Reviews (page 7 of 8)
Not my vibe
Early blues with some covers, ok 2.5
Never heard of this band. My tolerance for 60s rock and roll is diminishing. Some interesting songs, the poppier ones I prefer. Otherwise bland. 2.5 rounded down Heard before? No Owned: No: 21/1001, 21/85 (24%) Will I get? No
Best Song: Whiskey Woman. The guitar work here was the best on the album. Worst Song: Evil Hearted Ada. Nobody needs this Elvis impersonation. Overall: This just feels like the Rolling Stones - a band I already don't particularly like - without the hits. I just can't get over how none of the tracks have any of the passion of true blues, nor any of the enery of rock. The worst of both worlds. Mostly boring while being occasionally unpleasant.
Sounds like loud chamomile tea. Not my cup.
I guess if Mick Jagger likes it then it must be good, right? Meh. Not sure how this made the list. 2⭐️
++: Have You Seen My Baby?, 32-20, Evil Hearted Ada, Doctor Boogie +: High Flyin' Baby, City Lights, Yesterday's Numbers, Teenage Head, Whiskey Woman 5,4/10
helt grei rockabilly. tror ikke jeg kommer til å høre noe særlig mer på
Shake Some Action is one of the best songs ever written so I had high hopes for this, but like a lot of other music from the time, the album started strong then fizzled into a bunch of standard covers. Merely fine, and exciting to hear someone say fuck on an album from 1971, but I won’t be returning to this any time soon.
This album really pissed me off
Yeah way too much
This is all fine. A lot of this sounds very modern, I could believe some of these tracks were recorded in the last couple of years. A lot of the tracks sound like other artists, too. Beatles, T Rex, Rolling Stones, loads of garage bands. But it's somehow less than its parts, I was just bored listening, a gut reaction.
Dreary. 2
I think this was a pretty OK rock ‘n’ roll/blues/country style, it really reminded me a lot of the Rolling Stones. Only thing is, I don’t see myself really revisiting this, I didn’t think it sounded much different or memorable enough to revisit. 2 to 3 stars is good.
Whisky Woman er dritbra. Minner litt om de beste låtene til Stones. Resten av skiva svinger mellom helt grei og ganske døll. I 1971 er dette allerede pastiche; muzak for en 50s themed diner. Jeg kan se meg selv på konsert med dem. De er det lokale bandet som spiller musikken de vokste opp med. Fansen deres vrikker løs når de drar High Flying Baby. Jeg synes reaksjonen er litt overdreven, men prøver å nikke på hodet for å ikke se sosiopatisk ut. Fem låter senere orker jeg ikke å late som mer og drar.
Det er ikke vits å høre på Stones når man har dette! Nå er det heller ikke noe vits å høre på Stones i utgangspunktet…
Not bad, but this exact album has been on this list fifty times, man.
Another really forgettable album. I wasn't a fan of this one much
This album is so similar to The Rolling Stones its crazy. Unfortunately I don't love this style.
:/
It was decent but felt quite generic. There were no unique songs / melodies / conceps, just the same generic background music. I think it may have been a product of its time but listening to it now just felt a bit dated
I don't really see why this one is a fundamental listen, it's pretty straightforward rock and roll. I didn't find it too good, just average. The instrumentals are on par for 70s garage rock, nothing really stood out. I liked 2 songs, the most popular ones: "Yesterday's Numbers" and "Whiskey Woman". Edit: The wiki page says this record was praised by Mick Jagger as supposedly being a "better take" than Sticky Fingers on blues/rock n roll. By luck, the next album I got was Sticky Fingers, and I'm sorry but there is no way Teenage Head is anywhere near Sticky Fingers. I'm sure Jagger was just being nice to them, but anyone who isn't deaf can see Sticky Fingers is a far superior album.
The second half of Whiskey Woman is really neat. The rest of the album did not stand the test of time for me.
Is the inclusion of this album simply "isn't it weird this came out at the same time as a much better album by a more famous band?" It's fine for what it is, but what it is isn't particularly noteworthy.
Its okay, its a standard rock album. Find it similar to the Rolling Stones
Day 26 First listen- A decent album, I really liked the guitar and the drums but not very memorable for my taste. (2.5/5)
Excellent last track but mediocre rest of the Album.
Not my thing, it's fine but just kind of generic. 2/5 stars.
Mid-50's revivalism in the early 70's? Sounds kinda anachronistic. I don't understand the deal with this.
I wasn't able to listen to it till the end. Maybe it's good for listening to on the background but idk, something is wrong with it for me
Just kinda bleh throughout, nothing stuck out to me as overly significant or impactful. The mix is also just quiet and muddy and the music is bland.
Their third album. Rock / Psychedelic Rock / Blues. As soon as the opening track, High Flyin', kicked in I immediately thought Rolling Stones ! Also some Elvis rips here too. It's a decent enough album. Standard Rock n Roll and Blues riffs. They do a Shakin' All Over cover which is nowhere near as good as the original.
it's like ok. I like the artist name though!
