Are you going to buy the Rolling Stones SACDs?

I've preordered a few already. I suspect that the recordings, despite remastering, will be far less than what SACD is capable of reproducing. But it is exciting to see a large block of music from major artists come out in the new format, and that's why I'm buying. What do you think the major labels (especially Sony, that controls vast numbers of recordings AND manufactures SACD equipment) are waiting for? Seems logical to me that getting more software out would speed sales of the electronics and interest more of the general public in the new format. Releasing SACDs would also immediately protect the record companies from copyright infringement, at least until someone manufactures an SACD burner.
they are hybrids, right? if so, I will buy some...
I've got all of them on order. Half of them should arrive this week, the rest after Labor Day. I've always been a Stones fan, but never really got around to buying a lot of their stuff -- I have only a couple LPs and one CD. While I expect the full collection will have some amount of uninteresting (to me) material, I wanted to (1) get all the cuts that I do like, (2) get it on SACD, remastered to boot, and (3) have the complete set as a collectible block. SACD should have had this kind of software support much earlier.
I would buy them if I was more of a Stones fan, but they never really got me going. I like some of their songs, so maybe a "Best Of" SACD might interest me.
Hybrid SACDs won't protect the record companies (and artists!) from pirating, unless the CD layer is copy-protected.

What will get the public buying is not reissues, but new material. When the next Britney Spears album comes out ONLY on hybrid SACD, then the medium will take off. But I don't expect that to happen for a long while, if ever.
They need time to get everyone worked up so we will want to buy them, but first they have to hype aging boomers into thinking that SACD is worth buying the same old recordings twice and three times. Give me a break folks, we already went through this game with CD. And once again, twenty years later, it's like we were born yesterday. Sony is in it for the profit, their strategy of getting us to feel 'deprived' by delaying software is perfectly consistent with good marketing techniques and will work well once the software is released.
Remastering to sound decent on current equipment (that is, cheap SACD players) takes time and money, and Sony needs you to repay that effort, no matter now misguided. It's exploitative (the waning rock groups are more than happy to take your money again and again too, of course). You want the stones? Break out your cassettes and 8 tracks and vinyl, and at the last resort, your CDs. Or tape a copy from someone. Much cheaper! And perfectly consistent with the quality of the sonics involved.
Remember when rock and roll was protest music? Now it's a parlor game for baby boomers sporting fat wallets, who are experiencing a delayed reaction to the sixties.
I may buy a few. My SACD is in for repairs. It currently will not play hybreds....
The stones were never my favorite either. There are several greatest hits disks amongst those released. Since they are hybrids, and I don't own many of their albums or CDs, I decided to try a few. I do wonder how much of this is exploitation, but there is a good deal of music that had really lousy original CD mastering and might be worth trying on SACD.
Making SACD's is not as trivial as it sounds. There still is a limited amount of pro gear out there that works in DSD, and the bulk of it works with a maximum of 8 channels. DSD digital editors are also a rare breed. Not to mention that there is only one Hybrid manufacturing plant in the world (at this point, a new 2nd plant in Hollywood is scheduled to begin manufacturing in mid to late September). That's a hellova bottleneck.
The Early Stones stuff was recorded so poorly (one lp was actually recorded at the wrong speed!). I'm jumping on the ten earliest (excluding live or hits packages--ugh). SACD beats the hell outta 24/192(I've got both), but 24/192 is still so superior to Redbook. So my strategy is to buy what I haven't got already rematsered on SACD when made available. And since the Stones haven't remastered anything on ABKCO this will be fantastic. By the way, my local record store is selling SACD for 14.99!
A ticket to just one Stones show costs more than an entire season of tickets to the local symphony! Hell, no, I'm not going to contribute one more thin dime to those geriatric wastoids. Besides, I've already got all the records...
I picked up 2 of my favorite Stones titles yesterday, "12X5" and "December's Children". I don't have a SACD player but played them on a Cary 306/200 CDP. I must admit that they sound much improved over the early 1986 cd pressings. I could hear more of the indivdual instruments especially Charlie Watt's drums and Keith Richard's guitar. At this point with over 8000 cds and lps I am not real interested in another format but I am curious how these 2 titles would sound on SACD player in my system.
The Rolling Stones??? I think that they should rename themselves "The Cash Cows"! Hey, "The Cash Cows" have done some great stuff, but Mick and the boys (geezers) have been irrelevant since the '80's. I forget the tour, but I had heard some concert excerpts, and without a studio and multiple takes, Mick has no voice! His monotone singing of "Shattered" reminded me of the William Shatner version of "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds"! And this was over 15 years ago! Most of the old and WAY past their prime rockers have sold out anyway (is anyone familiar with The Fools song "Sold Out" should be an anthem for old rockers!) Ever since Paul McCartney's tour in the late '80's, which was sponsored by MasterCard, and for which Sir Paul became a media shill, marketing and profits have replaced art, quality, and integrity. Hell, take a look at BIG NAME anti-establishment rock groups who have sold their "babies" to be used as music beds for commercials. The most greedy and money grubbing example must be that of the Clash. "London Calling" is now used for some crappy car (I think it's for the Ford Jaguar. However, this is appropriate, for the Jaguar itself is a pale ghost of it's former glory!) The Clash was a "take no prisoners" group that shredded every sacred establishment (cash) cow with their music. This was the group whose song "Death and Glory" screamed the lyrics,

