Reviews (page 4 of 7)
I like it alot, but not more than many of their contemporaries. I also believe this album would sound a little dated within it’s own decade, due in part to more progressive subsequent Rolling Stones albums. Still, undeniably an important album for the British rock invasion.
It’s decent but I’m a 70s stones fan, this album is cool for historical reference.
Crazy how much better the Stones got as they went on.
I was actually kind of digging this early Rolling Stones blues-rock a lot more than their later stuff, then I read it was a lot of covers, so I should probably just go find their originals.
Debut records by influential, legendary bands aren’t always their best work. The potential and talent is self-evident, and they surely wrote lots of great songs in the next couple of years, but it took them nearly 5 years to hone their ability to create great albums.
Not a huge Stones fan, but did enjoy listening through this album. Wasn't blown away by it, but didn't want to switch it off at any point.
Love the Stones but don’t love this album with mostly covers. The song I liked best happens to be the only one written by Jagger and Richards (“Tell Me”).
Classic rock, slight pop lean
The Rolling Stones
They did improve from here
I've never been much of a Stones guy, but this strikes me as being the Stones before they were cool. A bunch of covers and one real original (one of the better songs on the album for sure). It's alright. Nothing worth writing home about.
I didn't realize just how bluesy TRS were
You can hear some hints of what they would turn into later but overall this album doesn’t do much for me. Too many covers and Mick trying a little too hard to sound like the original singers. Nothing objectionable but nothing I will go back to either. No need to own this one.
Voordat ze echt de Stones werden. Prima en snap de historische insteek dat je het geluisterd moet hebben, maar de latere albums zijn beter
In the great Beatles v Rolling Stones debate of the mid 60’s I always came down and still do on the side of The Beatles. This collection of songs are all decent blues and R&B numbers and whilst The Beatles themselves would have appreciated them, as a fan I didn’t. My indifference towards The Stones has continued right up to today so cannot get excited at this album. Only interesting in terms of comparing their first album with their more famous albums they were yet to make. This album is number 636 on my list so marks exactly one year to go before I get to album 1001. 3/5 29/9/25
They tsole a lot and didn't credit it I would imagine. But enjoyed it.
Interesting to hear the origins of such a band. But I found the album to be mainly the same old sound. I did actually like “Tell Me” as a 60s rock song and it’s apparently one of the few original songs on the album
I’ve never been a huge stones fan. Simple songs and a somewhat annoying voice. But, it did get me and my toddler moving :)
It's so interesting to see how the stones music changed throughout their career. I've listened to a bunch of stones albums. But, never their first. It was really bluesy
Decent, way more bluesy than I was expecting. Some good songs, a lot of songs I will not remember. I feel as though they have not found their sound yet, but not surprised their debut is on this list. Side thought: I wonder how they came up with the band name, if you think about it its kind of a weird name. Like a bunch of boulders rolling down a hill? 'Yeahhhh lets name our band after that, sick!'
A good introduction to the early Stones. The large number of covers of RnB classics makes it easy to see their influences, and where they could strike off into slightly different directions. Alas, while Mick's voice is noticeably different, the whole band do just sound like a very good pub covers band.
All covers, save for 1 song...OK.
Kind of fun to hear where it started, even if it is mostly a bunch of covers. They sound great, and already had that "Stones" sound that pushed them to legendary.
63/100. An okay debut, probably as good as rock ’n’ roll can get.
Presented as a 60's rock cover album. It was a worth 33 minute listen but didn't get me too excited. Some signs of things to come but on its own a 3 for me.
I think I like early Stones more than their later stuff, but they definitely haven’t found themselves at this point. This was interesting to listen to, but probably not something I’ll revisit too often.
Not a huge fan of this album. Seems to largely be driven by the studio and record company. Nothing wrong with it, just obviously meant to be a pop album and not overly representative of what they are known for.
i understand why and with what intentions it was created, yet the core concept is sorta unappealing to me
Was vibing with it, generous 3 instead of a 2.8
First off, The Rolling Stones did what Elvis did: Exploit black artists to break. But they don't get nearly the same level of grief as Elvis probably because they wrote their own songs. So it's wild to consider that here we are in April of 1964 and the Stones have released their first, mostly covers album with one Jagger-Richards song. Thirteen months later, they are recording "(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction." Listening to "I'm a King Bee" made me think of the Blues Brothers. Ackroyd and Belushi did a proto Blues Brothers cover of "I'm a King Bee" on SNL dressed as bees in January of 1976. They released their live album of covers, Briefcase Full of Blues, in November of 1978. Now, what if, by 1981, the Blues Brothers came out with "Kiss on My List" and they had the career of Hall and Oates? That's kind of like what the Stones did here, only bigger. There was definitely a deal with the Devil. Which, presumably, came after the release of this album.
This is my dad's Stones, not mine. It's nostalgic and even made me want to shake my booty. But alas, I prefer my Stones with more illicit substances permanently in their systems.
It was alright. Big cover album feels. Helped explained their origin to me a bit more.
A nice piece of history.
A solid debut album, this offers a light preview of the edgier, blues-influenced rock the Stones would pump out over the next several years. This collection of covers doesn't hold a candle to the albums that would follow shortly after, though.
Good old R&B, British-style. Practically an homage to the old greats. Good listen but no urge to relisten.
So old it does not even sound remotely like the Stones! Ok...
As a debut album, it's fine, solid album. But as the debut for one of if not the greatest and most influential bands of all time, it's also very interesting. All but one song on this entire album is covers, and the one that isn't in my opinion is the best, and most songs covered are RnB hits of the time. It's an insight of their style and influence all in one in a really great way. The album just might be fine, but in the times to come they will be much more than a "fine" band.
Mostly just R&B covers but pleasant enough. only one original Jagger Richards song.
Se nota la influencia del blues en esta primera etapa de la discografía de los Rolling Stones. Aquí hay muchísimos covers de canciones clásicas americanas que ya he escuchado en muchas ocasiones. Se trata de un disco entretenido sin mayores pretensiones. 3/5
A little dated. Best of Hits for other artists.
Nice Anglicisation of the blues making it more accessible.
2.5/3
I don’t have the feeling that it will become later one of the major worldwide rock band
I used to like this album a whole lot. I still do, but it's hard to give it more than a 3 when it's just as easy to access the (usually superior) original versions of these songs.