Pa ono, nije najgori album, ali ni ništa prenapeto. Neka glazba za konobu utorkom navečer da se vrti u pozadini 😁 2/5, 3/10
Questionable lyrics about gay people
Started out ok, kinda country-punky, but it got old fast and soon I couldn't wait for it to be over. The only song I considered above average was Whiskey Woman.
Certainly has a Rolling Stones vibe to some of the tracks and I don't like The Stones either.
"Teenage Head" serves as a garage band's take on classic rock n roll, and delivers as expected. The singer's vocal style starts off grating, but over the course of the album settles into a more palatable tone. This is an album that could have been great, but a few shortcomings lead it to just okay.
it’s hard for me to think of bands that have more undeserved imitation than The Rolling Stones
I did not know this band. Run of the mill Rock & Roll garage band
Another attempt at American critics finding a great American rock band. Nope. They’re good. But they’re not better than the stones. Where did mick say that? There’s rock here, but when was the last time you played this? And when was the last time you played the stones? Or given this or the stones for eternity what would you take? 2.5 rounded down because critics.
Bog standard and boring.
Старый рок-н-ролл, не самый лучший
A LOOOTTT of this album is just... super annoying to me. Like a cosplay or parody of other, better musicians.
Not terrible but probably something I won't listen to, very Status Quo-y
Mish mash
Pretty standard late 60's early 70s rock. Did not intrigue me.
Was there a Hamilton band called Teenage Head?
Clearly heavily inspired by the Rolling Stones. Not a bad thing necessarily, but would expect something more interesting than a Stones knock-off album to make this list. Best Tracks: - Whiskey Woman Worst Tracks: - Evil Hearted Ada Rating: 4/10
Rock n Roll. Nichts besonderes. Vielleicht prägt es den Übergang zu härteren Rock, aber ich bezweifel es.
This album should have stayed in the 70's. The songs lack proper endings, with almost all of them fading out in volume, which feels like the guys don't know how to properly end a song. The music itself is uninspired and fails to leave a lasting impression. I will not be listening to this album again.
This is #day272 of my #1001albumsyoumusthearbeforeyoudie challenge, and... here's to some old school garage rock and rock'n'roll, baby. I imagine this as something Iggy Pop would spin on his Confidential show on BBC Radio 6 Music. Have you heard the show? I like to tune in now and then. So yeah, that's the kind of setting where I wouldn't mind hearing this. Outside of that, I'd pass, I guess. This is a 2 out of 5. Looking forward to #day273.
knock off even worse Elvis
Sjovt nok, svært at høre hvor seriøst det er meningen man skal tage det.
Not feeling it
So, if this gets on this list I can expect to see some Status Quo, yes? Piledriver at least? This is perfectly fine rock and roll. But there's nothing stand out on this. Seems like it's on the list because of what Jagger said about it. He was probably wrong. Just doesn't seem to fit on this list at all.
The Rolling Stones despite their greatness have never been my go to band. So a Rolling Stones tribute band have no chance. 2/5 25/4/25 Lots of 2 and 5’s there. Will have to remember that next month.
Fine yet forgettable 70s grooves
Good guitar riffs and terrible lyrics
Not very outstanding
Everything here sounds like the soundtrack to a bad parody movie. Band name and titles included.
M'eh. Let's just put this album in the "Sounds like everything else" box.
Als dit in de bar opkomt doe ik echt dekseltje over mn drinken
Yesterday’s Numbers was good but I mostly found myself wanting to listen to something else
Like the worst parts of The Rolling Stones mixed with a little Elvis mixed with *insert generic 60s/70s psychedelic sound here*. And too damn long
Gear: Dunu SA6 Artwork: 🎸😎🚬 Production: 🫢🤔💩 Music: 🙄🥱🤷♂️ Rating: 👨🚒(👩🚒)/5
Obviously shades of the Stones and others of that era/style with some moments of Elvis and Cash. My top tracks were Have You Seen My Baby and Whiskey Woman. Overall good though didn’t find it anything particularly memorable or special. (2.5 stars)
Sorry boys, but I simply did not enjoy this. It felt very same same to other, better music I had heard. A+ band name tho.
If I worked for a publication and they asked me to compile a list like this and I came back with so many albums full of covers I'd expect to be fired on the spot.
yeeeeeeeeeeha
Un rock básico, pasable, que no destaca mucho.
A couple fun songs, particularly in the first half but most of them were so corny.
I didn’t like it. It was folky in a bad way to me.
Aren't I done with this stupid project and all its stupid mediocre rock albums yet *checks* *994 albums rated* uuuuugghh
Acceptable background noise
Nothing makes me sadder than seeing today’s album be another 70s classic rock. At least this one was a bit more bluesy so I’ll give it credit there. But it’s another pass.
