Apart from a few tunes (Winning ugly, Back to zero) I like this album and a few years ago I used to listen to it a lot. Especially the title track, One hit and Fight. Great aggressive songs which work well while cleaning or when you are somewhat pissed off. ;-) Too rude is funny and I would love to hear Keith sing Sleep tonight!

How can anyone dislike
One Hit, Fight, Harlem Shuffle, Dirty WOrk, Had It With You and Sleep Tonight?
There's some mean cool guitars on that album, and as DandelionPowderman wrote, Jagger sings in a great wild way on some songs.
I think the 3 "bad" songs is what makes people overlook the great sides of that album.
I got Dirty Work when I was very young, so I learned to really dig some songs there, without any critical judgement just because parts of that album is un-Stonesy.
The video (and the music of course) of One Hit is one of the coolest videopromos of RS...it's up there with the 3 Undercover-singles and She's So Cold.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 13:59 by Erik_Snow.

drake Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.


I'm completely with drake here. The guitar work was interesting (maybe some Jimmy Page touches were helpul). But Jagger had turned to simply screaming his lyrics out in a mostly unconvicing and detached manner.

The "filler" song material didn't help either. But the main factor which lead to all this must have been a lack of chemistry.

Nikolai Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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 ....


It seems to me that over the last 20 years the Stones' outtakes are better than what they actually put out. But, hey...most of us in here are Stones fanatics - you can't argue with their commercial success....44 years and still counting....both on record and live....along the way they MUST have made some right decisions.....

(going off on a tangent the same could be said about setlists: we all want them to be playing the obscure material but they would probably be playing the same circuit as Swinging Blue Jeans if they did that....)

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> 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??

Are you quoting my original post? There's nothing in there about making the album "better." I like it the way it is. I'm just wondering why, if 1) the band is generally (and plausibly) believed to aim at commercial success, and 2) Undercover was not a commercial success, why they went forward with an equally or more negative mood with the next album. The extent to which they adopted contemporary production techniques--usually blamed on jagger--seems obviously negated by the harsh and nasty qualities of the songs, which already had not worked to their commercial favor on Undercover.

Yet the harsh and nasty qualities also seem ascribable to jagger, as the rough outtakes show keith's lyric ideas to be mainly about fear of infidelity, sometimes threatening but never aggressive.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 17:33 by cc.

My take is that in 1985 Jagger was more interested in keeping the Stones' sound current, than popular or commercial. Hence, the production style.

Dirty Work to me is as good as anything the Stones have done since SG, although have to agree BTZ and WU are pretty lame. Absolutely kickin guitars, and I love the MJ vocals. The last time the Stones sounded like they meant what they were saying.

Dirty Work was the first new Stones album I bought when it first came out, even though I was only about 10 years old. I don't think the album is as bad as people make it out to be, I play it more than Undercover or Steel Wheels. Yes the production is very 80s but that was the time, I think the production was worse on the two albums I mentioned above.

As far as songs, I don't really like Harlem Shuffle or Back To Zero. Winning Ugly is a little cheesy but has some nice guitar licks throughout the song. There were some nice outtakes that would have been better choices but I don't think Hold Back is as bad as people make it out to be, yeah Jagger's vocals are pretty wild but at least there is some emotion in them. Had it With You would be a cool song to hear them play live, nice bluesy rock song.

I think that if they toured behind this album we may have more respect for some of these songs because they would evolve a bit on stage and not be surrounded by the sound of the production.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 17:02 by Hound Dog.

barbabang Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I have always liked the album. There are great
> songs on it.........
... Wish it was possible to remix
> all the tracks, so you could get rid of the
> horrible (and dated) Steve Lillywhite production
> (those drums!)

I must agree to that.
A remix would work wonders on that album and could easiely be done.
the snare drum is way to loud & sticks out in the mix like a spike. on all songs^^ except the last track (piano instrumental) lol.
the drum sound is the main bugger. It doesn't sound like a drumkit, too much reverb and probably a sampled snare - uhh, so where the 80's

mofur Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > 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 ....
>
>
> It seems to me that over the last 20 years the
> Stones' outtakes are better than what they
> actually put out. But, hey...most of us in here
> are Stones fanatics - you can't argue with their
> commercial success....44 years and still
> counting....both on record and live....along the
> way they MUST have made some right decisions.....


