Quote
Redhotcarpet
Basically theres Undercover, Too much blood and She was hot by Jagger/Wood/Kimsey(?), Jagger/Kimsey(?) and Jagger (with perhaps a riff by Keith).

And Keiths song Wanna hold you (forgettable). Too Tough is a remake of Im goin down with Ronnie on guitar. It must be hell is a remake of Soul Survivour. All the way down is not even a song, it's a joke. Pretty beat up is a Ron Wood song. Tie you up is a little fun, with an inserted horrible Duran Duran attempt.

I still like the album or the idea and that's just because of Rewind and She was hot and Too much blood.

This is bollocks, imo, and not to be confused with facts

"Too Tough is a remake of I'm Going Down with Ron Wood on guitar" - really? And who kicks off the tune, and plays the second solo?

The RIFF on It Must Be Hell is a remake of the guitar in the CHORUS of Soul Survivor, not the song

If you have heard the outtakes of She Was Hot, you would have heard that it started as a country rocker with Keith on guitar...

And Chris didn't write any tune on Undercover...



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-21 12:11 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

The same was obviously the case on Undercover. Probably a fight Keith lost as well, when we look at the outtakes - Chainsaw Rocker (brilliant, btw) comes to mind here, among others...

I don't think Keith lost the battle neither in EMOTIONAL RESCUE or UNDERCOVER - I have a picture both albums were kind of compromises each boss having a say - but he lost the war. Jagger fed up fighting with Keith artistically any longer, and alienated from him. And when Jagger was interested in the Stones again, everything was done under his terms.

- Doxa

On ER I agree with you, but looking at the production techniques on key songs on Undercover, as well as the amount of rockers/r&b tracks on it, I think Mick pretty much controlled this album - hence "won the battle":

Quote
DandelionPowderman
looking at the production techniques on key songs on Undercover, as well as the amount of rockers/r&b tracks on it, I think Mick pretty much controlled this album - hence "won the battle"

Based on the fact that production-wise it sounds very much like an album of its time I would have to agree.

You can tell there was a tug of war going on somewhere, because half the album sounds like good old rootsy Stones rock, like She Was Hot and All The Way Down and hence pick up where Tattoo You left off, and half the album sounds like it's anticipating the "bigger" production sounds and musical experiments of Dirty Work and Steel Wheels (and even Mick's first solo record).

Whose idea was it to rewrite Soul Survivor? Must have been Keith--one of the album's high points in my opinion.

Yeah, Dandie, you could be right about UNDERCOVER. Keith wasn't so involved in creatively guiding and constructing the album but I don't think Jagger was so much either, even though probably leading it all the way through more. Jagger put effort to some songs ("Undercover of The Night" and "Too Much Blood"), and like tested if the Stones is any good in delivering his ideas any longer (the band seemingly failed the test). The rest of the material is rather typical stuff they had already released in their previous albums. I tend to see the production tehnique and the mixing a kind of make up to 'stay contemporary' - as well having the 'hot' Dunbar&Shakespeare duo there - like trying to offer something extra to hide the rather mediocre and ordinary sounding Stones album. Reinviting the Stones sound by rather cheap means. Could have been mostly Jagger's brainchild. But I have the view that people read too much into album's trendy-liking surface, and see it more adventurous or experimental than it actually is.

I over-all think that the reputation of UNDERCOVER as their last 'real' band effort, in where all the cylinders were still on, is a bit too romantic. Theoretically yes, but there were too many problems in the engine room by then, and the old cohesion and spark was gone. And in the end, it was a contract filler album, constructed rather quickly in compared to their usual routines (Keith's disinvolvement?), and even before it was finished they (Jagger) had new plans and contracts in mind.

But back to the initial point: why there was so little Richards in command? Where was his balls? Where was his blade? Just married and the family life in his mind? An artistic tiredom? Or was it that he knew that the band will explode (Jagger leave), if he don't behave nicely...

- Doxa



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-21 13:04 by Doxa.

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
Too Much Blood is the only highlight on this album

Seriously? I mean if you like Too Much Blood, how is it that you don't like Undercover of the Night, or Pretty Beat Up or Tie You Up?

I can get not liking the album, but to like that song and not the rest is perplexing to me.

