The Rolling Stones Album: “Dirty Work”

Better then I thought, I finally got it, since I heard it was their worst, because I stayed away from it for a while, and a while back I listened to some sound clips from it. It didn't impress me then. Its actually not that bad compared to all the whiny ass crap you hear today on the radio. Stones, even in their weakest effort, pulled off a more tolerable album then Nickelback, Creed, Linkin Park, Disturbed and the rest of the crap bands ever could.

Long live the bloody Rolling Stones!!! Even if this is no where near their best work. It still sounds better then I thought it would. I wouldn't make it your first Stones buy though, I would go with Let it Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Beggars Banquet and such.

Enjoy.

Never in the Rolling Stones catalogue has an album been more hated than 'Dirty Work.' In 1986, when the Stones released this, the band was at a real low point. Charlie Watts, normally the clean and non-rock and roll of the quintet, was in the midst of a major addiction to heroin, Keith Richards was infuriated at Mick Jagger for starting a solo career ('She's The Boss' was a huge seller in 1985), Ron Wood was also battling a major drug addiction and Bill Wyman was caught in the middle of a very dramatic time for the Stones.

So, in 1985, with the band literally on the verge of collapsing, the band went into the studios to record their first album for Columbia Records (Rolling Stones Records had signed a major partnership deal with label in 1984), titled 'Dirty Work.' The outtakes for this album are widely circulating in Stones bootleg communities, and if you listen to some of the outtakes, you can clearly hear the band in the middle of a "midlife crisis" (as I like to call it). However, despite this and all of the circumstances surrounding it, the boys managed to turn in a solid album.

The group worked with Steve Lillywhite, notable for his collaborations with U2, and released 'Dirty Work' in March of 1986. Like a previous reviewer stated, this was the first Rolling Stones album not to reach #1 in America since 1965, breaking a 21-year string of #1 albums. So, needless to say, the years 1985-1988 were not good ones for the "world's greatest rock & roll band."

There's the history report. Now here's the review.

'Dirty Work,' despite what other reviewers say here on Amazon and in "criticland," is not a bad album. Is it 'Exile On Main St.'? By no means. But is it the awful pile of garbage many people here on Amazon make it out to be? By no means either.

Many people on Amazon complain that 'Dirty Work' sounds "dated" and "cheesy." Well, I have listened to the album pretty steadily over the past several weeks, and I don't hear any elements of a "dated" sound (with the exception being 'Back to Zero,' which admittedly has not held up well in the 24 years since it's initial release). It's incredibly well-produced, and it's also interesting to hear the Stones tackle a wide variety of genres -- reggae ('Too Rude'), dance ('Winning Ugly' and 'Back to Zero'), Motown-esque R&B (their cover of 'Harlem Shuffle') and even ballads (the lovely Richards-penned 'Sleep Tonight').

And of course, there's some rockers on here too. 'Had It With You' is actually one of the best Stones songs of the '80s, with Jagger singing with more rage than I think I've heard him sing with. 'One Hit (To The Body)' features some great guitar work by Jimmy Page (yes, you heard me correctly -- Led Zeppelin's Jimmy Page), and 'Dirty Work' is a fast-paced and heavily punk-influenced rocker that's also an angry number. Listen to Wyman's bass on this track.

This album is also notable in that Ian "Stu" Stewart, the band's longtime road manager and piano player (as well as a founding member of the Stones before he was "dismissed" in 1962), died shortly after the recording sessions for the album ended. He was 47. The group added a 33-second hidden track at the end of Stewart playing the blues standard 'Key to the Highway' on piano as a tribute to him, and strangely enough, it's actually a highlight here. Very cool to hear Ian solo on the piano without any background instrumentation, if only for 33 short seconds.

The highlight here is probably 'One Hit (to the Body),' which has, over the years, grown to become one of my favorite Rolling Stones songs (I know many Stones fanatics are going to want to kill me for saying that, but it's true). The lowlight is definitely 'Back to Zero,' which just sounds dated today, but it's not a bad song. It's got a nice rhythm to it, and it probably should have been a bigger hit than it was.

Strangely enough, the hit single from this album was a cover of an old R&B song from 1964, 'Harlem Shuffle.' This was the first time that the hit single from a Stones album was not written by Jagger/Richards in ages. And it's a good cover -- the boys certainly do this song justice. And it's cool to hear Bruce Springsteen's future wife Patty Scalfia on backing vocals.

Overall, 'Dirty Work' is no 'Sticky Fingers,' but it's certainly not garbage. Forget the scathing reviews. This album is not a terrible album by any stretch. It's no masterpiece, but it's a well-produced 1980s album from the Stones that encompasses a wide variety of genres and shows a more experimental side of the band. There is nothing dated about this album except for 'Back to Zero' and that album cover with band wearing Miami Vice suits (but it is colorful, nonetheless).

