Tell Me :
Talk
i've added a new link to the thread in my previos post
also it looks like someones already put it on youtube
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-04 20:11 by ProfessorWolf.
Easily in their top ten, 1971 onwards. The sixties had so many great albums that it would be more difficult to justify.
But for 71 onwards...top ten
Sticky/Exile (one and two, interchangeable depending on the day)
Tattoo You
Some Girls
Hackney Diamonds
Undercover
IORR
Emotional Rescue
Black and Blue
Steel Wheels
I know I've left out some good albums in that 10, GHS, ABB, Voodoo but some things gonna get bumped.
Having heard a number of outtakes, mostly ballads, none of them fit the "sound" and attitude the album has (as we know it, obviously). I Think I'm Going Mad is from the 1979 ER sessions and it's too bad it didn't make that album.
Too Tough is a leftover from the 1975 sessions although updated (they lied about everything being new).
They essentially recorded two albums and went with the dirty and driven songs. There's a lot going on in a majority of the songs and it's probably Jagger's best work vocally production wise.
It's a gem of an album. The dated elements work in context. Album three of four from France that started with SG and ER and ended with DW.
Listen to SG then ER - U follows a sonic idea that can be heard in some of ER's tracks. Since TY wasn't recorded for specifically, U is the proper follow up to ER.
Bill Wyman says in his ROLLING WITH THE STONES book that there was talk of a couple tours in 1984, which probably would've been more of a REWIND tour than UNDERCOVER but had they toured they probably would've played a few U songs. They've played 3 songs from U over the years, with UOTN getting the most play.
It's a good album that is a missed opportunity in regard to not touring it. It's possible some people would like whatever more or better as some times, like Imagination, hearing it live is better.
UNDERCOVER, given its 'newness' at the time with current production and instrumentation, is a great 45 minutes of inventive and different music (compared to their previous few albums, in general). Although She Was Hot and All The Way Down and Pretty Beat Up could probably fit on any album prior (It Must Be Hell basically is on a previous album), songs like Undercover Of The Night, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby and Too Much Blood are beyond anything they'd ever done.
An LP as a format (medium) has evolved. An LP is an album in any format (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, download, streaming). Long Player/album is generally considered to be 7 or more songs that are 35 to 60 minutes give or take. The context of the format has evolved beyond the vinyl LP and it's not just another way of saying strictly a vinyl album anymore - even though it's still used that way. People generally consider an LP to be a vinyl album.
Think of what Long Player means and the format doesn't matter - it's strictly about the length of time.
The limiting time allotment aspect of vinyl helped define the attention span for an album, which the compact disc obliterated in the 1990s (and now streaming has allowed it to get beyond stupid) but fortunately bands and artists are getting back to the more traditional time because, duh, less is better. Although 15-30 songs may be recorded, by keeping the running time down to 7-10 songs around 35-45 minutes, the focus is on quality (or it should be - it's subjective, of course, for the listener, not the band/artist).
It's overall 'average' to me, I think side 1 is great, but side 2 ...
Too Much Blood (which many seem to love), I could never get into it, and then Too Tough, All the Way Down, It Must Be Hell are all just average songs at best.
It is, however, far superior than Dirty Work, but definitely in my lower end of Stones albums.
...and similar things have been said about HD having a few too many contemporary production values.
I think some folks just like their Rolling Stones to be a bit rougher around the edges than we hear on these two respective albums.
I'm probably one of them...but I'm not saying what's right or wrong.
It's just differing tastes I think.
I was 13 when UNDERCOVER was released. I had long been exposed to LET IT BLEED, GYYYO! and the two HOT ROCKS.
I got TATTOO YOU (as well as AC\DC's FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK and Asia (?))around the time it came out, not knowing much about it other than "that song".
Didn't have access to MTV in 1981. I did in 1983. Heard the doo doo doo doo's in Undercover Of The Night and heard Heartbreaker on the bus... had no idea, bought UNDERCOVER, heard the doo doo doo doo song but not THE doo doo doo song.
Was extremely disappointed. Then an older friend said, No, it's from GOATS HEAD SOUP.
