with it. I don't think there's anything to dislike about it necessarily, aside from the thought that it appears very slight, in terms of its potential as a song. That, for me, is the story of UNDERCOVER as a whole. There's nothing truly to hate on it, but also nothing substantial enough to love taken over the longer term.

I think it's really hard to justify an album, in terms of its perceived greatness, when what it predominantly consists of seems to be nothing short of a number of partly formed ideas/sketches.

I'd still take it over many of the Stones later album releases, though. There is still an element of natural rawness, and vitality.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I really can't fathom what many people find wrong with Pretty Beat Up. It's one of my favourite funky tunes.

....... Some people's faculties of recogition and response are finely tuned to quality and others.............well, you just gotta feel sorry for them I guess.............
Great groove..............

Quote
Edward Twining
The UNDERCOVER album is one of the very least interesting periods in the Stones history in my opinion, simply because, the level of musical commitment that was definitely on the wane on EMOTIONAL RESCUE, had pretty much reached rock bottom by the time of this release. Taken outside the context of TATTOO YOU being the previous release (which of course was made up predominantly of brushed up studio outtakes) one can see a definite curve in terms of decline from SOME GIRLS through EMOTIONAL RESCUE to UNDERCOVER. Many of the songs, to me, on UNDERCOVER, were merely gestures, of what they could have been, had the Stones been more meticulous in their approach. As it stands, and possibly outside of 'Undercover Of The Night' and perhaps 'Too Much Blood', many of the tracks are just too sketchy and underdeveloped, and the arrangements just too obvious and cliched to stand up to repeated listens. One gets the distinct feeling throughout that Jagger was pretty halfhearted about the direction the Stones should go in. They do incorporate a few modern eighties sounds here and there, but one gets the feeling that it was simply because it seemed like the thing to do, rather than in them finding any genuine motivation behind trying something new.

'Undercover Of The Night' isn't a bad track admittedly, and it possibly comes closest to a 'classic' Stones single release, post TATTOO YOU, but it still doesn't quite get there, for me, despite the fact that the more modern sound actually tends to work in the song's favour. 'Too Much Blood' works for me also, because it does tend to sound 'complete' (as in the arrangements sounding more meticulously organised) despite the fact that the song isn't wholly to my taste. However, many of the other songs tend to have bits and pieces of recognisable vaguely classic Stones sounds (riffs, etc), which unfortunately fails to translate into classic whole. The riff to 'It Must Be Hell' for example, just sounds too leisurely knocked off in the vein of 'Soul Survivor' but with little else to recommend it. As with the remarks i made concerning 'How Can I Stop' a few weeks back, 'It Must Be Hell' seems merely a sketch, when put alongside the Stones more inspiring releases. Dandelion enquires about 'Pretty Beat Up', and what people may perceive to be wrong with it. I don't think there's anything to dislike about it necessarily, aside from the thought that it appears very slight, in terms of its potential as a song. That, for me, is the story of UNDERCOVER as a whole. There's nothing truly to hate on it, but also nothing substantial enough to love taken over the longer term.

I think it's really hard to justify an album, in terms of its perceived greatness, when what it predominantly consists of seems to be nothing short of a number of partly formed ideas/sketches.

I'd still take it over many of the Stones later album releases, though. There is still an element of natural rawness, and vitality.

I get your points, Edward. But if the sketches, as you call them, won't work just because they are underdeveloped - what should we say about all the brilliant plain blues songs, funk tunes and static rock or pop songs that are hailed as masterpieces by the Stones?

This is exactly the number 1 point all non-Stones fans make: They are too predictable, not complex enough, not enough variety..

Songs like Dancing With Mr. D, Hot Stuff, Happy, Rip This Joint, Sway, Silver Train, Turd On The Run, Gimmie Shelter, Live With Me, Tumbling Dice, Ventilator Blues and Star Star are also sketches per se...

And She Was Hot vs Rocks Off? The songs are similarly written: Standard rockers, melodic middle eights/choruses.

It boils down to a matter of taste, not whether the songs are underdeveloped or not, imo. And their catalogue makes it difficult for the Stones to follow their own recipee without being criticised for it as well...

Quote
DandelionPowderman

I get your points, Edward. But if the sketches, as you call them, won't work just because they are underdeveloped - what should we say about all the brilliant plain blues songs, funk tunes and static rock or pop songs that are hailed as masterpieces by the Stones?

This is exactly the number 1 point all non-Stones fans make: They are too predictable, not complex enough, not enough variety..

Songs like Dancing With Mr. D, Hot Stuff, Happy, Rip This Joint, Sway, Silver Train, Turd On The Run, Gimmie Shelter, Live With Me, Tumbling Dice, Ventilator Blues and Star Star are also sketches per se...

And She Was Hot vs Rocks Off? The songs are similarly written: Standard rockers, melodic middle eights/choruses.

It boils down to a matter of taste, not whether the songs are underdeveloped or not, imo. And their catalogue makes it difficult for the Stones to follow their own recipee without being criticised for it as well...

It is in terms of the arrangements, Dandelion. Some songs work best being accompanied alone, by an acoustic guitar, others by an orchestra. The songs on UNDERCOVER sound very slapdash in their arrangement, as though the Stones didn't give enough time to find what really worked best, to truly hone those arrangements to meet the songs requirements. They took the obvious cliched route often, maybe, yes, but there's not enough within those arrangements to latch onto, in my opinion. It's not always a case of more instruments/less instruments as in what works. Sometimes it's simply a matter of what works as in the feel, as a matter of instinct. The Stones simply didn't spend long enough around the UNDERCOVER period, in truly honing their craft, be it songwriting and/or arranging.

I'm pretty sure Undercover was the album they used the most time, in terms of both the arrangement and the mixing, Edward. Working with new techonology takes time.

I can't hear any slapdash with the singles (Too Much Blood might be a little too long, though), She Was Hot, Feel On Baby, Tie You Up or All The Way Down here.

I can understand that people, who don't get the groove, may find Pretty Beat Up a bit one-dimensional - but then again, that's exactly what I like about it.

Too Tough, Wanna Hold You (which I like very much for its melodic drive, as well as its sharp sound) and It Must Be Hell might be a little generic, even though I like the choruses, the experimentation with drums - as well as the bridge in IMBH.

She Was Hot, Feel On Baby (have you ever heard a guitar sounding like this?) and Undercover Of The Night are masterfully arranged and mixed in my book.

So what if they didn't tour for it. Hell, they just did a tour. They didn't tour for TSMR, BB, IORR, ER or DW either.

They got into the videos though. It was a new time. Looks like they had a blast making them too.

UOTN remains a devisive song, as does apparently the album. Too bad in regard to the LP. How people can seriously think that this record is on par with DIRTY WORK is stunning. I do believe, with exception to one troll, I've never read such garbage here before!

Quote
24FPS
It's pure crap except for the fantastic UCOTN. They shocked me with how bad this release was. They really need to explain why it was so bad. It's a dung-filled album from my perspective. Do I need caps?

No need for all cap's...BILL PERKS has got you (and the rest of us) covered.