Tell Me :
Talk
my main cd player is a sony cdp-55 from 1986
which i guess is kinda looked down upon by audiophiles because of its mid 80's dac however i like it but i doubt it'll be capable of sacd playback though i'm intrigued by the technology and will keep an eye out for a capable player during my thrift store hunts
but i did get cbs copies of undercover, tattoo you, and sticky fingers for $2 each a couple days ago and listening to them in comparision with my 2009 universal undercover, sticky fingers and 2021 tattoo you with the above mentioned cd player and thru audio technica ath-m50x headphones i hands down prefer the cbs even for sticky fingers which i agree does sound a bit muddy but in a way that i like and think sounds right with the music thanks for the advice next i'm gonna see if i can get a copy of satanic on one them west german cds very intrigued by what that will sound like
SACD was introduced by Sony in 1999 and the first SACD-Player was the Sony SCD-1 (US$ 5000) from the same year. Still very expensive as a used device. To get the maximum sound-quality you also need an appropriate Amp as well as Speakers/Headphones which are in the same price-range like the SACD-Player. Normal CD-Players can only playback the CD-Layer of the Hybrid-SACD (Dual-Layer) and cannot playback the SACD-Layer of a Single-Layer SACD. There're now US$ 300 Multiformat-Players like the Sony UBP-X800 which can playback 4K-UHD/BD/DVD/SACD/CD and from USB. There're also Software-Player (e.g. Foobar2000) which output the SACD-Data via USB from the Computer to your DAC/Amp from ripped SACDs (which found their way illegally as an ISO-file into the Internet).
That is a slew of good vibe! I agree with you all the way, cept'ing I like Feel On Baby. I don't think there's a duff track on the album but if I were to criticize I'd be asking why they felt the need to to redo Soul Survivor?
Anyway, last great creative gasp and if it had sold a bit better we may have seen more creativity and less solo work but that was almost 40 years ago so oh well.
Gears ground to dust.
(ICGN)S - just wanted to blow your mind.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-14 05:24 by treaclefingers.
The entire Stones catalogue was mastered for iTunes in 2012.
[theseconddisc.com]
Bob Ludwig seems to hear a difference:
In Apple's calculation, mastering a song or album "for iTunes" means that it'll sound better while remaining just as portable as the encoded files we're accustomed to packing by the thousands onto our phones and mobile devices. For Bob Ludwig, a mastering engineer who remastered Coldplay's latest album, Mylo Xyloto, for the new "Mastered for iTunes" store, this makes sense. "From a technical viewpoint, there are cases where the lossy 24-bit AAC file would be superior to the lossless CD," Ludwig wrote in an email. "I did an early demonstration for some engineer friends of mine and the difference between the 'Mastered for iTunes' file I created and the one that was ripped from a 16-bit CD was easily heard on the little speakers on my MacBook Pro."
[www.npr.org]
I prefer Undercover to both Tattoo You and Emotional Rescue
.
Yes, almost all catalog of The Rolling Stones was MfiT, that is true. The thing is that all that process of MfiT is just a protocol.
You can read the description of the protocol thing here
[www.apple.com]
In short words:
All initial master files must be 24-bit 96kHz.
Initial master files should have at least 1 dB headroom to avoid clipping. Some interpret it as the whole album should be normalized using the same loudness settings.
Audio conversion to lossy 24-bit AAC should be done following special procedures to match the AAC version to the original 24-bit master as closely as possible.
Thus, the result of the conversion (no surprise here) strongly depends on the initial source. The rest are marketing tricks and personal perception of the music.
Technically, compressed lossy file can not be better than original uncompressed Hi-Res. But most of the end users will probably miss the differences on earbuds and laptop speakers (especially, if the initial mastering was far from audiophile standard).
GasLightStreet's post on page 1 of the thread was like this. Then it is obvious what was added as new text a couple of posts before this.
Just noticed this.
First off, an enormous glaring huge gargantuan error in saying Undercover Of The Night is "reminiscent" of any Jagger solo song.
Second of all, no Rolling Stones recording has been ruined by Jeff Beck.
I don't get that bullshit fake one above by Four Stone Walls.
Dunno if there's anything to be blown after my gears being ground. But I appreciate it!
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.[/quote]
Duff is in Guns 'N' Roses. A bit early, rather.
I can not comment, personally, on the Mastered For iTunes deal as a sound/listening comparison since I've barely ever used iTunes. I figured that the whole Apple deal is just their MP3 version of something and that, of course, regardless of what's marketed, it's no different than buying 'cage free eggs' from a grocery.
Wow...you seem pretty beat up. That's too tough. I wish you could feel on baby...you know, just give it a listen. It's not going to cost you too much blood. It must be hell going through what you are. Is it the girl that dumped you? She was hot! Oh man...the pain of love. What can I say, if it were socially acceptable I would wanna hold you before you go all the way down...to help you with your grief. I don't want you dealing with that undercover of the night.
EDIT! Strike everything I just said! That's crazy talk. I think I'm going mad!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-15 08:17 by treaclefingers.
Thank you? For reminding of all the crappy, never need to hear again in my life tracks? That they hadn't put together a coherent album since Some Girls, and wouldn't again until Steel Wheels? Their last great album? Thank?
