Tell Me :
Talk
Same here. But for that reason I am grateful for Keith Richards showing that there is a point in that old concept, even though there is no money in it any longer...
- Doxa
Spot on with that. They seemed so inferior to the earlier stuff at the time but over the years have come to appreciate them for what they are, fun lil' rock n roll records.
Btw the 78-81 was commercially at least a high point for the band.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 22:28 by Moonshine.
Well, my favourites on Undercover are:
Tie You Up (the best track)
Undercover Of The Night
She Was Hot
Feel On Baby
Too Much Blood
Pretty Beat Up
All GREAT tracks, imo, but for various reasons:
I love the groove and the playing on Tie You Up and Pretty Beat Up.
I love the sonical atmosphere of Feel On Baby, which to me even surpasses Heaven in that department. The 12" is even better.
I love the catchiness of UOTN and She Was Hot
+1
I remember finally buying this album and it didnt feel lika an album at all. Black n blue sounded like Exile comparet to ER. I like it better now but the songs are weak. Shes so cold is great of course. Review 1980 Rolling Stone
Spot on.
definitely. but they are not deep cuts... so that kind of proves my point...
SG was loaded with singles. Which deep cuts are they playing on the radio? Just out of curiousity?
i would say that far away eyes, respectable, when the whip comes down, and just my imagination popped up on classic rock radio reasonably often in the 1990s-2000s.
i don't recall hearing anything other than she's so cold and ER off of ER.
OK, thanks. But they made videos for Far Away Eyes and Respectable and they were included on singles, so they are hardly deep cuts, imo. Imagination is a pretty well-known song anyhow. But it's very cool that they're playing Whip
I have heard Dance Pt. 1 on the radio a few times, but not too often unfortunately.. Then again, it was also a single, albeit not promoted too much..
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:02 by Doxa.
Were the lyrics on Undercover (The title track, Too Much Blood, All The Way Down) really that bad? I like them.
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
I think the lyrics to the song undercover are superb. i think there are some clever uses of color in too much blood and all the way down but other than that i don't think they were any better than, say, what your average 9th grader was probably writing on the inside flap of his or her Geometry textbook while waiting for the school bus to come.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:23 by Turner68.
Thanks for the in-depth exploration...
Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:43 by DandelionPowderman.
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
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:54 by DandelionPowderman.
Yep, and with critics/musical press. Are you able to come up with a review/article written during the 80's that praises the album?
If I could readjust my words, I would say the album, if had any reputation, was a rather bad one. But mostly it was ignored/forgotten. (And we have to remember that the Stones catalogue was a rather solid one still those days, before we were introduced to a series of rather mediocre albums (by those old standards). And even though I initially spoke only of myself, the tendency among Stones fans during these latter/web site days has been that of warming more to the album. That's my observation.
- Doxa
Not exactly praising the album, but I think this is a review many fans would give a nod to:
I hear Emotional Rescue as less of a half-assed stab at dance music than a whole-assed attempt to meet current sounds halfway.
Do I write so oddly that you really don't seem to get what I say? That article, written 2014, seems to claim the very same thing as I do: the album is better than its reputation; it "deserves" more, like they say. What those guys do is exactly the kind of re-thinking the value and significance of the album (they make some great points, by the way). This is how they see its traditional reputation:
But the rap on the Stones has always been that after Exile on Main Street, their work was more or less optional. Sure, there have been a few flashes of greatness on occasion (1978’s Some Girls remains rightly heralded, as is 1981’s Tattoo You, even if it is basically an odds-and-sods assortment of leftover tracks), but their post-1972 work has been generally viewed as a long, slow slide into irrelevance.
That’s partly why I’ve chosen the Rolling Stones’ 1980 album Emotional Rescue for this week’s Counterbalance. Lodged right between Some Girls and Tattoo You, Emotional Rescue has been generally written off, receiving tepid reviews when it was released and only-slightly-better ones now (when it isn’t simply lost in the shuffle). Today, it’s nowhere to be found on the Great List.
What it is so difficult that to accept that the album is now seen being better by many people than it has been traditionally - 80's, 90's - seen? This is what I claim, this is what about every review you have posted here claim.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 13:54 by Doxa.
