The Rolling Stones

yeah it's fine

It's an interesting historical artifact in the history of the Rolling Stones and British rock, but it's not extraordinary. The fact that they became as big as they did after this debut album speaks to how much more patience record labels had then. In addition, it also shows how obsessed with American blues and R&B they were.

not my favorite by them… unsure how this album made the list

Just because they got good does not mean this is good. For historical purposes only.

S'fine. Not my favorite Stones album.

Anything they touch is gold.

It's interesting to hear this in the bigger picture of the emerging Rolling Stones story of the mid-60s but there's always a ceiling with albums of other people's songs, as far as I'm concerned. To be fair, there's also always a floor with good, clean blues standards as they're so much fun. It's great to hear Jagger's voice already full of distinctive character and it's all decorated with solid guitar, bass and harmonica. The ingredients are all there, if a little raw. Give them another 5-10 years and they could be onto something really special.

Good fun rock and roll album - like a lot of early 60s stuff it’s full of blues covers and short sharp 2-3 minute tracks. Jagger’s voice instantly recognisable but other than that has little in common with later Stones stuff. I guess it’s on here to mark the debut from what became a hugely influential band, but this album in itself is pretty basic and definitely not innovative!

I'm afraid this is another fairly dull Stones album. However, it does beat out Aftermath because it's mostly covers of older blues songs, versus Aftermath which really just showed off that the Stones mostly hadn't figured out how to write songs yet.

Giving this a 3 because while I don’t think it should be included in the 1001 due to basically all of the songs being covers, I did enjoy the music itself. So in a vacuum, it’s a 3.

Dear god. The Rolling Stones break their streak of 2-stars by simply not writing their own songs. It may not be the most inventive album, but I do think they approach these covers with a fun energy, and I can see how they became "England's Newest Hitmakers". Still don't know how they became so highly regarded after that though. Standouts: Honest I Do • I'm A King Bee • Carol • Tell Me • Walking The Dog

Rather inoffensive album of covers that definitely doesn't belong on this list, but it was refreshing to not hear them degrade women (I then realized this is probably because they only wrote one song on here). Their version of Route 66 might also be my favorite.

Takie plain. Same covery xD

Dont dig ts

All sounds like rip offs, even if they are covers. Still sounds pretty good though.

Pretty good album. Surprised at how much blues is on this one.

please stop with the 60's pedo bands man

Eh. Early Stones doing some covers, get the historical importance but kinda a bore to listen to. 4/10

In the 60s you weren’t allowed to have a single original song on your debut album

Well its more stones. Just old stones. Lots of oldies energy here. Still some of the bluesy rock stuff they get known for but its less interesting than that. Just kinda run of the mill to be honest. I really didnt love anything here. Not mad at it but its just OK. Im not a huge fan of the band but im usually ok with it. This is more of the same but with a little differnt sound. Fine if your deep into the stones

Definitely sounds like a young band, but its fun to hear where they started.

Just an album full of stock standard Blues covers. Really underwhelming listen

Sadly it has to be a 2. The songs just sound like worse versions of other songs of the time. I'd rather listen to what the Beatles were doing at the time or what the blues legends of the time

I really like late ‘60s and ‘70s Stones. But this debut is mostly covers. It’s perfectly fine, but there are far, far more worthy selections from their storied discography.

I won't unleash my "The Rolling Stones are the most overrated band in history" diatribe on a cover album. Just gonna sweep this under the rug and move on.

Well, I'll be darned. A Rolling Stones album that isn't blatantly misogynistic, is very good from front to back, and that I mostly appreciated in full!

This is one of the more mystifying choices on this list. There is no shortage of Rolling Stones albums that are great, and plenty of them appear on this list, surely. This is a cover album. Most of the covers are fine but they don't improve the original (see Mona).

I don’t get why this is on here, but it’s a great start by the Stones. The songs are way simpler than they made a bit later, of course, but the band sounds terrific.

2/5 - We could have skipped this, and nobody would have noticed.

Note got the stones classics that I love

I like the Rolling Stones well enough, but not really in this early period. Heck, until "Satanic Majesties" I don't think they are worth much in 2026 beyond their singles. The primitive attempts at escaping conventional Rock & Roll don't hit as hard when you've heard what's come after. I don't think it's horrible, but it's really just a starting point for a band that too a while to become great.

