Reviews (page 6 of 7)
I appreciate that this is where they started - but really not my thing. Just very basic. I do love their new stuff though! More inspiring!
Nope
So meh. I get that it's their self title but dear god this is whatever. It's just blues songs regurgitated and worse. They have so much better.
So an album of almost all cover songs by one of rock musics most overrated bands is essential listening...sigh.
Taas odotin kovaa meininkiä, mutta lässähti jo parin biisin jälkeen. Ei maistunut
Ei kyl tän hetkiseen mentaalivireeseen sovi yhtään tällänen skeida. Ei nyt kehtaa kuuntelematta ykköstä antaa kuitenkaan
Ihan tuntemattomia biisejä kaikki, eikä ihme, melko perusrenkutusta.
No olihan tylsää läpsyttelyä. Kova kärki heti alkuun ei välttämättä ole se voittava taktiikka, jos kaikki muut biisit on osastoa meh. Tosiaan tuo Route 66 -cover on mainio. Ei tartte muuten palata tän levyn pariin.
they've got much better albums, but I guess its not so bad since this is their first
Every story has to start somewhere, but this is quite forgettable debut filled with blues covers
This is such a generic album, that I'm having trouble writing about it. Never been a Stones fan, it's the same as with the early Beatles stuff, this is just... well, not for me.
This album has absolutely no business being on this list; it's mostly just a bunch of blues covers. The originals are all better.
Really not bad but why is it on the list? Like why?? I can't think of a single reason other than famous band so need lot of album. No artist needs more than 3 albums on here. Maybe a few exceptions here and there but this is not one of them
nah 2/5
Like The Beatles' first album, this is historically significant because of what became of them. But as such... It's an enjoyable album of (mostly) covers. Nothing groundbreaking.
Stop wasting my time You know what I want You know what I need Or maybe you don't
Its okay for 30 minutes of oldschool covers
if you've heard a blues rock album you've heard this one. I get its the Stones, but there were way better albums to pick from. Its a lot of the same blues riffs at different tempos, nothing here really sticks out as a memorable song either. Seems like a gifted spot on the list. They do have a pretty good sound for a debut album, and its interesting to see how they grew from here.
almost a completely different band than they ended up being, thankfully
This album isn't nearly as good as The Rolling Stones were eventually capable of. It's really not that good in general. The recording is regularly distorting, and the mix doesn't save it. Not to mention that the performance was only just fine to being with. The instruments aren't even all consistently in tune. The songwriting is okay and nothing better, the hooks aren't that catchy, and the music is largely forgettable. I'm not going to give it any bonus points for being made by the stones. This isn't a great album. The best of these songs is only okay. 2.2/5
Thought this was quainter than usual with these guys at first — I liked Honest I Do — but I’m tired of this crap! Not charmed by all these covers!
sorry but this was the literal definition of an ass... hole, cheeks and all.
Why in the ever living hell is a collection of cover songs considered to be an album I need to listen to before I die? The Stones are tremendous, but nothing about this album is groundbreaking or revolutionary
Niet hun beste album ben meer fan the beatles
“Honest I Do” made me bust up laughing. This is one of the more egregious examples of white people trying to do Black music I’ve heard in a while.
Meh
Comparing the debuts of the Rolling Stones and Beatles.. apples and oranges. Yeah, the stones debut feels old, like I should only listen to it on an AM band, and this is not a compliment. It's fine that the band didn't arrive fully gestated like the Beatles. They played the long game. But tellingly, none of these tracks made it to the early 70s compilation Hot Rocks, which goes to show how much the band themselves thought of them. If the band themselves didn't care, then why is it represented on this list? Anyway, I will probably never listen to this record again.
I feel like a lot of these songs were rip offs of Spinal Tap's Gimme Some Money
It's pretty boring, just 'classic rock'. It just repeats the same phrase over and over again and calls it a song. The only one I actually liked was "Tell me" and even though he repeated 'tell me' about 1000 times at least he sounded good doing it.
1,5
Pedestrian
Very little sign of what they would become
Not bad or anything but it's just a bunch of covers
I'm more a Stones man than Beatles, but these all sounded like whiteface covers of serious blues stuff.
There are six Rolling Stones albums on the list. Could have done without this one.
This is prototype Stones, before they really figured out what they wanted to do and how they wanted to do it. It's very basic and simple. It does hint at things to come but isn't really anything to pass comment on by itself. It's just some early Stones is all.
Extremely disappointed to get an album full of covers. I was really looking forward to getting stuck into the Stones as I know how influential they were.
Eh
2.5 60s cover albums for an acts first release are cancer
Apparently there are other albums by the Rolling Stones on this list? Then I would've opted against having this one on here. It's nothing great, another album of covers by white English guys, nothing I feel I particularly would've missed out on if I hadn't heard it.
Quite surprised this was included because a) it’s essentially a covers album, b) I’m sure we’re in for a lot of other Rolling Stones albums here so it’s not like they’re underrepresented. I’m not quite convinced implementing a one album per artist cap for the list, but this pushed me in that direction. Maybe a three album limit would be a reasonable compromise.
