SACD Rolling Stones Statement in AMG

I haven't seen this posted before, so forgive me if it's old news, but I just noticed this appended to the end of all the Abkco Rolling Stones reviews on the allmusic.com website. Found it interesting...


[The Rolling Stones' London/ABKCO catalog was reissued in August of 2002, packaged in digipaks with restored album artwork, remastered and released as hybrid discs that contain both CD and Super Audio CD layers. The remastering — performed with Direct Stream Digital (DSD) encoding — is a drastic improvement, leaping out of the speaker, yet still sounding like the original albums. This is noticeable on the standard CD layer, but is considerably more pronounced on the SACD layer, which is shockingly realistic in its detail and presence, yet is still faithful to the original mixes. Even if you've never considered yourself an audiophile, have never heard the differences between standard and gold-plated CDs, you will hear the difference with SACD, even on a cheap stereo system without a high-end amplifier or speakers. And you won't just hear the difference, you'll be an instant convert and wish, hope and pray that other artists whose catalog hasn't been reissued since the early days of CD — Bob Dylan, Bruce Springsteen, Neil Young, especially the Beatles — are given the same treatment in the very near future. SACD and DSD are that good.]

 

YES!

 

YOU BETCHA!

 

Still looking at the AMG reviews and I noticed something that I hadn't thought about before. I don't have the actual discs in front of me to verify the numbers, but for the (old) CD version of More Hot Rocks, AMG lists a total running time of 79:45. Now when this double album was first released on CD I don't think you could have fit 79 minutes of music on a single disc - which is why MHR was released as a 2 CD set.

Now, however, you _can_ squeeze nearly 80 minutes of music onto a single CD (and I think even more on an SACD, though I'm not sure).

Call me cynical - but we are talking about $Abkco$ here - but perhaps the reason they saw fit to include a few bonus tracks on the new MHR SACD - and only on MHR - is so they could pad the running time and legitimize keeping this a 2-CD release. Hmmm...

Ray

 

Ray, I'll take the bonus tracks. They could have done what was done with 1962-1966 by the Beatles. One cd on two.

mud-

 

I hear ya, Ray. Again, I thought it would have been more consumer friendly to combine the "best of" tracks from MHR with HR to fill out two discs, like an "ultimate" Hot Rocks, if you will. The rarities and odd tracks left over could then be put on its own single disc, maybe filled out with more archival material. Better yet, filled out with "Ride On, Baby," "My Girl," and other non-UK tracks that were tossed on US albums. But I guess that would be too generous from a company that kept "A Change Is Gonna Come" out of print for several years.

 

At the bottom of the front page it says:

© 1992 - 2002 AEC One Stop Group, Inc.

These people are in the business of selling cd's, can we really expect them to be objective? I've noticed that their "reviews" are resembling cheerleading sections more and more every day.

 

It's always been like that. Check out the ratings for Kenny G.

 

Don't get me wrong - I'd take the bonus tracks too. I just thought it was odd that MHR was the only RS remaster that had bonus tracks. Now, maybe, I understand the reason why...

 

I think it's getting worse. If you want to really laugh, read the biography of Frank Sinatra Jr. Bizarre!

Here's the closing paragraph:

Frank Sinatra Jr. had an advantage learning from his father and in doing so has made a name for himself in the music industry. Using his father's resources, he will be known as Frank Sinatra Jr., not just as Frank Sinatra's son. Frank Sinatra will remain a music legend for years to come because of the brilliant arranging and singing of his Frank Sinatra Jr.

 

Agreed!

mud-

 

Mike, is that the whole book?

mud-

 

I Second That Emotion....

 

"Yes" to what, exactly? Call me a cynic, but I really don't think the difference in the SACD layer on the Stones discs is really that great. I think most of the "advantages" of SACD were outweighed by the processing done to many of the tracks. Yes, some things sound very good, but a lot of the stuff just doesn't live up to the potential of the format.

I'd say that AMG tagline is nothing but propaganda, probably spoon-fed by ABKCO. Saying you'll hear a difference in the SACD layer, even on cheap speakers, is just plain silly.

 

Cynic!

Luke,

I only have the Single Collection but I am very impressed with the SACD layer over the CD layer.

I haven't compared every track on both layers by any means (I would if I had the time!) but take "Lady Jane" for example - the 12-string makes the hair on the back of your neck stand up on the SACD layer. The CD layer is cold and uninvolving by comparison. "Honky Tonk Women" is another good example where the SACD layer completely trounces the redbook layer.

I know that you have issues with some of the tracks on the 22 discs - some of the tracks on "Singles" sound like they may have been tinkered with. Nonetheless, I think the difference between the SACD layer and the CD layer is more than great - it's *infinite*.

To me, the SACD layer sounds real whereas the CD layer sounds lifeless and 2 dimensional in comparison.

 

And just here a few weeks ago everybody was complaining about the low rating Tom Petty's latest received.

Most people who bash AMG simply don't understand AMG. It states many places that it aims to rate an artist's work against itself, with only the five-star ratings applying for the best of an entire genre. Therefore, most artists will have a 4 or 4-1/2 star rating (or several) somewhere.

I do think they have spread themselves a bit thin recently, and some of the newer reviewers are indeed too liberal with praise, but frankly, I don't believe there is a better rock music critic alive Steven Thomas Erlewine, who does many of the major artists' reviews.

And no, knowing several of the people who work there, I mostly certain do not buy the theory that they are only trying to hawk CDs. Absolutely not.

But folks can certainly disagree, if they wish. Everybody seems to, complaining now that they are too harsh on their favorite artist, now that they are too easy on a disliked artist. To me, that sounds like they're probably doing alright.

This only applies to music reviews. They certainly could use a good *audiophile* reviewer to tackle sound...

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

They don't seem to accept *any* input from the fan community, though. Their star ratings for the Association's albums, for example, do not jibe at *all* with what is written about 'em...

-D

 

I understand AMG and I think their newer reviewers are seriously lacking in both musical knowledge and writing skills. It's pitiful. My feelings on Erlewaine are that he is a horrible critic with little or no taste. I have seen reviews where he has zero knowledge about the topic at hand. Cub Koda (RIP) and Richie Unterberger are AMG critics whose opinion means something to me because they know their stuff. Erlewaine is nothing but a hack imo. That guy bugs me!

 

Cool. I can respect your opinion.

Me, I've already stated my opinion on Erlewine, so I'll zip it now.

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs

 

Very true. That, however, is a good or bad thing, depending on your view. I don't really want my critics too influenced by fans, since in my experience, fans aren't the best place to get critical feedback, unless, of course, you are already a fan, and then you are not who AMG is aiming at.

I'm poor, so I'm strict, and I want somebody tougher than a fan feeding me suggestions. But as I said, that's just me. For many, this may be a negative.

I'm not an AMG cheerleader, I might add. I disagree with them quite a bit. When people move from questioning opinions to questioning motives, however, I do feel the need to throw in what I know about the people behind the website.

Shalom, y'all!

L. Bangs