I never understood that it was your opinion that the album has a better reputation today.
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:
Doxa
()
Date: September 23, 2015 20:28
Quote
DandelionPowderman
I hope I'm wrong of course
Same here. But for that reason I am grateful for Keith Richards showing that there is a point in that old concept, even though there is no money in it any longer...
- Doxa
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
HMS
()
Date: September 23, 2015 20:58
So if the album concept is "dying", why more albums than ever get released every week? Even the "Teenie-Music"-stars still release albums. Taylor Swift sells albums by the zillions. Other youngsters too. I cant see this concept dying, what concept should replace it? Making no more music or what? If a band has 12 songs written what should they do with them except recording them and release them as an album? Everybody to this day does it this way.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 23, 2015 21:01
Doxa, Dandelion, et al:
This topic is covered well by Keith in the song "slipping away" from 89, especially the last verse.
Rings more true now than ever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 21:12 by Turner68.
This topic is covered well by Keith in the song "slipping away" from 89, especially the last verse.
Rings more true now than ever.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 21:12 by Turner68.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Tate
()
Date: September 23, 2015 21:15
I don't think the album concept is dead. As long as bands go into the studio to create a cluster of songs, the album will survive. It went from the typical shorter LP to the often 70+ minute cd, and it survives today everywhere in between. Wilco just released a great 33 minute album. Fans get excited about an artist coming out with a new album, then using that new album as an excuse to tour. It will be a long time before that trend disappears, even if the physical medium continues to disappear. There will still be albums, streaming and otherwise, just like there are still novels and paintings.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Naturalust
()
Date: September 23, 2015 22:09
Count me among those who thought ER was crap when it came out. And pretty much all my rock and roll loving friends too. I assure you the record indeed suffered from street rock cred. although everybody I knew still owned a copy.
I actually though the same about Undercover too. It had nothing to do with Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood, just the songs and the way they were presented, perhaps it was a result of me just losing my total infatuation with the Stones newer music. Nothing that grabbed me on the emotion level of their earlier stuff, this new stuff just seemed trivial and less meaningful by comparison.
I have since come to like some of the songs on both records, not in the same way I grew into loving Exile, but more of a listening to them with a different ear or something, perhaps less judgmental and needing to be blown away like some of the earlier records did, up to and including Some Girls.
And pretty much all my rock and roll loving friends too. I assure you the record indeed suffered from street rock cred. although everybody I knew still owned a copy.I actually though the same about Undercover too. It had nothing to do with Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood, just the songs and the way they were presented, perhaps it was a result of me just losing my total infatuation with the Stones newer music. Nothing that grabbed me on the emotion level of their earlier stuff, this new stuff just seemed trivial and less meaningful by comparison.
I have since come to like some of the songs on both records, not in the same way I grew into loving Exile, but more of a listening to them with a different ear or something, perhaps less judgmental and needing to be blown away like some of the earlier records did, up to and including Some Girls.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Moonshine
()
Date: September 23, 2015 22:17
Quote
Naturalust
Count me among those who thought ER was crap when it came out.
I actually though the same about Undercover too. It had nothing to do with Mick Taylor or Ronnie Wood, just the songs and the way they were presented, perhaps it was a result of me just losing my total infatuation with the Stones newer music. Nothing that grabbed me on the emotion level of their earlier stuff, this new stuff just seemed trivial and less meaningful by comparison.
I have since come to like some of the songs on both records, not in the same way I grew into loving Exile, but more of a listening to them with a different ear or something, perhaps less judgmental and needing to be blown away like some of the earlier records did, up to and including Some Girls.
Spot on with that. They seemed so inferior to the earlier stuff at the time but over the years have come to appreciate them for what they are, fun lil' rock n roll records.
Btw the 78-81 was commercially at least a high point for the band.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-23 22:28 by Moonshine.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 24, 2015 11:21
Undercover was a brave record. It was't just that Mick wanted the Stones to sound current. That, too, of course, but they really tried making some new music here.
