Tell Me :
Talk
That was an excellent read with interesting details, GasLightStreet.
Now again, complicating everything, only the phone to write on, my home PC is out of order.
I am not asserting that there was not a rivalry with the Beatles at its time. However, at that my impression is that they more did their own thing than copy the Beatles. And when they found inspiration in what others had done, when possible that would be in other sources than the Beatles. That is in part how a rivalry functions and simply is about. Otherwise there is no real rivalry. And for the shorter period it was a rivalry, that was what it was, I think. As much as and how far as THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST is an answer to what the Beatles had done, as such I have always thought that it is rather different from the Beatles. I read you quite a long distance in the direction of that view, too.
I remembered that I had read you either really like or have a positive attitude to several songs on B2B, but be more reserved to some songs. That made me ask. The tendency of your answer was what I guessed. Your reflection on "Flip the Switch" and "Too Tight" then seems to confirm me in one thought I have had, when I have read the discussion here on the forum. Instead of existing at one of the extremes as the only possibilities, being a fully working band and a totally dysfunctional band, the Stones have been something in between, possibly not constant, but varying during that period, over the latest three decades of their existence. Maybe even that this state of the band (the in between the extremes) might have antecedents from before Jagger and Richards started to grow apart on the personal level. Added in an edit: I read that Deluxtone in the preceding post puts forward something of the same kind as I hinted at in my last sentence before this. [I have to add that I am more ambivalent towards the album DIRTY WORK. Not without its moments, comparatively speaking, it is in my estimation decidedly one of their weaker albums. That to me applies to STEEL WHEEL as well.] (Writing on a phone has brought about many edits.)
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-12 12:24 by Witness.
Good rhetoric. However, the quality of an album and the question whether a verdict on an album is uncontested or not, is not necessarily equivalent. When other albums are dwelt on in side issues in a thread, that often results from other albums at first being referred to, when the album that is the subjectmatter of the thread, is put into perspective.
It is way too easy to pull the old Beatles analogy out when it comes to TSMR. I myself will do it. Until I actually listen to the album; then I see just how deceptively good many of the tunes are. The jam, and "On with Show" and "Gomper" could have stayed off. Two of those are indulgences allowed in the 60's and OWTS is a carry over from Buttons. But "Lantern" is not bad at all. And when one listens to the Satanic Outtakes, and the work done with it, one sees that there is a totally different approach to song writing than the Beatles. Beatles came in with a song finished;the Stones are literally writing it.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.
And say what you will about B2B - that was a STRONG album; they toured the hell out of it; It brought several live classics; songs if they had come earlier in the career would be classics.
HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!
Mick is in agreement with Doxa as well, as he's asked us to keep off the streets 'cuz we're in danger.
I don't think that's true. I think most of the people who are going to respond to this post are going to like Undercover. It appears to be an album that some people really like, and one I think the overwhelming majority dismiss. The band was splitting up and it shows on this and the next album, Dirty Work. In fact I think Dirty Work has better ideas for songs, but some of them were poorly executed. Most of the songs on both albums suffer from a seriously dated production sound. Undercover of the Night is an A-Plus Stones Cut and probably was their last single with that magic dust.
I listened to the Undercover Album once or twice and then never really went back to it. That pretty much says it for me, because I usually listen to a new Stones album quite a bit when I first get it.
The following meamt only as one "truth", mine, not the truth. Though as much as that:
As to what the band set out for UNDERCOVER to be, I think it verges on the perfect. DIRTY WORK on the other hand to me represents, relatively for this band, poor material. However, I often find that this material is well played and performed on that album. That fact ought to be acknowledgd more than it is. (Dandelion, and then much more pregnant than coming from a non-instrumentalist, with the guitarist's qualification, does, I have read.) Then it is the other way around with STEEL WHEELS. At times better material, but either played or arranged and produced in a way that makes even a song as good as "Mixed Emotions" suffer somewhat.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 11:52 by Witness.
Production aside, I think the reason Undercover still works well as an album is because Mick was actually involved in it, and the band worked (dysfunctionally or otherwise) as a team.
MJ was pretty detached from Dirty Work, and I think that album could have used better material and a more involved MJ. But a solo career was in the offing and that is another thread.
EDIT, forgot to address your opinion that the overwhelming majority dismiss. I don`t believe either of us have that information, but it would be interesting to know for sure, whether this is true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 16:35 by treaclefingers.
