I write this as a fan of the album: why did they come out with a harsh, negative, fairly dark album after releasing Undercover, a dark, dense, seedy album that, to my knowledge, was tepidly received by critics (though some might have seen a comeback from Emotional Rescue) and fans (though it of course still sold loads of copies to diehards, even without a hit (though with some well received videos)).

The standard criticism of Dirty Work is that it's a flagrant example of the poor taste of its time and trying to imitate the popular sounds of the day. I'll grant that on some aspects of the production, but the mood of the songs is--except for keith's spotlights--very negative and hateful. I loved it! but the decision to push the songs in that direction can't have been guided by commercial hopes in that era of false good feeling and reagan-inspired denial. All the spite and bile seems like a genuine expression, building on the nastiness that fascinated jagger--but how many long-term stones fans?--on Undercover.

I think the reason most fans don't like these albums has less to do with dated production values (and some weak songwriting) than with the conscious lack of grandeur and sentimentality, which fans missed from the classic rock days. Remember this is when, at least in the US, "classic rock" became a radio format alongside the increasingly less rock-oriented popular formats, when one became more likely to hear "Gimme Shelter" on the radio than something new like "One Hit." "Back to Zero" sounds crappy in a way typical of the 80s, but its pessimism is uncompromising. Could the band really have thought Dirty Work would be a big seller?

Interesting analysis, cc.

Personally, I "faked" liking it for several years before it dawned on me that the songs (almost all of them) just weren't that good. Sometimes it's as simple as that.....

It was dark because Jagger and Richards hated each other, Charlie was drinking and drugging, Wyman had mostly lost interest and the band was on the verge of breaking up.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was dark because Jagger and Richards hated each
> other, Charlie was drinking and drugging, Wyman
> had mostly lost interest and the band was on the
> verge of breaking up.

seriously, though - aside from that, wasn't everything rosey?

I think Dirty Work would have been a fantastic album if Mick actually SANG on it. As a kid I remember Hold Back being the song that categorizes the entire album: screaming & angry. The guitar grooves are actually pretty cool.

-Drake

I have always liked the album. There are great songs on it, Hold Back for example has a very nice middle section where Jagger and Charlie are excellent. Nice solo too (Jimmy Page?)
Harlem Shuffle worked very nice, One Hit great song, nice acoustic intro.
Title song is great. Wish it was possible to remix all the tracks, so you could get rid of the horrible (and dated) Steve Lillywhite production (those drums!)

barbabang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always liked the album. There are great
> songs on it, Hold Back for example has a very nice
> middle section where Jagger and Charlie are
> excellent. Nice solo too (Jimmy Page?)
>

No, it' the Woodman....Jimmy does the honors on One Hit.

The song is one of the early examples where Jagger resorts to that "tough guy" persona on the vocal style - can't stand that, Still does it from time to time - recent example is It Won't Take Long. Just can't listen to the tune, as a result.

Thanks for clarifying the solo in Hold Back Stones Tod.
To be honest I haven't played ABB that much the last weeks. Will give it a "spin' later on.

in general, i agree that there's some good musicianship throughout DW - the guitarists were both still very capable axemen. But the horrific production, throwaway vocals and just lackluster songs themselves don't add up to a winning album....not even a winning ugly one....

Remember: in 1985 the most Rock&Roll guy the be found was Midge Ure, playing a pink Kramer Hot Rod Strat guitar.

No wonder a Stones album from '85 sounds a bit awkward.

Mathijs

good point - 1985 should be erased from the rockn'roll archives on a permanent basis.

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But the horrific
> production, throwaway vocals and just lackluster
> songs themselves don't add up to a winning
> album....not even a winning ugly one....

But "Winning Ugly" has one of the best vocals on the album; some tough-guy, some sly. I was thinking of a separate post about mick's contributions. I've been listening to the outtakes and raw stuff from the sessions... they're pretty far off from the finished product, so I was wondering if the standard take, that mick mailed in his contributions, is an exaggeration. Because keith has a lot of relaxed grooves happening on the jams. If one more of those had made it to the album, even with a jagger vocal, it would have changed the balance. The rough versions of "One Hit" are pretty tame. I'm thinking mick had more input on the final mixes than his one-note vocals would suggest.

Though this might be the one album since... Sticky Fingers? that there are no jagger guitar tracks. I think.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 01:13 by cc.

ohnonotyouagain Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It was dark because Jagger and Richards hated each
> other, Charlie was drinking and drugging, Wyman
> had mostly lost interest and the band was on the
> verge of breaking up.

This is a plausible theory, but could you come up with a similar scheme for each stones album? Or have these ideas just settled around Dirty Work? How were they feeling for the Undercover sessions? Emotional Rescue?

StonesTod Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> good point - 1985 should be erased from the
> rockn'roll archives on a permanent basis.


Yes, I wouldn't mind if they were blotted out.

have a look at what was hip in '85 - Billboard
[80sxchange.com]

As an album it is poor for several reasons

1) The songs are crap apart from the covers Too Rude & Harlem Shuffle.

2) Jagger shouts the whole album and couldn't hold a tune in a bucket!

3) The songs are devoid of any tunes or really catchy melodies.

4) The production is fcukin awful.... even Lillywhite would probably agree.

5) They weren't bothered.... or the band was and Jagger definately wasn't hence his shouting all over the album.

6) The cover says it all.


Compared to Dirty Work Emotional Rescue is a work of genius up there with Mozart.