As many have pointed out, Undercover was the real follow up to Emotional Rescue, as Tattoo You mainly has songs from the brilliant SG/ER sessions. Whereas they played around with different styles on ER, too, they kept their sound on that record. On Undercover they sort of approached further more modern guitar effects, percussive elements, Sly and Robbie and even fresh hip hop-stuff. Although we only hear this on 3 or 4 songs on the album, the impression sticks and we tend to think of drum machines, analog delays and mini-synths when someone mentions the album.
Funnily, there are even more songs that function as the antithesis of these production methods on the album: Tie You Up (Yeah, I haven't forgotten the percussion, but it's so sparsely done that I choose to ignore it), Wanna Hold You, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough (same there), All The Way Down and It Must Be Hell are all old school-Stones – even more than that of the tracks on SG and ER.
The main reason, though, that I still love this album is Mick Jagger. He sings so good on Undercover that it's almost unbelievable! I'm tempted to say it's his best singing on any Stones album.
In a way, it's also a Keith album where he dominates the guitar department like he should do. The rhythm guitars on She Was Hot, the solos on Tie You Up, the open G stuff on Too Tough and It Must Be Hell.
There is no doubt: Undercover is heavily under-appreciated. We don't really have to compare it with anything. It's just good
Just some off the cuff-thoughts..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-24 11:26 by DandelionPowderman.
As many have pointed out, Undercover was the real follow up to Emotional Rescue, as Tattoo You mainly has songs from the brilliant SG/ER sessions. Whereas they played around with different styles on ER, too, they kept their sound on that record. On Undercover they sort of approached further more modern guitar effects, percussive elements, Sly and Robbie and even fresh hip hop-stuff. Although we only hear this on 3 or 4 songs on the album, the impression sticks and we tend to think of drum machines, analog delays and mini-synths when someone mentions the album.
Funnily, there are even more songs that function as the antithesis of these production methods on the album: Tie You Up (Yeah, I haven't forgotten the percussion, but it's so sparsely done that I choose to ignore it), Wanna Hold You, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough (same there), All The Way Down and It Must Be Hell are all old school-Stones – even more than that of the tracks on SG and ER.
The main reason, though, that I still love this album is Mick Jagger. He sings so good on Undercover that it's almost unbelievable! I'm tempted to say it's his best singing on any Stones album.
In a way, it's also a Keith album where he dominates the guitar department like he should do. The rhythm guitars on She Was Hot, the solos on Tie You Up, the open G stuff on Too Tough and It Must Be Hell.
There is no doubt: Undercover is heavily under-appreciated. We don't really have to compare it with anything. It's just good
Just some off the cuff-thoughts..
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-24 11:26 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 24, 2015 11:52
I agree that it was a brave record, that Mick sang well, and that Keith played well. Somehow it didn't pull together IMO and I guess also for me at least the issue is that the songwriting wasn't totally there.
I really think that She Was Hot was the only song that could earn a place on "Some Girls" for example.
I'm curious to know which others you think would? I am trying to have an open mind about Undercover because I'd love to "discover" another great stones album :-)
I really think that She Was Hot was the only song that could earn a place on "Some Girls" for example.
I'm curious to know which others you think would? I am trying to have an open mind about Undercover because I'd love to "discover" another great stones album :-)
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 24, 2015 12:06
Quote
Turner68
I agree that it was a brave record, that Mick sang well, and that Keith played well. Somehow it didn't pull together IMO and I guess also for me at least the issue is that the songwriting wasn't totally there.
I really think that She Was Hot was the only song that could earn a place on "Some Girls" for example.
I'm curious to know which others you think would? I am trying to have an open mind about Undercover because I'd love to "discover" another great stones album :-)
Well, my favourites on Undercover are:
Tie You Up (the best track)
Undercover Of The Night
She Was Hot
Feel On Baby
Too Much Blood
Pretty Beat Up
All GREAT tracks, imo, but for various reasons:
I love the groove and the playing on Tie You Up and Pretty Beat Up.
I love the sonical atmosphere of Feel On Baby, which to me even surpasses Heaven in that department. The 12" is even better.
I love the catchiness of UOTN and She Was Hot
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
LeonidP
()
Date: September 28, 2015 05:39
FYI, I don't see it get mentioned much but...
Wanna Hold You, original UK LP version is slightly longer and has a full extra verse than the US LP version.
I'm not sure how CDs handled that, I have an mp3 of both versions, but can't say for sure if they were album rips or not.
