Reviews (page 5 of 7)
A decent collection of covers but do not see the rationale for including this in the list.
A fine collection of covers. What is the rationale for including this in the list?
should be removed, not a must hear
From a time it was important to speak your poetry clearly and the music was just something to help it along!
Blues 101 really.
Decent listen but almost all covers, a generous 3
gnarly harmonicas in there
Didn’t mind it. Didn’t love it.
A good album, I liked Route 66 and Carol. But my favorite song on the album as Tell Me.
The one Stones album no one needs to hear. Aside from maybe "Tell Me" there isn't much here that suggests the band that would go on an epic 5 album run - maybe THE best 5 album run any artist has ever had - a few years later.
Een debuutalbum, een coveralbum eigenlijk, enkel en alleen geselecteerd omdat de band later legendarisch is geworden. Zo voelt het in ieder geval. Het klinkt regelmatig net iets te scherp/luid allemaal, de stem van ome Mick, de tamboerijn. Verder is het gewoon bluesy rock 'n roll achtige shit. Dat vind ik eigenlijk altijd wel prima om aan te horen. Heel veel meer heb ik hier niet over te melden. Ik zou dit album niet zo gauw uit mezelf nog een keer aanzetten. Ik heb de Stones reeds 3x een 4 gegeven, ik ga deze iets lager raten, we blijven niet aan de gang. Ik vind eigenlijk ook niet dat je zes Stones albums moet luisteren voor je een touw mag halen. Na drie albums heb je wel een idee wat voor muziek ze maken. Ik geef 3 bolvormige hemellichamen bestaande uit lichtgevend plasma.
Good! But a good covers album gets a three and that's that
It was ok.
A little bit too much of country for my personal taste. But hey... if that's what helped them get their style...
Interesting, the debut from the Rolling Stones. I'm putting this against the Beatles' With the Beatles, as we've also had it on this list and the two albums are very similar. That wasn't their debut, but it had six covers, where on this album, all but one track is a cover. Let's get one thing straight: these British Invasion bands all got their start doing covers and interpretations of rock and roll and blues artists in the US, often black artists whose music had not yet crossed over to white audiences. Elvis did this too, and in hindsight it's obviously troubling, but somebody had to do SOMETHING. If our world had never crossed that racial divide musically, we'd have some pretty awful music, guaranteed. And between bands that did covers and credited artists (the Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin) and bands that just did their own shit that's very blatantly ripping off artists (look up my review of the Yardbirds' Roger the Engineer), the former is much more ethical. That said, this isn't the most interesting album. Yes, important to the Stones' legacy, as it put them on the map, but why not the originals? The US version has "Not Fade Away," one of my favorite Buddy Holly songs. Is Buddy Holly on this list? We haven't had him yet, I'll wait. What about Chuck Berry? Willie Dixon? I'd rather hear the progenitors, personally. I do like this album, and I think it fares a hell of a lot better than With the Beatles, simply because Mick Jagger's voice is 100x more suited to the blues than Paul or John. All in all, it's a good cover album and I can what the hype would have been, but I don't know how necessary it really is, some 60 years later, when we can channel hindsight into platforming the artists who created that sound to begin with. Favorite tracks: Not Fade Away (US version only), Mona I Need You Baby (UK version only) Carol, You Can Make It If You Try. Album art: Just a band photo, nothing crazy. Interplay of light and shadow is prominent, anything to do with them bringing American blues/rock songs into a new light? 3.5/5
Muy buen blues
A good listen, good standard blues tracks on the album. This album is very generic and doesn't really stand out in 60's rock or even against later Stones album. 3/5.
Most of the songs are covers? They do a good job of interpreting the songs and Mick putting his spin on things. I guess the Brits needed to have their own version of the blues.
Very interesting. A pretty dated sounding dirty blues-rock album that seems very straightforward. Nothing is too remarkable about the set of tracks here, however Tell Me definitely sounds the most compelling and what I think of as the Rolling Stones. I definitely laughed as I checked the writing credits and noticed it was the only band authored song on the album. Certainly makes it obvious that they should be doing less covers and more of their own music.
Route 66 I Just Want TO Make Love To You Carol
Just some blues covers. Not particularly notable.
Worth the listen
Not sure this is an important *Stones* album even. It’s not bad, but there are so many better and more influential Stones records that are more important to listen to to understand the context of later rock acts. As an album, it’s fine. They hadn’t quite found their sound yet, but there are some toe tappers in here.
The Stones aren’t rolling just yet GOD I am so funny!
i do not care for the rolling stones
Good start for a great band.
Peruskivaa rockia.
It’s alright I guess
Album of covers so not really feeling this is on par with later albums. Good energy
Kinda fine. But was expecting a bit more.
I like the rubbish production. Solid stuff. I prefer Depeche Mode’s version of Route 66 though.
Wrapping up the Stones' 6 albums on this list, it's The Rolling Stones (1964)- only 9 days after the critical darling Exile On Main Street (1972) I feel like this quote from the book is an apt summary: "'The Rolling Stones' is not as good as material they would release in ensuing years-- or even months. But its arrogant raunchiness had a seismic impact on polite pop then-- and continues to echo today." I like when the reasoning for the entry goes beyond "This is the greatest music of all time, and you need to hear it!" And being the Stones, it's a bop, but more interesting as a historical stepping stone than as a musical work. On its own, it just answers the question "What does the blues sound like as interpreted by well-to-do, white Londoners?" HL: “Route 66”, “Mona”, “Carol”
Un poco largo.
Without their later success, this album wouldn't be here and evidently it is to both chart the journey of where the Stones began and demonstrate the impact American blues rock sounds had on the UK Charts (shamefully ignoring the black musicians already pioneering the sound). This is a record of mostly covers, so aside from the one track nothing here shows their later song writing skill. So why did the Stones survive when other bands doing similar things fell away? This album reveals a few things - Jagger isn't quite there yet - too timid, almost nervy - but they play well and Richards especially feels as if he has already arrived - his playing is excellent throughout. Of course, the album is marred by a complete misunderstanding in King Bee of how hives work and honey is made. Embarrassing.
Not a bad album but not a great Stones album. Nice to really hear the roots in American blues l
This is not their best but a meaningful one.
Quite a few repetitive blues chords in this one, this record wasn’t the slightest bit interesting to me. I’m sure there’s more stones albums on this list, however I’m not sure why this one was one of the chosen ones. I think there’s one original song, and it doesn’t really push the needle like some of the others artists who pumped out albums full of covers in this same time period. Despite this, I still enjoyed parts of this album- solid 3 for me
They got better!
