Reviews (page 6 of 8)
Why?
they think i don’t know how to walk the dog
Route 66 is famous as hell but I can't say I had really heard the rest. Walking the Dog was fun. I didn't enjoy the majority of this album. R&B isn't my favorite genre and the Stones were in full R&B mode here.
The fun less chin stroking side of the British Blues Boom. I'm thankful that neither Brian Jones or Keith Richards are hung up on being guitar virtuosos (see Clapton). They went on to write great stuff after this as well as a lot of mediocre stuff but at least they weren't yet able to be so in love with their own myth at the start.
First time listening to their early stuff. A lot more conventional sort of 60s rock. It's good but they became more original later on.
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
We all start somewhere.
Je comprends qu’ils aillent pogné; c’est comme les Beatles, mais plus sale et moins sage. Mais faut pas se mentir, ça arrive pas à la cheville de Please Please Me en tant que premier album, c’est juste des covers! Ça reste prometteur, surveillez les bien!
Early stones sounding a little rock but not as hard rock as they became.
It's the Rolling Stones. Cool, but not the best ever.
Classic
Ait 1e stones Ik ga een head-to-head van de stones vs de beatles bijhouden. Beatles (1) 0-1 Stones (1)
I’ve not heard much early Rolling Stones, I’m more familiar with their 70s stuff. It was interesting to hear their roots, but wouldn’t really go back to it
FTRS
Some really good R&B on this.
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
Apparently these were all covers? They did a pretty good job I gotta say, this was great. Stand-out: Mona (I Need You Baby), Tell Me
Very old Stones - more ‘50’s sounding
Fun early Rolling Stones
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.
Once again the lost misses the mark. What is this doing here? Historical curiosity maybe. Not a top 1001 by a long way.
The debut album of one of the greatest rock band. Sadly it lacks personality as it's only covers
A fine, basic little record from the Stones. Can’t say it’s incredible considering other artists (usually the original songwriters) have done more with most of the songs, so yeah it’s just fine. 6/10
The debut album by one of, or for many the best, rock band of all time, and its only covers.
I like the guitar tone in Mona. Overall a decent set of covers, but I remain a Beatles guy rather than a Stones guy. Low three.
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
Simple and Great. Loved hearing the original boppy blues of Keith and Mick, especially Not Fade Away. Everyone gets their start somewhere.
A pretty strong debut mostly of the live show with one jagger Richard and Nanker Phelge tracks. The stones were probably the best of the early British blues bands - maybe early Fleetwood Mac were the rivals. I know the Irish contingent are screaming Rory but he’s just a bit later. None the less the blues are authentic and the band will go on to be much much more than this debut suggests. They would transcend blues without leaving it completely behind.
The Rolling Stones by The Rolling Stones This is not a review. NON! I’m coming out of anaesthetic and not allowed to do anything important. So this. Are your wondering Who in Hell the Rolling Stones Are and what is going on? Yes - this album is (maybe) OK as a taster of their early R&B covers. Who knew, right? Fun toe tapping RB twanging fun guitar. A delight. But its ALL covers. Practice. Only listen all the way if you want to be swatty for the exam. But they got SO much better and grown up - their attitude was just building. Later is So much. Better. After much mucking - the 60s was a period of exploration, despite themselves and the Beatles rivalry, they did get it right in the end. So. FOR A GOOD TIME - SKIP THIS ALBUM and go straight to ONE OF THESE 3. They are the lux, the sound that makes you scrunch your face and yell YEAH and dance and jive. Beggars Banquet (1968) Exile on Main Street (1972) Sticky Fingers (1971) Meanwhile Footnotes for Young People: There weren't enough songs to go around in the 50s and 60s. Covers were so accepted, sometimes there would be 3 versions of the same song in the pop charts. Boring but true. The Stones first 4 albums are basically all covers. The final track, “Walk the Dog” was written by a man named Rufus. Yes, Woof! It was his surprise number 1 hit. And has been covered at least 30 times. The lyrics euphemistically mean anything, right? And he probably retired on the royalties. So write poetry that lasts kids, don't do onlyfans with backup insta feeder accounts. Until these guys came along, StoneD was another word for Drunk and took decades to only mean drug affected. Their song "Stoned" - was actually The Roling STones first original composition to get recorded (1963 - as a B side to the single "I Wanna Be Your Man" ) As for the term, it was coined by Jack Kerouac eg. ( 1951) Kerouac On the Road (The Original Scroll) (2007): "I had finished the wine [...] and I was proper stoned." also see Kerouac (letter 8 Jan 1951) : "I stood completely stoned on the sidewalk in unbelievable and heavenly rapture." If you're under 30 - go at least find out who Karouac was and how he wrote a whole book on a single piece of paper. And Beat Poets. Before that, it meant to be killed by stoning like in the Bible, or to have your stones (bollocks) cut off as punishment. The rolling stones probably refers to a cliche, and folk music and the 60s was the time for cliches. We are not all cliches. 7. Nevertheless the lyrics of “stoned” by The Rolling Stones suggest an attenuated sense of space or location, seeking re-orientation, then a rapid change of state to one of pleasant euphoria, suggesting a fast acting drug: "Stoned | Out of my mind| Here I go | Ah, yeah | Where am I at? |Ah-ah-ah | Yeah, yeah ". 8 naturally, later the fun police caught on to the meaning. The single was withdrawn. So they changed the song name to “Stones”. Which confuses things, especially due to the nickname the Rolling Stoned. 8 no 9!. For a trivial taste of how very far off track the Stones got before refinding their roots again. Listen to “In another land” which is soooo baaaad and includes a high quality recording of Bill Wyman snoring for 20 seconds. My review. This - My first listen to the particular early record, and I'd agree that this first album will surprise anyone under 50 - it was so new to UK and Europe for the times, all these thumping American R&B covers - not at all what we thought of if we got to know the superstar Stones in 80s & 90s. But some honesty - their first 6 or so albums were just covers. They sound cool. But its also disappointing to discover at first (see above) I think it wasn't until Beggars Banquet (4 years later) that albums were mostly new material and their own sound was more or less settled. And then they were standing tall doing something honest. And full throated. HERE they were young and finding their way. They even spent at least 2 or 3 albums outright copying the Beetles (shock, intake of breath!) and trying to do psychedelic music to their style (which pissed people off - they even ripped off the Sgt Peppers cover and it wasnt ironically ), and there are many Beatles songs they recorded too. Whah? And so, this was England in the 1960s. It cant be overstated how important, different and even shocking this music, content and themes were. It would have created quite a fuss and discussion, bringing rhythm and blues to the masses - it was louder and faster and compared to the madrigals your parents hummed to, this was quite the toe tapping stuff (not to mention race and morals. Don't mention sex darling its crude ) ! That said, which version of this album am I supposed to listen to? A I cant find the UK version B “England’s Newest Hitmakers” - 1964 (US release) - does the job C the re-released tracks “The Rolling Stones, Now!” ? But the quality of recording is variable. By that I mean shit. Like a sunbaked transistor AM radio up too loud. But thats a certain sound too, right? "Roll Over Beethoven" - may have gone down like Michael J Fox playing guitar at the ball (in the Johnny be Good moment in Back to the Future). Telling the world classical is over and rock n roll / or rhythm & blues is in - it did it literally and figuratively. Some songs sound like they were recorded in a barn with tin microphone, buts that the 60.s... Off to the pub with my newly acquired Brummie accent, from the last crappy record ont he list./
