Reviews (page 5 of 8)
I prefer the Stone to the Beatles, and I like this record well enough, but essentially none of it is original music and it takes a big ding for that. Fine enough to listen to, I wouldn't ever pick it out though.
So great to listen to
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
The Rolling Stones are okay. World's Greatest Rock & Roll Band? Not really.
Back when they were just a worse and bluesier version of what the Beatles had been doing a year before them.
It's hard to overstate the importance of the early Rolling Stones albums in shining a light on blues and R&B artists that were overlooked/forgotten/no considered by white teens on both sides of the Atlantic. Are the originals stronger with a hell of a lot more balls? Absolutely, but the fact that a group of teen idols made such a point of exposing kids to this music is incredible. Plus, this is still a great listen, and shows what the Stones would grow into in just a few short years.
Great album, would have scored higher if it wasn’t a bunch of covers. Really well executed though
They rolled that stone so fast
Some consider this the greatest debut album ever. It's chock full of familair covers but shows where the band was headed once they got free rein to put their own songs on vinyl for the masses. Impact, influence, hits, staying power and popularity, it has the credentials for sure. I prefer the later, dirtier, more creative stuff from their heyday. I'd never heard their versions of "Honest I Do" or "Walk The Dog" which were both good. Not sure about a teenage Brit white kid doing "King Bee" but it was entertaining just the same. Intro to what is likely the greatest & most decorated rock band to ever grace the planet. Understanding their transition from covers to originals would be more impactful I think but I enjoyed this historical lesson on their origins. Every song is done well and with respect so I can give this 4 stars.
Inga större fel här inte.
In the early 60s, Black American music wasn't getting much recognition. Until some Robert Johnson records got a reissue in the UK, the interest in American Blues was nonexistent… until some London 'lads' started mimicking and covering, and electrifying… The real British Invasion happened when the Stones, and Clapton, and Beck and more retaught us our heritage. 4/5
2.5/5
At face value sounds like a standard 60s rock album but has the foundations of The Rolling Stones signature sound
decent
I cannot get into. Simple as that.
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
I have never listened to this Stones album and it was interesting.
No soy fan de este rock viejo
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.
Album was awful
This is great. WikiTIL: Led Zeppelin could learn from their songwriting credit ethic
2.5
An absolute classic.
I find this a strange pick for this list, as the Stones have a vast catalogue of better albums to choose from. This is just an album of covers, and they're not great covers at that.
An album of covers of American rhythm and blues. While it is entertaining, not very memorable.
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.
White English guys do black musicians songs. Nuff said. Not a bad album and I see why it got them attention but it’s a bit middling today
Too many cover songs, and there wasn't much that impressed me. It's incredible this band has been rockin' for over 60 years, but that doesn't mean we need their lackluster self-titled album. Favorite Track: "Carol".
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.
own
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.
Die „neueren“ Platten der Rolling Stones finde ich dann doch besser :D man kann durchaus das Alter der Platte raushören. Die Platte ist relativ eintönig. Früher war dann eben doch nicht alles besser :D. 2/5 höre mir lieber die neuen Alben an.
It's really just a bunch of lads that got together to cover late 50's, early 60's, blues rock classics. It's rough and raw and, damn, is it good. If they can come up with some original music, I think they have a real chance of making a name for themselves.
Ah, my fourth Rolling Stones album to review. I'd consider myself a casual Rolling Stones fan, and I've rated their three albums so far at 5 stars (Let It Bleed), 4 stars (Beggars Banquet), and 3 stars (Exile On Main Street). I'll be listening to the UK release of this album today, and looking at the track listing, I don't think I've heard the Stones' version of any of these songs (I know their version of "Not Fade Away," but I'll miss out on that one today sadly). I'm typically not a fan of a bunch of covers, but I know that's not unusual for the early sixties, so I'll try to keep that bias in check! (Oh wow, this will be my last album from 1964!) No amount of open-mindedness about albums of cover songs could save this album. I found this to be a completely forgettable snoozefest from start to finish. I didn't find anything noteworthy about the band's musicianship on this album, and outside of Mick Jagger's vocals, they really didn't leave a distinct mark on any of these songs. This album wasn't unlistenable or anything, but it was completely forgettable and bland. With this debut, it's truly astounding to me that these guys went on to establish a long career comprised of incredible songs.
