The Rolling Stones

it's like reviewing an album by the glee cast; it's an album full of covers. perfectly fine covers.

yummy stuff

I love The Stones but there’s absolutely no reason for this to be on this list, except that its their debut… but it’s just bad, it really is. Snoozefest

I have very much the same thoughts as for the debut Beatles album, important in the history of the band more than anything, and thus I question its inclusion on the list. Perhaps there is a debate to be had that the band are important to the history of music and thus, so is their debut but with better albums represented, I’m not sure it’s a strong enough case, particularly as this contains a lot of covers. It’s perfectly fine to listen to but even though I would happily listen again, I won’t be rushing back.

So meh. I get that it's their self title but dear god this is whatever. It's just blues songs regurgitated and worse. They have so much better.

So an album of almost all cover songs by one of rock musics most overrated bands is essential listening...sigh.

It has happened more than once that I'm surprised by how much I like the Rolling Stones. I don't consider them a top tier band even though I like several of their contemporaries like Led Zeppelin and Pink Floyd. I think because they're SO commercially successful - often literally as their songs appear in advertisements regularly - I don't give them enough credit for just be a good old fashioned rock and roll band with a lot of bangers.

Perfect album for stealing someone’s girl over a milkshake with two straws. Always amazing to see where some of these bands get their start before the psychedelic narcotics kick in.

This was fun to swe how the Stones got their start. Definitely a different sound that what they'd become

s'alright. Decent covers of classic blues songs.

The stones as a covers band - interesting in a historical sense but there’s a lot better in their catalog

Mostly covers on this record, but I can see the appeal of the Stones. Never been a huge fan of them, but also I need to hear some more. Funny that the only Mick and Keith track on the LP is the weakest. Sounds like a response to what was cool or appealing at the time.

Launched the Rolling Stones with a hit album & 62 years later holds up very well. A classic.

This doesn't have any of my favourite tunes from the stones. I'm not a great fan of all the cover versions people used to do back in the day. This was great though as you could hear the craziness of keith richards guitar playing and the incredible range of mick jaggers vocals which is what went on to help them create so many classic tunes

Taas odotin kovaa meininkiä, mutta lässähti jo parin biisin jälkeen. Ei maistunut

Ei kyl tän hetkiseen mentaalivireeseen sovi yhtään tällänen skeida. Ei nyt kehtaa kuuntelematta ykköstä antaa kuitenkaan

Ihan tuntemattomia biisejä kaikki, eikä ihme, melko perusrenkutusta.

Joo.

No olihan tylsää läpsyttelyä. Kova kärki heti alkuun ei välttämättä ole se voittava taktiikka, jos kaikki muut biisit on osastoa meh. Tosiaan tuo Route 66 -cover on mainio. Ei tartte muuten palata tän levyn pariin.

love how they sing “baby”..the rest is just ok

its still so incredible to hear TRS and then think... man those guys are still touring. pretty wild that they were part of the original British Invasion of the 60's, and yet they're still here and rocking out. overall, a pretty good album. especially it being their debut. it was fun to listen to, and it was short and sweet. definitely would listen again.

I'm not sure if I was just frustrated when I listened to this album or what, and even though I knew these early British rock groups did nothing but play covers initially, but this album being mostly covers really had some negative influence on my review. Its nice and quick, but with only one original composition, its hard to say this is truly a debut from The Stones. That being said, its still enjoyable and in the sweet spot for length. A two is way too low, but a three seems too high.

Always cool to see where bands got there start. It's not a huge step onto the scene, but more like a demo album. You can here that Rolling Stones sound coming through, but overall there's nothing to write home about on this album.

A pretty vanilla Stones album. It’s loaded with covers, and not particularly great ones at that. The album as a whole isn’t bad, but it doesn’t really inspire much either.

Album 142. The Rolling Stones (https://open.spotify.com/album/0bJMFJ2XQwpO5nKTrYdUtX?si=Np8okdSARE6w1KefJG9xbQ) — The Rolling Stones (1964) Their debut album, hmm. It's okay, a very pleasant listen. Historically interesting, but no real quality value in this. Especially because all but one are covers. 3/5 No liked songs

they've got much better albums, but I guess its not so bad since this is their first

el principio de una de las bandas más grandes e importantes de la historia con su raices dentro del blues y el R&b claramente mostrando lo que podría ser el sonido que vendría en un futuro y que los hara llenar estadios También marcando la estética y sonido característico de la invasión británica

Long live the stones!!*****

Every story has to start somewhere, but this is quite forgettable debut filled with blues covers

This is such a generic album, that I'm having trouble writing about it. Never been a Stones fan, it's the same as with the early Beatles stuff, this is just... well, not for me.

This album has absolutely no business being on this list; it's mostly just a bunch of blues covers. The originals are all better.

Ræl. Dårlig coverband, elendig mikset av "onkel Phil".

Very classic sound for a very classic band.

Ég er meiri Steinaaðdáandi en Bítlaaðdáandi en ég hafði aldrei heyrt þessa plötu. Hún er augljóslega fyrsta platan og þeir ekki búnir að finna hljóminn sinn alveg en það er vottur af honum. Ég mun samt frekar hlusta á seinni plötur með þeim.

Really not bad but why is it on the list? Like why?? I can't think of a single reason other than famous band so need lot of album. No artist needs more than 3 albums on here. Maybe a few exceptions here and there but this is not one of them

music is love

nah 2/5

It’s important because it’s the first album by the Stones. That said…there are so many better Stones records! Shit, put Goats Head Soup in the book, it’s a much more interesting and enjoyable listen. That said, this album is totally fine and I do like it.

Yeah, I could kill someone while listening to this album.

This album released today would be a huge fucking embarrassment to any band because it is a cloying painfully inauthentic covers album of some pretty amazing original songs largely originally performed by American black artists reproduced by an all white English band. Think Pat Boone on steroids. Less a tribute record than an effort to create a buzz, the few original songs do not hold up and time has magnified that observation. Not a single person alive today would pick these covers over the originals and I doubt that even the most die hard Stones fans could name the 1 originals or the 2 Nanker Phelge compositions. This is a completely forgettable record by a group of talented musicians and guests who managed to produce an awful piece of plastic. 1/5

Not their best work, some good blues riffs and chuck berry influences 0/12 liked

Certainly it not their best work, but you get flashes of what’s to come. 4 stars

Good stones, but not great stones. 4 *

I’m Too Forgiving Of Anything That Comes From The 60s™️ But for real. Every 60s pop band who made it big had an album (or two) where they ripped off blues and music from black musicians who did it 100x better. This is a particularly milquetoast offering from a band who is definitely better than whatever this is. I don’t want to know how many drugs were involved to make Mick Jagger think he should sing blues. This just doesn’t work, and it verges on comical. I’m actually shocked the Beatles had more soul, but at least their attempts at blues didn’t make me cringe. This definitely doesn’t need to be on the list unless it’s a lesson in what not to do from that era. I’m probably being too generous with my rating because it’s The Rolling Stones, but so be it. I’m full of contradictions.