2.5 Fine, I guess. Lots of covers of songs done better by other people. The lead's voice is annoying. If this is supposedly better than the Rolling Stones album, why is that also on the list? Why are there also 5 more Rolling Stones albums on the list? 1001 albums to cover the entire breadth of all music released from the beginning of time, and we have to listen to 5-10 albums each of this guy's favorite 15 bands. I'm sure I will get angrier about this as I move forward.
Okay album. I wasn’t sure what to expect with a band name of “Flamin’ Groovies” but it was not too bad. It was a bluesy rock for several songs, country rock in places and rockabilly in others. I came away with the feeling that they had a big following in their hometown and surrounding areas but never really made the transition to the “big time”. Glad to have heard this album but I won’t return to it. I was torn between a 2 and a 3 for this one so erring on the side of caution.
Maybe it's here so we can recognize the evolution of the music business that went from "mick jagger thinks a rip-off band is better than his in 71" to "Mick Jagger will take all of your royalties for a loose similarity of your hit song in 96" Otherwise I guess this is just ok
About as milk toast as any other Stones knock off band I guess. The Flamin' Groovies are neither flamin', nor groovy on this sloppy garage-dad-band of a record, but some of the songs would be a good time at the pub after a few cold ones.
probably cause I'm not in the mood for this rn
Blah
Unique.
Tedious
Not that interesting
Lyrics: 2/5 Music: 2/5 Production: 2/5 Cohesiveness: 2/5 Overall: 2/5 Stand out songs: City lights
If George Thorogood started a shitty late-career Doors cover band, they would call themselves Flamin’ Grooves. City Lights had a blue-eyed bluesy drift to it. Evil Hearted Ada could have been the song Elvis was singing before he crapped himself to death. I found that most of this album you could randomly advance the scroll bar and it didn’t change the song. Overall, like drinking absinthe, I don’t regret listening but I won’t be doin’ that again.
This one was okay, I was surprised when I looked up the reviews and saw how good they were when this album came out. It just felt like standard garage-rock/british invasion sound, like they were trying to be the Rolling Stones. I wouldn't listen to this one again.
Je ne vois vraiment pas l'attrait de cet album. Chaque pièce sonnait comme si le band essayait de reproduire le son d'un autre de leurs contemporains (ex : RS, Eagles). 3/10
I had a huge review typed in here that appears to now be lost. My main thesis is that they sound like a really good bar band (and that's based on their originals, not the extra covers at the end). You could pick Grateful Dead vocals, Elvis, Rockpile, and a bunch of other similarities out of their music. I'm not accusing them of copying, just of not having a strong identity. They get a 2 because they annoyed me - they are so close to being something perfect to me and they just kept not being.
It’s fine - I was honestly expecting a garage rock or proto punk album based on the cover and my preconceived notions about this band. Kinda underwhelming blues rock when you actually listen. I’d probably end up playing Sticky Fingers by the Rolling Stones rather than this.
Not great, not too bad. Wasn’t too excited by the vocalist- meh.
jahas yllpidolla metkupäällä, metkut pyärii päässä hmm mitäs tehtäis seuraavaksi juksuttae mites juksutellaan et-tajuu-viela tyyppiä (VIHAAN SITÄ.. NIIN VITUSTI...) ja sitten laittaa näitä kuravesi 70-alkupoppia kymmenen peräjälkeen kongajonoon ulvomaan. ei pahemmin ole sitä pysymisvoimaa tällä teoksella mutta ilmeisesti tarpeeksi että päässyt kirjaan mukaan juhlimaan. hohhoijjakkaa tämä oltaisiin unholaan voitu jättää, en vihaa toki.. en vihaa.. no hate here.. .im not hating im just asking questions... love their refusal to jump on the bandwagon of the times???????????????????????? se kysymys tässä kontekstissa on että kuka vittu tuon kirjoitti blruuuuh.. minä tiedän ehkä vähän paremmin näistä asioista ja kyseenalaistan kommenttia. anyway teenage head.... teen teen head... city lights
Deeply, thoroughly inessential.
I didn't even get halfway through. It was competent blues rock, but it just sounded like the Rolling Stones without the panache.
It's not Rolling Stones, and it's not something I would listen to without being forced. So unfortunately, I will just quietly move on.
on a streak of boring albums
vintage bluesy good-times pervert rock has really never been my thing, i gotta be real, and this record does nothing interesting to make me reassess my bias
2.5
There’s a real garage band sound going on, not in a good way. Amazon initially took me to a completely different album by them, so I’ve listened to 2 of these to come to this conclusion.
Albums like this remind me about the fact, that not every album from this list is great. Cause I definitely didn't have to listen to this before I die. It's incredibly mediocre. I don't want to listen to albums like this.
