Quote
Doxa

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Review 1980 Rolling Stone

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

Yup. He competed with Mick. I guess Mick was demanding Keith stop dabbling with H "or the Stones are history and dont try to take control, Im in charge". TY was Micks last Stones album perhaps. Maybe that was his plan. And then Keith stopped in 1980 and they could actually tour in 1981-1982. And make money and be huge and relevant again.
ER is almost DWs embryo. Not musically but psychologically. Beginning of the creative end. And ER got bad reviews. And it hasnt really grown. Its not like theres some hidden gems on it to be discovered now. Buttons has grown on me, so has Satanic, B&B did it from the start, GHS the same. But not this one. Nice production but weak material except for she's so cold. A couple of ok songs and the rest is forgettable. Not horrible but just not good enough. Some Girls had some really strong songs on it, some of their best ever. That cant be said of ER despite the love for Shes so cold - one of my favourites.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

Thanks for the in-depth exploration...

Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...

Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

Thanks for the in-depth exploration...

Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...

Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.

That's surely just your opinion. Many fans find enough of albums that are poorer than ER (TSMR, IORR etc.).

And remember, this is not a competition. It doesn't have to be superior to previous Stones albums to be good, does it?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

People, or you? Because the media certainly took the lyrics (and the video) seriously and banned it.

If you don't like something, Doxa, I think it's fairer that you just say so - instead of presenting it as an established truth?

I'm still waiting for hordes of fans saying that ER has a bad reputation, as well as why Undercover wasn't convincing. Undercover created a lot of fuss when it came out, and the matter of violence in South America was definitely discussed thoroughly because of it.

That is, imo, way more important than if a middle aged Rolling Stones would re-live their super stardom and sell buckets of records.

Mishion accomplished, I'd say. Good track, good lyrics, good video, awareness of the political problem.

Here's a review with the «lame reception», btw: a singer who sounds serious again

Doxa makes an excellent point about Mick's image and Undercover. Videos were banned for nothing in the 80s. It was often due to imagery, images and the bands image. Violence, sex and drugs shown on TV and in music videos was the new threat. That doesnt mean people took Jagger seriously in the 80s - not outside the TV set.
Maybe for a day or two if some of the tabloids managed to create an outrage among the elderly. Just compare it to Kiss I Love it Loud or was it Lick it up. Kiss were not popular at all in 1982 then but thanks to a video that was banned, the elderly had to warn parents and debate this BS on prime time.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 15:09 by Redhotcarpet.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

People, or you? Because the media certainly took the lyrics (and the video) seriously and banned it.

If you don't like something, Doxa, I think it's fairer that you just say so - instead of presenting it as an established truth?

I'm still waiting for hordes of fans saying that ER has a bad reputation, as well as why Undercover wasn't convincing. Undercover created a lot of fuss when it came out, and the matter of violence in South America was definitely discussed thoroughly because of it.

That is, imo, way more important than if a middle aged Rolling Stones would re-live their super stardom and sell buckets of records.

Mishion accomplished, I'd say. Good track, good lyrics, good video, awareness of the political problem.

Here's a review with the «lame reception», btw: a singer who sounds serious again

Doxa makes an excellent point about Mick's image and Undercover. Videos were banned for nothing in the 80s. It was often due to imagery, images and the bands image. Violence, sex and drugs shown on TV and in music videos was the new threat. That doesnt mean people took Jagger seriously in the 80s - not outside the TV set.
Maybe for a day or two if some of the tabloids managed to create an outrage among the elderly. Just compare it to Kiss I Love it Loud or was it Lick it up. Kiss were not popular at all in 1982 then but thanks to a video that was banned, the elderly had to warn parents and debate this BS on prime time.

You might agree with him, and find his views excellent, but did you read the review?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 15:10 by DandelionPowderman.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

Thanks for the in-depth exploration...

Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...

Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.

That's surely just your opinion. Many fans find enough of albums that are poorer than ER (TSMR, IORR etc.).

And remember, this is not a competition. It doesn't have to be superior to previous Stones albums to be good, does it?

No not at all and I acutllay enjoy it for its production and I think the material is ok.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

Thanks for the in-depth exploration...

Your point was that the album had a bad reputation among fans, if memory serves...

