Quote
Mathijs

Quote
cimaz

Quote
24FPS
I never play this album. I don't even have a copy in my collection. It's a great single, UCOTN. Too bad it's on this totally meh album. Even Dirty Work is better.

Totally agree with this statement.

If you don't think tracks like Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough and All The Way Down aren't good Stones tracks then you should listen to different bands. The Stones is not the band for you.

Mathijs

One of my least favorite Stones albums. I Love She Was Hot, All the Way Down and Too Tough, but the title track, Feel on Baby and Too Much Blood are not my cup of tea.

Quote
Jalfstra
One of my least favorite Stones albums. I Love She Was Hot, All the Way Down and Too Tough, but the title track, Feel on Baby and Too Much Blood are not my cup of tea.

That's too bad...I get that Feel on Baby & Too Much Blood are a bit divisive.

Undercover of the Night, for me, is just a beautiful example of the Stones going in a direction they really haven't been, absolutely slaying it, and never really going back to it. I find that a pity.

Sort of like the handful of amazing psychedelic cuts they did in 1967, She's A Rainbow, Child Of The Moon, 2000 Light Years, We Love You...a style that they never again re-explored. Maybe Moonlight Mile would be the closest.

Solid album. Happy 40th!

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
Jalfstra
One of my least favorite Stones albums. I Love She Was Hot, All the Way Down and Too Tough, but the title track, Feel on Baby and Too Much Blood are not my cup of tea.

That's too bad...I get that Feel on Baby & Too Much Blood are a bit divisive.

Undercover of the Night, for me, is just a beautiful example of the Stones going in a direction they really haven't been, absolutely slaying it, and never really going back to it. I find that a pity.

Sort of like the handful of amazing psychedelic cuts they did in 1967, She's A Rainbow, Child Of The Moon, 2000 Light Years, We Love You...a style that they never again re-explored. Maybe Moonlight Mile would be the closest.

I have the same feeling. It is Mickocentric and diverse. Also, they explore the grounds they do not hit much before. Just like their last one.

If it isn´t Thief In The Night - then it is All The Way Down and Pretty Beat Up? What is it with people - always half baked two-chord songs on top of their lists...Cringe... But I really like Undercover, have lots of sweet teen memories from that period...

I was pretty wild having a very loose/liberal for the times set of parents but 10? Nah and I lived in the heart of the city at that time. But 10 nah no happenings... just my 2 cents.

On another note I recall exactly where I was when this came out and I heard "Undercover" for first time. Also digging the filming Miami Vice at the time. That was very cool to watch.

Quote
Bjorn
If it isn´t Thief In The Night - then it is All The Way Down and Pretty Beat Up? What is it with people - always half baked two-chord songs on top of their lists...Cringe... But I really like Undercover, have lots of sweet teen memories from that period...

I think you can appreciate things for what they are. There are cuts on Exile that aren't fully formed songs but still work very nicely. Just Wanna See His Face anyone?

Or what about Heaven on Tattoo You? It doesn't really go anywhere but it's awesome.

It's not like they're not experienced enough to know how to structure a "traditional" song. It's just that they don't want to in some cases, and that still works for me.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
cimaz

Quote
24FPS
I never play this album. I don't even have a copy in my collection. It's a great single, UCOTN. Too bad it's on this totally meh album. Even Dirty Work is better.

Totally agree with this statement.

If you don't think tracks like Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough and All The Way Down aren't good Stones tracks then you should listen to different bands. The Stones is not the band for you.

Mathijs

Oh, you're going to tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't care for one particular album, which is the nadir of their recording career? Even the first three Post-Wyman albums are better, and I never listen to them either. (Except for the singles). I've only been a fan since 1964. I've listened to every album and single since. (I've even re-evaluated Her Satanic Majesties' Request recently. It's not a great psychedelic album, but it is a great experimental LP.) I only like a couple cuts on Dirty Work too. Tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't swallow that piece of drek in one bite.

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
cimaz

Quote
24FPS
I never play this album. I don't even have a copy in my collection. It's a great single, UCOTN. Too bad it's on this totally meh album. Even Dirty Work is better.

Totally agree with this statement.

If you don't think tracks like Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough and All The Way Down aren't good Stones tracks then you should listen to different bands. The Stones is not the band for you.