First album by the Stones - 1964. Had never heard any songs off this. It helps me understand why the Beatles were the face of the British Invasion in the US in early '64. There's always been a 'plant your flag' argument whether you're a Stones fan or a Beatles fan, but that is clearly based on the more comprehensive catalog. I'm imagining hearing this album for the first time in April or May of '64 after you've already had the Beatles on air for months (holding the #1 spot on Billboard with 3 different songs from February 1 through early May), and it might have just sounded like a bit of a knockoff. But that could also easily just be my imagination - this record hit #1 for 12 weeks in the UK, but only reached as high as #11 in the US. All that said, the Stones grew to monumental status like few bands ever have, and you gotta start somewhere. This is their somewhere - it just didn't have a radio single to compete with what was already happening in the US with the Beatles.
Jest tu na pewno zalążek tego, co później odnajdziemy na płytach Stonesów, ale nie oszukujmy się, na tej płycie są głównie przeciętne covery. Nie ma tu jeszcze tej charyzmy i pazura do którego przyzwyczają nas później. 6/10
В какой-то момент даже кайфанул, но вряд ли возьмусь переслушивать.
The best covers album since Houmous & Chutney’s ‘(Anyone (Can (Cover)) Anyone) But Not Us’ from 1951! 3.0 2/12 I Just Want To Make Love To You
For a debut album this is pretty solid, you can tell the Stones have potential however it’s entirely covers and that brings it down. The Stones have better albums but to see their start is still interesting.
Not exactly the first or fifteenth Stones record I'd want to listen to, potential is there, nice attempt at mimicking the real thing
Good album overall, just not really anything amazing. It just felt more boring to me personally, but still a fun time overall
I've never listened to a whole Stones album but happy to start with the first. It didnt take long to realise it was a cover album (first song actually), and although they do a terrific job , I wonder why it is even on this list. . Their only Jagger/Richards song stands in poor quality comparing to the others. . I enjoyes the album, will give it a 3, but shoukd it really be in here???
Ja teveel blues
I can’t believe this band still tours! Interesting to listen to their beginning from 19-fucking-64, but it doesn’t match their later work.
Perhaps a milestone record at its time, it makes me feel not all of potential was used, with many songs on the album not too bright. 3.4/10.
I only got into the Rolling Stones late in life. As a teenager, I thought they were overrated. This was a kinde of attitude. Now I see things differently. I hadn't heard of this album before. As another reviewer wrote, I also think this album is only on the list because it's by the Rolling Stones. It's not their best album by a long shot. What's interesting is that the great Stones, like every other backroom band, actually started out as a cover band. The originals of the covered songs are far better than the Stones versions. As a side note and information on the historical background, the album is interesting. However, it has no place on the list because it is not groundbreaking. 3/5
It's just ok
pretty much what I was thinking. Generally enjoyable. 3 not 4 because nothing really stands out
Not really the style of music i'm going out of my way to listen to. Overall solid, just not fitting the vibe for right now.
It's a good start I guess
Not the most unique sound, although that might be because this became very popular later. Some great stuff at the beginning, but especially their slow songs or percussion heavy songs leave a lot to be desired. At the end of the album i love it a lot less than when i started it
I get it. It was very influential. You can hear how these songs had an impact on a lot of music that came after it. But they just don't really do it for me. They never have.
It was okay, I think there’s better Rolling Stone albums.
Every 60s British album cover seems to have the same vibe. This is worth listening to get a sense of how much the Stones changed over the course of their career and also how much Mick Jagger has always wanted to be black. Like the Beatles early stuff, it’s blown away by the later discography where they get more experimental and confident. A decent listen though. High 3.
We all have to start somewhere and this is honestly very funny. I love The Rolling Stones but they just were not quite there yet. They clearly have a passion for American blues and soul music but it’s just amusing to hear mick jagger sing about places he’s never been to in Route 66 as if he has any idea what he’s talking about.
Another entry in the "fresh new UK rock band's debut full of R&B covers" from the British Invasion era of music. The Stones would obviously later blossom into their own unique sound and place in the rock n roll world, so this album isn't necessarily as interesting in retrospect. A bit similar to the Beatles debut in that regard; historically interesting but not really significant now.
ok
Personal enjoyment wise a 3 but it is groundbreaking
Didnt mind it.
No tengo comentarios creo No es un disco que me llamó, esta bueno de fondo Lo pondria manejando por el sur en el desierto en un descapotable (?
#24 The Rolling Stones ~ The Rolling Stones It's their debut album. Not much to say. A bit samey samey. I guess a bit outdated, but nevertheless foreshadowing a lot of what's to come. Mona is really great. In fact the first half of the album is pretty good in general, and then you kinda start to fall off by the second half. It's not amazing nor horrendously bad. It's just some decent blues rock. Verdict: Rolling Stones debut.
This is pretty straight Brit invasion stuff - couple interesting covers. Mostly, the Stones are already doing a bit more with guitar solo riffs and leaning into that blues influence. Historically significant, it's primarily a harbinger of better stuff to come.
1965. Their self titled album doesn't show up high on their own lists but it is a clear display of the mid 60's pushing into the rock and roll era. Enjoyable but doesn't show what they are capable of.
I liked Paint it Black but not super into the others.
It's a pleasurable listen, and less obnoxious than what they become, but I'm not sure what the innovation is here since it's 90% covers.
I suppose this is an interesting developmental period, but if you want to actually just listen to some top-tier Stones this is not the one.
OK, its fine, understand why its in here as it was their first album but dont get the hype
Route 66 3.5 I Just Want to Make Love to You 3.4 Honest I Do 3.3 Mona (I Need You Baby) 3.3 Now I've Got a Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene) 3.4 Little by Little 3.5 I'm a King Bee 3.6 Carol 3.6 Tell Me (You're Coming Back) 3.7 Can I Get a Witness 3.7 You Can Make It If You Try 3.5 Walking the Dog 3.3 Score: 3.483333333
# Album Name: Rolling STones # Artist: Rolling Stones # Rating: 3/5 # Comments: Couple of good tracks to open the album. Plenty of good songs on here but sadly all covers. It doesn’t do the stones justice and obviously we see that as their career goes on. As much as I love the stones this one should not be on the list. They have much much better albums which are on the list. # Top Tunes: fade away / route 66 / carol / witness / # Would I listen to it again? Maybe
Good, not my liking tho
Carol, Tell me !