Chill
Like hearing the R and B influences in the raw.
The Stones got a lot more interesting when they started writing their own material. It’s telling that the best track is Tell me, the only one that’s not a cover.
I was a Beatles kid. Of course, I was aware of the Stones, but my access to them was primarily via radio and whatever else crossed my path, but my money and my time went into Beatles records. As time passed, I was able to reach deeper into the Stones' work. It's fun to discover some of the nuggets I missed, like this first record - but I'm still a Beatles kid at heart.
Surprisingly twangy. I was expecting something a little harder. But very classic sounding
It was fine.
Had a bit of Beatles sound. Was okay.
It's fine I guess, the Rolling Stones definitely made much better albums when they started recording their own songs
Okay, but not my favorite stuff by them. Couple of solid tracks.
Always forget the part the rolling stones played in that early rock n roll era as a British Invasion band. Lot more sexual than say, the Beatles were around the same time. Kept playing for a lot longer together too. Epic band
The Rolling Stones got a lot better over the years, before eventually getting worse. This album isn’t as bad as their recent stuff, but it’s not as good as a lot of their golden years records either, which makes me wonder why it made the list. There are at least fifteen Rolling Stones albums that are objectively better than this. There are not sixteen Rolling Stones albums on this list so some more deserving projects got snuffed. I’m not as disappointed in the album as I am with the decision to include it. The album isn’t completely offensive, but it is a bunch of white dudes sing covers pf black musicians, so, not the most creative or original piece of music. The Stones have always been talented both vocally and instrumentally, but that can’t save their debut from feeling a little boring. It has a bit of a spark that clues you into the possible future greatness, but overall, pretty mid. 3/5
Comienzos de un grupo que se convertiría en gigante, pero que suena en su primer disco prometedor pero que hoy en día no merece la pena su escucha.
Debut, bluesrock, lidt rnb vibes, covers
sounds like every rolling stones. le 6e....
Good enough. Should be an iconic album for the Stones, but they have greater compositions than this, that's the Maine reason to give em 3.
Nothing like their peak. Bunch of standards / covers and stuff but still solid. 3
could i write poetry to this? y
A good start. And if you start them up, they'll never stop, never stop, never stop, never stop. Then you'll see a grown man cry.
3+
A great early self-titled, but not The Stone's best
Early classic rock, there are covers of previous black artists.
Very early Rolling Stones. Their first, to be exact. All covers except for one original! Pretty much all blues/rockabilly tunes. The production is super raw which adds to its charm I think. Surprised they ever caught on, because this is really nothing spectacular. It’s not bad, but it’s nothing new. Plenty of black artists were doing the same thing but wayyy better.
Alright, some classics
surf rock stuff right here.
they saw american soul and said, quite nice innit. those brits lol not bad
It's interesting how a lot of bands just recorded other people's songs to start. Beatles did the same thing. This record is well performed and executed, but definitely seems juvenile in comparison to what the Stones would become later. Favorite tracks: "Route 66", "Carol"
The Rolling Stones were massive back in the day, and still are moving pretty smoothly now considering their age, because they knew how to market themselves. They got themselves out there, made huge hits, and dominated the rock world of the mid to late 60’s. Doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a fan of them though. I don’t really know, their music has never appealed to me, except for a song here or there. Most of my exposure to older music when I was younger was through my parents, and they rarely played the Stones, if ever. And I wasn’t expecting much from this debut album. I wasn’t even really disappointed that I didn’t like it very much, because I wasn’t expecting to like it that much. If you wrote down on a piece of paper what you thought the self-titled Rolling Stones album from 1964 might sound like, you could probably guess pretty easily. Think of any song from them from this era, or really any mid 60’s rock and roll song, and you have the sound of this album. It’s just very run of the mill, and very plain. There are some good things. I can appreciate some of the guitar work. I Need You Baby reminds me of How Soon Is Now? from The Smiths. And I’m also a sucker for stuff containing a harmonica, so they get some bonus points for that. This also sounds pretty good for the time period. Not sure if I listened to a remaster, or if it was the original mix, but either way. Not exactly the best introduction to the band, but I can only hope their more acclaimed albums up the ante a little bit and are more engaging. Rating: 5/10
This was interesting to hear where the Stones started. Wasn’t offering much more than that.
Sympatoche mais pas sensass.
The Stones aren't my favorite band, but I think they out rank the Beatles for maybe not shining quite as bright at their peak, but shining almost that bright over 60 years while maintaining their identity. Hearing the very beginning of that journey is amazing, even if most of the songs are covers at this early point in their career.
#103. This was alright, I guess, but if I had heard this back in the day I most certainly would not have been waiting around for their second album 3/5: it'll do, pig
Other than establishing themselves on the scene as The Bad Boy Beatles, there’s not much of note here really. A bunch of blues covers doesn’t impress a me much.
Much more country than expected. Fun album.
1. Route 66 - 6.8 - boring lyrically. 2. I Just Want to Make Love to You - 7.6 - even more bland lyrically, but at least sounds more interesting. 3. Honest I Do - 5.2 - horn sounds awful. slow and basic. 4. I Need You Baby - 7.0 - like the vocals more on this. 5. Now I've Got a Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene) - 6.0 - okay instrumental. 6. Little by Little - 6.5- nothing special. 7. I'm a King Bee - 4.4 - do people enjoy this song. 8. Carol - 7.1 - very Rolling Stones-esque. Which is ironic. 9. Tell Me (You're Coming Back) - 8.2 - only genuinely good song. Should be in a movie soundtrack. 10. Can I Get a Witness - 6.3 - boring, again. 11. You Can Make It If You Try - 5.4 - Bluesy. Still sucks. 12. Walking the Dog - 7.2 - better instrumentation on this than most other songs.
3.5
Liked it overall - lot of covers though.
Look, I love the Stones, but this just isn’t anything special. There are a couple of pretty good songs, notably the ones they wrote, but the rest are just inferior covers of other artists’ works.
Interesting album. Their debut is mainly covers with their own twist I'd guess. Once past the first two excruciating songs it got better. You can hear this album's influence on musicians as diverse as Johnny Marr, Jason Pierce, James Osterberg and loads of others. Groundbreaking one could call it. It gets a mid 3
2.5
I wish I could travel in time and appreciate this debut in 1964. Unfortunately, considering it only has one original song, it’s a bit less impressive in 2023. [0104/1001]
Favorite Track: Tell Me
Fun, old-school, be-bop, diner music. Much more appealing than the more recent honky-tonk albums. Fav tracks: Route 66, Carol, Walking The Dog
I love the energy and rawness here. It sounds like an album that was recorded in five days flat. It benefits from the DIY production. There's a great choice of covers. These boys could go far.
