ron wood does.....its a great lp---better than most...

STONES JAM!! MICKEYS RULES!!! (burp) NADER IN 2016!!!!! GO GIANTS!!

So that would fit the lyrics of Jagger: "You're bass it a mess!!! It's a BASS!!!", if Ronnie was playing while drunk and/or stoned.

Great over all album. Not great songs but great hooks, licks and drums. With the exception of the tittle track a great work. Especially she ran all the way and too tough

An intersting tidbit related the records violence--five of the songs describe cutting oor slicing someone with a knife: UC, TYU, TMB, PBU, TT. Suicide is mentioned in at least three songs. Very dark.

Swimming pools & suicide...

I Think I'm Going Mad ...anyone have it?

the shoot 'em dead, brainbell jangler!

fleabitpeanutmonkey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> An intersting tidbit related the records
> violence--five of the songs describe cutting oor
> slicing someone with a knife: UC, TYU, TMB, PBU,
> TT. Suicide is mentioned in at least three songs.
> Very dark.

Yeah that's what I like best about it. Dirty Work is pretty pissed off too. I just think those 2 aren't nearly the two "worst" Stones albums, but that seems to be the general consensus in many places..

That's the problem with majorities: If you aren't a member, you're atuomatically this big social deviant who is not to be trusted and who is to be picked on and bullied at every opportunity.

I love "All the way down". I wonder who that song is about anyway? It seems to have roots from the early days. I like how Jagger just loses it nearly every verse. The song had to have some reference point.

Birthday's,Kids, and Suicides...

a great album! many excellent songs (Undercover, She was hot, Tie you up, Too Tough, Too much blood, It must be hell), and only one single song i don´t like too much (Pretty beat up). I like it even more that Tattoo you, somehow it is more "threatening", more "modern", and certainly better than Emotional Rescue.

It's the album I listen and enjoy more of the lot.

C

great thread! this is one of the sharpest stones sets. finally bought it couple of years back after years of ignorance thinking it's just another bad 80s effort and i was amazed right off. the production is all summer hot breeze and cruisin along the coast. Some of jaggers best. the music just sounds so rich and real to me. except for title track, dated a bit.

i loved hte too much blood outtake promoman posted up!

Especially Wanna Hold You is the best example for the shitty production and mix, because it's so thin. There's an outtake cirulating (I think from Jamming with Stu), that shows hough fresh and rocking this track was at the sessions. It's a Jaggerish album, with cool songs, but poppy production. Keith doesn't like it, and that's also the reason why the songs are rarely or never played live. I'm sure Undercover is the beginning of their biggest crisis ever in the eighties, and the reason for Jagger's first solo album, and the hard, rough sound on Dirty Work (which can be called the Ron&Keith-album). That's how Keith wanted the stones to sound.

If by your logic jagger's to blame for the bad mix, why is it keith's song that sounds the worst?

cc

What a great post... a good read. I totally agree with wanderingspirit66. I have posted on this site many times about my appreciation for this album. Of course it is a matter of taste, what you really like about the Stones and rock and roll, etc, but I have always felt this record was the Stones most mature effort. It is by far their smartest record imho, and as for that "80's" sound, I think it does not suffer much from this. The guitars are prominent and the mix is warm. 'She's The Boss' suffers from that "80's" sound more than anything, and Dirty Work too, with its pumped up drums and awful pseudo-metal vocals... but Undercover is, once again imho, their last great album.

What's that little vocal bit, really quiet, just before 'It Must Be Hell'? Is that Keith?

"Don't amp it again, just... drop a sec."

Lovely album miss the lovely ballad,on the other hand,its a virgin cause its the only without (a ballad).Witch is also rather nice indeed.

It's still odd to me except a few exceptions ;-)

I guess 'Wanna Hold You' and maybe 'All the Way Down' are the closest to being ballads than any other songs on the album.

Birthdays, Kids, and suicides..

I was King, Mr Cool, just a snotty little fool,
Like the kids are now....

AlL the Way Down is for me one of Jagger's best set of lyrics. OK, the chorus is just sex, but those verse, like those I quoted above, I mean this is MJ at his best dealing with his aging while neeeding to play the part of a young man. In the 2o plus years since, I do not thinks he has come close to dealing with this issue as well as he does on this CD, on this song. Today, Jagger just seems to want to ignore the passing years, back then he was at least able to confront the issue with insite and humor.

I have loved this album since I heard the first measure of the opening number comeing over the radio. Yes it sounds dated now by its production, especially the title song. But I have a bit of trouble with this criticism, we crap all over albums that are dated by production values now...but so many seem to skip over the production vales of the sixties. I mean we applaud strings, marimbas, sitars on the early albums, disguised as worship of Brian by many, then bitch about booming bass and drum machines. Can you imagine something new with strings, marimba, or ( shudder) sitar? I know the classic albums of the early 60's have some great raw material, but I find it hard to get past the tinny sound of 60's production. So it just seems incongruent when so many get shrill on 80's production.