Good old classic blues rock, not the best of it's kind. It's neither good nor bad. There're are some good basslines and arrangements. Decent, but to be fair, it doesn't age well. However, I'm kind of into this genre so I'd give it a 3 for personal bias.
an album like this really makes it obvious how this dude just made up a list of almost random “significant” records cobbled from other sources and peppered with contemporary critical favourites in order to seem “relevant”. all well and good but makes the whole enterprise a bit of a slog
A couple of interesting came out of this for me. One, I noted another Randy Newman writing credit, on Have You Seen My Baby? The guy’s fingerprints are everywhere! Two, it led me to discover the Flamin’ Groovies’ song Shake Some Action, which is rather, ahem, groovy. Unfortunately none of the songs that are actually on this album are as good as that, with the possible exception of Whiskey Woman. 2.5
There is little I hate more than a steel guitar. I despise this.
I love blues rock, so this was a good album to listen to. That said, I don’t know that it really belongs on this list. There wasn’t anything terribly distinctive, and the style is well represented by other albums from bands with a much more lasting impact on the industry. I say cut this for something underrepresented
What a boring and forgettable album! Most generic rock I can think of, nothing special whatsoever. Didn't sound particularly good either compared to some other '70s albums. Maybe it was influential back then, I don't know, but it certainly drowns in the sea of good rock available from that era. Giving it a weak 2 out of lack of inspiration and fun-ness. Only thing saving it from a 1 was that it doesn't sound as outright bad as some other 1s we've had.
Reading wikipedia I found out the covers at the end were not a part of the original album (which is a good thing) and it was released the same year as "Sticky Fingers" by "The Rolling Stones" which puts this album in to the context that maybe this was quite a newish sound when it came out. To modern ears it sounds quite generic blues rock. I really liked "Whiskey Woman" but the rest just felt your standard rock and blue band playing at their local pub.
This album just really doesn't do it for me. It's so bland and unoriginal, yet it also manages to be dissonant and unmelodic. There are so many much better 70s rock albums out in the world, and even on this list, and there is absolutely no reason that this album should be in the book.
Average garage rock
not bad but wouldn’t call it good. too many bland albums like this on this list tbh
The worse Rolling Stones. 2.375
Average blues rock album
Yeah not bad some odd songs though
Wasn't expecting to hate this, but the singer's *affect* really grated on me. Otherwise unremarkable 60s rock. Not for me.
I feel like. This is fine
I don't know. I could appreciate what they were going for more than I could actually enjoy it if you know what I mean. I would give it a 2.5 if I could. I'm rounding down because I really just didn't care for this all that much and by the time the last song hit I was quite done with it.
Not bad for the era. A little too rockabilly, but a fun little record.
Not interested.
Very 80s US bluesy rock inspired by 50s rock. Not crazy about 50s rock so those influences leave me colder. I liked some of the songs a lot like whisky woman (such a doors title and vibe) and city lights - a bit slower more of a pensive bluesy twangy guitar vibe. Probably won’t put this on again but wouldn’t mind hearing it.
And here I thought there was nothing worst than The Rolling Stones...
Not very memorable.
Its as if the rolling stones were born in the south of the USA, but not as good.
Mediocre. Not mad or anything, but I would probably never listen to this again of my own accord
Pretty 'meh' bluesy garage rock. I don't have much to say, least of all anything interesting, because I didn't really notice anything special. I guess that for the time they went against the mainstream some, but I don't see this album as being particularly important in music history. Or really a notable one at that. The music is fine and pleasant enough with it's rock n' roll/rockability vibes. Maybe it's just not really my genre? Either way: Not sure why it's on the list, but I don't hate it. It's unlikely that it will ever come up for me ever again though Standouts That'll Be the Day 2/5
3/10 No thanks, this isn't what we ordered. you can take it back to the kitchen now. 7-24-2024
If I closed my eyes and concentrated, I’d think I was listening to the Rolling Stones. Or maybe that’s wishful thinking.
Decent blues rock but for the era of Yardbirds, and so many others, this feels like the Dollar Store version.
It's almost like this album is boring or something. OH WAIT, IT IS ANOTHER BORING 70's ALBUM! This album is so uninteresting and has no identity of its own.
Underwhelming
It's okay
enjoyable music-music but nothing my brain will retain after a week
Q: How many Stones licks can one garage band rip off on one side? A: Too many to count. Yes, this rocks and would seem easy to like, but in totally derivative fashion (including both covers and originals). One doesn't have to like it just because Greil Marcus thought enough of this lot to write about them (or one song anyway). Plus, the idiotic name, for which rounding down. 2.5 > 2
Ziemlich nervig
Thought the R&B music vibes throughout this album were really good. Some of it reminiscent of The Stones in an inferior kind of way though. Vocally I thought it was very weak, especially the harmonies. Think it was a live recording and it's the first time I have listened to this band in fairness. Overall not bad. Would have given it more stars if I had liked the vocals more
Never heard of this. The wiki said it was a better version of the stones blend of white boy rock and blues. A couple of run throughs just confirmed this was a mostly correct statement, except it's not better. It could be the same or worse.
Blir bara en svag tvåa.
