I don't know why this record didn't get more recognition. Some really good tracks here. I've been listening to it all day. Any opinions out there. I like Keith's track Wanna Hold You. Also, All The Way Down, She Was Hot, Too Tough. Why wasn't this record more successful?

I think the production turns many off.. Some good tunes here I agree. MEZ

They didn't promote it enough: they didn't tour behind it and the three videos they made were too violent and explicit to be aired on MTV on regular basis.

Well there have been several threads dedicated to the album and individual songs of late, and while there are a few on this board that hate it with a passion, it seems like most people do like the album, production notwithstanding.

That said, you're other point as to why it wasn't so successful, IMHO has to do with the less than commercial nature of the lead single, than say, Start Me Up.

I love the song, and actually prefer it to SMU, but I understand this wasn't all that commercial. The lead single usually sells the album.

Good album, quite a gritty one but let down only by awful 80s production. She Was Hot and I Wanna Hold you are great tracks and i'd wager a lot of this album would sound great live now. She Was Hot was smoking on the ABB tour!

like a few other Stones albums its one of those that has some cool stuff..'Pain Of Love', 'Feel On Baby'..the title track ..

I really like the album, but yeah maybe its something with the production..I don't know..

Too Much Blood is like a comic book of a song, to me..

Quote
duke richardson
like a few other Stones albums its one of those that has some cool stuff..'Pain Of Love', 'Feel On Baby'..the title track ..

I really like the album, but yeah maybe its something with the production..I don't know..

Too Much Blood is like a comic book of a song, to me..

For me the weak point of the album. I don't mind it though, and I think if I hadn't seen the video, I may have liked it better.

UC is up there near the top of my list of fave Stones albums. Love it and the associated 12 inch mixes.

Undercover was cool during Steel Wheels tour

Quote
michaelsavage
Undercover was cool during Steel Wheels tour

The Atlantic City-version is excellent.

Wanna Hold You has always been one of my top favorite Stones songs.
It´s very good album. I think it´s the only Stones album with no ballad(slow song).

I was very disappointed when it first came out (but then of course Dirty Work was much worse. And Steel Wheels much much worse). Undercover was the beginning of the change in Mick's singing.

Steel Wheels is good imo. Still sounds fine now too. But Dirty Work is for me the worst thing they ever did.

I enjoyed this album quite alot when it was released, but then again I was still young and a bit naive.
Haven't listened to it from start to finish in about 30 years.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......

Quote
z
I was very disappointed when it first came out (but then of course Dirty Work was much worse. And Steel Wheels much much worse). Undercover was the beginning of the change in Mick's singing.

Putting in this context helps. My own feeling is that it is a matter of taste.

I myself have only liked selected tracks from albums released after Some Girls. On Undercover I like a few (Undercover, Wanna Hold You, Feel On Baby). She's Hot is alright, too.

But overall to me the album as a whole was a sign of unprecedented decline (worse than the post-Exile period). It becomes harder and harder to get into any songs from each new album from here on in.

Feel On Baby 12" version ..... Great stuff ...



ROCKMAN

It's crap but i still like the Undercover single itself. Other than that it's just the usual rubbish. Someone earlier in this thread said comic book and that's sadly what they've largely been since Exile. Any vitality to be had has been in some occasionally stonking live performances (last 18 months), the odd studio track and Doom and Gloom which while slightly comic book, was in my opinion a Rio Grande moment as any Brian Wilson fan would understand.
Doom could be the follow up to Undercover and that shows just how far the band has progressed in 30 years of studio work.

Loved this album. Wanna Hold You great & always thought it has a great rockabilly early rock n roll feel a la Eddie Cochran. Remember Keith doing Somethin' Else Seville?

most of the stones albums i bought and listened to were in a short period of time during 1988 just after i discovered them, so unlike a lot of older fans, i hadnt formed opinions of earlier albums before i listened to other later albums like undercover, so i had most albums and was aware of reviews and popularity when i listened to them and found things didnt always match up with my opinion.

undercover i dug right away and while it didnt hit me the way exile, tattoo you or out of my heads did, i felt it was way underrated. it had too many songs that had controversial lyrics or videos and was not really radio or visialy friendly.

it could have been toned down a bit, even keeping the same production and with a tour would have become a huge success.

it could be that also by the 80,s people thought the stones were past it and it wasnt till their split and comeback in the late 80,s that people gained renewed interest in them again.

an example of this is the popularity of mixed emotions compared to some girls, some girls is by far the better song in my opinion.

Quote
ash
It's crap but i still like the Undercover single itself. Other than that it's just the usual rubbish. Someone earlier in this thread said comic book and that's sadly what they've largely been since Exile. Any vitality to be had has been in some occasionally stonking live performances (last 18 months), the odd studio track and Doom and Gloom which while slightly comic book, was in my opinion a Rio Grande moment as any Brian Wilson fan would understand.
Doom could be the follow up to Undercover and that shows just how far the band has progressed in 30 years of studio work.