Except for the separate camps involved with the Keith songs sans Mick and vice versa...
Undercover, She was Hot and Too Much Blood got plenty of rotation on MTV. The time just wasn't right..people were bored with the Stones I guess....
i agree, i don't think it divides opinion at all. it's clearly a second rate stones album. you can hear it with your ears, see it in their sales, and see it in how often they play songs off of it (and where the tracks rank in fans votes.)
one of the cool things about being a very, very serious fan - which all of us are - is finding the greatness in what is otherwise second rate. the fact that IORR posters find gems on "undercover" does't change the fact that it's a second rate stones album, not does it mean that they are not gems.
to wit: i am a huge keith fan and i love "i wanna hold you" - i can say that while at the same time agreeing that it is in no way shape or form a great song by any objective criteria.
The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.
isn't there a story about a groupie and mick jagger where she had been trying to land him for years. each rock star she landed her friend would ask "how was he?' and she'd answer "he was great, but no mick jagger" after she finally bedded mick, the story goes, her friend asked her how he was. "he was great, but no mick jagger" she answered.
isn't listening to vodoo lounge a little bit like that?
The combination of your own tastes and the whims of the market selection does not necessarily result in an incontestable judgement of quality.
Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.
Yep, but when I listen to the outtakes I can't help thinking what did Don Was do to the real Mick Jagger
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 12, 2014 11:53
Quote
GasLightStreet
Nah, the bit about the Beatles thing with TSMR is just that commonly said thing about the Stones imitating the Beatles. Is it true? I dunno. It is and it isn't, if you want it to be. Does it matter? Only in terms of the quality of the album. The perception of it is stronger than what may be the truth. However it was clearly a bridge between their more pop sensibilities from BETWEEN THE BUTTONS to BEGGARS BANQUET. The tone, sound and distortion Keith was working with on Citadel and 2000 Man - that sound can be heard in the solo for Sympathy for sure. The drum sound on TSMR was also the beginning of that excellent drum sound captured through GOATS HEAD SOUP. Not only the sound but Charlie's style of the kick drum and snare. That changed after GHS. Hell, even the acoustic guitar sound would carry over as well. Sonically it's a interesting record in their discog that starts 'that sound'. I don't view the 4 songs I listed that would make a killer EP as having any Beatles thing going on. 2000 Light Years is clearly being inventive in the studio while still being somewhat bluesy.
Perhaps Sing This All Together, Gomper and The Lantern can be thought of as attempting to do something like the Beatles had done but not fully committing to it, sort of in the area of what the Beatles had done, just without fully doing it.
In regard to UNDERCOVER being their last creative album, I meant that strictly as The Rolling Stones - Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Bill, Charlie. BRIDGES is considerably different simply because it was their way of "staying relevant" with the modernism at the time - and I do like the album quite a bit - but it's not THE STONES so much as a few producers, guest musicians and some silly knobbers with their looping Charlie for Saint Of Me and the other drivel, Gunface and Might As Well Get Juiced.
And of course no Bill Wyman.
It's been made quite clear that BRIDGES was two camps - the Mick camp and the Keith camp. What did they do together in terms of the 'usual' songwriting of it being actual Jagger-Richards? Flip The Switch and Too Tight come to mind. That might be it. Sure UNDERCOVER had at least one Mick solo song mentality with Undercover Of The Night, maybe Too Much Blood as well. But overall it seems to be more of a Jagger-Richards album than BRIDGES in terms of creativity.
BRIDGES is the Stones in name only whereas UNDERCOVER IS the Stones. That's how I view it - and I know it doesn't mean anything regardless because whatever, right? 85 studio albums and 300 years of being a band with the last 150 years serving mostly as a money grabbing nostalgia touring act but I believe there are others here (and not here) that feel similar if not the same.
That was an excellent read with interesting details, GasLightStreet.
Now again, complicating everything, only the phone to write on, my home PC is out of order.
I am not asserting that there was not a rivalry with the Beatles at its time. However, at that my impression is that they more did their own thing than copy the Beatles. And when they found inspiration in what others had done, when possible that would be in other sources than the Beatles. That is in part how a rivalry functions and simply is about. Otherwise there is no real rivalry. And for the shorter period it was a rivalry, that was what it was, I think. As much as and how far as THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST is an answer to what the Beatles had done, as such I have always thought that it is rather different from the Beatles. I read you quite a long distance in the direction of that view, too.
