I sure would love to it though... The mix was supposedly in-your-face, raw and marvelous! It's been my white whale for years (and will likely remain so).

Quote
MidnightPeanut
I sure would love to it though... The mix was supposedly in-your-face, raw and marvelous! It's been my white whale for years (and will likely remain so).

it would be great to hear it. it was cool what mccartney did releasing let it be without the phil spector production, kind of wish more bands would release alternate productions of their music.

If in some alternate plane of existence, Undercover had sold huge, let's say Some Girls/Tattoo You huge, I think the 80s would have looked a whole lot different in terms of output for the band, and I'd wager they'd have put a tour together in '84 or so.

It's too bad, as that album deserved to sell a lot better than it did!

Quote
treaclefingers
If in some alternate plane of existence, Undercover had sold huge, let's say Some Girls/Tattoo You huge, I think the 80s would have looked a whole lot different in terms of output for the band, and I'd wager they'd have put a tour together in '84 or so.

It's too bad, as that album deserved to sell a lot better than it did!

it's possible "undercover" was a bit too out there for their first single - perhaps if they'd led with she was hot and then undercover things would have turned out differently.

it's interesting that when keith talks about the 80s he bemoans not turning to support dirty work, rather than undercover. wonder why. undercover is much stronger.

Quote
sonomastone

Quote
treaclefingers
If in some alternate plane of existence, Undercover had sold huge, let's say Some Girls/Tattoo You huge, I think the 80s would have looked a whole lot different in terms of output for the band, and I'd wager they'd have put a tour together in '84 or so.

It's too bad, as that album deserved to sell a lot better than it did!

it's possible "undercover" was a bit too out there for their first single - perhaps if they'd led with she was hot and then undercover things would have turned out differently.

it's interesting that when keith talks about the 80s he bemoans not turning to support dirty work, rather than undercover. wonder why. undercover is much stronger.

I listened to Dirty Work in the car yesterday and I disagree. Harlem Shuffle is all they really got behind before Mick simply walked away. It's a crime that One Hit To The Body didn't get more exposure. It really is one of the last great weaving and rusty ass bed springs guitar on a Stones record. Overall Dirty Work, although not a great Stones album by any stretch, is still hands down much better than Undercover.

I always thought they didn't tour behind UC because their record contract was up; Keith probably presumed the big tour would follow their next record on a new label.

>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.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-19 07:50 by Glam Descendant.

You can't fault Mick for realizing and keeping up with the change in technology and the way records were being made...

He is a competitor as well as an artist...in 1983 he was facing get with the times or face the waste paper basket..

Listening to it today...I think it's pretty edgy compared to what was going on at the time with The Police, Culture Club, Duran Duran, Michael Jackson, The Fixx, etc...

If Undercover was the monumental stumble you all think it is...there wouldn't be a Dirty Work and there wouldn't be a Steel Wheels...and then there wouldn't be the Vegas Tours we have been seeing since 1989.

So in the grand scheme of things...I think Undercover did them no harm.

And hats off to them...for embracing MTV at the time and making concept videos..you have to admit...all three were pretty good and they got Charlie in front of a camera which is a victory unto itself...he seemed to have a really good time shooting the "She Was Hot" video.

PECMAN



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-19 08:54 by Pecman.

Of course I would have prefered the Stones touring on Undercover instead of two aimless Mick Jagger albums. Who wouldn't? With a tour we would probably have been saved from Dirty Work too - literally.

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.

Quote
treaclefingers
If in some alternate plane of existence, Undercover had sold huge, let's say Some Girls/Tattoo You huge, I think the 80s would have looked a whole lot different in terms of output for the band, and I'd wager they'd have put a tour together in '84 or so.

It's too bad, as that album deserved to sell a lot better than it did!

You, treaclefingers, really said all that one can say about the following years of the band under the scenario of a more positive reception to UNDERCOVER. I withdraw my unfruitful speculation that I entered on in my own thoughts yesterday.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2014-04-19 12:58 by Witness.

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?

Quote
Witness

Quote
treaclefingers
If in some alternate plane of existence, Undercover had sold huge, let's say Some Girls/Tattoo You huge, I think the 80s would have looked a whole lot different in terms of output for the band, and I'd wager they'd have put a tour together in '84 or so.

It's too bad, as that album deserved to sell a lot better than it did!

You, treaclefingers, really said all that one can say about the following years of the band under the scenario of a more positive reception to UNDERCOVER. I withdraw my unfruitful speculation that I entered on in my own thoughts yesterday.