Musically was pretty good but some of the lyrics were questionable. Specifically the part about fantasizing about high schoolers. Probably will never go back to listen.
Not for me, wasn’t really feeling this. Didn’t feel fresh to me, and I thought the lyrics were lame
Nothing wrong with doing old music as long as you bring something new to the table which this album doesn’t do. This is just “here is a cool blues riff” and “here is a neat rockabilly song” for thirty minutes. The title track gets close to something new, but other than that, it’s basically a cover record. I’m glad that you discovered a bunch of cool old songs that you like, but if that’s all you have to say then just make a mix tape.
It's fine, but sounds rather Rolling Stones derivative and uninspiring
BORING! I was quite up for this. They're groovy right? I like that! But actually, I don't like hearing garage band covers of old rock 'n' roll standards and not very good musicality. Get a few marks for the opener and the Whisky one (I'm unwilling to even check the track listings, such is my disdain).
Ok I'm sorry it this sounds so so dated and rusty. It's like what somebody's dad calls "the underground music".
Flamin Groovies didn’t really pick a lane with this…sometimes it’s similar to The Rolling Stones, a few songs have a NY early-punk vibe, and then there’s some bluesy slide guitar à la Jack White. Interesting if not entirely compelling.
Unremarkable
Not really my thing. It is a bluesy rock n roll thing but still it is a bit to rough for me.
Sounds like every other blues/psychedelic rock band (and album) from the era, except this is even less memorable than usual.
the flaming groovies' teenage head isn't the most engaging music, but it also wasn't terrible. an album that's easy to forget. the garage rock with some blues aspects stood out some. at least it didn't stand out enough in such a negative way?
A band I had never heard of before. This was fine, average blues rock. They reminded me a lot of the Rolling Stones in their sound. Overall, this just didn't really hit me in any kind of special way. Not offense, but not great.
Started off fine and was Rolling Stones-y but I got a little sick of it.
Кантри психодел что-то Я хз, местами я смеялся в голос с того, что я не понимал что за херню я слушаю) А местами мне было приятно Алкоальбом: пиво 387
Ну. Это сильно конечно, но чёт подзадолбало, Периодически было ощущение, что я начинаю вдуплять и втягиваться в вайб, но звук чёт прям ужасный. Наверное под пивас можно было бы втащиться, прям представляю себя где-то в баре с ковбойской шляпой... хер знает почему со шляпой.
Nothing amazing, but it’s nice to hear stuff from bands I’ve never heard of.
Meh
Pretty cool sound. I wasn't expecting the Beatles-y sounding tracks (like "Have You Seen My Baby?") or the twangy folk country tracks (like "City Lights") or the Johnny Cash / Elvis tracks (like "Evil Hearted Ada") or the Neil Young tracks (like "Whiskey Woman") or the Rolling Stones tracks (like "Walkin' the Dog"). The more I listen the more I think this is like a medley album that pays homage to these artists, and the more I think about it the more I think it's not a great album. I feel like there's such a lack of consistency between the tracks that if I avert my attention away from the music for a few minutes, my subconscious brain would probably process this as a local dad rock band (nothing against dad rock!) that is trying to cover other famous artists and genre hops to the best of their ability. Then when it gets to the cover of "That'll Be the Day" all I can think of is "yea this is the point in the local VFW town BBQ where the band comprised of 60+ year old Knights of Columbus members starts playing covers- where every member plays the songs to the "t", everyone in the band sings, and there's no added substance or fun or energy added. Doing a deeper dive into the subgenre's of this list (curated by Spotify, not by me), we're currently at 526 albums generated, and the top subgenre is Rock with 211 entries, then Classic Rock with 125. In a list that is utterly filled with blues rock / classic rock, I really don't think this addition is worth it. Does this compare to The Who, Bruce Springsteen, David Bowie, Aerosmith, Jimi Hendrix, The Rolling Stones, The Doors, Creedence, Pink Floyd, etc etc.? No, and it's not even close. I want to give it a 1 but I feel like it's a 1.8 for me which is way too high for a 1.
Meh
A poor man's Rolling Stones. And you know how I feel about the Rolling Stones...
Good ... but it seems old hat. The songs don't exactly push the boundaries of rock. Think "The Cramps" without the kitsch, or the fun.
Well, that was interesting! 1st song starts out good - and then he sings! I almost stopped it right there, well, actually I did. But I tried another, and City Lights was different, and pretty good. But it kept bouncing around, like they just didn't know WHAT to play. By the end of the album they are playing older songs, and they do them well. I know, Mick Jagger heard them and like 'em. But I'm not going to add this to my must listen list.
Ikkje da mest minneverdige eg har hørt fra den epoken
Rockabilly!
Was ok, but the penultimate song was super creepy, so minus a star for that.
Aufgeregt langweiliger Garage Rock.
Favorite Tracks: Whiskey Woman Have You Seen My Baby 32-20
I dunno, if you like blues and rock you’ll get something out of it but if that’s not your go to? Then there’s not much here.