You had me until just after you said Thank you...then you kinda went all incoherent and ended with declaring Steel Wheels their last great album. You need to lay off the sauce.
It really is one great track on STEEL WHEELS, the magic "Continental Drift". But that is all that there is, as far as greatness goes. Not alone enough to make STEEL WHEELS a great album, though.
My impression is that for a large minority, UNDERCOVER is considered as their latest great album.
What FSW was saying - but he had mistakenly replied to GLS's final remark prematurely -
is that Dirty Work is better than all of Voodoo Lounge ( mainly a turkey - which is an insult to turkeys) - and that Let's Work - the single - is better than most stuff on VL.
But ok - this is an Undercover thread.
Initially I thought it was a good to great album - but now not. Has not stood test of time. But the sessions sound good. Band working well together.
Keith didn't like the finished product.
I think he far preferred Dirty Work. As do I. It has more Life. Not still life either.
Eddy
To me there is a thread of continued and interrelated greatness through SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER. With a better reception to UNDERCOVER, that thread could have gone on and resulted in further albums in more or less the same vein. Somehow, UNDERCOVER, in that respect like EXILE ON MAIN STREET, is one of their less easily approchable albums. Maybe that was an unforseeable fatal fact at that junction in their career with the repeated need to renew their fanbase at large, and when much of the old generations of fans had become too lazy. Possible following albums might then have been more easily approchable. It was not be, however.
Instead reduced incentives to create new music and resulting increased disagreement on music contributed to a break down of the continued thread, and DIRTY WORK came about. Later on, the band reformed from almost disbandment. But from then, following albums became separate attempts with years in between. In that way, DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS (despite the great track "Continental Drift") and VOODOO LOUNGE (despite the almost great "Love Is Strong") were to constitute a slump in the recorded output by the Stones. Apparently another selection of songs among the available half-finished recorded material for VOODOO LOUNGE could have led to a better album. Later on, I think that I am not alone in regarding BRIDGES TO BABYLON as an album, verging on the semi-great, with at least some daring involved..
But I consider UNDERCOVER as THE album, when the Rolling Stones as a studio band at their last peak anew were at crossroads, but this time where the outcome was more than before partly outside their control.
If Dirty Work has "life", then it ain't one worth living I'm afraid.
In the first place, as I have also written elsewhere, the song is meant to be heard in relation to its middle instrumental part. That is, maybe the track is a piece of music as much as a song.
Secondly, I also find the verses attractive as such. They have got a feel and convey a mood, to me akin to "Can You Hear the Music". Apparently not to you, who from an Album talk thread also seem to appreciate that GHS-song almost as much as I do.
I think that's what's confusing. The Stones liked the Musicians of Jajouka part so much they used it for the three tours show intro but the Speed Of Light bit is waffly, really, unlike Can You Hear The Music or even If You Really Want To Be My Friend.
I find Too Much Blood to be much more interesting, especially Mick's talking, and the remixes were hilarious.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: Undercover - best sounding version?
Posted by:
it's_all_wrong
()
Date: November 13, 2021 07:07
Wow. I still can't believe they released those Universal CDs with such bad mastering. I first got really into my Stones fandom right around 2004-06 so I had most of the 2002 SACDs and 1994 Virgins by 2009
Re: Undercover - best sounding version?
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: November 13, 2021 09:06
Quote
ironbelly
ProfessorWolf, Norbert
You are welcome
Irix is absolutely right about SACD versions. If you are OK with SACD format and have access to streaming solutions try to find those HD versions. Otherwise, you will have a lot of fun tracking down the physical product on ebay and in record stores.
The list of 2002 SACD-hybrids is presented above. There were also Japanese only single layer SACD editions. But they are rare creatures, cost a lot and are hard to find outside Japan. 2002 SACD-hybrids that were in EU and USA are not that rare. I believe with a bit of luck you can find those below 15€ apiece for a single disc.
Here is complete list of Japanese only SACDs and SHM-CDs that came with flat transfer. Please be careful, there are cheaper Japanese SHM-CDs that came with 2009 Polydor/Universal remaster, the brickwalled one. So stick to the catalog numbers from this list to be sure you are getting the right disc/version.
Again, only 2020 re-issue is currently in print and can be ordered from cdjapan. The other are out of print and mostly sold out. You will need to track them down on the secondary market and (probably) pay a lot, especially for SACDs and live albums that were issued/sold in limited quantities.
my main cd player is a sony cdp-55 from 1986
which i guess is kinda looked down upon by audiophiles because of its mid 80's dac however i like it but i doubt it'll be capable of sacd playback though i'm intrigued by the technology and will keep an eye out for a capable player during my thrift store hunts
but i did get cbs copies of undercover, tattoo you, and sticky fingers for $2 each a couple days ago and listening to them in comparision with my 2009 universal undercover, sticky fingers and 2021 tattoo you with the above mentioned cd player and thru audio technica ath-m50x headphones i hands down prefer the cbs even for sticky fingers which i agree does sound a bit muddy but in a way that i like and think sounds right with the music thanks for the advice next i'm gonna see if i can get a copy of satanic on one them west german cds very intrigued by what that will sound like
Re: Undercover - best sounding version?