"And every gimmick hungry yawp,
digging gold from rock and roll,
grabs his mike and tells us,
he'll die before he's sold.
But I believe in this,
and it's been tested by research,
he who f**ks nuns,
will later join the church."

How true, how prophetic, how sad!
Just bought hot rocks, this is the first sacd that I have bought for my newly aquired SCD-CE775. Listening through my Senn 575's it sounds good. I really have not listened to RS before so this is a good way to check both them and the SACD format out.
Some of your responses seem shrill, but so what. I have most of the 60s and early 70s stuff on vinyl; some of the early early 80s stuff on CD. The one I am most interested in is Metamorphosis. A compilation of their studio stuff that did not make it on their albums from the mid 60s to early 70s. I still thing their best song was from that album, Going Down. This album was never released on CD, and my album is about shot. Yes I am buying one CD/SACD.
Thanks for the tip Schubby!
No. I will happily stick with my vinyl. If I need a CD, I simply record my own using my Marantz Pro CDR320 CD recorder. These CD's sound very, very close to the actual LP and much, much better than most commercial CD's. Anyway, I don't believe the Stones get any money from these SACD's, Alan Klein's ABKCO gets all the $$$.
The only store in my immediate area that carries them is Borders and they are charging like $18.99. I will wait till i can get to Dallas before I buy one to see how it sounds. I found it odd that they don't say 'SACD' on the back of the box. Am I missing something with that?

I just bought six of the new Stones cds through Borders on the Internet. Actually its but the prices were 13.99 for most of them, 12.98 for "Let it Bleed" and free shipping and no tax if you spend 25.00 or more. Delivery they said will be in 1 to 2 weeks.