This is fine, but that's all it is. All the best tracks are covers, and having this many covers highlights the shortcomings of the originals. Adding to that it's a bit sloppy sounding in parts I probably wouldn't listen again.
Had fun, did t really stick with me
Predictably average country rock. The best songs were covers.
Standard 70's blues/rock, nothing special here
not great, the spotify bio suggests there might be some groove, or blues to this, but there isn't - it's pretty much sub Stones pub rock garbage
As it stands, I felt incredibly lukewarm about it. I'd definitely have to be in the right mood for it
I couldn't get into this band/album. I had never heard of Flamin' Groovies before and I doubt I'll hear about them after today which begs the question why they are on this list to begin with.
I never liked the Stones. And I don't like this. So I suppose their connection through Jagger's thoughts on this album makes sense. It's well put together and all. It's just empty and doesn't elicit any excitement from me. I am sure had I been a teen in '71, I would feel different.
Udmærket rock, lidt psyk/blues vibes, ikke helt oppe at ringe
First few songs were decent but the rest of the album was awful
Why are the most bland/uninteresting albums the longest? Not sure what the significance of this LP is, especially to merit inclusion here. It's decent blues rock, but I'd wager good money it was far from the first LP to sound this way and there are 100 others out there that are better executed. Only thing I can guess is this is the first recorded example of butt rock, otherwise I've got nothing
not bad
Long and annoying.
1. high flying baby - 1 2. city lightz - 1 3. have you zeen my baby - 1 4. yezterdayz numberz - 1 5. teenage head - 1 6. 32 -20 - 1 7. evil hearted ada - 1.5 8. doctor boogie - 1 9. uuhizky uuoman - 1.5 10. zhaking all over - 1 11. thatll be the day - 1.5 12. louie louie - 1.5 13. uualking the dog - 1 14. zcratch my back - 1 15. carol - 1.5 16. going out theme - 1
You know, every album I've listened to for a project has given me some reason to say, "Yeah, I could see this being one of the top 1000 or so most important albums to listen to." Whether the artist and/or album has an iconic legacy, the ties to a specific genre or music movement give it historical value, or the album is just really good, these albums (for the most part) all make sense to be on this list. Teenage Head by Flamin' Groovies does not make sense to be on this list. Between Wikipedia, Apple Music, and the description on this very website, the only thing of value that I gathered about this album is that Mick Jagger liked it. That's it. But hey, something doesn't have to be popular to deserve recognition. Maybe this album is really good to give it that value. Well, if you're looking for a really good album, look somewhere else. This album has two songs that I thought were decent (Yesterday's Numbers and Whiskey Woman). The others made me feel practically nothing. While this album isn't horrible or anything, and I didn't feel any true negativity while listening to this, I can not find a good reason as to why this should be considered for this list. 2/5. The first of this project.
Yet again not sure how essential this is. Certainly has some fun moments, but it's also kinda silly and lyrically lame. 2.5/5 Fav track: Whisky woman
Nope, boring rehashes of far better artists with far more personality. More songs about underage girls. One and a half. Favourite track: City Lights
Not really my kind of thing. Close though. 70s blues/rock can be ok but I'd probably rather just have either blues, or rock.
Some good covers, but otherwise not for me.
meh.
The opening song was fun but the rest of the album just didn’t change and got very old very quickly
Louie Louie only song
Sounds like a local cover band. Nothing special here
Inoffensive sounding rock music. Nothing really stuck out to me and nothing really grabbed me besides the intro bass line of titular song "Teenage Head". A very mediocre album at the end of the day for me.
This was an okay album
Wow: die Band hat es echt geschafft, eine mit 60 Minuten viel zu lange Platte im Stile der Beatles aufzunehmen, allerdings im Jahr 1970 und im Stil der Beatles von 1963. Allenfalls für Musikarchäologen und gegebenenfalls Plagiatsforscher interessant, ansonsten wirklich so unglaublich verzichtbar, dass ich mich noch nicht mal mehr aufregen mag.
Very generic and boring. Does not belong on this list at all.
Not bad, but nothing too interesting either, I wouldn't go out of my way to listen to it again.
I tried so hard to get into this and it just never worked out, which is unfortunate since "Flamin' Groovies" is a damn good band name
Meh
Not for me
Some good Sticky Fingers-esque jams on here, but a lot of dross and a shite Elvis impression. Noncey title too.
Right down the middle. Strong 2.5
Sounds like a cover or tribute band that hasn't quite found their sound yet. Fitting that the covers on the bonus disc are the best songs here. Anyway, there are some good songs, but not a complete album. There's just that bit of originality missing. Two donut holes out of five. 🍩🍩
Like the guitar riffs. Don't as much like the vocals.
I can see there's a logic to something that was of the era/genre of the Rolling Stones that might have been part of a scene but I don't think this holds up well as an album not to miss.