Mathijs

Don't think they are good, or, think they aren't good?

I would choose It Must Be Hell over both Too Much Blood and Too Tough, myself, though.

Quote
liddas
Am I the only one who spent hours trying to remove THE sticker without tearing the cover?
C

My stickers remain intact! A dude on my floor removed his so I got to see what it looked like underneath.

As for the album, a nice one, the only track I have never loved is Too Much Blood. The beat & horns give it sort of a spanish party song vibe. Fingerprint File is more my cup of tea!

Always loved this album but I know a lot of people on this board don't. I thought it was a good solid album from a bunch of 'has-beens' when it came out. Going to give it a spin later.

Happy Birthday Undercover.

Just listened to an "It Must Be Hell" outtake (Version 1) from "Bird's Vault Vol.3" and the vocal sounds a lot better to my ears than what I remembered from the album. So I checked it out vs the CD version and it does sound less "compressed", hum...

--------------
IORR Links : Essential Studio Outtakes CDs : Audio - History of Rarest Outtakes : Audio

ROCKMAN

[youtu.be]

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
cimaz

Quote
24FPS
I never play this album. I don't even have a copy in my collection. It's a great single, UCOTN. Too bad it's on this totally meh album. Even Dirty Work is better.

Totally agree with this statement.

If you don't think tracks like Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough and All The Way Down aren't good Stones tracks then you should listen to different bands. The Stones is not the band for you.

Mathijs

Oh, you're going to tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't care for one particular album, which is the nadir of their recording career? Even the first three Post-Wyman albums are better, and I never listen to them either. (Except for the singles). I've only been a fan since 1964. I've listened to every album and single since. (I've even re-evaluated Her Satanic Majesties' Request recently. It's not a great psychedelic album, but it is a great experimental LP.) I only like a couple cuts on Dirty Work too. Tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't swallow that piece of drek in one bite.

While I disagree with a lot of what your saying about Undercover, I would allow that not liking that album could still leave you eligible with fan status.

Sadly, that status has been revoked because ALL true fans know it's "Their", not "Her". COME ON TWENTY FOUR FPS!

Quote
LeonidP

Quote
liddas
Am I the only one who spent hours trying to remove THE sticker without tearing the cover?
C

My stickers remain intact! A dude on my floor removed his so I got to see what it looked like underneath.

As for the album, a nice one, the only track I have never loved is Too Much Blood. The beat & horns give it sort of a spanish party song vibe. Fingerprint File is more my cup of tea!

Ha ha...University LeonidP? That's where I was when this came out!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-11-09 05:11 by treaclefingers.

There are no skips on Undercover for me. I think it's a great album. I'll need to check out the demos sometime and see if they truly are better.

Quote
SomeGuy
Don't think they are good, or, think they aren't good?

He he I noticed the glitch too. Oh well.

Mathijs

Yeah, it's one of my favourite albums, ever since it's come out. Great stuff.

And, it should be played loud ...

Quote
Mathijs


The production always was a bit dated, but for the last couple of years it has aged quite well. The production of Hackney Diamonds is closer to Undercover than anything else.

Mathijs

I find this an interesting claim. But with respect, I need to disagree to an extent.

As far as production goes, I think UNDERCOVER is not very cohesive album: some of it very contemporary, the Stones most radically using the sounds of the day - "Undercover Of The Night", "Too Much Blood" and to an extent "Feel On Baby" - but the rest of - the bulk of it, that is - is pretty traditional Pathe Marconi stuff, the Stones actually sounding dated even back then in 1983. Some of it even half-arsed produced (the very retro-sounding "Must Be Hell"). I never bought the idea that the Stones actually were that experimental or re-inventive in that album. They pretty much continue from they had left in EMOTIONAL RESCUE, just adding some contemporary touches there into a couple of tunes. Like adding make-up (especially the title track). True that there were some interesting new ideas deriving from some of those Pathe Marconi-era loose jams, but not that much differing from they had already done in SOME GIRLS or EMOTIONAL RESCUE (with better and more fresh results I think) And true that there is a certain charm in all those tieyouups, allthewaydowns and prettybeatups, since the Stones would never sound so loose, dirty and sexy again (that is a retrospective insight: all that sounded obvious still back then, and it needed a few albums to really recognize its unique value - that the band and that sound was gone).