Wanna Hold You, original UK LP version is slightly longer and has a full extra verse than the US LP version.
I'm not sure how CDs handled that, I have an mp3 of both versions, but can't say for sure if they were album rips or not.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: September 28, 2015 10:28
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowderman
Taken from Wiki, which describes the album's reception and sales:
Release and reception:
Released in June with the disco-infused hit title track as the lead single, Emotional Rescue was an immediate smash. The title track hit No. 3 on the Billboard Hot 100. The album gave the Rolling Stones their first UK No. 1 album since 1973's Goats Head Soup and spent seven weeks atop the US charts. The follow-up single "She's So Cold" was a top 30 hit while "Dance Pt. 1" reached No. 9 on Billboard's Dance chart.
Just to put things in perspective, Emotional Rescue was a huge success for the Stones, just like SG and TY were. So, at the time, there weren't really a huge disappointment and any bad reputation.
Mostly, the people who don't like ER are people who miss Taylor, and can't stand the Stones without him – in the bigger picture that's a marginal group of the total amount of fans.
But the group who BOTH miss Taylor AND can appreciate a good Stones record when they hear one is way larger. That's my experience anyway
I wasn't talking about its commercial success; it did sell damn well (as did, and even better, GOATS HEAD SOUP, or STEEL WHEELS and VOODOO LOUNGE if you like, by the way), but about a half what SOME GIRLS did (to put things in perspective). No, I was about talking about the reception (its 'legacy') after its heyday, what impact it had in a longer run, and recalling what the musical press and, yeah, Stones fans, were thinking at the time (from the times I started reflect these kind of things, from 1981/82 on). It was clear at the time that the title track, a hit single yeah, didn't turn out to be any kind of Stones classic to be remembered, a'la "Miss You" or "Start Me Up", but more like a flavor of the month kind of thing. As, say, "Undercover of THe Night" would turn out to be.
And then, what the hell you are talking about that Taylorite crap here?
The paragraph
Mostly, the people who don't like ER are people who miss Taylor, and can't stand the Stones without him – in the bigger picture that's a marginal group of the total amount of fans.
is, to use Mathijs' favourite expression, total bollocks, and, with respect, tells more about yourself and your personal problems with Taylorites/Taylor. Please, get over it, for god sakes! Not EVERYTHING is some sort of Taylor/Wood-battle. You don't need to everytime defend 'Wood-era' and attack people preferring Taylor-era or turn the discussion there.
At the time I get to know EMOTIONAL RESCUE in early 80's (purchased it in January 1982; it was my second or third Stones album I think - easy to get, since there were lots of non-sold copies available, costing next to nothing), I didn't know anything about these era-battles, but it was quite easy to notice, consulting my own taste and the musical press, that it - like BLACK AND BLUE (to get one more Ronnie-involved album) - wasn't such a strong and important album as SOME GIRLS and then the latest TATTOO YOU were. 'Everybody' through the 80's seem to still talk about SOME GIRLS, but EMOTIONAL RESCUE sounded like a forgotten piece. If in your world, then and now, those three (or four) albums were/are equal hailed masterpieces, let it be so. I do/did see there some differences, and I think many others do/did as well. If it says anything of its impact to the collective memory of the musical world, I don't think EMOTIONAL RESCUE is very high in the list of upcoming Deluxe albums (which is a shame).
- Doxa
+1
I remember finally buying this album and it didnt feel lika an album at all. Black n blue sounded like Exile comparet to ER. I like it better now but the songs are weak. Shes so cold is great of course. Review 1980 Rolling Stone
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Redhotcarpet
()
Date: September 28, 2015 10:31
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
Why did Emotional Rescue have «a bad reputation»? Never heard that before. It usually is among every Stones fan's top 8-10 albums.
In the U.S. In the 80s and 90s it was considered an awful mistake amongst reviewers and most stones fans I talked to. I don't know if that has changed.
Its good sales were chalked up to demand generated from some girls success.
On the radio ever since you can hear deep cuts from some girls but never emotional rescue.
Tattoo You was considered a "comeback" album.
