For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Quote
Doxa
Thanks for the link. Still at the time ROLLING STONE had some sort of critical/serious attitude towards music. But this time Jagger didn't seem to bother to write an open letter to them (and this one was much more harsh than the one for SOME GIRLS)...
Actually I can't recall ever reading any very positive review of EMOTIONAL RESCUE (probably the last album the critics actually took seriously, since then whatever they've done seem to be a worth of praisal.). It was a commercial success, but not surely that of critical one.
But at least there was one strong supporter of EMOTIONAL RESCUE: Keith Richards. He, back then, claimed that the album is better than SOME GIRLS. I guess that was much to do him having more control again (and Jagger dominating SOME GIRLS).
- Doxa
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think these reviews from fans reflect the album and its reputation in a better way:
[www.keno.org]
I started to read the first one - made in 2010 - that started that "EMOTIONAL RESCUE has been the album largely overlooked by both fans and critics, and unjustly so", and stopped there, since that exactly is the point I made initially.
- Doxa
Thanks for the in-depth exploration...
Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think these reviews from fans reflect the album and its reputation in a better way:
[www.keno.org]
I started to read the first one - made in 2010 - that started that "EMOTIONAL RESCUE has been the album largely overlooked by both fans and critics, and unjustly so", and stopped there, since that exactly is the point I made initially.
- Doxa
Thanks for the in-depth exploration...
Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...
Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
I think the lyrics to the song undercover are superb.
They are good indeed. But I think the problem with the song, and its lame reception, is the singer (and the face of the band); he's been played that hedonistic, funny, ironical, spoiled rock star guy for so long that trying to make a serious lyric containing a some sort of serious political commentary, wasn't just convincing any longer. One you play the clown card, people won't take you seriously any longer... It wasn't 1969 any longer. If it had been written at the time by, say, Bob Dylan, people would have been thrilled. "Zimmy still got it, man"... The same thing happened with "Highwire".
To an extent, starting with UNDERCOVER album actually, explicit in his solo records, Jagger started to have a sort of difficulties marrying his image and his lyrics/music together. He lost some of his once natural ability to be convincing. (You could say "Indian GIrl" in EMOTIONAL RESCUE is an early sign of that - it is hard to hear how 'serious' Mick is there; he seems to confuse the listener by his delivery, even though I think he still handles the task there rather well).
- Doxa
People, or you? Because the media certainly took the lyrics (and the video) seriously and banned it.
If you don't like something, Doxa, I think it's fairer that you just say so - instead of presenting it as an established truth?
I'm still waiting for hordes of fans saying that ER has a bad reputation, as well as why Undercover wasn't convincing. Undercover created a lot of fuss when it came out, and the matter of violence in South America was definitely discussed thoroughly because of it.
That is, imo, way more important than if a middle aged Rolling Stones would re-live their super stardom and sell buckets of records.
Mishion accomplished, I'd say. Good track, good lyrics, good video, awareness of the political problem.
Here's a review with the «lame reception», btw: a singer who sounds serious again
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
I think the lyrics to the song undercover are superb.
They are good indeed. But I think the problem with the song, and its lame reception, is the singer (and the face of the band); he's been played that hedonistic, funny, ironical, spoiled rock star guy for so long that trying to make a serious lyric containing a some sort of serious political commentary, wasn't just convincing any longer. One you play the clown card, people won't take you seriously any longer... It wasn't 1969 any longer. If it had been written at the time by, say, Bob Dylan, people would have been thrilled. "Zimmy still got it, man"... The same thing happened with "Highwire".
To an extent, starting with UNDERCOVER album actually, explicit in his solo records, Jagger started to have a sort of difficulties marrying his image and his lyrics/music together. He lost some of his once natural ability to be convincing. (You could say "Indian GIrl" in EMOTIONAL RESCUE is an early sign of that - it is hard to hear how 'serious' Mick is there; he seems to confuse the listener by his delivery, even though I think he still handles the task there rather well).
