-



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-21 18:29 by SomeGuy.

Steve Lillywhite was recently interviewed on Produce Like A Pro.

Steve discusses his contributions on Dirty Work and The Rolling Stones.

Engineer Dave Jerden (She's The Boss and Dirty Work) is also mentioned in conversation.

From the 32:05 to 39:58 mark.







Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-21 18:52 by MrForeverMusicFan.

Quote
MrForeverMusicFan
Steve Lillywhite was recently interviewed on Produce Like A Pro.

Steve discusses his contributions on Dirty Work and The Rolling Stones.

Engineer Dave Jerden (She's The Boss and Dirty Work) is also mentioned in conversation.

From the 32:05 to 39:58 mark.

Posted above, which is why this thread got bumped up to the front page.

Quote
Spud

Quote
GasLightStreet

Playing guitar fantastically does not cover up dog shit for songs.

Well, for me, it kind of does.

The thing I've always loved most about this band is the glorious ramshackle racket they make when playing almost anything.

The title track is fantastic, guitar wise. It's in that same snarl as Summer Romance.

I'm sitting here, drowsing, doing one of my favorite things, i.e. thinking about the Stones. And I thought about 'Dirty Work'. I guess we can say that it is widely considered one of their worst albums.
But then I wondered how I would see it if this had been their first album. If a band appeared today, with this album. I think I would like it a whole lot more. I mean, 'Winning Ugly' doesn't have that many fans, but that is by Stones' standards. But honestly, no one else does anything like that.
Made me re-evaluate the album.

That's an angle I've often promoted down the years.

The bar is set just so high that we tear to bits everything that isn't Let it Bleed , Exile etc.

If these albums that we criticise so fiercely had been released by new or unknown artists they'd be received as being wonderful !

Quote
Spud
...If these albums that we criticise so fiercely had been released by new or unknown artists they'd be received as being wonderful !

The only reason that DW could have seen a release is because it was the Stones. If it was a new/unknown artist, they would have been told "take a hike".

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Spud
...If these albums that we criticise so fiercely had been released by new or unknown artists they'd be received as being wonderful !

The only reason that DW could have seen a release is because it was the Stones. If it was a new/unknown artist, they would have been told "take a hike".

Check out the list of 1986 top 100 best albums, and tell me how many are so much better than Dirty Work

C

Quote
liddas

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
Spud
...If these albums that we criticise so fiercely had been released by new or unknown artists they'd be received as being wonderful !

The only reason that DW could have seen a release is because it was the Stones. If it was a new/unknown artist, they would have been told "take a hike".

Check out the list of 1986 top 100 best albums, and tell me how many are so much better than Dirty Work

C

No need. Just because the quality of music in that time period was poor doesn't make DW any better. Forget comparing to eras or other artists and just focus on the end product ... Poor -- it's that simple. You can't 'justify' an album to be better than it was/is.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-02 17:33 by LeonidP.

When I see that there is a new post in the DW thread, I hesitate for a second. Would it be worth reading it? Would it make my day? Would this contribute to me having a better day? Would I learn something new about Dirty Work or The Rolling Stones?

I never understand why people have to spread hate. Why do people need to voice their hatred again and again and again about anything or anyone? Why do these people feel the need and urge to spread negativity? I understand you do it once. But then you come back and say it again, and then again...

It is clear that Dirty Work is not among the best Stones albums. Why do I need to be reminded of this over and over again by the exact same people? I know Dirty Work is not liked by many. We all know it is not liked by many.

I wonder why haters cannot leave this album alone and respect the fact that some people do see something likable in it.

Ugly people also find their loved ones.

This thread is such a sad one.

I am glad that there are people revisiting this album or the not-so-good Stones LPs. Perhaps we would appreciate a song or two off Dirty Work if it was released for the first time on the new album with better production, and reworked with a couple of changes in it here and there. Who knows how that song would be received today in comparison to the songs on Bigger Bang?

I do not want the same haters commenting on what I have just said. No point in it, is there?

Seriously, people have got enough problems and hatred is not what we need even if this hatred is toward only an insignificant album.

