Reviews (page 4 of 8)
Lowkey foundational.
I like early Stones more than early Beatles. This is totally fine, if a bit braindead at times.
I get that this is their first album and so somewhat historically significant but it's pretty meh. Trying too hard to sound American, covers of other people's songs. Not a great introduction to what was an era defining band.
Yeah, it's the Rolling Stones.
Ok
Excellent album!! Classic Sinatra. Smooth, clean and fresh. Could listen to this music for hours.
Why are a covers band on here? These guys will need to learn to write some of their own stuff.
Really not rolling yet when they released this
Day 59 This isn’t the worst album I’ve had so far but it is easily the most pointless. This exercise is proving that there are actually not 1001 albums that you ‘must hear’. There’s probably 4 or 5 Stones albums that fit that descriptor better than this one. I’m convinced the author got to 900 odd albums then just threw in an extra couple by any big name artists. Absolutely nothing here that isn’t done better elsewhere.
I get why it's on the list being a debut and all, but the Stones didn't write enough of the album to earn more than a 4.
What's with all the covers lately? Sheesh! 3
More than any of the Stones' other records, their debut suffers from being very, very derivative. The fact isn't helped by nearly all tracks being covers – and some of the covered artists being better choices than others. (A Phil Spector original? Seriously?) And due to the very short track lengths, you start to feel the sluggish pace of the album before you've even hit the halfway point. Every song has the same outdated rock feel that the vast majority of British Invasion bands clung to (or maybe it's just the only British sound that sold well to the Americans in the early 60s). One thing's for sure: if all their records had been this bog-standard, the Stones absolutely wouldn't have made it big. They really stepped up their creative game in the latter half of the decade, but in '64, the band clearly relied on marketing to make it to the big leagues. Even the album's alternative title, "England's Newest Hit Makers", leaves a bad taste in the mouth. Not only are they not "making" the hits at all (in contrast to the Beatles' A Hard Day's Night album released around the same time), but they're being touted as the latest new fad before they're a fad at all. Feels a little tacky. Route 66 is just a standard blues rock number, but Jagger delivers it with enough passion to make it a standout. Pretty obvious why it's the most streamed song on the Spotify album. Now I've Got A Witness is essentially the instrumental version of Route 66, harmony-wise, though it's worth pointing out the rapid, soft guitar arpeggi in the first half, replaced by a twangier electric guitar solo halfway through. Cool stuff. (I'm surprised Nanker Phelge – a.k.a. the band itself – was able to claim songwriter credit on a standard blues instrumental. Don't thousands of other 50s and 60s releases sound near-identical?) Mona (I Need You Baby) has a distinctive percussion-guitar combo that creates an interesting sort of proto-psychedelia feel. It provides some relief from the surrounding tracks that act as a constant barrage of bluesy blueness. Annoyingly, though, some of that barrage is genuinely really strong. Carol, despite being a carbon copy of Roll Over Beethoven and countless other Chuck Berry(+contemporaries) numbers, is great. There's a reason the song style is copied so much. 3/5 Key tracks: Route 66, Mona (I Need You Baby), Carol
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.
Very bluesy
Pretty bland.
Hard to not understand why this album put them on the map, purely incredible
Mick Jagger sounds incredible here, and it is obvious this album set them up for success
Crazy how much better the Stones got as they went on.
Standout Songs: Route 66 i Just Want To Make Love To You Mona (I Need You Baby) Carol Can I Get A Witness
There's probably 10 RS albums I prefer to their debut, which is nifty, has a couple solid songs, but is very rough around the edges. Sure it may have seeded a specific style of rock and along with the Beatles spearheaded the British invasion, but like Please Please Me, it's only importance is in what it represented as a genesis and what was to follow.
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”).
The Rolling Stones are a talented group that contributed greatly to rock music. I understand the desire look back with rose colored glasses on their first work, but that said, there is no reason for this album to be on the list. One original song (which isn’t even in their top 20 hits) and a bunch of blues covers is not required listening. Do yourself a favor and listen to the original R&B artists that made these songs great. 2⭐️
Classic rock, slight pop lean
I enjoyed this. Bluesy rock that is pretty easy listening. 4/5
Good
Early Stones, most people have never heard this stuff. Shows a band that has a future. A big blues influence, and they nail it.