Like The Beatles' first album, this is historically significant because of what became of them. But as such... It's an enjoyable album of (mostly) covers. Nothing groundbreaking.

Surprisingly weak.

Stop wasting my time You know what I want You know what I need Or maybe you don't

Classy

4 stars

Can't believe I've never listened to this in full before. Damn. 30 minutes of consummate blues rock.

the rolling stones

Great album

This was alright

If someone asks Beatles or stones and you prefer Beatles compare this album to please please me. One is miles and above better in my opinion and it’s not this one. This isn’t a terrible album it’s just got a good bit of filler and covers for me. I do like Route 66 cover but not as good as the original and walking the dog is pretty good

Let's be honest here; every song on this album, with the exception of the one original, was done better by a Black artist. Factoring that in, I cant give it higher than 4, even though I had a great time listening to it.

The most boring derivative shit i ever heard

Good coverd

It's not bad, but all the classics are not in there. Honestly, I wouldn't listen to it again. 2,5/5.

Its okay for 30 minutes of oldschool covers

if you've heard a blues rock album you've heard this one. I get its the Stones, but there were way better albums to pick from. Its a lot of the same blues riffs at different tempos, nothing here really sticks out as a memorable song either. Seems like a gifted spot on the list. They do have a pretty good sound for a debut album, and its interesting to see how they grew from here.

Completely unnecessary. I guess it’s on this list because it’s the Rolling Stones? Otherwise I have no idea what it’s doing here because it’s so devoid of originality. Truly baffling how this made the cut and so many other great albums didn’t

almost a completely different band than they ended up being, thankfully

Released between the decline of the Beatniks and the rise of the hippies, The Stones became an integral part of the British invasion in America. Covering such legends as Wille Dixon, Buddy Holly, and Chuck Berry, 20 year old Keith Richards and Mick Jagger embraced their love for American rock and blues.

Another case of putting the debut of a famous UK band I guess because it’s their debut? It’s fine, but nothing special especially in comparison to their later work.

An English Rock band from London, England that seemingly won't ever retire.

Цей альбом має більше історичного значення, ніж якогось новаторського в музиці. Якось пройшов абсолютно повз

You know I haven't listened to the Stones as much as I have the Beatles, and I thought by the time I'd listened to this I would have a better answer in the debate. But sadly I do not. I'm not sure which one I like more even less than ever

This album isn't nearly as good as The Rolling Stones were eventually capable of. It's really not that good in general. The recording is regularly distorting, and the mix doesn't save it. Not to mention that the performance was only just fine to being with. The instruments aren't even all consistently in tune. The songwriting is okay and nothing better, the hooks aren't that catchy, and the music is largely forgettable. I'm not going to give it any bonus points for being made by the stones. This isn't a great album. The best of these songs is only okay. 2.2/5

I’ve always loved The Rolling Stones, especially their early blues sound and raw R&B roots, so going back to their debut album feels like revisiting the very foundations of the band. It’s an important record historically, you can hear a group still in their formative years but already brimming with attitude and confidence. The album is largely made up of blues and R&B covers, which was typical of the time, with the exception of the first Jagger–Richards original, “Tell Me (You’re Coming Back)”. But this doesn’t feel like a limitation. Instead, it showcases the band’s ability to reinterpret American blues with a distinctly British edge. Mick Jagger’s vocals are already full of swagger and bite, and the guitar work has that loose, rolling groove that would become their signature. There’s a youthful energy throughout — slightly rough around the edges, but that rawness is part of the charm. Favourite tracks: “Route 66,” “Mona (I Need You Baby),” and “I Just Want to Make Love to You” are standouts. Each one captures the band’s early fire and their deep love of blues music. Least favourite tracks: There isn’t a bad track here. Album artwork: An iconic first image of the Stones on record. Moody, serious, and already projecting that rebellious mystique.

Not even close to their best album, but leads shows the blueprint of their musical growth and how far rock transforms through them as a band.

Not much difference between all the 60’s era British lads playing blues tracks from the Deep South. Beatles, Kinks, Stones, and all the lessers sounding as close as brothers can, yet still just white boys from across the pond. The sound is good, and Richard’s guitar work is better than the rest of his contemporaries. A fun but modest start to an amazing life. Little could they know they’d become the greatest rock band ever.

Good

This was decent but I just think The Rolling Stoens aren’t my thing, as much as they are for other people. The production is definitely dated thin, almost skeletal, but there’s something I like about it, how direct and unpolished it is. Mick isn’t fully Mick Jagger yet but you can hear him figuring it out in real time, which is interesting. I didn’t really clock the covers while listening, which says a lot about how naturally they work within this blues sound. Their version of “Route 66” is the one that actually sticks and I enjoyed. Overall it’s cool, historically important, but more of a stepping stone than something I’d return to regularly.

Really enjoyed listening to this early classic. Stones were clearly a blues band long before they became hard rockers and it is easy to see why they became the longest living rockers of all times.

Thought this was quainter than usual with these guys at first — I liked Honest I Do — but I’m tired of this crap! Not charmed by all these covers!

sorry but this was the literal definition of an ass... hole, cheeks and all.

Why in the ever living hell is a collection of cover songs considered to be an album I need to listen to before I die? The Stones are tremendous, but nothing about this album is groundbreaking or revolutionary

debiutancki krazek stonesow z 64, nie pamietam zebym wczesniej go slyszal, ani nawet kojarzyl jakiegos traka z niego, chyba ze route 66, ktory otwiera plyte gdzies mi sie obil o uszy, ale jest to 32 minutowa kompilacja coverow popularnych kawalkow r&b zza wielkiej wody, chyba nie zabrzmi to zle, jesli powiem, ze jest to dobra translacja czarnej muzyki stworzona przez stonesow, z 12 trakow 11 to covery, a jedynym orinalnym utworem jest tell me autorstwa dueto jaggerowo-richardsowego, dobrze sie tego sluchalo, nawet pomimo niebieskiego odcienia w jakim zostaje czlowiek po takich harmonijkach, ale warto bylo poznac od czego zaczynali jako zespol, bo juz tutaj slychac charakterystyczna energie, ktora czuc zwlaszcza na jaggerowych wokalach i wykorzystaniu mniej oklepanych instrumentow, ktore jednak sa nieodlacznym elementem czarnego brzmienai r&b, ktore zostalo tutaj ladnie oddane, na plejke dodam openingowy route 66 i wspomniany tell me

Geburt einer Legende! Auch riesige Bäume entstehen aus Samen. Je tiefer die Wurzeln desto besser.