I didn't realize it at the time but I thought WTF!!!???
Got GHS for Christmas (no idea how my parents figured that one out) but by then had found UNDERCOVER to be a fantastic album.
GHS was a whole other road to travel. Not knowing any other context than what was prior, I was quite amazed that both albums were the same band that were LET IT BLEED etc.
My appreciation of UNDERCOVER was unhindered from their entire history. Which I can see why some people love DIRTY WORK. Bizarrely.
But history is always present. U is possibly equivalent to BETWEEN THE BUTTONS - a bizarre Stones album in line with. It had some interesting waters to be in: The Police's SYNCHRONICITY was huge. Def Leppard had PYROMANIA going on. Prince. Men At Work were huge. Of course, Jacko. Madonna. U2 were arriving. A few others, of course.
Not long after Tears For Fears.
That time frame of 1981-1984 was quite interesting. Such a huge change in how music was listened to thanks to MTV.
Three years later Harlem Shuffle had the hallways of high school talking about the Stones - until U2 took over a year later. After Harlem Shuffle ran its month course, zero about the Stones - it was mostly U2 and somewhat The Cult (oddly enough, ELECTIRC, not LOVE, was the rage). Then Def Leppard's HYSTERIA took over.
I never saw the Stones as... relics. I had no idea. Mick's solo albums were not talked about in high school.
Too old for the times?
No. The songs sucked.
The Stones had their moment with MTV: 5 videos from TATTOO YOU! Two years later two video versions of UOTN and then She Was Hot and Too Much Blood.
It's amazing how fast it went away yet amazingly intense regarding new artists.
Talk about your favorite band.
For information about how to use this forum please check out forum help and policies.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
JordyLicks96
()
Date: November 25, 2024 23:47
Love to see these session logs!! A lot of song titles haven't surfaced yet. One you've mentioned "Lizard Neck" has circulated. It's a reggaeish instrumental.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
emotionalbarbecue
()
Date: November 26, 2024 01:01
At the beginning of the 80s, the shift that took place in the music industry was of such magnitude that even if the Stones had released a new Exile, its impact would have been relatively limited. A different matter is the reception that the general public was in a position to give.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: January 1, 2025 20:34
glimmerman has shared another uncirculated outtake from the undercover sessions iorr
a sixteen minute bluesy number with mick improvising lyrics call "i'm so weak"
according to nico's website it's from the sessions at pate marconi in december of 1982
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-01 20:37 by ProfessorWolf.
a sixteen minute bluesy number with mick improvising lyrics call "i'm so weak"
according to nico's website it's from the sessions at pate marconi in december of 1982
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-01 20:37 by ProfessorWolf.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
bakersfield
()
Date: January 4, 2025 19:24
Hi can anyone post a fresh link please?
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: January 4, 2025 20:09
Quote
bakersfield
Hi can anyone post a fresh link please?
i've added a new link to the thread in my previos post
also it looks like someones already put it on youtube
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-01-04 20:11 by ProfessorWolf.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
MadMetaphoricalMax
()
Date: January 6, 2025 01:56
Unbelievably brilliant. Thank you for that link!!
Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
HardRiffin
()
Date: February 13, 2025 17:43
Undercover (alt. version)
[youtu.be]
She Was Hot (country version)
[youtu.be]
Wanna Hold You (alt.)
[youtu.be]
I think i'm going mad
[youtu.be]
Chainsaw Rocker
[youtu.be]
Dog Shit
[youtu.be]
Listening to the various outtakes/alternate versions of Undercover, i always thought it could have been a significantly better album.
What do you guys think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 17:44 by HardRiffin.
[youtu.be]
She Was Hot (country version)
[youtu.be]
Wanna Hold You (alt.)
[youtu.be]
I think i'm going mad
[youtu.be]
Chainsaw Rocker
[youtu.be]
Dog Shit
[youtu.be]
Listening to the various outtakes/alternate versions of Undercover, i always thought it could have been a significantly better album.
What do you guys think?