Well it had and it has but some think it's underrated because it was such at let down at the time of its release. It has some good songs but its nowhere near anything they did before.

That's surely just your opinion. Many fans find enough of albums that are poorer than ER (TSMR, IORR etc.).

And remember, this is not a competition. It doesn't have to be superior to previous Stones albums to be good, does it?

No not at all and I acutllay enjoy it for its production and I think the material is ok.

So you don't think that «its nowhere near anything they did before»?

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Doxa

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

People, or you? Because the media certainly took the lyrics (and the video) seriously and banned it.

If you don't like something, Doxa, I think it's fairer that you just say so - instead of presenting it as an established truth?

I'm still waiting for hordes of fans saying that ER has a bad reputation, as well as why Undercover wasn't convincing. Undercover created a lot of fuss when it came out, and the matter of violence in South America was definitely discussed thoroughly because of it.

That is, imo, way more important than if a middle aged Rolling Stones would re-live their super stardom and sell buckets of records.

Mishion accomplished, I'd say. Good track, good lyrics, good video, awareness of the political problem.

Here's a review with the «lame reception», btw: a singer who sounds serious again

Doxa makes an excellent point about Mick's image and Undercover. Videos were banned for nothing in the 80s. It was often due to imagery, images and the bands image. Violence, sex and drugs shown on TV and in music videos was the new threat. That doesnt mean people took Jagger seriously in the 80s - not outside the TV set.
Maybe for a day or two if some of the tabloids managed to create an outrage among the elderly. Just compare it to Kiss I Love it Loud or was it Lick it up. Kiss were not popular at all in 1982 then but thanks to a video that was banned, the elderly had to warn parents and debate this BS on prime time.

Did you read the review?

No but Im doing it now. I know some reporters tried to make a point, Jagger comments on South America, this is the new Gimme Shelter or Let it bleed etc. But I dont that feeling was shared with the public, that view. Of courde Jagger didnt matter at all like he did in 1968 or 1969. I dont think fans really cared. Maybe there was some interest given the Live Aid stuff that went on but c'mon - nobody thinks or really thought Undercover was comparable to Shelter or the old days. Does anybody really still say Voodo Lounge is the best since Exile?

All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.

You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 15:23 by DandelionPowderman.

Yes that could very well be true. Maybe that was the last time the press and/or the public to him seriously and not just for being Jagger.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.

You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.

We have different memories about the undercover video being banned. I remember the banning clearly coming off as a gimmic; it was played heavily on Mtv in my recollection. Indeed because of being banned and the director (Julian temple) they got a lot of press for the song. One of the biggest buzzes I remember about the album at the time was the director - it was still a new idea to have big name director of a music video.

I think you are exactly right that undercover's political statement was taken more seriously than their songs would be in the future and that the stones "mattered" at the time of undercover in a big way. No question about it. The reception to "high wire" was completely different - a shrug.

In the U.S. at least I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt emotional rescue was consider a dud by fans and critics alike. The chart positions do not reflect how people liked the album upon listening to it.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-09-28 17:46 by Turner68.

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.

You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.

We have different memories about the undercover video being banned. I remember the banning clearly coming off as a gimmic; it was played heavily on Mtv in my recollection. Indeed because of being banned and the director (Julian temple) they got a lot of press for the song. One of the biggest buzzes I remember about the album at the time was the director - it was still a new idea to have big name director of a music video.

I think you are exactly right that undercover's political statement was taken more seriously than their songs would be in the future and that the stones "mattered" at the time of undercover in a big way. No question about it. The reception to "high wire" was completely different - a shrug.

In the U.S. at least I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt emotional rescue was consider a dud by fans and critics alike. The chart positions do not reflect how people liked the album upon listening to it.

The video was the edited version, which was quickly done to replace the mini-movie version that was so offensive. Later on the original version was played once everyone managed to grow up a bit.

[www.magnetmagazine.com]

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
Turner68

Quote
DandelionPowderman
All I remember from back then is that the lyrics on Undercover (the album) wwas seriously discussed in the press for its serious contents.

You're the same age as me, Carpet. My point was that Mick mattered in a different way by 1983. Dismissing him and the Stones as a has-beens, just because he wasn't the superstar he was earlier is a bit too shallow for me. I believe The Stones mattered by Undercover, for the last time, though.