For all the love I have for The Beatles I'm surprised I never dove into the Stones. For a debut album it's pretty good. Plays like a fun blues cover album, which it is... Favorite songs: Now I've got a witness, I'm a King Bee, Carol, Tell Me.
Average White Band.
the rolling stones
It is The Stones but they hadn't found it yet. You can sort of hear it on Can I Get a Witness. It is cool to see where they were at the beginning and how you can compare these early albums to The Beatles early albums easily(The Beatles did the better clean cut rock n roll style in my opinion) but the farther you get from here the more it is like apples to oranges with how far they went in different directions.
This one is just bland and unremarkable. The only reason this is here is because it was made by The Rolling Stones. There isn’t really a stand out to speak of. These are all sleepers and just meh.
US Edition or UK edition? They are significantly different. I did the US edition since it is the one that came up when I searched for it. First, I don't like it when bands do a number of cover songs on their LPs unless they do something interesting with it. In this case, The Rolling Stones, just sing other people's popular songs and while I know it is Mick Jagger singing, there is nothing interesting about any of the cover versions. They get bumped down a bit for that. There is only one original song on the LP. 3.5
it was fine, a few great covers but overall not massively enjoyable, I expect there will be better Rolling Stones albums further in this project
Cultural appropriation at its finest! But you can also tell why they grew into what they grew into. I enjoyed the later half of the album.
Love early bluesy Stones
I’ve never gone this far back with the Stones. It’s cute.
This album feels so innocent for the Stones.
pretty cool debut album from the classic rock titans. mostly cover tunes of r&b staples. fascinating look into the early stages of the band. highlights: “route 66”, “i’m a king bee”, “carol”, “walking the dog”.
It's okay. It's definitely early days for what will be a pretty great band.
A sign of things to come.
Yep. That’s a Stones album. Pretty introductory blues rock with plenty of covers to go round. Early British Invasion stuff is hard to find incredibly impressive these days. But of course this record is on this list. It’s among the most influential albums of all time.
It takes stones, indeed, to put out a debut record comprised mostly of covers—that are mostly good covers but covers nonetheless.
very blue-sy. will listen to again
When the blues came to Britain, the bands adopted accents but added a certain schoolboy shrillness to the tunes. It couldn't have lasted, and a good thing, too: The Stones would eventually emerge fully-formed. Here, there is distinctly less them and more time & place. The album has the urgency of a debut, essential in the vital sense if not capital-g Great.
mid
I love the tones and production of this record. Despite being covers it's still full of personality and the one track that isn't a cover is great. It's got a great blues sound overall, and as the Rolling Stones debut it's an important album. However as it's almost entirely covers, it doesn't stand as strongly as their other records, or the records of the decade.
This is the stones before they changed rock music. Before they separated themselves from the Beatles and weren’t another English band making hits. This is when they were about the blues and did a bit more covers. Overall it’s good. It’s the stones but this isn’t the type of music that made them famous. This is the stuff that showed they could be great. 6.6/10
On the list because of what came later
Good collection of rhythm & blues songs although almost all of them are covers and nothing is really outstanding. I think if it wasn't a Rolling Stones album, it wouldn't be on the list. Since it is the band's debut, it's part of the rock history, of course.
Nice one but better Stones albums came later
Simple, straightforward skiffle-pop-blues, that’s likable enough, but not a great deal more. Though substantially better than any record this lot have released in 40 years, it’s not an especially auspicious or impressive debut (and certainly not much of a harbinger of what was to come in the ensuing decade). Certainly the song choices are middle of the road. The mysterious cover is actually an accurate promise: accessible, on-trend music, that’s much less edgy than it wants to be, presented by clever, hip-dressing and well-marketed cultural appropriators.
Weird. I've had both Banquet and Let it Bleed in recent weeks and this....... well, it's not the same is it. They were clearly an accomplished covers band, but little sign here of the satanic majesty to come. Fine, but doesn't need to be on the list.
Not a huge rolling stones fan. It has a few alright moments, but not much musical creativity
3.5
I don't know if I can rate this higher than a 3 anyway because while its enjoyable, it's a cover album and they sound like they're trying to be Black and southern. Honestly it's good but it's hard to parse out if that's because the songs/the blues are so good. Can I Get a Witness is particularly strange sounding.
Pretty forgettable besides the one tremolo riff.The rest of the songs are forgettable unfortunately.
Not my favourite era, but a nice foreshadowing of what they would become.
In their debut, they already stand out among their peers as a prime boy band faithful to the blues and rockabilly but offering more energetic, grittier vocals, and jangly catchy melodies. They nail a lot of the covers on here, and their original song "Tell Me" has to plenty to offer despite being modeled after other pop music of the era. Half the songs hardly stick out, and I can't say any of them will leave a lasting impression on me like their later albums do, but it's good and consistent, especially in 1964 standards. Favorites: Mona, I'm a King's Bee, Carol, Tell Me
Short and sweet debut.
“British Blues invasion” rock n roll blues covered early on by The Stones. None of the classic Jagger/Richards songs, but solid blues rock n roll and it has Brian Jones on form on it.
Why
From a perspective of "needing" to hear where the most enduring, most emblematic "rock n' roll" band got its start, this merits inclusion on the list. But I don't know that it's one of the all-time great albums. I did take a minute to check out two lists ranking the Stones albums in order of "best to worst" and this landed in the 10th and 7th spot. So, OK. I enjoyed it enough, but can't bring myself to thinking it remarkable. I wasn't caught up in the energy. I thought, had these guys not turned into THE ROLLING STONES and only put out three or four albums, this might be regarded as an interesting attempt to bridge Delta Blues with English tea, and for that reason would be a curiosity. I certainly didn't hear the atom that became the explosion, so what do I know? It sounded like Charlie was still learning "Carol" at the time this was recorded and hearing the Bo Diddly shuffle seems so tired to my ears (I get that it was novel back in 1964) — I guess I was most amazed that nothing stood out as remarkable. I don't mean that as a diss. It's just that, to me, the Stones are at their dirty best when the personality of the band shines through, and on this record, that was not quite yet developed.