I remembered that I had read you either really like or have a positive attitude to several songs on B2B, but be more reserved to some songs. That made me ask. The tendency of your answer was what I guessed. Your reflection on "Flip the Switch" and "Too Tight" then seems to confirm me in one thought I have had, when I have read the discussion here on the forum. Instead of existing at one of the extremes as the only possibilities, being a fully working band and a totally dysfunctional band, the Stones have been something in between, possibly not constant, but varying during that period, over the latest three decades of their existence. Maybe even that this state of the band (the in between the extremes) might have antecedents from before Jagger and Richards started to grow apart on the personal level. Added in an edit: I read that Deluxtone in the preceding post puts forward something of the same kind as I hinted at in my last sentence before this. [I have to add that I am more ambivalent towards the album DIRTY WORK. Not without its moments, comparatively speaking, it is in my estimation decidedly one of their weaker albums. That to me applies to STEEL WHEEL as well.] (Writing on a phone has brought about many edits.)
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-12 12:24 by Witness.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
matxil
()
Date: April 12, 2014 12:41
Maybe the quality of an album an be measured by how fast a thread starts discussing other albums instead? In the thread about e.g. Exile, there would be no need to bring other albums into the discussion.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 12, 2014 13:10
Quote
matxil
Maybe the quality of an album an be measured by how fast a thread starts discussing other albums instead? In the thread about e.g. Exile, there would be no need to bring other albums into the discussion.
Good rhetoric. However, the quality of an album and the question whether a verdict on an album is uncontested or not, is not necessarily equivalent. When other albums are dwelt on in side issues in a thread, that often results from other albums at first being referred to, when the album that is the subjectmatter of the thread, is put into perspective.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Palace Revolution 2000
()
Date: April 12, 2014 13:19
Excellent post. Your theory re. the sonics going through to GHS is very interesting.Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreet
In strict regard to the band recording and not some overdubs Undercover is the actual follow up to Emotional Rescue. But seeing that Tattoo You has songs on it from the Some Girls and ER sessions there's no reason to dismiss TY as the odd album out of a period of albums. The SG-ER-TY-U run is a good one I think - and U was the last creative album as a band.
Your last sentence can indirectly be read in two ways as to one of its implications:
1) BRIDGES TO BABYLON (B2B ) cannot be seen as a creative album.
2) B2B was recorded by a group of musicians that as a unit cannot any longer be understood as a working band.
I am a little curious if you mean one or both of the two.
I consider B2B as a creative album most of all albums post-UNDERCOVER (even if I like A BIGGER BANG even a little more, despite being less daring than its predecessor). However, from 1989 there are not periods, only singlestanding albums as well as tours. Or even tours without a preceding album. [I for one blame the customers much more than the band (or "band" ) for that.]
[Not the main point of this post, but to express it clearly: I both love and admire THEIR SATANIC MAJESTIES REQUEST as a daring album. However, it is pleasing somehow that some releases from this band's prolific careeer are controversial even among die-hards. By the way, I more or less doubt how much Beatles-inspired that album was. For instance, "2000 Light Years From Home" has been said to be Byrds «C.T.A.-102»-inspired.]
Nah, the bit about the Beatles thing with TSMR is just that commonly said thing about the Stones imitating the Beatles. Is it true? I dunno. It is and it isn't, if you want it to be. Does it matter? Only in terms of the quality of the album. The perception of it is stronger than what may be the truth. However it was clearly a bridge between their more pop sensibilities from BETWEEN THE BUTTONS to BEGGARS BANQUET. The tone, sound and distortion Keith was working with on Citadel and 2000 Man - that sound can be heard in the solo for Sympathy for sure. The drum sound on TSMR was also the beginning of that excellent drum sound captured through GOATS HEAD SOUP. Not only the sound but Charlie's style of the kick drum and snare. That changed after GHS. Hell, even the acoustic guitar sound would carry over as well. Sonically it's a interesting record in their discog that starts 'that sound'. I don't view the 4 songs I listed that would make a killer EP as having any Beatles thing going on. 2000 Light Years is clearly being inventive in the studio while still being somewhat bluesy.
Perhaps Sing This All Together, Gomper and The Lantern can be thought of as attempting to do something like the Beatles had done but not fully committing to it, sort of in the area of what the Beatles had done, just without fully doing it.
