Sterile?





[www.youtube.com]

To call 'Undercover' pointless is such an odd statement. It makes me want to ponder the entire reason for art.

Personally I like UC, the album quite a bit. It's too bad that in the end is is permanently tainted by that awful last cut. Other than that it is a fine album.

DW IMO has many lousy songs. And even the songs with potential are brought down by one factor, or another. Much has been written and said about WW3, and solo careers, but I just got done listening to a bunch of DW outtakes, and have come to realize two things: one - much like for Voodoo, or Steel Wheels, they left the better stuff on cutting room floor; and two - the absence of Charlie hurt that album more than anything.

Quote
bakersfield
As I've often said before, DW was seen as a return to form after the sterile Undercover. Even Keith Richards agreed with a journalist that Undercover was 'dull'. But... it has become an article of faith on this board to hate DW for some reason. To my ears side two of Undercover sounds phoned-in compared to side two of Dirty Work which is a solid run of good songs IMHO.

You have it backwards. It's not an article of faith to hate DIRTY WORK - it's just reality. DIRTY WORK is more sterile than Disneyland and Disneyworld combined. It's the sound of a band with zero direction and zero reason to exist other than a new record deal. It is literally the sound of "Oh, my, rather, we have to."

Your antagonistic quote of Keith is baseless and your ears are scared of the Stones not "sounding like the Stones" with UNDERCOVER.

I think Mick has done an incredible job. I think he's taken quite a leap forward, lyric-wise, on this album.

- Keith Richards, 1983


Obviously, I think it's pretty good and it's the best we could make right now. I'm pretty happy with it.

- Keith Richards, 1983


It was also the last album with Atlantic.

Keith went overboard hyping the pit stop of work on DIRTY WORK, their first record for Columbia.

Then there is the truth:

(On Undercover) the songs are much stronger. I think Mick's come up with some good sort of lyrics and his VOICE sounds great on it. And there's also - there's a good feel to it. I think Mick and Keith have done really well on this album. The only fault I've got against it is again they've spent MUCH too long mixing the bloody thing. And, as a result, the actual sound of the instruments is a little bit harder and cold, whereas when they're still in the early stages, when they're just basic tracks, to me a lot of those things sound better.

- Ian Stewart, 1984

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Even Keith acknowledged how bad DIRTY WORK is:

There's a couple of good things on Dirty Work.

- Keith Richards, July 2002

[www.timeisonourside.com]

Quoting Keith is baseless? It was in the NME in an interview with Mat Snow.
Don't tell my ears are scared, That's just silly.

Quote
bakersfield
As I've often said before, DW was seen as a return to form after the sterile Undercover. Even Keith Richards agreed with a journalist that Undercover was 'dull'. But... it has become an article of faith on this board to hate DW for some reason. To my ears side two of Undercover sounds phoned-in compared to side two of Dirty Work which is a solid run of good songs IMHO.

I recall reading that description of DIRTY WORK as a 'return to form after UNDERCOVER' and that was how it was seen in some reviews at the time (to repeated again with STEEL WHEELS). That doesn't mean that UNDERCOVER wasn't praised also when it was released, but let's say, by the time DIRTY WORK was relaesed it wasn't seen any big Stones album. The realization that DIRTY WORK was nothing like a big Stones album happened pretty soon I think. It didn't ask much for STEEL WHEELS to make a big impact.

Nowadays all those 80's post-TATTOO YOU albums enjoy a pretty bad reputation, if not forgotten all, outside hardcore fan circles, especially UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Surely this kind of judgment is based on pretty vague impressions (reading Stones-related books, articles, album reviews, etc). In Spotify those two albums have gained clearly the least streams of any of their albums. It sounds like the whole legacy between TATTOO YOU and the 'comeback' of STEEL WHEELS TOUR is nothing but 'WWW 3', the Stones albums shadowed by Mick/Keith drama and their solo albums.

Thankfully we know better...

