Reviews (page 6 of 7)
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.
It's a good thing they learned to write songs. I hate boring, gentrified British covers of blues music. At least this isn't as bad as The Bluesbreakers. 2 stars.
So...mid? Holy fuck this production sucks. I think we're due for a remaster here, because this thing is actually painful to listen to. But then, do we really need a remaster of an album of covers? It's alright. We're listening to some early examples of rock. But not the earliest. Those go to the black artists who wrote these songs to begin with. Better, by the way. Whatever. This was fine. Fave tracks: - I Just Want To Make Love To You - I'm A King Bee
Крайне заурядное звучание — буквально каждый блюзовый альбом того времени звучит точно так же. Не уверен, что эта пластинка Камней заслуживает место в рейтинге. Поймал себя на мысли, что этот дебютный альбом очень похож на дебютник Боуи в том, что и тот и другой максимально сильно отличаются от того, к чему в итоге придут группа и исполнитель
So much tour de force. I like all the energy poured on this one. Alright I guess.
I guess it’s interesting from a how it started, how it’s going point of view, but really this is just the sound of a new garage band finding their feet. 11 covers, 1 original. Fascinating for Stones stans, uninspiring for anyone else
It’s not bad but nothing stands out, it’s just a bunch of covers. Seems like this was put on the list to say “here’s how the Stones started…just wait till you see where they went”, which kinda defeats the purpose of this list imo
Swap this for the first Paul Butterfield Blues band album - a band shockingly unrepresented on this list- that comes out the following year and this list gets instantly better. The Rolling Stones are boys. And while they are good at what they do - what they do at this point is ape the blues as opposed to play it. They bring some attitude which is appreciated but they are so far from ready at this point. Do yourself a favor and go listen the the first (and second) Paul Butterfield albums featuring the best blues guitarist of the 60s and some smoking harp/vocals from PB himself.
I love the rolling stones but this was a bit derivative, simple blues songs and covers. Still good to see how it started.
2.5 Decent and all, I’m a king bee is my fav.
Bunch of covers.
428/1089 Extremely 2.5 star music for me. like it’s good, i enjoyed it a fair bit and had a couple faves but it didn’t really go beyond a “ahh that was cool” type of appreciation faves: Carol, Mona, Tell Me 49/100
Ehhhhh didn’t really like their style, a bit too folky for my rock.
More of an album that should be preserved as a footnote to all the black Americans it’s covering than an album to be listened to and reverted for its musical content. “I’m A King Bee” was the most fun of the bunch imo, but the returns are diminishing as each song passes by. When “Tell Me” finished, I was tapped out. Mercifully, this album ends in 33 total minutes. 2/5 outside of a few emphatic performances, this is not worth
I was kind of excited to listen to some stones, but this record was really boring, not the sound they are known for, and a really mediocre rock n roll at the end of the day.
I love the stones. I do not love this.
I just think they are hyped up because they're white. There are better bands than this.
I lie it. But no
Enfin le 6 eme et dernier album des Stones ! Et il se trouve que c’est leur tout premier disque … avec uniquement des reprises blues / rock. Donc encore moins original que leurs 5 autres albums. Autant écouter les morceaux originaux, et pas ces (pales) copies, même si elle ne sont pas désagréables … =>2/5
не зашло, есть у них песни, которые мне сильно больше нравятся.
a bunch of covers with one original
I can't help but see the rip-off in these early works. I get that these guys all love the blues and R&B and they're doing a fine job of mimicry. I just feel like I can easily get the genuine article from a better source when we're talking about this era of Stones.
Old, tired. Like me. Sometimes it just isn't any fun.
It was fine. Mick Jagger is awesome. The songs were all the same.
Sounds like they recorded this in a tin can. Johnny b goode head ahh. Turn ts off. Not one song stood out to me. Only reason it isn’t 1star is cuz I didn’t have physical ailments listening to it. I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU I HATE YOU
The Rolling Stones are arguably one of the most important Blues Rock/Rock bands ever, and much like a lot of other iconic bands of their time, they have plenty of weak songs to start out what would turn into a legendary career. The Rolling Stones self titled debut album is not a bad album by any means, but it is aggressively decent and nothing more than that. Mick Jagger and company all sound like they are having a blast here and the charisma is definitely on point, but I struggled to see anything more than just decent even with all those factors. The songs are fun, silly, and extremely simple, but they just weren't enough to win me over in the long run. Not bad for a debut from an iconic 60s band, as I've definitely heard way worse, but I have also definitely heard way better...
Such run of the mill rock n roll 1.6/5
Great length, but I thought this was pretty unremarkable, especially because most of the songs are covers.
JAG HATAR DETTA BLUES SOUND. KAN MAN LYSSNA PÅ DETTA SERIÖST???? 4/10
Yet more rolling stones being the most mediocre overrated band of all time. You stole some blues riffs, well done.
This is fine, it was an enjoyable listen.
