Interesting notes include:
.....the most famous story about Some Girls concerns the cut-out cover which originally had images of Lucille Ball, Raquel Welch, Farrah Fawcett, and Sophia Loren, all of whom threatened legal action, causing a revised cover to be released (both the original and revised covers from the original vinyl album are easily available on e-bay and in vinyl shops)
.....the original album cover was issued in 3 different color variations
.....Keith argued (and won) to have Start It Up removed from the album because he was afraid he had copied the main riff from the radio (it turned out it was his own licks he had heard)
.....when asked by a reporter why the name Some Girls had been chosen, Keith replied, "Because we can't remember their (freak)ing names!"
.....the first Stones disco mix was made by Bob Clearmountain from a tape of Miss You

The sessions for Some Girls were the most productive the Stones would ever have. They started in Paris Oct 10, 1977 and ended Mar 2, 1978 with final mixing at Atlantic Studios in New York Mar 15-31, 1978. The sessions were:
Oct 10 - Dec 21, 1977 at Pathe Marconi/EMI Studios in Paris
.....Miss You (Mick on guitar)
.....When The Whip Comes Down (Mick on guitar)
.....Just My Imagination (Mick on guitar)
.....Some Girls (Sugar Blue on harmonica, Keith on bass & acoustic, Ron on acoustic, Mick on guitar, Bill Wyman on synthesizer)
.....Lies (Mick on guitar)
.....Far Away Eyes (Mick & Keith on piano, Ron on pedal steel)
.....Respectable (Mick on guitar)
.....Beast Of Burden
.....Shattered (Ron on bass, pedal steel, and lead guitar)
Jan 5 - Mar 2, 1978 at Pathe Marconi/EMI Studios in Paris
.....Before They Make Me Run

Everything Is Turning To Gold was also recorded (it was released as a B side and special collections track).

Tracks from these sessions that were never released included the famous Claudine (which was never released because it was sure to cause litigation from Claudine Longet after she was reprieved from killing her boyfriend), plus Everlasting Is My Love, Covered In Bruises, Indian Girl, Misty Roads, Jah Is Not Dead, We Had It All, Fiji Gin, I Can't Help It, Do You Think I Care, The Way She Held Me Tight, I Need You, Let's Go Steady, Petrol, No Spare Parts, You Win Again, It's A Lie, It's All Wrong, Never Let Her Go, Never Make You Cry, Not The Way To Go, Biscuit Blues, Disco Music, When You're Gone, Angeline.

This information comes from "It's Only Rock And Roll: The Ultimate Guide To The Rolling Stones" by Karnbach and Bernson and from my own collection.

112 of 120 found the following review helpful:

Stick With a Virgin..  Dec 13, 2009
By 5:15 AM
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 found the following review helpful:

You Know, The Audiophiles Are Right: Stick With The Virgin Remaster!  May 24, 2010
By Erik Morton "Erik Morton"
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.

34 of 38 found the following review helpful:

Acting the part of the world's greatest rock'n'roll band  Dec 21, 2000
By Jeremy Giles
Some Girls is the last album on which the Stones manage to get their act together for a full set and make good on their self-proclaimed status as greatest rock outfit in the world. Devoid of the filler that has become a staple of recent albums, Some Girls is the perfect distillation of the late '70s vibe, in which punk, rock and even disco, all vied for commercial and/or critical supremacy. In vintage Stones' fashion, Mick and Keith employed all the styles and more, to create a stunningly diverse, yet cohesive record. Apart from the fact that most of the songs are in the same key, Some Girls never stays in one place for very long. The striding disco of 'Miss You' quickly gives way to straight-ahead rock of 'When the whip comes down' which then moves to the soul classic 'Imagination.' However, the best is definitely saved for last. 'Beast of Burden' to this day remains a slow rock standard, while the unashamedly sleazy 'Shattered' shows the lads mugging and jibing at their best. Recorded in the prime of Richards' heroin addiction and topped off with a classic cover and sleeve, Some Girls sublimely documents the turbulent environment in which it was conceived.

See all 269 customer reviews on Amazon.com