Rolling Stones SACD Review Thread (1 Viewer)

[Rich Malloy]

Re the staff at Newbury Comics... completely agree. There've been exceptions, but I almost invariably find them to be knowledgeable and very into music. I wish I knew the name of the kid who helped me out the other day, but not only did he know all about the Stones remasters, he knew which ones are most-anticipated, worth getting, etc.
When you go to a place where the primary draw is cheap prices, you shouldn't expect that kinda service. So when I get the usual, clueless blank stares at Circuit City and Best Buy, it doesn't bother me. I'm getting what I pay for. Still, it's very nice to get a great deal and a knowledgeable staff who's very into the products they're selling. Makes a difference...

 

[Marvin]

The first of these that I ordered - Hot Rocks Vol. 1 (aka Fewer Hot Rocks) - arrived today (from CD Universe). Unfortunately, my SACD player is still at least a week or two away. But the CD sounds really nice. I don't have this album on the old CD so I can't A-B it (though I do have some of the songs on the old Let It Bleed.) The drumming on 'Paint it Black' sounds crisper than I remembered. And I love those bass runs at the end of 19th Nervous Breakdown.

One other thing: this CD has CD titles. This is only the second CD (other than CD-Rs that I've made) that has these. Do all of these discs have them?

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I have an update on the Stones albums. Here are my reviews:
Let It Bleed (one of the best)
Metamorphosis (less than best sonically however, but this is new music to me)
Beggar's Banquest (one of the best)
Hot Rocks (the best compilation disc for those wanting to dip toe into the water)
Aftermath (UK)
Upcoming: Get Yer YaYas Out!
One thing is now obvious to me: The Stones are not nearly as productive as the 22 titles suggest. There is tremendous duplication among the same song titles so only a collector would want all 22. You probably get everything with 10-11 albums.
Great effort here for ABKCO and Sony:

 

[Phil A]

One of my personal favorites is Between the Buttons. Bought the UK version and must say that I really was impressed. Hopefully, we will see more hybrids from other artists.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

Phil,
I have heard that is a good one. I will try to find it.

 

[David Barnett]

Hmm, I heard the sound on HOt ROcks and am ready to plop the cash for a couple of the real albums. Since I already have Let it Bleed and Beggar's Banquet on mint vinyl, I'm looking at the earlier stuff. But I can't seem to figure out which will suit me better: UK or US versions. I want Aftermath, Between the Buttons, and maybe Out of our Heads, but all come in two versions. I know the UK's tend not to have the singles, but as I plan on picking up the Singles Collection, that shouldn't be much of a problem. So basically, on those three albums, which version is better, in reference to song order and alternate tracks? Also, has anyone got the singles collection yet? Is it good sounding (obviously the material is perfection), and is it still in that unwieldly giant box that I had to stack with my LPs?

 

[Matt Birchall]

Unless you absolutely have to have "Paint It Black", and don't have it anywhere else, get the UK version of Aftermath instead of the US version. UK Aftermath has every song that the US version does (except "PIB"), and has three more songs that the US version does not.

UK Aftermath:

1. Mother's Little Helper
2. Stupid Girl
3. Lady Jane
4. Under My Thumb
5. Doncha Bother Me
6. Going Home
7. Flight 505
8. High And Dry
9. Out Of Time (not on US version)
10. It's Not Easy
11. I Am Waiting
12. Take It Or Leave It (not on US)
13. Think
14. What To Do (not on US)[/list=1]
    
    US Aftermath
    1. Paint It Black (not on UK)
    2. Stupid Girl
    3. Lady Jane
    4. Under My Thumb
    5. Doncha Bother Me
    6. Think
    7. Flight 505
    8. High And Dry
    9. It's Not Easy
    10. I Am Waiting
    11. Going Home[/list=1]
        
        (And the old Singles Collection was available in both the big-ass square box and in the smaller, double-jewel case as well.)

 

[David Barnett]

Matt, I know Aftermath UK has more songs than the US, but does it end up being a better album? More songs doesn't always mean better, and I don't know whether it does in these cases...

Well, Rolling Stone just came out with their review of each of the Rolling Stones reissues. Each is given a star rating, and there is an article next to them which hardly talks about the reissues at all, more about the legacy of the Stones. Anyway, here's what those guys say (in order of highest to lowest rated):

Out of Our Heads (UK) *****
Big Hits (high tide and green grass) *****
Beggar's Banquet *****
Let it Bleed *****
Hot Rocks *****
England's Newest ****
12X5 ****
Stones, Now! ****
Out of Our Heads (US) ****
Aftermath (UK)****
Aftermath (US) ****
Got LIVE ****
Between the Buttons (UK) ****
More Hot Rocks ****
Singles Collection ****
Between the Buttons (US) ***
Flowers ***
Satanic Majesties ***
Big Hits Vol. 2 ***
Ya Ya's ***
Metamorphosis (UK) **

Well. there it is. The main shocker to me was the fact that the only pre-"Beggar's" album they gave ***** to was Out of Our Heads (UK), neglecting Aftermath and Between the Buttons (giving them **** each). Never having heard Out of our heads I couldnt say much, but I've always heard people talk of Aftermath as seemingly the definitive pre-"Beggar's" Stones record. Am I the only one?