I am not a hippy. But I do prefer love or wise silence over letting your hatred being heard when it does not contribute to anything that helps me grow or understand things better. Negativity does indeed creep into my thoughts and actions.

Sad Sad Sad.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm sitting here, drowsing, doing one of my favorite things, i.e. thinking about the Stones. And I thought about 'Dirty Work'. I guess we can say that it is widely considered one of their worst albums.
But then I wondered how I would see it if this had been their first album. If a band appeared today, with this album. I think I would like it a whole lot more. I mean, 'Winning Ugly' doesn't have that many fans, but that is by Stones' standards. But honestly, no one else does anything like that.
Made me re-evaluate the album.

"Winning Ugly" is potentially a great song. The structure, the chord sequences, the melody and the guitars are all splendid. The big problem is the production, especially the sound of the "bass" (I am not even sure it's a real bass guitar) and the drums. I am still waiting for a band to make some groovy cover version of it.

DW gets dragged down because of "Hold Back" and "Back To Zero". We have to go all the way back to "Their Satanic..." to find songs that are equally terrible. Most of the other songs are mediocre, apart from "One Hit" which is great (despite - again - the bad production), and "Sleep Tonight" and "Harlem Shuffle" which are okay. The alternative version of "Fight" posted earlier on this thread sounds promising too, but the end result as it appeared on the album not so much.

I still enjoy listening and watching the video of "One Hit". It has great energy.

I’ve posted on this thread before, but don’t recollect what points or comment I made. Anyway, I did listen to Dirty Work in it’s entirety about a year-or-two ago. It was totally on a whim. I do, in fact, recall enjoying it a little more than I thought. Admittedly, it isn’t an album I’ve spent a huge amount of time with - well, it’s not very good, is it? -, but there are some nice moments: One Hit To The Body and Sleep Tonight, in particular. However, enjoying those two recordings is not enough to warrant putting Dirty Work on again. I’d be far more likely to hear them on one of my iTunes shuffles. Look, regarding Dirty Work, once an d for all. Let’s put it this way: whether-or-not Dirty Work is as terrible as some do indeed think, I suspect the real reason so many don’t give it the chance is pretty simple: why would you, when there’s so, so much else to listen to? Why waste 40-minutes on Dirty Work, when I could be listen to anything else that’s better? It’s about enjoyment, after all. I’d rather listen to any live recording, or have the 60’s Stones on loop.

Well it's not my favourite album by any means...

...but my biggest isue with it has always been the typically appalling 80's production and sound.

Other than that, I don't think it's nearly so bad as many folks make out.


[I'd also dare argue that some of the more suggestible and malleable amongst we fans have come to agree that it's no good largely because others tell us it's no good ...

...and it's not cool to still like the emperor's clothes after we've been told he's naked

Some tunes of the album were great:
Harlem Shuffle and One Hit To The Body are still on my playlist. Back To Zero and Sleep Tonight are not bad.
The rest of the album was nothing to mention.
Jagger was right, when he decided not to go on tour with an album like that.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-04 10:34 by micha063.

I try to listen to it once in a while, and every time I get to same conclusion -it's a totally awful album, basically unlistenable. What makes it worse is to know that they recorded half a dozen songs that would have made the album 10 times better, and that the Fully Finished outtakes showed that when you take away the god-awful 1980's production they really did play well.

I like Harlem Shuffle due to Bill Wyman's fantastic bass, I half-like Had it With You as it is a nice little rocker nicely done.

Mathijs

I can't help loving the old Dirty Work. I was 18 when it came out, and it was the soundtrack of a wild summer! The 3 years wait from Undercover seemed ages, and the first riff of One Hit was a knock out. At the time the production didn't bother me at all. Loved and still love the music of that period. Besides, Tattoo You and Undercover were already moving in that musical direction.

Admit that when I first listened to the DW outtakes I shared Mathijs' opinion above: they could have made one hell of a double record with what was left out.

Recently I settled with the decision of releasing DW as it is. It was a statement of where they were then, and what was left out we somehow already have in other records, probably even done better. Save Invitation, which to this day I consider a crime towards humanity the fact that it wasn't released.