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’s alright
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.
Early white boy blues rock. I’m not mad at it.
meh, it was fine
beebop bullshit
Early Stones mostly playing covers of early rock songs. Thankfully their songwriting skills evolved.
Stones in suits! Who are these swinging cats, and where are those slight deviants who gave us things we didn’t know we wanted, i.e., Under My Thumb?
Liked, didn't love. Earlier Beatles albums are way more energetic and fun IMO.
It’s no Let It Bleed but a solid 4 nonetheless.
Debut from what became one of the biggest bands ever. At this point, they are just copying the orginal artists and have a bunch of covers. It's ok but you're better listening to the orginals. This just made it palatable for white people. There's no hint of the greatness that was to come. Yet again, another pointless album in this list. This shouldn't be included as it's the Stones' debut. It's not important. Best Tracks: Route 66; I'm a King Bee; Carol
Uuuuuuh, okay? Gotta start somewhere, I guess. ⭐⭐
It's interesting listening to recordings from the Rolling Stones before they had many of the defining features that made them so special in the first place. I didn't realize how much the Jagger-Richards partnership defined what I appreciated about the Rolling Stones, but here we are. Another interesting observation I had was about how so much of the Stones' "hard rock" sound was just the electric blues being heard by White people for the first time. My favorite track was "Now I've Got a Witness", because the instrumental nature of it forces the band to really explore their own sound. On the whole, it's a fairly standard early 60's rock and roll album. Favorite Track: Now I've Got a Witness
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.
Classic Stones, their sound is great on this album and hard to discern the bluesy differences between the Stones and Beatles this early
Solid album of Blues Rock covers
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
Meh.
Vintage stones stuff
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...
Excellent album of blues rock and an awesome first album from the Rolling Stones. Mostly covers with a few originals mixed in. I've never heard this before but it’s great front to back. I'm looking forward to putting this on again. Great energy.
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.
2- Stars (4/15)
this was actually before they started rolling
Not my favourite period of the stones
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.
rolling my eyes more like
1. It's all like plinky plonky boring shit 2 stars 2. They just cover songs? -1
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
Rating: 8/10 A great collection of blues covers that sets the blueprint for the Stones' sound.
Thank god for their later work cause this is just not very interesting
Vibey
In the same way that Please Please Me was left off, this one should have been left off as well, and Please Please Me is a better album than this. This is not at all indicative of The Rolling Stones.
mitä trakoittavat pyörivät kivet? ainakaan ei samnalta päällä kasva!
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
Tangentially energetic but horribly aged blues rock, and devoid of originality.
jolly leuk
It's great to hear The Rolling Stones do covers of famous blues songs; but this album should not have been on this list.
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.
7/10
The stones aren’t my favorite. But the work is good.
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
Sounds like a pale imitation of the American music which inspired it, washed-out and flavourless. The tracks all sound pretty similar. Makes me appreciate the Beatles of this era more.
It's OK, well played and all. But if this were the Stones only album, most of us would never had heard of them.
I wasn'r really interested in this, it's just a bunch of blues and none of the more well known sounds from The Rolling Stones
nice rock and roll, heavy blues influences. very unpolished and still lacking some of their originality
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.
Really good and interesting
Enjoyable
Harsh, but this is only 2 stars for me. I like plenty of Rolling Stones songs, but every time I've given first, second, and third listens to any full albums (not just this one, but especially this one), I don't experience any kind of wow factor. I have lots of love for so much classic rock, I guess I just don't get the Stones. This was just okay. I'm more likely to check out the original songs than these covers again. My favorite was Tell Me, which I now see is an original, so that's cool.
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.
not for me
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
Early Stones! "Tell me" was the stand out for me.
This doesn't belong here. Too many covers. No real hits. The only reason it made this list is it's the first album from a legendary band. That isn't enough to qualify it for me though. It's quite pedestrian to my ears. They have classic albums. This isn't it.
Not for me unfortunately nothing stood out to me
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.
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.
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.
It's been interesting to get early albums by the Beatles and the Stones back to back. I marked the Beatles down for half the album being covers, but the reality was it was the covers just being a bit... whisper it... average. I found this mostly covers album much more enjoyable. Jagger's vocals, and the energy of the performances, plus a better choice of songs channeling their love of American R&B makes this much more of an essential album for me. The Beatles plodding their way through Please Mr Postman just can't hold up to the likes of Not Fade Away and I Just Want To Make Love to You just a year later.