I knew most of the tracks off this from radio-play in 1964/65. I didn’t own the album until the mid-70’s & for many years after that, it was the Stones album that I gave more spins than any other. There are 3 songs penned by The Stones : the instrumental Now I’ve Got A Witness; Little By Little - co-penned by Phil Spector (& majorly influenced by Jimmy Reed’s Shame, Shame, Shame) & featuring Spector on maracas & Gene Pitney on piano (they just happened to drop into the recording session in London), it was the b-side of Not Fade Away in the U.K., released two months before the album; and Tell Me, their first self-penned single in the U.S., in June’64, with Honest I Do on the flip. So the bulk of the album were covers - Route 66, written by Bobby Troup, who also co-wrote (unbelievably) My City Of Sydney, had been a big hit for The Nat King Cole Trio; I Just Want To Make Love To You written by Willie Dixon, who also gave them a big hit with Little Red Rooster; Bo Diddley’s Mona - they’d just had a hit with Buddy Holly’s Not Fade Away, which had been a variant on the unique Diddley beat; I’m A King Bee was written & recorded by Slim Harpo (James Moore); Carol was the beginning of the band’s love affair with Chuck Berry; Can I Get A Witness had been a hit for Marvin Gaye, having been written by the great Motown composers, Holland / Dozier / & Holland (on my original Australian mono copy of the l.p., Lamont Dozier is listed as Bozier); Walking The Dog was written & recorded by Rufus Thomas (Carla’s father); Ted Jarrett, a Nashville r&b composer & producer wrote You Can Make It If You Try; and, although the writing of Honest I Do is attributed to Hurran/Calvert, it was in fact written by Jimmy Reed. One of the things that struck me when I gave the album several spins in the last few days is the amount of harmonica on the album - 3 tracks feature Mick & 3 tracks feature Brian Jones. And they both do really well with it. A record I love dearly.
It's not bad for a bunch of skinny English kids playing at the blues. They have a lot of energy, and the drummer can swing like a gate. But I rankle a bit at this kind of statement (taken from a Jukebox Rebel review of this record): "authentic Blues culture had well and truly been delivered to British youth". Authentic Blues culture? Really? The PBS series Dancing in the Street: a Rock and Roll History (1995) made the astute point that the British Invasion copied what black artists had been doing for years, presented by white boys in a way that was appealing to white audiences, and inadvertently decimated the careers of many black artists. That doesn't mean that the Rolling Stones didn't truly love and respect those artists, and they often gave a boost to said artists by taking them on tour or singing their praises. But seriously, this is black music reconstituted for white audiences. While the Stones would go on to produce some great original music within the blues and country genres, this album in particular is simply a jukebox of their own tastefully curated record collections, energetically played. It is inessential, really, except as a best-in-class example of English white boys regurgitating black music to massive commercial success. This is not a Blues album; it's a British Invasion album. Fun, but inessential.
This album is utterly boring, and proof that the Beatles were much better. It's quality over quantity. 2/5
Mid
Okay, here’s the thing - I anticipated that there were going to be a few Rolling Stones albums on this list. With this debut album, each member is technically efficient in their respective right from the get-go, and on some level as a Stones fan it was cool to hear the humble beginnings of this group. But that leads us to an undeniable truth - that this is a debut album consisting mostly of cover songs of the blues artists they were influenced by early on in their career, broken up by two original songs that admittedly aren’t well remembered. Technically good and flattering, but not something worth listening to before you die given what the Stones have accomplished in the latter half of the 60s onward. I’d say this album is definitely for the diehard Stones fans - the ones who know what this band are capable of and want to further explore their roots. I know we got some true classics from them coming up on this journey, and this debut unfortunately doesn’t hold a candle to them.
This is The Rolling Stones first album and I’m struggling to think of any other reason why it is included on the list. It’s a competently played set of (mostly) covers and isn’t necessarily “bad”, but it’s not really notable except that it’s an early-ish example of British guys covering American blues songs, but that was kind of par for the course in the mid-60’s and something that the Beatles had done. The Stones, I guess were meant to be a ragged, unruly counterpoint to the Beatles and they certainly are here: the songs are not covered with as much finesse or polish as a Beatles cover of a blues number might be. Whether that was an intentional stylistic choice, a limitation in skill or a combination of the two is probably debatable. Either way, this was the first step for one of the biggest rock bands of all time and I guess it is interesting to see where they started, but does it rank among the greatest albums of all time? For me, no. Although, it is impressive that they managed to get a record deal and put out their first album with only one original song on it.
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.
I enjoyed listening to the Rolling Stones' very first album! The heavy blues focus is undeniable. Even when they cover Chuck Berry's "Carol," the guitar still sounds blues-like. Their more commercial music, or I should say their singles, focus more towards rock and roll, but this project has already taught me that the Stones included lots of blues--and now I know they always leaned hard towards blues, even from the very beginning of their career! The Stones covered "(Get Your Kicks On) Route 66," and their version, a certifiable bop, is *the* version, though I'm stuck wondering why a British band had any interest in covering this song. The Stones were indeed part of the British Invasion, huh? Most of the songs on this album are covers, which both did and didn't surprise me. This was the trend of the fifties that continued into the early sixties, and the Stones followed that trend, too--or at last in the beginning. But I hadn't considered the Stones, a band legendary for breaking the mold and pushing beyond limits, could ever fall victim to conformity.
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.
Inspirado no sucesso que o The Beatles já estava fazendo desde o ano anterior, é de se imaginar que outras gravadoras fossem procurar outras bandas com o mesmo estilo e, assim, a Decca Records, a mesmo que havia esnobado os próprios Beatles anteriormente, viu esse nesse grupo de 6 jovens a possibilidade de tentar desfazer esse erro. Infelizmente, assim como o quarteto de Liverpool nessa primeira fase, a música não é nada de mais, não passando muito de um álbum ok, bem pasteurizado e com as composições sendo a de sucessos de blues e rock feitos por negros americanos, só que agora com feições de jovens galãs britânicos. Ainda bem que os Rolling Stones vieram a fazer projetos mais interessantes, porque é óbvio que se eles não tivessem atingido o patamar que eles atingiram, esse álbum não estaria nessa lista, e de o "LP de estreia de uma das maiores bandas da história" seria apenas uma curiosidade sobre uma banda que se vendia como "England's Newest Hit Makers" que teve um sucesso na época e nada mais.