Thanks, my man
I purchased both "Hot Rocks","Beggar's Banquet","Let It Bleed","Satanic Majesties", and "Metamorphosis".
I do not have SACD, but got the 2-CD sets for 24.99 and the singles for 13.99, and was able to use a 15% off total purchase coupon from Borders at Best Buy. Many stores did not get all 22 copies.
The sound quality is fantastic. I no longer need to turn my volume to the 1:00 position to hear "Gimme Shelter". There is actually some bass on these CDs. Given that the material is from the mid-sixties, it's pretty exciting. If the redbook is this good, the SACD must rule. (I've got a Cary 306, I'd like to compare it to a mid-level SACD.)
The verdict is: For the price, you must have "the essentials (Hot Rocks I)" at the very least. If you're a certified fan, all are reccomended.
I picked up Metamorphsis at Borders this afternoon. Popped in my car CD changer, went straight to Going Down. Goosebumps and memories, what a song. The CD itself: they cleared up lots of the grunge( though they keep some in, thank god). Excellent sound concerning what was recorded.
But with the Stones it was never about the quality of the sound it was their attitude ( however faux it was) they recorded. Mick was really jaded and cynical on Going Down, loved it. Actually there were 4 songs that i thought should have made their albums, the rest.... second rate stuff... but better then most bands top drawer....
I just bought (what I think) is a current reissue but nowhere on the packaging does it say "DSD", "SACD", etc.
It's in one of those cardboard type containers (not plastic jewel box). Should I open it or is this some kind of record company scam?
Anyone seen reissues marked "SACD"?
Yes, you purchased a SACD. It does not say "SACD" on The outer packaging. You're in for a treat!
Jschrimpf: Your'e right, I opened the package and there was a "certificate of authenticity" (isn't this getting a little to fancy?). My main system is boxed up (PLEASE see my auction) so can't vouch for sonics but sure sounds like new disk has gain "thru the roof". Could barely turn volume past 8 O'clock (it WAS late). Thanks!
There's no fool like an old fool! I posted my original comments on Aug. 27th. Five days later, Neal Pollack (a kid of only 32 years, but wiser than those who preorder these living fossils' SACD crap) wrote a column in the N.Y. Times, that pretty much reflected my viewpoints about these geriatric buffoons. GIVE IT UP, MICK! You and the band used to be Rock & Roll Dynamos. Now, you're just withered parodies, hucksters of the P.T. Barnum school (would somebody PLEASE show these guys the "Egress?!") At least good old P.T. gave you your money's worth. PLEASE DON'T BUY THESE SACD's. It only encourages corporate greed to release more extraneous and irrelevant material. Here's the link to Neal's column:
I bought the London Years collection on SACD/CD.
For those not aware this is the triple CD set basically all the Stones singles(A &B sides) up to Sympathy For The Devil.
I'm not going to get into the SACD debate at this stage,my machine is running in still and I'm awaiting new software,I will follow this up at a later date.
What is clear is the remastering job is a step up from the last CD release, which I have.
What is also clear is that nothing will save the likes of Street Fighting Man which is basically an awful recording at source,there are a few others like this.
However the average and great recordings have never sounded better on CD so from that point of view it really does make these re-issues very worthwhile.
No. Stones are not my cup of tea.-NT
Hell yes, I already have. I don't have SACD but the remaster job is good, all the stones remasters are good, especially post ABKCO by Bob Ludwig - Ben, "street fighting man" was recorded on a cassette deck and that was the raw, grungy sound they were looking for - not good over my system either no matter what!
I just bought that 40 Licks 2 CD compilation, and am surprised at how GOOD the 60s stuff sounds in my ref system!
Rhythmic, punchy, raw, and human. Lots of fun.
I started off with 40 licks and I was so impressed I started to add a few individual albums; Aftermath, Beggars Banquet and Let it Bleed. For me, these remasters were an absolute revelation.
I saw their first concert in Detroit in the mid 60s and I was hooked. My interest in them faded after Sticky fingers and I had seen them "Live" 4 times by that point. I used to mention to my LP friends how bad they had always been recorded compared to their "Live" concert sound.
These SACD hybrids (that I listen to only as CD through my Wadia 860x) sound fabulous. In my humblest opinion; the last song on the 40 Licks CD "Losing my Touch" by Keith Richards is worth the price of the whole 40. If you don't buy any of the re-issues and you even slightly like the Stones; BUY the 40 Licks CDs, you will not be sorry.

