There are strong opinions posted from time to time about Dirty Work and very few about Undercover. I liked Undercover when it came out and still do (for instance, Pretty Beat Up and Feel On Baby have great grooves and She Was Hot oozes sex). Thoughts from y'all?

I disliked Undercover when it came out, and really haven't listened to it since (same with Emotional Rescue). I thought it sounded like a band imitating the stones. Maybe I should give it another chance.

Always thought DW was very weak, have posted many times my thoughts on the poor production, loud drums, etc on that album...

Undercover, on the other hand, I have always felt to be the Stones most mature rock and roll album. It shows a band at its height experience-wise. They had just come off a hugely successful album and tour, and were really sitting pretty. Unfortunately, a number of factors played a roll in keeping Undercover from the #1 spot in America...

The album was slightly more political in nature at a time when America was getting off on being patriotic and not reflective. Undercover was sort of a darker album (ever so slightly) whose attitude didn't quite reflect the day-glo blow-dry polka-dotted aerosol early eighties attitude.

Springsteen's (highly misunderstood) Born In The USA was dominating the charts and the rock and roll world, while Michael Jackson was descending upon the pop world (and Prince too? When did Purple Rain come out?). Those guys all cut into the Stones market pretty seriously, I think.

No tour to followed this album. I think they could have drawn good numbers if they had toured in 83/84, as many (esp. in the northeast USA!!) missed them on the previous tour. Then, momentum could have kepth the singles charting and the album in the upper charts.

Lastly, while I really love the Undercover album, I think some of the synthetic drum sounds of the title track and Too Much Blood might have turned off a lot of fans. Those sounds were more Mchael Jackson, Peter Gabriel, Phil Collins, etc, than Rolling Stones. The Stones always changed with the musical trends, but that one was a bit too much. This lesson was not learned of course on the next album w/ songs like Back to Zero and Winning Ugly.

Undercover sits among my top 5 Stones albums, though. Great overall feel, real depth in those songs too. I still like to crank that one from time to time.

both of these albums groove me real fine.
i'm not into what-if scenarios, especially when it comes to the Rolling Stones, but yeah: "what if they'd done an Undercover Tour" is hard to resist, isn't it.


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

Both are great. Hope some tracks are played during the tour....Harlem Shuffle, TOO TOUGH, Must be Hell????????????

I always liked Undercover, its nasty,shallow and ugly like the times it reflected (mid-eighties).I remember that the Stones were really heavily criticised in the British press for the title track, the gist was they were making political comment about the situation in South America, although they didnt know what they were talking about, and exploiting other peoples misery in making a sexy rock n roll track about it. This was around the time of the Sandinistas, Iran Contra etc. I particularly remember Paula Yates attacking Mick during an interview on the TV show "The Tube" and saying if the Stones really gave a shit about what was happening in South America, why didnt they put there money where there mouths are.

It must be hell is a great rocker, if a bit a of a rewrite of Soul Survivor, and I also like Wanna hold you for some reason. I like Dirty Work a lot too, Fight is a great blaster, although its probably a little weaker than Undercover. I predict a mix of the sound of these 2 albums for the new one.

These 2 records are all time low.No Stones record. No way.Never listen to them. I do not know where I put them. Sleep well dirty work. No enthusiasm on these records, pure mechanism.

I love Undercover. The songwriting is so much stronger than on DW and SW. Froget about the 80's production and check out the melodies. That chorus in "She Was Hot" is beautiful with the chorused piano. Have a weakness for "All the Way Down" too.
Thew reason this album isn't among my top TOP Stonesalbums is because we end on this lousy note. the last tune I hear is "It Must Be Hell" and it sux. Apart from Keith ripping himself off in the riff dept. I hate the production. The way the Stones try in vain to get a rabble rouser going. They use all their tricks with a forced BU Vox chant. The percussion that comes in at the end for the fadeout. But it never gets off the ground. That tune would have worked better as a ballad.

" I was King , Mr. Cool
Just a snotty Little fool...
Like the kid's are now."

For those few line alone from All the Way Down, Undrecover will always be one of my faves. Struck a chord in me then and now about accepting lost youth.

These two albums were major dissappointments from a band considering their 81/82 tour triumphs and the fantastic Tattoo You album of 81. These two albums killed the Stones popularity in the 80's.....only to be rescued by the Steel Wheels tour.

>Unfortunately, a number of factors played a roll in keeping Undercover from the #1 spot in America...