It was interesting to hear how they got started before developing into an iconic group. That said, I wished it was more than just covers.
I think I prefer this older version of Rolling Stones as a blues cover band than what they became as they developed into actual song writers. Lacks creativity but they covered good music and made it sound good. Further to this comment, Tell Me is definitive low point.
nice sounding classic rock and roll music, very good first record by the band
Simple, classic melodies. But in all honesty, I found this to be kind of boring by 2025 standards. Though, I’m sure it was exciting at the time.
Not much to say about this. It sounds distinctly like The Rolling Stones playing songs in the style of The Rolling Stones and I don't have particularly strong feelings about The Rolling Stones.
sounds dated but its ok, they have better songs anyway
I love 12x5 and out of their heads i do like a lot of early stones but this album doesnt do anything for me. 3 stars cause its the stones
Fun album but basically a lot of covers. Really good covers of old blues songs that influenced the Stones but still a covers album. Fun listen but likely won’t listen again anytime soon.
I have never listened to the first album by the Rolling Stones. I also had no idea that it's pretty much all cover songs. I get it, as a tribute to a lot of their favorite R&B stuff, but if this were a head to head battle with their main rival, The Beatles, they did not nail it coming out of the gates. Enjoyable for a listen, but will never listen to this one again.
A totally fine introduction to The Rolling Stones. Mostly covers, well produced, short. Not that exciting. If you were listen to this alone I’m not sure you’d think “this will be one of the biggest bands of all time.”
Competent covers of good songs. 2.5
Great, if you haven’t heard classic blues in a while; embarrassing, if you have. For a goofy make out session, I recommend “King Bee.” Make that honey the world has never seen, baybee!
Not bad, but their other stuff is better.
Got to start somewhere, not the best ( obviously ) but not bad either.
I like the British invasion stuff a lot better after they start writing their own stuff.
I enjoyed this quite a bit.
I love the Stones. However, this is a generic RnB/RnR album from the early 60s. Mostly forgettable and mostly covers. The fact that it's on this list baffles me, because this list then needs to have at least 5 more Stones albums on it. It's great for what it is, but what it is is nothing special (It wasn't anything new or special when it came out, even)
Cool, great to find Route 66, but in general not my favorite Stones record.
Never been into Rolling Stones. Some songs are classics, but none from this album, it's mostly all covers. Entertaining, but nothing really stands out for me. "I just Want To Make Love To You" I skipped, it's a terrible cover.
The cornerstones of what would become The Rolling Stones are all very present on their debut, with Jagger a confident frontman and musicianship a notch above what four lads from Liverpool could muster on their own debut. But even with the short runtime, the album quickly becomes repetitive in its' repetoire of standard blues covers.
Old-school rock. It's okay, but nothing special.
Strange to get this the day after The Who’s debut. Good, better than I thought. Not sure I’ve heard a Rolling Stones song before this.
Decent album to listen to, just by hearing it, you can tell how this album was influential in 1964. I wasn't really impressed with it until the solo in "Walking the Dog". Pretty plain jane sounding to me overall though.
I get that this is their debut album but it's so weak compared to almost every one of their albums for the next decade. December's Children would be a better choice
Good album with a few tracks that I recognise, probably wouldn’t listen again.
Don’t really know why this is included other than the fact it’s their first album, just a solid collection of covers with lots of harmonica. Route 66 is done exceptionally well by them though. Overall 5/10.
This debut is a bunch of Muddy Waters–worshipping white boys trying to pass as down-and-out Southern bluesmen, covering classic Americana with reverence. But then “Tell Me” rolls in like a lost track from a bad Monkees episode, and suddenly they’re just begging for AM radio approval. It’s got charm, sure—but satisfaction? They'll need another year for that.
Witchcraft!!! Best Song: Route 66 Rating: 6.5/10 Stars: 3/5
Svängig men lite enformig. Inte riktigt min musik - rock n roll made pop
Early business, before finding their first sound, however, on the whole, listenable. My favourite song, Tell Me, was the only one written by Jagger-Richards on the album. A great example of British Invasion, maybe the greatest, but this isn't the Stones for me, and I'm also not sure what the Stones actually are.
I've heard as much Rolling Stones as the next classic-rock-FM-listening jabroni, which means I hadn't heard a single track from this record before. The leading track set me up to expect a bog-standard 60s rock cover album, and this delivered on its promise with an abundance of Mick Jagger's panache. I paid special attention to the Jagger/Keith Richards tune Tell Me to see where the group's originality lay in their early days, and it didn't disappoint.
Listened on 5/8/25 3/5 Favorite song: Route 66, Carol Great for a debut album but just really well done covers
Decent background rock music that definitely sounds of the time period, but nothing really stood out too much. Route 66 was maybe the favorite?
Seems like generic 60’s rock. Most of the album is a fine listen. Not quite the well know and loved Stones yet, but fine easy listen. I was excited for “Tell Me” since it’s the only original song, but it felt underwhelming. Favorite song: None - no clear standouts for like or dislike
***An ok album
I like the Stones and I like blues so this album nice... but calling it "Hit makers" and be covers(or rewritten with new lyrics) of American blues artists is a bit shameless. but I guess during the time, word didn't travel as fast as it does today and could get away with it. On the other hand blues is also very dependent on repeating the same progressions( 99% is 12 bar blues with different lyrics) so is it stealing or just following the blues music structure? in other genres it would be clear as day but I guess in this case it has a bit more nuance to it. Though some tracks feel a bit too close... It's good and nice blues. does it need to be on the list? Nah, listen to the original songs. these are not the greatest stones tracks and I hadn't listened or even come across the album until now. only significant thing is that it is their debut album
Pretty rockin' but not really super my thing.
Good album. It took the Stones longer to figure out who they were than it did the Beatles. So, this is not their best work, but it's interesting to hear how they progressed.
Solid album. A lot of covers so it gets docked but I could listen to this any day. Love Keith's guitar and the tone of Mick's voice when they're young like this. Sign of great things to come and if it was stand alone it'd probably get a higher rating. But knowing what's next holds it to a higher standard than a lot of other albums with similar influence.
Kaikki kuulostaa hyvältä ja soitto iloiselta, siltä että viihdytään. Biisit on 60-luvun jälkeiselle kuulijalle hyvin basic rockia, en jotenkin osaa sanoa niistä mitään muuta kuin et jees. Mieluustihan tämän kokonaan kuuntelee.
