Text "Too bad to be good (You gotta whip me)" (Michael Kuhn)

Unlike to Status Quo the Stones ain't licensed to bore. I'm completely disappointed. It was just a little more I expected, a certain musical display maybe, a more extensive successor of the highly controversial Undercover. Unfortunately they only displayed the bad tunes from that album, the so-called hard rockers. Paradoxically enough apparently musical display seems no more possible these days when the Stones prefer to use exclusively new material on their records. If Keith still tries to make the definitive Stones album - this however got him ten steps backwards. It is not the boastfully announced "back to the roots"-album: this album's bad, not primitive. Anyway I don't like "back to the roots"-records. Instead of narcissism I prefer music which is a synonym for good music. Usually I (and I think fans in general) tend to overrate the works of my favorite groups - but this time there just isn't anything that could be overrated, the shattering truth just bites my ears. Certainly it's no way better than Undercover which surely wasn't a masterpiece - but at least it wasn't so risk-shy.

First I've to do away with the meaning some infatuated critics uttered - ha, best album since Exile! There isn't the slightest analogy. I wasn't able to discover one single note (well...) that comes near to Mick Taylor's divine (well!) guitar play or Nicky Hopkins' marvellous piano work. Also there's no horn! While Exile was simply a masterpiece in 1972, Dirty work is a concoction in 1986, just producing the clichee of the Stones as guitar-swinging, stomping and howling assholes with the one and only ambition - to fill up their bank accounts. But unfortunately the times of "Jumpin' Jack Flash" are over, they've had their epoch-making songs and there's no chance they'll ever write one of them again. The only problem is: when will they realize? When will they leave that "Miss you"-trauma and start to record good albums again? Phew.

The main reason that makes Dirty work so very unattractive to me is its incredible monotony. There's not even one song that really stands forth - except of Stu's boogie woogie maybe, and the reason for this is sad enough. Just 38 minutes of lousy played boom-boom-bang-bang! Always Keith claimed the Stones were a two-guitar band - so which devil drove him to the buttons of the multitrack recorder? Some kinda self-delusion, or what. This band was never known for their virtuoso lead guitar-soli but for their solid dirty rhythm licks (rhythm, ba-by, rhythm!). Instead of replacing their fantastic rhythm unit by some clean sissies they should use Bill and Charlie a little more again. And don't tune up Charlie's drums again! This razor-sharp drumsound just sounds horrible to me - and doesn't fit the Stones at all. Is this still a Stones album with 18 different guest musicians and songs on which neither Bill nor Charlie even play?? What for they are a group! If I wanna hear Jimmy Page, I'm gonna buy me some Zeppelin and the same goes for most of the other people whose attendance is just superfluous. Then there's Steve Lillywhite who never ever produced a band that I like. What I need is rock and roll! The only thing I got is a less than mediocre album with a miserable production and an abysmal bad mixing. I could cry, really (happily Stonesfans are tough, so I don't).

Already on the first song all the shit breaks loose: "One hit" is too long (and on the 12" even longer) and too incoherent - bad news that also fit for "Hold back" and "Dirty work", all three rather unimaginative. Scanty riffs stay scanty and no overdub can hide this. And though "Fight" is still fairly acceptable at least I find it quite delicate to plagiate yourself so shamelessly ("Jumpin' Jack Flash", "Little T and A", "Too tough") that at last you end up sounding like your own imitators sounded a decade ago (Suzi Quatro!).

"Harlem shuffle" then is the apparent "dance track"... all right, perhaps this is the only tenable track on the LP - 'cause it's the only song that sounds good in its monotony. Only a shame they even didn't compose it themselves...

Musically "Hold back" is pure shit, a mistreated outtake. Lyrically it fits to the album better than probably planned: "If you don't take chances, you won't make advances." A good text.

"Too rude" indeed is not really bad but sounds like a miscarried UB40-blend. Something for the fanclub-EP. OK, everybody knows about Keith's preference for reggae tunes and obviously Stones albums just do no more manage without the inevitable "reggae" song. Why doesn't Keith try to write a reggae by himself?

Unfortunately on "Winning ugly" another good text is overshadowed by musical deficiencies - "Wanna be on top, forever on the up and damn the competition." To me this sounds like a leftover from Jagger's own She's the boss sessions. "Back To Zero" is a frantic trial to imitate the brilliant "Too much blood" without even coming near but instead sounding more like "She's the boss"... maybe some definitive mixes by Arthur Baker could catch my ear? "So you wanna blow us all to pieces?"

"Dirty work" at least is rough and millionaire Jagger's socio-critical text is just excellent: "Sit on your ass till your work is done!" Finally "Had it with you", a Richards rocker in the Berry tradition. By the way it's the only song with a real end instead of one of these cheap fadeouts. It really puzzles me why there are some Stonesfans that don't like the song - maybe it just remembers them to much to the good old days and if you only listen to mediocre songs it's easier to forget how good the Stones once were?

"Sleep tonight" stinks with all his instruments and background singers, too bad on my birthday, not worth the groove. Thank you, Keef.

Publication

1986 unreleased

Charlie is good tonight nr. 5