 

[Chip E]

Picked up Hot Rocks the other day at Best Buy.. Very
along with "Oh, Yeah!" SACD by Aerosmith.. also Very

 

[KevinJ]

metamorphosis deserves **** instead of ** imho

 

[Jeff Adkins]

It sounds like these were worth picking up. I haven't really followed the US releases of the Stones material in the last 12 or 13 years. When I first started collecting them, I remember a friend of mine who was an audiophile told me I had to get the Import releases from either Germany or the UK (I can't remember). He said they were the only good versions because the remastering was done by Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Anyway, I bought them but I was wondering if the ones I own are clearly outdated? Prior to these SACDs, which versions were considered the definitive Stones releases?

Jeff

 

[Judy Y]

Kevin/David,

Is the rating system based on content on the SACD's or quality? If based on the sound, I would rate Metamorphosis as one of the lowest. However, I have only listened to 4 of the releases thus far. I like the music, but the recording is clearly not up to the level of the others available. Just my opinion!

Judy

 

[Ed St. Clair]

One thing is now obvious to me: The Stones are not nearly as productive as the 22 titles suggest.

Only 191 differant Stones tracks!
What were they doing, getting Stoned?

 

[Phil A]

Ed - some of the issues are the same album, both the US and UK version (e.g. Aftermath. Between the Buttons). The Flowers CD actually takes some of the cuts that were not on US releases and got an album out there as was needed by the record co. at the time per my recollection for exactly the reasons you noted, the Stones were busted. So it is not exactly the equivalent to 22 separate and distinct albums.

 

[John Geelan]

It sounds like these were worth picking up. I haven't really followed the US releases of the Stones material in the last 12 or 13 years. When I first started collecting them, I remember a friend of mine who was an audiophile told me I had to get the Import releases from either Germany or the UK (I can't remember). He said they were the only good versions because the remastering was done by Mobile Fidelity Sound Labs. Anyway, I bought them but I was wondering if the ones I own are clearly outdated? Prior to these SACDs, which versions were considered the definitive Stones releases?

Your right, many audiophiles hold the LONDON Records series of cds in a higher light than the American ABKCO releases in regards to sound quality.
Check out this site http://home.arcor.de/folon/stones_cds.html

 

[Lee Scoggins]

So it is not exactly the equivalent to 22 separate and distinct albums.

Someone on Audio Asylum posted the 11 albums you need to get all the different songs. That's a lot of duplication, but then again Mick is a London Business School graduate!
Good marketing!

 

[Brennan Hill]

Someone on Audio Asylum posted the 11 albums you need to get all the different songs.

Where on Audio Asylum is that post? I'm interested in reading that.

Thanks

 

[Greg Br]

My take on Hot Rocks

I have said many times on this forum that I am the average joe when it comes to audiophiles, while I listen to SACD and DVD Audio it is not the be all end all.

My first impression about these disks is how hard it was to know if I was even getting a SACD. The Best Buy employees knew nothing of new Stones SACD disks but they said that thy just got in new remasters of many Stones albums. This was to much of a coincedence. I went with the employee to the cd section for the Stones and sure enough brand new albums with the 2002 ABKCO label. I was sure these are them but no one could tell me for sure, as the labels say nothing about SACD. Even the SKW in the computer says cd. Thats when it hit me that they are marketing these as cd's to the general public and SACD for those who really know what is going on. Its actually brilliant cause many people are going to by this as a cd yet they can show the sales of this SACD as a huge sucess. Its just doing a disservice to those looking for SACD's as they have no idea if they are getting one, Best Buy should at least have copeies in the SACD section.

As far as the quality. The album fidelity is first rate and improves on the Hot Rocks cd. As a owner of every Stone cd though, I can not justify bying my entire collection over again for a stereo only mix. If it had a multi channel mix then I would give them all a try.

The way this is marketed as a cd first, SACD second, these albums will be a great sucess but I am not sure that these releases are moving SACD foreward as much as we would all like them to.

 

[LarryDavenport]

This has probably been said before but there are too many posts to wade through. Despite the fact I like the sound better than my old ABKCO CDs, I am really regretting having gotten rid of the old CDs because these new ones will not play on any of my CD players except my Walkman. They won't play on my Toshiba DVD player, my Apple G3 at work, or my Windows XP laptop. Now I really will have to shell out $300+ for a new player.

Buyer beware! ABCKO needs to label the CDs pronto so consumers know that they might not play on their existing hardware.

 

[Lee Scoggins]

I am really regretting having gotten rid of the old CDs because these new ones will not play on any of my CD players except my Walkman.

Larry, I think you have a major equipment problem because I have played my Stones albums in about half a dozen redbook players with no issues whatsoever.

Maybe your discs got dirty or something. If they are old, maybe a lens cleaning is due...