LP:lle on koottu takuuvarmaa musiikkia, jota bändi tulkitsee täysin omalla tavallaan tiukkuuden ja löysyyden välimaastossa. Ilonaiheita: Mickin rujo nasaali ja Keithin rimpuilevat soolot.
I don't generally like the rolling stones - but this was pretty solid. From start to finish, all pretty catchy music - a bit raw - which makes sense since it was their debut album. Enjoyable overall. I'll say 2.5, round up to 3. I really wish there were half stars....
This was somewhat unremarkable but didn’t hate it
Great album, would have scored higher if it wasn’t a bunch of covers. Really well executed though
Inga större fel här inte.
2.5/5
decent
This is weird. The Stones have a great sound here, but from a half-century distance (more than that), I can't tell if they're stealing from mid-century Black American culture or if they're honoring it. In many cases, this made me want to hunt down the Black artists who made some of these songs come truly alive. I actually felt that I had to go research how this album is viewed through a historical lens. And I learned that the Stones always acknowledged when they were covering someone else's music. And in many cases, they helped draw greater attention to the original artists. If that's true, then I guess everyone wins...? But today, in 2025, this album frequently made me want to listen to someone else sing it better.
Ratings: 5: I will happily play this album anytime 4: I may occasionally play this album of my own free will 3: I will happily listen to this if someone plays it in the background 2: I will tolerate this if it is playing in the background 1: I will leave the room if someone plays this in the background While it's nice to listen in on an iconic band's early R&B roots, it is hard to give it much more than a 3 given the lack of originals these covers don't stray that far from the original source material.
Good old rock and roll. "Well, it goes from St Louie Down to Missouri" That is nonsense
There has to be a cap on the kind of rating you can give to this kind of thing - it's all covers, and is basically just a vehicle for Jagger. It's a waste, is what I'm saying. Also, it's the kind of thing that really makes you wonder why there was the Beatles v Stones debate. Not that it's bad, but it's generic and straight down the line for what rock and roll bands of the time were doing (while the Beatles were already striding ahead by 64). No I will not stop making every review secretly about the Beatles.
White British 60s blues rock. Entertaining enough, but doesn’t need to be here as it doesn’t hold a candle to their other output. You can hear some of the fire here(a couple rippin guitar solos), but they hadn’t found their full identity and voice yet - particularly their own songwriting and a larger mix of influences that they mesh together later. But still decent music overall.
Good album, but not the stones best by a country mile. Covers album. etc. Obviously, I LIKE what I'm hearing, but nothing about this screams 1001.
As so many other times, a lot of classics that I didn't know were from such a well known band. But someone has to write them before they can become classics.
I mean, I know they were influenced by the skiffle trend in the UK at the time, so I really should have expected it, but I was still pleasantly surprised at how blues-y this first album is.
Decent debut by a titan of rock music. Much like The Beatles early albums, this has a lot of covers. In fact, it has only one original song on it. For that, only 3 stars
It was fine. Classic sound, fun songs. I also had no idea, after some Googling, that “I just want to make love to you” is a Muddy Waters song. Up until now I was only familiar with the Foghat version I heard in the film Dazed and Confused.
beebop bullshit
Early Stones mostly playing covers of early rock songs. Thankfully their songwriting skills evolved.
Liked, didn't love. Earlier Beatles albums are way more energetic and fun IMO.
55/100
I prefer the Stones slightly later sound that has more of a rock element but this was interesting to hear their early and heavily blues influenced start.
Fun stuff, lots of blues style songs. Not favorite of the Stones.
Not my favorite Rolling Stones record.
i'm a little confused about this one being on the list. i am a big stones fan but i have to admit, this one is one of their most unremarkable albums. and i can't blame them! they're kids! they're playing covers of their favorite r&b and blues songs. a lot of early british invasion albums are like this (even the beatles). that being said, outside of the fact that it is the first album by one of the most famous rock bands of all time, it really is a nothing album. a lot of the covers are fine, some of them are even good! some of them are not so good. there are a few originals but they pale in comparison to the songs they would be writing in a year's time. it's interesting to see where they started from as compared to where i know they will be in a handful of years from this album, but that doesn't mean this is a very compelling listen. important for one of the premiere rock bands, sure, but an album you must hear before you die? probably not
Sounds like it was played from a jukebox in a diner covered with checkerboard patterns. I feel like I should be doing the jitterbug or something
6/10
The Stones are a great band and they pay homage to their forefathers here. It is a competent and raw set, but only a glimmer of where they would go...
Really solid classic blues rock album by one of the best bands to ever do it. The band all sound great, everyone does their thing and does it well, and the songs are platforms for them to have fun and let loose on top of. I think that's one of my favorite aspects of the Stones - it's that they have such a great loose feel. They are as loose as a tight band can be.. or as tight as a loose band can be? Either way, it's a great sound, filled with moments like the 1:12 minute mark in "Little By Little", where after a guitar solo you hear a vocalized "my turn!" and then a ripping harmonica solo. It's all so loose and fun. My one gripe with this album is that it's not their totally defined sound- there's not many mega hooky choruses and moments that are super memorable, and that's what I truly love about them. It's their debut, and it's a strong debut, and I'm definitely taking that into account, but the problem persists that the Stones at their younger sound is pretty repetitive and dare I saw formulaic. The blues chord progression is prevalent in just about every song, and there is an unfortunate amount of predictability that happens after only a few tracks in.
this was actually before they started rolling
Feels very typical of 1960s Rock where a lot of music is borrowed / stolen from American black artists of the time. Thanks to that this is one of the better Rolling Stones albums
Good debut album; it sounds fierce, and enthusiastic. The fact that it consists mainly of covers does not spoil the fun for me.
Fine as an example of blues-inflected and fashion-oriented, culturally appropriated '60s pop – straightforward and competently played, if not very exciting to hear and certainly not at all groundbreaking One's fully aligned to the many commentators who point the relatively minor historical importance being insufficient justification for inclusion on this list. Still this is better than any of the last dozen records this lot have foisted on an unsuspecting public.
