For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
matxilQuote
PaleRider
There they sit....Undercover, Dirty Work and all the other post Tattoo You cd's...nicely organized in my Stones CD case in the back seat of my car. Why is it that I don't have any enthusiasm to put them on and listem to them? I hate the production on all of them. I hate the 'sound'. Wasn't it Keith who wanted to keep it basic but Mick over-ruled him on production? Or is it that I'm not giving the album chance? Maybe, but I think it's because the previous stuff was also a whole lot better. I tried to like all the post Tatoo You albums when they came out...I really did. But when I look at that cd case on the back seat the only one I ever pull out is 'Stripped'....that's always a good listen.
After 1983 the only buzz I ever caught on the first listen of a new Stones tune was 'Love Is Strong'. "Yeah, they're back!" "Now that's the Stones!" I remember being disappointed by the rest of Voodoo Lounge when not much else sounded like that. I've often thought that if they had stuck to their sound and style, like AC/DC for example, they would have had just as much success as they did in the 80's, 90's, 2000's....Oh well, maybe I'll listen to Undercover today....just for the heck of it. See if I was right or wrong about it. It's been a while....a decade or two!
The best you can do is take all songs you like from the post-Tattoo You era and make your own album out of that.
The problem with the Stones is that they are not primarily "great songwriters" (like McCartney or something), but rather great "groove-players". There are a lot of not so special songs on Exile that sound great, just because they make them sound great. For this you have to play on and on and on and on the same song, the same grooves and licks and melodies again and again, which is what they did for years: Mick and Keith together and then joining with the band, hours on end, day after day. That's the only way they can get that sound and feel. Since Exile, they don't do this anymore and it shows. For Some Girls, for a bit they went back to that, and Tattoo You is a collection of outtakes from those better times, but all the other albums are just collections of "Mick-songs" and "Keith-songs" which they practiced for a while in a rented studio, then record it, and then, up to the next song. Some of these songs are still alright, but that's the most you can get.
Quote
liddasQuote
matxilQuote
PaleRider
There they sit....Undercover, Dirty Work and all the other post Tattoo You cd's...nicely organized in my Stones CD case in the back seat of my car. Why is it that I don't have any enthusiasm to put them on and listem to them? I hate the production on all of them. I hate the 'sound'. Wasn't it Keith who wanted to keep it basic but Mick over-ruled him on production? Or is it that I'm not giving the album chance? Maybe, but I think it's because the previous stuff was also a whole lot better. I tried to like all the post Tatoo You albums when they came out...I really did. But when I look at that cd case on the back seat the only one I ever pull out is 'Stripped'....that's always a good listen.
After 1983 the only buzz I ever caught on the first listen of a new Stones tune was 'Love Is Strong'. "Yeah, they're back!" "Now that's the Stones!" I remember being disappointed by the rest of Voodoo Lounge when not much else sounded like that. I've often thought that if they had stuck to their sound and style, like AC/DC for example, they would have had just as much success as they did in the 80's, 90's, 2000's....Oh well, maybe I'll listen to Undercover today....just for the heck of it. See if I was right or wrong about it. It's been a while....a decade or two!
The best you can do is take all songs you like from the post-Tattoo You era and make your own album out of that.
The problem with the Stones is that they are not primarily "great songwriters" (like McCartney or something), but rather great "groove-players". There are a lot of not so special songs on Exile that sound great, just because they make them sound great. For this you have to play on and on and on and on the same song, the same grooves and licks and melodies again and again, which is what they did for years: Mick and Keith together and then joining with the band, hours on end, day after day. That's the only way they can get that sound and feel. Since Exile, they don't do this anymore and it shows. For Some Girls, for a bit they went back to that, and Tattoo You is a collection of outtakes from those better times, but all the other albums are just collections of "Mick-songs" and "Keith-songs" which they practiced for a while in a rented studio, then record it, and then, up to the next song. Some of these songs are still alright, but that's the most you can get.
I don't agree.
A turd remains a turd even if is played day after day. A great groove alone won't make a great song unless you have a great hook or riff or chorus or whatever that makes it distinctive.
Miss You is a great song, a great groove, but what what drills a hole in your head is the intro theme/riff.