Spot on.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 10:49
<On the radio ever since you can hear deep cuts from some girls but never emotional rescue.>
I'm pretty sure you'll hear She's So Cold and ER just as much as you'll hear Lies and Far Away Eyes
I'm pretty sure you'll hear She's So Cold and ER just as much as you'll hear Lies and Far Away Eyes
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 28, 2015 11:27
Quote
DandelionPowderman
<On the radio ever since you can hear deep cuts from some girls but never emotional rescue.>
I'm pretty sure you'll hear She's So Cold and ER just as much as you'll hear Lies and Far Away Eyes
definitely. but they are not deep cuts... so that kind of proves my point...
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 11:38
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
<On the radio ever since you can hear deep cuts from some girls but never emotional rescue.>
I'm pretty sure you'll hear She's So Cold and ER just as much as you'll hear Lies and Far Away Eyes
definitely. but they are not deep cuts... so that kind of proves my point...
SG was loaded with singles. Which deep cuts are they playing on the radio? Just out of curiousity?
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 28, 2015 11:45
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
<On the radio ever since you can hear deep cuts from some girls but never emotional rescue.>
I'm pretty sure you'll hear She's So Cold and ER just as much as you'll hear Lies and Far Away Eyes
definitely. but they are not deep cuts... so that kind of proves my point...
SG was loaded with singles. Which deep cuts are they playing on the radio? Just out of curiousity?
i would say that far away eyes, respectable, when the whip comes down, and just my imagination popped up on classic rock radio reasonably often in the 1990s-2000s.
i don't recall hearing anything other than she's so cold and ER off of ER.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 11:53
Quote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Turner68Quote
DandelionPowderman
<On the radio ever since you can hear deep cuts from some girls but never emotional rescue.>
I'm pretty sure you'll hear She's So Cold and ER just as much as you'll hear Lies and Far Away Eyes
definitely. but they are not deep cuts... so that kind of proves my point...
SG was loaded with singles. Which deep cuts are they playing on the radio? Just out of curiousity?
i would say that far away eyes, respectable, when the whip comes down, and just my imagination popped up on classic rock radio reasonably often in the 1990s-2000s.
i don't recall hearing anything other than she's so cold and ER off of ER.
OK, thanks. But they made videos for Far Away Eyes and Respectable and they were included on singles, so they are hardly deep cuts, imo. Imagination is a pretty well-known song anyhow. But it's very cool that they're playing Whip
I have heard Dance Pt. 1 on the radio a few times, but not too often unfortunately.. Then again, it was also a single, albeit not promoted too much..
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:01
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
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:02 by Doxa.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:06
I think these reviews from fans reflect the album and its reputation in a better way:
[www.keno.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
[www.keno.org]
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:06 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:16
Going through these albums one by one thanks to Dandelion is really causing me to view the arc of the Stones differently. What I've found is that the most noticeable decline - by far - is the quality of lyrics. In the past, I never really was able to separate the lyrics from the rest of the song.
If you listen to the lyric of Rocks Off, Sweet Virginia or even Tumbling Dice it's clear that lots of hard work was put in to come up with clever, interesting, poignant things to say and if none of the above then at least a little color. If you listen to Dance Part 1, Indian Girl, Too Tough, Fight, or Winning Ugly, it's as if they just weren't even trying to write interesting lyrics any more.
It's not so clear to me that the band declined nearly as precipitously musically. Sure, they had fewer new tricks up their sleeve, but I can't think of a record where the musical performances are anywhere near as bad as the lyrics on albums like emotional rescue, undercover, or dirty work. I am including Mick's singing when I say musical performance - I think his singing didn't get worse, and in some ways it got a lot better - but the lyrics really really declined in quality.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:18 by Turner68.
If you listen to the lyric of Rocks Off, Sweet Virginia or even Tumbling Dice it's clear that lots of hard work was put in to come up with clever, interesting, poignant things to say and if none of the above then at least a little color. If you listen to Dance Part 1, Indian Girl, Too Tough, Fight, or Winning Ugly, it's as if they just weren't even trying to write interesting lyrics any more.
