For Your Reconsideration, vol. 1

Have you ever had a record or seen a movie that you thought was great, yet it was critically panned or dismissed by the masses? I guess that is as good evidence as any that art and entertainment is a subjective endeavor. For me, Exhibit A has to be The Rolling Stones's 1983 Undercover. I've been a huge fan of this record since its release (yes, I was following The Stones when I was 10), and recently in conversation with my fellow music obsessive Big Jim, I have found another ardent admirer. To be fair, critical opinion on Undercover is more split than universally bad. The All Music Guide gives it a favorable review, as did Blender and the rubber stamp that is Rolling Stone Magazine. But many other critics hate the record, such as the Dean of Rock Critics himself, Robert Christgau, who asks "What do people hear in this murky, overblown, incoherent piece of sh*t?...[It is] their worst studio album." Ouch. (Although it is funny that Christgau loves the even more panned follow-up Dirty Work, and even wrote a pages long review explaining why it is a masterpiece. That is why music criticism is so much fun. I hate Dirty Work, by the way.)


ABOVE: 1983's Undercover

The reasons many critics hate Undercover is telling, though. The reviews aren't the usual complaints regarding subpar Stones material (uninspired, auto-pilot, recycled riffs, etc.) The complaints regarding Undercover are that it is unusually "violent," "misogynistic," "mean" - even for Stones standards. Stephen Thomas Erlewine, who gives the record a positive review, says that "it's teeming with sickness, with violence, kinky sex, and loathing." And I say, so what? This is the Stones. Aren't these the qualities that made them such a fascinating antidote to the Beatles in the 60's in the first place?

One way to view Undercover is as a knock-out brawl between Mick Jagger and Keith Richards over the very soul of the band. One of the elements that makes late 70's/early 80's Stones so interesting is Mick's desire to modernize and experiment vs. Keef's staunch conservative insistence that the Stones not lose that nasty, Chuck Berry-inspired riffology. Mick and Keith fought bitterly throughout the 80's, and it really starts here. The anger spills out all over the songs - "Tie You Up (The Pain of Love)," "Too Much Blood," "Pretty Beat Up," "Too Tough," "It Must Be Hell."

Even detractors admit that the single "Undercover of the Night" is pretty remarkable. With its percussive overdubs, insistent dance floor bass line, phased and slashing guitars and Mick's inspired, politically charged lyrics, it stands out as one of their greatest songs, in any era.


ABOVE: Here's the song "Undercover of the Night"

The other highlight is "Too Much Blood." Here and with "Undercover of the Night," Mick wins and the band really stretches out in exciting ways. The song is both ridiculous and infectious. Six minutes of a throbbing bass line, punchy horns, and jittery guitars punctuated with Mick's alternating shouts of "I wanna dance! I wanna sing!" and his hilarious spoken word musings, deliberately delivered in a thick accent, on the violence in today's culture. ("Did ya ever see the 'Texas Chainsaw Massacre'? 'Orrible, wasn't it? Is that really true? You people down in Texas, is that really true what you do down there, people?...Oh don't saw off me arm! Don't saw off me leg! Oh!! Oh!! There's a bloke running around with a fucking chainsaw...When I go to the movies I like to see something more romantic, like 'Officer and a Gentleman' or something, something you can take the wife to, know wot I mean? I wanna dance!! I wanna sing!! Make some loooooove!!!!") Yeah, Mick.


ABOVE: The very 80's music video for "Too Much Blood." Awesome at around 4:20, when Keith tries to kill Mick with a chainsaw.

I even like the minor hit "She Was Hot," in the classic Stones sexist tradition with groovy Chuck Berry-like riffs. It has some real humor to it, and does groove.


ABOVE: Mick and Keith. One of the great love/hate relationships in all of rock.

I am not saying that Undercover is in the same category as the very best Stones records. It is not Beggar's Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile on Main Street or even Some Girls, but I would put it in that second tier just below.

I think Undercover is notable because it was the last time that it really mattered to the Stones. This was the last time they were trying to progress as a band. By the next release, the horrible Dirty Work, Mick had lost the power struggle and given up. They have released records since (and I like some of them, especially some moments on Voodoo Lounge), but the records after 1983 are no more than pure product. I like this record because it did matter, and as Erlewine states in his review, "It's a fascinating record, particularly because much of its nastiness feels as if the Stones, and Jagger and Richards in particular, are running out of patience with each other."

How about you, dear readers? Any music or movies that you feel deserve a reassessment?

**** out of *****