Audio CD review:
The Rolling Stones - Dirty Work

The Rolling Stones - Dirty Work

Band: The Rolling Stones Title: Dirty Work Rating: Release Date: 26 July, 1994 Media: Audio CD Tracks: 1: One Hit (To The Body) 2: Fight 3: Harlem Shuffle 4: Hold Back 5: Too Rude 6: Winning Ugly 7: Back To Zero 8: Dirty Work 9: Had It With You 10: Sleep Tonight 11: Untitled

Customer Reviews She's got legs / and she knows how to use 'em I was disappointed. Dirty Work is often described as the Rolling Stones' worst album, and also a prime example of what was wrong with music and culture in the 1980s, and so I was intrigued to hear it. In the context of the Rolling Stones' rich back catalogue it is a stunted little twig, but it is better than some albums I have heard from the period. It came out in 1986, a very poor year for mainstream rock music. It has two problems, three problems. The first is Mick Jagger's vocal style. He uses the same growling shout throughout the whole album. There's no subtlety or nuance, he just growls and shouts. Perhaps he was trying to do a big stadium-filling heavy metal roar, but it doesn't work, it sounds as if he had come up with a new style, and decided to use it on every track, all the time, whether it made sense or not. It's worst on Hold Back, where he sounds as if he has been gargling something acidic. I wanted to reach into the music and slap his face, to get him to shut up. From what I have read, Jagger added his vocals after everything else had been recorded, and was uninterested in the whole project, and the band as a whole were going through a bad patch, and were on the verge of splitting up. The second problem is that there's no swing. All the songs have simple, straight 4/4 rhythms. The guitars do a lot of clever stuff but it sounds perfunctory, as if they wanted to get it over with as quickly as possible. I don't know if Charlie Watts was augmented by session players, but the drumming seems very simplistic. It sounds desperate, as if the drummer was trying to egg the rest of the band on. The drums are mixed so that the snare drum is very loud, which just accentuates the rhythmic monotony, and my aural impression of the record is a series of dull rockers with smash-smash-smash-fill etc drums. It reminded me a bit of ZZ Top's Eliminator, from 1983, which also had a monotonous "pulse beat" style of drumming. But whereas Eliminator was hypnotic, funky, and catchy, Dirty Work is boring. As I write these words I am listening to Eliminator. It's a great record, a good example of how the 1980s sometimes worked well. It is absolutely of its time, but it still works today. It crushes Dirty Work on every level, and bends it out of shape. It is rockier, funkier, catchier, and there's a cool car on the front. Dirty Work is dated, it sounds very brash and hollow in a 1980s way, although it's not quite as dated as the cover photograph, which has the band wearing Miami Vice unconstructed pastel suits. I don't want to rock with the people on the cover of Dirty Work. The sonic landscape sounds thinner and less interesting to my ears than the Stones' records from the early 1970s. The same is true of contemporary records by David Bowie and Paul McCartney and all those 1970s artists who survived into the new decade. They had hi-tech studios, infinite time, infinite money, Pino Palladino on fretless bass, etc, and yet the results sound less pleasant than their earlier stuff. I believe this is because 1986 was still part of the modernist age, a time when people's ears were clouded by their lust for the new. One Hit (to the Body) is a good start. It has the typical Rolling Stones guitar interplay, with a mixture of acoustic and electric guitars. Even though I am now listening to ZZ Top, I can still sing One Hit (brackets) in my head, which is more than can be said of Fight, the second song on Dirty Work. It sounds like a cross between Street Fightin' Man and Jumpin' Jack Flash, but averaged out into nothing. I can barely remember it. Hold Back has those reverby drums that were popular at the time. Jagger sings all the time, and sounds ridiculous, as if he was an ancient drunken trawlerman. I can picture the rest of the Stones listening to this for the first time, and wondering what had gone wrong with their lives. The song's message is that you shouldn't hold back, otherwise you will waste your life, which is a laudable message. But the production, the stilted production and monotonous beat make the message sound hollow. C*cks*cker Bl*es, the band's infamous banned 1970s tour film, was a far better advertisement for debauchery than Hold Back. Brian Eno's ambient classic Music for Airports is a better advertisement for debauchery than Hold Back. Too Rude sounds as if it is supposed to be reggae. It's pleasant enough, but it's not very reggae, and I can barely focus on it. Keith Richards does the vocals, swaddled in echo, like a lampshade. It can't really dislike the song, but at the same time it seems odd to list it as a highlight of the album. Winning Ugly starts with the bassline from Dr Who. According to US rock critic Robert Christgau, Winning Ugly one of "the most unpleasant songs anybody's going to write about the '80s", which he meant as high praise. It sounds like a thinner version of Huey Lewis & the News, or a very poor Robert Palmer b-side. Back to Zero starts off a groove song along the lines of the Stones' earlier album, Black & Blue, although it has a conventional middle eight and chorus. It sounds like a very poor Talking Heads b-side, from later in the band's career, but with Mick Jagger instead of David Byrne. The title track is just another anonymous 4/4 rock song, like Fight. The guitars do a lot, but they're mixed lower than the snare drum, and overall I would be surprised if the song took longer to write than it takes to play. It doesn't sound like the Rolling Stones. Had it With You does not sound like the rest of the album. It's very simple, but not bad - the guitars have a pleasant old-fashioned tone, and the drums are a lot more intimate than the booming rock sound on the rest of the album, although they're still too loud. There's some harmonica as well. Along with One Hit (to the Body) it is the most Rolling Stone-ish song on the album. But it's still not very good. If only they had slowed it down, added some more space, and swung a bit. Sleep Tonight is a slow-dancing ballad, sung by Keith Richards. It's pretty good, but not Wild Horses. I question the wisdom of having Keith Richards sing a slow dancing ballad. Richards sounds like a thinner version of Mark Knopfler, and yet he has smoked very many more cigarettes, how strange. It is odd to think that, in 1986, Dire Straits were more rocking than the Rolling Stones. In a review for the New York Village Voice, US rock critic Robert Christgau wrote that this is a "bracing and even challenging record" that "innovates without kowtowing to multiplatinum fashion". The rest of his review is similarly wrong. Dirty work was not a bracing or challenging record, it did not innovate without kowtowing to multiplatinum fashion, it did not innovate at all; it was not an innovative rock record, it was not an innovative Rolling Stones record. It is not a good record, and I imagine that the Rolling Stones do not like to think about it nowadays. Pourquoi cet album est il mal considéré..?? . Peut-être parce que Mick Jagger ne rate pas une occasion de le demolir. . !Personellement je l'ai toujours apprécié et le trouve toujours excellent. Au moment de sa sortie c'était "l'album de Keith" et les revues etaient positives. !!???. It's a dirty job... But it's not all as horrible as most have said; I can safely say 'Dirty Work' is miles better than the disaster that is 'Undercover'. The cover shot of the band is about all you need to know about the music contained within: disinterested and dated. The first and last tunes on 'Dirty Work' are its best, 'One Hit to the Body' and 'Sleep Tonight'. The middle is where it goes head-shakingly off track. 'Too Rude' sounds like a UB40 remake, with an annoying drum reverb effect, and 'Winning Ugly' will have you racing for the 'next' key on your player. The rest of the songs range from obnoxious to simply forgettable. The sound quality is your typical early CD from the 80's, but as you might have figured out, this album deserves to be forgotten rather than remastered. . . You can see a complete list of all The Rolling Stones discography, or go back to the The Rolling Stones tabs