I recommend 'Dirty Work' if you are a seasoned fan. If you are a new fan, go with '40 Licks,' 'Rewind (1971-1984)' or 'Made in the Shade' if you want a compilation, or if you want the studio albums, get the classic four ('Beggars Banquet,' 'Let it Bleed,' 'Sticky Fingers,' and 'Exile on Main Street') and perhaps 'Goats Head Soup' before picking this one up. But if you are a Stones fan interested in buying this, do so and decide for yourself whether or not you like it.

Recommended.

I snapped up 1986's "Dirty Work" because I'd taken a real liking to 1989's "Steel Wheels", so I thought I'd kinda work my way backwards. And after seeing so many harsh reviews from fans, I was admittedly curious as to how bad it could possibly be.

Listening to this, I thought back on the numerous negative reviews I'd seen for it, and was asking myself, "What the hell's so bad about it?" Apart from a couple songs--"Winning Ugly" and "Back To Zero" in particular--it doesn't sound partcularly 'mid-'80s-ish at all--it just sounds like a well-produced rock & roll album. And the tunes are CATCHY--"One Hit (To The Body)", the mind-blowing raging rant "Hold Back" (with Jagger totally singing his head off), and the highly amusing title track are all infectious and kickass, and their cover of "Harlem Shuffle" really grooves. "Fight" and the horn-spiked "Winning Ugly" are solidly enjoyable as well. The Keith Richards reggae spotlight "Too Rude" is catchy too--it's rather sloppily executed, but amusingly so.

Surprisingly, the boogying "Had It With You", which I've often seen cited as a highlight, is actually quite weak, sounding frustratingly dull and brittle, despite the venomous lyrics.

I had a feeling "Dirty Work" would turn out to be better than its dubious reputation. I guess some fans prefer the Stones for their boring country songs and don't like it when they really ROCK?

now in most music circles people are quick to dismiss Dirty Work as a big mix of trash that the stones put together. I would say after reading about the recording sessions (which even featured Jimmy Page)realizing the tension between Jagger and Richards, and added the new age music that was taking shape, I've found there to be alot of energy in the album, it's good and bad for the music, the good being the pure soul in Jaggers' voice and emotion in Richards voice. The bad being the poor marketing, and poor overall reviews from the music critics that wanted the Stones to die off. I would recommend this album to collectors and fans, average stones listeners will not find any top hits here...it's just a growing pain (what got them where they are today) This Album was pivotal!!!

I've never heard a Rolling Stones album receive more overall flack than this album over the years. It always seemed that whenever they tried something that went beyond their "classic rock" style after the mid 1970's the rock critics had their red pens at the ready to checkmark any culturally disagreeable elements,by their standards anyway. And the mid 80's was an enormous battlefield for that. The rawness of classic rock was being replaced by slicker production due mainly to technological progress and as with all things some didn't get into that change. But for all the internal discord (including Keith Richards sporting "Who The $&#! Is Mick Jagger?" t-shirts in public) it's a credit to this band that they were able to keep up with all the changes in the rock scene with a lot more dignity than one would give them credit for.

Luckily for any Stones fan whose eased past this with caution over the years this album contains primarily one type of music: ROCK,ROCK AND MORE ROCK! "One Hit","Fight","Hold Back",the title track and "Had It With You" are all gritty,riff heavy rockers of a similar type that the Stones had started to run into the ground only a few years before but the hot production and yes a few of the loud mid 80's drum effects give them a new flavor slightly different from the older Stones rockers. Many complain that Mick's voice is nothing but abrasive on this album but it's a style he often used so his constant growling of the vocals works here. A few additional highlites are the poppy shuffle of "Winning Ugly" and of course "Harlem Shuffle",a retro Memphis/Wilson Picket Pickett type soul send up that comes off as a bit of a revved up version of Steve Winwood's later

. There's also "Back To Zero",a NASTY funk jam with some heavy JB style rhythm guitar and sound pointed use of bass synth as accents.

The album includes another dub type tune in "Too Rude" and includes with the Keith's heartland rock-style ballad "Sleep Tonight,which actually revvs it up quite a lot towards the middle and includes some wonderfully subtle moments. Believe it or not this album is actually comparatively light on mid 80's production clishes such as gated drums and excessively loud guitars and synthesizers. It is a consistantly more modern style in terms of the overall production of sound than earlier albums that had a garagier flavor on that end of things. All the same it was something you could here coming (in certain places) on their previous album

. But it certainly isn't as agressively contemporary as Mick Jagger's (in my opinion) equally underrated solo debut

and when it rocks it rocks hard and when it's funky it's some of the tightest,nastiest grooves they ever put on record!