When I was in 6th grade, there was a big field trip that I didnt go on. I don't really remember the reason, but as a result, I was the only 6th grade choir student at school that day. So I joined the 5th grade class. I'd only been at that school since the beginning of 6th grade, so I actually did learn some stuff that day. They were doing a unit of decades of music, and that day was the 60s, or, The British Invasion. It was then that I first heard Paint it Black, and figured out The Rolling Stones were pretty good. This album is pre-sitar influence, though, and I've since been told it's mostly covers. Which does make me feel better about it landing where it does. Given my love of Paint it Black, I was feeling some guilt about not really getting into this album. I do think the performances are generally good, but Route 66 is the only song I can really say I actively enjoyed. I just dont get why this is the pick.
I listened to this album lounging around the living room playing Sonic Racing: CrossWorlds. I knew going on that this album was going to be a lot less ambitious than The Rolling Stones' later projects; they're an early British rock band, that's just the arc those groups followed. But even with those expectations, this album underwhelmed. I spent most of the runtime feeling some underlying inauthenticity from the songs, and while the knowledge that most early rock is built on the music of black people is always on my mind when listening to music from this time, that uneasiness was uniquely strong for this album and I couldn't quite place why... until I looked into the album and realized it was quite literally almost exclusively cover songs. I love a good cover, especially when a musician can really make a song their own, but if I can tell something is off in a song without even knowing it's a cover, that's not a good sign to me. There's also a little bit of a creepy and gross vibe to some of the performances here that feels uneasy; something about these love songs coming out of Mick Jagger's mouth makes them feel skeevy, like a drunk guy who keeps trying to hit on you at a bar. The Rolling Stones will go on to write a lot of interesting music, I'm sure a lot of which will appear on this list and I will love, but their great writing did not start here; for a list designed to highlight notable songwriters, it feels strange to include an album on which the artists didn't do a whole lot of original songwriting. Highlights: Route 66, Now I've Got A Witness, Carol
The start of an amazing band. Could still tell there was incredible amounts of talent even on the first album, and all the potential that they had. I love how blues this album is, it’s nice to hear the stones play music like this, before they went down the more rock n roll route. Upon reading a bit about this album, I learned only one track was actually written by the stones. Which personally takes away a bit of the integrity for me. To me being a musician is both the creativity and the performance, not one or the other. That being said the stones sound really neat and played to a really high standard, and we know how influential the band became with their later creative work. All in all, a good album. However very far from the stones best and at the end of the day a cover record. Favourite tracks are: ‘Carol’, ‘Can I Get A Witness’, ‘I’m A Killing Bee’, ‘I Just Want To Make Love To You’.
Meh
Route 66 - Chuck Berry I Just Want to Make Love to You - Etta James Honest I Do - Jimmy Reed Mona (I Need You Baby) - Bo Diddley Now I've Got a Witness - The Rolling Stones Little by Little - The Rolling Stones I'm a King Bee - Slim Harpo Carol - Chuck Berry Tell Me (You're Coming Back) - The Rolling Stones Can I Get a Witness - Marvin Gaye You Can Make It If You Try - Gene Allison Walking the Dog - Rufus Thomas 5/5 —————————————— “ The Rolling Stones by The Rolling Stones” 2/5
Only interesting because it shows where they started. Mostly covers. The band is ok but Jagger couldn't sing then either.
Rock 'n Rolling Stones
There's not much that's all that interesting about this, but at the same time there's nothing that's outright bad. It's basically what you'd expect from a debut album of mostly covers from the 60s: a bunch of covers played straight that don't give you any idea of where the band would go in the future. Jagger's voice is more restrained than it would eventually be, and there's very little notable about anything musically. "Mona (I Need You Baby)" stands out as having some cool guitar and percussion. The one original song is slow and kind of sappy and overstays its welcome. This is a tough one to rate because while its unremarkable and inessential it's not an unenjoyable listen. Its a 1 in concept - any of these songs are probably best listened to in their original form - but a 2 overall.
5.5 / 10
It's good, but it's an album of covers and probably won't listen to again, although I definitely appreciate their original music more Favourite: Carol
The Stones like you’ve never heard them…and is that such a bad thing? It’s just blues covers
It’s an alright album. I know only the hit songs of the Rolling Stones so it was interesting listening to their earlier stuff. Interesting that mostly they are covers and more blues in there than the rock that i know of them. So yeah interesting ti see that album making it in the list rather than their more known albums.
Meh
I love the Rolling Stones. But this was their 1st album, and it was essentially all covers. Out of place on this list
Lousy covers -- I absolutely couldn't care less about this band, at least during their 60s run.