Another rock and roll album with covers? This rolling stones boys will be over before they put out anything worth listening to.
Eh, not my era, not my band.
Not quite sure why this album made the cut
5/10
bitz müsse erbreche am ahfang - so ami shit mache as teebütel cringe af 2/5 donuts
Whatever man. Obviously stones are stones. They sucked here though. 6 stones albums. Gummon man.
I don't even care much for The Rolling Stones' more acclaimed records, so what were the chances of me liking this? Not great, but I still gave it a try. And yeah, it's pretty mid.
Good proof of musicianship and hope for the good to come but these are some good covers of songs where the originals are better. Historic addition to the list but definitely would rather have any of their actual albums not on the list already instead.
Якщо б я робив якісь підбірку на 50 пісень від Ролінгів, то я б з цього альбому не додав жодної пісні. Просто ще один альбом не дуже примітних каверів на типові пісні з того періоду
Band never done anything for me, always feel like they're posers who take a lot from what came before without adding anything innovative
You know that wedding that you went to one time, where they obviously wanted a big do but things were a little tight, so instead of booking a proper band they found a group of young upstarts who your cousin saw playing in a pub once, who said they would play covers of that American music the young people like in exchange for free drinks and the left overs from the buffet. Okay, they’re a little bit rough and ready, the lead singer fancies himself and the bassist is already casting lecherous glances at the young bridesmaids, but they’re only playing for half an hour before the DJ arrives and they will drown out the noise of the caterers putting out the food for the evening guests. Nobody really pays them much attention, except your auntie who has had one too many sherries and is gamely trying to dance along with mixed results. The mood drops noticeably when they try to sneak a couple of their own tunes claiming that they were written by someone called “Nanker Phelge” but eventually they shuffle off stage and disappear with pockets stuffed with sausage rolls and half empty bottles of plonk. What did they say they were called again? The Strolling Bones, or something like that? I wonder whatever happened to them?
It's... fine? It's weird that The Rolling Stones' first album is mostly just a bunch of covers of blues and R&B songs that I think were done better by their original artists. In fact, as far as I can tell, there are only three original songs on this album, one of which (Now I've Got a Witness) is an instrumental and the other two (Little By Little and Tell Me) are just fine. The Rolling Stones did some real cool shit eventually, but not here.
I can hear these young men trying their hands at blues, but not quite achieving an adequate copy of the the early rock masters. I'm glad they tried because of who they became, but this early attempt isn't going to be a favorite. 2/5
I like some of what the Stones has put out. This unfortunately missed that mark.
Why is this in here? It's a covers album by a fledging band starting out.
Just what I needed after G. Love and Special Sauce - more white men pretending to be black. These ones aren't even American, though I am not sure that makes it "worse," as they feel equally bad. I don't know what I prefer of the Stones' catalog, but this is definitely not it. It's like you're longing for grits, eggs, bacon, and hot coffee for breakfast and you get served an English All-Day-Breakfast-in-A-Can.
i guess it's probably rougher and meaner than most of the rock of the time. but really i'm not into this. it does nothing that later Rolling Stones albums don't perfect and expand upon. deserves to be one of the 1001? i really don't think there's much to gain from hearing this unless you worship the stones like gods
What was once revolutionary now sounds like a poor collection of blues covers.
This was probably sick in the 1960s. Unfortunately for the Stones at least a million other better musicians have been born in that time
i like the rolling stones. i think they have a few five star albums. this is not one of them. this has to be one of the most unimpressive debuts for a band that would reach their stature ever. one boring original and some mostly boring covers.
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
If you asked me, I’d say I’m not a Rolling Stones fan. Sure, I’ve liked some of their hits along the way, but I just never wanted to delve further into their catalog. After hearing this album, I’m still not a fan. I understand this album is mostly covers, which are done less effectively than their originals (or even other covers, for that matter). There was too much clapping and jangling for me on this album. It falls right into that 60s rock vibe that is my least favorite. I’ll give it two stars because it’s not horrible, just not my cup of tea.
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.”>>
Death to harmonicas.
No Jones No Stones!
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
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
"classic" Stones but it really just annoyed me for most of the album. Catchy and decent for a few select moments, and then back to clap clap strum strum jingle jingle. Walking The Dog was a 3 minute song that felt like a 10 minute song 4.3/10
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
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!
Still not done with these guys, huh. Certainly not my favorite of theirs. The album consists entirely of covers, which in my opinion should disqualify it from being part of the list. While it’s kind of fun to listen to, I’m docking it for lack of originality 2.5
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.
Completely unnecessary. I guess it’s on this list because it’s the Rolling Stones? Otherwise I have no idea what it’s doing here because it’s so devoid of originality. Truly baffling how this made the cut and so many other great albums didn’t
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
I don't think this was supposed to be a kickback to 1950's rockabilly vibes but here we are. This isn't terrible but it's not super interesting. 2.5 stars
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.