I understand the purist view that this is a set of covers. And that there may be better versions of all of them. But, y’know, they’re pretty fucking good covers. Not too much in the way of sloppy ballads, no gratuitous use of strings, and for the most part pretty solid rock and blues. The self-written track sucks in comparison, and there are a couple of less successful numbers, but this is pretty good. And a nice length and easy for me to listen to So, yeah the purists have a point. But I enjoyed this and listened multiple times

Kind of fun rolling stones. If anything though this album project is showing me I'm not all that interested in rolling stones outside of the hits.

Way more R&B than their later stuff, but I can see where their later albums came from. Fun little romp, doesn't overstay its welcome.

It's a collection of covers that don't stray far from the originals. If it wasn't The Rolling Stones this album wouldn't be on the list.

This was a most enjoyable listen of Stones songs I rarely listened to. Shows what a great rock n blues band they started out as.

Just wondering between three and four

its a good first album

An interesting historical snapshot of the Stones but not something I'll personally be listening to too often down the line.

I'm being generous by giving this 2 stars. A debut album of covers isn't a very auspicious start, especially since these aren't very good covers.

Мик Джаггер когда то был молодой

Very bluesy introduction to the Stones. Loved it even though I didnt recognize most of the music as being huge hits for them.

Didn’t bother: white boys ripping of the blues

⭐⭐- Ett album fullt med tandlösa blues och soulcovers där jag mycket hellre lyssnar på originalen. Detta album är bara intressant för att höra bandets utveckling mot senare album. Musikaliskt är det ganska ointressant, ingen edge eller bluesgritt, ett gäng unga killar som älskar blues och vill låta som sina förebilder men har långt kvar. Antar bara att albumet är med på listan i form av tidskapsel. Bäst är Tell me

Day 413 Interesting for what would come later but obviously miles from their peak. Highlights Little by Little Can I get a witness Walking the dog

It's a good thing they learned to write songs. I hate boring, gentrified British covers of blues music. At least this isn't as bad as The Bluesbreakers. 2 stars.

So...mid? Holy fuck this production sucks. I think we're due for a remaster here, because this thing is actually painful to listen to. But then, do we really need a remaster of an album of covers? It's alright. We're listening to some early examples of rock. But not the earliest. Those go to the black artists who wrote these songs to begin with. Better, by the way. Whatever. This was fine. Fave tracks: - I Just Want To Make Love To You - I'm A King Bee

Крайне заурядное звучание — буквально каждый блюзовый альбом того времени звучит точно так же. Не уверен, что эта пластинка Камней заслуживает место в рейтинге. Поймал себя на мысли, что этот дебютный альбом очень похож на дебютник Боуи в том, что и тот и другой максимально сильно отличаются от того, к чему в итоге придут группа и исполнитель

Eh. I'm a Stones person, but this is not what I'm in it for. They didn't really become the Rolling Stones I love until December's Children in 1965

These are good, high-energy versions of blues and early rock songs, and it’s interesting to hear where they started from, but this feels like a document of a group working the cover-band circuit and honing its technical craft before finding its true mojo. I do like their handclap version of “Walking the Dog,” however.

Solid debut I'd never sat down and listened to. Even the covers that have been done to death have something to recommend them.

So much tour de force. I like all the energy poured on this one. Alright I guess.

I guess it’s interesting from a how it started, how it’s going point of view, but really this is just the sound of a new garage band finding their feet. 11 covers, 1 original. Fascinating for Stones stans, uninspiring for anyone else

Of things I learned listening to more than 1000 albums on this list, not liking The Rolling Stones is one of the bigger surprises. I can't tell if I liked this better or worse than any of their other albums. 2.5

It’s not bad but nothing stands out, it’s just a bunch of covers. Seems like this was put on the list to say “here’s how the Stones started…just wait till you see where they went”, which kinda defeats the purpose of this list imo

the album shows why decca wanted to sign the stones. they're not doing anything particularly interesting or new, but they played white american blues better than almost all american blues-based bands of the time.