That of Keith belittlening UNDERCOVER while promoting DIRTY WORK is pretty understable. Not that there is a new product to promote, but he was also heavily involved in creating the album (as the early reports called it "Keith's album"). It is a bit similar like Keith claimed at the time when EMOTIONAL RESCUE was released that it is stronger album than SOME GIRLS. He really worked his off for that album.

Generally, if the dude had worked for a year or so to make an album, living and breathing it, it might be pretty hard to be very objective about it when it is relaesed - how is going to be compared to their previous works, etc. It is much easier in our critics' section to just pick up the finished product and judge it...

- Doxa



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2022-08-09 10:38 by Doxa.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
bakersfield
As I've often said before, DW was seen as a return to form after the sterile Undercover. Even Keith Richards agreed with a journalist that Undercover was 'dull'. But... it has become an article of faith on this board to hate DW for some reason. To my ears side two of Undercover sounds phoned-in compared to side two of Dirty Work which is a solid run of good songs IMHO.

I recall reading that description of DIRTY WORK as a 'return to form after UNDERCOVER' and that was how it was seen in some reviews at the time (to repeated again with STEEL WHEELS). That doesn't mean that UNDERCOVER wasn't praised also when it was released, but let's say, by the time DIRTY WORK was relaesed it wasn't seen any big Stones album. The realization that DIRTY WORK was nothing like a big Stones album happened pretty soon I think. It didn't ask much for STEEL WHEELS to make a big impact.

Nowadays all those 80's post-TATTOO YOU albums enjoy a pretty bad reputation, if not forgotten all, outside hardcore fan circles, especially UNDERCOVER and DIRTY WORK. Surely this kind of judgment is based on pretty vague impressions (reading Stones-related books, articles, album reviews, etc). In Spotify those two albums have gained clearly the least streams of any of their albums. It sounds like the whole legacy between TATTOO YOU and the 'comeback' of STEEL WHEELS TOUR is nothing but 'WWW 3', the Stones albums shadowed by Mick/Keith drama and their solo albums.

Thankfully we know better...

That of Keith belittlening UNDERCOVER while promoting DIRTY WORK is pretty understable. Not that there is a new product to promote, but he was also heavily involved in creating the album (as the early reports called it "Keith's album"). It is a bit similar like Keith claimed at the time when EMOTIONAL RESCUE was released that it is stronger album than SOME GIRLS. He really worked his off for that album.

Generally, if the dude had worked for a year or so to make an album, living and breathing it, it might be pretty hard to be very objective about it when it is relaesed - how is going to be compared to their previous works, etc. It is much easier in our critics' section to just pick up the finished product and judge it...

- Doxa

I remember when Dirty Work came out it was to a huge negative response. From the album cover to the songs to the production: it really was slammed by fans and press. I remember a TV interview with Bill Wyman here in the Netherlands (Countdown I think) when Dirty Work came out and he was telling how he hated working on the album and how the album came out terrible.

In my memory, when Undercover came out it was much better received. I remember the videos of Undercover and She Was Hot getting lots of airplay on MTV, and we waited until late in the evening when they were allowed to show the video of Too Much Blood. A year later Rewind came out, and I also remember that as a huge success.

Mathijs

Dirty Work got very good reviews over here.

UNDERCOVER got more hype than DIRTY WORK in the States because of MTV. The Undercover of the Night video was popular, but She Was Hot was a weak followup. Then, nothing. DIRTY WORK was a curiosity because it was their first CD. I remember a salesman cranking up ONE HIT and it sounded good. And the HARLEM SHUFFLE video was hilarious, the bass awesome. Then I got DIRTY WORK on cassette, listened through headphones, and realized it had 3 or 4 good songs, but there was something wrong.

Now I don't even own a copy of UNDERCOVER because I've got UOTN on LICKS. I've got an extended mix of HARLEM SHUFFLE that's really fun. But the rest is kind of forgettable. A few good Mick lyrics, and that's it. STEEL WHEELS is a great album in comparison to the two before it.