Again, the work process you describe, for example, characterized the making of Voodoo Lounge, as is well documented in the mass of outtakes. Yet Voodoo Lounge is no Exile.
Satanic and Exile are dense with layers and layers of overdubs. It's part of their charm!
Undercover features a super tight band, tempered by a two-year long world tour. The arrangements show this: if you dissect the songs, the single contributions are all great, no cliches at all. But, above all, in the very best tradition of the best stones works, each song is based on great riffs, hooks etc.
Yes, the structure of the songs is basic, more rooted in funk rather than the European pop song tradition. No harmonized chord progression, no gentle embellishments. So what?
That's the way I like it!
Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.
People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.
There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.
What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.
C
Quote
DandelionPowderman
There were many more reviews like Loder's. A lovely read!
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
liddas
Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.
People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.
There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.
What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.
C
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Quote
DoxaQuote
treaclefingersQuote
liddas
Mind me, no one is FORCED to like everything.
People don't like Undercover or Dirty Work? Who cares. I love them.
There is a huge amount of great music out there that leaves me completely cold. But tastes are tastes.
What I don't understand is the need to rationalize one owns dislikes perpetrating the idea that what is disliked is somehow "inferior". As if quality in music is something that can be measured or described.
C
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
The problem is taste, which is a damn private thing and varies from person to person. So to not hurt anyone's personal feelings, I have rejected the best I can to make any judgements based on my own taste, and just concentrate on "rationalizing" historical facts... So I can very accept the moral of liddas' sayings here. Wise words. Describing music is easily evaluative, and that will lead us to trouble...
- Doxa
Quote
treaclefingers
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Quote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!
C
Quote
treaclefingers
But if you're actually describing it, it shouldn't matter if there is an evaluation, because if you're describing it accurately I can read the description and go, "yeah, he doesn't like it but that is right up my alley".
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!
C
That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.
Quote
liddasQuote
treaclefingersQuote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!
C
That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.
Exactly.
That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.
Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!
C
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
liddasQuote
treaclefingersQuote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!
C
That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.
Exactly.
That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.
Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!
C
subjective measurement is a tool to use to simplify things. you can lament that it exists but it can be useful.
It's impossible to go to every movie, or listen to all music created. Reviews can be very helpful as an efficiency mechanism.
just don't guide your life simply by what everyone tells you. In fact, you should ignore the fact that I'm saying this. Oh, you are.
Quote
liddasQuote
treaclefingersQuote
liddasQuote
treaclefingersQuote
liddasQuote
treaclefingers
While in general I'm agreeing with you, how can you say the quality in music is not able to be 'described'. Of course you can describe it...that's what a review is.
Naa ... No review could ever describe the "quality" of music. A review can only describe the point of view of the reviewer!
C
That logic could equate to anything...every judgement or criticism is simply a point of view.
Exactly.
That is why the human beings felt the need to develop generally agreed measure standards, codes, etc.
Unfortunately (or luckily, it depends on how you see it) as of now, there is no way you can "measure" the quality of music, there is not even a general consensus on what is "quality" in music!
C
subjective measurement is a tool to use to simplify things. you can lament that it exists but it can be useful.
It's impossible to go to every movie, or listen to all music created. Reviews can be very helpful as an efficiency mechanism.
just don't guide your life simply by what everyone tells you. In fact, you should ignore the fact that I'm saying this. Oh, you are.
Right: Subjective measurement is a very useful tool.
Wrong: I will not ignore your suggestions, more so now that I know that you too like Undercover!
C
Quote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...
Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...
- Doxa
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...
Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...
- Doxa
Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.
Quote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...
Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...
- Doxa
Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.
Those RS reviews and others of the same kind sometimes hit the mark, othertimes they clearly don't.,
As to your own demanding point of view here, GasLightStreet, there is one vital distinction to make.
1) At certain various points in their career the Rolling Stones contributed to define what rock and other genres of popular music were, and to develop them further.
2) As one band that during their career has vitally contributed to the genres of popular music and defining them, the Rolling Stones has had a further development within their own project, even when it did no longer have that defining capacity outside the band itself.
For instance, the four albums of '68 - '72 probably might be said to have that genre defining and developing quality.