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 17:44 by HardRiffin.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
peoplewitheyes
()
Date: February 13, 2025 17:46
I think it's a fantastic album. It sounds hot, sweaty and sleazy. The extra percussion on many tracks and great hooks and middle-eights ('she's there when I close my eyes...') make it an excellent, cohesive piece of work.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 13, 2025 17:49
It's awesome as-is, though I welcome a 42 year anniversary release with a second slab of vinyl with these versions.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
kovach
()
Date: February 13, 2025 17:51
I loved the song Undercover when I heard it, still do. Liked Too Much Blood. Liked Wanna Hold You as just kind of a lazy pop rocker. The rest was ok.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
ProfessorWolf
()
Date: February 13, 2025 17:56
it's great as is (though there sure are a lot of fantastic outtakes)
the album with better outtakes then the album itself is dirty work
gonna be interesting to read what gaslightstreet has to say about this subject
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 17:58 by ProfessorWolf.
the album with better outtakes then the album itself is dirty work
gonna be interesting to read what gaslightstreet has to say about this subject
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 17:58 by ProfessorWolf.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
1962
()
Date: February 13, 2025 18:11
Good songs, but bad production, the demos and outtakes from the time sound much better. They adjusted the sound too much to the style of the 80s.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
Bashlets
()
Date: February 13, 2025 18:14
I know I’m in the minority on this board but Undercover is by far my least favorite studio album. Yes the out takes show it could have been much better
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
NashvilleBlues
()
Date: February 13, 2025 18:17
Both.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
liddas
()
Date: February 13, 2025 18:26
True that the sessions produced many great songs, alternate takes, great riffs or melodies which remained in the bin, but the limitations of the format (LP) require certain artistic choices to be made.
Depending on our subjective tastes, we - and not only us, also Micka and Keith had their arguments - might believe that with a different choice of songs or arrangements the album could have been better, but there will never will be the chance of counter-proof.
In any case it is fair to say that what was released remains an absolutely a great album. One of their best.
C
Depending on our subjective tastes, we - and not only us, also Micka and Keith had their arguments - might believe that with a different choice of songs or arrangements the album could have been better, but there will never will be the chance of counter-proof.
In any case it is fair to say that what was released remains an absolutely a great album. One of their best.
C
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
treaclefingers
()
Date: February 13, 2025 18:40
Quote
liddas
True that the sessions produced many great songs, alternate takes, great riffs or melodies which remained in the bin, but the limitations of the format (LP) require certain artistic choices to be made.
Depending on our subjective tastes, we - and not only us, also Micka and Keith had their arguments - might believe that with a different choice of songs or arrangements the album could have been better, but there will never will be the chance of counter-proof.
In any case it is fair to say that what was released remains an absolutely a great album. One of their best.
C
Easily in their top ten, 1971 onwards. The sixties had so many great albums that it would be more difficult to justify.
But for 71 onwards...top ten
Sticky/Exile (one and two, interchangeable depending on the day)
Tattoo You
Some Girls
Hackney Diamonds
Undercover
IORR
Emotional Rescue
Black and Blue
Steel Wheels
I know I've left out some good albums in that 10, GHS, ABB, Voodoo but some things gonna get bumped.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
Send It To me
()
Date: February 13, 2025 18:49
Probably my favorite post-Tattoo album. Songs are really good and the band sounds peak. Interesting, cohesive vibe.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
MrEcho
()
Date: February 13, 2025 19:17
One of my favorite albums by the band. Loved it then, still love it now.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
Room1009
()
Date: February 13, 2025 19:23
This was my entry point to The Stones. Still love it.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
More Hot Rocks
()
Date: February 13, 2025 19:44
Absolute garbage. Just like Undercover and Dirty Work.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 13, 2025 20:34
Quote
ProfessorWolf
it's great as is (though there sure are a lot of fantastic outtakes)
the album with better outtakes then the album itself is dirty work
gonna be interesting to read what gaslightstreet has to say about this subject
Having heard a number of outtakes, mostly ballads, none of them fit the "sound" and attitude the album has (as we know it, obviously). I Think I'm Going Mad is from the 1979 ER sessions and it's too bad it didn't make that album.