- Doxa
People, or you? Because the media certainly took the lyrics (and the video) seriously and banned it.
If you don't like something, Doxa, I think it's fairer that you just say so - instead of presenting it as an established truth?
I'm still waiting for hordes of fans saying that ER has a bad reputation, as well as why Undercover wasn't convincing. Undercover created a lot of fuss when it came out, and the matter of violence in South America was definitely discussed thoroughly because of it.
That is, imo, way more important than if a middle aged Rolling Stones would re-live their super stardom and sell buckets of records.
Mishion accomplished, I'd say. Good track, good lyrics, good video, awareness of the political problem.
Here's a review with the «lame reception», btw: a singer who sounds serious again
Doxa makes an excellent point about Mick's image and Undercover. Videos were banned for nothing in the 80s. It was often due to imagery, images and the bands image. Violence, sex and drugs shown on TV and in music videos was the new threat. That doesnt mean people took Jagger seriously in the 80s - not outside the TV set.
Maybe for a day or two if some of the tabloids managed to create an outrage among the elderly. Just compare it to Kiss I Love it Loud or was it Lick it up. Kiss were not popular at all in 1982 then but thanks to a video that was banned, the elderly had to warn parents and debate this BS on prime time.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think these reviews from fans reflect the album and its reputation in a better way:
[www.keno.org]
I started to read the first one - made in 2010 - that started that "EMOTIONAL RESCUE has been the album largely overlooked by both fans and critics, and unjustly so", and stopped there, since that exactly is the point I made initially.
- Doxa
Thanks for the in-depth exploration...
Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...
Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.
That's surely just your opinion. Many fans find enough of albums that are poorer than ER (TSMR, IORR etc.).
And remember, this is not a competition. It doesn't have to be superior to previous Stones albums to be good, does it?
Quote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
I think these reviews from fans reflect the album and its reputation in a better way:
[www.keno.org]
I started to read the first one - made in 2010 - that started that "EMOTIONAL RESCUE has been the album largely overlooked by both fans and critics, and unjustly so", and stopped there, since that exactly is the point I made initially.
- Doxa
Thanks for the in-depth exploration...
Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...
Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.
That's surely just your opinion. Many fans find enough of albums that are poorer than ER (TSMR, IORR etc.).
And remember, this is not a competition. It doesn't have to be superior to previous Stones albums to be good, does it?
No not at all and I acutllay enjoy it for its production and I think the material is ok.
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
RedhotcarpetQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
Turner68
I think the lyrics to the song undercover are superb.
They are good indeed. But I think the problem with the song, and its lame reception, is the singer (and the face of the band); he's been played that hedonistic, funny, ironical, spoiled rock star guy for so long that trying to make a serious lyric containing a some sort of serious political commentary, wasn't just convincing any longer. One you play the clown card, people won't take you seriously any longer... It wasn't 1969 any longer. If it had been written at the time by, say, Bob Dylan, people would have been thrilled. "Zimmy still got it, man"... The same thing happened with "Highwire".
To an extent, starting with UNDERCOVER album actually, explicit in his solo records, Jagger started to have a sort of difficulties marrying his image and his lyrics/music together. He lost some of his once natural ability to be convincing. (You could say "Indian GIrl" in EMOTIONAL RESCUE is an early sign of that - it is hard to hear how 'serious' Mick is there; he seems to confuse the listener by his delivery, even though I think he still handles the task there rather well).
- Doxa
People, or you? Because the media certainly took the lyrics (and the video) seriously and banned it.
If you don't like something, Doxa, I think it's fairer that you just say so - instead of presenting it as an established truth?
I'm still waiting for hordes of fans saying that ER has a bad reputation, as well as why Undercover wasn't convincing. Undercover created a lot of fuss when it came out, and the matter of violence in South America was definitely discussed thoroughly because of it.
That is, imo, way more important than if a middle aged Rolling Stones would re-live their super stardom and sell buckets of records.