You just listed your top stones albums above, and put Tattoo You and Undercover above albums like Sticky and Exile ... and you question where this guy is coming from??? (although I do have to agree with one thing, as Too Much Blood is the only bad song on this album).

You need to reread my post, that isn't at all what I said.

I said I included Undercover in my top ten, just barely though. I had the big four, Tattoo You, Some Girls, etc.

Big four means Beggar's, LIB, Sticky, Exile.

Perhaps you're new here and didn't know what 'big four' meant.

BTW, LIB means Let It Bleed.

Also, BTW means "by the way".

You're welcome!

Quote
Doxa
Yeah, Dandie, you could be right about UNDERCOVER. Keith wasn't so involved in creatively guiding and constructing the album but I don't think Jagger was so much either, even though probably leading it all the way through more. Jagger put effort to some songs ("Undercover of The Night" and "Too Much Blood"), and like tested if the Stones is any good in delivering his ideas any longer (the band seemingly failed the test). The rest of the material is rather typical stuff they had already released in their previous albums. I tend to see the production tehnique and the mixing a kind of make up to 'stay contemporary' - as well having the 'hot' Dunbar&Shakespeare duo there - like trying to offer something extra to hide the rather mediocre and ordinary sounding Stones album. Reinviting the Stones sound by rather cheap means. Could have been mostly Jagger's brainchild. But I have the view that people read too much into album's trendy-liking surface, and see it more adventurous or experimental than it actually is.

I over-all think that the reputation of UNDERCOVER as their last 'real' band effort, in where all the cylinders were still on, is a bit too romantic. Theoretically yes, but there were too many problems in the engine room by then, and the old cohesion and spark was gone. And in the end, it was a contract filler album, constructed rather quickly in compared to their usual routines (Keith's disinvolvement?), and even before it was finished they (Jagger) had new plans and contracts in mind.

But back to the initial point: why there was so little Richards in command? Where was his balls? Where was his blade? Just married and the family life in his mind? An artistic tiredom? Or was it that he knew that the band will explode (Jagger leave), if he don't behave nicely...

- Doxa

As far as I know, there was no "Keith disinvolvement". Firstly, that is to be heard on the album, where Keith plays a lot - taking the lead spot on most of the songs, except for the title track. A lot of fine-listening also tell me that Keith actually plays (quite a lot, but buried in the mix) guitar on Too Much Blood (with Barber).

Every book I have read state that both Mick and Keith spent a lot of time mixing this album for instance. Disagrements about the sound lead them to work more seperately, though.

However, they must have worked pretty tight as a songwriting/song-developing unit for this album, if we should belive Ronnie's statement about Wanna Hold You being the only song Keith brought in for the sessions...

It's not a contractual filler, it's a daring, different and creative record, imo. Whether one likes it or not doesn't matter so much. The effort was clearly their most ambitious since Black And Blue, imo.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
Too Much Blood is the only highlight on this album

Seriously? I mean if you like Too Much Blood, how is it that you don't like Undercover of the Night, or Pretty Beat Up or Tie You Up?

I can get not liking the album, but to like that song and not the rest is perplexing to me.

You just listed your top stones albums above, and put Tattoo You and Undercover above albums like Sticky and Exile ... and you question where this guy is coming from??? (although I do have to agree with one thing, as Too Much Blood is the only bad song on this album).

You need to reread my post, that isn't at all what I said.

I said I included Undercover in my top ten, just barely though. I had the big four, Tattoo You, Some Girls, etc.

Big four means Beggar's, LIB, Sticky, Exile.

Perhaps you're new here and didn't know what 'big four' meant.

BTW, LIB means Let It Bleed.

Also, BTW means "by the way".

You're welcome!

><

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
NICOS
Too Much Blood is the only highlight on this album

Seriously? I mean if you like Too Much Blood, how is it that you don't like Undercover of the Night, or Pretty Beat Up or Tie You Up?

I can get not liking the album, but to like that song and not the rest is perplexing to me.

You just listed your top stones albums above, and put Tattoo You and Undercover above albums like Sticky and Exile ... and you question where this guy is coming from??? (although I do have to agree with one thing, as Too Much Blood is the only bad song on this album).

You need to reread my post, that isn't at all what I said.

I said I included Undercover in my top ten, just barely though. I had the big four, Tattoo You, Some Girls, etc.