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.
So boring.
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.
Great album. 4.3/5
4/10
An album full of covers, that are all sub-par versions of their originals. They sound disjointed and I don't think suit the style of the Rolling Stones It's probably a harsh 1, but they've done miles better after that. It's also definitely not one to listen to before you die, and there are miles better artists and albums you can listen to in this genre for better music
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
No, no and thrice no! This should not be on the list. The Rolling Stones are famously 'tight but loose' but this is way too tight and insipid. They are still learning their trade. There's no excitement. Compare 'Can I get a witness' with Marvin Gaye's version - it's worlds apart. 'Carol' begins to come close but is still nowhere near their raucous, later live version. I love the Stones, but this shouldn't be here.
A bunch of ok covers. 3/5
A big ol' album of covered songs, neat. Not that jaw dropping but not horrible. 2.4/5 -> 2/5
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.
It was really good to hear the first Stones album and then think about their uber-famous songs and how much they have changed over the years. I liked the bluesy vibe to this one.
Fair
4.0 3x
...
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.
The Stones are interesting because I feel like there is a huge drop-off between their huge hits that everyone loves and their other stuff. Unfortunately, this album contains all of their other stuff. Also, I think all but three are covers which is not a good thing. Albums should mostly be original work, let alone all but three songs and for that, I have to take points away. 4/10.
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*
While the rolling stones is one of THE classic bands in history this album isn't their best work if you ask me. While I clearly recognize their sound and where they evolved from none of these songs are as good, or even close to, some of their later work.
Better than I expected
mai più avrei pensato ai Rolling Stones come una cover band, ma penso che questo dimostri solo la mia totale ignoranza quando si parla di questi gentlemen. e comunque, nonostante la sorpresa, non mi è piaciuto. le cover sono fatte nel loro stile, ci mancherebbe, ed è sempre difficile trasportare canzoni che sono soul e così diverse da ciò che si associa ai Rolling Stones in rock, ma cercare di rendere rock I just wanna make love to you di Etta James è più o meno una missione impossibile e un sacrilegio allo stesso tempo. capisco che hanno iniziato così e quindi di strada da fare ne avrebbero avuta ancora tanta, ma per me non ci siamo ancora. spero di ascoltare prima o poi un loro album che mi faccia cambiare idea su di loro.
Not something I would listen to, it's okay but wouldn't revisit.
Enjoyable album of blues covers. Standout songs: Mona Can I get a Witness
It's a cover album. Let's be real - if this wasn't the stones this wouldn't be on the list. They aren't doing anything special enough to warrant interest here.
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.
Great musicianship
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.
Lemppari: Carol
Not sure what The Rolling Stones' underwhelming debut album adds to the conversation here.
The beginning of an era but nothing ridiculously special about this album.
Lots of blues with lots of covers. I like it! It's a fun album.
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.
So this debut album is basically mostly cover songs, so why is it even on this list? Putting a debut album on the list just because of a band’s popularity is crazy when it makes no sense, like in this case. I found it to be absolutely boring, and all I wanted to do was go listen to the originals.
If it didn't say Rolling Stones, I wouldn't guess. Retrospectively, it is kinda important to band's history. But I don't understand why it hyped so much when released. I guess it was the first time white boys played black music well enough.
Boring and unoriginal. I guess you really need hard drugs to rock and roll.
A fun 60s blues album with no memorable songs
fun, I wasnt familiar with their earlier work, its different but i really enjoyed it
The Rolling Stones have remained remarkably true to their roots it would appear. It turns out they were mid all along.
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
My third stones album in as many months... This is my favourite yet, raw and bluesy. I have found some of their stuff a bit too HONKY TONKY and not really my thing, this was decent though!
I love the folk sound mixed with traditional rock. It's light-hearted and interesting. Fun album.
I wasn't too excited going into this one, because of the low reviews and my general feelings towards The Rolling Stones I actually really prefered this album to their other stuff!!! I knew a lot of the songs, I enjoyed their covers, and I thought the sound suited them. It did sound a bit Beatles-ish at times but that's why I liked it! A very pleasant surprise 4 ⭐️
How’s your debut album just gonna be a bunch of mid covers. The worst part is that the only original song was my favourite one.