Niet hun beste album ben meer fan the beatles

creoq ue primera vez que escucho disco de los rolling completo. siento que si los escuchaba sin saber que eran ellos no reconocia ni un tema.

1/5 Álbum de covers que são (muito) piores que os originais. Pelo menos os rapazes melhoraram com o tempo.

really interesting to listen to their first - do you judge b/c they are awesome later? or do you evaluate on a run of the mill blues album by some brits. was this groundbreaking in the day or just a first step? anyway, nice to listen to but no need to do more than once.

Speaking from a strictly historical perspective, I think this is kind of a neat listen. I think its status as the first Rolling Stones album is the only thing reason that it is included on the list though. While still a fun listen, this album wasn't anything groundbreaking or special. Just a fun, folksy little album.

This is so lame, I'm not a huge fan of the rolling stones but their later stuff I can respect. This one is just lame, like musically it's fine but there is nothing original about it at all. Take it off the list

Follows the same model as the early Beatles albums but I find it far less interesting. Perhaps it's just that the blues influence is less compelling or sounds more old fashioned. Either way, I'm not sure the first Rolling Stones album is a must-listen. I'm also not a fan of the harmonica

Album #40: The Rolling Stones Genre (W): Blues rock, British R&B Singles: Not Fade Away, Tell Me I have listened to this album once before. Thoughts?: This is the band that would eventually become one of the greatest bands of all time, but here’s their first record, primarily covers aside from “Tell Me”. I’m mainly listening for what makes this album stand out from other British Invasion records around the time. In this album especially, the Stones are sticking to a rock ‘n’ roll root. Good album, however, I know later ones are where the Stones shine. Favorite songs: Now I’ve Got a Witness, Little by Little, Carol, Tell Me

Some solid bluesy covers and interesting to hear the early Stones. Not something I would ever feel the need to return to, though. RYM: N Saved a song: N

“Honest I Do” made me bust up laughing. This is one of the more egregious examples of white people trying to do Black music I’ve heard in a while.

Meh

I don't think this was supposed to be a kickback to 1950's rockabilly vibes but here we are. This isn't terrible but it's not super interesting. 2.5 stars

Comparing the debuts of the Rolling Stones and Beatles.. apples and oranges. Yeah, the stones debut feels old, like I should only listen to it on an AM band, and this is not a compliment. It's fine that the band didn't arrive fully gestated like the Beatles. They played the long game. But tellingly, none of these tracks made it to the early 70s compilation Hot Rocks, which goes to show how much the band themselves thought of them. If the band themselves didn't care, then why is it represented on this list? Anyway, I will probably never listen to this record again.

I feel like a lot of these songs were rip offs of Spinal Tap's Gimme Some Money

Much more enjoyable than some of their later albums. I'm starting to feel like Jagger and Richards are actually a bit overrated as far as songwriting goes, as the covers here are much more enjoyable than a lot of their stuff. Does feel more like a demo than a polished LP, but that's probably half the vibe. It's rough and ready, but gives some impression of why they were popular. Would I choose this over any of the artists they covered? Probably not, but it gets a 3, which is more than I gave Exile on Main St.

none of the songs really stood out to me

It's pretty boring, just 'classic rock'. It just repeats the same phrase over and over again and calls it a song. The only one I actually liked was "Tell me" and even though he repeated 'tell me' about 1000 times at least he sounded good doing it.

1,5

Did not believe this was the Rolling Stones at first - so different than the songs I know from them. Loved the cover of Route 66!

I love the Rolling Stones, but that being said, I love them for their later albums, not this one. It's not bad, though, obviously.

Solid blues fare….but adjusted to a 3.5 rounded down because it’s a bunch of covers

It's pretty middle of the road.

Pedestrian

Very little sign of what they would become

Not bad or anything but it's just a bunch of covers

Great debut but better things were to come

I'd have been fine with just Exile, Sticky Fingers and Let it Bleed on this list, maybe Beggars Banquet too. Leave some room for some of the underrepresented genres and artists around the world. Their debut is nearly entirely covers (though they have a nice loose and live feel) and feels interesting only because of what came later. I guess too it's a demonstration of how influential US blues-inspired rock from the 50s and early 60s was on these bands, but that's not exactly news.

yeah, alright. the inaugural album from the stones is certainly an album you should listen to before you die

Never heard The Rolling Stones first album? Beatles vibes for sure, fun to listen to! Also, the Rolling Stones wrote I Just Wanna Make Love to You?!

I'm more a Stones man than Beatles, but these all sounded like whiteface covers of serious blues stuff.

If you've spent any time listening to the blues music that inspired this album (more on that in a moment), it's impossible not to hear this as a cleaned up version of some things that were already going on in America (and had been for a few decades). That it's almost all covers is, at least, somewhat direct and honest. And it's a damn sight more true than any of the shite than hacks like Pat Boone turned out. On the one hand, it's telling that the British (original) version of this contains 'Mona', by Bo Diddley, rather than 'Not Fade Away', the Buddy Holly song that it inspired. That clavé beat (a triplet followed by a couplet, all spanning two bars) came to the US by way of Cuba and underpins a huge amount of rock & roll. The Jagger-Richards song that features on this one ('Tell Me') is kind of boring. Very Mamas And The Papas or maybe the Byrds. It's fine but serves as a strange prelude to what would ultimately be a prolific songwriting partnership of distinctly different works. Anyway, as an album, it's OK. I'd recommend looking for the original versions of all these songs. I don't hate covers -- the tradition of iterating songs profusely has served the folk, jazz and blues traditions very well. You can absolutely read this album as being in conversation with the American Blues tradition, I just think it's an inferior brand in most of the instances on display here. As an artifact of the evolution of an important band from the last half of the 20th century, it's essential listening. I'd say that they get better at loosening up and 'feeling' the blues on later albums. 'Mona' feels the best, among all of these (and, to wit, sounds like later, better Stones). Overall, this sounds a bit like some British school boys heard some great blues records and tried to play those sounds 'properly' according to their formal training. There's a little truth to that. On the other hand, it did help to bring Blues music to a wider audience, so we'll not leave that part off. I promise, the Stones get better. 3/5

There are six Rolling Stones albums on the list. Could have done without this one.

