The Rolling Stones

Surprised this is here. A couple decent songs, but far from essential Stones. Tell Me is great, the rest so so.

The experience of listening to this album was not worth the amount of effort I had to put in just to hear it, since it's a bit hard to search for a self titled album by a band that put out like 50 fucking albums over the course of human history. I went to all the trouble to download it, just to hear them doing a bunch of mediocre covers of popular songs. This album isn't bad, but the Rolling Stones were pretty half-baked as a band at this point. You can see some little bits of what they would become here, and Mick's charisma has apparently always been securely in place. Rating this becomes a bit of a challenge, because I think this is a 2 star album if I don't know what this band is going to become, but it's a 3 star album if I think about the band getting the elements in place to become truly great. 2/5 I'm sorry, Rolling Stones, but your debut was not very good

I like some of The Rolling Stones hits, but am overall not a fan, especially if Mic Jagger. This album was just covers of songs that the originals were better.

A shy start for a famous band.

A pile of cover songs of old rock and blues bands. Only one original Stones song and it's not a very memorable one. The performance is fine, but this album is nowhere near their best.

That was awful. Thank God they got better!

2/5. Cover albums are never good, just one song here and there might stand out but only because of the great songwriting of the original. Sure this has some chaotic energy but nothing to write home about. It's not a 1 because it's at least enjoyable.

I like The Rolling Stones but I did not like this album. Generic blues does almost nothing for me.

Makes more sense once I looked up that this was their first album. Decent blues covers, but nothing thrilling.

This is a pretty unforgettable debut album. All of the songs are middling covers, with the only original song on the album being Tell Me, and thankfully its one of the best tracks. If this album was done by any other band it would not appear on this list, but I'm guessing that because its by purportedly "The greatest rock and roll band in the world" it got a pity vote by the authors. This review will probably piss off my fellow co-judges who are huge Stones fans, but there it is :)

p72. 1964. 2.5 stars. Adequately done Brit 60s R&B, let down by the fact it's mostly covers, and none of them are an improvement on the originals. Probably on the list because of what they became, rather than the quality of this album.

Best Song: Walking The Dog. In a crowded place, I would clap along to this if everyone else was doing it. Worst Song: Honest I Do. I hate this white boy blues. Overall: Why would you have a song called "Now I've Got A Witness" occur earlier in the album than a song called "Can I Get A Witness"? That kind of lazy oversight is emblematic of what I find wrong with most of this album. There really doesn't seem to be more thought put into it than to take a classic bluesy sound and bleat it out with big British bravado. Oh and don't forget to pepper the lyrics with clumsy and oblique sexual (not sexy) references, as in the awful "I'm a King Bee". Can't believe these geriatrics became billionaires off of lines like "I can buzz all night long".

It's decent rock and roll, I guess, but mainly just a whole bunch of covers. I'm certain the only reason this is on this list is just because it's The Rolling Stones. "Tell Me" was my favourite track. It was the most interesting musically, with the most distinctive melody. I was pleased when I found out it was the only original on the album, but also not surprised I had a preference for the original without even knowing it was one. I tend to have a good feel for these things. One track doesn't justify it being on the list, though. I found it hilarious that they only listed the songwriters' surnames in the writing credits on Spotify (apart from the original, which they put their full names for). It feels colloquial, more like the way people like them would talk rather than how it would be written in an official writing credit. 2 stars because I didn't find this horrible to listen to. I enjoy this style of music. Favourite track: Tell Me

A chier les stones à l'époque

I wasn't a huge fan of this, tbh.

Rather meh for now. They should've put "Can I Get a Witness" as the opener and "Now I've Got a Witness" as the closer, hehe. Those two had the most enjoyable melody for me. It's not bad, but not memorable. I liked more songs from Aftermath.

I know it was the standard for blues and rock and roll bands at the time for their first album to be mostly covers so it would be harsh to mark down on that. You can tell they are good musicians, but their covers are bland and uninspired. Really just sounds like some random studio musicians got together for this one.

I'm not as wild about the Stones as most rock fans I know. This album is okay to me, and I can appreciate their love of R&B, blues, and early rock that comes through so clearly here. For my own personal tastes, though, others (usually the earlier performances by other artists) just did it better.

There is just no way there should 4 albums from one band on this, and I am just a little over half way in.