I admire someone that can stick by a band when they've hated their music for 42 years. That's dedication.

Doesn't hold a candle to anything they did between '68-'72 and '78-'81, but miles better than anything they've released since.

It's been said on this forum before, but I feel as though it was the last time they went into the studio not trying to "recreate Exile". The last time a Stones studio album, for me at least, didn't feel like a Mick album and a Keith album mashed into one.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
ash
It's crap but i still like the Undercover single itself. Other than that it's just the usual rubbish. Someone earlier in this thread said comic book and that's sadly what they've largely been since Exile. Any vitality to be had has been in some occasionally stonking live performances (last 18 months), the odd studio track and Doom and Gloom which while slightly comic book, was in my opinion a Rio Grande moment as any Brian Wilson fan would understand.
Doom could be the follow up to Undercover and that shows just how far the band has progressed in 30 years of studio work.

I admire someone that can stick by a band when they've hated their music for 42 years. That's dedication.

On the other hand it goes to show just how good they were for the previous 10 years of their existence. Nearly as good as The Beatles
I love Brian Wilson too in fact i'd go so far as to say he's the greatest genius of the post war pop music era but let's face it, he's barely done shit since 1970.

good album to put on real loud outside, throw some horseshoes, drink some beer and jam all the way through

Quote
J.J.Flash
good album to put on real loud outside, throw some horseshoes, drink some beer and jam all the way through

Perfect comment! +1

Great album. Quite solid IMHO.

It's an album I need to be in the mood for. Can't listen to it any day unlike Sticky Fingers or Beggars Banquet. It's not that bad (admittedly some pretty good tracks)but it's definitely not among their best albums

This album has been discussed rather much here, so at least it is not non-recognized among us hardcore fans. I guess for many of us who discovered the band during the early 80's - people like DandelionPowderman, Mathijs and me - it is very important album, released absolutely right time for us, and giving us a strong current statement, when running probably for the very first time to record store to buy a new Stones album, what a Rolling Stones sound is all about. For older generation of fans it seemingly was a disappointment, and for younger ones probably too '80's', a kind of lost album with not much significance afterwards. And the 80's - between TATTOO YOU & its Tour 1981/82 and the come-back of 1989 - over-all do not look too good in the written history of the Stones.

I withdraw making any judgments now of its artistic value - done enough of that in the past - but that question why it wasn't "more succesful' is an interesting one. Generally for a Stones album it did sell alright but taking how well the previous albums did - from SOME GIRLS to TATTOO YOU - it was clearly a sign of commercial downhill. And that was a time when records generally sold incredible numbers, lead by THRILLER, BORN IN THE USA, etc. It was the first Stones album since the 60's that didn't top Billboard. For example, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, not very memorable album either, spent on #1 seven weeks...

Was it because of not having a huge hit in it? Especially in US market, that seems to be a good explanation, but then again, not did EMOTIONAL RESCUE had one either. I mean, "Emotional Rescue" made top ten - as did "Undercover of The Night" - but it was not any "Miss You" or "Start Me Up". Nor did iT'S ONLY ROCK&ROLL, BLACK & BLUE or even EXILE ON MAIN STREET either. Or later albums like STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE with their stronger sales (compared to UNDERCOVER).

Or was it is due its videos not being circulated enough in MTV due to censorship? I don't know about that, but I do recall seeing especially videos of "Undercover of The Night" and "She Was Hot" on telly back then, and them being discussed by people, mostly due to their daring nature. And any publicity, including censorship, is a good publicity... but then again, probably that could've been a factor reflected in US sales, but probably not in so much in Europe. Still I don't quite believe that the Stones were not able to reach the uprising MTV-generation.

But I don't say those reasons are not good, but I add one. That of the climate of pop music having changed from SOME GIRLS to TATTOO YOU era rather much, and the Stones not answering to that convincingly enough. A bit similar problem Jagger would meet soon in his solo records more strongly. Trying to reinvent sound, do current things, but not enough to meet the demands of zeitgeist convincigly, but still probably a bit too much to make their old fan base to feel a bit nervous. UNDERCOVER, was a bit failed compromise to reach both audiences, the new MTV generation, and the older 'classical rock' one. The latter one I guess felt a bit lost over-all during the trends of the 80's until the end of the 80's when a nostalgia market rehabilited the past, and made the old sounds current again (the Stones with STEEL WHEELS hit on that, and even stronger with VOODOO LOUNGE). So the fate of UNDERCOVER, no matter how good or bad album it was, was that of meeting the change of the climate when the 80's really started going on, and old legendaric band like the Stones, too much on the past, did not have a suitable role there. The 80's hitted hard.

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-10 09:37 by Doxa.

My CD for Must Be Hell track has a scratch on it but still plays.