Grace Slick once said and I paraphrase here: "There's nothing more pathetic than a 50 year old playing rock and roll on stage." It seems appropriate in a musical era dominated by disposable pop divas like Brittney, Christina and now Pink that The Stones HBO special could find an audience. Mick can no longer sing and his face looks like that of a mummy's after the bandages have been removed. I would buy the new versions of their old stuff because try as I may it's like finding a needle in a haystack to find contemporary music that can hold a classic to these withered hasbeens' early stuff.If most of us on this site are audiophiles that are in constant search of sonic nirvana then buying the best newest versions of old gems seems an easy choice to make.
You can put a nice suit on a sack of crap - but it's still gonna be a sack of crap. The Stone's recordings have never been well engineered or well pressed (save for Satanic Majesty's Request). I don't know if the format can make them listenable. Early material was cutting edge musically, but let's face it - they've been irrelavent for years. To quote Bob Weir: "gone from livin on reds, vitamin C and coacaine to livin' on meds, vitamin E and Rogain...
Let It Bleed which I now own on CD/SACD hybrid doesn't sound in the slightest like a sack of crap........
Hmmm. Suffer Grace Slick's ridicule or make 300 million dollars, have fun and make hundreds of thousands happy??? Tough decision Mic...
I plan on buying "Sticky Fingers" and "Exile on Mainstreet"....not sure about the rest.
Unfortunate you guys don't get it - maybe all entertainers should retire at 49 - but where would that leave hollywood, oh yeah, and concert ticket sales? I'm thankful I grew up in the Stones' era because the real sack of crap is most of today's music - especially corporate slick FM/MTV one hit wonders.
An endorsement by the masses is hardly a benchmark of quality (see Bush's approval rating). In the case of the Stones not unlike The Grateful Dead there are new generations of fans who didn't grow up seeing these bands at their peak and are thrilled to buy the latterday, geriatric commercial crap these stayed -too long -at-the dance dinosaurs are spewing out in abundance. There was nothing sadder than seeing The Grateful Dead in '91 with Jerry (seemingly on life support) just going through the motions. Not unlike the Stones every studio album from Shakedown Street on was just as irrelevant as the Stones'post Some Girls albums. If you missed the bus, you missed it. Don't get on it 20 years later when its run out of gas.
An endorsement by the masses certainly counts for something so from an economic standpoint it matters. In art and politics it's also very persuasive. People of all ages evidently want to see these bands. Your opinion is your own personal benchmark for quality when it comes to art. You can vote for who you want and pay for art and entertainment of your choice. Besides art is subjective, what I like you might despise and vice versa. The Stones put out arguably the 4 best R&R albums back to back in history. Have they churned out that kind of work since? No - but I disagree with your assessment of every piece of music as irrelevant with the exception of Some Girls. I got on the bus in the very early 70's and I didn't jump off - mine has plenty of gas.
Hey Pops. I think you misinterpreted my comment. I said that every Stones album since Some Girls was irrelevant. Catering to the masses is what gave us the current disposable rock era we must suffer through now. (Brittney,Matchbox 20, Pink etc.). Ironic that the music industry has downsized 45% in the last few years and although bootlegging and the internet are mostly to blame the overall product mix being mediocre factors in as well. I'd gladly buy the enhanced versions of any classic Stones albums, but I shudder at having to watch their HBO special or go and see The Dead.I've seen The Eagles, Stones, Grateful Dead and The Who(Townshend on acoustic the entire show!?) in the latter stages of their touring career. Having also seen them at times closer to their peak, I can only say that seeing them later in the game only made me miss the music that used to be theirs all the more.I respect subjectivity in the arts and may live in a musical time warp, but it seems like home to me.
Miles Davis didn't have much to offer the last 20 years of his life either. I wish these artists would consult experts like jsonic and, when told they are past their peaks, go off somewhere and die. They're just ripping us off by continuing to make music, and we're idiots to enjoy it.
Jsonic, sorry if I misinterpreted your take, I don't mean to sound aggressive in my reply - probably sounds that way because I'm becoming a relic myself - I say play and perform as long as you can. Classic music like the Stones work from the 60's and 70's should only be performed by the Stones and I for one enjoy hearing it. I didn't start enjoying John Lee Hooker until he was older than dirt and I thoroughly enjoy his last 3 albums.
Drubin. Going off and dying doesn't ensure that the artist won't still issue an album. Seems like Hendrix came out with way more albums post-humously than he did while breathing. (A good thing.) There are indeed artists who in my opinion retain their magic into their later years. Neil Young and Jorma Kaukonen are two that come to mind. I'm not familiar with Miles Davis'
repertoire, but I catch your sarcasm. There is a certain sense of nobility in dying at your peak. Joplin, Morrison and Hendrix burned brightly albeit too briefly. Eric Clapton and Stevie Winwood have taken the adult contemporary route. Michael Jackson has become a caricature. Where's Stevie Wonder been? I'm constantly looking for new music to listen to. So far The White Stipes is what I've found. Why? Because it sounds old. Expert? Me? Hardly! Thanks Pops for the J. L. Hooker tip. I welcome any suggestions on long in the tooth rockers who still kick ass.
Jsonic, you young whippersnaper! We agree on something - Neil Young has aged like a nice cabernet! And he can kick ass - your also right about Hendrix. How many tapes and different takes of songs can they dig up - literally!
Just got my first - "Get Yer Ya Ya's Out".

The difference is considerable even without an SACD player. I've been complaining for years that the Stones catalog needed to be remastered. The prior ABKCO CDs were nearly unlistenable.

In anticipation of my new SACD player, I ordered GYYYO and a number of other (non Stones) titles. I guess I'll add a few more Stones SACDs- I just don't know where to start.
The dust has settled and both SACD and DVD-A are essentially dead. The Stones SACDs do sound excellent.
Wow! Has it been 5 1/2 years since the discs came out? Time does fly (although I thought SACD was a non-starter then).