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
4.0
Eh? It was alright, I guess. Gives me a similar feeling to Please Please Me, except this one had more covers.
Wasted entry in the 1001 - this is just a good to average album of covers, wouldn't get a mention if this was their only output. Hints of things to come but nothing you couldn't find in any bar in the Southern USA. Or anywhere really.
This album made me realize why the Rolling Stones are considered to be as influential as they are. And I actually enjoyed it!
12/11/24. Just okay, really just the Rolling Stones love letter to their musical influences - blues!
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.
Okay. Why is this album here? Obviously, the Rolling Stones are more than iconic enough to be on the album list. However, as I'm sure you're aware, they have multiple other albums on this list, all of which are better and more iconic than their self-titled debut from 1964. I should know. This is my fifth album of theirs, and I'm still missing Exile on Main St. What does the first Rolling Stones album bring to the table? Um... not much. This is basically just a glorified cover album. Mick Jagger and Keith Richards only wrote one song for this album, and it isn't even that great. There is praise to give the band here. The instrumental sound is alright. Obviously, the mixing and general sound quality isn't great, but I can still hear what they were going for. I think Mick Jagger's voice has really grown on me throughout these albums of the Rolling Stones that I've gotten over the course of the project. It's good. The writing, as I kind of expected coming from an early Rolling Stones project, hasn't aged the best. It hasn't aged horribly, but it's not great either. It's definitely repetitive, with most of the songs clearly being about women. Overall, I just don't see why this of all albums needs to be here. We already have an early Rolling Stone album with Aftermath. I don't really like that album much, but I still know that that album has an important place in the band's history and is justified in being on the list. This debut is just kind of okay. It is nothing spectacular at all. If this wasn't from the Rolling Stones, this album would have no place on a list like this. I'm not upset I listened to this, but I do feel that this inclusion is very unnecessary given the quality and cultural impact of this specific album. 2/5.
A tribute album to the greats of the blues. Of course their covers just aren’t quite the same but it’s impressive nonetheless - and with a British twist. For a debut album in 1964 it’s aged pretty brilliantly.
I doubt these guys will ever be anything more than a one hit wonder.
My father in law used to see these when he was young and said they were a decent pub covers band. My mum said pretty much the same about The Beatles when she saw them at The Cavern. The big difference being The Beatles went on to be one of the best and most influential recording artists of all time and The Stones pretty much carried on doing this same old shit for the next 50 years!
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.
Na pewno gdy ten album wychodził to musiało być niesamowite, ale tą wyjątkowość rozumiem, ale nie czuję w muzyce. Daję 4 za insane solówkę na harmonijce w "little something little" (??).
Kurde no, spoko jest ten album, chyba jednak lubię Stonesów :-> Ma pazur, dobrze mi się go słucha, po prostu. Teksty nie są szczególnie ambitne, ale też nie mają być. Są smart, zapadają w pamięć i nie dziwi mnie, że wiele z nich stało się klasykami (wyobrażam sobie, że dobrze się je odśpiewuje tłumem na konertach). Chłopaki ewidentnie inspirują się U.S.A od samego początku, jest Rock & Roll, jest vibe country, ogólnie mocny 'murican vibe. Mam wrażenie, że dobrze bym się bawił na koncercie Stonesów, kupuję ich energię i lubię wokal Jaggera. Słabsze 4, ale 4.
I can see why this was interesting in 1964, but in 2024 it's just a cover album.
Solid blues but not remarkable, though Jagger's voice elevates the whole album. I enjoy their original works better.
A really good album that tells you where the Stones are headed. 4 stars or B+.
Maybe this was good 60 years ago, but I don’t think it’s necessary to listen to anymore
Only seems necessary for Stones fans, I mean it's all covers besides one song. Whatever, at least it’s quick. Let's make people listen to these young white kids amateurly play blues instead of the actual blues musicians. But because they are white which made it sold more copies than this is more important to listen to than those apparently. Also, what a laughably bad take by the reviewer who compared this to the Beatles debut. That Beatles debut had many more original songs, huge hits (Twist and Shout vs. pick any awful fucking song on this album), and spawned Beatle-fucking-mania. Legitimately your local pub band could play this wihout practicing. Get off your knees just because Rolling Stones name is attached. Only one more Stones album to get through on this list thank Christ Rating: 1.1
classic good vibes
Not bad, old Stones.