Billboard 200
December 10th, 1983

01. CAN'T SLOW DOWN (by Lionel Richie)
02. SYNCHRONICITY (by The Police)
03. THRILLER (by Michael Jackson)
04. UNDERCOVER (by The Rolling Stones)

December 17th, 1983
01. CAN'T SLOW DOWN (by Lionel Richie)
02. THRILLER (by Michael Jackson)
03. SYNCHRONICITY (by The Police)
04. UNDERCOVER (by The Rolling Stones)

December 24th and 31th, Undercover at #5.


Also in US the albums at #1 in 1986 at the time of Dirty Work at #4 were:
- 5150 (by Van Halen)
- WHITNEY HOUSTON (by Whitney Houston)

Give me Dirty Work anytime...

In my opinion,
Undercover - a personal favorite. Plenty of guitars, rhythms and a powerful singing. The finished product has a layer of "80s dust" on it, but the songs do it for me.
Dirty Work - a weak album with some nice moments. Boogie With Stu is a nice bonus.

Undercover is a great album. It's maybe hard to swallow for fans who wants the stones to stick to their musical roots and foundation. In many ways (to a certain degree also B2 it's the last experimental album the stones has released. It's definitely the last good experimental album they released

I usually alway agree with you Dandelion, as I do here. B2B is (next to Stripped) by far my most fave of the post 89 albums. I think the experiments worked very well. And UC is while way more 80's than DW peppered with many good songs and tunes. That is why it's funny to me that I totally disagree with you on another thread re. AHYS and SA: the moment where Jagger comes in in SA is the worst moment to me in that song. It's been soulful so far and here comes Jagger with that very "white" bombastic chordchange and forced melody. And the solo in Sigh...for some reason it smacks of Keith doing his loose shtick too much to me. The way I am tired of his vox on his 40 Lix song.

Let's put it this way, Chelsea: I totally understand what you mean about those songs (SA and AHYS). I've been there, but on the other hand, those songs grows on you, and I'm sick of hearing Keith singing that bridge live (SA). When I pick up Steel Wheels and hear Jagger (studio high pitched and cleaned, though) it is a welcome break for me

Keith's solo on AHYS has the right sound for that kind of pickin' and I've always loved the timing and place of space in the song for it.

Oh yes. It would be so cool to see Jagger come up and sing that bridge live. The solo in Sigh....it's just TOO obvious. I can see Keith already while recording the track thinking up his lines for the post release interviews "yeah, I had a Nylonstring kicking around...and I thought I'd throw a little Segovia on there...you know I dig me a little Segovia vibe from time to time...har har"

It's funny how many different opinions there are, but here's another one. I love Jagger's singing on Slipping Away....it reminded of the time when Jagger and Richards actually sang on the same song. The Stripped SA with Keith only sounded more like a solo song. One of the worst moves they've made in the last 20 years is Jagger vacating the stage and the studio when Keef does his songs.

Undercover is a lousy disc to me because of:

Too Much Blood - Embarrasing as a Stones track. If Mick wants to do this stuff on his solo discs, fine. But this is pure disco nightmare!!

It Must be Hell - Also embarrasing for the band as it is a clear recycle of the Soul Survivor riff. What were they thinking?

Wanna Hold You - This song was fantastic on the B2B Tour, where it was properly played. The Undercover version is way too fast and has a New Wavy/Knack-ish sound.

The rest of the album is fair Stones' stuff but, other than She Was Hot, nothing really stands-out.

Karl

I like dw, had it with you, one hit to the body, winning ugly, excellent tunes, better than some of the crap that came out recently.

Undercover is definately an 80s sound, but that's not so bad. I really like this album, especially Too Tough. Why it isn't given its due is that there wasn't a tour to support it.

Dirty Work I have trouble with. I absolutely love One Hit, but most of the songs Mick barks the lyrics, no vocal range at all. The music is decent the lyrics are okay, but Mick was at his all time worst here.

It's so very lonely, you're 2,000 Light Years from home

IMO,Stones have no bad albums. I like them all. Each album good for its time. I love history



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-06-22 09:46 by Rommick.

Undercover is great with successful modern sound. The only track I don't like is: It must be hell. I think it's a parody of The Rolling Stones. My favs: Feel on baby: unique caribbean junky feeling. Pretty beat up, All the way, Too tough etc. So I love to hear it again and again.
I love all Stones records except Steel Wheels. It's like another band!