Posted by:
Irix
()
Date: November 13, 2021 11:00
Quote
ProfessorWolf
my main cd player is a sony cdp-55 from 1986 which i guess is kinda looked down upon by audiophiles because of its mid 80's dac however i like it but i doubt it'll be capable of sacd playback though i'm intrigued by the technology and will keep an eye out for a capable player during my thrift store hunts
SACD was introduced by Sony in 1999 and the first SACD-Player was the Sony SCD-1 (US$ 5000) from the same year. Still very expensive as a used device. To get the maximum sound-quality you also need an appropriate Amp as well as Speakers/Headphones which are in the same price-range like the SACD-Player. Normal CD-Players can only playback the CD-Layer of the Hybrid-SACD (Dual-Layer) and cannot playback the SACD-Layer of a Single-Layer SACD. There're now US$ 300 Multiformat-Players like the Sony UBP-X800 which can playback 4K-UHD/BD/DVD/SACD/CD and from USB. There're also Software-Player (e.g. Foobar2000) which output the SACD-Data via USB from the Computer to your DAC/Amp from ripped SACDs (which found their way illegally as an ISO-file into the Internet).
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: November 14, 2021 00:40
yeah thats a bit out of my price range but i'll keep an eye out for something that is
plus my receiver is a sony str-av47 from 1988 it great for me but kinda doubt it would allow me to hear much difference between normal cd and sacd
plus my receiver is a sony str-av47 from 1988 it great for me but kinda doubt it would allow me to hear much difference between normal cd and sacd
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
slew
()
Date: November 14, 2021 01:32
Undercover gets unfairly slagged in my opinion. This is the last time the Rolling Stones recorded as a viable relevant band. They took chances and did some different things. It's not Sticky Fingers but it's also not a bad album. Undercover of the Night is a brilliant song, She Was Hot is a fantastic fun piece of rock n roll that should be played live more often, Tie You Up has great guitar work, Wanna Hold You is not one of keith's best efforts, many like Feel On Baby I am not one of them, Too Much Blood is different and was a bold step for the Stones I have always liked it, Pretty Beat Up sounds unfinished, All The Way down and Too Tough are fun rocking tunes and It Must be Hell is classic filler. All in all a good if not great album. Over the years many of the so called albums that wer somehow called mediocre by so called critics like Goat's Head Soup, It's Only Rock N Roll, black and Blue, Emotional Rescue and Undercover have really drown on me. I think they are all very good albums and GHS is a great album! We grew so accustomed to near perfection that we measured everything by the "big four". to diss these albums or not listening folks are missing a lot of great music!
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 14, 2021 01:46
Quote
slew
Undercover gets unfairly slagged in my opinion. This is the last time the Rolling Stones recorded as a viable relevant band. They took chances and did some different things. It's not Sticky Fingers but it's also not a bad album. Undercover of the Night is a brilliant song, She Was Hot is a fantastic fun piece of rock n roll that should be played live more often, Tie You Up has great guitar work, Wanna Hold You is not one of keith's best efforts, many like Feel On Baby I am not one of them, Too Much Blood is different and was a bold step for the Stones I have always liked it, Pretty Beat Up sounds unfinished, All The Way down and Too Tough are fun rocking tunes and It Must be Hell is classic filler. All in all a good if not great album. Over the years many of the so called albums that wer somehow called mediocre by so called critics like Goat's Head Soup, It's Only Rock N Roll, black and Blue, Emotional Rescue and Undercover have really drown on me. I think they are all very good albums and GHS is a great album! We grew so accustomed to near perfection that we measured everything by the "big four". to diss these albums or not listening folks are missing a lot of great music!
That is a slew of good vibe! I agree with you all the way, cept'ing I like Feel On Baby. I don't think there's a duff track on the album but if I were to criticize I'd be asking why they felt the need to to redo Soul Survivor?
Anyway, last great creative gasp and if it had sold a bit better we may have seen more creativity and less solo work but that was almost 40 years ago so oh well.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 14, 2021 04:55
Quote
ryanpowQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Rocky DijonQuote
Elmo LewisQuote
Rocky Dijon
Undercover of the Night: 10/10
She Was Hot: 10/10
Tie You Up: 10/10
Wanna Hold You: 10/10
Feel On, Baby: 10/10
Too Much Blood: 6/10
Pretty Beat Up: 6/10
Too Tough: 9/10
All the Way Down: 10/10
It Must Be Hell: 9/10
Rocky, I respect your knowledge of the Stones, but you just rated Side One of UC as a perfect Stones side.......
You're right. I was too kind to Wanna Hold You. It should be 9/10.
Oh. So now it's UNDER COVER, eh? When did they change the title to 2 words?
If we were to take how we rate songs on an album as their position in their discography a lot of people's ratings might be considerably different. Rating songs within the context of an album can seem misleading... but it can also reveal how well the songs work on an album... in its context.
If that doesn't grind your gears enough, people sometimes use the acronym UCOTN for the title track.
