Some Girls

The Rolling Stones | Format: MP3 Download

Product Details

• Original Release Date: August 18, 2009
• Release Date: August 18, 2009
• Label: UME
• Copyright: (C) 2009 Promotone B.V. under exclusive licence to Universal International Music B.V.
• Record Company Required Metadata: Music file contains unique purchase identifier. Learn more.
• Total Length: 40:39
• Genres:
• ASIN: B002KV723U
• Average Customer Review: 3.8 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (26 customer reviews)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

98 of 104 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars Stick With a Virgin.., December 13, 2009

By 

5:15 AM - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)   

This review is from: Some Girls (Audio CD)

As a huge Rolling Stones fan I have to say I am disappointed in this remaster. It is one of my favorite Stones albums but this version on UMG is highly compressed with a major loss in any dynamic range it had.

Yes, the guitars are louder and even clearer in some cases and because of this, many of the songs seem to lose their swing. Oh, it rocks, alright, but the swing that was present in the Virgin issue of 'Respectable' is gone. The break in 'Miss You' (OOooohh ooohh, Everybody waits so loooong) loses it's impact as well as the vocals and Charlie's drums in 'Before They Make Me Run.' In the latter song, the drums used to kick and the chorus used to stand out from the rest of the recording, which it no longer does. The break at about 1:35 in 'Shattered' where the bass drum kicks in is a plodding mess and much clearer and listenable on the Virgin '94 issue. The record, as a whole, loses much of it's depth and warmness as a result.

Perhaps the biggest travesty, and I don't recall any other reviews mentioning this, but at the beginning of 'Beast Of Burden', Keith's guitar is in the right channel and in the left you hear an echoing or 'bleeding' effect of the guitar lines. It is plainly obvious on the Virgin issue and all previous issues of the recording. On the UMG this is all but GONE! Even when I isolated the left channel and turned it up it was close to inaudible. I put on the Virgin and it's very audible, even without much volume or isolation of the left channel.

If you want the issue that sounds better and sticks closer to the integrity of the original recording, seek out the '94 Virgin remaster and not this. If these sort of nuances are not an issue for you and just prefer loud guitars at the loss of any dynamic range, then by all means, fire away and pick up this UMG remaster. Those of you not familiar with the original recording will not notice a thing. Those of you who are familiar with it do not feel that an upgrade is necessary.

56 of 60 people found the following review helpful:

3.0 out of 5 stars You Know, The Audiophiles Are Right: Stick With The Virgin Remaster!, May 24, 2010

By 

Erik Morton "Erik Morton" (Carmel, CA United States) - See all my reviews

This review is from: Some Girls (Audio CD)

I'm no audiophile; I own no fancy speaker systems or equipment, I don't know any of the lingo that goes along with sound quality, I don't own any vinyl, etc. I'm a casual music lover who still prefers to buy the CDs, but listens to the vast majority of my music on my iPod through $10-$20 headphones. And even I have to agree with what people are saying: the 1994 Virgin remaster by Bob Ludwig is better than this 2009 Universal remaster.

When I first bought this album a few months ago, it was the 2009 version. Right from the get-go, something about the sound quality hurt my ears; I don't blast my music very loud or often at all, but it actually gave me a bit of a headache listening to this album a few times. It just sounded too "bright," somehow, for lack of a better way to phrase it. Mind you, it's still a perfectly listenable CD.

So I finally bought the older 1994 version, and the difference is extremely subtle (to the point where I'm not sure if I can put my finger on the exact reasons), but to my untrained ears it sounds better than the 2009 version. It sounds more "full," more like the Stones I know. Sounds are perhaps less clear and crisp, but you know what? That's how I like my Stones. They're one of those bands who actually benefits from some "muddy" sound in their music, so to speak. It just gives them a certain atmosphere. I think the 2009 remasters cleaned up the recordings a little too much, and in doing so not only made a less pleasurable listening experience, but also lost a lot of that Stones feeling.

Conclusion: The 1994 Virgin CD is the way to go. Mind you, the 2009 UM version isn't the travesty a lot of people have made it out to be, but it's still a less satisfying listening experience, IMHO. I can't speak for any of the other 2009 remasters, but based on my 'Some Girls' experience, I'll continue to seek out the 1994 Virgin remasters.

62 of 75 people found the following review helpful:

1.0 out of 5 stars Worst Remasters Ever..., July 13, 2009

By 

K. Stephenson "soundchaser40" (Murray, Kentucky United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Some Girls (Audio CD)

All I want to say is these new Stones remasters are brittle...washed out...compressed...totally distorted and unlistenable. Do not buy these...stay with your Virgin Records versions...worst I have ever heard. I'm being liberal here folks...it's your money though. The artwork is shabby and on this cd they have basically edited Bill Wyman out of the band although he was still in the band. His photo is not shown with photos of the band in the booklet. Way to go Mick.