C

Quote
Mathijs
I try to listen to it once in a while, and every time I get to same conclusion -it's a totally awful album, basically unlistenable. What makes it worse is to know that they recorded half a dozen songs that would have made the album 10 times better, and that the Fully Finished outtakes showed that when you take away the god-awful 1980's production they really did play well.

I like Harlem Shuffle due to Bill Wyman's fantastic bass, I half-like Had it With You as it is a nice little rocker nicely done.

Mathijs

I can listen to it, and do occasionally (sometimes i just do a Stones chronological discography listening) but still recognize that it's awful. I really dislike songs like Fight, Hold Back, Winning Ugly, Back To Zero, Dirty Work -- not just musically & the poor melodies, but the lyrics! They are by far the worst ever written by Mick! And then I do get riled up when some try to claim it's a good album for the time period ... it just isn't. It wasn't a great musical time period, I agree, but this doesn't help with that at all.

Too Rude I love, that and Harlem Shuffle are the saving graces for me. One Hit, I don't think is that great - I'd rank it about on the same level as Mick's Just Another Night. Had It With You, people praise it but I fail to see anything great about it ... average tune at best.

Album ... clunker!

This is not one of my favorites but it has its place.

One hit is a great song.

Harlem Shuffle is also great and was performed live in 1989 and was done brilliantly.

I listen to the album once in a while. It makes me appreciate the other albums.

And I have to agree with whoever made the statement to look at other albums from the same year. Most of them are garbage.

I'll take anything off dirtywork over RUN DMC's version of Walk This Way.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000
I'm sitting here, drowsing, doing one of my favorite things, i.e. thinking about the Stones. And I thought about 'Dirty Work'. I guess we can say that it is widely considered one of their worst albums.
But then I wondered how I would see it if this had been their first album. If a band appeared today, with this album. I think I would like it a whole lot more. I mean, 'Winning Ugly' doesn't have that many fans, but that is by Stones' standards. But honestly, no one else does anything like that.
Made me re-evaluate the album.

It's extremely convenient to say that, "if this had been their first album".

It would bottom out. In chart words, maybe about 150 out of the Top 200.

There's almost nothing redeeming about it.

It really is that bad.

Remember the context. If you said 'if SOME GIRLS had been their first album', OK. Indeed.

But context is important. And me saying 'if SOME GIRLS' is also context.

Awfully assumptive, right?

Very well said

The album, or more precise, the individual songs aren't really that bad, imo. It's the collection of songs, the flow and the production that makes DW hard to listen to.

I have no trouble with Fight and Dirty Work. Even parts of Hold Back, Winning Ugly and Back To Zero are more than tolerable.

As a whole, though, it just doesn't make a good listen for me.

One Hit is a good song. Harlem Shuffle is great. The rest is from average to poor. There's some potential, but the band didn't seem to be bothered at the time. Sleep Tonight could be a great tune, if they had bothered to record some proper drum parts. Had It With You could have been a good song if they had bothered to record som bass parts etc...

[www.reverbnation.com]

I think Had It With You worked nicely, with the fantastic rhythm guitar in the foreground, and the sax filling in. Pretty sure that was intentional production-wise.

Quote
DandelionPowderman
I think Had It With You worked nicely, with the fantastic rhythm guitar in the foreground, and the sax filling in. Pretty sure that was intentional production-wise.

From Timeisonourside

Yeah, the basic track was cut with Charlie on drums, me on guitar and Mick on vocal and harp. We tried it with the full band and we realized we were just sounding like the Rolling Stones doing the Rolling Stones' favorite sort of Ye Olde Famous Rolling Stones Sound. But then, when we took the bass and the piano and the extra guitars off, it just sat right on the button. It came off sounding like a live radio broadcast that way. And at a slightly later date Ronnie and I did one overdub at the same time. But, I mean, there's nothing in the RULE BOOK that says you've GOT to have a bass on there. And then there's that middle breakdown part that almost trips over itself (laughs). Cutting a good blues track is not easy: it's all been done a million times, and to add something new to it is not so much a matter of THOUGHT as FEEL.
- Keith Richards, 1985

A good part of John Mellencamp's brilliant album, Dance Naked, didn't have bass - intentionally. It really worked.