Exactly an hour - a pleasing length. In this case, it's a bit too long. If I was running a kooky vintage retro shop, I would probably put this album on. As it is, it's kooky retro and vintage, and sounds a lot like other things (Captain Beefheart, Chuck Berry, screaming Jay Hawkins etc...). I'm not that into it, not sure I will be bothered to listen to the whole thing. Oh well. Two stars.
Sounded alright, might have to revisit this one to form a solid opinion.
Interesting band. Whiskey Woman was a high point for me. It's got a kind of Neil Young vibe that I dig. Overall, this is a talented early rock band that is surprising for the fact that they didn't make it bigger. Seems like chance and circumstance and bad management controlled their destiny. The low points were the Bee-bop-a-loula and other early 60's nonsense throwbacks. These are just a bit old for my interest and fall more in the generation of my father.
Mick Jagger thought "Teenage Head" was as good as "Sticky Fingers." It was not. It was not even good enough to be remembered and preserved by the overlords at Amazon Music. I found a few of the tracks from the original album, and listened to a few other Flamin' Groovies tunes. They're fine, but they're nowhere near the Stones at their best.
Derivative and at times annoying vocals. But a couple of good grooves.
Low priority, LTIL
This was okay-ish, minus the titular song about a "teenage love machine". ??? The 70s were wild... But yeah, I hope by now anyone reading my reviews has learned that white boys making blues knock offs doesn't really do it for me. Some catchy riffs here, sure, but why would I want to come back to this?
Some good blues rock riff here and there, but didn't love the vocals
An hour is way too long for this. Nothing that I have to hear again. 1 - bad 2 - average 3 - good 4 - great 5 - outstanding
I'm hearing Rolling Stones, Beatles, and even a bit of The Ramones particularly in have You Seen My Baby? Yesterday's Numbers is a groove. I like the guitar crunchiness. It does feel like this is a...less successful/more garage band style of Rolling Stones meets Beatles. It's interesting because it doesn't suck, which soundalikes often do. They've done it. 16 tracks ranging from 2:30 - 6:50 in length. I wonder how they did that back in the day? Getting rockabilly vibes too from Evil Hearted Ada. I bet they were fun to see live. I like the filter effect, wonder if its an Eventide H9000 or whatever? Whiskey Woman is cool. Shakin' All Over has a good groove. Feels like good grooves abound. Feels like the recording got worse as the album continued out. From Louie Louie, to Walkin' the Dog to Carol, there is a lot of microphone feedback and it feels like teh quality has gone down. Wonder if they ran out of money or there's some other reason?
Meh
Ihan jees
Just ok, the honky tonk tracks didn't do it for me, bit some of the rocky ones were alright. Would give it 2.5* if I could. Probably won't listen again so maybe 2* is more fair than 3*
Too much rocking and rolling for me
Catchy, but not something I'd seek out to listen to again.
Not very good.Most of this album is just boring blues soloing.Vocals aren’t great and none of it is very catchy or original.The best songs are covers of songs that are already good.Don’t understand why this is on the list.Apparently Mick jagger likes it?Hes wrong.
Meh. It's early rock and roll, but it's just not doing it for me. I feel like a bunch of the bands that I love from the 80's and 90's would probably quote this album as important to them, but I'm not quite getting it. In fairness, my own lens is probably getting in my own way. It's almost delta blues, but it's not. It's almost southern rock, but it's not. It's almost Elvis, but it's not. It's almost boogie-woogie, but it's not. I could easily be struggling between several well-tread paths and not quite able to place it in my own pantheon. This is also 10 years after the Kinks and the Velvet Underground, which I think blows this out of the water in terms of rock and roll before it was classic rock or southern rock or any of those other subgenres.
Reaaally not something I could hang with. I Listened to maybe half the album hoping there would be at least 1 song I could jam to, I think the eponymous track was pretty solid at least. Other than that, the music is OK, but the mixing is pretty bad and I'm constantly trying to ignore the vocals.
No thanks!
Not much happening with this
It starts off as the link between Kings of Leon and the Rolling Stones beggars banquet. However, it’s not long before to descends to some Johnny Cash and then a bad blues Brothers before returning into some psychedelica
2.5/5
Du blues rock ben ordinaire. Belle énergie par contre.
J'étais pas sûr au début. Un peu beaucoup de Rolling Stones, un peu de Kinks, un peu de Trashmen. J'ai pas vraiment aimé les 2 premières chansons. À partir de la 3e, je commence à embarquer. J'aime le petit côté on se prend pas trop au sérieux et on a du fun. On est aussi plus rock que les Stones. Arrive à la fin Whisky Woman. Wow, on est vraiment ailleurs avec cette pièce. J'adore la groove. Jusque là je me disais qu'il n'y avait rien de bien original, mais ici j'ai vraiment accroché. Je ne sais pas si le reste de leur disques ont suivi cette voie, mais on s'en allait vers quelque chose d'original. Les pièces suivantes qui sont un bonus sur l'orignal sont inutiles et ces reprises sont inintéressantes. Pour Whisky Woman, l'écoute valait la peine. Pour le reste, on aurait pu passer à côté.