This is a tough one to rate, and I'm in a weird position. The previous album I had generated for me was Sticky Fingers, also by The Rolling Stones. I felt very neutral about it and gave it a 3/5, even though I know it's regarded as some of their better work. The position I find myself in is that I actually enjoyed this album a lot more than Sticky Fingers... although I feel it's less deserving of a spot on the list, on account of being almost exclusively covers of other artists' songs. I hate to say it, but maybe that's why I liked it as much as I did... And so this is the tough position I'm in: Do I rate it positively because I enjoyed listening to it? Or negatively because I don't believe it really warrants inclusion on the list when there are 5 other Stones albums and plenty of stuff that got left off? Half the songs on here are originally from albums that would've been better choices for inclusion on the list. Ultimately, I can't pretend I disliked the album, and I can't overlook the fact that I had a better time listening to it than I did with Sticky Fingers... And credit where credit is due, as an album of blues rock covers, the performance on this is top notch.

I loved hearing this ancient relic. The Rolling Stones have come a long way. I would definitely choose to listen to a later album.

pretty good i think actually

Of its time, the covers generally are good versions or in some cases improved versions of the originals and the 1 Jagger/ Richard’s song is one of the stronger on the album but I just can’t get excited about this era of British Invasion rhythm and blues. Objectively a good album but not my wheel house. 2.8

It's ok. There are other stones albums I would far rather listen to though.

This is prototype Stones, before they really figured out what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. It's very basic and simple. It does hint at things to come but isn't really anything to pass comment on by itself. It's just some early Stones is all.

Qué gran album. Lo que será casualidad que ayer White Stripes y hoy este disco en concreto? Causalidades querido 💅🏼

Extremely disappointed to get an album full of covers. I was really looking forward to getting stuck into the Stones as I know how influential they were.

Very solid but nothing wow

i need to admit i've always thought the rolling stones was like a 70's-80's glam rock-y band so listening to this album has probably saved me from some future trivial humiliation. that being said i don't MIND the rock and roll/blues-y vibes but it's generally just not really my cup of tea

Aha, deutlich anderer Sound finde ich im Vergleich zu den späteren Alben :D Wahnsinn das dieses Album in den 60ern rauskam und die heute noch ne Rolle spielen, konnte man sich gut anhören

1 Lied fand ich gut (Tell me), ansonsten nichts besonderes.

Wie das erste Beatles Album wäre es vllt nicht auf der Liste, wenn die Band danach nicht so explodiert wäre. Aber der Sound ist voll i.O.

Great classic album. It kind of blended into one seamless listen. I guess that’s 60’s rock!

des sons iconiques, mais pas du tout mes favoris de leur part

Eh

Love the Stones!

The humble beginnings.

Not my favorite 1964 debut album. But it's good. Stones have always been kinda meh but this is just a good blues rock album.

Had never heard a full album before, just the hits. Better than expected, though I much prefer The Doors if we’re talking rock of this era.

Селфтайтл альбом-сборник каверов в качестве дебютника - это интересно, необычно и точно стоит того, чтобы послушать ради ознакомления и понимания, чем вдохновлялись Ролинги на старте.

I like this. pretty classic.

Their “Not Fade Away” kicks Grateful Dead ass. And “Tell Me” has an uncharacteristic doo woo vibe that made it perfect for the Mean Street soundtrack. ButMick himself said it was pointless to listen to him doing “I’m A King Bee” when you could listen to Slim Harpo. Same for Jimmy Reed, Muddy Waters and Marvin Gaye. Better things ahead

I think the most interesting thing about this is it happens to be by the rolling stones. Nothing particularly special otherwise 2.5*

Pretty good but also pretty forgettable.

I mean it’s alright

This album didn't seem too original. Feels like they hadn't found their sound yet.

5/10

First album while doing this challenge that I wished was longer, really good album!

2.5 60s cover albums for an acts first release are cancer

Apparently there are other albums by the Rolling Stones on this list? Then I would've opted against having this one on here. It's nothing great, another album of covers by white English guys, nothing I feel I particularly would've missed out on if I hadn't heard it.

Hey, you Iickle witty bitty baby stones, you’re so cute koothchie kootchie koo. Sounded good for what it was.

Quite surprised this was included because a) it’s essentially a covers album, b) I’m sure we’re in for a lot of other Rolling Stones albums here so it’s not like they’re underrepresented. I’m not quite convinced implementing a one album per artist cap for the list, but this pushed me in that direction. Maybe a three album limit would be a reasonable compromise.

British prep school brats sing the blues!

When I was in 6th grade, there was a big field trip that I didnt go on. I don't really remember the reason, but as a result, I was the only 6th grade choir student at school that day. So I joined the 5th grade class. I'd only been at that school since the beginning of 6th grade, so I actually did learn some stuff that day. They were doing a unit of decades of music, and that day was the 60s, or, The British Invasion. It was then that I first heard Paint it Black, and figured out The Rolling Stones were pretty good. This album is pre-sitar influence, though, and I've since been told it's mostly covers. Which does make me feel better about it landing where it does. Given my love of Paint it Black, I was feeling some guilt about not really getting into this album. I do think the performances are generally good, but Route 66 is the only song I can really say I actively enjoyed. I just dont get why this is the pick.

I listened to this album lounging around the living room playing Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds. I knew going on that this album was going to be a lot less ambitious than The Rolling Stones' later projects; they're an early British rock band, that's just the arc those groups followed. But even with those expectations, this album underwhelmed. I spent most of the runtime feeling some underlying inauthenticity from the songs, and while the knowledge that most early rock is built on the music of black people is always on my mind when listening to music from this time, that uneasiness was uniquely strong for this album and I couldn't quite place why... until I looked into the album and realized it was quite literally almost exclusively cover songs. I love a good cover, especially when a musician can really make a song their own, but if I can tell something is off in a song without even knowing it's a cover, that's not a good sign to me. There's also a little bit of a creepy and gross vibe to some of the performances here that feels uneasy; something about these love songs coming out of Mick Jagger's mouth makes them feel skeevy, like a drunk guy who keeps trying to hit on you at a bar. The Rolling Stones will go on to write a lot of interesting music, I'm sure a lot of which will appear on this list and I will love, but their great writing did not start here; for a list designed to highlight notable songwriters, it feels strange to include an album on which the artists didn't do a whole lot of original songwriting. Highlights: Route 66, Now I've Got A Witness, Carol

I didn't think i'd like this album as much as i did. It genuinely surprised me how fun it was. route 66 is a banger.