Gears ground to dust.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 14, 2021 05:13
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
ryanpowQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Rocky DijonQuote
Elmo LewisQuote
Rocky Dijon
Undercover of the Night: 10/10
She Was Hot: 10/10
Tie You Up: 10/10
Wanna Hold You: 10/10
Feel On, Baby: 10/10
Too Much Blood: 6/10
Pretty Beat Up: 6/10
Too Tough: 9/10
All the Way Down: 10/10
It Must Be Hell: 9/10
Rocky, I respect your knowledge of the Stones, but you just rated Side One of UC as a perfect Stones side.......
You're right. I was too kind to Wanna Hold You. It should be 9/10.
Oh. So now it's UNDER COVER, eh? When did they change the title to 2 words?
If we were to take how we rate songs on an album as their position in their discography a lot of people's ratings might be considerably different. Rating songs within the context of an album can seem misleading... but it can also reveal how well the songs work on an album... in its context.
If that doesn't grind your gears enough, people sometimes use the acronym UCOTN for the title track.
Gears ground to dust.
(ICGN)S - just wanted to blow your mind.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-14 05:24 by treaclefingers.
Re: Undercover - best sounding version?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 14, 2021 05:13
Quote
IrixQuote
Jimmy C
Any idea what version above is streaming on Apple Music in their "Apple Digital Master" and "Lossless" format?
Probably the brickwalled 2009 Remaster, since it says: (P) 2012 Promotone B.V. -- [Music.Apple.com] .
You can test it by yourself: if all instruments in the Stones-Track have the same volume-level and a low dynamic range - then they're the brickwalled 2009 Remaster.
The entire Stones catalogue was mastered for iTunes in 2012.
[theseconddisc.com]
Bob Ludwig seems to hear a difference:
In Apple's calculation, mastering a song or album "for iTunes" means that it'll sound better while remaining just as portable as the encoded files we're accustomed to packing by the thousands onto our phones and mobile devices. For Bob Ludwig, a mastering engineer who remastered Coldplay's latest album, Mylo Xyloto, for the new "Mastered for iTunes" store, this makes sense. "From a technical viewpoint, there are cases where the lossy 24-bit AAC file would be superior to the lossless CD," Ludwig wrote in an email. "I did an early demonstration for some engineer friends of mine and the difference between the 'Mastered for iTunes' file I created and the one that was ripped from a 16-bit CD was easily heard on the little speakers on my MacBook Pro."
[www.npr.org]
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
it's_all_wrong
()
Date: November 14, 2021 10:15
Quote
slew
Undercover gets unfairly slagged in my opinion. This is the last time the Rolling Stones recorded as a viable relevant band. They took chances and did some different things. It's not Sticky Fingers but it's also not a bad album. Undercover of the Night is a brilliant song, She Was Hot is a fantastic fun piece of rock n roll that should be played live more often, Tie You Up has great guitar work, Wanna Hold You is not one of keith's best efforts, many like Feel On Baby I am not one of them, Too Much Blood is different and was a bold step for the Stones I have always liked it, Pretty Beat Up sounds unfinished, All The Way down and Too Tough are fun rocking tunes and It Must be Hell is classic filler. All in all a good if not great album. Over the years many of the so called albums that wer somehow called mediocre by so called critics like Goat's Head Soup, It's Only Rock N Roll, black and Blue, Emotional Rescue and Undercover have really drown on me. I think they are all very good albums and GHS is a great album! We grew so accustomed to near perfection that we measured everything by the "big four". to diss these albums or not listening folks are missing a lot of great music!
I prefer Undercover to both Tattoo You and Emotional Rescue
Re: Undercover - best sounding version?
Posted by:
ironbelly
()
Date: November 14, 2021 15:37
Oh, that release. There were a lot of discussions on that matter at music forums. Some even claim that MfiT files sound as good as original vinylQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
IrixQuote
Jimmy C
Any idea what version above is streaming on Apple Music in their "Apple Digital Master" and "Lossless" format?
Probably the brickwalled 2009 Remaster, since it says: (P) 2012 Promotone B.V. -- [Music.Apple.com] .
You can test it by yourself: if all instruments in the Stones-Track have the same volume-level and a low dynamic range - then they're the brickwalled 2009 Remaster.
The entire Stones catalogue was mastered for iTunes in 2012.
[theseconddisc.com]
Bob Ludwig seems to hear a difference:
In Apple's calculation, mastering a song or album "for iTunes" means that it'll sound better while remaining just as portable as the encoded files we're accustomed to packing by the thousands onto our phones and mobile devices. For Bob Ludwig, a mastering engineer who remastered Coldplay's latest album, Mylo Xyloto, for the new "Mastered for iTunes" store, this makes sense. "From a technical viewpoint, there are cases where the lossy 24-bit AAC file would be superior to the lossless CD," Ludwig wrote in an email. "I did an early demonstration for some engineer friends of mine and the difference between the 'Mastered for iTunes' file I created and the one that was ripped from a 16-bit CD was easily heard on the little speakers on my MacBook Pro."
[www.npr.org]
.Yes, almost all catalog of The Rolling Stones was MfiT, that is true. The thing is that all that process of MfiT is just a protocol.
You can read the description of the protocol thing here
[www.apple.com]
In short words:
All initial master files must be 24-bit 96kHz.