Ugh. This is basically a bunch of covers of blues and rock and roll songs by black American artists. But nowhere near matches the quality of the original versions of these songs. The only reason it's on here is because iT's ThE rOlLiNg StOnEs!!1! Yes. They did great albums throughout their career, but this is NOT one of them. This album is not worth a listen, unless you're listening to this to be reminded how unfair the music industry has been to black musicians.
don't care
Overall: 3/10 Well, we all have to start somewhere I guess. Much like the early albums of The Beatles and The Beach Boys, this first album from Rhe Rolling Stones is simple, pure rock and roll. The problem is that it lacks the charisma of The Beatles and the harmonies of The Beach Boys. Instead, you have a bunch of bland and boring covers. I could forgive the fact that it's all covers if the album at least sounded nice, but the production is terrible and Mick's vocals actually hurt my ears quite a bit. The band would obviously go on to make some amazing albums, but this first one is a hard pass for me. Fav Song: Little by Little
Ein Frühwerk welches wohl geschichtlich betrachtet werden muss.
As much as I have always loved the Stones, I don’t know that I have ever listened to this album in its entirety. I have always been familiar with “Tell me” , and some of their earlier covers. It is interesting that even in this early offering you can hear the style and swagger in their delivery which they have carried with them for six decades. 2.5/5
Every band has to start somewhere. And while it’s cool to see their admiration for American R&B, I’m much more likely to go drop the needle on the original artists of the songs or similar a la Chuck Berry or Bo Diddley. It’s obvious that this one would never be included on the list if their name wasn’t The Rolling Stones and it’s for sure taking up filler space from some of their more deserved albums that come later.
Fine I guess, but pretty bland record. Still waiting for that good Stones album.
Undoubtedly wouldn't be on the list if it wasn't a Stones album. An interesting historical artifact being their first album, but nothing great here IMO. Was going to go with a middle of the road 3* cuz sure the songs are fine...but how much credit should they get for covers of other songs (and the originals likely being better). Rounding down for that reason. 2.5/5
More interesting than enjoyable, to hear this very influential band's debut album from all the way back in 1964. And with that, I can also say that it's just as rudimentary and drenched in the influences of its contemporaries as I'd anticipated. Just the ferocity of Rock N' Roll on some songs, and the chill laid back Blue Rock on some others, without really stepping into anything too interesting or out of the ordinary. The sort of tribal rhythms and fuzzy guitars driving the song 'Mona' were maybe the most instrumentally interesting here. The song 'Tell Me' had the sort of ominous demeanor I'd expect out of the band's later works; it was probably my favorite song here, really loved those messy harmonies. I didn't get much out of the rest of this thing, but hey, gotta start somewhere, I guess.
I just really don't like that Beatles sound. None of these songs are /bad/, but they're so boring to me.
Quitte boring? Most songs sound very similair
covers
I'm sorry "The Rolling Stones", I think you're great, I really do, but this album of generally competent covers isn't it. A nice enough listen, but completely uninspired. 2.5 rounded down.
I'm really tempted to give it a 1 just because I don't think it should be on the list. It's an album of mediocre covers; who gives a shit? But I guess it's interesting from a historical context given that it's the Stones, and I really liked the Johnny Cash album of covers on this list, so I guess this can have a spot (begrudgingly). It's fine.
Early Rolling Stones = not so great. So many of these British bands of the early '60's were just copying the popular sounds of the day, and they were bland. It took them figuring out their own sounds later to find greatness.
Felt pretty similar across the album. Not much variety. I also might be tired of getting too many white guy rock albums to appreciate it.
The Rolling Stones do karaoke - great covers but you know there's better stones albums on this list.
I swear some artists could release a fart compilation and it would still make it on the 1001 list
Its not for me either. I just dont like this kind of music
Actually boring, very disinteresting.
bolehlah asik juga tapi tipikal i guess idk
i feel bad for not liking this but it's just very much Not My Thing. this isn't something i'd ever listen to but i respect it. a very bland album for me unfortunately after checking reviews it turns out this is a cover album?? i feel less bad about not liking it now lol
For me, a nothing album 2.5/5
Hooray for an album of covers of American blues classics by a bunch of English boys! Jagger's/Richards's own composition was decent, but I can't see how a cover album could launch such a career as they had.
nah
I don’t ser what’s so dangerous about a bunch of blues covers
Blues.
Bluesy British Blues Rock that gives me the blues of listening to actually good and original music.
I get that this is their first album and so somewhat historically significant but it's pretty meh. Trying too hard to sound American, covers of other people's songs. Not a great introduction to what was an era defining band.
Ok
Excellent album!! Classic Sinatra. Smooth, clean and fresh. Could listen to this music for hours.
Why are a covers band on here? These guys will need to learn to write some of their own stuff.
Really not rolling yet when they released this
Pretty bland.
There's probably 10 RS albums I prefer to their debut, which is nifty, has a couple solid songs, but is very rough around the edges. Sure it may have seeded a specific style of rock and along with the Beatles spearheaded the British invasion, but like Please Please Me, it's only importance is in what it represented as a genesis and what was to follow.