Tremendo discazo. Suena completamente diferente a lo que son los Stones hoy en día, pero de eso se trata mucho de lo geniales que son: siempre supieron innovar, hacer un sonido increíble y un rock que pasó por muchísimas etapas, pero como los tremendamente grandes, pegar en todas ellas. Joya.

i mean its the stones, not the best of the stones but the stone nonetheless

Pass, this is possibly the worst album I have had to listen to this year. Don't get me wrong I like some of the The Stones albums but really couldn't get into this one.

First rolling stone album I’ve heard not bad, definitely a different type of vibe than what I am used to but I liked it. It’s definitely that 60s rock style

Debiera conocer más de la época en la que este álbum salió para entender si estamos ante un rock novedoso como no se hacía hasta ese entonces, o es algo más del montón. Porque de momento me parecen buenas canciones de rock y ya. Asi que, mientras tanto, 6/10

it is a good album but not something i would usually listen to

Not one of the Stones albums I thought would come up, of course it's important and shows their influences through the tracks they covered along with their first self penned song Tell Me. This is the UK version so it doesn't include Not Fade Away (shame). Therefore there's much in the way of originality here, but there is a well drilled great band obviously obsessed with the music they are finding and finding. Soon they will be writing some even better songs themselves, and that is what we really have to hear before we die.

Solid album of mostly blues and R&B covers. Nowhere near their best

If it’s good enough for the Beatles to debut with an album of mostly covers, then it’s good enough for the Stones. Raunchy and raucous it makes for a good time. It’s mostly fun if ultimately slight.

The start of an amazing band. Could still tell there was incredible amounts of talent even on the first album, and all the potential that they had. I love how blues this album is, it’s nice to hear the stones play music like this, before they went down the more rock n roll route. Upon reading a bit about this album, I learned only one track was actually written by the stones. Which personally takes away a bit of the integrity for me. To me being a musician is both the creativity and the performance, not one or the other. That being said the stones sound really neat and played to a really high standard, and we know how influential the band became with their later creative work. All in all, a good album. However very far from the stones best and at the end of the day a cover record. Favourite tracks are: ‘Carol’, ‘Can I Get A Witness’, ‘I’m A Killing Bee’, ‘I Just Want To Make Love To You’.

Yes, it's an album of covers, but it's the album that gave the world a taste of what was to come from this fantastic group of entertainers who are still rocking today, even with one foot in the grave. Of course I'm giving it five stars.

rock, 1964 -> 3

An overall solid debut, I suppose, but it's impossible to listen to this without thinking about the 60 years that came after it (including original, genius Rolling Stones songs). Is there a single song on here that would be in the "Rolling Stones Top 100 songs"?

Cool album art, but not sure what an album of average cover songs adds to the ecosystem

The recording sounds old, but some of their earlier tracks were still great. Some tracks have a bit of a doo-wop sound. The album was pretty OK overall.

Album of rock covers - no real evidence of the iconic band that would soon emerge

Dancey, fun, great all around.

Meh

Route 66 - Chuck Berry I Just Want to Make Love to You - Etta James Honest I Do - Jimmy Reed Mona (I Need You Baby) - Bo Diddley Now I've Got a Witness - The Rolling Stones Little by Little - The Rolling Stones I'm a King Bee - Slim Harpo Carol - Chuck Berry Tell Me (You're Coming Back) - The Rolling Stones Can I Get a Witness - Marvin Gaye You Can Make It If You Try - Gene Allison Walking the Dog - Rufus Thomas 5/5 —————————————— “ The Rolling Stones by The Rolling Stones” 2/5

A couple of interesting things here. 1 - my last album was Elvis Presley’s “Elvis Is Back,” released four years before this one. This album reimagines many hits from the Elvis era and highlights how much they really rip. Elvis deeply pales in comparison. 2 - I was raised in a Beatles household. I came to my appreciation of the Stones later in life. But I think this is a real sliding doors situation. What if this was my foundational stuff? I’d probably be president right now.

Only interesting because it shows where they started. Mostly covers. The band is ok but Jagger couldn't sing then either.

A very strong debut that still holds up despite lots of early 60s music feeling samey. It’s not the Stone’s peak, but still solid.

Rock 'n Rolling Stones

3,4 - Das Album hat schon mega Klassiker, aber auch viel Gedöns. Man kann aber schon erahnen, in welche Richtung sich die Band entwickelt. Highlights: Carol, Tell Me

There's not much that's all that interesting about this, but at the same time there's nothing that's outright bad. It's basically what you'd expect from a debut album of mostly covers from the 60s: a bunch of covers played straight that don't give you any idea of where the band would go in the future. Jagger's voice is more restrained than it would eventually be, and there's very little notable about anything musically. "Mona (I Need You Baby)" stands out as having some cool guitar and percussion. The one original song is slow and kind of sappy and overstays its welcome. This is a tough one to rate because while its unremarkable and inessential it's not an unenjoyable listen. Its a 1 in concept - any of these songs are probably best listened to in their original form - but a 2 overall.

Started off better than it ended. Had me snapping my fingers and clicking my heels, though.

It wanders through a style. At times it’s enjoyable, at others it overstays. Wonder what some variation would sound like.

Like the beatles early albums, lots of early rock and roll drawn straight from 50s rock standards and people like Fats Domino. Solid but probably won't be on my usual listens.

fun easy listen

This isn't essential. It really must have been the right time and place for them to launch a career when this was adequate.