I’ve never been a huge Rolling Stones fan but this early work is different. Who knows they started with cover songs?

Objectively it's pretty fascinating hearing this and knowing they (or some of them...3/5? 2/5? i can't keep straight who's dead) are still performing - this sounds like something put into a time capsule a hundred years ago. Almost all are cover songs (ripped off from blues singers) and they're not a great band yet and although it's occasionally pretty cool to listen to it does get old (pun) rather quickly. More of a historical document of what was to come than anything. Roots, baby, roots. 5/10 2.5 stars.

Pretty much exactly what'd I'd expect from 60's Rolling Stones. Best word I can think of is just "agreeable". Nothing spectacular. Just... fine.

Really enjoyed the cover of Mona. The rest was forgettable. At least, I hope I'll be able to forget it.

I'm glad their sound evolved beyond this.

You can clearly hear the Stones sound but I found the collection of covers a bit boring.

It's hard to assess the Stones without thinking about the Beatles. It's clearly no "Please Please Me", it felt like another iteration of a bunch of boys covering classic blues tracks. Still, their sound which is in a different territory from the Beatles', is evident here. More folk and country based than pop-rock. I think much of their appeal stems from such direction of sound.

Meh

It was just okay.

Fine enough listen. Not a big fan of albums that are mostly covers so that dented the score a bit. I'm sure this band will have plenty better albums still to come on the list

Such a significant album, still tough to get through.

It might be somewhat interesting as a document of where the stones came from but this is a bad album, one I could not wait to be over. Not sure why it's on this list.

I just don’t really care for it.

2.75

It's early Stones. Some OK songs. The album isn't terrible.

Rolling Stones before they found their sound. Honestly "their sound" itself isn't quite my thing, and this particular album, seemingly a cover album, even less so. 2/5

boring

More rolling stones. Again. And they're only doing covers at this point. Why on EARTH is this on a list of most essential albums of all time?!

This album was meh for me. Clearly very influential, but because of that I feel like I've already heard these songs done with better twists to them.

Very bluesy, not my favourite

It's alright I guess

Highlights: "Mona," "Route 66" This was a hot seller, but not a strong debut. It's a touchstone of cultural appropriation, the three originals being the weakest on the album. The only cover that seems to add an edge is what "Route 66" does with Berry's take on the lounge original. "King Bee" and "Mona," which would seem a highlight, are nearly identical to their source. There's little to appreciate here, even for its time.

Essential listening, because of what they became? A few of these covers stand out, I Just Want to..., Can I get a Witness, ...Make it if you try. Though even those I prefer the original on the first 2. You can tell which song is the Chuck Berry cover to the point where its kind of unnecessary. Funnily enough my favourite Stones cover of this era, Buddy Holly's 'Not Fade Away' isn't on this version. As good as the original. All that is judging it on listening now, I know this was all the rage in the early 60s and fair enough, but I'm listening now, so... And within 2 years we have Aftermath, which is an altogether different proposition, huge growth. Nowadays my main association with this record is that Chorlton record shop King Bee was named for one of these songs (although it was probably the original).

Nooit helemaal begrepen wat nu precies de x-factor van de Stones is. Het is allemaal wel ok, maar het is toch eigenlijk niet meer dan wel een aardig bandje? Of sla ik hiermee de plank volledig mis?

Nooit mijn band geweest en het latere werk is toch een stuk beter

Rolling Stones zijn nooit echt mijn ding geweest, maar dit vroege album vind ik helemaal saai. Wat ze op dit album doen, deden in die tijd héél veel bands. Niet echt onderscheidend.

Dont get early rolling stones just covers man and not as good as orginals! They are kike the english elvis!

Innecesario de escuchar. Nada destacable.

It's fun early 60's British Invasion R&B, but nothing really special.

1. route - 1 2. love - 2 3. honezt - 2 4. mona - 3 5. uuitnezz - 2 6. little - 2 7. bee - 1 8. carol - 2 9. me - 1 10. get - 1 11. try - 1 12. dog - 1

Shouldn't be on the list. Most if not all of these are covers. It's only contribution is that it's the stones first album. I get their later hits but this isn't interesting even from a historical perspective. It's not even good covers. They don't add to the songs. Some covers make me enjoy the difference, these make me want to listen to the originals.