Quite bland and full of covers, this debut really shouldn’t be part of the project; probably wouldn’t be here if The Rolling Stones didn’t become such a big time band. This wasn’t terrible, and I found the B-side more entertaining. 3/5 can’t realistically rate lower as the musicianship was decent, and this was the debut of a megastar group. However I wasn’t too majorly impressed
Love the blues guitar - good vibes!
ehhhhhhhh ok
Thank god for their later work cause this is just not very interesting
Logically, I know this is a completely inessential record. Personally, though, as someone who typically isn’t a big fan of The Rolling Stones, this debut of snarly, rockified blues covers helped me realize how/why The Stones became one of the most famous bands out of the British Invasion. It’s all about ✨the vibe✨ they bring, and even on a record that’s 90% filled with someone else’s material, they bring their own flair and flavor to everything they touch. Does that mean they bring something original to every song they cover? Not necessarily; in truth, these are pretty straight covers by a group of pretty mediocre musicians. But if rock music isn’t about technique, and rather about attitude, then you do need to pinpoint the exact moment in the history of rock music when that attitude hit the mainstream, and I think that’s why this debut is include on this list. To me, it catches the Stones in their purest form, which means my normal critique that their original material makes them ✨sound like a cover band✨ actually doesn’t apply here. On this debut, they’re honest about the fact that they really are *just* a cover band, and it helps me respect the material here a lot more. To my own surprise, this is my favorite Stones record so far. Mind you, that still isn’t saying much, because this really is just an inessential cover record, but it makes a lot of things make more sense. I’m sure there’s a better place to start with The Stones, but I’m not mad at this record, even if it won’t stick in my brain by the time I finish this list.
It's just fine. Covers etc. Typically early record for a band of that era
jolly leuk
Cover album
Never been a fan of this early 60s rock sound, even from the all time greats. It is interesting to see where they started. But only giving it a 3 because of what this led to.
Solid and fun, although I kind of hated Tell Me. Very enjoyable for the rest, love the album cover too haha, but mostly excited for later Stones stuff
It's OK, well played and all. But if this were the Stones only album, most of us would never had heard of them.
The Stones before they found their own sound. Interesting but no more than that 3.2
The debut album from the Rolling Stones: an album mainly of R&B covers, such as the opening track "Route 66". Sounds very dated now, with the occasional signs of what was to come.
Rolling out the door for their first album. They started with their sound already defined. Less bluesy than the other albums I have heard but you can hear pieces of it seeping through. No huge hits on her but still a solid album. 6/10
- Stimmiges, mood-boostendes Album
Nice blues but a shadow of what they became.
Cover album, what more is there to say? Id rather listen the originals even though this wasnt bad.
I think this seems to the root of peoples accusations about cultural appropriation. Ive no isse with that but its just not as good as proper blues. It was succesful as the real blues musicians were too black to be popular, so this was a facsimile.
You definitely know what era this is with this album.
Not the best but still one of the best
I had never heard any of the Stones songs on this album -- I had heard most of them by other artists, just not the Stones versions here. It was a fun little rock and roll romp, but not really something I would listen to more than once. It's a little too dry and caustic sounding for my tastes, but I can appreciate that it was a cool new sound that people really dug back when it was released. I'll take a '64 Beatles album over this any day. Three stars.
route 66- don't forget Winona. 5 I just wanna make love to you- 5 honest I do- 5 mona- 5 now I've got a witness- 5 little by little- 5 I'm a king bee- 5 tell me- 5 carol- 5 can I get a witness- did you lose the one you had 5 you can make it if you try- just the two of us. 5 walking the dog- 5
How did I not know they had a Route 66 cover?? I Just Want To Make Love To You sent me down a rabbit hole to make sure it wasn't in fact the Jimmy Dean commercial song... Okay, no, I guess it's just the harmonica in general Solid, in general, all around. Lots of head-bopping.
While The Stones have been a cultural touchstone for over 60 years, this early stuff kind of makes you wonder how they got to where they are.
I feel like from the very beginning, you get the DNA of The Rolling Stones. They have a sort of 'bad boy' reputation, and you can see it even in the early songs they are covering on their debut album. This is really tight garage band work, and you can tell they are having fun doing. Like the early Beatles, I don't know if anyone could have predicted their success or influence from this work, but looking back, you see all the signs that they would become something special.
It’s like, before Keith Richards was in The Rolling Stones and created riffs like “Satisfaction,” he was in a different early 60s band called… The Rolling Stones. And before Mick Jagger was made famous for songs like “Get Off of My Cloud” or “19th Nervous Breakdown” he got his start in a cover band also called… The Rolling Stones. It’s just so interesting that THIS is The Rolling Stones and THAT is also The Rolling Stones. Note: there is just one song by Jagger/Richards on this album, “Tell Me (You’re Coming Back).” The listener can decide if it’s by THIS Rolling Stones or THAT Rolling Stones.
Solid debut album from the Stones although its all covers. Still that Mick Jagger style and Keith's reckless playing style are in place from the first minute. There are way better Stones albums IMO.
Its fine, probably has more potential in my opinion. No way people thought they were better than the beatles, unless other albums are insane. Favourite songs: Route 66, Now I've got a witness, little by little, tell me and guitar solo in the last song. Overall around 6/10
A bunch of ok covers. 3/5
Seems like a pretty solid 3 - definitely the sound and groove are 'up my alley' but the execution isn't amazing. The Stones hadn't really become "The Stones" yet. Really no individual track stands out for me.
- Not used to hearing any music from the Stones this early in their career. Honestly did not realize that they started as essentially pure rhythm and blues. - Lot of covers on here. On the one hand, I do not mind the sound, largely because I like these songs. On the other hand, you have a group of white Brits building their career on the work of people of color who never saw anywhere near the same level of success. So...it is complicated? - To their credit, "Take Me" is the best song they can perform, probably because it sounds more like "them." Which makes sense, because they wrote it.
first listen it's not a bad start but pretty forgettable for me
Like how bluesy this album was. Not the best by the Stones, and if it wasn’t their first album, not sure it would be on this list. Overall it was okay. 3/5 Probably won’t listen again
Kind of boring. But acceptable.
Fair
...
3.5/5. This is good and enjoyable. I'm not blown away by anything here, but it's got that familiar 60s rock/pop sound.
The problem with the Rolling Stones is that everything that isn't a hit is just ok (especially their early works), and this album has no hits, so it is just okay. It's more enjoyable than I thought it would be, but it is just fine. Mid 3.
