Worst Stonesalbum ever made,trash mostly,couple of good songs

Quote
MelBelli
This doesn’t seem to have been posted anywhere else, so I’ll give this thread a bump. Here’s a recent interview with Steve Lillywhite, in which he talks briefly about his experience producing “Dirty Work.”

I think the best part is Lillywhite saying that he initially couldn’t understand how a producer worth his salt could’ve missed the value of “Start Me Up” before it wandered aimlessly into endless reggae takes. But after a month of working with them, he understood perfectly how that could happen.

[youtu.be]

I saw those interviews. Loved the part about 6 hoursx of Keith and Ronnie on 12 Bar Blues; then 6 hours of having to sit through a playback, and then Keith says "Can you make me a cassette of this?" haha

Edit - I like the artwork of DW; always have. I see so many people blasting it, and what is really the problem with it? Nice couch, good threads.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-18 13:39 by Palace Revolution 2000.

The band may be flabbergasted by the fact that DW has been the fetish record in this board for years. Has been and...is.

Quote
Palace Revolution 2000

Quote
MelBelli
This doesn’t seem to have been posted anywhere else, so I’ll give this thread a bump. Here’s a recent interview with Steve Lillywhite, in which he talks briefly about his experience producing “Dirty Work.”

I think the best part is Lillywhite saying that he initially couldn’t understand how a producer worth his salt could’ve missed the value of “Start Me Up” before it wandered aimlessly into endless reggae takes. But after a month of working with them, he understood perfectly how that could happen.

[youtu.be]

I saw those interviews. Loved the part about 6 hoursx of Keith and Ronnie on 12 Bar Blues; then 6 hours of having to sit through a playback, and then Keith says "Can you make me a cassette of this?" haha

It was the end of an era in many ways. Mick would never tolerate that kind of “working” environment again.

A very strange album. Maybe three cuts standout. You can hear the seams where they tried to force together some cuts.

Quote
24FPS
A very strange album. Maybe three cuts standout. You can hear the seams where they tried to force together some cuts.

You're so right. I have never heard that adjective used; 'strange' when discussing this album. But it's true. It is strange; some of the badness of the album comes from it's sketchiness. like Mel Belli said, it was the last of a certain type of working environnment. We can plainly hear the dual guitar attack, which is okay. But without Jagger committing to it, they became a tuneless, joyless affair.
we all seem to like the same cuts, but "I Had it With You" could be the best Stones cut on here.
What sums up the album to me is the title cut: starts out great, a bad-ass Stones rocker, and fizzles out into head scratching meanderings.

Once upon a time, they were in a bad place as a band and as a result we got a dud of an album. The End...

Quote
LeonidP
Once upon a time, they were in a bad place as a band and as a result we got a dud of an album. The End...

perfectly stated. and even then 2 or 3 cuts that work. they are amazing.

Quote
LeonidP
Once upon a time, they were in a bad place as a band and as a result we got a dud of an album. The End...

It’s a testament to the band’s craft and talent that the album is any good at all, under the circumstances!

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
LeonidP
Once upon a time, they were in a bad place as a band and as a result we got a dud of an album. The End...

It’s a testament to the band’s craft and talent that the album is any good at all, under the circumstances!

There is always at least one stand out cut, no matter how dreadful the rest of the album. Undercover takes the prize. Only UCOTN has aged well. Worst Stones album of the 80s? BTB would the worst album of the 60s. Not really a bad studio album in the 70s, I guess IORR would be the weakest.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
MelBelli

Quote
LeonidP
Once upon a time, they were in a bad place as a band and as a result we got a dud of an album. The End...

It’s a testament to the band’s craft and talent that the album is any good at all, under the circumstances!

There is always at least one stand out cut, no matter how dreadful the rest of the album. Undercover takes the prize. Only UCOTN has aged well. Worst Stones album of the 80s? BTB would the worst album of the 60s. Not really a bad studio album in the 70s, I guess IORR would be the weakest.

BUTTONS was an inbetween record. Some great songs, although not necessarily in the canon on great songs, and the rest are really good songs.

Just a bit weird for The Rolling Stones. They basically admitted it. Fortunatley its context has remained true.