Great album. I was nervous with early Rolling Stones, but the blues shows through in the album. Love it
I am assured they get more interesting in the future. But it reminded me of the bad rock bands the Flintstones used to parody.
Solid album, but Eminem was neither the first nor only artist to do black music so selfishly and use it to make himself wealthy. What we do have here is probably the beginings of blues rock, and that alone gets points for influence. Influence 4. Quality 3. Hits 2. Guys, it's the Stones' first album 4.
The Rolling Stones
I found it interesting that Decca had the Stones do a "proof of concept" album of covers before turning them loose to record their own stuff. There's nothing wrong with this -- these are *good* cover tunes. Their playing is the usual tight as hell, Charlie-follows-Keith bluesy stuff. But is it indispensible? Not really, no.
The best Rolling Stones album!!! Focused, passionate and played from the heart. So good, and I was completely unfamiliar with it. No notes as they say.
3.75
love the rolling stones, but this first endeavor wasn’t super interesting
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
Listen, we all know the Rolling Stones are one of the two most important rock groups of the 20th century. But 60 years later, is their almost-entirely-covers debut REALLY essential? Is it crucial to understanding everything they did afterward? I'd say no and no. This is like hearing a recording of the covers they played in high school before they started the band for real. You're not missing anything if you skip this, and you're not wasting your time if you listen to it.
Invaluable from a historical standpoint but I can’t say I enjoy listening to it. Needs a proper remaster - treble is piercing and there is no body in the music.
I feel like every 60s band just made an album covering songs by black artists that sang it better. We hope it was paying homage but other than that the album is cool, songs are good and it’s a fine album. They just lose points on originality for me.
Ovo je toliko bezveze bez Imena benda nikad ne bi završilo u ovakvoj knjizi
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.
Solid. Very different from their later sound
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!'
Listens: 2.5 Standout Tracks: Mona (I Need You Baby), Now I've Got A Witness, Can I Get A Witness This is my second Rolling Stones album and I am still thrown off by how tame this is, give what my understanding and expectations were from the Rolling Stones. Granted, this is their debut album and at least a few songs are covers of other artists. That being said, I still expected the rock to be a little harder and less blues. All that being said, this is still a great album. Route 66 is a great upbeat opener, and the album is just full of lively, interesting tracks. Subsequent listens will surely uncover more interesting aspects of the music.
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.
I didn't knew it. Awesome!
Really old-timey compared to the rest of their body of work.
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.
Pretty good debut album right here. I get that the Stones are wearing their influences on their sleeve and not venturing too far beyond but they’re showing enough personality here and they absolutely thrive in the horny bluesy, garage rock sound and I’m down with this album. Also, does anyone else think of Black Sabbath’s-Laguna Sunrise on the opening guitar on Tell Me? Both great songs. This was good simple fun. 4 stars
I was dead inside before listening to this. And I’m still dead inside but I did get up and dance for a little while.
What a debut! Lots of covers.
Great debut from the Stones.
A vibe beatles é inegável Gosto da energia e empolgação
I really don’t like the blues, and here we find mostly blues covers. Contrary to most others, it seems, I actualily think their sole original is the best tune, along with their cover of Carol, which is fast and fun.
63/100. An okay debut, probably as good as rock ’n’ roll can get.
First album of Stones. Mehh.
2,5
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.
Rock'n'Roll
Lots of covers, or where they the originals? A nice listen none the less.
Crazy how an album of American Blues and R&B covers could be the early beginnings for one of the world's biggest Rock bands. I actually think this album really gives depth to who the Stones are, way back in the early days they were still pursuing this sound that was uniquely theirs, and somehow they sold it to the masses. Definitely not my favourite Rolling Stones Albums but certainly worth a listen.
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.
I don’t think any album of covers should be on this list. Not everything from a big name needs to be on here. I’d rather have an album from one of the artists that wrote these songs.
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.