It's the Rolling stones, no misses and a good listen. (4/5)

at 1st I was getting annoyed bc they're all covers then i remembered, 'debut record, they didn't haaaave songs yet - pretty impressive to sound that good and say 'just you wait till we write our own stuff!'

Reminds me of those tins of popcorn you get around the holidays. You grab a piece and it’s so sweet it hurts, to be followed by a piece oozing in butter, then a caramel crusted morsel, and so on.

Swap this for the first Paul Butterfield Blues band album - a band shockingly unrepresented on this list- that comes out the following year and this list gets instantly better. The Rolling Stones are boys. And while they are good at what they do - what they do at this point is ape the blues as opposed to play it. They bring some attitude which is appreciated but they are so far from ready at this point. Do yourself a favor and go listen the the first (and second) Paul Butterfield albums featuring the best blues guitarist of the 60s and some smoking harp/vocals from PB himself.

# In-Depth Review: *The Rolling Stones* (1964) **Verdict:** A raw, ramshackle debut that captures the Stones at their most hungry and unpolished. It is not a masterpiece of songwriting, but it is a document of a band discovering its identity in real time—and the moment the British blues boom found its most dangerous ambassadors. --- ## Overview and Context Released on 16 April 1964, *The Rolling Stones* arrived at the height of Beatlemania, yet it presented a starkly different vision of the British Invasion. While The Beatles offered polished pop optimism, The Stones delivered something scruffier, more sexually charged, and steeped in American blues and R&B . The album was recorded at Regent Sound Studios in London over five days in January and February 1964—a cramped, two-track facility with egg cartons on the walls for sound treatment . Produced by their young manager Andrew Loog Oldham and Eric Easton, the record was largely a distillation of the band's live set, consisting primarily of covers of their blues heroes with only three originals . The UK edition topped the charts, becoming the first non-Beatles album to do so since May 1963 . The US edition, retitled *England's Newest Hit Makers* and substituting "Not Fade Away" for "I Need You Baby (Mona)," performed modestly at first . --- ## Lyrics and Songwriting ### The Covers: Raw Interpretation Over Reinvention The album's lyrical content is overwhelmingly borrowed. The Stones tackle Willie Dixon's "I Just Want to Make Love to You" with a hormonal urgency that strips away Muddy Waters' philosophical undertones about love's primacy over daily obligations, focusing instead on pure, unfiltered desire . Similarly, Slim Harpo's "I'm a King Bee" becomes a sexually charged, almost sinister come-on in Jagger's hands. As Greil Marcus observed, Jagger sounds "completely phoney" at first—"Buzz awhile," he drawls—but by the end, you believe him . Chuck Berry's "Carol" and Bobby Troup's "Route 66" are delivered with breakneck enthusiasm, while "Walking the Dog" closes the album with a madcap energy that balances the record's heavier blues moments . ### The Originals: Seeds of the Jagger/Richards Partnership Only three tracks are credited to the band. "Tell Me (You're Coming Back)"—the sole Jagger/Richards composition—is a "nicely lugubrious, lewd-innocent lament" that hinted at the songwriting partnership's future . It's the most fully realized original on the record, with a plaintive quality that anticipates the ballads the Stones would later master . The two instrumentals, "Now I've Got a Witness" and "Little by Little" (the latter co-written with Phil Spector), are credited to "Nanker Phelge"—a pseudonym the band used for group compositions . These tracks feel more like sketches than statements, but they reveal a band comfortable enough to jam together and capture a vibe . ### Cons: Lyrical Limitations The reliance on covers means the album functions more as a live document than a cohesive artistic statement. Jagger's vocal persona—a mix of sneering bravado and tentative vulnerability—is compelling but inconsistent. He hadn't yet developed the lyrical wit or narrative ambition that would define later work. The originals, while promising, are embryonic at