Meh. I mean, as a collection of covers goes, it's all right. They do have some decent versions of blues and R&B standards (Mona and I Just Want to Make Love to You are highlights). Their original is cool. But as an album anyone needs to hear before they die... no. If these guys didn't go on to become The Friggin' Rolling Stones, this would never have made the list.
I always forget that the Stones started out as a straight-forward blues band, playing down-the-middle covers of blues standards. They were proficient at doing so, with the proper levels of attitude, but it's not all that interesting, is it? If this album wasn't by "The Rolling Stones", would it be on the list? I'm not convinced it would be, and will stick to Sticky Fingers, myself.
Crazy how these white English boys made a record that's 70 percent rhythym and blues covers and they're somehow the visionaries.
Probably the best of the Stones LPs on here because it keeps things nice and simple instrumentally, and generally respects women lyrically.
Yes it’s the Rolling Stones but not sure why their album of blues covers is on this list, apart from it being their first album? Surely their later work is more worthwhile once they’ve refined their blues influences into their signature sound. No disrespect to the Stones but I’m talking stars off this one. If you want to highlight blues music pick one by one of the OG blues musicians from Chicago or the Delta.
Decent enough now!
Classic rock and or roll from the very beginning
Wow these white British boys sure do make Black American blues music sound digestible to white audiences. All joking aside, this album sounds great and is a lot of fun. They already have a Rolling Stones sound.
Solid debut album! Good performances of good blues tunes.
As others have noted this is an album of covers and is only noteworthy for what they did later on. Having said that they're decent covers that laid the foundations.
There are much more relevant Rolling Stones albums than the first one. That said, its not a bad album. 3/5
was good album, doesn't do much for me apart from the opening track. looking for a lil more rock and a lil less roll if u catch my drift.
What you’d expect from an album from this era.
Not my vibe, I feel like it would’ve been more effective if the songs were in a different order
Album of covers with one (maybe 2?) exceptions. It’s… good. In the context of the time maybe it was a lot more groundbreaking for a bunch of pasty English fellows to be singing and playing these songs and the talent is evident, but for me, now, it’s OK.
Good, maybe not the Stones i was expecting. I could see the Beatles comparison more on this record.
It’s fine. Too many covers for me to feel it really should be included on this list. But nothing wrong with it.
Interesting to listen to such an early album! How far this band has come from the blues and early rock that is played here. It's a bit too early in the evolution of rock form my personal tastes, but it was quite fun to hear the seed of their greatness.
The Rolling Stones’ debut is primarily blues covers. It’s pretty neat that the music of black blues artists from the 1940s American South made its way across the pond and inspired young British guys to play their songs and then set off on a musical journey of their own, bouncing those sound waves back across the ocean and beyond. It’s also weird for a lot of complicated social and cultural reasons. From what I gather, the Stones were very open about crediting these artists and acknowledging their influence. I appreciate those efforts, and appreciate this collection of songs that includes a few absolute classics.
This album clearly demonstrates The Stones’ blues roots. Comprised almost entirely of blues covers, there is little rock of their later, signature blues rock sound. The songs are fine. I don’t think the boys added much to the blues ambiance. They played/sang the songs with skill but I don’t feel the blues.
Sometimes sounds like country music icl Harmonica plays a star role in a few songs Variety in songs across album not too similar Guitar was sexy Vibed a little and made me look at their broader discography which was better
Pretty standard 60s rock. Am enjoyable but not outstanding album
The seeds are there.
I enjoyed the rave-up blues numbers, which I have a fondness for through my dad's love of the Yardbirds, but when "Tell Me" starts we can clearly hear something very new emerging.
Un poco largo.
Here's the thing about those early Rolling Stones albums. As with a lot of the early English invasion bands, their aim was to make the music they loved, which was American rhythm and blues. They mostly failed at it. Except... they failed so well that they created an entirely new sound that ended up being as much a part of the bones of rock and roll as anything that came before them. So this album... it's really good, but the Stones haven't figured out who they want to be musically yet. This is an album almost entirely of covers, the majority of which come nowhere near the originals. It is a credit to the Stones' talent that they can make an attempt at a Chuck Berry and a Bo Diddley cover on the same album and not get laughed out of the music industry. The songs are actually pretty great if you're considering them on their own merits and not measuring them against the originals. It would take a few years for the band to hit their stride, but this is a solid start. Fave Songs: Carol, Little by Little, Tell Me (You're Coming Back), Mona (I Need You Baby), I Just Want to Make Love to You
rock
The Stones’ debut album showcases little original songwriting from the band, but they actually make it really entertaining.
Sounded good but very average. This clearly is not what made The Rolling Stones big.
Meh
Solid for a first album, but know what comes leads to a lower overall rating as their style developed
Probably inspired a million garage bands to make heavier rawer better music but this album is fairly repetitive
Is het erg dat ik blij was dat CCR starte na dit album ?
Lots of covers - not the best version of The Stones.
I was unaware that the majority of the songs were covers when listening to the album. I thought it was pretty good, honestly. Not what I was expecting from the Stones but exceeded my expectations somehow.
Ah yes, the oft spoken of blues roots of The Rolling Stones that I have genuinely never heard before. It’s fine, but I prefer their more commercially appalling rock bangers myself.
The influence on rock music that the Rolling Stones had through the 60’s and beyond is undoubtable. Lots of bands that we know and love wouldn’t exist as we know them if the Rolling Stones didn’t pave the way. That being said, I can’t say I’ve ever been much of a fan of them. I can appreciate how important they have been, but I always found the music itself somewhat basic. Let’s listen to an album in full and see how it feels. Songs I already knew: I Just Want To Make Love To You Favourites: Mona (I Need You Baby), I Just Want To Make Love To You My feelings unfortunately remain pretty much the same as before I listened. my appreciation is unchanged, but I can’t say I loved this album. It was decent, but I don’t expect I’ll be returning to listen again. I found the final song (Walking The Dog) quite annoying, but everything else was fine. I just wish I could see beyond “fine” into what it is that others see too.
I suppose even the greats need to start somewhere
Its full of covers. They are good but the album only a couple original songs. Hardly worth considering a Stones classic. Its enjoyable but unoriginal. 3.5/5
Neither loved nor hated this. I like later Stones albums better, but this was still pretty good for mid 60's rock.
This album wasn't bad. I liked it alright, but some songs were pretty forgettable. Overall, I don't see any reason to come back to this, but it's decent enough. 2.5/5
For me just a nice cover album (with apparently three own composition) with the originals being in general better. Only important because what they did later.