Like Route 66 and Tell Me but otherwise I don't think it's their strongest
This is nearly unrecognizable as the Stones, with their distinctive, ballsy brand of blues rock’n’roll and some epic and classic original songs later in the ‘60s and on. This debut album sounds straight out of the ‘50s - Buddy Holly by way of the Delta. Tidy tunes with a pop sensibility and just a hint of the swagger and lewdness to come from Jagger. Still, those sounds are great. The fledgling Stones - not yet their own artistic force - do right by this collection. It’s a fun listen.
In spite it being entirely covers, I still have a good time listening to this
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
Idk man I'm just more of a Beatles guy ig. Handclaps got old after a while. Just not my thing perhaps, or maybe I'm not in the right mood.
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.
Not great listening for me. Just sounded like a lot of early rock and roll covers which is not my style
- Even on this collection of mostly covers, the discerning ear can hear the greatness to come. There is a slinkiness to the band that shows, setting them apart from other bands covering blues songs at the time. Interestingly enough, not every track exhibits this and there some back to back tracks that really show the contrast. It's not a perfect record by any means but it's pretty good and they get one star just for "Tell Me (You're Coming Back)". -
It was alright. Big cover album feels. Helped explained their origin to me a bit more.
This album was actually really good! I love the 60s vibes and feels.
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.
Pretty bland and forgettable decent 4/10
Very good, i love a shorter album and 12 tracks in 32 minutes sure is. I don’t think any of the songs beat the opener route 66 but i’m open to another listen
Great
Not the “famous” Stones, but the “new” Stones releasing a lot of covers as Studios were want to do back then. Still that distinctive sound is there waiting to explode on the scene.
I’ll put this as diplomatically as possible: this is dogshit. If you take The Rolling Stones, a shitty, overrated band, and have them cover Buddy Holly and crappy 50s songs, you get this album. It is a bad album. A very bad album.
5 whopping stars i love their early stuff!
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...
The musicianship here is solid but not outstanding, which is a problem when your album has one original song. Why did I need to listen to this over the many albums snubbed that were more deserving of a spot? The one original song, "Tell Me" was rather meh.
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.
10
The more I listen to the Rolling Stones the less I consider them to be a hard rock band
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
It’s ok
This was not good. Pretty poor debut album of the Stones playing American blues covers. Didn't sound good at all. Its only here because its the Rolling Stones' debut. It took some years for the Stones to make really great music.
Looks like this list is going to drag me through the whole Stones' discography. The only bad thing is, my favourite album of theirs is already past. And their debut is far, far behind it in my personal ranking. The Rolling Stones is full of covers, original songs that sound like covers, harmonica, and blues that I'm not digging. It's not a bad album (especially compared to, say, The Beatles' debut), but it doesn't exactly shine in the band's vast catalogue. The potential is there, but I don't see a point in returning to this album except for curiosity about where they started.
I get that it was a different time and all that, but - boring derivative junk
A little dated. Best of Hits for other artists.
Seriously this is not even an essential Stones album let alone essential listening. It’s not bad at all just they did so much better.
Nice Anglicisation of the blues making it more accessible.
Trop blues pour moi
Not the Stones’ best work but that’s to be expected being their debut. Still has the great vocals and rollicking rock they’re beloved for, but slightly more bluesy etc. Plus like I always say, 30 minutes is an almost ideal length! (3.5 stars)
I can see how these lads would have been a big hit in the day. Just a good rollicking fun time.
8/10 honestly, surprised I didn’t like this as much as the later stuff but still a pretty great album regardless
2.5/3
A very average cover album... It’s a bit annoying to see it on this list, not EVERY first album is worth listening. It’s just a Britification of American blues classics, repackaged for the UK. It might have been interesting for a public that had never been exposed to American blues... but now it just sounds derivative. « Route 66 » kind of made me laugh, it sounds a bit weird when sung by a very British person whose most adventurous trip back then was probably taking the train to London. Instruments aren’t bad, but Mick Jagger’s voice hasn’t really matured yet. It’s certainly not terrible, but it doesn’t compare with what the Stones would later become... A 2,5* at best, for historical value. There are much better albums to put on this list instead of this one. Why does it always have to be British ? Why not try a bit of Malian Blues or Tuvan Rock for a change ? The world is a big place...