It's not so clear to me that the band declined nearly as precipitously musically. Sure, they had fewer new tricks up their sleeve, but I can't think of a record where the musical performances are anywhere near as bad as the lyrics on albums like emotional rescue, undercover, or dirty work. I am including Mick's singing when I say musical performance - I think his singing didn't get worse, and in some ways it got a lot better - but the lyrics really really declined in quality.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:18 by Turner68.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:17
Quote
Turner68
Going through these albums one by one thanks to Dandelion is really causing me to view the arc of the Stones differently. What I've found is that the most noticeable decline - by far - is the quality of lyrics. In the past, I never really was able to separate the lyrics from the rest of the song.
If you listen to the lyric of Rocks Off, Sweet Virginia or even Tumbling Dice it's clear that lots of hard work was put in to come up with clever, interesting, poignant things to say and if none of the above then at least a little color.
It's not so clear to me that the band declined nearly as precipitously musically. Sure, they had fewer new tricks up their sleeve, but I can't think of a record where the musical performances are anywhere near as bad as the lyrics on albums like emotional rescue, undercover, or dirty work. I am including Mick's singing when I say musical performance - I think his singing didn't get worse, and in some ways it got a lot better - but the lyrics really really declined in quality.
Were the lyrics on Undercover (The title track, Too Much Blood, All The Way Down) really that bad? I like them.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:18
Quote
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
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Turner68
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:22
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
Turner68
Going through these albums one by one thanks to Dandelion is really causing me to view the arc of the Stones differently. What I've found is that the most noticeable decline - by far - is the quality of lyrics. In the past, I never really was able to separate the lyrics from the rest of the song.
If you listen to the lyric of Rocks Off, Sweet Virginia or even Tumbling Dice it's clear that lots of hard work was put in to come up with clever, interesting, poignant things to say and if none of the above then at least a little color.
It's not so clear to me that the band declined nearly as precipitously musically. Sure, they had fewer new tricks up their sleeve, but I can't think of a record where the musical performances are anywhere near as bad as the lyrics on albums like emotional rescue, undercover, or dirty work. I am including Mick's singing when I say musical performance - I think his singing didn't get worse, and in some ways it got a lot better - but the lyrics really really declined in quality.
Were the lyrics on Undercover (The title track, Too Much Blood, All The Way Down) really that bad? I like them.
I think the lyrics to the song undercover are superb. i think there are some clever uses of color in too much blood and all the way down but other than that i don't think they were any better than, say, what your average 9th grader was probably writing on the inside flap of his or her Geometry textbook while waiting for the school bus to come.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:23 by Turner68.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:41
Quote
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...
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:43 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:43
Quote
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
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:50
Quote
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
Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 12:54 by DandelionPowderman.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 28, 2015 12:52
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...
Yep, and with critics/musical press. Are you able to come up with a review/article written during the 80's that praises the album?
If I could readjust my words, I would say the album, if had any reputation, was a rather bad one. But mostly it was ignored/forgotten. (And we have to remember that the Stones catalogue was a rather solid one still those days, before we were introduced to a series of rather mediocre albums (by those old standards). And even though I initially spoke only of myself, the tendency among Stones fans during these latter/web site days has been that of warming more to the album. That's my observation.
- Doxa
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 13:03
Quote
DoxaQuote
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...
Yep, and with critics/musical press. Are you able to come up with a review/article written during the 80's that praises the album?
If I could readjust my words, I would say the album, if had any reputation, was a rather bad one. But mostly it was ignored/forgotten. (And we have to remember that the Stones catalogue was a rather solid one still those days, before we were introduced to a series of rather mediocre albums (by those old standards). And even though I initially spoke only of myself, the tendency among Stones fans during these latter/web site days has been that of warming more to the album. That's my observation.
- Doxa
Not exactly praising the album, but I think this is a review many fans would give a nod to:
I hear Emotional Rescue as less of a half-assed stab at dance music than a whole-assed attempt to meet current sounds halfway.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
Doxa
()
Date: September 28, 2015 13:49
Quote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
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...
Yep, and with critics/musical press. Are you able to come up with a review/article written during the 80's that praises the album?
If I could readjust my words, I would say the album, if had any reputation, was a rather bad one. But mostly it was ignored/forgotten. (And we have to remember that the Stones catalogue was a rather solid one still those days, before we were introduced to a series of rather mediocre albums (by those old standards). And even though I initially spoke only of myself, the tendency among Stones fans during these latter/web site days has been that of warming more to the album. That's my observation.
