Quote
24FPS
And pedestrian because songs like Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, and Too Much Blood (which I just listened to again, just for you) don't go anywhere. There's a lot of repeating the title over and over, but the songs have no depth

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Glam Descendant
>Overall Dirty Work, although not a great Stones album by any stretch, is still hands down much better than Undercover.


Have you revisited UC also? Didn't you admit you only played it once or twice when it first came out and haven't heard it since? (I haven't read this whole thread but I seem to recall that from early on.)

I've gone back and listened to the cuts. UCOTN is fantastic, She Was Hot is a good B-side. But the other ones are really pedestrian. It would be hard to think of a lesser Rolling Stones album than this one. I might have even thrown it away. I had a habit in the late 70s of using albums I expected a lot from and using them as Frisbees, because I knew I'd never listen to them again no matter how high the stature of the artist. I think Steve Miller's follow up to Fly Like An Eagle ended up as a flying disc.

I can't even remember what happened to my original vinyl album of Undercover. I have most of the Stones CDs and DVDs arranged chronologically, but for some reason I never feel the urge to replace it with an Undercover CD. (Well, I know the reason, but I'm being diplomatic.) Just be happy that your ears are happy with the album, because look what I'm missing.

Out of curiosity, how do you define pedestrian?

Because the Stones never did anything like UCOTN, Feel On Baby or Too Much Blood in the past. Add Tie You Up, She Was Hot and Too Tough, which are good rockers (that's not very controversial) - then your conclusion seems "pre-determined", and not very musically based?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'musically based'. My conclusions are very subjective. Music goes in my ears and is enjoyed or rejected, period. Just because you do something that's new, doesn't mean its any good. Satanic Majesties was brimming with new sounds, many of which are unlistenable. (And is similar to Undercover, a couple excellent cuts, and a lot of mess.)

I have made it quite clear that the song Undercover Of The Night is an incredible, A-Plus Stones production, and probably their last great single. She Was Hot is a fun B-side. The rest of it does not engage me. It's like trying to get me to like the Grateful Dead, you can play it over and over again, but my 'musically based' conclusion is the same.

And pedestrian because songs like Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, and Too Much Blood (which I just listened to again, just for you) don't go anywhere. There's a lot of repeating the title over and over, but the songs have no depth.

And again, I'm sure there are songs that tickle my ears that would nauseate yours. And repeated listening won't change that.

24FPS, I fear your resolve is weakening...you're beginning to see some bright spots on the album. Pretty soon you'll like Too Tough, All The Way Down, It Must Be Hell (hey, it's an Exile rip-off, but you like Exile!). Once you get to liking half the album, you'll have reached a tipping point.

Wanna Hold You and Pretty Beat Up will be next...pretty soon, there will only be one or two songs you don't like. Then the only one you won't like will be Too Much Blood. Then you'll soften on it, and just be indifferent to it. THEN, you'll go back and listen to the lyrics and think, "actually, Mick is pretty funny here"...THEN you'll dance a bit to it.

FINALLY, it will be your favourite song on your 6th favourite Stones album. Or something like that anyway.

Yes, Treaclefingers, I will awake one golden morning and change. Darryl will be my favorite Stones bassist and I'll collect every soundboard available of Chuck on Midnight Rambler. Every hackneyed Sad Sad Sad/Had It With You/Flip the Switch will stuff my Ipod full. Hell, I'll even turn up the Grateful Dead's Franklin Tower and Roll Away the Dew as I spasticize the white man falling down the stairs dance. It will be so much easier then. I will see the light and it will blind me. I will hear the truth and it will deafen me. Finally.... I will be easily amused.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Glam Descendant
>Overall Dirty Work, although not a great Stones album by any stretch, is still hands down much better than Undercover.


Have you revisited UC also? Didn't you admit you only played it once or twice when it first came out and haven't heard it since? (I haven't read this whole thread but I seem to recall that from early on.)

I've gone back and listened to the cuts. UCOTN is fantastic, She Was Hot is a good B-side. But the other ones are really pedestrian. It would be hard to think of a lesser Rolling Stones album than this one. I might have even thrown it away. I had a habit in the late 70s of using albums I expected a lot from and using them as Frisbees, because I knew I'd never listen to them again no matter how high the stature of the artist. I think Steve Miller's follow up to Fly Like An Eagle ended up as a flying disc.