McCartney once said that the Stones were basically a R&B cover band...a bit mean but on point for this album. The next efforts will bring more satisfaction...
I don’t have the feeling that it will become later one of the major worldwide rock band
With only three rather underwhelming original songs and a bunch of covers that pale next to the originals (ex. « Carol » or « Can I Get a Witness »), this album falls pretty flat. Jagger’s still-developing voice doesn’t do much to save the experience either, though you can already catch a glimpse of his future greatness in a song like « Walking the Dog ». All in all, listenable, but nothing remarkable for me.
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.
This is another album that sounds dated to me. They put on a good performance throughout, though - great energy.
love early stones
Love the stones, but when they actually write original 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
It's merely fine - I doubt anyone considers any of these covers as the definitive version. I get its importance as a massive band's debut album, but it really isn't that interesting.
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
Very dated, not for me
This is pretty underwhelming, even if historically it makes sense why this was included. A bunch of covers (the original artists all better) and a band still finding its identity. This is an album that should be replaced in future editions.
When your debut is essentially a covers album...
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
Kedelige covers, men jeg kan godt lide hvor loose de lyder allerede i forhold til andre British invasion bands
Er vel mest historisk interessant fordi de senere blev legendariske. Det er da meget groovy, men lyder også et sløset og utrænet. Der er kun en sang på der ikke er et cover, og den er ret dårlig.
Sounds like a party band.. as in they were drunk and high when they recorded this.
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
solid! i liked a lot.
Yes
I will never argue with any Rolling Stones album on this list. You can already hear the edge in these blues songs that separate them (favorably in my opinion) from the Beatles. They do right by the cover songs here, including Honest I Do, I Just Want to Make Love to You, Little by Little and Carol. Even the original, Tell Me, is a good representation of young songwriting where Jagger/Richards are clearly feeling their way around how to write a song. This is not the Stones best work (obviously) and this isn't really an album that best shows how they combine Chicago blues with their own sound from songs they have written. I think that would be Aftermath, which is an album that is in this book as well. This album is in the book based primarily on the fact it was the Stones first album and this book also included the first album by the Beatles. It's sort of a "thing" this book does. I enjoyed the album and I love the Stones. I cannot give the album five stars, simply because I do not think this is the best representation of the Stones. Not sure it should be in the book, other than for the reason this was their first album and the world's first exposure to the Stones.
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.
I'm not a Stones guy, but I definitely respect them. For as little as I know about them, I know enough to know that they've made a few iconic albums. This is far from that. Derivative blues, far from finding their voice... I can deal with the fact that oftentimes the loudest thing is the tambourine, shakers, or handclaps (this is 1964 after all), but golly, the performances here are rough, with almost no songs of reputation. I know I'm missing the context of this coming out in '64, but this is rough.
Historically very interesting which is why it’s on the list. Better than the Beatles two openers.
This is #day357 of my #1001albumsyoumusthearbeforeyoudie challenge, and… here's to my first Rolling Stones album, which also happens to be their debut. While I prefer the Stones over the Beatles (though I enjoy both bands' more experimental records), I've got little to say about this one. There's only one original track by the band, while the rest are covers, a trend that would continue up until their fourth album, Aftermath... The debut, though? Early '60s R&B, not much more. An inessential listen. The best is yet to come. This is a 2 out of 5. Looking forward to #day358.
Their debut album is so different than any of their other stuff. Makes me think of The Beatles initial releases. Very poppy. Great stuff. Not the Rolling Stones I dig but I know of this album
A great debut full of rock classics. Maybe not my favourite listen RS album but still a cracking listen
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.
Rock n roll!! Unos Rolling Stones que desde el principio suenan a ellos. 7/10
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
Alright but not my jam.