YEAH, THEY HAVE. DIRTY WORK WASN'T ONE OF THEM. NEITHER WAS BRIDGES TO CRAPPALONG, BUT WE'RE ALL FRIENDS HERE, RIGHT?



>
> (going off on a tangent the same could be said
> about setlists: we all want them to be playing the
> obscure material but they would probably be
> playing the same circuit as Swinging Blue Jeans if
> they did that....)

NOT AT ALL. THEY SHOULD INCLUDE AT LEAST ONE OBSCURITY PER CONCERT. MORE SWAY LESS BROWN SUGAR.

>> Are you quoting my original post? There's nothing in there about making the album "better." <<

yeah i was, and a thousand pardons for mistaking your "tone" -
parts of it read like you were faulting them for not taking the album in a more commercial direction,
but if that's not what you meant: cool. and as for what they were thinking:
maybe they simply did what they felt like doing.

>>maybe they simply did what they felt like doing.<<

maybe they did - and trusted Steve Lillywhite a little too much.

I turned my back on the Stones for four years after this one. Basically, just lost interest. It took the Steel Wheels tour to bring me back. What amazed me most was the cover -- how could five guys who looked cool so effortlessly on the cover of December's Children (UK Out of our Heads) look so ridiculous two decades later.

drbryant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> how could
> five guys who looked cool so effortlessly on the
> cover of December's Children (UK Out of our Heads)
> look so ridiculous two decades later.


Eeeeh, it's not that strange...20 years on the road. Anyway, I think the Dirty Work photo is kinda cool.

Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> drbryant Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > how could
> > five guys who looked cool so effortlessly on
> the
> > cover of December's Children (UK Out of our
> Heads)
> > look so ridiculous two decades later.
>
>
> Eeeeh, it's not that strange...20 years on the
> road. Anyway, I think the Dirty Work photo is
> kinda cool.



Keith looks great in it.

i never really understood what it is that people dislike so much about the DW cover -
but here's a photo by Annie Leibowitz that was supposedly rejected as the cover shot.
apparently one reason they didn't use it is because it made Charlie's iffy condition a bit too plain;
the fact that it makes Bill look like the tallest probably didn't help either. :E but it sure is a brilliant photo.


- 1985, by Annie Leibowitz



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-15 08:45 by with sssoul.

I think Mick's screaming vocals are what he think fit best with Keith's heavy guitar tunes. I give them credit for not sticking to the formula. I think they were continuing on a direction they had explored in Undercover (Too Tough and others) and seeing what they could do with it.
Sure it could have been better and probably would have been if they were getting along better and put more work into developing the songs.
Only really bad song to me is Back to Zero
Fight and Hold Back are more than decent.
Harlem Shuffle, Too Rude, Winning Ugly & Sleep Tonight are good.
One Hit, Dirty Work and Had it with you are pretty damn good songs that are very underrated.

Brave pose from Mick, given Keith's "I'll slit his throat" quote from the time (when it was suggested Mick would support his solo output on the road rather than promote the new Stones album).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 19:49 by letitloose.

>but here's a photo by Annie Leibowitz that was supposedly rejected as the cover shot.


They used it for the print ads and the promotional posters. A friend used to have one beautifully framed. I don't find Charlie any more iffy looking in that photo than in the cover shot so I don't buy that.

The tagline for the ads: "Clean minds. Pure hearts. Dirty work."

What exactly is it about the DW cover that everyone hates so much? To me it has alwasy been a ...well a cover. 5 guys sitting there, posing the way they always do. No big whoop! I like Keith's shoes.

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

it's the color of the sofa - ouch!

Mathijs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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


So true. I bought the Live Aid DVD set recently and I couldn't believe how many people were playing Strats. Everyone had Strats. Silver ones. Black ones. Red ones. Blue ones. Oddly, no sunburst ones.