I can't even remember what happened to my original vinyl album of Undercover. I have most of the Stones CDs and DVDs arranged chronologically, but for some reason I never feel the urge to replace it with an Undercover CD. (Well, I know the reason, but I'm being diplomatic.) Just be happy that your ears are happy with the album, because look what I'm missing.

Out of curiosity, how do you define pedestrian?

Because the Stones never did anything like UCOTN, Feel On Baby or Too Much Blood in the past. Add Tie You Up, She Was Hot and Too Tough, which are good rockers (that's not very controversial) - then your conclusion seems "pre-determined", and not very musically based?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'musically based'. My conclusions are very subjective. Music goes in my ears and is enjoyed or rejected, period. Just because you do something that's new, doesn't mean its any good. Satanic Majesties was brimming with new sounds, many of which are unlistenable. (And is similar to Undercover, a couple excellent cuts, and a lot of mess.)

I have made it quite clear that the song Undercover Of The Night is an incredible, A-Plus Stones production, and probably their last great single. She Was Hot is a fun B-side. The rest of it does not engage me. It's like trying to get me to like the Grateful Dead, you can play it over and over again, but my 'musically based' conclusion is the same.

And pedestrian because songs like Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, and Too Much Blood (which I just listened to again, just for you) don't go anywhere. There's a lot of repeating the title over and over, but the songs have no depth.

And again, I'm sure there are songs that tickle my ears that would nauseate yours. And repeated listening won't change that.

24FPS, I fear your resolve is weakening...you're beginning to see some bright spots on the album. Pretty soon you'll like Too Tough, All The Way Down, It Must Be Hell (hey, it's an Exile rip-off, but you like Exile!). Once you get to liking half the album, you'll have reached a tipping point.

Wanna Hold You and Pretty Beat Up will be next...pretty soon, there will only be one or two songs you don't like. Then the only one you won't like will be Too Much Blood. Then you'll soften on it, and just be indifferent to it. THEN, you'll go back and listen to the lyrics and think, "actually, Mick is pretty funny here"...THEN you'll dance a bit to it.

FINALLY, it will be your favourite song on your 6th favourite Stones album. Or something like that anyway.

Yes, Treaclefingers, I will awake one golden morning and change. Darryl will be my favorite Stones bassist and I'll collect every soundboard available of Chuck on Midnight Rambler. Every hackneyed Sad Sad Sad/Had It With You/Flip the Switch will stuff my Ipod full. Hell, I'll even turn up the Grateful Dead's Franklin Tower and Roll Away the Dew as I spasticize the white man falling down the stairs dance. It will be so much easier then. I will see the light and it will blind me. I will hear the truth and it will deafen me. Finally.... I will be easily amused.

I hate it when you get sarcastic. You had me until you said 'Every hackneyed...'.

I knew then you were just playing me.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Glam Descendant
>Overall Dirty Work, although not a great Stones album by any stretch, is still hands down much better than Undercover.


Have you revisited UC also? Didn't you admit you only played it once or twice when it first came out and haven't heard it since? (I haven't read this whole thread but I seem to recall that from early on.)

I've gone back and listened to the cuts. UCOTN is fantastic, She Was Hot is a good B-side. But the other ones are really pedestrian. It would be hard to think of a lesser Rolling Stones album than this one. I might have even thrown it away. I had a habit in the late 70s of using albums I expected a lot from and using them as Frisbees, because I knew I'd never listen to them again no matter how high the stature of the artist. I think Steve Miller's follow up to Fly Like An Eagle ended up as a flying disc.

I can't even remember what happened to my original vinyl album of Undercover. I have most of the Stones CDs and DVDs arranged chronologically, but for some reason I never feel the urge to replace it with an Undercover CD. (Well, I know the reason, but I'm being diplomatic.) Just be happy that your ears are happy with the album, because look what I'm missing.

Out of curiosity, how do you define pedestrian?

Because the Stones never did anything like UCOTN, Feel On Baby or Too Much Blood in the past. Add Tie You Up, She Was Hot and Too Tough, which are good rockers (that's not very controversial) - then your conclusion seems "pre-determined", and not very musically based?

I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'musically based'. My conclusions are very subjective. Music goes in my ears and is enjoyed or rejected, period. Just because you do something that's new, doesn't mean its any good. Satanic Majesties was brimming with new sounds, many of which are unlistenable. (And is similar to Undercover, a couple excellent cuts, and a lot of mess.)