No way. Already? I’ve arrived at the final Rolling Stones album just two spins after the previous one. To recap my experience across the Rolling Stones hexalogy. I didn’t like any of their albums until I landed on Beggars Banquet with my fourth roll. Their fifth, Sticky Fingers, was alright, but didn’t do much to advance my appreciation of the band. It appears that their debut work is the last chance they have at winning me over. I’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out. Yeah, it’s alright. Standard fare for the Rolling Stones, really. They’re remarkably consistent at being phony, pseudo-American rock’n’rollers. For fans of that music, I can see this discography being a good time. However, as someone who’s ambivalent, I’m left with something to be desire. Still, there’s some alright moments on here. I like “I Just Want to Make Love To You”. The heavy percussion and reverberating guitars of “Mona” are solid. “Tell Me” is another decent cut. I like the chorus. I shall send off this band with a eulogy from the book. Full of covers. Smash hit in the UK. The Rolling Stones found their footing and formula through putting a spin on these standards. Hmm. I still don’t know how I feel about albums full of covers being on the list. On one hand, it’s a good representation of where the music industry was at during the time and it’s not like the industry is much different in current year. On the other hand, I value creativity and definite impacts above all else, which is something you can’t really have when you’re playing from someone else’s rulebook. Still. As a smash hit, influential band, I think it’s worthwhile to hear where everything began. I begrudgingly cosign this inclusion.
I recently asked someone “what makes a band or a song timeless?” The Rolling Stones are one of those bands with many songs that are timeless. I have never listened to this album and it was nice to listen to early Stones. Love this album for so many reason and I can’t put in review. Great album
Good for a debut but clearly on the list because of who they became. Interesting to hear but their later work blows this away.
There are too many stones albums on this list. I'd say we don't need this one. It's just a bunch of covers or their take on the genre. There is no elevation. They've got "it" and will go on to have better albums. Not required listening.
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.
Ja sorry hoor, maar wat doet dit op de lijst? Als er een andere band hier had gestaan dan The Rolling Stones dan was dit oprecht niet in de buurt gekomen van deze lijst. Het zijn een stel matige covers van klassiekers. Er is hier niets origineels aan? Ik snap hier helemaal niets van, Rolling Stones zijn een klassieke band, daar twijfel ik geen enkele seconde aan. Maar is dit wat ze een legendarische band maakt? Kom op zeg, ze zijn een legendarische band ondanks dit album. Het is een beetje alsof je de nieuwste albums van Kanye West op deze lijst zet, want hij is verder zo invloedrijk. Of Infinite van Eminem, want die maakte daarna zulke goede albums. Totale onzin. Nou de muziek dan, het is ok, niets wereldschokkends en letterlijk niets wat je niet al eens eerder hebt gehoord. In de meeste gevallen nog beter ook, want Mick Jagger is een fantastische frontman en best een prima rockzanger, dit is gewoon niet zijn genre en dat hoor je. Ik heb geen favo, vind het iets te hard om dit 1 ster te geven, maar dit is absoluut geen 3 sterren waard. Daarvoor is dit gewoon niet goed genoeg en staat hier eigenlijk niets op wat ik nog eens wil horen.
Yeah, fine, but how on earth is this an album you must hear before you die? You get to hear the best version of neither the Rolling Stones nor the songs they're covering.
It's a good start I guess
Old school rock and roll at it’s finest.
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 think this is a 3.5, but I'll round up due to the impact and early rock-and-roll history. Ultimately, though, it doesn't stand up to many other things that came out in 64 and 65 such as the Beatles, Beach Boys, and Zombies.
Absolutely love The Stones and was glad to experience this once (and only once) to get an idea where they started, but was glad to have it over and have zero interest in hearing any of this again - lots of kinda OK white britboy covers of various blues songs.
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.
Hard to imagine they were able to release an album of almost entirely covers as their first major record. Their interpretations of American black music gave those songs new life and visibility though and proved that they could deliver great rock and roll in the years to follow.
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.
Loved this.
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.