And all through solid-state amps, too.

Dirty Work is my favourite album since Some Girls. Hold Back, Dirty Work, One Hit, Sleep Tonight, Fight - good work!

Here's lots about it:

[en.wikipedia.org])

From [www.stylusmagazine.com] :

But it’s on “Hold Back” where Jagger, the “voice of experience”, really lets it rip. That Keith and Ronnie add particularly sympathetic fills to a song defending self-interest underscores its malevolent irony. Jagger, “caught in this tree of promises for over 40 years”, gives us lesser mortals the sort of advice that only a plutocrat who’s never worked a day in his life can offer. See, since Stalin and Roosevelt “each took their chances”, you gotta trust your gut reaction, so don’t hold back. Mick’s performance is irony-free; he’s pissed about something, shouting and braying like he wants to gnaw at the microphone. Lilywhite earns his paycheck: the guitars surround, taunt, and goad; the drumming by Watts or Wood or whoever shoves Jagger down a flight of stairs. The rhythm guitar coda is superfluous, an afterthought; how could it be anything else? In “Hold Back” the Stones, finally, embrace their image: they’re dangerous, they don’t wanna hold your hand, they want your money. It’s a masterpiece.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 2006-09-14 21:07 by Ringo.

Great quote Ringo. I think it describes Hold Back exactly as I would. Whether you like Dirty Work seems to depend on whether you like Hold Back. Depends on how you like your Stones, so to speak.

Many here dislike the drums on HB. I think they're excellent, Chuckie really banging away.

>> Whether you like Dirty Work seems to depend on whether you like Hold Back <<

smile: ahh, another good theory shot to hell!
i love Dirty Work, but Hold Back is my pick for the main misunderstanding on it.

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >> Whether you like Dirty Work seems to depend on
> whether you like Hold Back <<
>
> smile: ahh, another good theory shot to hell!
> i love Dirty Work, but Hold Back is my pick for
> the main misunderstanding on it.


Well, I think that's because you're special. ;-)

Robert Christgau's review:

Dirty Work [Rolling Stones, 1986]

Dreaming of solo glory, Mick doesn't have much time for his band these days--just plugged into his Stones mode and spewed whatever he had to spew, adding lyrics and a few key musical ideas to tracks Ron and Keith completed before the star sullied his consciousness with them. And I say let him express himself elsewhere. For once his lyrics are impulsive and confused, two-faced by habit rather than design, the straightest reports he can offer from the top he's so lonely at, about oppressing and being oppressed rather than geopolitical contradiction. In the three that lead side two, always playing dirty is getting to him, as is his misuse of the jerks and greaseballs and @#$%& and dumb-asses who clean up after him, yet for all his privilege he's another nuclear subject who's got no say over whether he rots or pops even though he'd much prefer the former. Especially together with the hard advice of "Hold Back," these are songs of conscience well-known sons of bitches can get away with. Coproducer Steve Lillywhite combines high-detail arena-rock with back-to-basics commitment and limits the melismatic affectations that have turned so much of Mick's late work in on itself. Let him have his own life and career, I don't care. What I want is the Stones as an idea that belongs to history, that's mine as much as theirs. This is it. A

with sssoul Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> and as for what they were thinking:
> maybe they simply did what they felt like doing.

That's what I'm starting to think!

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The tagline for the ads: "Clean minds. Pure
> hearts. Dirty work."

That's interesting. charlie's problems seem like a key subtext to that tagline.

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Robert Christgau's review:
>

I felt so vindicated when I read this review, which was not until his collected 80s reviews came out. I still remember some of these phrases when I'm listening to the album!

Lots of great comments. And props to cc for writing a inteligent post that actually makes sense. Many others on this site should see this as an example of quality posts that geniunly provoke inteligent discusions....rather than stupid sh*t that doesn't make sense.......anyway...

You are all right on! Weak record for many reasons, primarily production and inter-band conflicts.


AND MY GOD THAT COVER! Who approved that? Who suggested that? Got to me the worst cover art of all time for any genre. I hope all those clothes were burned.