best. --- ## Music and Performance ### The Rhythm Section: A Brawny Frame Charlie Watts and Bill Wyman provide what the BBC aptly described as a "brawny frame" for the intermeshing guitars of Keith Richards and Brian Jones . Watts's drumming is economical and propulsive, never flashy but always driving. Wyman's bass anchors the chaos. On "I Just Want to Make Love to You," the band's acceleration during the instrumental break is entirely their own invention, adding a frantic, almost desperate energy to Waters' original . ### The Guitars: Interlocking and Inventive Richards and Jones create a distinctive guitar dialogue throughout the album. Richards brings his Chuck Berry obsession to the fore on "Carol" and "Route 66," while Jones's slide work and harmonica add texture and menace . The interplay on "Mona" is particularly effective—shimmering and surreal, as the BBC review noted . On "Not Fade Away" (the US opener), Brian Jones's harmonica pulls ahead of the Bo Diddley beat, creating a moment of genuine transcendence . ### Jagger's Vocals: Attitude Over Technique Jagger was not yet the vocalist he would become. The BBC review bluntly noted he "sounds like the Welfare State whitey he is" . But his attitude—part sneer, part swagger—was already potent. On "Honest I Do," he slurs "Don't you know that I love you?" with a sincerity that coexists with his sneer, revealing an artist who could admit vulnerability only through a mask of defiance . On "Can I Get a Witness," the band's "petulant victims" reading of Marvin Gaye's song is convincing precisely because it trades Gaye's gospel grandeur for dirt and doubt . ### Notable Performances - **"Route 66"**: A breakneck travelogue opener that establishes the album's kinetic energy . - **"I Just Want to Make Love to You"**: The hormones gushing, the double-speed middle eight still sweating . - **"Mona"**: Shimmering surrealism that sidesteps blueswailing one-dimensionality . - **"I'm a King Bee"**: Charlie Watts sets his inner beat to "dark and ruthless" for this leery come-on . - **"Tell Me"**: A romantic lament that points toward the Stones' future . ### Cons: Production Limitations and Inconsistency The two-track recording at Regent Sound gives the album a raw, almost demo-like quality. Oldham was learning on the job, and it shows . Some tracks feel rushed, and the mix lacks the clarity and separation that better studios could provide. The soul covers ("Can I Get a Witness," "You Can Make It If You Try") are less successful than the blues numbers, as Jagger's voice wasn't yet equipped to match Motown's polish . --- ## Production Andrew Loog Oldham produced the album not out of expertise but out of ambition—he wanted to be Phil Spector . The result is a record that sounds immediate and unvarnished, for better and worse. The egg-carton baffling of Regent Sound Studios contributes to a boxy, cramped sound that actually suits the material's raw energy. Keith Richards later claimed the album was "half-comprised of rough mixes precipitously rushed onto the market" by Oldham . If true, it's a testament to the band's brilliance that the result still stands as the best album to emerge from the early 1960s British blues boom . Phil Spector and Gene Pitney both contributed to the sessions—Spector shaking a brandy bottle and playing maracas, Pitney on piano—and are referenced as "Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene" in the subtitle of "Now I've Got a Witness" . Ian Stewart, the "sixth Stone," provides organ and piano on several tracks . --- ## Themes ### Sexual Desire and Male Anxiety The album's dominant theme is desire—raw, unapologetic, and often anxious. "I Just Want to Make Love to You," "I'm a King Bee," and "Little by Little" all center on male sexual pursuit, but Jagger's delivery suggests uncertainty beneath the bravado. The "petulant victim" persona on "Can I Get a Witness" ("It hurts me so inside to see you treat me so unkind") reveals a man wounded by rejection, lashing out through performance . ### Authenticity and Appropriation The Stones were self-consciously presenting themselves as authentic interpreters of American blues, yet they were middle-class English art students. Jagger himself later admitted the absurdity: "What's the point in listening to us doing 'I'm