The Rolling Stones are a talented group that contributed greatly to rock music. I understand the desire look back with rose colored glasses on their first work, but that said, there is no reason for this album to be on the list. One original song (which isn’t even in their top 20 hits) and a bunch of blues covers is not required listening. Do yourself a favor and listen to the original R&B artists that made these songs great. 2⭐️
I am assured they get more interesting in the future. But it reminded me of the bad rock bands the Flintstones used to parody.
love the rolling stones, but this first endeavor wasn’t super interesting
Ovo je toliko bezveze bez Imena benda nikad ne bi završilo u ovakvoj knjizi
Really old-timey compared to the rest of their body of work.
I really don’t like the blues, and here we find mostly blues covers. Contrary to most others, it seems, I actualily think their sole original is the best tune, along with their cover of Carol, which is fast and fun.
2,5
I don’t think any album of covers should be on this list. Not everything from a big name needs to be on here. I’d rather have an album from one of the artists that wrote these songs.
Like Route 66 and Tell Me but otherwise I don't think it's their strongest
Idk man I'm just more of a Beatles guy ig. Handclaps got old after a while. Just not my thing perhaps, or maybe I'm not in the right mood.
Not great listening for me. Just sounded like a lot of early rock and roll covers which is not my style
Pretty bland and forgettable decent 4/10
Looks like this list is going to drag me through the whole Stones' discography. The only bad thing is, my favourite album of theirs is already past. And their debut is far, far behind it in my personal ranking. The Rolling Stones is full of covers, original songs that sound like covers, harmonica, and blues that I'm not digging. It's not a bad album (especially compared to, say, The Beatles' debut), but it doesn't exactly shine in the band's vast catalogue. The potential is there, but I don't see a point in returning to this album except for curiosity about where they started.
McCartney once said that the Stones were basically a R&B cover band...a bit mean but on point for this album. The next efforts will bring more satisfaction...
With only three rather underwhelming original songs and a bunch of covers that pale next to the originals (ex. « Carol » or « Can I Get a Witness »), this album falls pretty flat. Jagger’s still-developing voice doesn’t do much to save the experience either, though you can already catch a glimpse of his future greatness in a song like « Walking the Dog ». All in all, listenable, but nothing remarkable for me.
It's merely fine - I doubt anyone considers any of these covers as the definitive version. I get its importance as a massive band's debut album, but it really isn't that interesting.
Very dated, not for me
This is pretty underwhelming, even if historically it makes sense why this was included. A bunch of covers (the original artists all better) and a band still finding its identity. This is an album that should be replaced in future editions.
Kedelige covers, men jeg kan godt lide hvor loose de lyder allerede i forhold til andre British invasion bands
Sounds like a party band.. as in they were drunk and high when they recorded this.
This is #day357 of my #1001albumsyoumusthearbeforeyoudie challenge, and… here's to my first Rolling Stones album, which also happens to be their debut. While I prefer the Stones over the Beatles (though I enjoy both bands' more experimental records), I've got little to say about this one. There's only one original track by the band, while the rest are covers, a trend that would continue up until their fourth album, Aftermath... The debut, though? Early '60s R&B, not much more. An inessential listen. The best is yet to come. This is a 2 out of 5. Looking forward to #day358.
Alright but not my jam.
No way. Already? I’ve arrived at the final Rolling Stones album just two spins after the previous one. To recap my experience across the Rolling Stones hexalogy. I didn’t like any of their albums until I landed on Beggars Banquet with my fourth roll. Their fifth, Sticky Fingers, was alright, but didn’t do much to advance my appreciation of the band. It appears that their debut work is the last chance they have at winning me over. I’ll just have to wait and see how it plays out. Yeah, it’s alright. Standard fare for the Rolling Stones, really. They’re remarkably consistent at being phony, pseudo-American rock’n’rollers. For fans of that music, I can see this discography being a good time. However, as someone who’s ambivalent, I’m left with something to be desire. Still, there’s some alright moments on here. I like “I Just Want to Make Love To You”. The heavy percussion and reverberating guitars of “Mona” are solid. “Tell Me” is another decent cut. I like the chorus. I shall send off this band with a eulogy from the book. Full of covers. Smash hit in the UK. The Rolling Stones found their footing and formula through putting a spin on these standards. Hmm. I still don’t know how I feel about albums full of covers being on the list. On one hand, it’s a good representation of where the music industry was at during the time and it’s not like the industry is much different in current year. On the other hand, I value creativity and definite impacts above all else, which is something you can’t really have when you’re playing from someone else’s rulebook. Still. As a smash hit, influential band, I think it’s worthwhile to hear where everything began. I begrudgingly cosign this inclusion.
Good for a debut but clearly on the list because of who they became. Interesting to hear but their later work blows this away.
There are too many stones albums on this list. I'd say we don't need this one. It's just a bunch of covers or their take on the genre. There is no elevation. They've got "it" and will go on to have better albums. Not required listening.