Decent enough, but with one exception it's basically a rhythm and blues cover album. Take a few more albums before they release their best material. 3/5
2.5*
Enjoyable album of blues covers. Standout songs: Mona Can I get a Witness
The Rolling Stones play competent blues covers on their debut album. The Stones are at their best when they put the rock and roll elements in front. I Just Want to Make Love to You ramps up the energy of the Muddy Waters original. Carol rocks hard. Slower bluesier tracks like Honest I Do and I'm a King Bee don't really feel sincere coming out of Mick Jagger's lips. The poppier Tell Me is actually a lot more exciting than a lot of the other tracks and makes you wonder what would have happened if the Stones took as varied a path as the Beatles did. While everyone knows the Beatles vs Stones rivalry I think a more fruitful comparison is with the Sonics who shared a similar stylistic focus to the Stones. When you put this up against The Sonics' singles from the same time it's really clear how much less rock and roll the Stones were. Compared to the Sonics heaving version, the Stones' version of Walking the Dog right at the end lacks rhythm and leaves the album feeling fairly derivative. The Stones are one of the greatest bands of the 20th century and its well deserved for their live act and subsequent albums, if it weren't for the fact that this is the start of something amazing it would probably have scored lower.
A nice album of covers...are these definitive versions not really sure but they're all enjoyable. Interestingly my faourite song on the album is Tell Me; the one Jagger/Richards original. 3 stars
Covers of blues, R&B, rockabilly.
A bit disappointed to read other reviews and see it's a cover album because I really enjoyed it! Taking off 1 star because of that.
A fun 60s blues album with no memorable songs
Odd choice to be on the list. Maybe to compare their debut offering with that of the Beatles. It loses hands down. A solid demonstration of their ability as musicians, especially Charlie, on a set of covers
5/10
Not their best album, I agree if they didnt go on to be THE Rolling Stones this wouldn’t have made the book. Regardless, blues covers I’m never against
Eh? It was alright, I guess. Gives me a similar feeling to Please Please Me, except this one had more covers.
Not terrible, enjoyed it actually.
This was a fun album, nothing but covers, I believe, and very raw. And since it’s the Stone first album, it definitely belongs on the list. Although I enjoyed it, I probably won’t be playing it again. I give it a three.
I doubt these guys will ever be anything more than a one hit wonder.
Zestarzało się gorzej, niż Beatlesi, to na pewno. To jeszcze ich pierwszy album, więc ciężko oceniać ich jak dojrzały zespół. Pewnie w tamtym czasie to było bardzo rockowe i buntownicze i dlatego Stonesi tak się przyjęli. Ale dzisiaj brzmi to raczej mało ciekawie. Słychać po albumie, że wiedzą co robią i są bardzo pewni tego, co robią. Gitary są solidne, wokal zawadiacki. Także imo największym problemem tego krążka jest jego wiek.
Solid blues but not remarkable, though Jagger's voice elevates the whole album. I enjoy their original works better.
classic good vibes
Old Rolling Stones and good although not original.Enjoyed it.
3.5 stars. Not the Stones at their best but for their debut it's good blues rock. Kinda like discount Beach Boys. Standouts are the two leadoff tracks "Route 66" and "I Just Want To Want To Make Love To You".
Such quaint devil’s music.
ruim num é super sessentista, bem blues. achei o outro melhorzim, mas tá no memo nível
Good first album. They have their distinctive sound. Songs are somewhat ho-hum compared to subsequent albums, of course.
I'm always shocked at hearing how Stones were a straight forward blues band early on. Yet, can still hear what they were to become.
I like it.
Non-descript, Non-offensive 60s pop songs. Lead singer sounds vaguely familiar...
Good bluesy album. Enjoyed the whole album. Nothing ground breaking.
can i get uhhhhh
JFC another Stones album? Their isolated hits are certified gems, but so far their albums have been less than rewarding experiences... This being their debut, the band sounds verrry different. Opening with a classic rock/R&B cover of Route 66, I have never heard Mick Jagger sound so restrained. Back to back covers as they go for I Just Want To Make Love To You. Foghat's version is far superior, but also has the benefit of over a decade of musical + recording progress. This one is more twangy and classic RnR in tone. Mona reminds me a lot of Not Fade Away (as I've heard it by the Dead). Which is interesting because the Stones also covered Not Fade Away. Perhaps it is just a common structure? Solid song nonetheless. Surprisingly I think this was my favorite of the Stones album on the list so far. It doesn't sound much like the Stones I have come to understand, but this was a consistent and enjoyable listen. However, while it is fine, its pretty damn square. 3 / 5.
Pretty much exactly what i thought that the first Rolling Stones album would sound like. Pretty standard sounding 60s rock which I am sure was revolutionary at the time
Nothing crazy just some good ol fashioned early rock n roll. I think the band that the Nude Party most closely resembles is the Stones and this album confirms it.
Levy on hyvä, eikä siitä ole valittamista, mutta tuntuu kiusalliselta kuunnella generaattorista levyjä jotka on täynnä covereita. Tässähän ei taida olla yhtään rollarien omaa biisiä vielä. Mut joo mikäs siin kuunnella ku britit rokkailee jenkkibiisejä, mutta kyl tää esim Sticky Fingersille kalpenee niin että heilahtaa. 3/5
Enpä ollut rollarien debyyttiä kuunnellut. Rokkipoikien viihdyttävää kukkoilua.
Not terrible
that was the beginning, da kam dann zum Glück noch viel gutes
Has that country twang that I associate with early stones. IMO they don't solidify their style (the one I prefer) till later.
All in all, it is not bad, but also not outstanding. Bit messy, bit raw and not their best work.
Decent cover album
Decent but not great
pure rock n roll
One of their more boring
Surprising that a new British band would opt for Route 66 as their opening song. Interesting covers. I’d rather listen to their other albums.
The first Rolling Stone album. A list of blues covers performed by the group. Maybe the reason behind including this work is showing how the culture was expanding and the sound was evolving, but I think that this does not capture what the stones did for rock and roll.
Important album but they did better than this.
I dunno… they hit their stride later. I’ve also written all I need to write about the Stones.
there must have been something wrong with the old world that something so undistinguished could have brought it all down
Competent but unexceptional except for its historic import. A valid entry to the list, I'm glad I heard it. Entertaining enough and an extra star for the cover photo.
I recognize that this is a quality album. I could see myself sometimes wanting to listen to 60s rock, but most of the time I don’t want to listen to 60s rock. So for that reason I give it 3.