Pretty mediocre debut from this band. As another review said, probably pretty good back in its day, but now 60 years removed it hasn't aged well.
Ça sonne comme un bon album de Rolling Stone, pas grand chose de plus à dire. 7/10
This is all very strong work. A better album than others we've heard of the same period. But at the same time, no real stand outs. I can give this an easy 3. It's maybe a 3.5. A very easy listen, but not a lot to chew on.
I wasn’t expecting that
It's an ok album that's bluesy and the tracks are only covers. It's definitely not the best album by The Rolling Stones and I think most of their albums before Aftermath can be skipped
Decent album, often boring and nothing special. Nowhere close to the quality of early Beatles or the Who. FS: Walking the Dog, both Witness songs
pretty solid blues album, didn't blow my mind, but good.
I’m sure this was the GOAT on release but times have changed
Early blues sound. Debut was pretty good.
Strong memories of being in my dad’s car in the 80’s listening to this album. There’s a crackling energy to every track that means it flies by Majority covers of course and greater was to come but a great listen nevertheless
OK album. Didn't really grab my attention though.
De la primera etapa Rolling. Ya con ritmos. Sin canciones aún que fuesen fácilmente atribuibles a ellos. Cercano al pop-rock
overall kinda boring? like there's no energy hhere
''I said yea, yea yea yea.'' genius fucking sanoitukset, kynän ääressä urakoitu heh... mick jagger - huuliharppu. englantilaiset pojat koveroi jenkkimusiikkia hohhoijjaa... unremarkable album.. off with the head.....no ok kolme tähteä sillä blues buff heh honest i do
Vind de Stones altijd wel leuk. Dus ook leuk om dit eens te horen. Ben ik echt onder de indruk? Nee. Het klinkt allemaal wat ouderwets Amerikaans. Het mist nog wat kracht.
Net als de Beatles, zijn ook de Stones ietwat gedateerd. Maar de muziek is toch redelijk tijdloos. De opnametechniek en het gebruik van orgeltjes en tamboerijnen maken denk ik dat het gedateerd aanvoelt, maar de muziek verder niet. Het is allemaal lekker uptempo en het swingt fijn. Maar waarom staat dit album eigenlijk in deze lijst? Ze hebben amper nummers erop zelf geschreven, het is feitelijk een coveralbum met een paar eigen composities erop. Er staan geen grote hits op, terwijl ze genoeg albums hebben, die wel hits bevatten. De enige reden die ik kan verzinnen is omdat het het debuutalbum is van de Stones. En debuutalbums, daar gaan de samenstellers van deze lijst erg hard op.
I like this earlier stuff more than I thought I would. It’s definitely interesting, but it feels like they’re still trying to find their sound here.
Easy listening and driven classic rock. Tracks read often as chants (Mona, Route 66) of a distinctly 60s percussive ensemble. Guitar stuff is cool. Blues rock is cool. The honky-tonk Witness boogie lays a piano foundation for a vocal highlight. A hour tour down greatness' beginnings. I'm A King Bee is my new personal affirmation.
The essence of a great Rolling Stones album is here, but never actually realized. The songs end up sounding stale and bland before the end, like un-buttered mashed potatoes. Okay, sustaining, but you know it could have been a better meal.
Very different from their later albums cool to see how they changed their sound
Really shows their roots. Pretty good early bluesy rock and roll.
Good, but all covers?
Probably the best Stones album I've heard from the list, but not the best Stones music I've heard from the list. Almost entirely cover based, they perform really competently. I can't help but think of it as stolen music though.
AJ: a group of young Brits got the blues and then heard Chuck Berry and they said, “Let’s do that.”
Overall not a bad album. A bit edgier and bluesier than their contemporaries
It's obviously an important album in the history of rock and roll but it's not the best by The Rolling Stones. It's a great glimpse of what was to come though, especially when they started writing more of their own songs.
I mean, it's... nah jk this just ain't quite at the level of the other 3 we've already had. Still great. Awesome blues. I have the original British pressing on vinyl!
Solid album. I'd listen to some songs again but not the whole album
Good album. I don’t understand what the infatuation with the harmonica was for in the 60s. Favourite track was “Carol”. Overall 7/10
Off the first track I would have never guessed Stones. Loves the blues influence. Had to immediately listen to the Etta James version of "I just want to" because that's who I most associate with that song. "Tell Me" is by far the weakest song. Decent album, again not sure why it's essential. Great example of a solid debut maybe? 3/5
After a terrible week of albums I was glad to see a familiar band. However I have always thought that the stones are a tad overrated. Nothing awful about them I just don’t see what is so incredibly special. Nothing was wrong with this album, rather it was nice to have just a rock one, but nothing stood out.
Fave tracks: Route 66, I Just Want To Make Love To You, Mona, Little By Little, Carol Competent first album, though mostly covers 3/5
Giving hope to covers bands everywhere...listening to this perhaps says that initially they were a 'right place right time' kind of act. Also, as the excellent recent BBC documentary revealed, this is also Brian's Stones, playing the music he loved. I can't give an album 90% covers more than three stars, but a 3.5
A solid debut of the blues rock they would go on to improve upon by the time they get to albums like Exile On Main St. I don't know if I would say it's too important of an album in the grand scheme of rock and even the stones discography, but not at all a regrettable listen
It's an interesting listen, to hear where they came from. Covers were a standard thing at the time - the Beatles' early albums were also full of them - so it is not odd that the Stones started with them. I can't mark it up without original songs but the sound is there and we all know where it ended up.
Not the worst Rolling Stones album out there. Enjoyed that it felt more bluegrassy.
Seems an unnecessary entry for this over-represented band. It's the start of it all - so what? It was the same blues retreads as the rest at that point.
Old school British blues. This doesn’t quite sound like the Stones to me yet since it’s almost(?) all covers. Still, it’s fun, gritty, and fast with a clear sound and identity, despite some weak numbers. Best song: Carol
Well I guess I had to listen to it before dying as it is the Stones debut, but I guess we can agree that the best was yet to come at this point. Not a bad record but quite forgettable.
I liked this more than I expected. Some amazing stuff was being done in the early '60s, but I tend to prefer music from the latter half of the decade. And then on top of that, this is mostly just covers. But I enjoyed this a lot. But it IS mostly covers, so I can't rank it too high. I could go find a local cover band that could do about as well. That's no knock on the Stones in general, but they didn't become famous by doing covers. 3 1/2 stars. Rounding down because I know there are people that are giving this slightly higher ratings because of the name of the band, not the sound of the album.