Ja sorry hoor, maar wat doet dit op de lijst? Als er een andere band hier had gestaan dan The Rolling Stones dan was dit oprecht niet in de buurt gekomen van deze lijst. Het zijn een stel matige covers van klassiekers. Er is hier niets origineels aan? Ik snap hier helemaal niets van, Rolling Stones zijn een klassieke band, daar twijfel ik geen enkele seconde aan. Maar is dit wat ze een legendarische band maakt? Kom op zeg, ze zijn een legendarische band ondanks dit album. Het is een beetje alsof je de nieuwste albums van Kanye West op deze lijst zet, want hij is verder zo invloedrijk. Of Infinite van Eminem, want die maakte daarna zulke goede albums. Totale onzin. Nou de muziek dan, het is ok, niets wereldschokkends en letterlijk niets wat je niet al eens eerder hebt gehoord. In de meeste gevallen nog beter ook, want Mick Jagger is een fantastische frontman en best een prima rockzanger, dit is gewoon niet zijn genre en dat hoor je. Ik heb geen favo, vind het iets te hard om dit 1 ster te geven, maar dit is absoluut geen 3 sterren waard. Daarvoor is dit gewoon niet goed genoeg en staat hier eigenlijk niets op wat ik nog eens wil horen.
Yeah, fine, but how on earth is this an album you must hear before you die? You get to hear the best version of neither the Rolling Stones nor the songs they're covering.
Absolutely love The Stones and was glad to experience this once (and only once) to get an idea where they started, but was glad to have it over and have zero interest in hearing any of this again - lots of kinda OK white britboy covers of various blues songs.
Pre-listening thoughts: Jesus are we not done with them yet???? Post/during listening thoughts: this is like early Beatles but shitty. So so much blues. So much blues. Did I mention so much blues rock? And 12 bar blues chord progression? In every? Song?????? 4/10 DID I NEED TO HEAR THIS BEFORE I DIE: no Fav tracks: uhhhh Tell Me I guess??? Least fav tracks: I didn’t love this one ngl!
It makes you realise how good Dr Feelgood were
Rating (1-5): ✩✩ Higlighted songs: Tell Me Very classical rock, not really into it -_-
Extremely boring rock. Nothing particularly impressive or memorable.
Yeah kind of just a nothing album. It's just covers of old blues songs. Not much too add. 5/10 Favourite: None Least Favourite: Walking the Dog
Perhaps the most overrated and derivative rock band in music history. I've never been a through and through Rolling Stones fan. Their whole discography is littered with albums that, if were lucky, have maybe 2 or 3 worthwhile tracks per album. I cannot recall one album that is solid all the way through. Take this one for example; sure it has their cover of "Route 66", but I prefer the Depeche Mode cover. The UK version of the album omits Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away", which was one of the redeeming qualities for the U.S. version. After that you are left with "Tell Me", the only original track on the album, and I don't think it was strong enough to hinge a whole album's reputation on. Personally I don't think any of their albums are must listen to before death in order to understand Western popular music.
When I think 60s rock, this is the very hallmark of the sound. And I mean that in the worst way possible. A dull and meaningless listen.
Do we really need a covers album in this list? A couple of good songs, but mostly forgettable.
well this ain't no mick jagger sympathizer
Not even too 5 of their best albums
Okay, yeah, they can play. But this is paint-by-numbers blues rock, and I kept waiting for it to go somewhere. The whole thing feels like a decent Stones cover band before the Stones knew what to do with themselves. Put this next to My Generation or Please Please Me and it just sounds flat. No real spark, no standout original, and definitely no risks. It's fine, it’s fine. But it’s also kinda boring. Spins: 2 Playlist Additions: - Route 66 - I Just Wanna Make Love To You
So, the group that would go on to be considered one of the greatest rock bands of all time apparently started out as a very by-the-numbers cover band. There's only one Jagger-Richards composition ("Tell Me") on this debut, and it's by far the worst song in the batch. Many of the covers are just bland as well. It's certainly not an un-listenable album. It has some good moments. Loved the tremolo on "Mona." I've never been the biggest Stones fan, though I've also never disliked them. I find it hard to believe this is anywhere near their best, though.
I think by now we can just lump all the first albums, released in the 60's, by bands that would go on to global fame, in the same group. They all sound the same.
Ei ole tämä minua varten. Semmoista soundia, että on tosiaan kymmeniä vuosia vanha julkaisu tämä.
Not the best era of the Stones. Many better blues bands in the UK during the same time.
I like the Stones, but not this. This is just a lot of copying.
Yeah, not an auspicious debut. I'm sure at the time it was revolutionary for a bunch of kids in London to be playing this music, but it sure doesn't impress me now. Not only were they an uninteresting cover band, but the one original isn't especially original.
Понимаю, почему молодые мальчики играют каверы в 1964-ом году, и хорошо играют, а не выпускают какой-нибудь For The First Time, но вместе с тем зачем этот альбом здесь? Чего группа Зе Роллинг Стоунз привнесла в музыку конкретно этим альбомом? Лучшая песня - Tell Me (You're Coming Back).