Tight, frenetic, bluesy pop rock! What’s not to love about this? I’m furious with my younger self for not digging the stones earlier!
Erinnert mich an die Beatles. Brav im Anzug alte Titel nachspielen. Und in den folgenden Jahren davon lösen und sich weiterentwickeln.
Veit ekki með þetta hér, bandið átti eftir að slípast til (stundum tilviljunarkennt accelerando), Jagger er ekki alveg kominn og hér er ekki stakt frumsamið lag. Sum lögin eru ljómandi fín, en hversu mörg eru betri en originallinn? Brian er minn maður, en samt. Fínt, smá nostalgía, þristur.
i like that its still the classic blues rock kinda style
The Stones' influence can't be denied, but I'd much rather listen to the countless bands they inspired.
Pleasant to listen to some Rolling Stones others than the usual hits. Considered a 4 but honestly doubt I’d actively decide to listen to it.
You can tell where Richard’s def took some blatant influences from other guitarists of the day, but a fun record nonetheless.
3+/5
It's the Stones
The Stones are legends but this album didn't need to be here at all. It's fine but far from a mandatory listen.
Haha, I struggled with the only song written by The Stones themselves.
Favorite Track: I Just Want To Make Love To You Route 66
I missed The Rolling Stones bandwagon a long time ago and it is too late to jump on it now. It's good enough music and I like the hits well enough.
Who could have foreseen from this?
This is their first album so I do have to cut them some slack, but I’ve found through this generator that I don’t like the Stones as much as I thought I would. At least on other Stones albums there are some stand out singles but nothing really felt too interesting on this album.
Better than I thought it would be
decent cover album
So old honky tonk harmonica
# 303 : I don't mind a bit of old school rolling stones, It's old, and sounds old! An album of covers, but still not too bad - 3 stars Favourite track : Walking The Dog
This seems to me to be a reasonable album mostly stocked with cover versions. The Stones-penned songs are a bit derivative. At the time of release, this might have been seen as an exciting album, particularly with their live performances, but really it's not a patch on their late-60s output.
sounds like what you’d expect the rolling stones debut to sound like. makes sense that it’s on this list but i doubt i’ll ever listen to any of it again
Dated
Good 😌
they think i don’t know how to walk the dog
Route 66 is famous as hell but I can't say I had really heard the rest. Walking the Dog was fun. I didn't enjoy the majority of this album. R&B isn't my favorite genre and the Stones were in full R&B mode here.
The fun less chin stroking side of the British Blues Boom. I'm thankful that neither Brian Jones or Keith Richards are hung up on being guitar virtuosos (see Clapton). They went on to write great stuff after this as well as a lot of mediocre stuff but at least they weren't yet able to be so in love with their own myth at the start.
First time listening to their early stuff. A lot more conventional sort of 60s rock. It's good but they became more original later on.
Je comprends qu’ils aillent pogné; c’est comme les Beatles, mais plus sale et moins sage. Mais faut pas se mentir, ça arrive pas à la cheville de Please Please Me en tant que premier album, c’est juste des covers! Ça reste prometteur, surveillez les bien!
Early stones sounding a little rock but not as hard rock as they became.
It's the Rolling Stones. Cool, but not the best ever.
Classic
Ait 1e stones Ik ga een head-to-head van de stones vs de beatles bijhouden. Beatles (1) 0-1 Stones (1)
I’ve not heard much early Rolling Stones, I’m more familiar with their 70s stuff. It was interesting to hear their roots, but wouldn’t really go back to it
A fine, basic little record from the Stones. Can’t say it’s incredible considering other artists (usually the original songwriters) have done more with most of the songs, so yeah it’s just fine. 6/10
I like the guitar tone in Mona. Overall a decent set of covers, but I remain a Beatles guy rather than a Stones guy. Low three.
Simple and Great. Loved hearing the original boppy blues of Keith and Mick, especially Not Fade Away. Everyone gets their start somewhere.
It's not bad for a bunch of skinny English kids playing at the blues. They have a lot of energy, and the drummer can swing like a gate. But I rankle a bit at this kind of statement (taken from a Jukebox Rebel review of this record): "authentic Blues culture had well and truly been delivered to British youth". Authentic Blues culture? Really? The PBS series Dancing in the Street: a Rock and Roll History (1995) made the astute point that the British Invasion copied what black artists had been doing for years, presented by white boys in a way that was appealing to white audiences, and inadvertently decimated the careers of many black artists. That doesn't mean that the Rolling Stones didn't truly love and respect those artists, and they often gave a boost to said artists by taking them on tour or singing their praises. But seriously, this is black music reconstituted for white audiences. While the Stones would go on to produce some great original music within the blues and country genres, this album in particular is simply a jukebox of their own tastefully curated record collections, energetically played. It is inessential, really, except as a best-in-class example of English white boys regurgitating black music to massive commercial success. This is not a Blues album; it's a British Invasion album. Fun, but inessential.
Mid
Okay, here’s the thing - I anticipated that there were going to be a few Rolling Stones albums on this list. With this debut album, each member is technically efficient in their respective right from the get-go, and on some level as a Stones fan it was cool to hear the humble beginnings of this group. But that leads us to an undeniable truth - that this is a debut album consisting mostly of cover songs of the blues artists they were influenced by early on in their career, broken up by two original songs that admittedly aren’t well remembered. Technically good and flattering, but not something worth listening to before you die given what the Stones have accomplished in the latter half of the 60s onward. I’d say this album is definitely for the diehard Stones fans - the ones who know what this band are capable of and want to further explore their roots. I know we got some true classics from them coming up on this journey, and this debut unfortunately doesn’t hold a candle to them.
I enjoyed listening to the Rolling Stones' very first album! The heavy blues focus is undeniable. Even when they cover Chuck Berry's "Carol," the guitar still sounds blues-like. Their more commercial music, or I should say their singles, focus more towards rock and roll, but this project has already taught me that the Stones included lots of blues--and now I know they always leaned hard towards blues, even from the very beginning of their career! The Stones covered "(Get Your Kicks On) Route 66," and their version, a certifiable bop, is *the* version, though I'm stuck wondering why a British band had any interest in covering this song. The Stones were indeed part of the British Invasion, huh? Most of the songs on this album are covers, which both did and didn't surprise me. This was the trend of the fifties that continued into the early sixties, and the Stones followed that trend, too--or at last in the beginning. But I hadn't considered the Stones, a band legendary for breaking the mold and pushing beyond limits, could ever fall victim to conformity.