The Rolling Stones was a decent little album. It is pretty easy to tell that this is the first album by this band especially seeing as a good majority of the songs here are covers by various R&B artists. I thought that these songs worked pretty well with The Rolling Stones' psychedelic rock style. It also does really seem to have that rough 60s production style which i thought sounded fine here. Some of the songs did get a bit samey but thankfully, since there is not many of them and they are all pretty short mostly clocking in at 2 or 3 minutes, i didn't find this to be too much of an issue. I thought this album was a pretty good start for this band. Best Song: Carol Worst Song: I Just Want To Make Love To You

5.5 / 10

Cool to hear these early days. Some good songs for sure

Glad the days of record executives co-opting other people’s songs and making white kids play them are over

Feel like this one didn’t need to be here, they’re just doing rock and roll / blues standards, sounds pretty good sure low 3

It's good, but it's an album of covers and probably won't listen to again, although I definitely appreciate their original music more Favourite: Carol

The Stones like you’ve never heard them…and is that such a bad thing? It’s just blues covers

buncha damn songs

This album mainly contains covers. That's a good thing. Not so many sub-par songs like on their own albums (besides obviously also a handful of absolutely great songs). It's more blues than most rock 'n roll and more rock 'n roll than most blues from that time. It must have been the sweet spot back in the day. It's OK, but no one NEEDS to hear this today.

Day730 - a good start for one of the best. rock bands of all time. i didn’t know how much phil spector did for them at the beginning

Proto Stones.

The Rolling Stones' debut is honestly a pretty underwhelming experience considering that only 5 years later they would go on to release some of the most important records in rock history. But they started out in much the same position as The Beatles, making a short but sweet album of covers that's mildly entertaining and actually quite fun, but nowhere near the standard of what they would manage to achieve later in their career.

It’s an alright album. I know only the hit songs of the Rolling Stones so it was interesting listening to their earlier stuff. Interesting that mostly they are covers and more blues in there than the rock that i know of them. So yeah interesting ti see that album making it in the list rather than their more known albums.

Meh

My foot was tapping right from Route 66. Mona is Not Fade Away and Route 66 is on various albums, and there are various track listings for UK and US releases, which is partly band experimentation but mostly marketing. If they keep going from this start they should be good 😁 1. Route 66 2. Little By Little 3. Tell Me (You're Coming Back)

The Good: The Stones!!! The Bad: Early Stones… The Ugly: band-name album… Dear Mr. Dimery, Reading the rules you yourself imposed while creating this list, any album that is a greatest hits, or compilation album of any kind, is not eligible for this list. Based on this criteria, the soundtrack to the Oscar winning movie Saturday Night Fever is not found on this list. Thus we are not exposed to listening to The Bee Gees opus majestus, which managed to do what few, if any, other artist managed to do, which is to have 3 songs simultaneously in the charts. Listening to this album, a couple of things came to mind, primarily the fact that Mick’s voice was irritating as hell, secondly, where are the original songs? Why isn’t there a Chuck Berry album on the damn list? Or any of the other greats who influenced The Stones to even make music? It is a massive disappointment that I’ve had to waste 30 minutes listening to this, when I’d rather have been listening to silence… 1* out of massive spite

3.5

I love the Rolling Stones. But this was their 1st album, and it was essentially all covers. Out of place on this list

Felt like this was a complete waste of my time. I'd much rather listen to an album by one of the artists they're covering here.

This thing just deleted my review! Damn! Ok - so. This is totally fine. The performances are generally good - though Mick sounds painfully bashful at times, and Keith completely squanders a couple of solos here and there. Their only original composition is pretty lame. But yeah. A bunch of British dudes cosplaying as Chicago bluesmen works better than you'd think it would. THREE STARS

Clearly released before they were famous

A curiosity at best. They are/were the longest tenured band in Rock and Roll and produced four of the greatest albums of all time from 68-72. So it’s mildly interesting to hear how terrible they were when they started. I’m 500 albums in. I’ve heard literally scores of shitty albums by British kids playing at the.blues and exactly one by an American blues master. This is becoming more than concerning. It’s starting to feel like an intentional white-washing of history.

This probably made it on to the list for its historical significance. But surely only white blues purists/those people who insist Brian Jones was the real genius of the outfit/professional contrarians would argue this was the best Stones’ album?

Lousy covers -- I absolutely couldn't care less about this band, at least during their 60s run.

Ugh. This is basically a bunch of covers of blues and rock and roll songs by black American artists. But nowhere near matches the quality of the original versions of these songs. The only reason it's on here is because iT's ThE rOlLiNg StOnEs!!1! Yes. They did great albums throughout their career, but this is NOT one of them. This album is not worth a listen, unless you're listening to this to be reminded how unfair the music industry has been to black musicians.

hated it

don't care

who does this guy think he is

It was fine. Nothing special

Not their best album by a big margin

British band making kinda bad American sounding music for some reason

I just really like these early 60's British Invasion records. It may just be full of covers and have no real hits, courtesy of the record labels album policies at that time, but that doesn't stop me from enjoying it. The record is really energetic and the songs chosen here are pretty fun. The Stones went on to make more interesting music, but this is still a good album.

Classic.

This is getting a generous 3 because of the influence. The Stones have much better and more creative work.

++: Route 66, Honest I Do, Mona (I Need You Baby), Now I've Got a Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene), Little by Little, I'm a King Bee, Carol, You Can Make It If You Try, Walking the Dog +: I Just Want to Make Love to You, Can I get a Witness +-: Tell Me (You're Coming Back) 8,2/10

Overall: 3/10 Well, we all have to start somewhere I guess. Much like the early albums of The Beatles and The Beach Boys, this first album from Rhe Rolling Stones is simple, pure rock and roll. The problem is that it lacks the charisma of The Beatles and the harmonies of The Beach Boys. Instead, you have a bunch of bland and boring covers. I could forgive the fact that it's all covers if the album at least sounded nice, but the production is terrible and Mick's vocals actually hurt my ears quite a bit. The band would obviously go on to make some amazing albums, but this first one is a hard pass for me. Fav Song: Little by Little

I like the album but it's just covers so I can't give it any higher than a 3

Not what I was expecting but not bad

OG rock album. Not sure I love the Rolling Stones. Don't really know why either. Not a bad album, but I also don't need to listen to it again or buy it.

Good renditions, but I wish more of the originals were in an album format compatible with the list

Believe it or not, the Rolling Stones are pretty good

3.0 / 5 This is the second Stones album in this list for us. Humble beginnings for one of the biggest bands to ever do it. I knew this album before, so it's nothing new to me that all songs but one are covers. Given that many Blues songs have been covered by a barrage of people over the decades, it's honestly not the worst move since the songs were already known. Keep in mind that many famous groups started out like this. Musically it's not as easy to rate as you might think. Since it's basically all cover songs, you can't really judge the writing and lyrics, but only the execution. That in itself isn't bad, but doesn't sound special for anything made in '64 either. The Stones' later albums carry much more individualistic motives, but this one is pretty okay as a debut album. All in all the quintessential 3.0 / 5, not bad and you can listen to it pretty well in the background, but nothing groundbreaking either. Basically a sort of gatekeeper for Blues music that separates the good albums from the bad ones.