UNDERCOVER? An excellent album, actually. Within the confines of 'not normal Stones' ie BUTTONS and MAJESTIES only much better.

The biggest issue with U is that it's not like the previous (others). It's a tad too different.

Oh my.

How DARE they do something different.

Not different via SOME GIRLS - but way off their usual. Some outstanding tunes on that album. And excellent production. Actually amazing production - the last album of Mick being interested for awhile.

What happened with DIRTY WORK is just silly. It never evolved past the angst - and the angst is qausi-fabricated and tired. No actual good (great) ideas.

Their worst album as a whole.

It's funny how opinions about the band's work can differ – "Dirty Work" has been my favorite Rolling Stones album since I first heard it on the day of release. It's everything I hoped it would be – raw and dirty rock & roll, blues, R & B, reggae and funk. I love every track on it. Since it's the last album by the band to feature Ian Stewart, I also consider it to be the last "true" Rolling Stones album.

Ah, thank GOD! MrEcho. I agree with every word. What the hell is wrong with people? Raw and dirty! Those guitars...Winning Ugly...How the hell does Keith do that? And I can go on..My favourite album to play along to.

This is a review from July 1986. It is from a popular journal for young communists in the USSR. The name of the journal was 'Rovesnik', i.e., something like 'Peer' or 'Same age'. Usually it provided tons of critics about Western life style, was strongly pro-international and revolutionary.
However, Dirty Work got almost a positive review.


It is stated that the album is about the dirty work of Western politicians that are fueling and pushing the world to the war. That The Rolling Stones were very straight about their political views here.

Well, there was a 'special atmosphere' in the USSR back in the days . Still, I was really surprised they wrote such a 'positive' review.

It's such a bad album. I was so disappointed to hear it. Boarders on offensive that they'd dare present it to fans.

Not to change the subject but has the complete version of Stu’s version of “Key to the Highway” that they took used the 30sec clip at the of DW ever been found?

Worst album since TSMR. “One Hit” and “Harlem Shuffle” are prime material but the rest is a joke. The title track is a silly attempt to combine 1980s yuppiness with 1950s leather jacket greasy hair switchblades, “Winning Ugly” is just bad, “Fight” is filler made worse by the slick sounding mix, “Hold Back” and “Too Rude” have their moments but are missing “that” thing,” “Had it With You” is missing the energy and a proper mix to match the mood the song, and “Sleep Tonight” is a second-rate version of “Slipping Away” and “The Worst” and Keith’s much canonized Toronto version of “Sing Me Back Home,”—without any of the charm and passion of the latter three.

“Back to Zero” sums up the problems with this album. I was 5 years old when DW was released, and every time I hear this song, I’m transported back to 1986 remembering the vibe of my babysitters watching “Miami Vice.”
In other words, it’s not just dated, but it’s SO DATED that despite that funky bass line and some nice slicing rhythm guitars by Keith and Ronnie I can’t take it seriously because it sounds like the Stones made a conscious attempt to follow trends rather than use them for inspiration to create something truly original and inspirational. That’s why “Back to Zero” and DW as a whole is a failure to me.

Thank God I am me. And now I chooose to play the shit out of it. The most agggresive Stones-album ever made. The one and only album that you cant give to the local band at the pub. The guitars are too...much, many, rich, complicated and raw and lovely! But I deeply respect other opinions.

Harlem Shuffle is the only track that truly matters on this dismal collection of mostly throwaways, and the fact that it's a cover tune shows how lowly they had become as a creative band.
Give or take a a few decent tracks here and there since then, I don't think they ever fully recovered from the misfire of the DW debacle, though Living in a Ghost Town did hint at a return to classic vintage form.
Coincidentally, I thought there were shades of Harlem Shuffle heard in Ghost Town - the riff, the groove, and the overall vibe. But I would hope they can do even better than those when/if the new album is ever released.

_____________________________________________________________
Rip this joint, gonna save your soul, round and round and round we go......



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-19 22:15 by Hairball.

Quote
ironbelly
This is a review from July 1986. It is from a popular journal for young communists in the USSR. The name of the journal was 'Rovesnik', i.e., something like 'Peer' or 'Same age'. Usually it provided tons of critics about Western life style, was strongly pro-international and revolutionary.
However, Dirty Work got almost a positive review.


