tjkeef Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> One hit to the body, Dirty work, Sleep tonight,
> Winning ugly, are all great songs, Harlem shuffle
> is OK. Also Jaggers vocals aer great in Hold back!


Each to their own. IMO one of the worst vocals of his career and possibly the most tuneless Stones song ever recorded.

Beelyboy Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------


>
> i think the record generally has an ugly sound to
> it; harsh...not intended 'firece' or anyting...nor
> cruchy nor rough nor threatening or
> anything...very sonically dis-pleasing to me; git
> sounds, everything sounds sterile and harsh and
> ill-conceived...not to mention performances and
> song writing etc...

I agree with the "ugly sound" on this disc. except perhaps HS

What i really like of this album is the SOUND of the guitars.

Gazza Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nikolai Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Well, it's basically a Keith n friends album
> isn't
> > it - with guest vocals by Mick Jagger, and
> > appearances by Wyman and Watts. Keith said he
> > "designed" the album so it could be played on
> > tour. Can you imagine what kind of tour that
> > would have been?
>
>
> Yeah. I can. Their last, and probably an aborted
> one at that.

maybe - who knows.
at the point of time the album DW came out, for me it was
a highlight in the swamp of 80's new wave blabla, shiny surfaces
and the false sweetness of white sugar.

for me it made sense.
We should look at it - better: hear it - like a painting of that special time
or
throw it in the garbage can :-)

"when I travel coast to coast
you' re the hook I miss the most
feel on, baby"

Dirty Work is the only Stones album I don't have on CD when I have most albums on CD, SACD etc. I have the DW cassette which was given to me as a present. Was so bummed when they chose a cover song as their first single. I think Fight, Hold Back, Back to Zero and Dirty work are their worst ever. Terrible lyrically and musically IMO. They had so many great unreleased songs and somehow thought this bunch was worthy of a Stones album. I don't think they were.

Just played dirty work and really liked it

yeager Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gazza Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Nikolai Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Well, it's basically a Keith n friends album
> > isn't
> > > it - with guest vocals by Mick Jagger, and
> > > appearances by Wyman and Watts. Keith said
> he
> > > "designed" the album so it could be played on
> > > tour. Can you imagine what kind of tour that
> > > would have been?
> >
> >
> > Yeah. I can. Their last, and probably an
> aborted
> > one at that.
>
> maybe - who knows.
> at the point of time the album DW came out, for me
> it was
> a highlight in the swamp of 80's new wave blabla,
> shiny surfaces
> and the false sweetness of white sugar.
>
> for me it made sense.
>

Yeah, but the most telling quote regarding a possible tour to promote it came from Jagger who flat out refused to go on the road because the band relationships were at an all time low and because certain band members "were in such bad shape they werent fit to cross the Champs Elysees let alone go on the road"

He was painted as the villain of the piece when we didnt get a tour that year, but in hindsight, knowing now what we didnt know then (eg Charlie's heroin problem) he was almost certainly correct. A 1986 tour really COULD have finished them.

In more ways than one.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-14 04:03 by Gazza.

dirtywork is an apt name for this album.

i tried to like it, but coudnt.

steel wheels at least was a come back cos it had songs, dirtywork is just a rabble at times.

wonder what brian would have thought of dirtywork.

probably not much.

I'm sorry, but no matter how much you guys love DW, it is by far the Stones' worst album.


One Hit, Harlem Shuffle, Sleep Tonight, Had It With You,and Too Rude are the best songs on the album, in that order.


Winning Ugly, despite all the 80's production and instumentation, is actually not that bad.


Dirty Work and Fight are average, forgettable fillers. Not Stones classics, not potential warhorses. Can't believe all the praise they get from this board.


Hold Back and Back To Zero are just awful.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-14 03:47 by it's_all_wrong.

Ronnie and Keith worked hard on Dirty Work. Production sucks in usual 80" sytle and Mick not being a part of it decided to yell instead of sing. The guitars and songs for the most part are good. If you love the Stones for the dual guitars and guitar playing in general this the is last best one IMO.