Big four means Beggar's, LIB, Sticky, Exile.

Perhaps you're new here and didn't know what 'big four' meant.

BTW, LIB means Let It Bleed.

Also, BTW means "by the way".

You're welcome!

><

I know, I know...I can get prickly!

Making a trendy-80's sounding album is not experimenting, - no, not at all - it's making a safe product that sounds radiofriendly and commercial- it's far from experimenting, when most bands had similar sounding records out on the market.

Undercover gave nothing new - only worse production than any of the Stones albums before. Today it sounds dated - you can hear that it's 80's album today, cause nobody would make an album that sounds as thin and lame these days.

It's not adventurous or experimental - no, if you want something experimental you can listen to Captein Beefheart, Yoko Ono, Harry Partch or Tom Waits, - Underocover was just another rock n roll album for the stones, a contract filler, - only this time it sounded thin without powerful guitars - it's playing it safe. It's a mainstream radiofriendly shite for mainstream audience.

and it's not their last 'real' band effort, - everyone was involved on Steel Wheels too and both Mick And Keef had plenty of their own songs on Voodoo Lounge, and Bigger Bang too.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

As far as I know, there was no "Keith disinvolvement". Firstly, that is to be heard on the album, where Keith plays a lot - taking the lead spot on most of the songs, except for the title track. A lot of fine-listening also tell me that Keith actually plays (quite a lot, but buried in the mix) guitar on Too Much Blood (with Barber).

Every book I have read state that both Mick and Keith spent a lot of time mixing this album for instance. Disagrements about the sound lead them to work more seperately, though.

However, they must have worked pretty tight as a songwriting/song-developing unit for this album, if we should belive Ronnie's statement about Wanna Hold You being the only song Keith brought in for the sessions...

.

Well, it wasn't me who claimed that Keith "lost the battle" in UNDERCOVER; I actually claimed opposite, since I argued that the whole album was a "compromise", and Jagger lost the interest to co-work with Richards finally then, since it was such a pain in the butt. The claims made here made to rethink my stance in regard to Keith's contribution, but what you write now here confirms my initial stance. Good.

- Doxa

I never claimed you said Keith lost the battle, it's gotta be a misunderstanding.

I only said that Keith was very involved in this record, but that he lost a lot of say in deciding what became the final product - that's something else...

Quote
Doxa

Quote
DandelionPowderman

As far as I know, there was no "Keith disinvolvement". Firstly, that is to be heard on the album, where Keith plays a lot - taking the lead spot on most of the songs, except for the title track. A lot of fine-listening also tell me that Keith actually plays (quite a lot, but buried in the mix) guitar on Too Much Blood (with Barber).

Every book I have read state that both Mick and Keith spent a lot of time mixing this album for instance. Disagrements about the sound lead them to work more seperately, though.

However, they must have worked pretty tight as a songwriting/song-developing unit for this album, if we should belive Ronnie's statement about Wanna Hold You being the only song Keith brought in for the sessions...

.

Well, it wasn't me who claimed that Keith "lost the battle" in UNDERCOVER; I actually claimed opposite, since I argued that the whole album was a "compromise", and Jagger lost the interest to co-work with Richards finally then, since it was such a pain in the butt. The claims made here made to rethink my stance in regard to Keith's contribution, but what you write now here confirms my initial stance. Good.

- Doxa

I think you're both right here. They tug of war led to Mick's disenchantment with the process. The band would no longer go only in his direction, Keith firmly wanted involvement.

That led to the solo album(s), WWIII, and Vegas Stones with a freshly neutered Keith.

Quote
GasLightStreet
U is the last album that mattered. The last creative album that The Rolling Stones made. Great cover.

UOTN is a huge tune. The sounds in this track - the guitar tone, the vocals - set the tone for the LP. It's out of context on all the hits albums it's on.

She Was Hot is the sleeper classic on this record though. Somehow it went over the heads of a lot of people - it's a funny song. Great guitar tones.

Tie You Up (The Pain Of Love) is one of the best things they've ever done. That song is stellar and probably the best track on the LP. The guitar work on this track is outstanding.

Wanna Hold You is nice. Almost a un-Keith Keith tune.

Feel On Baby is awesome. A lot going on that is mysterious.

Too Much Blood is hilarious. It's over the top gawdy dance music with a leering lyric. It's excellent.