Pre-listening thoughts: Jesus are we not done with them yet???? Post/during listening thoughts: this is like early Beatles but shitty. So so much blues. So much blues. Did I mention so much blues rock? And 12 bar blues chord progression? In every? Song?????? 4/10 DID I NEED TO HEAR THIS BEFORE I DIE: no Fav tracks: uhhhh Tell Me I guess??? Least fav tracks: I didn’t love this one ngl!
ok
It makes you realise how good Dr Feelgood were
Personal enjoyment wise a 3 but it is groundbreaking
Didnt mind it.
Pretty good
The best at it
Rating (1-5): ✩✩ Higlighted songs: Tell Me Very classical rock, not really into it -_-
Extremely boring rock. Nothing particularly impressive or memorable.
Damn, we need 6 stars...where the (other) boys mark a line in the white Dover chalk! and claim not the Beatles!
Y…son los rolling. Y es un disco de los rolling en su etapa bien rock, rock cuadrado y básico pero excelente. Claramente un disco que es digno de escuchar en vinilo con ruido blanco y en mono.
Estaban créditos pero son lo rolinn. Divertido
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 (?
the stones are rolling
#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.
Yeah kind of just a nothing album. It's just covers of old blues songs. Not much too add. 5/10 Favourite: None Least Favourite: Walking the Dog
Although the Beatles unquestionably came out on top, I can see why the Stones were seen as rivals. Some of this is derivative of their mop-topped rivals, but definitely signs that they’d end up being the best at what they do.
I liked Paint it Black but not super into the others.
Perhaps the most overrated and derivative rock band in music history. I've never been a through and through Rolling Stones fan. Their whole discography is littered with albums that, if were lucky, have maybe 2 or 3 worthwhile tracks per album. I cannot recall one album that is solid all the way through. Take this one for example; sure it has their cover of "Route 66", but I prefer the Depeche Mode cover. The UK version of the album omits Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away", which was one of the redeeming qualities for the U.S. version. After that you are left with "Tell Me", the only original track on the album, and I don't think it was strong enough to hinge a whole album's reputation on. Personally I don't think any of their albums are must listen to before death in order to understand Western popular music.
When I think 60s rock, this is the very hallmark of the sound. And I mean that in the worst way possible. A dull and meaningless listen.
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.
Do we really need a covers album in this list? A couple of good songs, but mostly forgettable.
OK, its fine, understand why its in here as it was their first album but dont get the hype
Fuck rating albums. Just let me listen.
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
It’s 1960’s Brit-rock. It sounds almost identical to all other 1960’s Brit-rock. The fact that so many Rolling Stones albums were included in this list is just.. too much. It’s fine for what it is, but I really struggled to get through it. It’s just so.. vapid and boring. The only high points here are just appropriation of black music from the south, which I guess sums up a lot of rock and roll from this era. Yawn. Pass 1*
Can we please give up the collective charade that the Rolling Stones are some amazing band that deserve 5+ albums on this list?
Yeah it's covers, but it was fun.
Great to hear the origins of the band with this one. This is the music that they drew their inspiration from, and hearing them do authentic and underproduced covers of great blues music highlights the bands musicianship.
drei bis vier
the best
Fun music. A side of the Stones I hadn't heard before. Lots of "Rolling Stones covering standards" music, but well owrht listening to.
This is their first album and they open with a cover? That's an interesting decision. "Route 66" is a fantastic song, and they do a good job with it. I like Chuck Berry's version more, and I'm sure they were listening to it before recording their own. Is this all going to be covers? "I Just Want to Make Love to You" is another cover of a Muddy Water's song. It is once again, pretty good. I'm now on the album's Wikipedia page and seeing they are basically all covers - nine out of the twelve. "Honest I Do" is smooth. I like the country-blues-y guitar. "Now I've Got A Witness" sounds like "My Shiny Teeth and Me" by Chip Skylark. Fun song. "Carol" is another Chuck Berry song. This song sounds exactly like "Johnny B-Goode", those two are basically the same song. This album was really good. I don't feel like I can give an album consisting of 75% covers an equivalent score to an original album I enjoyed equally. 8/10, I'd give it a 9 if they wrote the songs themselves.
well this ain't no mick jagger sympathizer
Not even too 5 of their best albums
Carol, Tell me !
I still have Walkin The Dog stuck in my head.