I have made it quite clear that the song Undercover Of The Night is an incredible, A-Plus Stones production, and probably their last great single. She Was Hot is a fun B-side. The rest of it does not engage me. It's like trying to get me to like the Grateful Dead, you can play it over and over again, but my 'musically based' conclusion is the same.

And pedestrian because songs like Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, and Too Much Blood (which I just listened to again, just for you) don't go anywhere. There's a lot of repeating the title over and over, but the songs have no depth.

And again, I'm sure there are songs that tickle my ears that would nauseate yours. And repeated listening won't change that.

24FPS, I fear your resolve is weakening...you're beginning to see some bright spots on the album. Pretty soon you'll like Too Tough, All The Way Down, It Must Be Hell (hey, it's an Exile rip-off, but you like Exile!). Once you get to liking half the album, you'll have reached a tipping point.

Wanna Hold You and Pretty Beat Up will be next...pretty soon, there will only be one or two songs you don't like. Then the only one you won't like will be Too Much Blood. Then you'll soften on it, and just be indifferent to it. THEN, you'll go back and listen to the lyrics and think, "actually, Mick is pretty funny here"...THEN you'll dance a bit to it.

FINALLY, it will be your favourite song on your 6th favourite Stones album. Or something like that anyway.

Yes, Treaclefingers, I will awake one golden morning and change. Darryl will be my favorite Stones bassist and I'll collect every soundboard available of Chuck on Midnight Rambler. Every hackneyed Sad Sad Sad/Had It With You/Flip the Switch will stuff my Ipod full. Hell, I'll even turn up the Grateful Dead's Franklin Tower and Roll Away the Dew as I spasticize the white man falling down the stairs dance. It will be so much easier then. I will see the light and it will blind me. I will hear the truth and it will deafen me. Finally.... I will be easily amused.

I hate it when you get sarcastic. You had me until you said 'Every hackneyed...'.

I knew then you were just playing me.

You mean I still had you at 'Darryl will be my favorite Stones bassist?' Sarcasm is a power, and with great power comes no responsibility.

Quote
flacnvinyl
treacle, you made my day

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
flacnvinyl
treacle, you made my day

I honestly wasn't trying to be sarcastic, yet there ya go.

Quote
SweetThing

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....

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
SweetThing

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....

This is hilarious.

Consider the previous video singles! All of them, with exception to Waiting On A Friend and the excellent Neighbours, showed them only miming hilariously awfully to the song going back to Angie.

So the video singles for UNDERCOVER were an entirely new direction for the Stones. They had the run of SOME GIRLS, silly videos, tour, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, goofy videos, TATTOO YOU, silly and brilliant videos and tour plus a live album - it probably was a good decision to not tour. And to do something else: the cinematic videos to promote UNDERCOVER.

Besides, if you listen to UNDERCOVER it's not exactly an album that screams 'tour me' or 'play me live'. Their live performances of UOTN and She Was Hot over the years have been awful at best. Wanna Hold You was decent.

Perhaps the video singles for UNDERCOVER were a bit too much at the time. You've got Whacko prancing around ghouling it up with dance moves to goofy safe clean pop music while Keith's swinging a chainsaw and pistol around to a guitaring thumping jarring rock tune that's designed for the dance floor (or the band actually being too funny ie over the heads of the viewers in She Was Hot or Mick flopping around like a dying fish on a dock all wigged out and leering in Too Much Blood). Too much of a change for the kiddies of the emerging MTV? Nevertheless, they're hilariously brilliant.

Quote
georgelicks
Undercover was a victim of the change of the whole music world around late 1982 and 1983, a different era, pop music, early metal and alternative exploding at the same time, even the album was released almost on Christmas season with a lot of strong albums at the same time, it reached #4 with Jacko, the Police and Lionel Richie in front of them.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
georgelicks
Undercover was a victim of the change of the whole music world around late 1982 and 1983, a different era, pop music, early metal and alternative exploding at the same time, even the album was released almost on Christmas season with a lot of strong albums at the same time, it reached #4 with Jacko, the Police and Lionel Richie in front of them.

And ironically the Stones were up for the change and delivered a great, different sounding album.

I think they had no chance though, there was just too much new and really good other music to choose from.