Highly forgettable, not my cup of tea at all
Songs from my era.
This was truly awful, one of the worst things I've ever heard. Covers done badly with what comes across as incredibly low effort. I feel embarrassed for the group for having such a dreadful album as their debut. Some of it sounded horribly out of tune.
I think this deserves to be in here as much as the early Beatles albums do. Which is to say, yeah sure, as a comparison to their later work. It’s a pretty good early 60’s Blue Eyed R&B record, with some nifty guitar work, especially on I’m a King Bee. It wears it’s influences quite literally on it’s sleeve, and although pretty good, doesn’t point towards the heights they’d reach, even just three albums later on Aftermath
Kinda good
Good album. This is solid blues rock from early Stones. I can't rate it too high given mostly covers, but it's got really solid sound. ****
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
If I am being honest- I had NO IDEA this is what the Rolling Stones sounded like. I was totally expecting something different. I do recognize all of these songs, but if you had asked me who sang them, I wouldn't have known. Okay, never mind. I just found out that majority of the songs are covers. 3/5
I've tried to get into the Stones before, but they never clicked. Perhaps I ought to have started with their debut album, because I was pleasantly surprised by this. I can understand how a Beatles/Stones fan rivalry started, as the sound of each band is night and day. The blues influenced, rougher style of the stones is reminiscent of other bands of the era like The Animals. Though it was a pleasant surprise I wouldn't necessarily seek it out in the future.
From what I'd heard on the radio from the stones, I was expecting some rusty boomer rock that feels overplayed even on first listen. Thankfully, that unfair expectation was not met, and instead I met a very solid, dynamic album. There's a lot of interesting influences at work in most songs, and even between songs, there was always an element of surprise lurking for me. Given that this is their debut, it's an incredible one at that. I greatly appreciate this album, and even though I might not listen to it as much as my other fours, I feel it's really earned it altogether.
ho hum. 2.67
The Stones are pretty rock and roll. I've worn out the Mick Taylor albums but this is the first time I've listened to this album. It's good but I would rather have a Buddy Guy, Lightnin' Hopkins or Mississippi John Hurt album on the list.
Nice background music, easy listening.
Young British dudes covering American Blues? I’m down.
This was a fun album. A good bluesy rock groove that got my foot tapping. I enjoyed pretty much every song. A proper first album from a legendary group.
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.
Fine
Route 66 is a fun bop. I Just Wanna Make Love to You is a fun and kinda progressive song honestly. Honest I Do is kind of boring. I will have to see if the trend is that their more fast paced songs tend to be more interesting/fun. Cool harmonica though. I love a harmonica solo. Mona is such an interesting song. I find the instrumentation very unique. Lyrics were much simpler back then, but the instrumentation of songs seems overall more...complex. Another harmonica focused song. Little by Little has such a fun beat. These songs almost seem country western or...something. Twangy. But in a fun way. I'm a King Bee is bluesy and nice. Real vibes there. And sexy ;) Carol is another bop honestly. Just such fun old time rock beats. Tell Me is boring and so repetitive. I just feel like all their slower songs are very meh. They really succeed with the faster beats, and fun songs. You Can Make It If You Try is where the album starts falling off for me. Walking the Dog was a bit more fun to end the album on. Overall pretty good. :)
Eh
Definitely The Stones.
Massively satisfying rock n roll track on RS debut. Lot of covers though. Ageless.
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.)
I would have enjoyed this album more if we heard the original artist perform. On top of that, The Rolling Stones are quickly overtaking the Beatles for most overrated band in music history, for this listener. Seems like the more I hear of the Beatles or members of the Beatles, the more I have grown to appreciate. Quite the opposite with the Stones. And Jaggers voice just wears on me. Stones doing cover tunes = 1. Songs they covered = 4 I'll give the 3 on the strength of the songs. 3
3 I was kind of prepared to dunk on this album, but there’s a certain novelty to hearing what’s basically Mick Jagger doing karaoke to popular tunes of the late 50’s/early 60’s. I mean, yeah, it’s nothing praise-worthy given that it’s almost all covers and doesn’t feel overly innovative by its own merits, but it’s a fun listen. Though, I’m not sure it’s the kind of thing that should be on a list of 1001 albums you need to hear before you die - unless it’s purely meant to demonstrate the evolution of the group? Most of these tracks kind of run together, and while there were a few standouts for me, including Route 66, Can I Get a Witness, and Walking the Dog, they’re not any better than the originals - or even later covers in the case of Walking the Dog (shoutout to The Sonics). I did, however, like their interpretation of I Just Want to Make Love to You, especially when they started dropping Violent Femmes lyrics on the track. Turns out, the Femmes were actually borrowing from Muddy Waters on Gone Daddy Gone this whole time. Who knew? My actual favorite here though was probably Mona, so I was surprised to see it was the one song they cut from the American release of the album in favor of a Buddy Holly cover. I mean, I get that the dude may have more appeal to an American audience, but I think there were plenty of other songs here they could have cut over that one. Far from the best the group has to offer, and far from any kind of all-time great, but this was a fun 30 minutes. Not sure I’d go out of my way to re-listen, but it will definitely come to mind when I feel like listening to some Stones in the future.
Hated it. Couldn’t even finish it. This early 60s rock is probably my least favorite period/genre of music.
Ok
Meh. Not bad. Just not really my thing either.
Great 1st album for 1960’s rock’n roll, with bluesy notes.
It's a good blues/rock album from the '60s, but it's not exactly the Rolling Stones. Indeed, checking the Wikipedia page, we can see that it is basically a cover album with songs by some famous bluesists. I understand its inclusion on the list. It is, of course, historically important, and I enjoyed it, but being the Rolling Stones and with so many albums in their career, I'm unsure if being historically important is enough to be among their best albums.
Too much harmonica 😂
Classical roxk loved the vibe
The originals, they set the bar!
Have the Rolling Stones killed.