Inspirado no sucesso que o The Beatles já estava fazendo desde o ano anterior, é de se imaginar que outras gravadoras fossem procurar outras bandas com o mesmo estilo e, assim, a Decca Records, a mesmo que havia esnobado os próprios Beatles anteriormente, viu esse nesse grupo de 6 jovens a possibilidade de tentar desfazer esse erro. Infelizmente, assim como o quarteto de Liverpool nessa primeira fase, a música não é nada de mais, não passando muito de um álbum ok, bem pasteurizado e com as composições sendo a de sucessos de blues e rock feitos por negros americanos, só que agora com feições de jovens galãs britânicos. Ainda bem que os Rolling Stones vieram a fazer projetos mais interessantes, porque é óbvio que se eles não tivessem atingido o patamar que eles atingiram, esse álbum não estaria nessa lista, e de o "LP de estreia de uma das maiores bandas da história" seria apenas uma curiosidade sobre uma banda que se vendia como "England's Newest Hit Makers" que teve um sucesso na época e nada mais.
I think this deserves to be in here as much as the early Beatles albums do. Which is to say, yeah sure, as a comparison to their later work. It’s a pretty good early 60’s Blue Eyed R&B record, with some nifty guitar work, especially on I’m a King Bee. It wears it’s influences quite literally on it’s sleeve, and although pretty good, doesn’t point towards the heights they’d reach, even just three albums later on Aftermath
Kinda good
If I am being honest- I had NO IDEA this is what the Rolling Stones sounded like. I was totally expecting something different. I do recognize all of these songs, but if you had asked me who sang them, I wouldn't have known. Okay, never mind. I just found out that majority of the songs are covers. 3/5
I've tried to get into the Stones before, but they never clicked. Perhaps I ought to have started with their debut album, because I was pleasantly surprised by this. I can understand how a Beatles/Stones fan rivalry started, as the sound of each band is night and day. The blues influenced, rougher style of the stones is reminiscent of other bands of the era like The Animals. Though it was a pleasant surprise I wouldn't necessarily seek it out in the future.
ho hum. 2.67
The Stones are pretty rock and roll. I've worn out the Mick Taylor albums but this is the first time I've listened to this album. It's good but I would rather have a Buddy Guy, Lightnin' Hopkins or Mississippi John Hurt album on the list.
Fine
Definitely The Stones.
I would have enjoyed this album more if we heard the original artist perform. On top of that, The Rolling Stones are quickly overtaking the Beatles for most overrated band in music history, for this listener. Seems like the more I hear of the Beatles or members of the Beatles, the more I have grown to appreciate. Quite the opposite with the Stones. And Jaggers voice just wears on me. Stones doing cover tunes = 1. Songs they covered = 4 I'll give the 3 on the strength of the songs. 3
3 I was kind of prepared to dunk on this album, but there’s a certain novelty to hearing what’s basically Mick Jagger doing karaoke to popular tunes of the late 50’s/early 60’s. I mean, yeah, it’s nothing praise-worthy given that it’s almost all covers and doesn’t feel overly innovative by its own merits, but it’s a fun listen. Though, I’m not sure it’s the kind of thing that should be on a list of 1001 albums you need to hear before you die - unless it’s purely meant to demonstrate the evolution of the group? Most of these tracks kind of run together, and while there were a few standouts for me, including Route 66, Can I Get a Witness, and Walking the Dog, they’re not any better than the originals - or even later covers in the case of Walking the Dog (shoutout to The Sonics). I did, however, like their interpretation of I Just Want to Make Love to You, especially when they started dropping Violent Femmes lyrics on the track. Turns out, the Femmes were actually borrowing from Muddy Waters on Gone Daddy Gone this whole time. Who knew? My actual favorite here though was probably Mona, so I was surprised to see it was the one song they cut from the American release of the album in favor of a Buddy Holly cover. I mean, I get that the dude may have more appeal to an American audience, but I think there were plenty of other songs here they could have cut over that one. Far from the best the group has to offer, and far from any kind of all-time great, but this was a fun 30 minutes. Not sure I’d go out of my way to re-listen, but it will definitely come to mind when I feel like listening to some Stones in the future.
Ok
Meh. Not bad. Just not really my thing either.
Great 1st album for 1960’s rock’n roll, with bluesy notes.
It's a good blues/rock album from the '60s, but it's not exactly the Rolling Stones. Indeed, checking the Wikipedia page, we can see that it is basically a cover album with songs by some famous bluesists. I understand its inclusion on the list. It is, of course, historically important, and I enjoyed it, but being the Rolling Stones and with so many albums in their career, I'm unsure if being historically important is enough to be among their best albums.
This being the first album of the Stones, I can't help but compare it to the Beatles' first album. And at least the Beatles' first album had some original material on it. This being almost all covers doesn't make it any less historically important, but I can understand how it's not as known to the non-fan. ("Where are the hits, man?"). There's not a big runaway single like "She Loves You". The songs in here are catchy enough, and comments about this being "the REAL" Rolling Stones seem false to me. You ask anyone to name a Rolling Stones tune, they won't be naming something off of this. I can see where all of the band's work comes from from this, but this is not the album I would say to start with.
So here's what I said 700 albums ago to The Sonics debut, which was mostly covers - Meh, a bunch of covers is not my idea of a must-listen album. And that is regardless of who the artist is. The Stones provide only one original to the 12-song album. One! And it was probably the worst on the album. I've heard some cool cover albums, where the artists do something really different. I don't hear that here. Granted they do crank up the tempo on most songs so it has a slightly different flavor. And their ability to play their various instruments is on display as a result. But it's not so different that I'm thinking wow. It still mostly sounds like a tribute to the R&B and blues artists these guys adored, and Mick Jagger sounds like he's trying to sound like Chuck Berry. Side One is better because I'd say on side two they are bested by the originals like Berry, Marvin Gaye, Gene Allison, and Rufus Thomas. All in all it's fine, but wake me up when we get to Aftermath. I can't believe these guys rocketed up to superstar status before they mostly wrote their own material. Bo Diddley must be rolling over in his grave.
obviamente tienen discos mejores
Never listened to this debut album before. Some nice covers with the classic Stones blues sound.
The Rolling Stones debut is basically a covers album. It being the Stones first recordings is the only thing special about this.