Initial master files should have at least 1 dB headroom to avoid clipping. Some interpret it as the whole album should be normalized using the same loudness settings.
Audio conversion to lossy 24-bit AAC should be done following special procedures to match the AAC version to the original 24-bit master as closely as possible.
Thus, the result of the conversion (no surprise here) strongly depends on the initial source. The rest are marketing tricks and personal perception of the music.
Technically, compressed lossy file can not be better than original uncompressed Hi-Res. But most of the end users will probably miss the differences on earbuds and laptop speakers (especially, if the initial mastering was far from audiophile standard)
.Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: November 15, 2021 01:37
Quote
GasLightStreetkQuote
matxilQuote
HMS
I wonder if there is really anybody around who likes Mick Jagger´s "Let´s Work". I guess not even Mick likes it.I remember I turned to stone, as I first heard it, I simply couldn´t believe what I heard. I felt incredibly ashamed for Mick, it's by far the lowest moment of his career.
I remember when it came out. I'd just recently become a Stones fan, whereas most of my friends only listened to new-wave. We were having some beers, watching MTV and then this "song" came on. A very embarrassing moment. I remember that one of my friends even said: "Oh well, it's not worse than the Stones". And what with Dirty Work that had just come out, I couldn't even blast him away with as much force as I'd've liked to.
Garbage.
All of Dirty Work is better than Voodoo Lounge.
And Teg's Work is better than most of it.
If that doesn't sum up DIRTY WORK as being as awful as it is nothing does.
Your friend was wrong, though - Let's Work is worse than all of DIRTY WORK.
And look at the lineage - DIRTY WORK, Let's Work... Rock And A Hard Place.
Awful. DIRTY WORK makes VOODOO LOUNGE seem like EXILE ON MAIN STREET.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 15, 2021 04:08
I don't think there's a duff track on the album.[/quote]
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: November 15, 2021 05:30
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
HMS
I wonder if there is really anybody around who likes Mick Jagger´s "Let´s Work". I guess not even Mick likes it.
I remember when it came out. I'd just recently become a Stones fan, whereas most of my friends only listened to new-wave. We were having some beers, watching MTV and then this "song" came on. A very embarrassing moment. I remember that one of my friends even said: "Oh well, it's not worse than the Stones". And what with Dirty Work that had just come out, I couldn't even blast him away with as much force as I'd've liked to.
If that doesn't sum up DIRTY WORK as being as awful as it is nothing does.
Your friend was wrong, though - Let's Work is worse than all of DIRTY WORK.
And look at the lineage - DIRTY WORK, Let's Work... Rock And A Hard Place.
Awful. DIRTY WORK makes VOODOO LOUNGE seem like EXILE ON MAIN STREET.
GasLightStreet's post on page 1 of the thread was like this. Then it is obvious what was added as new text a couple of posts before this.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 05:35
Quote
LuxuryStonesQuote
Come On
This album has a very even standard ... every song is a 3/5
Favorite: ' She was hot ' (or is it ' Feel On ... ' or ' All The Way.. ')
The sensational Promo Video:
Very reminiscent of Jagger' "let' s work". I like the latter better: it has a decent bridge, and of course, Mr Jeff Beck.
Just noticed this.
First off, an enormous glaring huge gargantuan error in saying Undercover Of The Night is "reminiscent" of any Jagger solo song.
Second of all, no Rolling Stones recording has been ruined by Jeff Beck.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 05:39
Quote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
HMS
I wonder if there is really anybody around who likes Mick Jagger´s "Let´s Work". I guess not even Mick likes it.
I remember when it came out. I'd just recently become a Stones fan, whereas most of my friends only listened to new-wave. We were having some beers, watching MTV and then this "song" came on. A very embarrassing moment. I remember that one of my friends even said: "Oh well, it's not worse than the Stones". And what with Dirty Work that had just come out, I couldn't even blast him away with as much force as I'd've liked to.
If that doesn't sum up DIRTY WORK as being as awful as it is nothing does.
Your friend was wrong, though - Let's Work is worse than all of DIRTY WORK.
And look at the lineage - DIRTY WORK, Let's Work... Rock And A Hard Place.
Awful. DIRTY WORK makes VOODOO LOUNGE seem like EXILE ON MAIN STREET.
GasLightStreet's post on page 1 of the thread was like this. Then it is obvious what was added as new text a couple of posts before this.
I don't get that bullshit fake one above by Four Stone Walls.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 05:41
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
ryanpowQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
Rocky DijonQuote
Elmo LewisQuote
Rocky Dijon
Undercover of the Night: 10/10
She Was Hot: 10/10
Tie You Up: 10/10
Wanna Hold You: 10/10
Feel On, Baby: 10/10
Too Much Blood: 6/10
Pretty Beat Up: 6/10
Too Tough: 9/10
All the Way Down: 10/10
It Must Be Hell: 9/10
Rocky, I respect your knowledge of the Stones, but you just rated Side One of UC as a perfect Stones side.......
You're right. I was too kind to Wanna Hold You. It should be 9/10.
Oh. So now it's UNDER COVER, eh? When did they change the title to 2 words?
If we were to take how we rate songs on an album as their position in their discography a lot of people's ratings might be considerably different. Rating songs within the context of an album can seem misleading... but it can also reveal how well the songs work on an album... in its context.