It sounds like older 1950s or 1960s rock. Very like early Beatles almost.

The Stones came from the roots and this listen is proof that they could perform these essentials as if they were born under a bad sign and came to the crossroads.

3.5

War okay

7 - GOOD

early days, very bluesy!

Ein Frühwerk welches wohl geschichtlich betrachtet werden muss.

Gloria, Gloria. I mean, this is pure rock n' roll. So. Yes, excellent.

As much as I have always loved the Stones, I don’t know that I have ever listened to this album in its entirety. I have always been familiar with “Tell me” , and some of their earlier covers. It is interesting that even in this early offering you can hear the style and swagger in their delivery which they have carried with them for six decades. 2.5/5

Every band has to start somewhere. And while it’s cool to see their admiration for American R&B, I’m much more likely to go drop the needle on the original artists of the songs or similar a la Chuck Berry or Bo Diddley. It’s obvious that this one would never be included on the list if their name wasn’t The Rolling Stones and it’s for sure taking up filler space from some of their more deserved albums that come later.

Fine I guess, but pretty bland record. Still waiting for that good Stones album.

On the surface I really enjoyed listening to this. I love the overload on the vocals that gets to that natural overdrive. I really like Richard’s guitar. He has such a great feel and solid riffs. BUT tough to go too high when this is essentially an album of covers. Similar to a greatest hits or live album, how do you rate that? For that I’m going lower. Will be interesting if Metallica garage days shows up and how I’ll feel about that 🤔 2.75

Undoubtedly wouldn't be on the list if it wasn't a Stones album. An interesting historical artifact being their first album, but nothing great here IMO. Was going to go with a middle of the road 3* cuz sure the songs are fine...but how much credit should they get for covers of other songs (and the originals likely being better). Rounding down for that reason. 2.5/5

This was a solid debut, even though most of the album consists of covers rather than original material. One thing that really stood out to me while listening was how so many of the major artists from the ’60s started out doing the same thing, which was covering the previous generation’s songs. It really puts into perspective the argument that modern music lacks originality because, in reality, this cycle of reinterpretation has been happening for decades. Regardless, the bluesy vibe of this album give you a good look at where The Rolling Stones started.

An early record, so if sounds a bit familiar and yet very different from what I usually know of their discography. Oddly enough, right after I finished listening to this album it gave me a 2019 remaster of La grange by ZZ Top and even on a phone speaker I’m feeling it more this time around.

Good early Stones

Pure rock

Like it 3/5

More interesting than enjoyable, to hear this very influential band's debut album from all the way back in 1964. And with that, I can also say that it's just as rudimentary and drenched in the influences of its contemporaries as I'd anticipated. Just the ferocity of Rock N' Roll on some songs, and the chill laid back Blue Rock on some others, without really stepping into anything too interesting or out of the ordinary. The sort of tribal rhythms and fuzzy guitars driving the song 'Mona' were maybe the most instrumentally interesting here. The song 'Tell Me' had the sort of ominous demeanor I'd expect out of the band's later works; it was probably my favorite song here, really loved those messy harmonies. I didn't get much out of the rest of this thing, but hey, gotta start somewhere, I guess.

I just really don't like that Beatles sound. None of these songs are /bad/, but they're so boring to me.

Quitte boring? Most songs sound very similair

covers

when they learned black music

Classic blues which formed the basis for some fabulous rock and roll over the years and original songs , however this album in my opinion is not their best work and any number of their albums should have been picked over this one

Well, damn, this was really good. I've definitely become a much bigger fan of the Rolling Stones. Little hard to believe this was more than 60 years ago now, because it sounds modern in a lot of ways. Yes, there are a lot of covers on here, but they have plenty of distinctive character and variety.

The record that introduced us to the stones has some fun and catchy blues jams

The band started out as a blues cover band, but it worked.

It stood out to me how close the sound to prime Stones right out of the gate. A little less swagger from the Glimmer twins but you can tell they’ve got something special. The production really hurst the album, they sound like they’re performing in a tin can. It would be interesting to hear them do the same songs 3 or 4 years later properly produced.

2.6 I ended up just going through the original versions of the songs that were covered. The stones didn't do any favours really to those. I guess it just made it a bit more accessible for us white folks. Never listened to slim harpo before so that was a good avenue to go down. I cant listen to Carol and not think of the scene from Hail, Hail Rock and roll, watching chuck berry get all pissed off at Keith Richards over the intro

Mostly covers. Not what I expected for a debut album. Young Stones are good, and just trying to showcase their chops here.

I mean it’s fine, but there’s nothing original here. It’s just all covers. The songs are good the performances are entertaining, but that’s like me putting Weezer’s Teal Album on the list. Just because it’s The Stones doesn’t mean it needs to be here.

Second Stones album in my first 100 albums and I was nervous after I didn't like the first one, but this album surprised me. I know its effectively a covers album, but they're not bad covers and I enjoyed listening to this album. I would probably give this one a 3.5/5 if I could, but because I enjoyed it (and enjoyed it significantly more than the first one I heard during this experience) I'll round up to a 4/5.

I'm sorry "The Rolling Stones", I think you're great, I really do, but this album of generally competent covers isn't it. A nice enough listen, but completely uninspired. 2.5 rounded down.

I'm really tempted to give it a 1 just because I don't think it should be on the list. It's an album of mediocre covers; who gives a shit? But I guess it's interesting from a historical context given that it's the Stones, and I really liked the Johnny Cash album of covers on this list, so I guess this can have a spot (begrudgingly). It's fine.

Muuuito bom

Early Rolling Stones = not so great. So many of these British bands of the early '60's were just copying the popular sounds of the day, and they were bland. It took them figuring out their own sounds later to find greatness.

They obviously get better and more interesting, but this is still quite an enjoyable collection. 3.5/5

Felt pretty similar across the album. Not much variety. I also might be tired of getting too many white guy rock albums to appreciate it.

I liked it I was on the cusp of 3 stars but gave it a bump because it had modern Rolling Stones elements

R&B purists will scoff but 5 stars

Giving beach boys / beetles but good!