"The Rolling Stones" is the debut studio album by English rock band the Rolling Stones. "The Rolling Stones" was released in the UK by Decca Records and "England's Newest Hit Makers" was released in US by London Records and has slightly different track listing including their cover of Buddy Holly's "Not Fade Away." The album was recorded at Recent Sound in London and was produced by then-managers Eric Easton and Andrew Loog Oldham. The album is mostly cover songs and reflects the Stones' love for R&B songs. Commercially, it hit #1 in the UK and #11 in the US. The album begins with a cover of songwriter Bobby Troup's "Route 66." This is a more bluesy version. It has a groove. Nice rhythm and lead guitars. They slow it down on Jimmy Reed's "Honest I Do." Nice guitar chords again. A prominent bass and we get a Mick Jagger harmonica jam. "Little By Little" is a song written by Nanker Phelge and Phil Spector. Who is Nanker Phelge you ask? That was a moniker for the Rolling Stones. A bluesy beat and a piano. Jagger on Harmonica and a great guitar solo by Keith Richards. Phil Spector was given co-credit due its similarity to the song "Shame, Shame, Shame." The band comes out a rockin' on their cover of Chuck Berry's "Carol." A searing guitar open. This seems pretty true to the original. The only attributed song to the Jagger/Richards team is "Tell Me (You're Coming Back)" and it's my favorite song on the album. It's a ballad with Brian Jones on electric guitar and Richards on a 12-string acoustic guitar. Jagger is on tambourine and we get the classic Richards' backing vocals. The Stones give a bluesy interpretation on most of these covers. And, these covers include various blues and pop songs. The one thing that stands out is that this is a very tight band. There are signs of the future Stones with the Jagger sneer on "I'm a King Bee," Richards and Jones' guitar solos and playing and that down-and-dirty sound. This is a good time capsule of the start to one of the biggest rock bands.
This being the first album of the Stones, I can't help but compare it to the Beatles' first album. And at least the Beatles' first album had some original material on it. This being almost all covers doesn't make it any less historically important, but I can understand how it's not as known to the non-fan. ("Where are the hits, man?"). There's not a big runaway single like "She Loves You". The songs in here are catchy enough, and comments about this being "the REAL" Rolling Stones seem false to me. You ask anyone to name a Rolling Stones tune, they won't be naming something off of this. I can see where all of the band's work comes from from this, but this is not the album I would say to start with.
So here's what I said 700 albums ago to The Sonics debut, which was mostly covers - Meh, a bunch of covers is not my idea of a must-listen album. And that is regardless of who the artist is. The Stones provide only one original to the 12-song album. One! And it was probably the worst on the album. I've heard some cool cover albums, where the artists do something really different. I don't hear that here. Granted they do crank up the tempo on most songs so it has a slightly different flavor. And their ability to play their various instruments is on display as a result. But it's not so different that I'm thinking wow. It still mostly sounds like a tribute to the R&B and blues artists these guys adored, and Mick Jagger sounds like he's trying to sound like Chuck Berry. Side One is better because I'd say on side two they are bested by the originals like Berry, Marvin Gaye, Gene Allison, and Rufus Thomas. All in all it's fine, but wake me up when we get to Aftermath. I can't believe these guys rocketed up to superstar status before they mostly wrote their own material. Bo Diddley must be rolling over in his grave.
What's that sound? Why it's the sound of cultural appropriation! I ended up spending some time reading up on the history of The Rolling Stones and basically they ripped off R&B to become one of the biggest bands in the world (although at least they credited their sources, unlike some British acts [cough! Led Zeppelin! cough!]). Let's acknowledge that they end up writing some pretty amazing songs in their own right later on, but this album is mostly covers that don't measure up to the originals (I listened to all the originals, plus a couple of additional versions - for example, their Route 66 is based on the Chuck Berry version (with the Stones speeding it up) and not the original Nat King Cole version). So, what made them so much bigger than the acts they covered? Hmm, I wonder. Very little of this album hints at the Stones' later originality. The only exception is the original "Tell Me (You're Coming Back)" which sounds like The Rolling Stones, even if it's still pretty grounded in 50s rock n' roll stylings. I get that this album is a big deal because it's the Stones' debut, but if this was all they did I'm not sure it would have been on the list - the album is clearly in the list for historical significance, not because of its own quality and originality. I'll give it a 4 to acknowledge its importance, and certainly every track is good, but none of it makes me say that I should be listening to this band instead of the artists they were covering.
obviamente tienen discos mejores
Never listened to this debut album before. Some nice covers with the classic Stones blues sound.
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.
The Rolling Stones debut is basically a covers album. It being the Stones first recordings is the only thing special about this.
Really solid debut. Show cases the Stones’s original influence very well
A decent collection of covers but do not see the rationale for including this in the list.
A fine collection of covers. What is the rationale for including this in the list?
I’ve only listened to this record for the first time in the last year. It’s weird to think a debut album had so many cover songs. It doesn’t quite sound like The Rolling Stones I know yet. Good album!!
I very much enjoy bluesy Stones. They'll always be one of my all-time favorite bands.
This was pretty good. Later Rolling Stones is better, but ya gotta start somewhere. And they started out pretty damned good as it was.
should be removed, not a must hear
A strange window into the band and seeing them more influenced than influencing. Solid songs throughout.
From a time it was important to speak your poetry clearly and the music was just something to help it along!
Not my favourite Stones album, or even in my top five, but it's still very good.
Blues 101 really.
Decent listen but almost all covers, a generous 3
gnarly harmonicas in there
Google has the wrong tracklist, use Wikipedia
great stones album great sound and vocals
CLASSICO
Didn’t mind it. Didn’t love it.
A good album, I liked Route 66 and Carol. But my favorite song on the album as Tell Me.
The best band from a terrible fad in UK history. I am continually impressed at how well these cats turned mediocrity into the (almost) longest career in rock history. Mick and Keith have written some incredible tunes but only one of theirs is on this album and it's not a classic. It is the best track which should tell you how tepid this selection is. I was going to be gracious and give this a 2 but I've listened to Parliament, Otis Redding, Jimmy Smith, and the freaking Black Keys in the past few days. Stones are way closer to one of those bands than the others and it's not the good ones.
Early Stones aint the best Stones. 2/5
they became big after this?
The one Stones album no one needs to hear. Aside from maybe "Tell Me" there isn't much here that suggests the band that would go on an epic 5 album run - maybe THE best 5 album run any artist has ever had - a few years later.
It may be because I know how good this band becomes, or because there are other bands in this style I prefer, but this feels pretty lackluster to me. It's fine for some classic sounding 60's influenced blues rock but this doesn't show any of the personality this band would generate in years to come.
Unfamiliar with Stones albums, as I’m not a fan. Looking forward to this Summary: wasn’t a fan. Maybe it’s a 60s thing but all covers album as a debut, with only one ‘safe’ original song is not how I’d do it. Musicianship was fine, but if I were an alien visiting earth and you played this for me, told me it was one of the greatest all time band, I would be unimpressed Wait this is all covers? One original song? So strange back then. Zepp 1 had more than a handful (but not all -1!) Aerosmith had Train early on Curious how Zepp got labeled the biggest thief of blues after hearing this. Guess it’s not considered theft if you just flat out play covers *shrug* Tell Me - only original tune. Nothing special even for 1964. Hard meh. Nice little guitar solo, plinky
It stinks! Plenty of examples of them writing good stuff that’s on the list, so why do we need the boring album fulla cover songs
Een debuutalbum, een coveralbum eigenlijk, enkel en alleen geselecteerd omdat de band later legendarisch is geworden. Zo voelt het in ieder geval. Het klinkt regelmatig net iets te scherp/luid allemaal, de stem van ome Mick, de tamboerijn. Verder is het gewoon bluesy rock 'n roll achtige shit. Dat vind ik eigenlijk altijd wel prima om aan te horen. Heel veel meer heb ik hier niet over te melden. Ik zou dit album niet zo gauw uit mezelf nog een keer aanzetten. Ik heb de Stones reeds 3x een 4 gegeven, ik ga deze iets lager raten, we blijven niet aan de gang. Ik vind eigenlijk ook niet dat je zes Stones albums moet luisteren voor je een touw mag halen. Na drie albums heb je wel een idee wat voor muziek ze maken. Ik geef 3 bolvormige hemellichamen bestaande uit lichtgevend plasma.