Too Tough is a leftover from the 1975 sessions although updated (they lied about everything being new).
They essentially recorded two albums and went with the dirty and driven songs. There's a lot going on in a majority of the songs and it's probably Jagger's best work vocally production wise.
It's a gem of an album. The dated elements work in context. Album three of four from France that started with SG and ER and ended with DW.
Listen to SG then ER - U follows a sonic idea that can be heard in some of ER's tracks. Since TY wasn't recorded for specifically, U is the proper follow up to ER.
Bill Wyman says in his ROLLING WITH THE STONES book that there was talk of a couple tours in 1984, which probably would've been more of a REWIND tour than UNDERCOVER but had they toured they probably would've played a few U songs. They've played 3 songs from U over the years, with UOTN getting the most play.
It's a good album that is a missed opportunity in regard to not touring it. It's possible some people would like whatever more or better as some times, like Imagination, hearing it live is better.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 13, 2025 20:38
It is a good album AND a missed opportunity...
But I think the latter holds on their early/mid 80's output generally (pl. TATTOO YOU). I think the general feature of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK is that they didn't quite know what they were doing. The talent was there for sure but they didn't know what to do with it. The eye of tiger was missing, so to say. A big reason for that - being out of focus - was that Mick and Keith couldn't agree at all how the Stones should sound like on The 80's (no many old act did either). So the albums were like desparate compromises, most likely the both Twins disliking the outcome.
But UNDERCOVER is what it is. Here at IORR overrated, but elsewhere underrated...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 20:42 by Doxa.
But I think the latter holds on their early/mid 80's output generally (pl. TATTOO YOU). I think the general feature of EMOTIONAL RESCUE, UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK is that they didn't quite know what they were doing. The talent was there for sure but they didn't know what to do with it. The eye of tiger was missing, so to say. A big reason for that - being out of focus - was that Mick and Keith couldn't agree at all how the Stones should sound like on The 80's (no many old act did either). So the albums were like desparate compromises, most likely the both Twins disliking the outcome.
But UNDERCOVER is what it is. Here at IORR overrated, but elsewhere underrated...
- Doxa
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-13 20:42 by Doxa.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 13, 2025 21:04
Quote
liddas
True that the sessions produced many great songs, alternate takes, great riffs or melodies which remained in the bin, but the limitations of the format (LP) require certain artistic choices to be made.
Depending on our subjective tastes, we - and not only us, also Micka and Keith had their arguments - might believe that with a different choice of songs or arrangements the album could have been better, but there will never will be the chance of counter-proof.
In any case it is fair to say that what was released remains an absolutely a great album. One of their best.
C
UNDERCOVER, given its 'newness' at the time with current production and instrumentation, is a great 45 minutes of inventive and different music (compared to their previous few albums, in general). Although She Was Hot and All The Way Down and Pretty Beat Up could probably fit on any album prior (It Must Be Hell basically is on a previous album), songs like Undercover Of The Night, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby and Too Much Blood are beyond anything they'd ever done.
An LP as a format (medium) has evolved. An LP is an album in any format (vinyl, 8-track, cassette, CD, download, streaming). Long Player/album is generally considered to be 7 or more songs that are 35 to 60 minutes give or take. The context of the format has evolved beyond the vinyl LP and it's not just another way of saying strictly a vinyl album anymore - even though it's still used that way. People generally consider an LP to be a vinyl album.
Think of what Long Player means and the format doesn't matter - it's strictly about the length of time.
The limiting time allotment aspect of vinyl helped define the attention span for an album, which the compact disc obliterated in the 1990s (and now streaming has allowed it to get beyond stupid) but fortunately bands and artists are getting back to the more traditional time because, duh, less is better. Although 15-30 songs may be recorded, by keeping the running time down to 7-10 songs around 35-45 minutes, the focus is on quality (or it should be - it's subjective, of course, for the listener, not the band/artist).
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
KeVvV2011
()
Date: February 13, 2025 21:50
I think Undercover has a few excellent highs, but also quite a few average tracks. I really like what Mick was going for with Undercover Of The Night and Too Much Blood in terms of songwriting. At the same time, I think the production is not great - it actually gets in the way of the groove of the songs. When I listen to the early demos of both songs, I can't help but feel like the tracks had way more potential.