NickB

ps If I were Keef or Mick I would make sure the record companies would delete it from their catalogues.

pps. I could write better songs with my hands tied behind my back and my brain removed.

Production and overdubs SUCK. Winning Ugly and Back to Zero SUCK.

Had It With You rocks--stripped down. Stripping the rest of the album of '80s-isms would've helped tremendously. Should have sounded like Talk is Cheap with Mick on vocals (+ Bill, Charlie + Ron).

But were there any good organic rock albums from this era? I remember hating the production of everything. Bob Dylan, AC/DC... Rick Rubin was beginning his experiments w/ "retro" production.

I am a stones fan and the dirty work album could have been better. One Hit was great those guitars were awesome, I missed Keith's background vocals which are not there barely if so. Jagger had the look the long hair, he had that look to him. I think if he would have toured for the album it would have been nice and maybe he and keith never would have fought like they did. You are right thjey were at the verge of breaking up with all the crap Hold back I fine is a forced song the Jagger richards production team was gone. Oh well they still are rolling....

open-g Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> StonesTod Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > good point - 1985 should be erased from the
> > rockn'roll archives on a permanent basis.
>
>
> Yes, I wouldn't mind if they were blotted out.
>
> have a look at what was hip in '85 - Billboard
> [80sxchange.com]

I and many others have said this before, but it's worth repeating again: the '80s blew massive chunks. Especially musically. There was some good music being made, but overall it had to be the worst decade in the history of rock 'n' roll. Wham, Phil Collins, REO Speedwagon ... Ugh!

Chas Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Production and overdubs SUCK. Winning Ugly and
> Back to Zero SUCK.

You don't think there were overdubs on Exile on Main St.? Please. I think it's the same mixing technique, just with different effects on the sounds.

I meant specifically the overdubs and production on Dirty Work in relation to the title of this thread.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 03:00 by Chas.

I really enjoy DW, it rocks harder than any Stones album since then.
And of course, its their last "honest" record.

Dirty work would be pretty good if it wasn't the Stones. they are held up to a higher standard.

NickB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As an album it is poor for several reasons
>
> 1) The songs are crap apart from the covers Too
> Rude & Harlem Shuffle.
>
> 2) Jagger shouts the whole album and couldn't hold
> a tune in a bucket!
>
> 3) The songs are devoid of any tunes or really
> catchy melodies.
>
> 4) The production is fcukin awful.... even
> Lillywhite would probably agree.
>
> 5) They weren't bothered.... or the band was and
> Jagger definately wasn't hence his shouting all
> over the album.
>
> 6) The cover says it all.
>
>
> Compared to Dirty Work Emotional Rescue is a work
> of genius up there with Mozart.
>
> NickB
>
> ps If I were Keef or Mick I would make sure the
> record companies would delete it from their
> catalogues.
>
> pps. I could write better songs with my hands tied
> behind my back and my brain removed.


I don't even need to type my comments- NickB said it all............

don't give me that ole one two, one two three four

Seems like one of the times where the dual Black vs White approach from Keith and Mick did not work. When they manage to meet in the middle, like often is the case, the magic happens. But here Keith had brothered up with Ron and actually created a massive guitar attack. They needed the input from Jagger with melodies, some glitz and grandeur. It did nnot come. I', not in the habit of sensing plots etc but I feel that Jagger outright tried to sabotage some of Keith's grooves. "Dirty Work" is actually a KILLER rocktune, but falles completely apart when jagger starts messing around in the second half of song. "Winning UIgly" is ruined by that awful vocal. the hook is a monster. One of the truest Stones moments on the record is "Had it with you". The Stones have a habit of throwing these weird innocuous tunes in that slot. the one before the ending tune: Baby Break it down, Break the Spell, Short and Curlies, She's so Cold, All the way Down,factory Girl, Too Tight

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

they were thinking lets make a raw hatefilled album that has some rock songs.

.... it was a great frisbee..........

Although DW is the Stones' weakest album, I don't think it's too bad. One Hit, Harlem Shuffle, and Sleep Tonight are near-classics. One Hit especially, it never fails to make me cry. Too Rude and Had It With You are good, too. But Back to Zero and Hold Back are horrendous songs, Fight is generic and laden with disgusting power chords, and the title track sounds like a symphony of incredibly tuneful farts. Strictly Memphis should have been on this album in place of Back to Zero.


But I think the last thing the Stones' were concerned about for this album was sales. They just didn't care, they had to finish the album.




I see most people hate Winning Ugly. It's not a great song, but it's definitely not as bad as most people say it is. It gets better every time I listen to it, even if it has cheesy 80's synths.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 09:02 by it's_all_wrong.

>> Could the band really have thought Dirty Work would be a big seller? <<

... and would it make it "better" in some way if it sounded like they were aiming at a major commercial success??

(i dig DW a lot. being blessed with a gift for tuning out the vocals when they aren't up to much seems to help.
and Winning Ugly is a great track! that extended-TD line cantering through it is *beautiful!*)

Dirty Work isn't one I play too much. It's largely mediocre to throwaway at best. The fact that the outtakes are much much better and hint at what could have been says it all ....

Shouting or no shouting - Jagger's vocals on Fight is some of the best rock'n'roll vocals ever recorded. I love Jagger's shouting on songs like When The Whip Comes Down, Where The Boys Go, Undercover, Everything Is Turning To Gold etc.