But I think in the big picture the Stones lost the touch to the contemporary music scene with that album after having enjoyed a sort of new relevance since SOME GIRLS (the one they managed to keep up with EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU). They probably should have been more radical in reinventing their sound order to keep up with the times (probably using more the style of "Undercover of The Night" and "Too Much Blood"). The times they were really a-changin' rapidly at the time...

I think the contrast or assumed novelty factor is due to differing a lot from a shamelessly retro-sounding TATTOO YOU. Hell, even the idea of the flip side is like an opposite: instead of having full of slow numbers, it is full of rockers. But I think UNDERCOVER altogether is more like an end of an era type of album than that of them coming up with something novel. A kind of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL of the 80's.

Anyway, if the production of HACKNEY DIAMONDS is compared to the past, I think it resembles more STEEL WHEELS (like I tried to argue in its thread), since that album is more cohesive in its attempt to sound contemporary than UNDERCOVER.

But hey, 40 years... Damn I still recall going to buy my first brandnew Stones studio album at its release day (after being hooked by TATTOO YOU two years earlier). And, of course, due to that fact alone, UNDERCOVER has a special place in my heart. Memories...

- Doxa



Edited 7 time(s). Last edit at 2023-11-09 15:27 by Doxa.

What I remember about the release of "Undercover", was that it was the beginning of when I started to dislike new Stones albums, that is, with the exception of "Steel Wheels". It was more or less the beginning of the end.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2023-11-09 15:10 by Chacho.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Mathijs


The production always was a bit dated, but for the last couple of years it has aged quite well. The production of Hackney Diamonds is closer to Undercover than anything else.

Mathijs

I find this an interesting claim. But with respect, I need to disagree to an extent.

As far as production goes, I think UNDERCOVER is not very cohesive album: some of it very contemporary, the Stones most radically using the sounds of the day - "Undercover Of The Night", "Too Much Blood" and to an extent "Feel On Baby" - but the rest of - the bulk of it, that is - is pretty traditional Pathe Marconi stuff, the Stones actually sounding dated even back then in 1983. Some of it even half-arsed produced (the very retro-sounding "Must Be Hell"). I never bought the idea that the Stones actually were that experimental or re-inventive in that album. They pretty much continue from they had left in EMOTIONAL RESCUE, just adding some contemporary touches there into a couple of tunes. Like adding make-up (especially the title track). True that there were some interesting new ideas deriving from some of those Pathe Marconi-era loose jams, but not that much differing from they had already done in SOME GIRLS or EMOTIONAL RESCUE (with better and more fresh results I think) And true that there is a certain charm in all those tieyouups, allthewaydowns and prettybeatups, since the Stones would never sound so loose, dirty and sexy again (that is a retrospective insight: all that sounded obvious still back then, and it needed a few albums to really recognize its unique value - that the band and that sound was gone).

But I think in the big picture the Stones lost the touch to the contemporary music scene with that album after having enjoyed a sort of new relevance since SOME GIRLS (the one they managed to keep up with EMOTIONAL RESCUE and TATTOO YOU). They probably should have been more radical in reinventing their sound order to keep up with the times (probably using more the style of "Undercover of The Night" and "Too Much Blood"). The times they were really a-changin' rapidly at the time...

I think the contrast or assumed novelty factor is due to differing a lot from a shamelessly retro-sounding TATTOO YOU. Hell, even the idea of the flip side is like an opposite: instead of having full of slow numbers, it is full of rockers. But I think UNDERCOVER altogether is more like an end of an era type of album than that of them coming up with something novel. A kind of IT'S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL of the 80's.

Anyway, if the production of HACKNEY DIAMONDS is compared to the past, I think it resembles more STEEL WHEELS (like I tried to argue in its thread), since that album is more cohesive in its attempt to sound contemporary than UNDERCOVER.

But hey, 40 years... Damn I still recall going to buy my first brandnew Stones studio album at its release day (after being hooked by TATTOO YOU two years earlier). And, of course, due to that fact alone, UNDERCOVER has a special place in my heart. Memories...

- Doxa

I wonder if it might be advantageous to make a distinction between the arrangements and the production in your discussion, but maybe not.