Again I have to say it: You don't have to like Dirty Work. All you got to like is the Stonesalbum.

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

it's_all_wrong Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm sorry, but no matter how much you guys love
> DW, it is by far the Stones' worst album.

Is their best album since Some Girls.

C'mon folks, be honest. If the Stones released this disc today, you'd be peeing your pants about how great it is. Excellent tight guitar, with a real up-front guitar sound, and excellent drumming IMO. Yes, Mick pretty much spits the lyrics out - this is how I want to hear him sing. The last Stones album where they actually sound like they mean it!


> Winning Ugly, despite all the 80's production and
> instumentation, is actually not that bad.

WU and BTZ are the only things keeping this from being a classic Stones album. Weak Jagger-solo-album type tracks.

DW is mean dirty low-down, stripped-to-the-basics Stones. If they only still sounded as into-it as this disc.

We all have our respective opinions, but to me there are several Stones discs worse than this one.

How about a live Dirty Work/Had it with You duo for Euro 2007 ?

i think i get your point chelsea...but it's just kinda awful stinky record to me, no matter how much i love and appreciate the personalities and their dramas and efforts etc...

the thing is a trainwreck; were they triggering samples from charlies hits or what? it's more than stylistically horrific 80's steelie sterile harsh rock production values...(the advent or pervasisve digital recordings in less than capable hands???)...
more than than imo...it's clueless and adrift from even basic track miking...i can't imagine anyone listening to these playbacks over and over again without being mostly on some sick planet in another universe...

what kind of ceaseless cynicism and a.w.o.l. carelessness would present this to loyal fans for consumption. a tragic and confused interlude...
another mick solo album to come soon apparently...
most here are thrilled about that. i am not.

Beelyboy Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
were they triggering
> samples from charlies hits or what? it's more than
> stylistically horrific 80's steelie sterile harsh
> rock production values...(the advent or pervasisve
> digital recordings in less than capable
> hands???)...


Beely, love your posts, and generally your taste is right-on.

But...think you must be thinking about Undercover. It is there that the drum-machine missteps are much more in play. That whole mess reminds me of Uriah Heep crossed with Duran Duran (a horrible thought, I think we can agree)

DW is full of the piss and vinegar that I think most Stones fans look for. I don't think it is a high in the MJ-KR songwriting canon, but the album oozes in attitude. And...after all isn't that what you most want from a Stones disc?

What is suprising is the tunelessness of songs like "Fight", "Hold Back", ending of "Dirty Work". DW e.g starts out great; could be a hit, but then inexplicably meanders into this aimless stumble-mumble. Biggest headscratcher is that little rap "lookatthewhoredadadasdoreitcouldbeDIRTDIRT.."
Surprising insofar as it is suppsed to be "Keith's album". And you can tell - these are riffs written beforehand; with lyrics piled/forced on top.
I wonder from a songwriter's point of view, not as the mighty Stones completing an albumtrack: how could Keith settle on "Hold Back" and accept it as completed, releasable? The raw writer in him must have groaned and protested "No! This is not permitted! Give it a hook!"

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

Sometimes I wonder if I have a different copy of this album....

Tastes differ, but to me Hold Back is the best song on DW. People mostly complain about the drumming. I have listened to this track over and over, and just don't get it! I think Watts rocks on this tune. It has a funny signature, and to me old Chuck nails it. The guitars are very tight and the solo (must be KR, but I don't know) is simple, and tastefully lean and mean. Jagger sounds like he just can't get the words out fast enough, which is a good thing IMHO. So many of Mick's post 78 vocals sound to me like he spent three weeks on each of them. The thing I like about Dw is it sounds like he did the vocals in one take. And, as I said above Mick really sounds like he means what he is saying. Which is also sadly missing from anything he's done since.