The Rolling Stones do karaoke - great covers but you know there's better stones albums on this list.

tame/lame

I swear some artists could release a fart compilation and it would still make it on the 1001 list

Its not for me either. I just dont like this kind of music

solid from beginning to end

Didn’t realize they covered so much bluesy stuff when they first started

I think I have been pretty bored with the Stones albums on this list so far, but I really liked this one!

Good.

A lot of covers but that seems typical of early British rock bands. Not the worst Stones' album by any stretch.

Actually boring, very disinteresting.

Pretty good album, I'm sure there are better rolling stone albums I have not listened to extensively yet. Still a good listen

Good, raw rnb good guitar and jagger. Their first album.

Fav: I Just Want To Make Love To You Least Fav: Walking The Dog Just a standard, forgettable album from a great band’s early days. Many such cases

Nothing more then you'd expect from a band like this. Its value lies in its historical influence. If you like the genre you'll find the core of it here, otherwise it'll be a boring listen in 2025. 3/5 Route 66 - Good vibes but nothing crazy. 6/10 I Just Want To Make Love To You - Energetic, the musicianship of the group shows here. Not my cup of tea but I definitely love to hear it on the radio today. 6/10 Honest I Do - Intresting slower song, but in the end basically the same stuff as the other songs. 7/10 Mona (I Need You Baby) - Different from the other songs. I think willingly repetitive and with a leitmotiv that today seems kinda boring. Respect but nothing much. 6/10 Now I've Got A Witness - Stereotypical?. Maybe influential at the time, but reviewing it now I think its value is in its historical relevance maybe. 6/10 Little By Little - Still rock and roll?, nothing to add. 6/10 I'm A King Bee - More intresting guitar and bass work here, still same rythmic work. 7/10 Carol - same?. 6/10 Tell Me - I like this one, kind of a ballad (?), maybe not (?). 7/10 Can I Get A Witness - Same as all the others. 6/10 You Can Make It If You Try - in the "slower" category of songs in this albums, less intresting. 6/10 Walking The Dog - Funny. 8/10

bolehlah asik juga tapi tipikal i guess idk

01) Route 66 - 7,5 02) I Just Want to Make Love to You - 7,5 03) Honest I Do - 6,5 04) Mona (I Need You Baby) - 7,0 05) Now I've Got a Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene) - 5,5 06) Little by Little - 6,5 07) I'm a King Bee - 6,0 08) Carol - 6,0 09) Tell Me (You're Coming Back) - 7,5 10) Can I Get a Witness - 6,0 11) You Can Make It If You Try - 6,0 12) Walking the Dog - 6,0 TOTAL: 6,50 (65/100) Current ranking: 505/725

This isn't bad, but the only thing that makes this album important is that it's the debut album by The Rolling Stones. It's almost entirely covers, and none of them are bad, but they're also nothing to write home about either. It's a perfectly cromulent album of coversongs performed by a bunch of musicians who went on to create much more interesting and important music later on in their career.

i feel bad for not liking this but it's just very much Not My Thing. this isn't something i'd ever listen to but i respect it. a very bland album for me unfortunately after checking reviews it turns out this is a cover album?? i feel less bad about not liking it now lol

Bueno

Still sounds great!

For me, a nothing album 2.5/5

A lot of pleasant songs

Not bad, but I’d guess it’s not their best either. Just okay.

Hooray for an album of covers of American blues classics by a bunch of English boys! Jagger's/Richards's own composition was decent, but I can't see how a cover album could launch such a career as they had.

nah

Yeah it's got some historical context, but this is below average.

Route 66 was a standout on this mediocre album.

Mõnus Rock'n'Roll kuulamine. Selline "back to fundamentals" tunne ja siin pole ühtegi halba lugu, siin on isegi väga mitu suurepärast lugu. Aga album koosneb enamjaolt tegelikult kaveritest, vaid 3 lugu on bändi (või Jagger-Richards duo) kirjutatud. Ehk plaadil jääb vajaka artisti enda väljendusest ja see tõmbab hinnangut suts alla.

Stones! 3.75/5

I mean… how to rate this? I love the Stones and I love the blues…so clearly I enjoy the heck out of this album… but these songs don’t really belong to them. This should not be on the list. Where the heck is Some Girls???!

I don’t ser what’s so dangerous about a bunch of blues covers

Blues.

Bluesy British Blues Rock that gives me the blues of listening to actually good and original music.

meh

Whilst its interesting as a starting point to see where they began and clearly they would go onto to much better things i am not sure what is largely a covers album should on the list.

The Rolling Stones It’s not brilliantly recorded, the covers are (from today’s perspective) pretty routine, it doesn’t stand up that well to the Beatles, the Who and even in parts the Kink’s debuts, and if you didn’t know what they would become you might struggle to differentiate this from many of the other also rans in the blues boom. However it does have charm. You can hear them all feeling their way and finding their feet, and you can see that the elements so integral to success are there; Charlie’s drumming, Mick’s louche vocal delivery and charisma, and the interplay of two guitars. And their reverence for the blues singers (and Chuck Berry) they cover is clearly apparent. I love Tell Me, and as the one proper original it hints at their songwriting to come, eschewing the blues on the rest of the album for some loose pop-folk-rock with a sinister hint to it, and I love the backing vocals in the chorus, a bit all over the shop but they offer a peek at the woozy dishevellement to come in later years. As an historical document it's interesting, as 30 minutes of music it is definitely patchy, some of the covers are great, but some are a little forgettable, but it all slides by with a nice, naive charm, with some interesting things happening around the edges. I think that all leads to it being a solid 3 . 🪨🪨🪨 Playlist submission: Tell Me

This primarily offers artefactual interest rather than lasting musical value. This is all a tribute rather than creating anything new. That being said, most tracks have a great early blues sound with crisp production, making this superior to the work of many bluesicians of the time. But the album content is a far cry from the output of The Beatles or even The Kinks. It took The Stones a long time to catch up; the Jagger/Richards partnership didn't truly hit its stride until Aftermath in 1966. ​The album's original compositions are weak. Keef is primarily focused on mimicking Chuck Berry, and had not yet discovered the defining open-G tuning. ​Although there are few signposts of the songwriting prowess to come, the album definitely possesses a freshness in its sound, demonstrating the work of a very tight band finding its voice.

It's crazy that the first Stones song on the first album is so mid. Overall this was good and definitely showed peeks at the legends they would become. This album was pretty good, but doesn't really feel like a "classic"

Good driving music!