All The Way Down has always been one of my faves. There's clearly a bit of a snicker with this song. Great vocals by Jagger.

It Must Be Hell - how they got away with this one is hilarious. Clearly stolen from EXILE's Soul Survivor. A serious yet hilarious lyric and vocal delivery.

Lastly, the videos done for the UNDERCOVER singles were genius.

What were they gonna do? Sue themselves?

Agree with much of the above, although I maybe wouldnt be as enthusiastic as you would be. Half of the album is really good, with lots of edginess and darkness throughout - half (ie most of side 2) is pretty forgettable. Not bad by most standards, but maybe a bit too much filler for a Stones album. The production hasnt really aged well as is the case with most 80s albums.

Feel On Baby is my favourite song on the album. The dub version that was on the b-side of the 12' 'Undercover of the Night' is wonderful and really should have been on 'Rarities'. A lost gem.

SHE WAS HOT IS A GREAT TUNE,A CLASSIC STONES ROCKER,UNTIL THE CHANGES TOWARD THE END.RUINED THE SONG ,IMO.

THE FACT THAT THEY DIDNT TOUR IT TELLS YOU ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW.
MICK COULDNT WAIT TO GET AWAY TO START SHE'S THE BOSS..

Quote
seitan

and it's not their last 'real' band effort, - everyone was involved on Steel Wheels too and both Mick And Keef had plenty of their own songs on Voodoo Lounge, and Bigger Bang too.

For years I have also declared here at IORR that UNDERCOVER is their last "real" band effort, where all the cylinders were still on, but I have lately started to update this view. Namely, if one, for example, checks the chronicle from always handy timeisonourside.com, the way the album is constructed does not much differ from the way STEEL WHEELS was done. The pattern is the same. Mick and Keith gathered together prior the sessions and made their the bulk of the songs that would make the album. Then the whole band went to studio and recorded them, and finally Mick and Keith mixed them. DIRTY WORK was something else. But if we look any of these three records, none of them is actually is a source of outstanding Rolling Stones tunes, even though there are good songs here and there.

I think the difference between UNDERCOVER and STEEL WHEELS is that the band in 1983 was much more smokin' than it was in 1989, after years experience in good, creative conditions in Pathe Marconi studios, and the band still remembering rather well what playing in front of audiences was all about. That is to say, the band was still a "living and breathing" band, even though relatively tired and out of new great ideas. What I think actually makes UNDERCOVER better and more memorable record than any since, is that the band still sounds so "Stonesy" by nature, and not by trying to sound like the Stones again. Even the 'fillers' sound good. In a way, EMOTIONAL RESCUE was alraedy a similar album. The band was losing its focus or point, but they were just so hot still at the time that almost whatever they touched, turned to gold. We nostalgists might use terms like 'danger', 'darkness' or 'groove' to describe the efforts, even though Jagger/Richards pen couldn't produce classics like they used to. There is that magical touch of the Stones in UNDERCOVER which moves me better than the efforts since then, even though those latter works might include better individual songs. But something is gone.

STEEL WHEELS is theoretially as big a band effort as UNDERCOVER was, but it has feeling of "hey, let's go back to studio like we used to and do a record like we used to (but let us not waste too much of our precious time)" instead of "okay, next album, that's what we creative artists do for our living: let's see how difficult and hard it is this time or how long it will take". Wheras STEEL WHEELS - or VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG - sound like the band intentionally creating nostalgic representations of their classical sound, UNDERCOVER cannot help but sounding like The Rolling Stones, even though trying (a bit unconviningly) to update its 'natural' sound to recent currents.

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2013-10-21 14:48 by Doxa.

<out of new great ideas>

We can always discuss whether the new ideas were great or not, but they were indeed trying out new things on this album - both Mick (the title track and Too Much Blood) and Keith (the reggae/dub Feel On Baby and the collaboration with Sly & Robbie).

Personally, I found the new ideas to be very good, if not great - albeit a bit too radical in places to my liking.

It is those three songs you mentioned, Dandie, the band is doing something novel in the album. That they put two of them to open the sides, and thereby giving a picture they are into something new, might give an idea of more adventurous or challenging album, but the rest is just recicling the old ideas (ending up offering more fillers - some of them very half-thought - than any Stones album before that).