Ironically, the single off of that album, a cover of Van Morrison's Wild Night, had super-loud bass from Me'shell Ndegeocello





[www.youtube.com]

I understand those who complain about the drum sound. I also understand those who don't like Jagger's singing style of the period. And those who don't like Chuck's keyboards. I don't quite agree with them all, but I do understand them.

Tastes are tastes and cannot be discussed.

But the critic I truly cannot understand is the usual "the songs on DW are bad". I find them well written and professionally and passionately performed as most Stones songs are. The melodies are strong. I don't get why I got the Silver is considered a jewel and sleep tonight average, why Star Star is great and Had it with you nothing special and so on and on.

C

Quote
liddas
I can't help loving the old Dirty Work. I was 18 when it came out, and it was the soundtrack of a wild summer! The 3 years wait from Undercover seemed ages, and the first riff of One Hit was a knock out. At the time the production didn't bother me at all. Loved and still love the music of that period. Besides, Tattoo You and Undercover were already moving in that musical direction.

Admit that when I first listened to the DW outtakes I shared Mathijs' opinion above: they could have made one hell of a double record with what was left out.

Recently I settled with the decision of releasing DW as it is. It was a statement of where they were then, and what was left out we somehow already have in other records, probably even done better. Save Invitation, which to this day I consider a crime towards humanity the fact that it wasn't released.


C

I have a pretty similar attitude as you have. I think they still back then were pretty ambitious musically, that is, they didn't want to repeat their old doings, but a new record needed to have something novel to say. That the new release needed to have a point. "Retro" wasn't a thing yet, and especially not then (mid 80's). For example, I recall Keith talking about leaving the bass off from "Had It With You" was an intentional move to not make it sound 'a typical Stones R&B number' or something to the effect. An odd decision one might say, and there were pretty much whatever ideas and tricks used, within the songs, selection and production of them, to make the difference. But, as it turned out to be, many of them weren't that succesful or that lasting in the long run... Some suspicious decisions that probably were doomed to fail (and we could ask: what were they thinking?)

Probably there were stuff left out that sounded more traditional and cozy - usually this seems to be the feature that makes the out-takes so attractive - but I understand the artistic drive to not always use the most obvious or easiest option.

So I think DIRTY WORK is a pretty accurate document of the state the band creatively was at the time.

Anyway, like you (and being exactly your age), I loved the album at the time, and I saw nothing wrong with the way the album sounded like, that is, pretty contemporary (like UNDERCOVER had did, and as would STEEL WHEELS later do). I thought it was natural for them to update their sound according to the times, like they always had done by then. Honestly, I didn't see any point in comparing its soundscapes to, say, EXILE, or any of their old records (of which many sounded surely great, but sonically pretty dated and ancient). It would have been like comparing EXILE to AFTERMATH - of course, they sounded different - different times, different sounds. The context matters. But I recall some older fans and even some music critics making such critical points that 'this is not the way the Stones suppose to sound'. They had a more fixed idea of that. I became such a voice later... But I was still naive back in 1986...

Yeah, if I would put all the Stones album in order, DIRTY WORK would be pretty low there in the list (but not at the very bottom), and I could write a pretty critical review of it now, but at the moment I don't feel like it. It is a part of history now, like its context - the 80's. I cherish the memory of this album, like those crazy times...

- Doxa



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-10-04 18:01 by Doxa.

To quote Rockman........

I leeeeeeeeeeerv it!!! The grittiness, the anger, the edge. Soooooooooooo much better than Undercover to me. Probably in my Top 10 or Top 15 if live albums are included of Stones releases.

I put this album alongside A Bigger Bang as albums I consider pretty poor and dont listen to very often. Some good songs on both but overall really weak. Of the latter day albums Voodoo Lounge and Bridges to Babylon are the strongest in my opinion. One Hit is one of my favorite songs though.

I have always liked the dirty work commercial, think it should have been the first track on the album, and put it first when I make a cdr of the dirty work outtakes. Here is a youtube link:

[youtu.be]