We have different memories about the undercover video being banned. I remember the banning clearly coming off as a gimmic; it was played heavily on Mtv in my recollection. Indeed because of being banned and the director (Julian temple) they got a lot of press for the song. One of the biggest buzzes I remember about the album at the time was the director - it was still a new idea to have big name director of a music video.

I think you are exactly right that undercover's political statement was taken more seriously than their songs would be in the future and that the stones "mattered" at the time of undercover in a big way. No question about it. The reception to "high wire" was completely different - a shrug.

In the U.S. at least I would say beyond a shadow of a doubt emotional rescue was consider a dud by fans and critics alike. The chart positions do not reflect how people liked the album upon listening to it.

The video was the edited version, which was quickly done to replace the mini-movie version that was so offensive. Later on the original version was played once everyone managed to grow up a bit.

[www.magnetmagazine.com]

Yes, that sounds right. That's why the "banning" didn't hurt the song's promotion; in fact, it probably helped it.

As this article expresses it was director Julian Temple that didn't want his videos of the Stones to be like the goofball ones of the past.


Julian Temple directed “Undercover Of The Night” — he of Sex Pistols “Great Rock And Roll Swindle” fame and already carving himself a sharp-edged niche among the enfant terribles of modern moviedom. That was what attracted the Stones to his side; their own past videos, after all, had done little more than stand the musicians up in an empty room and have them prance through their paces while trying to avert the glare of Mick Jagger’s choice in shirt.

Temple was having none of that. Packing band and film crew off to Mexico at the end of October 1983, just weeks before the single’s release, he actually listened to the song before drawing up his story board, and the result remains one of the most potent, not to mention chilling, political-action performances of the rock ’n’ roll era, a succession of flash-bulb explosions that splash from both the record and the accompanying video to ruthlessly illuminate the other side of revolutionary chic. It ain’t all street fighting men, baby.

[www.goldminemag.com]

Undercover seems to be the most discussed album on fan forums, I love the album and can also understand why some don't, it evokes strong feelings and whether the experiment succeeded more than it failed, its not a generic album. When I listen to albums from their peers The Who, Kinks, McCartney etc from early 80s - in my opinion generic albums with some high points; Undercover I never see as generic, very different sounding than preceding Stones albums but defunitely not boring.

The title track is fabulous, lyrically one of Jaggers best I think, and musically thrilling. The lyrics as a whole I rate; the storytelling and smart turns of phrase on All the Way Down, She Was Hot, Too Tough, some great lines. Too Tough is a good example of why the album works - in another bands hand it could be by the numbers and rote, while its not Rocks Off or Gimme Shelter, the pleasure is in how rhythmic the band makes this standard chord progression. Listen to the lead break and how the rhythm section sizzles. It just makes the song sound exciting; not a major track but a hugely enjoyable one.

The run of albums 1976-1983 along with the wealth of outtakes presents a band on another inspired run. They sound vital and vibrant. The Stones had the wonderful singles in the 60s, and the remarkable album run that followed. The Ron Wood era is different in tone to Taylor era but for me, almost equally as vital. To have such a creative period in the late 70s following such a sustained purple patch earlier proves what calibre of songwriters they were. 76-83 is an irresistible groove. Funky, dancy, along with a renewed vigor aftet the mid 70s.

Undercover isnt Exile, but it is dark, daring and while not fully successful with all of its experiments, as an album on its own it has enough character of its own that we still debate it heavily today.

Ironically, coming straight after IrelandCalling's post, it's exactly All The Way Down and Too Tough which I don't like (together with Must Be Hell and Wanna Hold You). If it weren't for those 4 very bad songs, it would be great album because the rest of the songs vary from good (She Was Hot) via very good to great (Feel On Baby and Tie You Up).
Why do I think those 4 are bad? Well, for one, I think a good rock song needs a strong riff. There are no riff in All The Way nor in Too Tough. And no melodies either. Actually, after all these years, I still can't recall how Too Tough goes, I first have to google the lyrics, and then, when I read that dumb "If you want to wreck my life" I remember that braindead filler. Must Be Hell only has the shadow of two riffs copied from something done a million times better before. And Wanna Hold You is just silly.