Rolling Stones does RnB covers. Loose, but confidently loose performances, if that makes any sense - it has an edge to it. One has to wonder if this album would be well regarded if the band never went on to be as successful. Not really my thing. 2.75
It was fine. Sounded like the Cleveland oldies station.
sure was bluesy rock or rockin blues.
Рівний альбом, добре слухати на фоні
The most interesting part of this is just hearing them as babies trying to find their sound and vibe. It was okay enough, but if this didn't have the name "Rolling Stones" attached it would lose a lot of value.
Excited to hear the debut! But ultimately, just some fun bluesy rock, not much else lol.
not much to say
Pretty standard mid-60's rock n' roll album. Similar to how the Beatles got their start, the Rolling Stones came out with a palette of covers of blues & rock n' roll standards. Not particularly memorable, but still some good tunes. Fave tracks: Money, Stoned
A debut album consisting almost entirely of covers - definitely not something that would be possible even a couple years after it's release, at least for a band that would go on to be as famous as the Rolling Stones. Despite the lack of original songwriting, the covers are well done and certainty do a good job paying tribute to some of the R&B greats. Although I do hope they got the credit they deserved. Fav Tracks: Mona, Can I Get A Witness, Not Fade Away
This album rides a mighty fine line between homage and blatant rip off of black music of the 50s and 60s. Like it might as well be chuck berry but with mick jagger singing. While that means that it’s still pretty good music to listen to, it gets negative originality/uniqueness points. Also doesn’t help that like every single song is a cover. Glad they found their own voice as they released more albums; I t’s still heavily inspired by black artists but it’s way more creative than this.
Talk about going back to basics. It's insane to think of the longevity that The Rolling Stones have had. To still be considered a household name in 2023 (presumably, I guess I can't speak for anyone below the age of 25), or at least a pop culture legend, is crazy. This record shows you the weight of their legacy and cultural impact. It's very early rock & roll, where everything had tinges of soul, rockabilly, and R&B - begging the question of wow, they were already making music then? The result is nothing mindblowing, more so when compared to their latter work. But it's evident that this album was important in bringing rock to the forefront and making it more palatable to wider audiences. You listen to it and gain a better understanding of why The Rolling Stones are, and have been as influential as they are. While it's not one of the best albums of all time, it's a music history lesson that absolutely needs to be heard. Standouts are I Just Want to Make Love to You, I'm a King Bee, and You Can Make It If You Try.
Competently performed rhythm and blues, and admittedly it’s refreshing to hear a British group from this time NOT slavishly trying to copy the Beatles. But the Stones hadn’t quite found their spark yet, though this isn’t a terrible first step down that path.
Bara covers? Men ändå härligt!
Perfectly serviceable first album, but nothing that stands out to me.
Not Fade Away is the only Jagger/Richards written song. Little by Little was written for the Rolling Stones. The rest of the album contains covers. They do well with the covers and make them Rolling Stones songs, but their more original works later are much better. 3/5
Fine
Not a good one. Few covers and one good song
bien bien 7.5/10
Buen r&r, se nota que estaban desarrollando su estilo
Not such a fan of this as i am their later work. Theres signs of something to come, but just a bland album of some good blues covers
Its a great introduction to The Rolling Stones, but due to the amount of covers it seems slight compared to the rest of their discography.
Bra energi. Kan nog bli nåt.
I'm not surprised to see a Rolling Stones album on this list of course, but I am a bit surprised to see this one. It's basically an album of cover versions of some great rock n' roll/R&B classics with a few originals mixed in that are basically throw-aways. The Stones do a nice job with the classic covers, and it's clear how much they love these songs, but it's not really anything special. 3 stars.
This combo goes all right.
catchy tunes and blues classics
Not bad for a covers band
The Surcoting Stones continuent leur bout de chemin dans le générateur en ne convainquant personne sur leur passage.
Je croyais avori déjà noté ce nouvel album insipide des Stones, qui s'inscrit encore un peu plus dans l'histoire en tant que groupe le plus surcôté de tous les temps.
6/10 not bad but I’m glad that they went on to better things
Seems like a waste of a spot on this list. 6/10
24th March 2023 Listened during the day on Friday while doing bits around the house before Rita show and Gareth staying. One of the greatest bands announce their arrival with blues and rock and roll covers. Yet to fully hit their stride, 3.5 if I could.
It was alright. All the songs were covers. It wasn't really classic Stones but that is understandable for their first album.
It’s just… blues covers. Cool raw energy tho and I liked Route 66. Got old after a while
Nice bluesy songs, too bad I don't like Mick Jagger's voice all that much
3.5
Thanks the Blues and give it something of your own, that is a tried and true, surefire path to success. I like hearing the embryonic phases of bands like this. Nice one Stones.
Just okay. Rooted in Blues is great if you're good at Blues.
2.5 stars it was fine
It was okay
I can understand how pivotal that record is for the Stones' career (and for British rock in general). But even with that in mind, you won't see me include an album mostly made out of covers in my own list (except for Nina Simone--but Nina's artistry, knack for stellar arrangements, and vital performance easily explain this rare exception here). These are the Rolling Stones albums I *will* include in my list: Aftermath Beggars Banquet Let It Bleed Sticky Fingers Exile On Main Street I think that with those five albums, I pay enough attention to such a legendary band. So let's give some room to other artists, shall we? Number of albums left to review or just listen to: less than 650, I've temporarily lost count here Number of albums from the list I find relevant enough to be mandatory listens: approximately a half so far Albums from the list I *might* include in mine later on: a quarter Albums from the list I will certainly *not* include in mine (many others are more important): the last quarter (including this one)
Solid
I have never gotten in to The Rolling Stones. This is the third album of theirs I have pulled on this, after Exiled on Main Street and Let it Bleed. I like this one way more than the others, a bit more straightforward rock 'n' roll. Maybe the early Stones are for me. Even the one original song of theirs is a good one. Really enjoyed listening to this.
Kinda hilarious to compare this record to the precision of what the beach boys were making at the time. But the swagger is all there.
My mum was a big fan of The Rolling Stones, can't say I'm overly familiar with this album but it's a debut and a good fun listen. Route 66 is great and Walking The Dog is a fave.
Eh, kinda interesting from a historical perspective, but pretty cringe. The only non-cover is a stinker. Fave track - uh, "Now I've Got a Witness" maybe? I don't think there's anything I'll be rushing back to revisit....