a King Bee' when you can listen to Slim Harpo doing it?" . The album is thus a document of cultural appropriation, but also of genuine reverence and reinterpretation. The Stones didn't just copy—they transformed, injecting the material with a specifically British, specifically youthful aggression. ### Rebellion and Image Oldham's sleevenote declared "The Rolling Stones are more than just a group—they are a way of life" . The album's cover—featuring no band name or title, just a half-lit photo of five glowering men—was a deliberate provocation . The press cultivated the image of the Stones as "ugly cave men" who parents hated and daughters were warned against . This rebellious posture, more than the music itself, would define the band's early identity. --- ## Influence and Legacy ### Commercial and Chart Impact The UK release topped the charts, cementing the Stones as the Beatles' only serious rivals . The US release, *England's Newest Hit Makers*, reached a respectable but not spectacular chart position, requiring a full year and a fourth album before the Stones truly conquered America . ### Influence on Rock Music The album helped establish the template for blues-rock as a commercial force. Its raw, unpolished sound and aggressive performance style influenced countless bands—from the garage rock explosion of the mid-60s to the hard rock of the 70s and beyond. More importantly, it demonstrated that a band could build a career on interpreting American roots music while gradually developing its own voice. The Stones' trajectory from this debut to *Aftermath*, *Beggars Banquet*, and *Exile on Main St.* is a study in artistic evolution . ### Cultural Significance The album's release was an event in Britain, but its cultural impact extended beyond music. The Stones became symbols of a new youth culture—one that embraced rebellion, sexuality, and a rejection of establishment values. The press hysteria surrounding them ("Would You Let Your Sister Go Out With a Rolling Stone?") revealed deep anxieties about class, gender, and generational conflict . ### Historical Assessment Critical consensus has shifted over time. Initially dismissed by some as a "stinker" while praised by others as "probably the finest first LP ever" by a rock band, the album now occupies a respected but secondary position in the Stones' catalogue . It is not *Let It Bleed*. It is not *Sticky Fingers*. But it is the foundation upon which those albums were built. --- ## Pros and Cons ### Pros - **Raw energy and authenticity**: The album captures a young band at its most hungry and live-sounding . - **Excellent rhythm section**: Watts and Wyman provide a solid, propulsive foundation . - **Guitar interplay**: Richards and Jones create distinctive, interlocking textures . - **Strong blues covers**: "I Just Want to Make Love to You," "I'm a King Bee," and "Mona" are particularly effective . - **Historical significance**: A document of the British blues boom and the Stones' origins . - **"Tell Me"**: A promising first Jagger/Richards original . ### Cons - **Over-reliance on covers**: Only three originals, two of which are instrumentals . - **Underdeveloped songwriting**: The Jagger/Richards partnership was in its infancy . - **Jagger's vocal limitations**: He lacks the range and nuance of later years . - **Uneven production**: The two-track recording at Regent Sound is raw to a fault . - **Soul covers fall flat**: "Can I Get a Witness" and "You Can Make It If You Try" don't match the blues tracks . - **Inconsistent quality**: Some tracks feel like filler, particularly the instrumentals . --- ## Final Assessment *The Rolling Stones* is not the band's best album. It is not even a great album by the standards they would later set. But it is an essential one. It captures the moment when a group of London blues obsessives became a band, and it does so with a rawness and immediacy that later, more polished records could never replicate. The covers are loving but not reverent; the originals are embryonic but promising; the production is amateurish but effective. Most importantly, the album reveals a band that already understood something crucial: that attitude, energy, and image could matter as much as technical skill. That understanding would carry them for the next six decades.