They did step in a new direction with Undercover. But the album suffers from the sub-standard rockers. All The Way Down is kindergarten, It Must Be Hell a Soul Survivor parody etc. An finished Eliza Upchink might have been better for instance.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-10 10:52 by Monsoon Ragoon.

I got into the Stones through my sister's Hot Rocks album around 1978. Some Girls came out in 1978 and I liked it a lot. Other than the singer it sounded like a different band to me from the Hot Rocks stuff. At the time I got so enamored with Some Girls, ER and TY that when Undercover came out it was disappointing. I liked She Was Hot but a lot of the other songs I did not care for at the time. As with other Stones stuff this one has aged well and I appreciate it more now, especially after DW which to me is mostly canon fodder. I love Tie You Up, great guitar sounds on that one. Too Much Blood is a hoot. Undercover of the Night has hheld up well as a song, though live its dreadful. Overall a good, not great album and a decent end to the Stones as a working band. Since then its get together's and tours. Not the same.

I agree with Ireland Calling.
Re: the title track, by this time it is true the Stones didn't 'matter' and Jagger was hard to take seriously as a Dylan-like songwriter, but if you come to the song fresh today it is a great mix of lyrics and music. And while I've heard Keith hated it, he did put those great machine gun guitars on it. Or somebody did.
All the Way Down is one of Jagger's great lyrics. I thought at the time he was putting a coda on their career.
Too Much Blood is funny/weird/like nothing else they had ever done.
I don't love all the songs and you can find faults with the playing and production on some of them, but damn they still had magic.

After 20 years of recorded work, in 1983 the RS's were a band that no longer mattered but you wouldn't know it from the uncommercial release that didn't sound much like anything around it...breaking new ground in the process and following the arc started with Some Girls.

Sadly, that lack of commercial success and the dispute between the band principals led to the drek of Dirty Work ultimately a 'reset' where the true creative outlet was relegated to solo projects and the band itself became a professional and highly competent stage act with a smattering of very good and mostly formulaic "Rolling Stones-sounding" albums along the way.

Whereas Dirty Work is the last kick at the can, it was half-hearted and incompetent in execution-really the only completely incompetent album they ever made. Undercover by contrast is the last important album they made.

The first thing I noticed when Undercover came out was the change in Mick's singing. For me this album was more the begining of a new chapter than a closing of the previous one. First (although best) of the bad ones rather than the last of the good ones.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2017-06-11 13:01 by z.

Loved the album back then, still love it.

The trad-rockers (It Must Be Hell, Too Tough) are the weaker tracks, though. Undercover, Too Much Blood and Feel On Baby are excellent. A nod to Pretty Beat Up, Tie You Up and She Was Hot as well.

I love UC. I remember when it came out. The focal point of the album were the lyrics. They got the video banned for the political overtones. But the rest of the album was full of gory images, and blood. The Stones themselves played it up. There was one interview Keith did, I think in Musician, where he talked about it. The thing is, except for the title track, it is all tongue in cheek.
But I really dug the album for the music. Because everyone went synth, and Linn Drum in mid 80's. So I was glad that they stuck with the guitars. Sly and Robbie fit in great on the record. And IMO the tracks are very strong.
I don't hear any marked difference in Jagger's delivery.
I thought there was only one real dud, and that was "It Must Be Hell".

......Hey Don't Forget the Too Much Blood 12" .
iT'S oUT there ....



ROCKMAN

Very good album, almost as good as glorious DW. Undercover has a lot of goodies and not really a weak spot. The trademark rockers Too Tough, Wanna Hold You, It Must Be Hell, All The Way Down are no masterpieces, but very enjoyable, imo.

Too Much Blood? Well... At least I´ve grown accustomed to it over the years...

Everything else is excellent: Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, Pretty Beat Up, great songs.

Quote
HMS
Very good album, almost as good as glorious DW. Undercover has a lot of goodies and not really a weak spot. The trademark rockers Too Tough, Wanna Hold You, It Must Be Hell, All The Way Down are no masterpieces, but very enjoyable, imo.

Too Much Blood? Well... At least I´ve grown accustomed to it over the years...

Everything else is excellent: Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Feel On Baby, Pretty Beat Up, great songs.

Because you mention DW (again...), what strikes me is the thought that getting rid of the mediocre stuff on both Undercover and DW and compiling their best tracks one would get a pretty good album, maybe even glorious...