If that doesn't grind your gears enough, people sometimes use the acronym UCOTN for the title track.
Gears ground to dust.
(ICGN)S - just wanted to blow your mind.
Dunno if there's anything to be blown after my gears being ground. But I appreciate it!
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 05:43
Quote
24FPS
I don't think there's a duff track on the album.
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.[/quote]
Duff is in Guns 'N' Roses. A bit early, rather.
Re: Undercover - best sounding version?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 05:47
Quote
ironbellyOh, that release. There were a lot of discussions on that matter at music forums. Some even claim that MfiT files sound as good as original vinylQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
IrixQuote
Jimmy C
Any idea what version above is streaming on Apple Music in their "Apple Digital Master" and "Lossless" format?
Probably the brickwalled 2009 Remaster, since it says: (P) 2012 Promotone B.V. -- [Music.Apple.com] .
You can test it by yourself: if all instruments in the Stones-Track have the same volume-level and a low dynamic range - then they're the brickwalled 2009 Remaster.
The entire Stones catalogue was mastered for iTunes in 2012.
[theseconddisc.com]
Bob Ludwig seems to hear a difference:
In Apple's calculation, mastering a song or album "for iTunes" means that it'll sound better while remaining just as portable as the encoded files we're accustomed to packing by the thousands onto our phones and mobile devices. For Bob Ludwig, a mastering engineer who remastered Coldplay's latest album, Mylo Xyloto, for the new "Mastered for iTunes" store, this makes sense. "From a technical viewpoint, there are cases where the lossy 24-bit AAC file would be superior to the lossless CD," Ludwig wrote in an email. "I did an early demonstration for some engineer friends of mine and the difference between the 'Mastered for iTunes' file I created and the one that was ripped from a 16-bit CD was easily heard on the little speakers on my MacBook Pro."
[www.npr.org]
Yes, almost all catalog of The Rolling Stones was MfiT, that is true. The thing is that all that process of MfiT is just a protocol.
You can read the description of the protocol thing here
[www.apple.com]
In short words:
All initial master files must be 24-bit 96kHz.
Initial master files should have at least 1 dB headroom to avoid clipping. Some interpret it as the whole album should be normalized using the same loudness settings.
Audio conversion to lossy 24-bit AAC should be done following special procedures to match the AAC version to the original 24-bit master as closely as possible.
Thus, the result of the conversion (no surprise here) strongly depends on the initial source. The rest are marketing tricks and personal perception of the music.
Technically, compressed lossy file can not be better than original uncompressed Hi-Res. But most of the end users will probably miss the differences on earbuds and laptop speakers (especially, if the initial mastering was far from audiophile standard)
I can not comment, personally, on the Mastered For iTunes deal as a sound/listening comparison since I've barely ever used iTunes. I figured that the whole Apple deal is just their MP3 version of something and that, of course, regardless of what's marketed, it's no different than buying 'cage free eggs' from a grocery.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 15, 2021 08:16
Quote
24FPS
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.
Wow...you seem pretty beat up. That's too tough. I wish you could feel on baby...you know, just give it a listen. It's not going to cost you too much blood. It must be hell going through what you are. Is it the girl that dumped you? She was hot! Oh man...the pain of love. What can I say, if it were socially acceptable I would wanna hold you before you go all the way down...to help you with your grief. I don't want you dealing with that undercover of the night.
EDIT! Strike everything I just said! That's crazy talk. I think I'm going mad!
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2021-11-15 08:17 by treaclefingers.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
24FPS
()
Date: November 15, 2021 08:38
Quote
treaclefingersQuote
24FPS
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.
Wow...you seem pretty beat up. That's too tough. I wish you could feel on baby...you know, just give it a listen. It's not going to cost you too much blood. It must be hell going through what you are. Is it the girl that dumped you? She was hot! Oh man...the pain of love. What can I say, if it were socially acceptable I would wanna hold you before you go all the way down...to help you with your grief. I don't want you dealing with that undercover of the night.
EDIT! Strike everything I just said! That's crazy talk. I think I'm going mad!
Thank you? For reminding of all the crappy, never need to hear again in my life tracks? That they hadn't put together a coherent album since Some Girls, and wouldn't again until Steel Wheels? Their last great album? Thank?
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 15, 2021 08:54
Quote
24FPSQuote
treaclefingersQuote
24FPS
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.
Wow...you seem pretty beat up. That's too tough. I wish you could feel on baby...you know, just give it a listen. It's not going to cost you too much blood. It must be hell going through what you are. Is it the girl that dumped you? She was hot! Oh man...the pain of love. What can I say, if it were socially acceptable I would wanna hold you before you go all the way down...to help you with your grief. I don't want you dealing with that undercover of the night.
EDIT! Strike everything I just said! That's crazy talk. I think I'm going mad!
Thank you? For reminding of all the crappy, never need to hear again in my life tracks? That they hadn't put together a coherent album since Some Girls, and wouldn't again until Steel Wheels? Their last great album? Thank?
You had me until just after you said Thank you...then you kinda went all incoherent and ended with declaring Steel Wheels their last great album. You need to lay off the sauce.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: November 15, 2021 11:42
Quote
24FPSQuote
treaclefingersQuote
24FPS
After Undercover of the Night it's all duff.