Not a fan maybe its because its there debut album but wasn't a fan a i thought they would be more rock vibe turns out they sounds more like Texas country funk vibe and wasn't impressed 2/10

Competent pub rock band, copying Brian Jones's record collection. Would have been a good night out, seeing them in 1964, chain smoking and spilling pints of mild on your local's already sticky carpet. The equivalent nowadays would be The Foo Forgers or No-waysis or any other tribute band putting out an LP which ends up on a "greatest of all time" list. Where on earth are Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley on this list? Nowhere, of course, but all the white bands that ripped them off are most assuredly here, and in large numbers. I couldn't finish this album as it annoyed me too much.

Not cohesive in any way. Weird mishmash of styles. What?

Ugh. A bunch of covers by a band that hadn't found their groove yet. I know this project seems to insist on including debut albums above all else, but given that there are five (5!) other Rolling Stones albums in this collection, all considerably better than this one, I don't think this album belongs here. Sorry Nanker Phelge!

Man, this was really just blues rock by black artist that they covered badly. Worst of all was “I just Want to make Love to you”, who in their right mind would prefer this to Etta James or Muddy water. Racists, that’s who. Rolling Stones become something of their own thing on later albums but this was just bad. Giving it a 1 star out of spite.

I love The Stones but there’s absolutely no reason for this to be on this list, except that its their debut… but it’s just bad, it really is. Snoozefest

Ræl. Dårlig coverband, elendig mikset av "onkel Phil".

This album released today would be a huge fucking embarrassment to any band because it is a cloying painfully inauthentic covers album of some pretty amazing original songs largely originally performed by American black artists reproduced by an all white English band. Think Pat Boone on steroids. Less a tribute record than an effort to create a buzz, the few original songs do not hold up and time has magnified that observation. Not a single person alive today would pick these covers over the originals and I doubt that even the most die hard Stones fans could name the 1 originals or the 2 Nanker Phelge compositions. This is a completely forgettable record by a group of talented musicians and guests who managed to produce an awful piece of plastic. 1/5

Not their best work, some good blues riffs and chuck berry influences 0/12 liked

The most boring derivative shit i ever heard

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

1/5 Álbum de covers que são (muito) piores que os originais. Pelo menos os rapazes melhoraram com o tempo.

This is so lame, I'm not a huge fan of the rolling stones but their later stuff I can respect. This one is just lame, like musically it's fine but there is nothing original about it at all. Take it off the list

Pass, this is possibly the worst album I have had to listen to this year. Don't get me wrong I like some of the The Stones albums but really couldn't get into this one.

This isn't essential. It really must have been the right time and place for them to launch a career when this was adequate.

Felt like this was a complete waste of my time. I'd much rather listen to an album by one of the artists they're covering here.

hated it

First album of Stones. Mehh.

It’s ok

I get that it was a different time and all that, but - boring derivative junk

Trop blues pour moi

When your debut is essentially a covers album...

Er vel mest historisk interessant fordi de senere blev legendariske. Det er da meget groovy, men lyder også et sløset og utrænet. Der er kun en sang på der ikke er et cover, og den er ret dårlig.

Fuck rating albums. Just let me listen.

It’s 1960’s Brit-rock. It sounds almost identical to all other 1960’s Brit-rock. The fact that so many Rolling Stones albums were included in this list is just.. too much. It’s fine for what it is, but I really struggled to get through it. It’s just so.. vapid and boring. The only high points here are just appropriation of black music from the south, which I guess sums up a lot of rock and roll from this era. Yawn. Pass 1*

Can we please give up the collective charade that the Rolling Stones are some amazing band that deserve 5+ albums on this list?

I don't even like the good Rolling Stones albums. I just really hate Mick Jagger's voice.

I get why other Rolling Stones albums should be on this list, but is this on here just because it's their first? It shouldn't be.