The Stones have always been a band OF THE TIMES, and everyone that wants them to sound like a certain era would be in conflict with someone else that prefers another era.

Well, people can hate it if they want; I don't really care. I started to thread more to see if there was anybody out there among Stones fans who really like this album. Obviously, there are, and it's good hear from all of you.

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> > I have loved this album since I heard the first
> measure of the opening number comeing over the
> radio. Yes it sounds dated now by its production,
> especially the title song. But I have a bit of
> trouble with this criticism, we crap all over
> albums that are dated by production values
> now...but so many seem to skip over the production
> vales of the sixties. I mean we applaud strings,
> marimbas, sitars on the early albums, disguised as
> worship of Brian by many, then bitch about booming
> bass and drum machines. Can you imagine something
> new with strings, marimba, or ( shudder) sitar? I
> know the classic albums of the early 60's have
> some great raw material, but I find it hard to get
> past the tinny sound of 60's production. So it
> just seems incongruent when so many get shrill on
> 80's production.
>
> The Stones have always been a band OF THE TIMES,
> and everyone that wants them to sound like a
> certain era would be in conflict with someone else
> that prefers another era.


I don't have issues with them trying new things nor do I want them to be stuck in an 'outdated' era, but its just that they had a very organic sound as a band, and replacing real drums with drum machines and putting layers and layers of overproduction takes away from that organic feel. Many bands in the 80s continued to play whatever instuments they wanted and maintained minimial production instead of replacing them with synthesizers and drum machines just because they were in fashion in the 80s. I'd rather the Stones did that. That's why TY sounds so un-80s, and pretty timeless, they didn't have the latest 80s fad production on it, but the only reason for that probably is because most of the songs on TY were old.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2005-12-19 23:13 by Some Girl.

kahoosier: I agree that production values generally need to be looked at in context, especially 80s stuff, which almost everyone has a problem with. But the 60s albums tinny? Have you heard the original vinyl, or next best, the remasters? I would only call the Regent Sound material tinny; most of the tracks from Chess and RCA sound excellent to me. But I guess that's another topic...

SG: Tattoo You sounds un-80s? To me it sounds totally 80s, and that's one of its brilliant aspects. Captures its time, despite being pulled from old material. An achievement of mixing, I guess.

cc

Tinny sounding 60s production: Absolutely, you must hear the vinyl. Even Sticky Fingers, after having listened to it on vinyl for a good ten years, I was pretty disappointed with the CD remaster from Andrew Loog Oldham. Sixites and Seventies music was recorded with the aim of vinyl, so I don't think it stands up so well as compact disc. But there are much better digital formats coming out now, so maybe in the future it will sound good. Anyway, for vinyl-era music, vinyl always sounds best to me.

cc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> SG: Tattoo You sounds un-80s? To me it sounds
> totally 80s, and that's one of its brilliant
> aspects. Captures its time, despite being pulled
> from old material. An achievement of mixing, I
> guess.
>

No, I can't say I hear any typical 80s over-production on TY. Songs like Neighbours and Hang Fire tend to be very basic and punky and could be from any decade... I don't hear the 80s. Not even Start Me Up, while it's definitely more "produced" than the other songs on it, it is not anywhere near the over-production on Mixed Emotions, for example. Steel Wheels is really 80s to me.

I don't think a term as vague as "over-production" can be applied to an entire decade. There were overproduced records in the 60s, too. And TY is very "produced" -- it had to be, to make the tracks from different years sound like a coherent album when put together.

I'm talking more about the sound. TY has a shiny, glossy mix, lots of obviously fake (but cool sounding) reverb on the drums, which are dominated by the snare, and the guitars are very clean. IMO these are the sounds of mainstream 80s rock, quickly played out but fresh in '81. Interestingly, it sounds most like cutting edge "new wave" groups of the day like Wire or Magazine.

cc

kahoosier Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> . I mean we applaud strings,
> marimbas, sitars on the early albums, disguised as
> worship of Brian by many, then bitch about booming
> bass and drum machines. Can you imagine something
> new with strings, marimba, or ( shudder) sitar? I
> know the classic albums of the early 60's have
> some great raw material, but I find it hard to get
> past the tinny sound of 60's production. So it
> just seems incongruent when so many get shrill on
> 80's production.
>
>

Interesting comments. I would argue just the opposite about the 60's albums - I think they all (certainly as evidenced on SACD versions) represent the HIGH WATER mark in terms of production. The Stones would do well to get back to the sound from Chess Studios in fact (I realize it won't/can't happen, though).

That's because was all-tube, and probably even mono!

Fantastic record. Way up in my top 5 Stones album list.