I didn’t realize how old The Rolling Stones were. Very beach boys. 5 for its continued groovyness and historical influence.
All covers. So bluesy! I loved it.
I know this is the start of a legendary band and this album had a big impact on the culture yadda yadda yadda. This album is just straight up bad. All covers. No originals. Not the worst I've heard, I actually quite like Mona (I Need You Baby), but it was the most unneccesary thing I've heard. Like adding Beatles For Sale just because The Beatles had a big impact
i didn't know the rolling stones covered route 66! thats so cool!
Good! But a good covers album gets a three and that's that
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.
Most of the songs are just terrible covers. The Rolling Stones have become icons nowadays. But this a low effort shot at making an album. "Tell Me" (One of the only original songs) is a blast though. I'm glad that the songs are short. 1 star for "Self Titled" and "Tell Me" saves it from being complete garbage.
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.
It was ok.
Another Iconic British band. What can you say about The Stones. They go on forever. Great band, great music.
Very old style rock. Chuck berry esque, bluesy. Got that swing to it. Great album. 9/10
A little bit too much of country for my personal taste. But hey... if that's what helped them get their style...
Enjoyed
Oh man...Keith? Mick? Ya'll ready for this? If you tried to make a debut album today that was almost all cover songs of mostly black artists, you'd get eaten alive. MAYBE you'd go viral, if you were the first, but you wouldn't. In that time period, I get it. These are a couple of white guys looking for a big break and they worked well together covering other artists, many black, to get their big break. I'm sure that was common, and accepted in the time. I'm really not sure how that works being justified as a music group out of the gate...as HIT MAKERS, and I'm going to have to have a talk with my brother. But hey, that's enough in the 60's to become the greatest rock band ever! I've never been a huge stones fan and this album does nothing to change it, and a lot to make my opinion worse. What really gets me is that this is the UK version, the US version was titled England's Newest Hit Makers...these weren't THEIR hits! They didn't make them! Except for one song, Tell Me. I'll assume this one is on the list because there needs to be a historical account of this madness.
Interesting, the debut from the Rolling Stones. I'm putting this against the Beatles' With the Beatles, as we've also had it on this list and the two albums are very similar. That wasn't their debut, but it had six covers, where on this album, all but one track is a cover. Let's get one thing straight: these British Invasion bands all got their start doing covers and interpretations of rock and roll and blues artists in the US, often black artists whose music had not yet crossed over to white audiences. Elvis did this too, and in hindsight it's obviously troubling, but somebody had to do SOMETHING. If our world had never crossed that racial divide musically, we'd have some pretty awful music, guaranteed. And between bands that did covers and credited artists (the Stones, Beatles, Led Zeppelin) and bands that just did their own shit that's very blatantly ripping off artists (look up my review of the Yardbirds' Roger the Engineer), the former is much more ethical. That said, this isn't the most interesting album. Yes, important to the Stones' legacy, as it put them on the map, but why not the originals? The US version has "Not Fade Away," one of my favorite Buddy Holly songs. Is Buddy Holly on this list? We haven't had him yet, I'll wait. What about Chuck Berry? Willie Dixon? I'd rather hear the progenitors, personally. I do like this album, and I think it fares a hell of a lot better than With the Beatles, simply because Mick Jagger's voice is 100x more suited to the blues than Paul or John. All in all, it's a good cover album and I can what the hype would have been, but I don't know how necessary it really is, some 60 years later, when we can channel hindsight into platforming the artists who created that sound to begin with. Favorite tracks: Not Fade Away (US version only), Mona I Need You Baby (UK version only) Carol, You Can Make It If You Try. Album art: Just a band photo, nothing crazy. Interplay of light and shadow is prominent, anything to do with them bringing American blues/rock songs into a new light? 3.5/5
Muy buen blues
A good listen, good standard blues tracks on the album. This album is very generic and doesn't really stand out in 60's rock or even against later Stones album. 3/5.
Good old rock. Ever a classic . Not quite my music though
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…
Most of the songs are covers? They do a good job of interpreting the songs and Mick putting his spin on things. I guess the Brits needed to have their own version of the blues.
Very interesting. A pretty dated sounding dirty blues-rock album that seems very straightforward. Nothing is too remarkable about the set of tracks here, however Tell Me definitely sounds the most compelling and what I think of as the Rolling Stones. I definitely laughed as I checked the writing credits and noticed it was the only band authored song on the album. Certainly makes it obvious that they should be doing less covers and more of their own music.
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
Route 66 I Just Want TO Make Love To You Carol
The Greatest Cover Band Ever!!!
Just some blues covers. Not particularly notable.
A unique blend of arrogance and blasphemy. Should be bottled up and sold to the...oh. Yeah. They do that already.
Worth the listen
It's a lot of fun. But it's also a lot of covers which is unfortunate. I understand why it's on the list, though. The energy and musicality that makes the Stones the Stones is here in double measure and these covers lit the fire that would catapult Micky and the boys to the heights of Roll-n-Roll godhood.
Not sure this is an important *Stones* album even. It’s not bad, but there are so many better and more influential Stones records that are more important to listen to to understand the context of later rock acts. As an album, it’s fine. They hadn’t quite found their sound yet, but there are some toe tappers in here.
Bluesy Stones. 4/5
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.
Didn't enjoy listening to this at all. I can hear subtle hints of the good stuff that came in later years, but not enough for me to want to hear this album again - ever.
They go on to bigger and better things but this feels like just a bunch of lazy covers. Disappointing.
The Stones aren’t rolling just yet GOD I am so funny!
Short but great!
i do not care for the rolling stones
Good start for a great band.
It's fine, but quite amateur compared to what they did later
The covers I know are really not as good as the originals
Agradou-me surpreendentemente as versões de blues.
Peruskivaa rockia.
Huonomman pään rollarii, mut menetteli
It’s alright I guess
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.
Album of covers so not really feeling this is on par with later albums. Good energy
It's the Rolling Stones, how bad can it be?