- Doxa

Quote
Doxa

Quote
seitan

and it's not their last 'real' band effort, - everyone was involved on Steel Wheels too and both Mick And Keef had plenty of their own songs on Voodoo Lounge, and Bigger Bang too.

For years I have also declared here at IORR that UNDERCOVER is their last "real" band effort, where all the cylinders were still on, but I have lately started to update this view. Namely, if one, for example, checks the chronicle from always handy timeisonourside.com, the way the album is constructed does not much differ from the way STEEL WHEELS was done. The pattern is the same. Mick and Keith gathered together prior the sessions and made their the bulk of the songs that would make the album. Then the whole band went to studio and recorded them, and finally Mick and Keith mixed them. DIRTY WORK was something else. But if we look any of these three records, none of them is actually is a source of outstanding Rolling Stones tunes, even though there are good songs here and there.

I think the difference between UNDERCOVER and STEEL WHEELS is that the band in 1983 was much more smokin' than it was in 1989, after years experience in good, creative conditions in Pathe Marconi studios, and the band still remembering rather well what playing in front of audiences was all about. That is to say, the band was still a "living and breathing" band, even though relatively tired and out of new great ideas. What I think actually makes UNDERCOVER better and more memorable record than any since, is that the band still sounds so "Stonesy" by nature, and not by trying to sound like the Stones again. Even the 'fillers' sound good. In a way, EMOTIONAL RESCUE was alraedy a similar album. The band was losing its focus or point, but they were just so hot still at the time that almost whatever they touched, turned to gold. We nostalgists might use terms like 'danger', 'darkness' or 'groove' to describe the efforts, even though Jagger/Richards pen couldn't produce classics like they used to. There is that magical touch of the Stones in UNDERCOVER which moves me better than the efforts since then, even though those latter works might include better individual songs. But something is gone.

STEEL WHEELS is theoretially as big a band effort as UNDERCOVER was, but it has feeling of "hey, let's go back to studio like we used to and do a record like we used to (but let us not waste too much of our precious time)" instead of "okay, next album, that's what we creative artists do for our living: let's see how difficult and hard it is this time or how long it will take". Wheras STEEL WHEELS - or VOODOO LOUNGE or A BIGGER BANG - sound like the band intentionally creating nostalgic representations of their classical sound, UNDERCOVER cannot help but sounding like The Rolling Stones, even though trying (a bit unconviningly) to update its 'natural' sound to recent currents.

- Doxa

Basically, yes. UNDERCOVER was their last artistic creative vibrant effort as The Rolling Stones (only BRIDGES TO BABYLON could be considered the next and last creative album *for the 4 person version of The Rolling Stones). Considering what they had just done it was a fresh approach and a different sound with all but one being brand new songs. It still mattered. You could say it's the technical follow up to EMOTIONAL RESCUE since TATTOO YOU was not, in the end, the band working as a band on an album.

It seems the Stones got into the art of making an album with having some different things/instruments on some songs as well as the backing vocals.

It's part of what makes this album different from ALL of their albums.

Quote
Doxa
It is those three songs you mentioned, Dandie, the band is doing something novel in the album. That they put two of them to open the sides, and thereby giving a picture they are into something new, might give an idea of more adventurous or challenging album, but the rest is just recicling the old ideas (ending up offering more fillers - some of them very half-thought - than any Stones album before that).

- Doxa

There are others (Tie You Up and Too Tough) where they are using modern technology + others (Pretty Beat Up's sleazy funk) where they try something (for them) new directions.

All The Way Down is different as well, even though Keith's guitar is soundind like ancient Stones on this track. The smooth Wanna Hold You isn't exactly a very Stones-sounding number either.

It could be said, however, that Too Tough, It Must Be Hell and Tie You Up have that "Stones by numbers" structure about them. But the whole sound on Undercover (the drums, the guitars and the overall mix) is in a way brand new, compared to what they had done in the past - and they never went back there again...

Far too many words for such shite music. ><

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.

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.

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.

I have this subconscious fear that if I hit the "Caps Lock" key I might never be able to unlock it, and then I'll need sunglasses just to be able to read the blinding flash of all those caps.

Sorry if this was posted but I didn't read all 3 pages but anyway: Julian Cope wrote this about Undercover. Great perspective and he raises wonderful points [www.iorr.org]

Quote
stonehearted

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.