I think MJ was quite sensitive at the time, and probably even now, around an audience that outside of the diehard fans can be extremely fickle, regardless of the fact that the critical reviews at the time were pretty good.

I think the direction they took with Undercover was daring and for me a little unexpected, certainly a bit darker, and possibly alienated some of the 'new fans' they'd acquired with the recent success of Start Me Up/Tattoo You.

Audiences were more drawn to the early 80s new, new wave, Duran Duran, Culture Club, the Police, U2, Cindy Lauper, Prince, and even Michael Jackson (who MJ then duetted with).

I'd suggest that a middle age crisis developed at the same point that sales started slumping. Must have been particularly difficult given the extreme recent success of Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You.

Anyway, we know where we've ended up as a result.

Quote
24FPS
It's a crime that One Hit To The Body didn't get more exposure. It really is one of the last great weaving and rusty ass bed springs guitar on a Stones record. Overall Dirty Work, although not a great Stones album by any stretch, is still hands down much better than Undercover.

First off, the production on One Hit is horrible. Two, the backing vocals are beyond a joke - they are an atrocity. Three, there is no logical way musically or sonically that DIRTY WORK is better than UNDERCOVER.

Why Keith would want to tour DIRTY WORK is a mystery because there's nothing on it worth playing live other than Harlem Shuffle. Which wasn't exactly thrilling to hear live either.

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?

Woody has referred to a acoustic version of UOTN as well that is "much better" or whatever he said. But a rougher mix of UOTN than Mick's would be interesting to hear.

Quote
big4
1983 Interview. They don't talk about Undercover but it's one of the rare later era (relatively speaking) joint interviews with Mick/Keith.

Hilarious to see Keith talking about the Stones signing with CBS while Mick is sitting there silent, making sure he doesn't mention the solo deal he inked as well.

Quote
treaclefingers

I think MJ was quite sensitive at the time, and probably even now, around an maudience that outside of the diehard fans can be extremely fickle, regardless of the fact that the critical reviews at the time were pretty good.

I think the direction they took with Undercover was daring and for me a little unexpected, certainly a bit darker, and possibly alienated some of the 'new fans' they'd acquired with the recent success of Start Me Up/Tattoo You.

Audiences were more drawn to the early 80s new, new wave, Duran Duran, Culture Club, the Police, U2, Cindy Lauper, Prince, and even Michael Jackson (who MJ then duetted with).

I'd suggest that a middle age crisis developed at the same point that sales started slumping. Must have been particularly difficult given the extreme recent success of Some Girls, Emotional Rescue and Tattoo You.

Anyway, we know where we've ended up as a result.

The sad outcome of it all is that seldom since, the Stones have been able to go for a wholehearted adventurous album without compromise. And their breaks of inactivity most probably were prolonged by it.

Those who did not like UNDERCOVER, might think that not so much of value for themselves was lost thereby. However, they might reflect on the evident possibility that new impulses after UNDERCOVER and a thinkable follow-up of a similiar kind, could have resulted in daring albums in new directions that also they might have endorsed. Instead there followed an almost break-up of the band and a couple of albums long in between, where the band needed more to refind the core of themselves than expand in new directions. And one might wonder if such a development might have made better music more suitable for adoption in setlists. Also due to less deepened dissension between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards. There is nobody to blame, but possible golden fruits have not been gained to the extent that this band was fully capable of.

Middle of the road as far as their eightees stuff goes. Not as good as TY or SW imo but better than ER and DW.

"Lyin' awake in a cold, cold sweat. Am I overdrawn, am I going in debt?
It gets worse, the older that you get. No escape from the state of confusion I'm in.

Better than ER??

Nooooooooooo!

Last real Stones LP...

Many would say Beggars Banquet was...

Not I!

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,


aaawww no not the old Frisbee story again ....must heard that one a million times over the years .... it's older that Moses ...



ROCKMAN

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.

Thanks, 24FPS. Indeed it's subjective. As is the experience of songs going somewhere, with or without depth.

Quote
Rockman
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,


aaawww no not the old Frisbee story again ....must heard that one a million times over the years .... it's older that Moses ...

First time I've used that story. Maybe it was a common thing to do in the 70s with crap albums.

First time I've used that story.....okay okay give ya
the benefit of the doubt ... but that Frisbee story has been told
for years by a million critics ..parents ...disgruntled fans etc...
that the earth should be pathed in vinyl and I've walked alotta beaches...streets...parks, forests and I'm still yet to see one album layin' on the ground .....

did see a snapped hip-hop CD and a hypodermic needle in a
car-park once but hey man that probably was another story ...



ROCKMAN

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.

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.