Bobby Troup Willie Dixon Jimmy Reed Ellas McDaniel James Moore Chuck Berry Brian and Eddie Holland Ted Jarrett Rufus Thomas Above is a list of the artists the Stones cover on this album, NONE of whom feature on the list. Let's give some credit to the originators, shall we? PS. The 3 original Stones compositions are trash by comparison.
Kinda fine. But was expecting a bit more.
I like the rubbish production. Solid stuff. I prefer Depeche Mode’s version of Route 66 though.
YAWN
Fine, but not my kind of music. very early 60's rock feel. No songs stood out.
Wrapping up the Stones' 6 albums on this list, it's The Rolling Stones (1964)- only 9 days after the critical darling Exile On Main Street (1972) I feel like this quote from the book is an apt summary: "'The Rolling Stones' is not as good as material they would release in ensuing years-- or even months. But its arrogant raunchiness had a seismic impact on polite pop then-- and continues to echo today." I like when the reasoning for the entry goes beyond "This is the greatest music of all time, and you need to hear it!" And being the Stones, it's a bop, but more interesting as a historical stepping stone than as a musical work. On its own, it just answers the question "What does the blues sound like as interpreted by well-to-do, white Londoners?" HL: “Route 66”, “Mona”, “Carol”
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.
Nacimiento de la leyenda. Vinilo.
Un poco largo.
Without their later success, this album wouldn't be here and evidently it is to both chart the journey of where the Stones began and demonstrate the impact American blues rock sounds had on the UK Charts (shamefully ignoring the black musicians already pioneering the sound). This is a record of mostly covers, so aside from the one track nothing here shows their later song writing skill. So why did the Stones survive when other bands doing similar things fell away? This album reveals a few things - Jagger isn't quite there yet - too timid, almost nervy - but they play well and Richards especially feels as if he has already arrived - his playing is excellent throughout. Of course, the album is marred by a complete misunderstanding in King Bee of how hives work and honey is made. Embarrassing.
Not a bad album but not a great Stones album. Nice to really hear the roots in American blues l
This is not their best but a meaningful one.
classic
This is pretty whatever to me. Just old rock til it was over. I have now learned this is all covers. This album can be super skipped. Will I listen to again: 0%
At the height of the British Invasion, the age old debate The Beatles or The Rolling Stones was under full effect. This leaving The Rolling Stones to possibly be the greatest rock band to ever grace the stage. Perfectly capturing the sound and rhythm of American Blues music, the Stones, come out strong in their 1964 Debut Album. 🥇Route 66 🥈Mona (I need you baby) 🥉Little By Little HM: Carol
Quite a few repetitive blues chords in this one, this record wasn’t the slightest bit interesting to me. I’m sure there’s more stones albums on this list, however I’m not sure why this one was one of the chosen ones. I think there’s one original song, and it doesn’t really push the needle like some of the others artists who pumped out albums full of covers in this same time period. Despite this, I still enjoyed parts of this album- solid 3 for me
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
They got better!
Chill
Like hearing the R and B influences in the raw.
The Stones got a lot more interesting when they started writing their own material. It’s telling that the best track is Tell me, the only one that’s not a cover.
Really good! Route 66 and Mona are my favourite tracks on this.
This was short sweet and fun! I like a little twist music.
Significantly better than I’d expected. Will playlist some.
I would give this a 3.5, but for this I’ll give it a 4 just because it’s quite a diverse album. Early blues-inspired RS is still RS.
I was a Beatles kid. Of course, I was aware of the Stones, but my access to them was primarily via radio and whatever else crossed my path, but my money and my time went into Beatles records. As time passed, I was able to reach deeper into the Stones' work. It's fun to discover some of the nuggets I missed, like this first record - but I'm still a Beatles kid at heart.
Surprisingly twangy. I was expecting something a little harder. But very classic sounding
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
It was fine.
Tell me hyvät kitarasoundit 4/5
This is an infuriating experience, although not one where I'm begging for it to end, or checking out halfway through. Instead, it is an album that causes anger due to utter lack of intrigue. Perhaps over across the pond bluesy rock 'n' roll was a novelty, and this made the snarling grip of it finally take hold on the British populous, but from a US state of mind, and for that matter a modern set of ears, this is just dull, repetitive blues rock with nothing there. The same guitar riffs are used two or more times on the album, it never has any variation so that you'll remember the songs, and it almost feels like a science with how generic it is. Perhaps it isn't, and this is utterly shocking for 1964, but I know for a fact that blues was not invented by five British white guys, and there is no reason to check this out if you have any experience with the history of the genre. Even as someone who doesn't like blues, this felt like a lower low for the genre than usual, and the lack of anything original does not help that cause. I'm sure this is interesting to see if you're a Rolling Stones fan, and I know it helped open up some of Europe to blues rock, but sixty years later this is a blemish more than something to present with honor. Best part of the whole thing is the album cover; I'll give them that, Rolling Stones make a good album cover more often than they don't.
Had a bit of Beatles sound. Was okay.
It's fine I guess, the Rolling Stones definitely made much better albums when they started recording their own songs
Okay, but not my favorite stuff by them. Couple of solid tracks.
Classic
Always forget the part the rolling stones played in that early rock n roll era as a British Invasion band. Lot more sexual than say, the Beatles were around the same time. Kept playing for a lot longer together too. Epic band
The Rolling Stones got a lot better over the years, before eventually getting worse. This album isn’t as bad as their recent stuff, but it’s not as good as a lot of their golden years records either, which makes me wonder why it made the list. There are at least fifteen Rolling Stones albums that are objectively better than this. There are not sixteen Rolling Stones albums on this list so some more deserving projects got snuffed. I’m not as disappointed in the album as I am with the decision to include it. The album isn’t completely offensive, but it is a bunch of white dudes sing covers pf black musicians, so, not the most creative or original piece of music. The Stones have always been talented both vocally and instrumentally, but that can’t save their debut from feeling a little boring. It has a bit of a spark that clues you into the possible future greatness, but overall, pretty mid. 3/5
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.
it's a lot of elvis vibes + more guitar+drums-y versions of songs I've heard before -- not exactly interesting but not exactly dull either. being so fr I've been listening to lots of beach boys and beatles, so the crunchier, less layered & harmonies -type sound the rolling stones made was def unexpected. but \"tell me\" has some layers, though they're not nearly as clean as beach boys/beatles also: I've never really listened to the rolling stones before, but I was under the impression they were a rock band like the who, so this r&b sound was very unexpected too? I mean there's some rock-type sounds but it's definitely so much more bluesy 5/7
Another absolute banging banger of a group frfrfr my first concert in 2005 with my grandparents:) raised on these ppls music omg but this isn’t their best album for me are they gonna be here again whaaat I like no2 I like out of our heads I like the 70s/80s goodness
Comienzos de un grupo que se convertiría en gigante, pero que suena en su primer disco prometedor pero que hoy en día no merece la pena su escucha.