- Doxa
Not exactly praising the album, but I think this is a review many fans would give a nod to:
I hear Emotional Rescue as less of a half-assed stab at dance music than a whole-assed attempt to meet current sounds halfway.
Do I write so oddly that you really don't seem to get what I say? That article, written 2014, seems to claim the very same thing as I do: the album is better than its reputation; it "deserves" more, like they say. What those guys do is exactly the kind of re-thinking the value and significance of the album (they make some great points, by the way). This is how they see its traditional reputation:
But the rap on the Stones has always been that after Exile on Main Street, their work was more or less optional. Sure, there have been a few flashes of greatness on occasion (1978’s Some Girls remains rightly heralded, as is 1981’s Tattoo You, even if it is basically an odds-and-sods assortment of leftover tracks), but their post-1972 work has been generally viewed as a long, slow slide into irrelevance.
That’s partly why I’ve chosen the Rolling Stones’ 1980 album Emotional Rescue for this week’s Counterbalance. Lodged right between Some Girls and Tattoo You, Emotional Rescue has been generally written off, receiving tepid reviews when it was released and only-slightly-better ones now (when it isn’t simply lost in the shuffle). Today, it’s nowhere to be found on the Great List.
What it is so difficult that to accept that the album is now seen being better by many people than it has been traditionally - 80's, 90's - seen? This is what I claim, this is what about every review you have posted here claim.
- Doxa
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 13:54 by Doxa.
Re: ALBUM TALK: Undercover
Posted by:
DandelionPowderman
()
Date: September 28, 2015 13:57
Quote
DoxaQuote
DandelionPowdermanQuote
DoxaQuote
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...
Yep, and with critics/musical press. Are you able to come up with a review/article written during the 80's that praises the album?
If I could readjust my words, I would say the album, if had any reputation, was a rather bad one. But mostly it was ignored/forgotten. (And we have to remember that the Stones catalogue was a rather solid one still those days, before we were introduced to a series of rather mediocre albums (by those old standards). And even though I initially spoke only of myself, the tendency among Stones fans during these latter/web site days has been that of warming more to the album. That's my observation.
- Doxa
Not exactly praising the album, but I think this is a review many fans would give a nod to:
I hear Emotional Rescue as less of a half-assed stab at dance music than a whole-assed attempt to meet current sounds halfway.
Do I write so oddly that you really don't seem to get what I say? That article, written 2014, seems to claim the very same thing as I do: the album is better than its reputation; it "deserves" more, like they say. What those guys do is exactly the kind of re-thinking the value and significance of the album (they make some great points, by the way). This is how they see its traditional reputation:
But the rap on the Stones has always been that after Exile on Main Street, their work was more or less optional. Sure, there have been a few flashes of greatness on occasion (1978’s Some Girls remains rightly heralded, as is 1981’s Tattoo You, even if it is basically an odds-and-sods assortment of leftover tracks), but their post-1972 work has been generally viewed as a long, slow slide into irrelevance.
That’s partly why I’ve chosen the Rolling Stones’ 1980 album Emotional Rescue for this week’s Counterbalance. Lodged right between Some Girls and Tattoo You, Emotional Rescue has been generally written off, receiving tepid reviews when it was released and only-slightly-better ones now (when it isn’t simply lost in the shuffle). Today, it’s nowhere to be found on the Great List.
What it is so difficult that to accept that the album is now seen better than it has been traditionally - 80's, 90's - seen? This is what I claim, this is what about every review you have posted here claim.
- Doxa
I never understood that it was your opinion that the album has a better reputation today.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Online Users
Christiaan , DiamondDog7 , Fuman2 , Harry , Jeter1984 , jp.M , juano , letitloose6 , micha063 , MingSubu , Papo , rastakeith , RollstoDRSC , rootsman , sandandglue , spunky , StonedRambler , StonyRoad , TeddyB1018 , TheBluesHadaBaby , TW2019 , wupperstein
Guests:
2488
Record Number of Users:
206
on June 1, 2022 23:50
Record Number of Guests:
9627
on January 2, 2024 23:10