In regard to UNDERCOVER being their last creative album, I meant that strictly as The Rolling Stones - Mick, Keith, Ronnie, Bill, Charlie. BRIDGES is considerably different simply because it was their way of "staying relevant" with the modernism at the time - and I do like the album quite a bit - but it's not THE STONES so much as a few producers, guest musicians and some silly knobbers with their looping Charlie for Saint Of Me and the other drivel, Gunface and Might As Well Get Juiced.
And of course no Bill Wyman.
It's been made quite clear that BRIDGES was two camps - the Mick camp and the Keith camp. What did they do together in terms of the 'usual' songwriting of it being actual Jagger-Richards? Flip The Switch and Too Tight come to mind. That might be it. Sure UNDERCOVER had at least one Mick solo song mentality with Undercover Of The Night, maybe Too Much Blood as well. But overall it seems to be more of a Jagger-Richards album than BRIDGES in terms of creativity.
BRIDGES is the Stones in name only whereas UNDERCOVER IS the Stones. That's how I view it - and I know it doesn't mean anything regardless because whatever, right? 85 studio albums and 300 years of being a band with the last 150 years serving mostly as a money grabbing nostalgia touring act but I believe there are others here (and not here) that feel similar if not the same.
It is way too easy to pull the old Beatles analogy out when it comes to TSMR. I myself will do it. Until I actually listen to the album; then I see just how deceptively good many of the tunes are. The jam, and "On with Show" and "Gomper" could have stayed off. Two of those are indulgences allowed in the 60's and OWTS is a carry over from Buttons. But "Lantern" is not bad at all. And when one listens to the Satanic Outtakes, and the work done with it, one sees that there is a totally different approach to song writing than the Beatles. Beatles came in with a song finished;the Stones are literally writing it.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.
And say what you will about B2B - that was a STRONG album; they toured the hell out of it; It brought several live classics; songs if they had come earlier in the career would be classics.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: April 12, 2014 20:13
Agree with what Doxa said about danger and here's a BBC bit with Mick frm 1983
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
LQ1977
()
Date: April 13, 2014 00:46
I like it! The Stones album I discovered last. Love She was hot and Too Tough, very cool songs. And Wanna hold you.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Literally 965 kilometers from being "Born in an Arctic zone".
-------------------------------------------------------------
Literally 965 kilometers from being "Born in an Arctic zone".
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 13, 2014 02:11
Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.
HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 13, 2014 04:34
Quote
Redhotcarpet
Agree with what Doxa said about danger and here's a BBC bit with Mick frm 1983
Mick is in agreement with Doxa as well, as he's asked us to keep off the streets 'cuz we're in danger.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 13, 2014 08:29
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
EJM
Why does undercover divide opinion so much ?
You mean between FPS and the rest of us?
I don't think that's true. I think most of the people who are going to respond to this post are going to like Undercover. It appears to be an album that some people really like, and one I think the overwhelming majority dismiss. The band was splitting up and it shows on this and the next album, Dirty Work. In fact I think Dirty Work has better ideas for songs, but some of them were poorly executed. Most of the songs on both albums suffer from a seriously dated production sound. Undercover of the Night is an A-Plus Stones Cut and probably was their last single with that magic dust.
I listened to the Undercover Album once or twice and then never really went back to it. That pretty much says it for me, because I usually listen to a new Stones album quite a bit when I first get it.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
TeddyB1018
()
Date: April 13, 2014 09:44
Gee, I was at a Bridges session at Ocean Way and the Stones were playing and recording completely as a band. They were jamming as a foursome with Ronnie on bass and Jagger on harp. They are dinner together and acted like a unit. The jam they did I think turned into Flip the Switch. They sounded great, like the Rolling Stones. So whatever the background of the album and using songs intended for solo records and having the Dust Brothers mix, it sure was recorded as a creative unit.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 13, 2014 11:05
In fact, you don't contradict, but rather verify GasLightStreet's exposition that far by what you render from your own experience.
Quote
GasLightStreet
.........
What did they do together in terms of the 'usual' songwriting of it being actual Jagger-Richards? Flip The Switch and Too Tight come to mind. That might be it.
...............
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 13, 2014 11:42
Quote
24FPS
..............
The band was splitting up and it shows on this and the next album, Dirty Work. In fact I think Dirty Work has better ideas for songs, but some of them were poorly executed. Most of the songs on both albums suffer from a seriously dated production sound.
...............