I get your "tuneless" comment. A Beach Boys album it ain't. And, they have written better songs. But, it's the execution I dig. I can feel the venom in these performances. That's what I want in my Stones!

Well put KSIE -- what he said.

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well put KSIE -- what he said.


Thanks dude, am a "Glam Descendant" meself. "There are no stars in a New York sky, they're all on the ground".

>> I think Watts rocks on [Hold Back] ... The guitars are very tight and the solo
(must be KR, but I don't know) is simple, and tastefully lean and mean <<

Ivan Neville, Aaron's son, is playing bass [on Hold Back]. That one was a track we'd put down
almost at the end of the sessions but never really considered, you know: Oh well, put that one on hold for another album.
But Charlie's drums were SO strong and the arrangement was developed so well
that all we needed really was to re-do the bass, because the sound wasn't up to par on it -
we'd only done it as a kind of dub in Paris. So when Ivan walked in one night, it was, Hey, Ivan, get out there.
- Keith Richards, 1985

The solo [on Hold Back] is Woody on overdub using an RCA amplifier from the '40s that is capable of running on AC or batteries.
- Alan Rogan, guitar technician

from [www.timeisonourside.com]
(as i always note on DW threads: this album shakes my tailfeather just fine.
even Hold Back has plenty going for it if i ignore the vocals - which i do.)



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-04-14 15:04 by with sssoul.

As all Stones albums is: Rock History..even Dirty Works...

2 1 2 0

Glam Descendant Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> tatters quoted:
>
> >-Robert Christgau, 1989
>
> Ha, I frequently post Christgau's original review
> of DW in these ever-recurring threads (he gave it
> an A). I won't bother this time unless anyone who
> hasn't seen it is interested.


It's funny, because Bob and I have very different tastes in music. I cherish many of his C albums and often have no use whatsoever for many of his A records. But when it comes to the Stones, he is usually right on the money.

Stil have a soft spot for the album. Given the circumstances in recording it, the last one with Stu, the years of no touring, some tunes are great like the title track, if only the production was better...

Well you can say what you want but ''Undercover ''is reallyso much better...i play it every week.DW...Well I like ''Fight'sleep...one hit..and the so much hated ''Dont hold back''....i like the album..Í had it with ya''is great R&R...way back in the 80ties it was the first Stones album i bought one month after t came out!The Stones were dead..and that was real sad..the 80ties could have been great...but hell yeah Undercover beats DW no doubt about that!BTW''Sleep''is a great tune!

Give me Dirty Work ANYTIME over Steel Wheels (their worst album), B2B or ABB (maybe their second worst). Only VL is maybe better.
Dirty Work was the last REAL Rolling Stones album, nothing was the same since then.

Dirty work was a ''Fight'' and one can hear that...Ian left us...it wasnt the way to say goodbey....you can feel the tension when you hear it...I really dig ''Fight'' i love that tune....One Hit is up there with the warhorses.

Dirty Work is not better than Tattoo You. That is friggin absurd. No way.

KSIE Wrote:
> DW is full of the piss and vinegar that I think
> most Stones fans look for.

It is, but with one vital component missing. Good songs.

I don't think it is a
> high in the MJ-KR songwriting canon,

no surprise as Keith & Ronnie wrote most of it!

it's pretty lame. It's also the last gasp of "the weave" Richards/Woodwise. A pity the weave didn't die a better death...

When band members get into a studio without knowing an inch about future plans and drafts of what to release, i.e. just for the purpose of honouring contracts
towards audience and/or majors, you come out with a disaster, the most obvious being not a Jagger/Richards as a front title. Maybe they did not digest the 1981-1982 tour. This was also a time of crossraods of multiple fan bases sources : those who grow with Satisfaction to make it short and those who first listened to this band with Some Girls and Start Me Up. Hard to handle for a group. More generally, a lot of new musical directions emerged in this decade and Rock was not the sole reference for young audiences. And Dirty Work provided not absolute answers.