Debut, bluesrock, lidt rnb vibes, covers
sounds like every rolling stones. le 6e....
Gut.
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
Good enough. Should be an iconic album for the Stones, but they have greater compositions than this, that's the Maine reason to give em 3.
Good album. I like the different touches with genres
Nothing like their peak. Bunch of standards / covers and stuff but still solid. 3
could i write poetry to this? y
Also in the running for "Greatest Debut Album." Right out of the gate, The Stones established themselves as a top-drawer cover band. Not just wearing their influences on their sleeves, they wore them on their faces. Behind that mask was the more rough-hewn answer to the innocence of The Beatles. Street wise and lean, The Stones didn't just want to hold your hand, they wanted more... much more. Under the leadership of Brian Jones, they weren't afraid to broadcast their admiration for "Black Music." This made them infinitely more badass (and frightening) than their contemporaries who shied away from the direct connection. Four and one-half stars. Only knocked down a half-star because I enjoy their late-60's, early 70's so much more.
A good start. And if you start them up, they'll never stop, never stop, never stop, never stop. Then you'll see a grown man cry.
3+
Just because the aritst name is big doesn’t mean it’s great 2/5
This might not have scored as high as it did if I didn't just love hearing where the Rolling Stones came from and their ode to this music. What a great début!
Very fun to listen to this debut Rolling Stones album. I am certainly more familiar and keen to their original works, but this is one that I needed to listen to before I die.
While Mick Jagger's literal voice is unmistakable, it's clear the band hasn't found the Rolling Stones' voice quite yet. This sounds like some talented kids imitating their musical heroes. But if you're going to make a list of 1001 albums you must hear before you die, I think you've got to put the Rolling Stones' debut on that list. So even though I wasn't blown away by the music on this album, it's still pretty great and earns 5 stars for historical significance.
Who are these suited lads looking so dapper? I’m glad this very early Rolling Stones album should be on this list. It’s pretty interesting to hear them as they found their way, and I liked all the covers. Not my favorite Rolling Stones album, but that’s a pretty high bar, and I still enjoyed this a lot.
This was really good. Most of it was classic R&B with a blues sound. I give this 4 stars.
You have to look at this album in context of time. R&B performed by white guys was revolutionary in 64. Maybe the 'bad boys' image of the Stones was founded by this album.
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.
Practice album of old song covers. Should not be on the list
A great early self-titled, but not The Stone's best
Early classic rock, there are covers of previous black artists.
Very early Rolling Stones. Their first, to be exact. All covers except for one original! Pretty much all blues/rockabilly tunes. The production is super raw which adds to its charm I think. Surprised they ever caught on, because this is really nothing spectacular. It’s not bad, but it’s nothing new. Plenty of black artists were doing the same thing but wayyy better.
El primer álbum de los Rolling sienta las bases de su inacabable producción posterior. Rock inspirado, mezclado, confundido, elevador por el blues y el R&B clásico en aquellos años en los que las influencias cruzaban el Atlántico en un acelerado viaje de ida y vuelta. Me gusta todo el álbum, pero si hay que escoger alguna canción, me quedo con su versión de "Route 66", por aquello del mito.
ok boomerz
Alright, some classics
surf rock stuff right here.
Love it, classic, the template of a band.
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?
As someone who mainly only knew the hits of the Rolling Stones, this list has really opened my eyes to how much terrible music they've made. This album was a struggle to listen to. Can I Get a Witness is the only mildly listenable song, but I could see that basic piano chord progression getting annoying after a few listens. There is still plenty of other Rolling Stones on the list. It's time to remove this album and replace it with something newer and more listenable
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
they saw american soul and said, quite nice innit. those brits lol not bad
That whole Beatles vs. Rolling Stones thing makes a lot more sense when you look at early albums like this where they’re both doing a lot of covers. Team Beatles all the way, but this was a decent listen
It's interesting how a lot of bands just recorded other people's songs to start. Beatles did the same thing. This record is well performed and executed, but definitely seems juvenile in comparison to what the Stones would become later. Favorite tracks: "Route 66", "Carol"
The Rolling Stones were massive back in the day, and still are moving pretty smoothly now considering their age, because they knew how to market themselves. They got themselves out there, made huge hits, and dominated the rock world of the mid to late 60’s. Doesn’t necessarily mean I’m a fan of them though. I don’t really know, their music has never appealed to me, except for a song here or there. Most of my exposure to older music when I was younger was through my parents, and they rarely played the Stones, if ever. And I wasn’t expecting much from this debut album. I wasn’t even really disappointed that I didn’t like it very much, because I wasn’t expecting to like it that much. If you wrote down on a piece of paper what you thought the self-titled Rolling Stones album from 1964 might sound like, you could probably guess pretty easily. Think of any song from them from this era, or really any mid 60’s rock and roll song, and you have the sound of this album. It’s just very run of the mill, and very plain. There are some good things. I can appreciate some of the guitar work. I Need You Baby reminds me of How Soon Is Now? from The Smiths. And I’m also a sucker for stuff containing a harmonica, so they get some bonus points for that. This also sounds pretty good for the time period. Not sure if I listened to a remaster, or if it was the original mix, but either way. Not exactly the best introduction to the band, but I can only hope their more acclaimed albums up the ante a little bit and are more engaging. Rating: 5/10
Mér finnst þetta ekkert spes albúm. Sorrýmemmig.
This was interesting to hear where the Stones started. Wasn’t offering much more than that.
Fine, a bit bland overall though. Solid 2.5
slaps
Le début est bien mais ça devient vite chiant. On sent l'album qui date de 60 ans !
Sympatoche mais pas sensass.
The Stones aren't my favorite band, but I think they out rank the Beatles for maybe not shining quite as bright at their peak, but shining almost that bright over 60 years while maintaining their identity. Hearing the very beginning of that journey is amazing, even if most of the songs are covers at this early point in their career.
#103. This was alright, I guess, but if I had heard this back in the day I most certainly would not have been waiting around for their second album 3/5: it'll do, pig Song added to playlist: I just Want To Make Love To You I've created a playlist on Spotify that consists of the best and/or my favorite song from each of the albums in this book. This list can be found here if you are interested: https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7MAXDGLWlwLkFLb8veGfkA?si=FqkQQPgZTFWG0jAUJXLFZA&utm_source=copy-link
This is why I use this app. Great blues record. I gotta call myself a Stones fan now.
Other than establishing themselves on the scene as The Bad Boy Beatles, there’s not much of note here really. A bunch of blues covers doesn’t impress a me much.
Much more country than expected. Fun album.