The following meamt only as one "truth", mine, not the truth. Though as much as that:
As to what the band set out for UNDERCOVER to be, I think it verges on the perfect. DIRTY WORK on the other hand to me represents, relatively for this band, poor material. However, I often find that this material is well played and performed on that album. That fact ought to be acknowledgd more than it is. (Dandelion, and then much more pregnant than coming from a non-instrumentalist, with the guitarist's qualification, does, I have read.) Then it is the other way around with STEEL WHEELS. At times better material, but either played or arranged and produced in a way that makes even a song as good as "Mixed Emotions" suffer somewhat.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 11:52 by Witness.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: April 13, 2014 16:33
Quote
24FPSQuote
treaclefingersQuote
EJM
Why does undercover divide opinion so much ?
You mean between FPS and the rest of us?
I don't think that's true. I think most of the people who are going to respond to this post are going to like Undercover. It appears to be an album that some people really like, and one I think the overwhelming majority dismiss. The band was splitting up and it shows on this and the next album, Dirty Work. In fact I think Dirty Work has better ideas for songs, but some of them were poorly executed. Most of the songs on both albums suffer from a seriously dated production sound. Undercover of the Night is an A-Plus Stones Cut and probably was their last single with that magic dust.
I listened to the Undercover Album once or twice and then never really went back to it. That pretty much says it for me, because I usually listen to a new Stones album quite a bit when I first get it.
Production aside, I think the reason Undercover still works well as an album is because Mick was actually involved in it, and the band worked (dysfunctionally or otherwise) as a team.
MJ was pretty detached from Dirty Work, and I think that album could have used better material and a more involved MJ. But a solo career was in the offing and that is another thread.
EDIT, forgot to address your opinion that the overwhelming majority dismiss. I don`t believe either of us have that information, but it would be interesting to know for sure, whether this is true.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-13 16:35 by treaclefingers.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
big4
()
Date: April 13, 2014 17:37
Personally I think you have to view UC and DW as a pair even though they were recorded a couple of years apart. They are very different sounding but beneath that the albums are coming from a very similar place-Mick's vision of the Stones vs Keith's vision of the Stones. They are both messy, gratuitious and violent albums full of blood, anger, social commentary, one foot in the gutter and the other on the dancefloor. But I think that Keith had more to do with UC than most people and think, with the same holding true of Mick and DW. Maybe not as much as usual but still contributing a great deal to what is heard in the end. That being said, the outtakes of DW reveal that they had the material for a great album but between production and mixing, as well as in the case of song selection something got lost in translation between Path Marconi and the Hit Factory.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: April 13, 2014 19:48
Quote
TeddyB1018
Gee, I was at a Bridges session at Ocean Way and the Stones were playing and recording completely as a band. They were jamming as a foursome with Ronnie on bass and Jagger on harp. They are dinner together and acted like a unit. The jam they did I think turned into Flip the Switch. They sounded great, like the Rolling Stones. So whatever the background of the album and using songs intended for solo records and having the Dust Brothers mix, it sure was recorded as a creative unit.
Except for the separate camps involved with the Keith songs sans Mick and vice versa...
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Deluxtone
()
Date: April 14, 2014 00:37
regarding Dirty Work = the sheer number of out-takes and different track versions show that Mick was involved and that it was a creative period - in spite of tensions.
That productivity in '85, in difficult band times, puts UC and ABB in the shade.
Keith has said that the UC tapes hung around a long time. it's as if they then pulled something together for release.
By 1985 they at least had some fire in their bellies again - though the end result did not fulfill those sessions' potential.
But a much more original work than UC, a lot of which is pastiche.
That productivity in '85, in difficult band times, puts UC and ABB in the shade.
Keith has said that the UC tapes hung around a long time. it's as if they then pulled something together for release.
By 1985 they at least had some fire in their bellies again - though the end result did not fulfill those sessions' potential.
But a much more original work than UC, a lot of which is pastiche.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
SweetThing
()
Date: April 14, 2014 00:57
Quote
franzk
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.
Undercover, She was Hot and Too Much Blood got plenty of rotation on MTV. The time just wasn't right..people were bored with the Stones I guess....
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 14, 2014 01:23
Quote
24FPSQuote
treaclefingersQuote
EJM
Why does undercover divide opinion so much ?
You mean between FPS and the rest of us?
I don't think that's true. I think most of the people who are going to respond to this post are going to like Undercover. It appears to be an album that some people really like, and one I think the overwhelming majority dismiss. The band was splitting up and it shows on this and the next album, Dirty Work. In fact I think Dirty Work has better ideas for songs, but some of them were poorly executed. Most of the songs on both albums suffer from a seriously dated production sound. Undercover of the Night is an A-Plus Stones Cut and probably was their last single with that magic dust.