I would say that UNDERCOVER was an eclectic album, not their first at that. But I think their few more or less contemporary songs contribute to define the album's impact as contemporary at least to the ears of Stones fans. An objection for part of their fanbase, a revelation to a large minority of it. Whereas you, Doxa, describe the other songs as traditional Pathe Marconi stuff, I then disagree about that adjective "traditional". Rather I would call it their continued development of that kind of music. In my view, the Stones were still able to do explore that subgenre of their music, without the songs sounding repetitive or retro. I guess it is this continued development that allows the contemporary songs to colour the impression of the album as quite contemporary. That is, within the musical universe of the Rolling Stones, they were still progressive. The thread that unites SOME GIRLS, EMOTIONAL RESCUE and UNDERCOVER was still moving ahead in my outlook on the side of creation, even if the reception to this album was to become a problem at these fatal crossroads for the band's existence.

Undercover gets my vote for "best album since Tattoo You"

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
cimaz

Quote
24FPS
I never play this album. I don't even have a copy in my collection. It's a great single, UCOTN. Too bad it's on this totally meh album. Even Dirty Work is better.

Totally agree with this statement.

If you don't think tracks like Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough and All The Way Down aren't good Stones tracks then you should listen to different bands. The Stones is not the band for you.

Mathijs

Oh, you're going to tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't care for one particular album, which is the nadir of their recording career? Even the first three Post-Wyman albums are better, and I never listen to them either. (Except for the singles). I've only been a fan since 1964. I've listened to every album and single since. (I've even re-evaluated Her Satanic Majesties' Request recently. It's not a great psychedelic album, but it is a great experimental LP.) I only like a couple cuts on Dirty Work too. Tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't swallow that piece of drek in one bite.

While I disagree with a lot of what your saying about Undercover, I would allow that not liking that album could still leave you eligible with fan status.

Sadly, that status has been revoked because ALL true fans know it's "Their", not "Her". COME ON TWENTY FOUR FPS!

You know I never even owned a copy of it until a couple years ago. There was something always off putting about it. I finally decided to sit down, have a couple hits, and really listen to it. There are some clunkers, but some strangely interesting moments too. I always have to check to see what the real name of that album is.

Quote
24FPS

Quote
treaclefingers

Quote
24FPS

Quote
Mathijs

Quote
cimaz

Quote
24FPS
I never play this album. I don't even have a copy in my collection. It's a great single, UCOTN. Too bad it's on this totally meh album. Even Dirty Work is better.

Totally agree with this statement.

If you don't think tracks like Undercover, She Was Hot, Tie You Up, Too Much Blood, Pretty Beat Up, Too Tough and All The Way Down aren't good Stones tracks then you should listen to different bands. The Stones is not the band for you.

Mathijs

Oh, you're going to tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't care for one particular album, which is the nadir of their recording career? Even the first three Post-Wyman albums are better, and I never listen to them either. (Except for the singles). I've only been a fan since 1964. I've listened to every album and single since. (I've even re-evaluated Her Satanic Majesties' Request recently. It's not a great psychedelic album, but it is a great experimental LP.) I only like a couple cuts on Dirty Work too. Tell me I'm not a Stones fan because I don't swallow that piece of drek in one bite.

While I disagree with a lot of what your saying about Undercover, I would allow that not liking that album could still leave you eligible with fan status.

Sadly, that status has been revoked because ALL true fans know it's "Their", not "Her". COME ON TWENTY FOUR FPS!

You know I never even owned a copy of it until a couple years ago. There was something always off putting about it. I finally decided to sit down, have a couple hits, and really listen to it. There are some clunkers, but some strangely interesting moments too. I always have to check to see what the real name of that album is.

Indeed! And sorry I shouted at you in all caps.

yeah treacle ...
if ya gonna be YELLING at least get a ten-gallon hat



ROCKMAN

Quote
Rockman
yeah treacle ...
if ya gonna be YELLING at least get a ten-gallon hat

dang...perennially 5 gallons short...but I'm too young for dying and too old to lose.

A very fun album with so much diversity. The rocking numbers like Too tough and It must be hell. The funk-rock of Tie you up/Pain of love and Pretty beat up. The funky almost R & B of Too much blood. The straight ahead CB style of She was hot. Love it.