Old Rolling Stones and good although not original.Enjoyed it.
I mean, obviously some good songs here but not sure how much credit the Rolling Stones get for that....
This is a cover band. Nothing really original. Heard it a thousand times.
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".
This isn't it
I feel like a lot of these rolling stones album kinda melt together and don't stand out. High 2.
Such quaint devil’s music.
2.5 its a fine debut, generic rock and roll.
achei bem chato, deus que me perdoe
ruim num é super sessentista, bem blues. achei o outro melhorzim, mas tá no memo nível
fun listen... they kicked so much more ass than the beatles in this era
Pretty forgettable one really.
Good first album. They have their distinctive sound. Songs are somewhat ho-hum compared to subsequent albums, of course.
Classic rock. Very much a bluesy rock vibe. Simple but done well.
It's a classic - I prefer the UK version with Not Fade Away.
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.
Rhythm & Blues covers with a couple of original compositions - this group shows promise and could go far
I hadn’t listened to this one previously. I can see why they then grew from here. You always hear about the stones roots in blues etc. very evident in this recording.
Non-descript, Non-offensive 60s pop songs. Lead singer sounds vaguely familiar...
The Stones aren’t in their final form but I can see how this must’ve riled up the Beatles fans and introduced them to some blues.
Good bluesy album. Enjoyed the whole album. Nothing ground breaking.
This is not what I expected the Stones to sound like, but it fits with most of the pop of the time. I'm glad they found their sound later, but this feels more like a generic band doing a bunch of covers. There's, I think, three originals, but they don't stand out either. I don't know if I'm missing something, but this isn't the band that would rival the Beatles in popularity. It seems more like a band that knew that covers of songs from another continent could give them some fresh material for British ears.
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.
Sick album. Route 66 is awesome. Fun listen. This sounds like young rolling stones and they are rockin. 4 stars
Beach rocky blues! Cool to listen to the first Stones album. Crazy that they are still alive and motoring 60 years later. Enjoyed this more than I expected cause I'm not a huge Stoner.
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.
Cover album, not very interesting
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
It's interesting if you want to hear how the Stones started out. They were a cover band that released an album. Like UB40
Really not a fan of The Stones
Very nice!
Has that country twang that I associate with early stones. IMO they don't solidify their style (the one I prefer) till later.
These kids might be going places. One to watch
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
Not sure I get the point of this inclusion, there is only one original track and I would probably rather listen to the original versions of each of the covers.
pure rock n roll
One of their more boring
Thought o was listening to Lee hooker but lo and behold it's the rolling stones plundering. But oddly original and well crafted. 4 stars.
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.
I mean it's the rolling stones! Good album
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.
Literally just a cover album. Can't rate it particularly high. Fortunately, I know that the Stones got a lot more coming, so this certainly isn't the end.
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.
Now I've Got A Witness on side 1, and Can I Get A Witness on side 2? What is this? Do you have a witness or don't you? If you did have a witness I guess that pathetic effort on side 2 would be cause to leave. Again historically 'interesting' in how much lower the bar was for the Rolling Stones. Best thing on here just a Bo Diddley song sung worse, neither the writing or performance show all that much promise. music: hated. (⌐■_■)
Remarkable how kinda bland this is. None of the covers do anything the originals don’t, they’re just less-than because they’re not performed by the original cool Americans. English guys shouldn’t be allowed to sing about Route 66. They shouldn’t even be allowed to acknowledge it.
This album has one of my go-to covers on it. The problem is that it's just about all covers. So it might be decent in a historical context, but why is it on this list?
Covers that don't even have the sound of 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.
It's more blues than rock and roll. Obviously a ton of cover songs. I'm not really sure how they got someone to record a first album knowing that it was all covers. If this was the only album that they had put out, would this album be on anybody's "must hear" list? No chance. This list should represent an artist's best work, not just a list of random choices of albums.
Not a big Stones fan. And this is not their best. It smacks of appropriation. Don’t recommend.
Ain’t no songs on this album justify Mick Jagger acting like that.
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.