I listened to the Undercover Album once or twice and then never really went back to it. That pretty much says it for me, because I usually listen to a new Stones album quite a bit when I first get it.
i agree, i don't think it divides opinion at all. it's clearly a second rate stones album. you can hear it with your ears, see it in their sales, and see it in how often they play songs off of it (and where the tracks rank in fans votes.)
one of the cool things about being a very, very serious fan - which all of us are - is finding the greatness in what is otherwise second rate. the fact that IORR posters find gems on "undercover" does't change the fact that it's a second rate stones album, not does it mean that they are not gems.
to wit: i am a huge keith fan and i love "i wanna hold you" - i can say that while at the same time agreeing that it is in no way shape or form a great song by any objective criteria.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 14, 2014 01:24
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 14, 2014 02:05
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.
HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!
The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: April 14, 2014 04:24
I really don't like any music from the 80's. Even the Stones. This was a low point in their career.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
sonomastone
()
Date: April 14, 2014 04:30
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.
HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!
The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.
isn't there a story about a groupie and mick jagger where she had been trying to land him for years. each rock star she landed her friend would ask "how was he?' and she'd answer "he was great, but no mick jagger" after she finally bedded mick, the story goes, her friend asked her how he was. "he was great, but no mick jagger" she answered.
isn't listening to vodoo lounge a little bit like that?
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
flacnvinyl
()
Date: April 14, 2014 04:51
I actually love the production on this album, aside from one thing... Too Much Blood has a TERRIBLE synth snare sound. Aside from that one issue, the album is a great party album. Put it on and let non-Stones fans be curious about 'what this is'. Just run over before Must Be Hell comes on!
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: April 14, 2014 08:07
Quote
sonomastone
i agree, i don't think it divides opinion at all. it's clearly a second rate stones album. you can hear it with your ears, see it in their sales, and see it in how often they play songs off of it (and where the tracks rank in fans votes.)
one of the cool things about being a very, very serious fan - which all of us are - is finding the greatness in what is otherwise second rate. the fact that IORR posters find gems on "undercover" does't change the fact that it's a second rate stones album, not does it mean that they are not gems.
to wit: i am a huge keith fan and i love "i wanna hold you" - i can say that while at the same time agreeing that it is in no way shape or form a great song by any objective criteria.
The combination of your own tastes and the whims of the market selection does not necessarily result in an incontestable judgement of quality.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: April 14, 2014 08:19
Quote
sonomastone
on the other hand, if anyone can find greatness in "dirty work" other than 'sleep tonight" and the stu outro then there are real problems :-)
Harlem Shuffle is their last great single, and Bill's last great bass playing on a Stones single. Bill makes that cover. Winning Ugly is a nice sentiment and good lyrics but there is something lacking in the execution. One Hit To The Body has some great slashing, rusty bed springs guitar. Hold Back is another great song lyrics wise, without the music to back it up. Too Rude has a nice groove. Meanwhile the Undercover Album only has Undercover of the Night, and the B-side sounding She Was Hot. The other 8 cuts don't move me.
Re: Undercover the album
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: April 14, 2014 10:11
Quote
sonomastoneQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Voodoo as one true band album. There was a lot 'wrong' with it IMO. Don Was tried too hard, and there was no Bill Wyman; but they really came on as a unit. And worked the songs; and toured them.
HA HA - it wasn't creative! It was Stones-by-numbers!
The outtakes showed a surprising range of different music.
isn't there a story about a groupie and mick jagger where she had been trying to land him for years. each rock star she landed her friend would ask "how was he?' and she'd answer "he was great, but no mick jagger" after she finally bedded mick, the story goes, her friend asked her how he was. "he was great, but no mick jagger" she answered.
isn't listening to vodoo lounge a little bit like that?
Yep, but when I listen to the outtakes I can't help thinking what did Don Was do to the real Mick Jagger
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Bandk4011 , cwalters , daniel t , EddieByword , EggersBand , harjen , IrelandCalling4 , Irix , Joce , Kuntaman , laertisflash , madrid82 , mailexile67 , Massimo68 , mattstones , MJAGGER123 , no stone unturned , pichenot , rogerriffin , Shotaway2 , TW2019 , vinckske , werner67976
Guests:
1638
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10