Looks like their creative well was not yet entirely dry at that point, it just was not fruitful enough to produce top notch albums every two years.

Pretty Beat Up another prime example of what UC does offer; the one-time titled "Dogshit" showing itself as actually one of the best aspects of the album. A groove, not even a song, but in the Stones' hands it cooks and sizzles. Funk for the 80s, its strenght is the quality of the riff, how its played with such rhythm, and the arrangement (David Sanborns sax putting it from good album track to one of the albums highest points). Its a great track, out Black&Blue's Black and Blue. A swaggering sound.

UC compared with Exile etc of course suffers by comparison but not every album has to be, or even can be, a career highlight. Like Emotional Rescue, another album I find utterly irresistible, UC taken on only its own merits, is simply a fine album with some indeniable high points. ER is not the statement album that SG and TY were and are; I can see why it wasnt as loved at the time, but of course with hindsight it is a definite and important part of that late 70s early 80s sound. Genuinely great tracks like SSC, ER, Dance and All About You make it essential for any Stones fan and a primary reason it is so much more valued today than it was at the time. UC hasnt been as revisited as ER outside of super fans; it should be as it contains far more worth than its reputation would suggest. For now I suppose its a nice extra we fans have that a lot of rock'n'roll lovers perhaps will never give a chance to. Minor albums both in the great Stones scheme but that doesnt mean they are no less magic in their own way.

Quote
IrelandCalling4
Pretty Beat Up another prime example of what UC does offer; the one-time titled "Dogshit" showing itself as actually one of the best aspects of the album. A groove, not even a song, but in the Stones' hands it cooks and sizzles. Funk for the 80s, its strenght is the quality of the riff, how its played with such rhythm, and the arrangement (David Sanborns sax putting it from good album track to one of the albums highest points). Its a great track, out Black&Blue's Black and Blue. A swaggering sound.

UC compared with Exile etc of course suffers by comparison but not every album has to be, or even can be, a career highlight. Like Emotional Rescue, another album I find utterly irresistible, UC taken on only its own merits, is simply a fine album with some indeniable high points. ER is not the statement album that SG and TY were and are; I can see why it wasnt as loved at the time, but of course with hindsight it is a definite and important part of that late 70s early 80s sound. Genuinely great tracks like SSC, ER, Dance and All About You make it essential for any Stones fan and a primary reason it is so much more valued today than it was at the time. UC hasnt been as revisited as ER outside of super fans; it should be as it contains far more worth than its reputation would suggest. For now I suppose its a nice extra we fans have that a lot of rock'n'roll lovers perhaps will never give a chance to. Minor albums both in the great Stones scheme but that doesnt mean they are no less magic in their own way.

I think it's a good album. Sunburn is an underrated presence on it, but then he's done some great session work with Bowie, Paul Butterfield, and two great Ray Charles tribute albums, or I should say Hank Crawford.

This was the first album I never played on high rotation after the release. Perhaps something had happened around this time to make me loose interest as I don't recall being to interested during the 'war years',

I may revisit this and Dirty Work to see if I feel any different. It'd be new music to me now

Gave a spin to Undercover in honor of this thread being bumped up.

First time I listened to the whole LP was some time during the 83/84 Christmas holidays. A friend had received it as a present. I LOVED it! Copied it on cassette (that is how copyright piracy worked at the time) and played it to death everywhere with my then brand new super fancy Sony walkman (the ipods of the time). Modern, exciting, NO slow numbers. Great guitars, percussions, songs, and a truly truly superb Jagger! Probably his second best singing on a stones record (number 1 must be Tattoo You).

Bought the LP in the summer of 84 form a record store in LA. What a beautiful cover!

Can't remember how it charted in Italy, but for sure it was not a smash hit. Didn't care, it was a smash hit in my house.

Actually it was only after I joined IORR that - very much to my disbelief - I learned how many stones fans actually did not like it.

Their miss!

The only really minor bad critic I have is the running order of the songs. As it is you tend not to fully appreciate the beauty of the last 3 songs, which are just as good as the others but seem a little out of context because produced with slightly retro style.

If it was up to me, I would have done a modern side and a more trad one (simply swapping wanna hold you and too much blood) or any different running order-

C