UNDERCOVER probably might be said not any longer to enable the Rolling Stones themselves to define genres of popular music and further develop them in a defining way. However, within the Stones scope of music, it might be said that almost as much as albums that were defining what the relevant genres are or were, UNDERCOVER contributed to develop the Rolling Stones' own project further.
Then I will state that, not according to 1), but certainly according to 2), with my view on it, UNDERCOVER is a GREAT album. That is, under 2) also almost as much as those albums that are great, according to 1).
Quote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Doxa
A nice read that ROLLING STONE review. Hadn't seen it for years. I also recall reading only praising reviews of it at the time, especially from the main stream rock media - of which ROLLING STONE surely was a main representative in America. And this has been a trend ever since - funnily, the classical albums they did back in the 60's and 70's were treated with much harder critical eye. aAnother thing altogether is how much actual impact these reviews - be them good or bad - had on a buying audience. The over-critical review of STICKY FINGERS of ROLLING STONE couldn't stop the album being their best selling by then (to be topped only SOME GIRLS years later), and the five-star review of PRIMITIVE COOL couldn't help much boost its sales...
Not that these positive reviews of UNDERCOVER were 'wrong'. I guess critics - who usually are Stones fans, and belonging to a bit elder generation in staff - might be more liberal in accepting and appreciating band's efforts in learning new tricks than their more conservative rock audience is. For example, that Loder's review shows a great insight into Stones' music, and treats it in the canon of its own - not really in relation to contemporary music. And even if there are no new tricks - like it has been since 1989, and even UNDERCOVER didn't offer them too much either - that can be a value of its own. The Stones represent something that rock and roll used to be (and for many what it ought to be), and in the middle of all new passing trends - like it was in 1983 - that is like music belonging to the World's Cultural Heritage, something we can count on, and the task of good criticism is to take good care of that by reminding us of its value. Since the 80's, with a bit silky gloves, if you ask me...
- Doxa
Well, those RS reviews (and their stupid ratings) are garbage yet alone they can't get the number of releases right - read the DIRTY WORK review - somehow UNDERCOVER was their 23rd release and DW was their 21st (DW was their 20th). Kurt Loder had a hard on for Mick. I love UNDERCOVER but even I know that, in terms of their legacy, it's not a GREAT album.
Those RS reviews and others of the same kind sometimes hit the mark, othertimes they clearly don't.,
As to your own demanding point of view here, GasLightStreet, there is one vital distinction to make.
1) At certain various points in their career the Rolling Stones contributed to define what rock and other genres of popular music were, and to develop them further.
2) As one band that during their career has vitally contributed to the genres of popular music and defining them, the Rolling Stones has had a further development within their own project, even when it did no longer have that defining capacity outside the band itself.
For instance, the four albums of '68 - '72 probably might be said to have that genre defining and developing quality.
UNDERCOVER probably might be said not any longer to enable the Rolling Stones themselves to define genres of popular music and further develop them in a defining way. However, within the Stones scope of music, it might be said that almost as much as albums that were defining what the relevant genres are or were, UNDERCOVER contributed to develop the Rolling Stones' own project further.
Then I will state that, not according to 1), but certainly according to 2), with my view on it, UNDERCOVER is a GREAT album. That is, under 2) also almost as much as those albums that are great, according to 1).
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Many find Undercover an excellent album. That's indisputable, no matter if others want to belittle it
Quote
24FPS
I take that Loder review with a grain of salt. This is the same magazine that tore apart Some Girls, a universally acknowledged classic album, and praised Undercover, which is maybe their worst, at least of the 1964-1989 Stones.
Quote
DandelionPowderman
Tastes aside, Undercover WAS an evolving piece. Feel On Baby is mentioned. The use of technology is another thing. The melodic choruses of She Was Hot and Too Tough were also new additions. The single was fresh, and perhaps their most daring song to sell since the 60s.
How is all of this "by the numbers"?
And Tie You Up is excellent.
Quote
MidnightPeanut
Upon release of Undercover I remember reading the Rolling Stone interview with Keith wherein Keith laments that the mix of the album version of Undercover was Mick's. The interviewer said that Keith was blasting his mix from the speakers before the interview started and that it was far rougher than Mick's.
I wonder whatever happened to that mix? Does anyone here happen to know anything about it - maybe even have the mix they can share?