Wow...you seem pretty beat up. That's too tough. I wish you could feel on baby...you know, just give it a listen. It's not going to cost you too much blood. It must be hell going through what you are. Is it the girl that dumped you? She was hot! Oh man...the pain of love. What can I say, if it were socially acceptable I would wanna hold you before you go all the way down...to help you with your grief. I don't want you dealing with that undercover of the night.
EDIT! Strike everything I just said! That's crazy talk. I think I'm going mad!
Thank you? For reminding of all the crappy, never need to hear again in my life tracks? That they hadn't put together a coherent album since Some Girls, and wouldn't again until Steel Wheels? Their last great album? Thank?
It really is one great track on STEEL WHEELS, the magic "Continental Drift". But that is all that there is, as far as greatness goes. Not alone enough to make STEEL WHEELS a great album, though.
My impression is that for a large minority, UNDERCOVER is considered as their latest great album.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: November 15, 2021 11:49
Terrifying and Almost Hear You Sigh are great, too, imo.
Hearts For Sale could have been great as well, but I don't like Mick's guitar on it.
I thought Undercover was great in 1983. Still think so. A nice mix of exciting new stuff and classic-sounding Stones-tunes.
Hearts For Sale could have been great as well, but I don't like Mick's guitar on it.
I thought Undercover was great in 1983. Still think so. A nice mix of exciting new stuff and classic-sounding Stones-tunes.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Four Stone Walls
()
Date: November 15, 2021 12:21
Quote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
HMS
I wonder if there is really anybody around who likes Mick Jagger´s "Let´s Work". I guess not even Mick likes it.
I remember when it came out. I'd just recently become a Stones fan, whereas most of my friends only listened to new-wave. We were having some beers, watching MTV and then this "song" came on. A very embarrassing moment. I remember that one of my friends even said: "Oh well, it's not worse than the Stones". And what with Dirty Work that had just come out, I couldn't even blast him away with as much force as I'd've liked to.
If that doesn't sum up DIRTY WORK as being as awful as it is nothing does.
Your friend was wrong, though - Let's Work is worse than all of DIRTY WORK.
And look at the lineage - DIRTY WORK, Let's Work... Rock And A Hard Place.
Awful. DIRTY WORK makes VOODOO LOUNGE seem like EXILE ON MAIN STREET.
GasLightStreet's post on page 1 of the thread was like this. Then it is obvious what was added as new text a couple of posts before this.
I don't get that bullshit fake one above by Four Stone Walls.
What FSW was saying - but he had mistakenly replied to GLS's final remark prematurely -
is that Dirty Work is better than all of Voodoo Lounge ( mainly a turkey - which is an insult to turkeys) - and that Let's Work - the single - is better than most stuff on VL.
But ok - this is an Undercover thread.
Initially I thought it was a good to great album - but now not. Has not stood test of time. But the sessions sound good. Band working well together.
Keith didn't like the finished product.
I think he far preferred Dirty Work. As do I. It has more Life. Not still life either.
Eddy
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: November 15, 2021 14:19
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
HMS
I wonder if there is really anybody around who likes Mick Jagger´s "Let´s Work". I guess not even Mick likes it.
I remember when it came out. I'd just recently become a Stones fan, whereas most of my friends only listened to new-wave. We were having some beers, watching MTV and then this "song" came on. A very embarrassing moment. I remember that one of my friends even said: "Oh well, it's not worse than the Stones". And what with Dirty Work that had just come out, I couldn't even blast him away with as much force as I'd've liked to.
If that doesn't sum up DIRTY WORK as being as awful as it is nothing does.
Your friend was wrong, though - Let's Work is worse than all of DIRTY WORK.
And look at the lineage - DIRTY WORK, Let's Work... Rock And A Hard Place.
Awful. DIRTY WORK makes VOODOO LOUNGE seem like EXILE ON MAIN STREET.
GasLightStreet's post on page 1 of the thread was like this. Then it is obvious what was added as new text a couple of posts before this.
I don't get that bullshit fake one above by Four Stone Walls.
What FSW was saying - but he had mistakenly replied to GLS's final remark prematurely -
is that Dirty Work is better than all of Voodoo Lounge ( mainly a turkey - which is an insult to turkeys) - and that Let's Work - the single - is better than most stuff on VL.
But ok - this is an Undercover thread.
Initially I thought it was a good to great album - but now not. Has not stood test of time. But the sessions sound good. Band working well together.
Keith didn't like the finished product.
I think he far preferred Dirty Work. As do I. It has more Life. Not still life either.
Eddy
To me there is a thread of continued and interrelated greatness through SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER. With a better reception to UNDERCOVER, that thread could have gone on and resulted in further albums in more or less the same vein. Somehow, UNDERCOVER, in that respect like EXILE ON MAIN STREET, is one of their less easily approchable albums. Maybe that was an unforseeable fatal fact at that junction in their career with the repeated need to renew their fanbase at large, and when much of the old generations of fans had become too lazy. Possible following albums might then have been more easily approchable. It was not be, however.