Mishion accomplished, I'd say. Good track, good lyrics, good video, awareness of the political problem.
Here's a review with the «lame reception», btw: a singer who sounds serious again
Doxa makes an excellent point about Mick's image and Undercover. Videos were banned for nothing in the 80s. It was often due to imagery, images and the bands image. Violence, sex and drugs shown on TV and in music videos was the new threat. That doesnt mean people took Jagger seriously in the 80s - not outside the TV set.
Maybe for a day or two if some of the tabloids managed to create an outrage among the elderly. Just compare it to Kiss I Love it Loud or was it Lick it up. Kiss were not popular at all in 1982 then but thanks to a video that was banned, the elderly had to warn parents and debate this BS on prime time.
Did you read the review?
Quote
DandelionPowderman
All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.
You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.
You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.
We have different memories about the undercover video being banned. I remember the banning clearly coming off as a gimmic; it was played heavily on Mtv in my recollection. Indeed because of being banned and the director (Julian temple) they got a lot of press for the song. One of the biggest buzzes I remember about the album at the time was the director - it was still a new idea to have big name director of a music video.
I think you are exactly right that undercover's political statement was taken more seriously than their songs would be in the future and that the stones "mattered" at the time of undercover in a big way. No question about it. The reception to "high wire" was completely different - a shrug.
In the U.S. at least I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt emotional rescue was consider a dud by fans and critics alike. The chart positions do not reflect how people liked the album upon listening to it.
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.
You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.
We have different memories about the undercover video being banned. I remember the banning clearly coming off as a gimmic; it was played heavily on Mtv in my recollection. Indeed because of being banned and the director (Julian temple) they got a lot of press for the song. One of the biggest buzzes I remember about the album at the time was the director - it was still a new idea to have big name director of a music video.
I think you are exactly right that undercover's political statement was taken more seriously than their songs would be in the future and that the stones "mattered" at the time of undercover in a big way. No question about it. The reception to "high wire" was completely different - a shrug.
In the U.S. at least I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt emotional rescue was consider a dud by fans and critics alike. The chart positions do not reflect how people liked the album upon listening to it.
The video was the edited version, which was quickly done to replace the mini-movie version that was so offensive. Later on the original version was played once everyone managed to grow up a bit.
[www.magnetmagazine.com]
Quote
HMS
Very good album, almost as good as glorious DW. Undercover has a lot of goodies and not really a weak spot. The trademark rockers Too Tough, Wanna Hold You, It Must Be Hell, All The Way Down are no masterpieces, but very enjoyable, imo.
Too Much Blood? Well... At least I´ve grown accustomed to it over the years...
Everything else is excellent: Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, Pretty Beat Up, great songs.
Quote
IrelandCalling4
Pretty Beat Up another prime example of what UC does offer; the one-time titled "Dogshit" showing itself as actually one of the best aspects of the album. A groove, not even a song, but in the Stones' hands it cooks and sizzles. Funk for the 80s, its strenght is the quality of the riff, how its played with such rhythm, and the arrangement (David Sanborns sax putting it from good album track to one of the albums highest points). Its a great track, out Black&Blue's Black and Blue. A swaggering sound.
UC compared with Exile etc of course suffers by comparison but not every album has to be, or even can be, a career highlight. Like Emotional Rescue, another album I find utterly irresistible, UC taken on only its own merits, is simply a fine album with some indeniable high points. ER is not the statement album that SG and TY were and are; I can see why it wasnt as loved at the time, but of course with hindsight it is a definite and important part of that late 70s early 80s sound. Genuinely great tracks like SSC, ER, Dance and All About You make it essential for any Stones fan and a primary reason it is so much more valued today than it was at the time. UC hasnt been as revisited as ER outside of super fans; it should be as it contains far more worth than its reputation would suggest. For now I suppose its a nice extra we fans have that a lot of rock'n'roll lovers perhaps will never give a chance to. Minor albums both in the great Stones scheme but that doesnt mean they are no less magic in their own way.