Although it got panned a lot, I always quite liked She Was Hot too.
Although it got panned a lot, I always quite liked She Was Hot too.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: February 13, 2025 22:18
GasLightStreet is above talking about 'freshness' of UNDERCOVER. I have heard similar accounts here along the years - that of the album sounding contemporary, different, experimental, innovative, adventurous, the band reaching new waters, etc. Funnily, I have never really heard that. Of course I hear something novel compared to previous albums but not that this freshness really is any distinguished trait of this album. About any new Stones album is similar in that sense - one can hear novel, particular ideas applied here and there.
Probably that is to do that I was a fresh fan at the time of its release, a teenager who mostly listened to contemporary music, and compared a new Stones album more to what one heard on the radio at the time than to their previous efforts. So to those ears the album sounded like nothing but a good old familiar Rolling Stones just put up some make up (in sounds) to modernize it.. You know, some drum machine here and some other studio gimmicks there, Dunbar and Shakespiere adding their typical thing here and there... those were like house-hold cliches everyone was doing at the time. I think the only track that didn't sound like the Stones I was familiar with was "Too Much Blood". So if we exclude that tune, to me all of that non-familiar noise I hadn't heard before was just icing the cake, nothing substantial or that they would be really learning new tricks, updating their sound or something. I recall there were some dispute, especially among older fans, did those make ups and modern gimmicks suited to them or not. And I think that still today varies opinions - do those 80's gimmicks are tolerable or not.
So my take - still - is that the freshness factor in UNDERCOVER is easily over-rated... If one takes that album as them as trying bravely new things, reaching out somewhere, well... I think they basically were trying to sell pretty old (but mostly good) ideas in a new - rather obvious - form.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-14 02:03 by Doxa.
Probably that is to do that I was a fresh fan at the time of its release, a teenager who mostly listened to contemporary music, and compared a new Stones album more to what one heard on the radio at the time than to their previous efforts. So to those ears the album sounded like nothing but a good old familiar Rolling Stones just put up some make up (in sounds) to modernize it.. You know, some drum machine here and some other studio gimmicks there, Dunbar and Shakespiere adding their typical thing here and there... those were like house-hold cliches everyone was doing at the time. I think the only track that didn't sound like the Stones I was familiar with was "Too Much Blood". So if we exclude that tune, to me all of that non-familiar noise I hadn't heard before was just icing the cake, nothing substantial or that they would be really learning new tricks, updating their sound or something. I recall there were some dispute, especially among older fans, did those make ups and modern gimmicks suited to them or not. And I think that still today varies opinions - do those 80's gimmicks are tolerable or not.
So my take - still - is that the freshness factor in UNDERCOVER is easily over-rated... If one takes that album as them as trying bravely new things, reaching out somewhere, well... I think they basically were trying to sell pretty old (but mostly good) ideas in a new - rather obvious - form.
- Doxa
Edited 6 time(s). Last edit at 2025-02-14 02:03 by Doxa.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: February 13, 2025 23:19
Quote
Bashlets
I know I’m in the minority on this board but Undercover is by far my least favorite studio album. Yes the out takes show it could have been much better
It's overall 'average' to me, I think side 1 is great, but side 2 ...
Too Much Blood (which many seem to love), I could never get into it, and then Too Tough, All the Way Down, It Must Be Hell are all just average songs at best.
It is, however, far superior than Dirty Work, but definitely in my lower end of Stones albums.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
HardRiffin
()
Date: February 14, 2025 00:48
Quote
1962
Good songs, but bad production, the demos and outtakes from the time sound much better. They adjusted the sound too much to the style of the 80s.
Re: Undercover: good album or missed opportunitiy?
Posted by:
Spud
()
Date: February 14, 2025 09:42
Quote
HardRiffinQuote
1962
Good songs, but bad production, the demos and outtakes from the time sound much better. They adjusted the sound too much to the style of the 80s.
...and similar things have been said about HD having a few too many contemporary production values.