While it's kind of interesting to hear The Stones at their earliest, and this is technically fine, the fact that its mostly a covers album kind of makes it tough for me to rate this highly. The covers are fine, if not especially transformative, and the performances are pretty good. Like, they are tight, and I like the harmonica, and that is clearly Mick Jagger, but it only does so much. The three original songs on here (two are written under a pseudonym) are kinda duds, which really doesn't help this album's case. Compared to their later works, there just isn't much of value here, and I'm not sure its position on the list is fully justified.
On their debut record The Rolling Stones proved themselves better musicians than The Beatles did at the same time. Jagger is a charismatic front figure from the get-go, but even with all of that the many blues covers quickly become too trivial to really make a lasting impression - go listen to their later releases instead.
Aldri likt Stones
Meh. Just a bunch of covers.
An album of covers by a band i don't have any affinity for
Covers? And just ok ones at that? Is the only reason that this is here because it’s the stones?
I get why this album is interesting in the story of the rolling stones and music in general, but I don't think these albums that are 90% covers should be on the list. Sounds exactly like I expected it to, no surprises, didn't learn anything. It's not bad but it's pointless.
Sounded better than I expected it to for their first album. But they are just copying other stuff here so not that impressive, and it seems they only actually wrote one of the songs here. I'm going with 2
2.5/5
Never liked The Rolling Stones. Legends. But not for me.
Wow that whistling is really annoying.
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.
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.
I cannot get into. Simple as that.
No soy fan de este rock viejo
2.5
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 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".
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.
Early white boy blues rock. I’m not mad at it.
meh, it was fine
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?
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
Meh.
2- Stars (4/15)
Not my favourite period of the stones
rolling my eyes more like
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.
Tangentially energetic but horribly aged blues rock, and devoid of originality.
It's great to hear The Rolling Stones do covers of famous blues songs; but this album should not have been on this list.
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.
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
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.
not 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
4/10
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 big ol' album of covered songs, neat. Not that jaw dropping but not horrible. 2.4/5 -> 2/5
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.
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.
Not sure what The Rolling Stones' underwhelming debut album adds to the conversation here.
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.
The Rolling Stones have remained remarkably true to their roots it would appear. It turns out they were mid all along.
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.
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.
12/11/24. Just okay, really just the Rolling Stones love letter to their musical influences - blues!
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.
I can see why this was interesting in 1964, but in 2024 it's just a cover album.
Maybe this was good 60 years ago, but I don’t think it’s necessary to listen to anymore
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.
This isn't it
I feel like a lot of these rolling stones album kinda melt together and don't stand out. High 2.
2.5 its a fine debut, generic rock and roll.
achei bem chato, deus que me perdoe
Pretty forgettable one really.
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.
Cover album, not very interesting
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
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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
Not giving more than 2 for an album of covers
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?
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.
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.
Why?
They are alright but so many covers where the originals are so much better. Not a great album
Exile is the only one that should be on this list. Maybe some girls too.
Whatever
FTRS
If this doesn’t scream “debut album of a 60’s rock band,” I don’t know what does. This reminds me a lot of The Who’s debut album. That one had some covers, but also mixed in some decent originals. Same thing with the Beatles debut. But this? This is all covers save for ONE Stones original. Why is this on the list? Don’t tell me the Stones did these songs better than the originals. I won’t believe it. They’re serviceable covers but come on. I don’t know how many albums the Stones have here (I can think of at least four that probably belong), but this taking up a spot is criminal. At least when the Who did an album with covers they had like, two iconic songs to go with it (“The Kids are Alright” and “My Generation”). At least the Beatles had “I Saw Her Standing There.” But this is just bad. The music itself is fine. Like I said, the covers are serviceable. The one original is so clearly, painfully and original song made by a young band that would learn and grow so much more moving forward. They would do so much better than this. Why is this here? Seriously - why? Regrettably this gets two stars, because this pales in comparison to everything else they would go on to do. Standout Tracks: I Just Want to Make Love to You, Mona (I Need You Baby), Now I’ve Got a Witness
Very old Stones - more ‘50’s sounding
I’m sorry but I do not care for The Rolling Stones except for the occasional Gimme Shelter listen. I really find them to be a best of band and that’s that.
The debut album of one of the greatest rock band. Sadly it lacks personality as it's only covers
The debut album by one of, or for many the best, rock band of all time, and its only covers.
Much like Jerry Lee Lewis & Elvis Presley, the cloud of "white man popularising the black man's music" hangs heavy here. Classic rock & roll, albeit distilled.
old
This album is utterly boring, and proof that the Beatles were much better. It's quality over quantity. 2/5
Eh I guess it was new at the time, but I don’t really rate these early 60s British recordings. Especially when a lot of it is rehashing traditional music.