Still very blues infused but some really good songs on it
Pretty decent. I enjoyed much more than expected. Maybe it's just satisfaction I don't really enjoy as a stones song
It was good, not bad but eh. The covers were nice it overall was a decent listen, just very bare bones
Historically significant because it launched their career, but it falls flat. I appreciate good covers, but these are mediocre covers. I have a friend who's been trying to get me to like the Stones for a long time (they're fine, but they stand out more to me for their longevity than anything) and even she agrees that this isn't a good gateway album. Ironically, the song I like most on the album is the one that Jagger/Richards actually wrote (Tell Me), so I guess there's hope. ;) I'm rating this a 3 because I love the blues, but honestly I'm not sure it's quite that good.
Niets mis mee, maar totaal spannend.
Helft is covers, leuk maar niks geweldigs
3.5
Good to hear the formative stuff before the band developed into the familiar, but a bit dull
Five British kids showing R&B some respect and ushering in multiple pop music movements in general. Whodathunkit!? I wish I didn't have to overlook Phil Spector's involvement to appreciate it.
It's just weird that back in the 60s so many bands' first albums were just cover tunes. 3 stars.
Sometimes this albums thing is a matter of learning where songs I know come from, and also what music really really famous bands actually make. I thought the rolling stones did totally different music, but I did know one or two of the songs. Had a bit of a dance, enjoyed it!
Eh, I'm not much on this album, but the blues tracks they cover are pretty dope.
Il faut se remettre dans le contexte de l'époque, c'est un album beaucoup plus sage que ce à quoi je me serais attendue, mais agréable. Pour une fois, j'entends Mick Jagger chanter sans avoir l'impression d'avoir affaire à une caricature. Par contre, on sent déjà bien leur énergie contagieuse.
Just the Rolling Stones playing a bunch of covers (+ one single song they wrote themselves) Nothing interesting about this.
Wasn't a fan of the Rolling Stones coming into this. I'm still not, apparently.
it's .. kinda eerie that this is the rolling stones? what is this? what is going on? ... why are theeese guys singing about route 66??? im so sorry but is happening here it feels ... hollow? a lil soulless. SRY! my first 2*??! high two.
First time listening to this album and man, I'm just glad I'm almost done with all the Stones albums on the list. Now, I absolutely agree with the inclusion of some of their albums here. But their debut album? Do Rolling Stones fans think this is an essential listen from them? None of their recognizable songs are here and frankly it sounds almost the same as any other 60s covers album. One thing I will note though: the intro to Mona sounds a bit like How Soon is Now by The Smiths and I find it interesting, seems it was actually a direct inspiration 2/5
Pretty basis American influenced 60’s pop
Most musicians start by covering older tunes, and the Rolling Stones followed that path with their debut album. Except for “Tell Me”, which was/is a decent hit, the remaining tracks are covers of good R&B songs from the 1940s-1960s. The musicianship is good for 1964, however in every case the original songs are better.
We started off with 8 million Beatles albums (approx), but lately we're having 8 million Rolling Stones albums. No wonder my ratings have plummeted! This is a pretty good album cover. I have no idea which one is Mick Jacket. [Update: I looked it up, he's the front guy (imagine). If you're wondering, the other guys are Paul, George, Ringo wearing a funny mask, and Cillian Murphy.] This is their debut album. Somehow it led them to stardom, even though it sounds pretty generic to me! Lots of covers, but not of songs I like. The sound quality is also "old", but I guess that's not really their fault. Hooked on Phonics: They say "Barstow" with an [aʊ], which made me worry I say it wrong, but no (I looked it up); it's an [oʊ]! If only this were a Magnetic Fields album: 'Can I Get a Witness' is composed by Holland-Dozier-Holland, who are mentioned in 'The Death of Ferdinand de Saussure' (not necessarily positively). Is that British, or...?: The internet kept referencing 'Walking the Dog' having a sexual double meaning, but they didn't specify what it is, and it wasn't in my beloved wiktionary. A tortured yo-yo trick metaphor?? Finally, metaphordogs.org told me what I wanted to know (="it's unclear"); here is their fine lexicographing if you don't take my word for it: <<walk the dog. (sex) 1. Have sex. 2. Masturbate. 3. “Well, you drive to the park late at night. You open your car doors and you just lay there. And whoever walks up to the car, it’s on.” In his hit record of the same name Rufus Thomas promises us that “If you don't know how to do it, I can show you how to walk the dog.” His 1965 performance on American Band Stand is punctuated by whistles and yips. For all the innuendo, this enduring classic (covered by The Who, Aerosmith, and The Rolling Stones among others) provides no specifics. After a reminder that “the [human] male sexual organ [is] one of the many slang meanings of the word ‘dog,’” Marjorie Garber confidently informs us that walking the dog is “a slang term for sex.” It seems a believable definition, given the sexual overtones of dog references in 60s music (The Dog was said to be a lascivious dance that would prompt immoral thoughts and behaviors) and the use of “doggie style” to describe a position for sexual intercourse. However, examples are elusive. The host of the Baltimore radio show “The Love Zone” on 92Q, LaDawn Black, provided definition number three above, which sounds a lot like dogging or being a dogger. That is to say, it is more specific than Garber's description, which I infer references heterosexual intercourse in general. The Dictionary of Sexual Terms and Expressions’ definition—“jocular coinage for male masturbation”—seems to fit with the reference to dog as penis. However, I find it hard to imagine that Rufus Thomas was singing about how he was willing to demonstrate how to spank the monkey, to mix the animal metaphors. Maybe it's just all tied up with the sexual connotations of dogs and, as Freud reminds us, “that [a dog] is not ashamed of its sexual functions.”>>
Ouch, imagine making your debut with a covers album! Imagine popping a covers album on this list. Imagine leaving out some awesome bands/albums to make way for this dross!
Death to harmonicas.
Not very interesting. For contrast I totally adore exile on Main Street, which feels almost like a culmination, or a last hurrah, of that kind of bluesy rock and roll sound. This is more like pale imitation of what was around at the time
This somehow sounds even older than it actually is Nothing bad on here, other than maybe king bee, but nothing that makes me want to register either, pretty mid 2.5
The originals are better than the covers. As someone else said, if this weren't the start of the Stones, this wouldn't be here. Not unpleasant, though. Just pointless.
Already not a fan of Stones, and this album really doesn't have anything for itself.
It adds nothing to the list. The RS’s original work is one thing; this album is another—nothing more than covers that, as someone noted in the reviews, are “covers of songs by Black musicians who did them better.”