Quote
TheGreek
the big issue for the album emotional rescue is there was no tour to properly support the new album . think of it like this if the stones toured in support of this fine album ,then we would hear live ,summer romance, where the boys go, down in the hole (which is by far one of the best blues tracks the glimmers have ever recorded).then we would all be rocking out to them in a big way a-la start me up. there lies the sin of the glimmers that they did not tour to support this masterpiece of an album (i know i can hear all the naysayers bashing this ).i know the stones touring model was every three years and this was in between some girls tour 1978 and the tattoo you tour 1981 .this was a album with very good songwriting as opposed to other albums that the glimmers mined the vaults .i do know that a lot of these tracks go back to the pathe marconi sessions .a lot of these tracks along with the some girls album were recorded in anticipation of Keiths upcoming legal issues in Canada and so the stones wanted to lay down a lot of tracks to cover some girls album and beyond .nothing wrong with that !

Quote
Witness
Then what is at work, is the combined effect of two or three (or even four) factors behind what in a too simplified point of view may appear as a, claimed, more or less unprovoked loss of their muse. a) The growing conservatism of the aging fanbase (and its musical generations), b) the increasing difficulty of an elder rock band to attract new generations in order to renew their fanbase, when the band was a stadium venues concert band, and c) the contrasting attitudes between Mick and Keith towards musical innovation vs remaining within their created musical universe.

And when I say that is a too simplified point of view, against which I argue, it is also because the last two albums made with eyes fixed forward, not backward (TATTOO YOU), before this alleged loss of muse, were enterprising albums in my perspective (EMOTIONAL RESCUE and, especially(?) UNDERCOVER).

Add to the mentionned combined effects, d) the difficult situation of the band exposed not to one surrounding scene, but to the split simultaneous presence of a musical "overground" and an underground, the latter consisting of various and different scenes of independent labels and venues for a longer period. Neither of them, that positively oriented towards an older major band's attempts to renew itself, but with a view preferably to make new idols or, alternatively, radical new musical expressions. At best, willing to show the old Stones as the old Stones.

Quote
Witness

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
georgelicks
Undercover was a victim of the change of the whole music world around late 1982 and 1983, a different era, pop music, early metal and alternative exploding at the same time, even the album was released almost on Christmas season with a lot of strong albums at the same time, it reached #4 with Jacko, the Police and Lionel Richie in front of them.

And ironically the Stones were up for the change and delivered a great, different sounding album.

I think they had no chance though, there was just too much new and really good other music to choose from.

In hindsight, possibly it really might appear as the fatal thing, what theGreek remarked in the Track talk thread for "Summer Romance", not to tour the album EMOTIONAL RESCUE.

Quote
TheGreek
the big issue for the album emotional rescue is there was no tour to properly support the new album . think of it like this if the stones toured in support of this fine album ,then we would hear live ,summer romance, where the boys go, down in the hole (which is by far one of the best blues tracks the glimmers have ever recorded).then we would all be rocking out to them in a big way a-la start me up. there lies the sin of the glimmers that they did not tour to support this masterpiece of an album (i know i can hear all the naysayers bashing this ).i know the stones touring model was every three years and this was in between some girls tour 1978 and the tattoo you tour 1981 .this was a album with very good songwriting as opposed to other albums that the glimmers mined the vaults .i do know that a lot of these tracks go back to the pathe marconi sessions .a lot of these tracks along with the some girls album were recorded in anticipation of Keiths upcoming legal issues in Canada and so the stones wanted to lay down a lot of tracks to cover some girls album and beyond .nothing wrong with that !

Because, and now I have to admit that I don't know if TheGreek would agree, if they had, the result might have been for the following period that the band could have had a stronger fanbase, and somewhat less based on the nostalgia oriented factor that touring on TATTOO YOU provided for (if I may seek support for that very last point of view in posts that Doxa has come up with). With such a more solid and less nostalgic fanbase, the Stones could have had a more firm basebase to rely on when the structural changes of the rock scene set in towards the mid '80s with its divisions between an "overground" of 80's pop and various underground alternative scenes.

Or to repeat something from another thread, what I was better able to say then than now:

Quote
Witness
Then what is at work, is the combined effect of two or three (or even four) factors behind what in a too simplified point of view may appear as a, claimed, more or less unprovoked loss of their muse. a) The growing conservatism of the aging fanbase (and its musical generations), b) the increasing difficulty of an elder rock band to attract new generations in order to renew their fanbase, when the band was a stadium venues concert band, and c) the contrasting attitudes between Mick and Keith towards musical innovation vs remaining within their created musical universe.

And when I say that is a too simplified point of view, against which I argue, it is also because the last two albums made with eyes fixed forward, not backward (TATTOO YOU), before this alleged loss of muse, were enterprising albums in my perspective (EMOTIONAL RESCUE and, especially(?) UNDERCOVER).