This album marks the formation of one of rock music's longest standing institutions: The Rolling Stones. These guys have been around through every phase of rock music since the early 1960s, and at the time of writing this review, are STILL rocking. That is a big deal, and it all started with this album! Now that the historical significance has been laid out, it's worth noting that this album is "okay" at best. While it was relatively successful upon release, it was more or less like everything else on the music market at the time: still very reminiscent of 50s rock and roll sounds. And even among those sounds, this album is certainly not the best. Mick Jagger's iconic vocals are a lot less eccentrically forward here, and there's nothing hard or driving about the music. All the things that The Rolling Stones are known and famous for are lacking from this album -- they hadn't really found any of that footing yet. This album stands as a piece of history for a legendary band, but if these guys hadn't gone on to be SO successful, this would be an incredibly pointless inclusion, as the album itself, when considered on its own, doesn't really doesn't bring anything interesting to the table. As a sidenote, this project has taught me that even though I have enjoyed a LOT of Stones songs over the years, I'm apparently not really a Stones album lover; I have yet to find an entire album of theirs that I actually really like.
Highly forgettable, not my cup of tea at all
This is the sort of Rolling Stones album I'm afraid we're going to get, every time an album of theirs comes up. It's extremely mediocre! There's nothing really to like here. I don't find the music charming, I find it mostly forgettable, this feels like prehistoric compared to The Rolling Stones of just 5 years in the future. It's just... conservative and boring. Not a fan! 2/5
Nice background music, easy listening.
Tough to rate this one. All the songs are fairly solid but almost every song is cover of a more talented black artist. Weird they did that for a self titled album. The original songs are basically trash.
Eh
If I’m gonna listen to old rhythm and blues and soul, I certainly would not choose some British dudes’ versions. I get all bands start somewhere but why is this on this list? I wouldn’t put the first 2-3 Beatles albums on here either, because they’re filled with these types of covers too. (But they at least have some originals.)
Hated it. Couldn’t even finish it. This early 60s rock is probably my least favorite period/genre of music.
Too much harmonica 😂
Have the Rolling Stones killed.
It's just a bunch of blues shuffles with Mick Jagger singing.
this did not stand out to me at all, and most certainly doesn't deserve a place on the list as it's only (potentially) interesting in relation to the other Rolling Stones work. funnily enough, the only song I liked on this album is Tell Me – which is the only original song by Jagger/Richards. I didn't actually know this when listening to the album and it somehow makes me warm up to it a bit more, seeing that they already were finding their distinctive sound.
Early Stones aint the best Stones. 2/5
they became big after this?
Definitely worst album by The Rolling Stones I have heard so far. It sounds like a copy of Beach Boys, but without their grace and fun. It's not good or entertaining, no one in the band has their specific style yet, just a group of friends playing together in the sixties.
1.5 - The Rolling Stones had a very dull start, apparently. This felt like the same song over and over again, and I didn't like it the first time. I really didn't like it the twelfth time around. I'm not a big fan of blues or The Rolling Stones. Is this really an album I must listen to before I die? I feel like this one wasn't quite as essential to have as some of their other albums...
Sounds like some lame British kids struggling to replicate the authenticity of blues greats. There's not much technically wrong, and you can't blame them for trying and missing the mark, but I have no interest in listening to this one again. I'm glad for whatever extent this effort shaped the stones into the band they would become.
This was pointless. The only reason I didn't give it 1 star was because the songs they covered were all pretty good. Not sure why someone would think anyone "must" listen to this album in any capacity.
First listen of this cover album- Tell Me was catchy…
I enjoy later Stones’ records. I don’t feel they had their harder edge yet on this first record. You can certainly hear the Blues influence. But they also feel too beholden to older pop music that just feels cheesy. 2.5/5
A unique blend of arrogance and blasphemy. Should be bottled up and sold to the...oh. Yeah. They do that already.
Gracefully short. I didn't particularly like any track. Odd that "Now I've Got a Witness" comes before "Can I get a Witness" on the album. That's a missed opportunity.
They go on to bigger and better things but this feels like just a bunch of lazy covers. Disappointing.
It's fine, but quite amateur compared to what they did later
The covers I know are really not as good as the originals
Huonomman pään rollarii, mut menetteli
the organ tone is really nice and the production for 60's has a good crunch to it? idk if that makes sense. anyways boring music. saw two other reviews on here that said "if this wasn't the rolling stones it wouldn't be on the list" and another that said "it's just the stones covering black artists and not giving credit". yeah.
YAWN
Fine, but not my kind of music. very early 60's rock feel. No songs stood out.
Kind of generic. I'm pretty back and forth on the Rolling Stones these days. Sometimes I'm in a huge mood for it, other times I think it sounds like lazy blues-rock. Today is one of the latter types of days.
It is all covers and one original song "Tell Me" which is laughably bad IMO. Like they are trying to get a Beatles thing going on and it just doesn't hit in that song Carol and Can I Get a Witness are the only 2 I can listen to a lot. Like Jagger sounds hungry but it is 100% reminding me of a cover band I saw with Samuel at the fair. No bite and trying to be angsty. I want to give this a 2 and I might not be sure as I write this. I hate how lazy it all sounds Now I've got a witness is just can I get a witness but it doesn't add anything for it to be its own thing for me and the instrumentals are fine but its padding the runtime and not interesting enough . I wanna say hey this has good R&B influences but the only reason this album is on her is for the fact that it is their first record and that is it. If this album was in the middle of their discography nobody would care about it. I am glad they got their footing based on this record but I can not help but be disappointed at the lack of punch here and real fire here. 2,5/5 for me but closer to a two like easy listening and not hated but that is the worst thing for me not memorable. I went in on this one cause it disappoints, at least it does not overstay its welcome
This is the worst Stones record I’ve heard. Mostly sloppy blues covers. Not much of an inkling of the songwriting brilliance that would later emerge
This is sort of interesting from a historic perspective but it's not a great album and barely even sounds like what the Stones later become.