That cover of Route 66 is so funny, like yeah. we sound way worse than the version you know. no we're not going to do anything about it.
Basic
Listened Before? N Ehhhh... this is sort of a museum piece. It's just a cover album by a band that became bigger than life later on. Nothing much noteworthy musically. Added to Library? N Songs added to playlist: Route 66
Fine enough blues album. The cover songs didn't really do much for me, and the originals are also okay. Glad the Stones grew into themselves as songwriters, because this album is a little surprising for "England's Newest Hit Makers." Top tracks: Honest I Do, Tell Me
On their self-titled debut, The Rolling Stones sound less like future rock revolutionaries than enthusiastic students rifling through the jukeboxes of Muddy Waters, Chuck Berry, and Bo Diddley. The young London band attacks American blues, R&B, and early rock & roll with obvious affection and plenty of raw energy, but very little here feels distinctly their own. Mick Jagger, especially, hasn’t yet developed the sneering charisma that would later define him; throughout much of the record, he sounds more eager than commanding. Still, there are flashes of personality buried in the grooves. “Can I Get a Witness” barrels forward on a lively piano boogie that gives the band some much-needed spark, while “Mona (I Need You Baby)” locks into the familiar Bo Diddley shuffle that the Stones were already reshaping into their own club-band currency. Their instrumental original “Now I’ve Got a Witness” hints at the group’s chemistry, even if it’s more jam session than statement of intent. Covers of “Route 66” and “Carol” are played with grit and enthusiasm, but they mostly reinforce the feeling that the band is still searching for its own voice rather than announcing an arrival.
I'm gunna push back on some of the sentiments in many reviews. Yes, a bunch of white dudes selling a record full of songs by black artists looks pretty bad in hindsight, but its not fair or accurate to disparage this album as the equivalent of a cover band. In the early 60s, it was common and expected for r&b artists to do their own versions of songs. Many of these have dozens of versions, so they were really trying to follow the conventions and expectations of the genre they were coming into. Are their versions here better than others? Pretty much never but thats why the album is bad, not because it's not original tracks
A middling debut, wouldn't nail an album for at least a year, if not two after this - they were a singles band in this era
Tories in tight trousers. Annoying.
Slightly sped up RnB covers with the vocals pushed just into the red and more charisma than anyone in 1964 Britain could legally be exposed to.
A classic but I don’t feel the need to listen to it again
It's funny to hear the rolling stones as a tight young blues band. Probably my favorite stones album so far but that's not saying much.
Rating: 5/10 Early British blues band with, as usual, a debut that's just full of covers. Route 66 and Carol are pretty good. This actually makes me evaluate some of the other Stones albums better because they did rock and were much more interesting. Still not the band for me though
Jag blev så glad när Stones kom upp...men detta är ju i mitt tycke deras sämre album. Soundet återspeglar inte vilka Stones är, utan här får vi npgon slags amerikansk rock'n'roll inlindad i den engelska flaggan.
Completely unmemorable but inoffensive rock and or roll. Never really understood the Stones fascination and this is nowhere near their best work.
--Route 66…it grooves but nothing too special --I Just Want to Make Love to You…add another to the long tradition of using Willie Dixon for sex songs --Honest I Do…kind of a lazy recording. guitar’s a little behind the drums. intentional? I don’t know anymore --Mona (I Need You Baby)…guitar is interesting but meh overall --Now I've Got a Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene)...fun instrumental jaunt. TIL about "Nanker Phelge" --Little by Little...dirty recording. dirty in a good way --I'm a King Bee...the production for this is nice and clean. did recording technology improve significantly in the time they took to record the second side? --Carol...this rocks but I'd prefer to hear it from Chuck Berry --Tell Me (You're Coming Back)...the first "Jagger-Richards" credit. it might be a decent song but the production is lacking again. also their strength at this point is clearly delta blues. this is not blues --Can I Get a Witness...enjoyable but forgettable sugar --You Can Make It If You Try...plodding --Walking the Dog...hey, Robert Dimery, maybe we should include some of the original recordings of these songs in the 1001? just a thought
Route 66 - 3/5 I just want to make love to you - 2/5 Honest I do - 3/5 Mona - 3/5 Now I've got a witness - 3/5 Little by little - 2/5 I'm a king bee - 2/5 Carol - 1/5 Tell me - 4/5 Can I get a witness - 3/5 You can make it if you try - 2/5 Walking the dog - 2/5
2 meeeehhh
I am ashamed to admit this is my first album I fully listen from them because it got recommended first, hope it doesn't influence me later. Now of course I know who they are and that there are better things to come, and maybe listening this first is more organic, like chronologically seeing it as it was. It is probably here because of the historical value. More like a skill show-off for the time than a genre defining album like the expectated one from such a big band.
Not much to this other than the history that was about to be made.
Kinda meh to my current music tastes, feels slow and old countryish.
This is on the list purely because of what came to be of The Rolling Stones. It's an album to listen to before you die in that you will listen to it and go "hmm that's interesting to hear how they sounded early in their career" but never ever listen again because it's totally unremarkable. It gains a point because it's technically and musically quite good, but cover albums don't really have a place on this list imo.
I guess this was fine
Juste de covers, pas très bon. Je préfère Sylvain Cossette.
They really thought this should be on here. 2.
Not my favorite early Stones album. 12x5, Now! and December's Children (and everybody's) were all made within a year of this and each is 1-2 stars better. Carol is much the best here. They continued to play that for decades, and for good reason - they rock it! One of the better Chuck Berry covers you will hear, though even twenty-five years later Chuck was still schooling Keith on it: https://youtube.com/shorts/scnPyjIAOnw?si=ztmvtj_iHiLliy2B This is only on this list because it's their debut. And that on its own is a stupid reason to feel compelled to listen to this before you die. You can let this one wait until your reincarnation.
Hard to detect their later brilliance here: a bunch of inferior covers. When I think of the other debuts around that time (the Beatles, Buddy Holly), this one underwhelms.
I don't know if it's me, but all of The Rolling Stones albums sounds the same. Very vanilla blues-rock without much edge or interesting elements. This might have been the shit in 1964, but now it's just a shrug. Granted, Mick Jagger is a very charismatic and energetic singer that brings something different to the table, but other than that it's really boring frankly.
they always bore me to tears
Occasionally decent but mostly just basic and underwhelming blues rock. That’s kind of it. I don’t really see much to highlight about this album. It wasn’t terrible boring, but I wouldn’t call it fun either. 5/10