Instead reduced incentives to create new music and resulting increased disagreement on music contributed to a break down of the continued thread, and DIRTY WORK came about. Later on, the band reformed from almost disbandment. But from then, following albums became separate attempts with years in between. In that way, DIRTY WORK, STEEL WHEELS (despite the great track "Continental Drift") and VOODOO LOUNGE (despite the almost great "Love Is Strong") were to constitute a slump in the recorded output by the Stones. Apparently another selection of songs among the available half-finished recorded material for VOODOO LOUNGE could have led to a better album. Later on, I think that I am not alone in regarding BRIDGES TO BABYLON as an album, verging on the semi-great, with at least some daring involved..
But I consider UNDERCOVER as THE album, when the Rolling Stones as a studio band at their last peak anew were at crossroads, but this time where the outcome was more than before partly outside their control.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: November 15, 2021 17:55
Quote
Four Stone WallsQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreetQuote
matxilQuote
HMS
I wonder if there is really anybody around who likes Mick Jagger´s "Let´s Work". I guess not even Mick likes it.
I remember when it came out. I'd just recently become a Stones fan, whereas most of my friends only listened to new-wave. We were having some beers, watching MTV and then this "song" came on. A very embarrassing moment. I remember that one of my friends even said: "Oh well, it's not worse than the Stones". And what with Dirty Work that had just come out, I couldn't even blast him away with as much force as I'd've liked to.
If that doesn't sum up DIRTY WORK as being as awful as it is nothing does.
Your friend was wrong, though - Let's Work is worse than all of DIRTY WORK.
And look at the lineage - DIRTY WORK, Let's Work... Rock And A Hard Place.
Awful. DIRTY WORK makes VOODOO LOUNGE seem like EXILE ON MAIN STREET.
GasLightStreet's post on page 1 of the thread was like this. Then it is obvious what was added as new text a couple of posts before this.
I don't get that bullshit fake one above by Four Stone Walls.
What FSW was saying - but he had mistakenly replied to GLS's final remark prematurely -
is that Dirty Work is better than all of Voodoo Lounge ( mainly a turkey - which is an insult to turkeys) - and that Let's Work - the single - is better than most stuff on VL.
But ok - this is an Undercover thread.
Initially I thought it was a good to great album - but now not. Has not stood test of time. But the sessions sound good. Band working well together.
Keith didn't like the finished product.
I think he far preferred Dirty Work. As do I. It has more Life. Not still life either.
Eddy
If Dirty Work has "life", then it ain't one worth living I'm afraid.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 18:16
Having listened to the early versions of some UNDERCOVER songs and then the finished versions, quite amazing how they really charged them up. They got to work quite soon after the 1982 tour and came out with something fresh and different than SG and ER, since U is the proper the recording follow up to ER.
I listen to U more than probably any other Stones album if not as much as the other ones I listen to the most often, like GHS, TY, as well as IORR, BAB, LIB and SF on a more than others basis. Partially because of the jarring difference from all their other albums.
When people go on about how Continental Drift is great, they talking about the Mick solo song that precedes and postcedes the Musicians of Jajouka part? Never heard anything compelling about it.
I listen to U more than probably any other Stones album if not as much as the other ones I listen to the most often, like GHS, TY, as well as IORR, BAB, LIB and SF on a more than others basis. Partially because of the jarring difference from all their other albums.
When people go on about how Continental Drift is great, they talking about the Mick solo song that precedes and postcedes the Musicians of Jajouka part? Never heard anything compelling about it.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Witness
()
Date: November 15, 2021 19:09
Quote
GasLightStreet
.....
When people go on about how Continental Drift is great, they talking about the Mick solo song that precedes and postcedes the Musicians of Jajouka part? Never heard anything compelling about it.
In the first place, as I have also written elsewhere, the song is meant to be heard in relation to its middle instrumental part. That is, maybe the track is a piece of music as much as a song.
Secondly, I also find the verses attractive as such. They have got a feel and convey a mood, to me akin to "Can You Hear the Music". Apparently not to you, who from an Album talk thread also seem to appreciate that GHS-song almost as much as I do.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: November 15, 2021 20:28
Quote
WitnessQuote
GasLightStreet
.....
When people go on about how Continental Drift is great, they talking about the Mick solo song that precedes and postcedes the Musicians of Jajouka part? Never heard anything compelling about it.
In the first place, as I have also written elsewhere, the song is meant to be heard in relation to its middle instrumental part. That is, maybe the track is a piece of music as much as a song.
Secondly, I also find the verses attractive as such. They have got a feel and convey a mood, to me akin to "Can You Hear the Music". Apparently not to you, who from an Album talk thread also seem to appreciate that GHS-song almost as much as I do.
I think that's what's confusing. The Stones liked the Musicians of Jajouka part so much they used it for the three tours show intro but the Speed Of Light bit is waffly, really, unlike Can You Hear The Music or even If You Really Want To Be My Friend.
I find Too Much Blood to be much more interesting, especially Mick's talking, and the remixes were hilarious.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Andrew , Bashlets , emotionalbarbecue , fedecarp , GJV , jahisnotdead , Luisma11011 , souldoggie , StonedRambler , terukun , TumblinDice76
Guests:
1875
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10