It is stated that the album is about the dirty work of Western politicians that are fueling and pushing the world to the war. That The Rolling Stones were very straight about their political views here.

Well, there was a 'special atmosphere' in the USSR back in the days . Still, I was really surprised they wrote such a 'positive' review.

wow that is fascinating

thank you for sharing

can you find there review of undercover?

i'd be curious to hear they made of that album as well

Quote
Bjorn
Thank God I am me. And now I chooose to play the shit out of it. The most agggresive Stones-album ever made. The one and only album that you cant give to the local band at the pub. The guitars are too...much, many, rich, complicated and raw and lovely! But I deeply respect other opinions.

I haven't listened it since about 87 and loathe it, BUT, I think I will give it a listen with fresh ears and see what I think. Thank you for your review...I'm interested in seeing if I find any merit to it decades later.

Quote
ProfessorWolf
wow that is fascinating

thank you for sharing

can you find there review of undercover?

i'd be curious to hear they made of that album as well

I am not sure there was a review on Undercover. Mind, the ideological system in the USSR was not The Rolling Stones friendly. In the best case scenario there was one or two short papers or notes a year. Generally, those were ideologically biased. The Rolling Stones were usually used as an example of the decaying capitalist society, dark sides of Western life etc. Although, they always provide anti-war, anti-nuclear and anti-militaristic quotes from Jagger (real or fake) as a drop of the positive thinking.

That year, 1983, was a bit special in the history of the USSR/West relationship. Andropov, the former KGB chief, replaced Brezhnev in 1982 as a head of the Communist party. New round of repressions begun. It was not the best times in terms of freedom of speech. In September 1983 the USSR interceptor shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 (Boeing-747) with civil fatality count of 269. So, by the time Undercover hit the market the tensions were high and anti-Western hysteria was on the top level. There were a couple of dull and ideologically crazy years ahead until Perestroika.

Here is another example for you, though. The same journal from February 1982. And announcement about the US tour of 1981. The title can be translated 'The fame that rolled away' (actually it is a play of words Rolling Stones and Rolling Fame).

The sub-title is: Why not to attend the largest rock tour of the year. The note said that the American Tour 1981 was a complete disappointment both for old fans and for youngsters, although the venues were packed. They provided four reasons basing on a paper in Time magazine (the name of the original paper was not disclosed).
1. Jagger once said he will not perform at the age of 40. He is now 38, but that is not the main point
2. The current music of the band is the music of apathy and cynicism.
3. They played so professionally that all life is gone away from music. Like machines.
4. The whole thing is based on big money. And this is the most disturbing component for those who remember that The Rolling Stones protested against the art that became business.

A 'special atmosphere', you know .

Quote
ironbelly

Quote
ProfessorWolf
wow that is fascinating

thank you for sharing

can you find there review of undercover?

i'd be curious to hear they made of that album as well

I am not sure there was a review on Undercover. Mind, the ideological system in the USSR was not The Rolling Stones friendly. In the best case scenario there was one or two short papers or notes a year. Generally, those were ideologically biased. The Rolling Stones were usually used as an example of the decaying capitalist society, dark sides of Western life etc. Although, they always provide anti-war, anti-nuclear and anti-militaristic quotes from Jagger (real or fake) as a drop of the positive thinking.

That year, 1983, was a bit special in the history of the USSR/West relationship. Andropov, the former KGB chief, replaced Brezhnev in 1982 as a head of the Communist party. New round of repressions begun. It was not the best times in terms of freedom of speech. In September 1983 the USSR interceptor shot down Korean Airlines Flight 007 (Boeing-747) with civil fatality count of 269. So, by the time Undercover hit the market the tensions were high and anti-Western hysteria was on the top level. There were a couple of dull and ideologically crazy years ahead until Perestroika.

Here is another example for you, though. The same journal from February 1982. And announcement about the US tour of 1981. The title can be translated 'The fame that rolled away' (actually it is a play of words Rolling Stones and Rolling Fame).