I think some folks just like their Rolling Stones to be a bit rougher around the edges than we hear on these two respective albums.
I'm probably one of them...but I'm not saying what's right or wrong.
It's just differing tastes I think.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
GasLightStreet
()
Date: February 14, 2025 09:46
Quote
Doxa
GasLightStreet is above talking about 'freshness' of UNDERCOVER. I have heard similar accounts here along the years - that of the album sounding contemporary, different, experimental, innovative, adventurous, the band reaching new waters, etc. Funnily, I have never really heard that. Of course I hear something novel compared to previous albums but not that this freshness really is any distinguished trait of this album. About any new Stones album is similar in that sense - one can hear novel, particular ideas applied here and there.
Probably that is to do that I was a fresh fan at the time of its release, a teenager who mostly listened to contemporary music, and compared a new Stones album more to what one heard on the radio at the time than to their previous efforts. So to those ears the album sounded like nothing but a good old familiar Rolling Stones just put up some make up (in sounds) to modernize it.. You know, some drum machine here and some other studio gimmicks there, Dunbar and Shakespiere adding their typical thing here and there... those were like house-hold cliches everyone was doing at the time. I think the only track that didn't sound like the Stones I was familiar with was "Too Much Blood". So if we exclude that tune, to me all of that non-familiar noise I hadn't heard before was just icing the cake, nothing substantial or that they would be really learning new tricks, updating their sound or something. I recall there were some dispute, especially among older fans, did those make ups and modern gimmicks suited to them or not. And I think that still today varies opinions - do those 80's gimmicks are tolerable or not.
So my take - still - is that the freshness factor in UNDERCOVER is easily over-rated... If one takes that album as them as trying bravely new things, reaching out somewhere, well... I think they basically were trying to sell pretty old (but mostly good) ideas in a new - rather obvious - form.
- Doxa
I was 13 when UNDERCOVER was released. I had long been exposed to LET IT BLEED, GYYYO! and the two HOT ROCKS.
I got TATTOO YOU (as well as AC\DC's FOR THOSE ABOUT TO ROCK and Asia (?))around the time it came out, not knowing much about it other than "that song".
Didn't have access to MTV in 1981. I did in 1983. Heard the doo doo doo doo's in Undercover Of The Night and heard Heartbreaker on the bus... had no idea, bought UNDERCOVER, heard the doo doo doo doo song but not THE doo doo doo song.
Was extremely disappointed. Then an older friend said, No, it's from GOATS HEAD SOUP.
I didn't realize it at the time but I thought WTF!!!???
Got GHS for Christmas (no idea how my parents figured that one out) but by then had found UNDERCOVER to be a fantastic album.
GHS was a whole other road to travel. Not knowing any other context than what was prior, I was quite amazed that both albums were the same band that were LET IT BLEED etc.
My appreciation of UNDERCOVER was unhindered from their entire history. Which I can see why some people love DIRTY WORK. Bizarrely.
But history is always present. U is possibly equivalent to BETWEEN THE BUTTONS - a bizarre Stones album in line with. It had some interesting waters to be in: The Police's SYNCHRONICITY was huge. Def Leppard had PYROMANIA going on. Prince. Men At Work were huge. Of course, Jacko. Madonna. U2 were arriving. A few others, of course.
Not long after Tears For Fears.
That time frame of 1981-1984 was quite interesting. Such a huge change in how music was listened to thanks to MTV.
Three years later Harlem Shuffle had the hallways of high school talking about the Stones - until U2 took over a year later. After Harlem Shuffle ran its month course, zero about the Stones - it was mostly U2 and somewhat The Cult (oddly enough, ELECTIRC, not LOVE, was the rage). Then Def Leppard's HYSTERIA took over.
I never saw the Stones as... relics. I had no idea. Mick's solo albums were not talked about in high school.
Too old for the times?
No. The songs sucked.
The Stones had their moment with MTV: 5 videos from TATTOO YOU! Two years later two video versions of UOTN and then She Was Hot and Too Much Blood.
It's amazing how fast it went away yet amazingly intense regarding new artists.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Guests:
1250
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10