I think it's a really important album from a historical perspective, as it's one of the albums that, while not as good as the original versions of these songs, introduced them to an audience that wouldn't have known about these songs at the time and was part of the launching pad for what has become modern music. As for how enjoyable it actually is to listen to now, I'd say it's about a 3, but the historical importance brings it up to a 4. I get why it's on the list, but it makes little sense out of context of it's time for why it's on the list.
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!
I'm giving this a four largely because it is a white British band repackaging American blues in a high quality way for a worldwide audience. It's a mystery to me -- other than flat out racism -- as to why the blues greats weren't appreciated in the USA in the 50s and 60s... they are now revered, as they should be.
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.
Standard Rolling Stones….. SHIT!
i like that its still the classic blues rock kinda style
wankers the lot of 'em 2/10
The Stones' influence can't be denied, but I'd much rather listen to the countless bands they inspired.
Favourite song - Carol
Well, everyone’s got to start somewhere. This debut is obviously very historically important but really it’s just a set of uninspiring blues covers (plus two original songs - Little by Little which is pretty good and a very forgettable instrumental track) that doesn’t really contain any indication of the greatness to come
Just like what I said for the yardbirds: this has a lot of very palatable (if slightly forgettable) blues rock. Easy listening.
I'm not a big fan of The Rolling Stones in general if I'm being honest, and I also usually dislike albums that are predominately not written by the artists themselves. Needless to say, this one didn't really land for me. It's not unlistenable or anything but it just doesn't do anything for me.
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.
The Rolling Stones is a debut album which is almost entirely covers of songs done better by their originators and/or others. It's below average, mostly standard blues progressions and riffs, and while it's actually more listenable than most Stones efforts, it's quite arrogant to launch yourselves like this and then build a 60 year career on it, the album only gets a place on the list because it's their debut record and it doesn't get higher than a 2 for me.
This is fine, but unremarkable, mostly covers done in a very Stones style. We've had better albums from them, not sure why a cover album made it onto this list when they've got plenty of their own material that is deservedly there. 2/5.
Too early in the evolution of The Rolling Stones for me
3+/5
Not giving more than 2 for an album of covers
It's the Stones
If you see potential here, congratulations. It's not my time, so I'm judging in the here and now. Wow, that's crap. The kind of white blues that I really hate. "I am hate" (please in German, "Codo the third, from the center of the stars... DÖF) there are and were definitely people who were totally into it, that's OK, quite justified, different taste, different approach. I have to erase that from my ears and memory quickly, preferably with good music. And bang, it's gone. I never liked the Stones, apart from a few little things. "Paint it Black" is one of them. And as a band member, Brian Jones too. Jagger and Richards, the old confectioners, not really. They managed to make every sweet pastry a little worse. They still managed to create the myth of one of the world's best bands. For me, the over, over, over-rated band of all time. I'm going to be "stoned" now, screw it. A little bitten off tongue and the totally wrinkled look isn't enough for me. Fuck you Stones
Jaunty jangly Stones. I prefer the more bluesy souly tracks. Love a half hour album. Top tracks: I’m a king bee (kinda sexy) Walkin the Dog (vibes), You Can Make it if you try (more bluesy)
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?
Favorite Track: King Bee
All I could hear when listening to this album were how many artists were ripped off in creating it.
Sooo boring. A bunch of RnB covers with one original song on it. A few bops for sure, but basically zero excitement. If it wasn’t the Rolling Stones, would anyone care?
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
The Rolling Stones' debut doesn't seem like an essential listen to me. Sure, it has historical significance but stylistically it is not any different from the dozens of other british guitar bands of the times, and it only sets itself apart retrospectively because of how big the band would become.
decent cover album
Je hoort het potentieel van de band, gewoon echt lekkere muziek, weinig minpunten te bedenken, behalve dat er maar 1 origineel nummer op staat.
So old honky tonk harmonica
OK, it's the Stones' debut album so there is an argument for it deserving a place on the list ... but its such a bang average record by such an over-hyped band. An entire album of inferior covers really is not important, and if it was any other band it would be laughed out of the room. If The Rolling Stones formed tomorrow they wouldn't even be a footnote.
# 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.
Blues
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
It might well be an album of covers but my, brilliantly done covers. Doesn't take a genius to work out what a huge success they went on to be. Fabulous
Dated
Good 😌