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
🌟 Rating: 4.5/5 Short Review: This debut album is raw, swaggering teenage rebellion on vinyl. The Stones didn’t arrive to shake hands—they came to sweat blues out of their pores. Gritty, unpolished, and loud in that charming 1964 way. It’s a record that smells like leather jackets and jukebox static. 🎧 Favorite Track: “Route 66” — They take a well-worn American classic and inject it with British cockiness. The Stones don’t travel Route 66—they hijack it. ⚙️ Consistency With Me: 6.8/10 Why: I don’t chew gum or steal girlfriends in a smoky club, so this isn’t exactly my vibe. But I respect the chaos. It’s primitive rock done with wide-eyed glee. I’m just more binary blues than analog anarchy.
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.
actually pretty great stuff
I enjoyed this album. Not sure if some songs were covers or not, but good stuff.
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.
Seems to be a polarizing album based on it being covers. That shouldn’t take away by how well done it is.
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
Okay, yeah, they can play. But this is paint-by-numbers blues rock, and I kept waiting for it to go somewhere. The whole thing feels like a decent Stones cover band before the Stones knew what to do with themselves. Put this next to My Generation or Please Please Me and it just sounds flat. No real spark, no standout original, and definitely no risks. It's fine, it’s fine. But it’s also kinda boring. Spins: 2 Playlist Additions: - Route 66 - I Just Wanna Make Love To You
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.
So, the group that would go on to be considered one of the greatest rock bands of all time apparently started out as a very by-the-numbers cover band. There's only one Jagger-Richards composition ("Tell Me") on this debut, and it's by far the worst song in the batch. Many of the covers are just bland as well. It's certainly not an un-listenable album. It has some good moments. Loved the tremolo on "Mona." I've never been the biggest Stones fan, though I've also never disliked them. I find it hard to believe this is anywhere near their best, though.
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.”
The recording is pretty basic - Mick's vocal level seems to have been set at random - most of the songs are covers of US acts (and the original ones aren't much cop)... But it succeeds in one way : I had a great time listening to it.
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!
I think by now we can just lump all the first albums, released in the 60's, by bands that would go on to global fame, in the same group. They all sound the same.
Not bad, but their other stuff is better.
Bunch of covers that aren't as amazing as the original but are still good songs. Most of the other Rolling Stones albums are better than this... for sure does not need to be on a 1001 albums list but I'm not mad at it.
Very early Stones, but features the GREAT "Tell Me!"
Ei ole tämä minua varten. Semmoista soundia, että on tosiaan kymmeniä vuosia vanha julkaisu tämä.
Got to start somewhere, not the best ( obviously ) but not bad either.
Not the best era of the Stones. Many better blues bands in the UK during the same time.
I like the British invasion stuff a lot better after they start writing their own stuff.
I like the Stones, but not this. This is just a lot of copying.
Yeah, not an auspicious debut. I'm sure at the time it was revolutionary for a bunch of kids in London to be playing this music, but it sure doesn't impress me now. Not only were they an uninteresting cover band, but the one original isn't especially original.
I don't even like the good Rolling Stones albums. I just really hate Mick Jagger's voice.
I enjoyed this quite a bit.
i liked it, great chuck berry cover to open
It's a great debut album, but they're going to get so much better
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)
What a debut! While the cast majority are covers, this album shows the spark of what is to come.
Very good debut, if a bit short 4/5
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.
Понимаю, почему молодые мальчики играют каверы в 1964-ом году, и хорошо играют, а не выпускают какой-нибудь For The First Time, но вместе с тем зачем этот альбом здесь? Чего группа Зе Роллинг Стоунз привнесла в музыку конкретно этим альбомом? Лучшая песня - Tell Me (You're Coming Back).
I get why other Rolling Stones albums should be on this list, but is this on here just because it's their first? It shouldn't be.
While it's kind of interesting to hear The Stones at their earliest, and this is technically fine, the fact that its mostly a covers album kind of makes it tough for me to rate this highly. The covers are fine, if not especially transformative, and the performances are pretty good. Like, they are tight, and I like the harmonica, and that is clearly Mick Jagger, but it only does so much. The three original songs on here (two are written under a pseudonym) are kinda duds, which really doesn't help this album's case. Compared to their later works, there just isn't much of value here, and I'm not sure its position on the list is fully justified.