1. Route 66 - 6.8 - boring lyrically. 2. I Just Want to Make Love to You - 7.6 - even more bland lyrically, but at least sounds more interesting. 3. Honest I Do - 5.2 - horn sounds awful. slow and basic. 4. I Need You Baby - 7.0 - like the vocals more on this. 5. Now I've Got a Witness (Like Uncle Phil and Uncle Gene) - 6.0 - okay instrumental. 6. Little by Little - 6.5- nothing special. 7. I'm a King Bee - 4.4 - do people enjoy this song. 8. Carol - 7.1 - very Rolling Stones-esque. Which is ironic. 9. Tell Me (You're Coming Back) - 8.2 - only genuinely good song. Should be in a movie soundtrack. 10. Can I Get a Witness - 6.3 - boring, again. 11. You Can Make It If You Try - 5.4 - Bluesy. Still sucks. 12. Walking the Dog - 7.2 - better instrumentation on this than most other songs.
News flash - most derivative band of all time started off with a generic derivative covers album. This is the most uninteresting album in the history of humankind. It makes me feel primal rage from how bland it is. The time is now, Mick Jagger. You are not ready for The Frog War of '24.
Helt ok, men rätt anonym skiva
Low effort and bland
3.5
Liked it overall - lot of covers though.
Look, I love the Stones, but this just isn’t anything special. There are a couple of pretty good songs, notably the ones they wrote, but the rest are just inferior covers of other artists’ works.
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.
Interesting album. Their debut is mainly covers with their own twist I'd guess. Once past the first two excruciating songs it got better. You can hear this album's influence on musicians as diverse as Johnny Marr, Jason Pierce, James Osterberg and loads of others. Groundbreaking one could call it. It gets a mid 3
The sound overall is a tad too slovenly.
There's a lot of Rolling Stones on this list but I'm of the opinion that they have not contributed enough to rock music history to warrant such praise. On this album, you'll hear songs that are performed originally (and better) by black american musicians. This record is an example of the british invasion stealing black american music and selling it back to them because racist white americans couldn't tell the difference. It's trash.
2.5
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.
Pretty decent blues rock record from the early 60s that consists of mostly cover songs. They would go on to make better albums than this but it serves as a good introduction to the band.
Bluesy and good.
Classicp
I wish I could travel in time and appreciate this debut in 1964. Unfortunately, considering it only has one original song, it’s a bit less impressive in 2023. [0104/1001]
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
Favorite Track: Tell Me
Fun, old-school, be-bop, diner music. Much more appealing than the more recent honky-tonk albums. Fav tracks: Route 66, Carol, Walking The Dog
Very different to their later work - more blues & soul than rock n roll - but still pretty good. No real hint of the money making juggernaut they would become, and barely any songs they wrote themselves, but evocative of the time and place, and highly enjoyable
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.
I love the energy and rawness here. It sounds like an album that was recorded in five days flat. It benefits from the DIY production. There's a great choice of covers. These boys could go far.
Classic. How come it's 60 next year?
great classic rock
For all the love I have for The Beatles I'm surprised I never dove into the Stones. For a debut album it's pretty good. Plays like a fun blues cover album, which it is... Favorite songs: Now I've got a witness, I'm a King Bee, Carol, Tell Me.
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.
Average White Band.
the rolling stones
It is The Stones but they hadn't found it yet. You can sort of hear it on Can I Get a Witness. It is cool to see where they were at the beginning and how you can compare these early albums to The Beatles early albums easily(The Beatles did the better clean cut rock n roll style in my opinion) but the farther you get from here the more it is like apples to oranges with how far they went in different directions.
This one is just bland and unremarkable. The only reason this is here is because it was made by The Rolling Stones. There isn’t really a stand out to speak of. These are all sleepers and just meh.
Good: Tell Me, Moana BAD: THE REST really disappointed by this album. Far too much 12 bar blues. Boring, uninteresting Low 2
Still classic. I wonder if everybody got paid for the rights to those blues songs?
Gear: Dunu SA6 Mische: Mono ist höchstens kurz unterhaltsam, klingt wie ne ungeliebte Flohmarkt-Platte Musik: Magie noch nicht da Wertung: 2/5
US Edition or UK edition? They are significantly different. I did the US edition since it is the one that came up when I searched for it. First, I don't like it when bands do a number of cover songs on their LPs unless they do something interesting with it. In this case, The Rolling Stones, just sing other people's popular songs and while I know it is Mick Jagger singing, there is nothing interesting about any of the cover versions. They get bumped down a bit for that. There is only one original song on the LP. 3.5
fun
Ah the Stones' debut, nearly 60 years old now. Certainly sounds fresh and their youth (as strange as it is to imagine) shines through. Great 60s rock
This was a great album from the Rolling Stones, as well as their debut album. There was a lot of great tracks here, especially for fans of old school bluesy, rock. I highly recommend! Favorite Song(s): "Route 66", "I Just Want To Make Love To You", "Mona", "Carol", "Walking The Dog"
"The Rolling Stones" (1964), the eponymous debut album by the legendary rock band, is a raw and electrifying burst of rhythm and blues energy. From the opening chords of "Route 66" to the soulful cover of Willie Dixon's "I Just Want to Make Love to You," the album captures the youthful exuberance and musical prowess of the early Rolling Stones. Mick Jagger's charismatic vocals, Keith Richards' gritty guitar, and the band's overall synergy make this record an enduring classic. It laid the foundation for the Stones' iconic sound and established them as a force to be reckoned with in the rock 'n' roll scene. "The Rolling Stones" is a 5/5, a landmark debut that set the stage for decades of rock greatness.
it was fine, a few great covers but overall not massively enjoyable, I expect there will be better Rolling Stones albums further in this project
Cultural appropriation at its finest! But you can also tell why they grew into what they grew into. I enjoyed the later half of the album.
Love early bluesy Stones
I’ve never gone this far back with the Stones. It’s cute.
This album feels so innocent for the Stones.
pretty cool debut album from the classic rock titans. mostly cover tunes of r&b staples. fascinating look into the early stages of the band. highlights: “route 66”, “i’m a king bee”, “carol”, “walking the dog”.
It's okay. It's definitely early days for what will be a pretty great band.
A sign of things to come.
Yep. That’s a Stones album. Pretty introductory blues rock with plenty of covers to go round. Early British Invasion stuff is hard to find incredibly impressive these days. But of course this record is on this list. It’s among the most influential albums of all time.
It takes stones, indeed, to put out a debut record comprised mostly of covers—that are mostly good covers but covers nonetheless.
AKA 'England's Newest Hit Makers' for the US market. Early Stones is them riffing on old(not old then atleast) R&B and Rock n Roll that they cut their teeth on. They were a ways away from really carving out their sound and making the blues that influenced them to shift and morph as they became better musicians and songwriters and their influences expanded further. It's a very enjoyable album, especially if you're into R&B and Rock n Roll songs. They don't necessarily improve upon the old standards but they put their own touch on them and its good listening.
Killer Baaaaay Baybeeeeee