Very poor, how they managed to finesse their ltd talent into the long career they've had remains one of life's mysteries.

no

Album was awful

Ah, my fourth Rolling Stones album to review. I'd consider myself a casual Rolling Stones fan, and I've rated their three albums so far at 5 stars (Let It Bleed), 4 stars (Beggars Banquet), and 3 stars (Exile On Main Street). I'll be listening to the UK release of this album today, and looking at the track listing, I don't think I've heard the Stones' version of any of these songs (I know their version of "Not Fade Away," but I'll miss out on that one today sadly). I'm typically not a fan of a bunch of covers, but I know that's not unusual for the early sixties, so I'll try to keep that bias in check! (Oh wow, this will be my last album from 1964!) No amount of open-mindedness about albums of cover songs could save this album. I found this to be a completely forgettable snoozefest from start to finish. I didn't find anything noteworthy about the band's musicianship on this album, and outside of Mick Jagger's vocals, they really didn't leave a distinct mark on any of these songs. This album wasn't unlistenable or anything, but it was completely forgettable and bland. With this debut, it's truly astounding to me that these guys went on to establish a long career comprised of incredible songs.

1. It's all like plinky plonky boring shit 2 stars 2. They just cover songs? -1

mitä trakoittavat pyörivät kivet? ainakaan ei samnalta päällä kasva!

So boring.

An album full of covers, that are all sub-par versions of their originals. They sound disjointed and I don't think suit the style of the Rolling Stones It's probably a harsh 1, but they've done miles better after that. It's also definitely not one to listen to before you die, and there are miles better artists and albums you can listen to in this genre for better music

While the rolling stones is one of THE classic bands in history this album isn't their best work if you ask me. While I clearly recognize their sound and where they evolved from none of these songs are as good, or even close to, some of their later work.

It's a cover album. Let's be real - if this wasn't the stones this wouldn't be on the list. They aren't doing anything special enough to warrant interest here.

Boring and unoriginal. I guess you really need hard drugs to rock and roll.

My father in law used to see these when he was young and said they were a decent pub covers band. My mum said pretty much the same about The Beatles when she saw them at The Cavern. The big difference being The Beatles went on to be one of the best and most influential recording artists of all time and The Stones pretty much carried on doing this same old shit for the next 50 years!

Only seems necessary for Stones fans, I mean it's all covers besides one song. Whatever, at least it’s quick. Let's make people listen to these young white kids amateurly play blues instead of the actual blues musicians. But because they are white which made it sold more copies than this is more important to listen to than those apparently. Also, what a laughably bad take by the reviewer who compared this to the Beatles debut. That Beatles debut had many more original songs, huge hits (Twist and Shout vs. pick any awful fucking song on this album), and spawned Beatle-fucking-mania. Legitimately your local pub band could play this wihout practicing. Get off your knees just because Rolling Stones name is attached. Only one more Stones album to get through on this list thank Christ Rating: 1.1

Covers that don't even have the sound of the Stones.

Standard Rolling Stones….. SHIT!

wankers the lot of 'em 2/10

I'm not a big fan of The Rolling Stones in general if I'm being honest, and I also usually dislike albums that are predominately not written by the artists themselves. Needless to say, this one didn't really land for me. It's not unlistenable or anything but it just doesn't do anything for me.

If you see potential here, congratulations. It's not my time, so I'm judging in the here and now. Wow, that's crap. The kind of white blues that I really hate. "I am hate" (please in German, "Codo the third, from the center of the stars... DÖF) there are and were definitely people who were totally into it, that's OK, quite justified, different taste, different approach. I have to erase that from my ears and memory quickly, preferably with good music. And bang, it's gone. I never liked the Stones, apart from a few little things. "Paint it Black" is one of them. And as a band member, Brian Jones too. Jagger and Richards, the old confectioners, not really. They managed to make every sweet pastry a little worse. They still managed to create the myth of one of the world's best bands. For me, the over, over, over-rated band of all time. I'm going to be "stoned" now, screw it. A little bitten off tongue and the totally wrinkled look isn't enough for me. Fuck you Stones

Once again the lost misses the mark. What is this doing here? Historical curiosity maybe. Not a top 1001 by a long way.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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%

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.

Practice album of old song covers. Should not be on the list

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

Mér finnst þetta ekkert spes albúm. Sorrýmemmig.

Low effort and bland

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.

I don’t like the stones

Very raw, just haphazard- no hint they’ll be any good later.

they’re so overrated

Stones. No thanks.

This album's success is entirely underwriten by the black artisits that contributed the original songs for the Stones to then cover. It has arguably 3 songs writtn by the Stones, and so its pretty damn disengenious to call this a product of them, let alone to call them England's Newest Hit Makers. I think this is one of the few albums on this list to actually make me mad.

1964. Route 66

Unexceptional. A product of its time

The Stones are some of the biggest shysters in rock's history.