The sub-title is: Why not to attend the largest rock tour of the year. The note said that the American Tour 1981 was a complete disappointment both for old fans and for youngsters, although the venues were packed. They provided four reasons basing on a paper in Time magazine (the name of the original paper was not disclosed).
1. Jagger once said he will not perform at the age of 40. He is now 38, but that is not the main point
2. The current music of the band is the music of apathy and cynicism.
3. They played so professionally that all life is gone away from music. Like machines.
4. The whole thing is based on big money. And this is the most disturbing component for those who remember that The Rolling Stones protested against the art that became business.

A 'special atmosphere', you know .

thanks

i never really gave any thought to how the soviets viewed the stones or how they factored into there propaganda

and perhaps the subject deserves it's own thread

also this as a description of there playing on the 81 tour literally made me laugh
3. They played so professionally that all life is gone away from music. Like machines.

I actually quite like the album. “One Hit” is a great song. I quite like the song “Dirty Work”, “Harlem Shuffle” is good, “Hold Back” is good, “Fight” isn’t too bad, “Back to Zero” is not great but it’s no worse than most mid-80s album fillers, “Too Rude” is no better or worse than most Keith tracks, “Sleep Tonight” is great, “Had it with you” is good….. I mean, I actually think that overall. It’s a stronger album than “Undercover” and possibly even “Emotional Rescue” and “IORR”

Quote
Bjorn
Ah, thank GOD! MrEcho. I agree with every word. What the hell is wrong with people? Raw and dirty! Those guitars...Winning Ugly...How the hell does Keith do that? And I can go on..My favourite album to play along to.

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

"Mick Jagger (September 1997): No songs from Dirty Work!
I keep trying to put ('80s) songs in, and either they don't sound very good, or no one's very enthusiastic about it. I can't make the band enthusiastic about songs they don't seem to be enjoying. You'd think (Keith)'d want to... Well, if (Dirty Work) was his record... You'd think he'd want to play something from some of those things. It's not only Keith, it's like the whole band is, like, Well yes, er... We played Undercover on the last tour."

[timeisonourside.com]

Obviously Mick means post-TATTOO YOU.

They've done three from UNDERCOVER.

Two from DIRTY WORK.

STEEL WHEELS had a lot played from it, and they've played the odd track since.

They've also played three from U since 1989.

They hyped DW up in 1986, they had to, but once they were done with it, they knew DW sucks. They've played Harlem Shuffle once since 1990? Something like that.

Abundantly obvious.

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.

<“Fight” is filler made worse by the slick sounding mix>

I've never heard that before. IMO, Fight is the direct opposite of "slick-sounding".

I had just got into The Stones the year before as a 15 year old. Dirty Work was the first Stones album I was able to get at it's time of release.

Not their best by a long way, but I still have a soft spot for the album. Got plenty of attitude, lots of guitars, great drumming, great bass and a sprinkling of keyboard.

The production isn't the best and a bit too trebly for my liking now. I think this was Steve Lillywhite's "thing" back then. Loud, very crisp and trebly.

Jagger's singing is where I struggle with DW at times. Far too shouty, aggressive and snarly. Over singing in 86 (and a sign of things to come), but when he was in his prime, less was more.

Best songs for me are One Hit, Harlem Shuffle, Had It With You and Sleep Tonight. Some of the 12" that accompanied OH and HS were great and added even more to the songs.

I think if the album had been 1 or 2 songs shorter, it would have been a lot better and leaner.

Sleep Tonight was a glimpse of the great new chapter Keef was about to open with his solo work and songs on SW, VL and B2B......

Interesting stuff, ironbelly, thank you!


I thought the Stones were a total 'no-no' or ignored totally in official Soviet media, but fascinating to know that parts of their doings were interpreted being some kinda ideologically acceptable, that is, working for a communist cause (critizing the Western way of life, etc.) and let's say, the most interesting review of DIRTY WORK I've ever read... Never thought the album having that kinda message...

Surely The Stones have been a pretty Western phenomenon generally and initially, but it is always interesting to hear about the reception elsewhere in the world as well.

- Doxa

P.S. Was thinking of the reception of Mick's "Let's Work". There's been some critical political interpretations of it being a Thatcherian anthem, but probably it could be interpreted - using the typical freedom of ideologically progressive reading - working for the cause of 'all proletarians of the world unite' as well...



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2023-08-21 15:06 by Doxa.