Had never heard this album of covers and imitations. Still honing their craft and not a great album.
the most egregious example of covering songs by much more talented artists and making commercially viable
Nothing Special, rips from Chuck Berry and Chip Skylark, an interesting listen to see the early beginnings of an iconic band but incredibly uninspiring
White dudes sing black music to white folks
Just because the aritst name is big doesn’t mean it’s great 2/5
So unbelievably boring and insignificant. I’m assuming The Rolling Stones have at least 4 albums on this list so it’s mind boggling that this was thought to be included.
ok boomerz
This was fine. They’re a good band. These are all covers but one. The list couldn’t have used this spot for Weezer’s Blue Album?
I will admit i did not know the first ever Stones album was a cover album. The songs I knew were worse than the originals so this was pretty rough. I did actually like the only original (tell me). so we’re giving it a 2. If the stones broke up after this album this would not have made the list. I did think the album cover was cool
Fine, a bit bland overall though. Solid 2.5
Le début est bien mais ça devient vite chiant. On sent l'album qui date de 60 ans !
Helt ok, men rätt anonym skiva
Three songs on this album you can attribute to the Stones. Now I’ve Got A Witness, Little By Little and Tell Me, while the rest of it is just covers which is kind of disappointing. I’ve never been a listener of the Stones aside from their biggest hits, so when I saw this I thought it was a chance to dig into them deeper but I feel that opportunity is tainted when most tracks are merely covers. Either way, Now I’ve Got a Witness was my favourite of the tracks attributed to the band themselves.
Nope. Corny basic rock and roll.
I’m a big fan of the Stones, but this is just a cover album of blues songs that were done better by the originals. I hope this is not the only Stones album that makes it to the list as this is nowhere near their best.
Proof that context is super important in music criticism. Without the context of the Rolling Stones later achievements, this is just an album of covers performed in a blues rock style, with nothing particular to make it stand out. Rating: 2/5 Playlist track: Route 66 Date listened: 29/12/23
I forget that Mick and co started as a covers band. Pleasant enough but yo know a compilation of the originals would be a far better album.
So, I got a little behind on my list. I’ve listened to three albums today trying to catch up a little. Two of them were bands doing old R&B covers. It seems very formulaic. I certainly hope there are better. Rolling Stones albums in this list.
Good: Tell Me, Moana BAD: THE REST really disappointed by this album. Far too much 12 bar blues. Boring, uninteresting Low 2
Gear: Dunu SA6 Mische: Mono ist höchstens kurz unterhaltsam, klingt wie ne ungeliebte Flohmarkt-Platte Musik: Magie noch nicht da Wertung: 2/5
2.4/5 I like a lot of Rolling Stones' songs and none of them are on this album - it was stunningly mediocre. Best track: I honestly couldn't care less
Basic bluesrock
Interesting piece of history, you can hear the band developing the idea of their sound. It is however, a covers album and ultimately I probably would rather listen to other artists play most of the tracks.
Not good, not bad
Tough start, but I'll give these guys the benefit of the doubt. Who knows, maybe they'll produce the greatest song of all time. Maybe it'll start with a G and end with imme Shelter. Time will only tell.
C- Route 66 2 I Just Want to Make Love to You 2 Honest I Do 2 Mona (I Need You Baby) 2 Now I've Got a Witness 2 Little By Little 2 I'm a King Bee 2 Carol 2 Tell Me 3 Can I Get a Witness 2 You Can Make It If You Try 3 Walking the Dog 2 This was really bad. The only song that was remotely good was Tell Me because it's the only original song on the album.
“Keee-eef! Keee-eef! I’ve forgotten - who writes our songs?” The nasal chicken tones resound. “Eeeerrr - I’ve forgotten, Mick - does it matter? Keef snorts! I think it matters here! There may be shades of raw talent and energy - and a reminder that they started off as a blues band but it’s an album of covers. Maybe a later and more original album would be a better choice. I like early RS but we don’t need to chart their whole journey. Unless you’re saying how wonderful it is that some middle class white boys are singing R&B - cue rolling of eyes.
The Stones are legendary, respect their legacy and all that. This album is certainly one important piece of music history. But to be fair, it isn't really my kinda jam although it definitely is great. Anyway it's awesome that after all these years that they're still relevant, touring and releasing new music. Nothing else but respect for the gentlemen
Love the stones but this wasn't for me
Meh. Nothing really stood out as good