I have this subconscious fear that if I hit the "Caps Lock" key I might never be able to unlock it, and then I'll need sunglasses just to be able to read the blinding flash of all those caps.

there's an emoticon for that issue

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
stonehearted

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.

I have this subconscious fear that if I hit the "Caps Lock" key I might never be able to unlock it, and then I'll need sunglasses just to be able to read the blinding flash of all those caps.

there's an emoticon for that issue

There should be a song called Emoticon Rescue.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa
It is those three songs you mentioned, Dandie, the band is doing something novel in the album. That they put two of them to open the sides, and thereby giving a picture they are into something new, might give an idea of more adventurous or challenging album, but the rest is just recicling the old ideas (ending up offering more fillers - some of them very half-thought - than any Stones album before that).

- Doxa

There are others (Tie You Up and Too Tough) where they are using modern technology + others (Pretty Beat Up's sleazy funk) where they try something (for them) new directions.

All The Way Down is different as well, even though Keith's guitar is soundind like ancient Stones on this track. The smooth Wanna Hold You isn't exactly a very Stones-sounding number either.

It could be said, however, that Too Tough, It Must Be Hell and Tie You Up have that "Stones by numbers" structure about them. But the whole sound on Undercover (the drums, the guitars and the overall mix) is in a way brand new, compared to what they had done in the past - and they never went back there again...

You are right in pointing out some peculiar features in the album, even though none of them are - I think - really any sparks of artistic inspiration or reinvention, but more like I argued above, a bit like 'make up' things, to not sound exactly the same as before. (What goes for a hopelessly naive and emberrassing "Wanna Hold You", I guess Mick and Keith did better poppish Beatle pastishes in their kindergarten years as composers).

But that said, the album does have an unique feel of its own, like each of 'big' Pathe Maroni era album has (SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, and, why not, TATTOO YOU as well), that distinguishes it from the others from the same era (the band evolves from record to record, that is). Or to say it other way, I think UNDERCOVER contributes to the over-all to that what I think of as 'Pathe Marconi sound' or 'era', adding one dimension into that, without which the era would not have been 'complete'. More cryptically said, I think there is a lot of common to SOME GIRLS and EMOTIONAL RESCUE, but somehow not to DIRTY WORK (an album I take to be much more reinventive in their sound than UNDERCOVER is.)

There are all of those b-rate filler songs - "Too Tough", "All The Way Down", "Pretty Beat Up", "Tie You Up", "Must Be Hell" - which still sound convincing in their own terms, and each of them has something interesting happening musically in them - the band is, like I said above, red hot. When the group was in the studio, jamming or trying whatever half-baked idea, they just got the groove going on and sounded awesome. I think that's the best and the most lasting feature in UNDERCOVER, despite the lack of high-caliber songs.

- Doxa

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...

Quote
GasLightStreet
U is the last album that mattered. The last creative album that The Rolling Stones made. Great cover.

UOTN is a huge tune. The sounds in this track - the guitar tone, the vocals - set the tone for the LP. It's out of context on all the hits albums it's on.

She Was Hot is the sleeper classic on this record though. Somehow it went over the heads of a lot of people - it's a funny song. Great guitar tones.

Tie You Up (The Pain Of Love) is one of the best things they've ever done. That song is stellar and probably the best track on the LP. The guitar work on this track is outstanding.

Wanna Hold You is nice. Almost a un-Keith Keith tune.

Feel On Baby is awesome. A lot going on that is mysterious.

Too Much Blood is hilarious. It's over the top gawdy dance music with a leering lyric. It's excellent.

All The Way Down has always been one of my faves. There's clearly a bit of a snicker with this song. Great vocals by Jagger.

It Must Be Hell - how they got away with this one is hilarious. Clearly stolen from EXILE's Soul Survivor. A serious yet hilarious lyric and vocal delivery.

Lastly, the videos done for the UNDERCOVER singles were genius.

Stop taking the bad acid

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.

Think you'll find that they did.

They didnt tour 'every 3 years'. Normally they rotated markets and played the main ones every 3 years. The only years they didnt tour were 1974, 77, 79 and 80. And they were hardly inactive on those off years. '79 was an odd one as they'd normally have been expected to tour Europe, but didnt.