Quote
jahisnotdead
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
Witness

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.

Quote
Doxa

Quote
Witness

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.

Thank you for your great insights. I think we are on the same page about the progressive nature of UNDERCOVER. It is not a repetitive album at all. The album still works and develops further the sound and ideas they'd been inspired since SOME GIRLS (now we are talking about the tracks I called earlier 'traditional' unlike "Undercover of The Night" and "Too Much Blood" that probably 'shocked' their older fans at the time). But I still think they started running out of fresh ideas by then. Like they had pretty much emptied their pockets. The real Pathe Marconi inspiration - the muse that gave a birth to SOME GIRLS - had gone. Like only the handcraft was left - you know - put the band, once again, into studio to jam a riff or something, and some variant will occur (technically different to anything they had done before, but still the differences started to be in nuances). That's why I think UNDERCOVER resembles, say, IT´S ONLY ROCK'N'ROLL a decade earlier: technically developing further the ideas they had mastered already earlier (from BEGGARS BANQUET on), but missing the real inspiration.

So in way I think UNDERCOVER, if anything, is like a closing chapter of (great) Pathe Marconi era: this is as far we can go with this working scheme. DIRTY WORK tried to reach out, to reinvent their sound - and as the consensus seems to be, not succeeding very well in that. STEEL WHEELS altogether belongs to a new era, the band sounding drastically different than in Pathe Marconi era albums.

This all might sound that I am highly critical of UNDERCOVER, or that I do not like the album. Oh no. I think it is a great album in its own terms. Just trying to spell those terms out in order to see the album in the context of their career.

- Doxa

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

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Quote
Doxa

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.

- Doxa

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

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...

Quote
Bjorn
Big difference. If you dont understand that - too bad for you. I cant seem to find Thief in the night, Pretty beat up and All the way down on any Best of/Greatest hits compilation - or in any setlist - hardly ever (Thief when it was new). Mick, Keith and I understand why Streetfighting man is way better. Satisfied? Happier now?

Quote
Bjorn
Big difference. If you dont understand that - too bad for you. I cant seem to find Thief in the night, Pretty beat up and All the way down on any Best of/Greatest hits compilation - or in any setlist - hardly ever (Thief when it was new). Mick, Keith and I understand why Streetfighting man is way better. Satisfied? Happier now?

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

Have you heard the Stones live post-1989?

Quote
cimaz

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

Have you heard the Stones live post-1989?

Sure I did. I saw them on a few tours between 1990 and 2017 and none of the Undercover songs were in the setlist.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
cimaz

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

Have you heard the Stones live post-1989?

Sure I did. I saw them on a few tours between 1990 and 2017 and none of the Undercover songs were in the setlist.

Not even Wanna Hold You or She Was Hot?

Quote
cimaz

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
cimaz

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

Have you heard the Stones live post-1989?

Sure I did. I saw them on a few tours between 1990 and 2017 and none of the Undercover songs were in the setlist.

Not even Wanna Hold You or She Was Hot?

Scarcely played. I would have liked to listen to a live version of She was hot. The only track I really like on Undercover.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
cimaz

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
cimaz

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

Have you heard the Stones live post-1989?

Sure I did. I saw them on a few tours between 1990 and 2017 and none of the Undercover songs were in the setlist.

Not even Wanna Hold You or She Was Hot?

Scarcely played. I would have liked to listen to a live version of She was hot. The only track I really like on Undercover.

Wanna Hold You was a staple in the setlist on the B2B and (euro) ABB tours

Quote
cimaz

Sure I did. I saw them on a few tours between 1990 and 2017 and none of the Undercover songs were in the setlist.

Quote
saintmick
Last three songs: Too Tough, All The Way Down, It Must Be Hell

Which other record has so much Stones energy at the end?

Quote
Bjorn
Big difference. If you dont understand that - too bad for you. I cant seem to find Thief in the night, Pretty beat up and All the way down on any Best of/Greatest hits compilation - or in any setlist - hardly ever (Thief when it was new). Mick, Keith and I understand why Streetfighting man is way better. Satisfied? Happier now?

Quote
cimaz

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
cimaz

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
cimaz

Quote
GasLightStreet

Quote
cimaz

Quote
bakersfield
Disagree. Even Keith admitted the album was ‘dull, it didn’t happen at all’ in an interview with Mat Snow for NME in ‘86. ‘we just took turns to go into the studio and piss around with the tapes’ he said. So if Keith doesn’t rate it, I’m well within my rights to find it less than great. Too Tough is loud and fast somehow completely lifeless. It and and All the Way down sound weak, formulaic to me, Stones-by Numbers. Sticking with NME, they reviewed Undercover under the heading ‘This Should Be The Last Time’ and welcomed ‘Dirty Work’ three years later as a return to form. More importantly, taste is difficult to explain. there are some things on the first side of the album that I enjoy, but I was disappointed when I played side two 40 years ago and I still find it disappointing. I love the stones. I play the albums constantly and I love Hackney diamonds to bits. It is perfectly possible to be a genuine stones freak and dislike ‘Undercover’!

Totally agree with you. You can be a Stones fan for over 40 years and dislike Undercover It's funny how some members of this board can be aggressive and sometimes insulting when you express a different opinion of theirs. If Undercover songs are that great how can you explain that the Stones never bothered to play them live but Undercover in 1989.

Have you heard the Stones live post-1989?

Sure I did. I saw them on a few tours between 1990 and 2017 and none of the Undercover songs were in the setlist.

Not even Wanna Hold You or She Was Hot?

Scarcely played. I would have liked to listen to a live version of She was hot. The only track I really like on Undercover.

Wanna Hold You was a staple in the setlist on the B2B and (euro) ABB tours

We could have done without it. Not the most inspired Keith song.