Certainly brash in its sound and delivery, nevertheless a reinterpretation of R&B and the Blues. Not even really a portent of things to come.

I love the Stones. I love this older blues-rock style. But I think I prefer some of the original Black american inventors of this genre more, and I prefer the Stones when they've developed their distinctive style more. Definitely not a bad listen, but far from the best Rolling Stones album.

Not my preferred genre but I acknowledge they’re good

I love the rolling stones but this was a bit derivative, simple blues songs and covers. Still good to see how it started.

Wow j'ai trouvé ça gênant comme 1er album quand on sait ce qui s'en vient après avec Beggar's Banquet, Let it bleed, Exile et Sticky. Surtout les tounes avec des handclaps (route 66 et Carol exemple). C'est copycat des early Beatles au max. Les tounes plus bluesy on voit bien le talent embryonnaire de Richards ce qui en fait un album d'importance I guess. Mais je ne compte pas y revenir trop souvent.

Moins pire que Félix le prétend! Par contre un band british qui commence son album avec "Route 66" ça fait poser en tabarnouche.

An absolutely fantastic beginning for an incredible rock ‘n’ roll journey through the ages

Not bad! I didn't realize the Rolling Stones started in the 60's.

I like the Stones. Funny though how while this album showed their potential directly, it also kind of felt a tiny bit era specific. Like it IS 60's rock and while a few songs are "kind of timeless" it is a very specific genre. It is unclear why some bands end up in this era specific space and others are timeless. But while they certainly went WAY past expectation and crossed all time and era lines over the years, this album kind of is a time machine, a time machine that speaks of an extraordinary band emerging, but not yet out of their limited genre space.

2.5 Decent and all, I’m a king bee is my fav.

Bunch of covers.

428/1089 Extremely 2.5 star music for me. like it’s good, i enjoyed it a fair bit and had a couple faves but it didn’t really go beyond a “ahh that was cool” type of appreciation faves: Carol, Mona, Tell Me 49/100

Ehhhhh didn’t really like their style, a bit too folky for my rock.

Don’t know if I had listened to the RS debut. You can tell that they had something even at the beginning.

More of an album that should be preserved as a footnote to all the black Americans it’s covering than an album to be listened to and reverted for its musical content. “I’m A King Bee” was the most fun of the bunch imo, but the returns are diminishing as each song passes by. When “Tell Me” finished, I was tapped out. Mercifully, this album ends in 33 total minutes. 2/5 outside of a few emphatic performances, this is not worth

I was kind of excited to listen to some stones, but this record was really boring, not the sound they are known for, and a really mediocre rock n roll at the end of the day.

I love the stones. I do not love this.

I just think they are hyped up because they're white. There are better bands than this.

Great early R&B and rock & roll covers. I prefer the originals that came later.

It's a good album

I lie it. But no

Enfin le 6 eme et dernier album des Stones ! Et il se trouve que c’est leur tout premier disque … avec uniquement des reprises blues / rock. Donc encore moins original que leurs 5 autres albums. Autant écouter les morceaux originaux, et pas ces (pales) copies, même si elle ne sont pas désagréables … =>2/5

3 out of 5. Might be historically important but the late 60's/early 70's albums on this list showcase the Stones much better.

не зашло, есть у них песни, которые мне сильно больше нравятся.

a bunch of covers with one original

This was good. Interesting to hear the Stones in their earliest incarnation. Exactly what I expected. Really liked the sound on here, crisp production. Probably won’t revisit it, but good to hear.

This is fine. Short and sweet, saunters by with a shaggy adolescent charm, but mostly just made me want to listen to the Beatles!

I can't help but see the rip-off in these early works. I get that these guys all love the blues and R&B and they're doing a fine job of mimicry. I just feel like I can easily get the genuine article from a better source when we're talking about this era of Stones.

Old, tired. Like me. Sometimes it just isn't any fun.

Märkligt att jag alltid haft svårt för Stones. Men denna debut som iofs låter en smula arkaisk, den är bättre än det mesta de gjort efter. Är det Brian Jones som är skillnaden tro? Iaf en klar 4.

A fine debut. One of the least favorite albums I've heard from them. 3.3/5.

First album released by the Rolling Stones wherein all but one of the songs were covers of previously released blues music by American artists.

I liked this one, interesting to hear after Let it bleed. They were certainly still developing their sound but some real gems. Noteworthy songs Route 66, Can I get a witness, and Walk the dog

It was fine. Mick Jagger is awesome. The songs were all the same.

Sounds like they recorded this in a tin can. Johnny b goode head ahh. Turn ts off. Not one song stood out to me. Only reason it isn’t 1star is cuz I didn’t have physical ailments listening to it. I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU

Kind of nothingness the whole time, it just was standard 50s/60s rock

The Rolling Stones are arguably one of the most important Blues Rock/Rock bands ever, and much like a lot of other iconic bands of their time, they have plenty of weak songs to start out what would turn into a legendary career. The Rolling Stones self titled debut album is not a bad album by any means, but it is aggressively decent and nothing more than that. Mick Jagger and company all sound like they are having a blast here and the charisma is definitely on point, but I struggled to see anything more than just decent even with all those factors. The songs are fun, silly, and extremely simple, but they just weren't enough to win me over in the long run. Not bad for a debut from an iconic 60s band, as I've definitely heard way worse, but I have also definitely heard way better...

Such run of the mill rock n roll 1.6/5

Great length, but I thought this was pretty unremarkable, especially because most of the songs are covers.