Add to the mentionned combined effects, d) the difficult situation of the band exposed not to one surrounding scene, but to the split simultaneous presence of a musical "overground" and an underground, the latter consisting of various and different scenes of independent labels and venues for a longer period. Neither of them, that positively oriented towards an older major band's attempts to renew itself, but with a view preferably to make new idols or, alternatively, radical new musical expressions. At best, willing to show the old Stones as the old Stones.

The big question is, with the possible effect of a somewhat firmer fanbase then from earlier having toured EMOTIONAL RESCUE, if UNDERCOVER might have come suffiently better out of it among this stratum of the rock scene, to urge the Stones to go on rather soon to create new, enterprising and inspired music.

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
SweetThing

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....

This is hilarious.

Consider the previous video singles! All of them, with exception to Waiting On A Friend and the excellent Neighbours, showed them only miming hilariously awfully to the song going back to Angie.

So the video singles for UNDERCOVER were an entirely new direction for the Stones. They had the run of SOME GIRLS, silly videos, tour, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, goofy videos, TATTOO YOU, silly and brilliant videos and tour plus a live album - it probably was a good decision to not tour. And to do something else: the cinematic videos to promote UNDERCOVER.

Besides, if you listen to UNDERCOVER it's not exactly an album that screams 'tour me' or 'play me live'. Their live performances of UOTN and She Was Hot over the years have been awful at best. Wanna Hold You was decent.

Perhaps the video singles for UNDERCOVER were a bit too much at the time. You've got Whacko prancing around ghouling it up with dance moves to goofy safe clean pop music while Keith's swinging a chainsaw and pistol around to a guitaring thumping jarring rock tune that's designed for the dance floor (or the band actually being too funny ie over the heads of the viewers in She Was Hot or Mick flopping around like a dying fish on a dock all wigged out and leering in Too Much Blood). Too much of a change for the kiddies of the emerging MTV? Nevertheless, they're hilariously brilliant.

There was a bit of a sea change in music around 1983/84. I just remember that year as being the time I started University and a whole slew of newer bands really made it mainstream, and massive new albums by U2, the Police, Bowie, Van Halen, ZZ Top, Prince, Madonna, Cindy Lauper and as you pointed out Michael Jackson I think the Stones were shunted to the side. They'd saturated the market in the previous 5 years so it was time for something new.

They could have put out another Exile and it probably would have gotten the same sort of muted reaction, no matter how many videos they did.

I do think though that UC is a great album...their last great album.

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
SweetThing

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....

This is hilarious.

Consider the previous video singles! All of them, with exception to Waiting On A Friend and the excellent Neighbours, showed them only miming hilariously awfully to the song going back to Angie.

So the video singles for UNDERCOVER were an entirely new direction for the Stones. They had the run of SOME GIRLS, silly videos, tour, EMOTIONAL RESCUE, goofy videos, TATTOO YOU, silly and brilliant videos and tour plus a live album - it probably was a good decision to not tour. And to do something else: the cinematic videos to promote UNDERCOVER.

Besides, if you listen to UNDERCOVER it's not exactly an album that screams 'tour me' or 'play me live'. Their live performances of UOTN and She Was Hot over the years have been awful at best. Wanna Hold You was decent.

Perhaps the video singles for UNDERCOVER were a bit too much at the time. You've got Whacko prancing around ghouling it up with dance moves to goofy safe clean pop music while Keith's swinging a chainsaw and pistol around to a guitaring thumping jarring rock tune that's designed for the dance floor (or the band actually being too funny ie over the heads of the viewers in She Was Hot or Mick flopping around like a dying fish on a dock all wigged out and leering in Too Much Blood). Too much of a change for the kiddies of the emerging MTV? Nevertheless, they're hilariously brilliant.

There was a bit of a sea change in music around 1983/84. I just remember that year as being the time I started University and a whole slew of newer bands really made it mainstream, and massive new albums by U2, the Police, Bowie, Van Halen, ZZ Top, Prince, Madonna, Cindy Lauper and as you pointed out Michael Jackson I think the Stones were shunted to the side. They'd saturated the market in the previous 5 years so it was time for something new.

They could have put out another Exile and it probably would have gotten the same sort of muted reaction, no matter how many videos they did.

I do think though that UC is a great album...their last great album.

Look. You and everyone but me need to use the title correctly when shortcutting it - it's not two words, it's one - Undercover. Therefor, when using just the letters for the title it's...

U.