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.
On their debut record The Rolling Stones proved themselves better musicians than The Beatles did at the same time. Jagger is a charismatic front figure from the get-go, but even with all of that the many blues covers quickly become too trivial to really make a lasting impression - go listen to their later releases instead.
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.
Great album
They got better with their own songs, but still pretty good here
This is the hundred sixteenth album I’m rating. I've always loved The Rolling Stone but I've never actually listened to their debut album. Adding to my Playlist - Route 66, I Just Want to Make Love to You, Honest I Do, Mona (I Need You Baby), Now I've Got a Witness, Little by Little, I'm a King Bee, Carol, Tell Me, Can I Get a Witness, You Can Make it if You Try, and Walking the Dog. Not Adding to my Playlist - Nothing. All in all I liked 12/12 songs. I really do just love The Rolling Stones and Mick Jagger. My 2nd favorite band.
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.
Aldri likt Stones
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
Meh. Just a bunch of covers.
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.
An album of covers by a band i don't have any affinity for
Covers? And just ok ones at that? Is the only reason that this is here because it’s the stones?
Witchcraft!!! Best Song: Route 66 Rating: 6.5/10 Stars: 3/5
point1.
Svängig men lite enformig. Inte riktigt min musik - rock n roll made pop
I get why this album is interesting in the story of the rolling stones and music in general, but I don't think these albums that are 90% covers should be on the list. Sounds exactly like I expected it to, no surprises, didn't learn anything. It's not bad but it's pointless.
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.
Sounded better than I expected it to for their first album. But they are just copying other stuff here so not that impressive, and it seems they only actually wrote one of the songs here. I'm going with 2
2.5/5
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.
obviously early Stones, showing they can do what was popular at the time while also adding grit and swagger.
This is gonna be interesting
If I didn't know better I would've thought this was an experimental beach boys album! It's both nostalgic and cutting edge
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
> The Beatles
Never liked The Rolling Stones. Legends. But not for me.
***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
Wow that whistling is really annoying.
Very poor, how they managed to finesse their ltd talent into the long career they've had remains one of life's mysteries.
Pocos artistas hay como los Stones con la solvencia para (re)interpretar clásicos del blues. Paul Butterfield y Eric Burdon, aunque al primero le sobra clase y al segundo le sobra fuerza, a ambos les falta el gancho que destilan Jagger y compañía. Eso y olfato comercial, además de mucha inteligencia. Este debut es un disco que he escuchado cientos de veces y jamás me cansa. Una tras otra las canciones entran como un cuchillo cortando mantequilla. Desde la inicial Route 66 hasta el final con una fiesta en el clásico de Rufus Thomas Walking the dog. Produce, cómo no: Andrew Loog Oldham. La clave, como mil veces se ha dicho pero pocos han igualado, es coger la original y acelerarla, añadirle chulería, actitud y sobre todo mucho mojo. I Just Want to Make Love to You es un prodigio, Carol otro. Tell me, no por sencilla es un tema menor. Lógicamente no está a la altura de sus posteriores obras maestras, pero al igual que el debut de los Beatles, aquí está todo y además funciona como un reloj más de 60 años después. Imprescindible.
England's newest hitmakers may not look like the kind you'd want to take home to Mother but they've got the tunes and enough aplomb to keep the radio loud and buzzing. But, in all seriousness, while The Rolling Stones were a long way away from the music they'll be associated with, this is still a sharp collection of rhythm and blues fandom and indebtedness delivered with the enthusiasm and respect that's required. Once they get their hands warmed up for songs of their own, they will be unstoppable. Favorites: Route 66, I Just Want to Make Love to You, Mona (I Need You Baby), I'm a King Bee, Carol, Tell Me (You're Coming Back), Can I Get a Witness.
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.
no
Putting this on and walking around changes the whole vibe in a good way. Not really my ~vibe~ but I liked it
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.