Yet another album that's so past way expiration it clearly can't qualify for "an album you just have to listen to". And frankly, I doubt it should have qualified even back when it was new.
It's fun. Utterly unambitious, but well played and committed to it's thing.
No interest. Why bother ?
Sometimes you can judge a book by its cover.
Pick a sound for God’s sake. Are you a Beatles remake? Elvis? Any folk band ever? Hopefully they’ve decided in the 51 years since this album came out.
Quite generic. Had no strong opinions either way.
Meh.
Meh
This didn't land for me. I liked the band much better a few years later when they did Shake Some Action. I don't hear any of that tuneful effervescence on this record.
Never heard of this before...this would be an amazing bar band to hear for sure, but as an overall revisiting listening experience...not so sure on that one. 2.5 starts (although it looks like 2)
I didn't like this album. Maybe not my genre
Better than I expected. Very similar to The Rolling Stones. Recording quality is awful, but that might be somewhat intentional.
yeehaw 🤠
Who? Flamin' Groovies? This can't be a real band. Generic-ass '70s rock band doing mostly blues covers. Don't want it, don't need it. Nothing sounds awful but I don't care about it much. I liked one of their original songs, so that's worth something. But not worth a spot on the list. Favorite tracks: Yesterday's Numbers, Louie Louie. Album art: Band photo I presume. Dude in the front looks geriatric. Nothing special here, just like the music. 2/5
Quitando "Whiskey Woman" no me ha llamado la atención ninguna canción. Se deja escuchar y poco más, en el 71 debió de ser un hito pero ha envejecido mal o al menos me lo parece a mí.
Converse to some other reviews, I think this is a fantastic name that the group doesn't really live up to. Bog ordinary garage rock really
Canadian Ramones, pass
very bland early rock 2.5
So side one I am there for this, strong vibes of the Stones of the same period which is a good thing and good songs. But the covers that dominate the second half are inessential and Dr Feelgood would come along soon and do this kind of stuff much better.
Didn't really blow me away and I didn't enjoy the Elvis impersonation. Also amused by the Rickenbacker in the case an the album artwork. Well done, you made a purchase. Do you want to actually hold that heavy instrument? No? Didn't think so.
This was just to troll Greil Marcus, wasn’t it, because he included “Shake Some Action” (not pictured here) in his Rock History in 10 Songs (strong recommend). At their best, the FGs sound like the top Stones tribute band in suburban New Jersey, 1971 edition. Not exactly life-changing. Or, more to the point, had one died without hearing this, would anyone have noticed? 2.4 > 2.
I like the band name. It's pretty basic music unfortunately and nothing special by today's standards
First impressions is that they’re just a budget Rolling Stones. But then going through the album its quite interesting to hear all of their influences mixed in, from the blues to Elvis, showcasing their musicality. Then even touching on a bit of an early punk sound. Then ending with a complete show stopper in Whiskey Woman - Great song. Overall though, I cant get away from that generic pub rock vibe that does little to interest me. 2/5 - Pub cover band vibe with one good song
I love how I started listening to this album and thought "Hey this sounds just like Exile on Main Street," and the one fun fact from the wikipedia page is that Jagger thought it sounded like Sticky Fingers. Well that's close enough. It's classic blues rock with some rockabilly and roots rock. Sounds good, but no outstanding tracks. Would likely never revisit this album outside the context of this list. Would have been 3 stars if they had originality.
Not bad, but nothing really drew me in.
Warmed over Rolling Stones. So what.
I'm not sure if these were trailblaizers or pioneers of modern rhythm and blues, but they sound like 99% of American rock bands from 68-72. If they set the sound fair enough, but they are buried under better versions.
I'm sure this was very important and groundbreaking in its day and all that. But now it just sounds like the soundtrack to the bit in a buddy movie when the buddies inadvertently get into a fight in a dodgy bar. I suppose someone had to do it first.
Very disappointing. Diverse styles implied a lack of confidence in their music. Won't be listening again and skipped through later tracks on the album.
Reminds me of a bar band doing covers of late 50's / early 60's rock tunes. Whiskey Woman got interesting, but much of this sounded like style pastiches.
First listen ok
Meh
Rolling Clones
Notable tracks: city lights, yesterday’s numbers, whisky woman Notes: blues rock type of album. Was not the biggest fan of the album, on some tracks I do enjoy the actual sound of it. But overall not really impressed (only listened to the original 9 tracks)
Starts off sounding like the rolling stones and in particular sticky fingers so im curious to know who inspired who... then there are a bunch of rock and roll standards which arent very interesting and their extended jams remind a bit of the doors (particularly on shakin all over), i liked their take on louie louie, but the standards bit of the album is nowhere nearly as interesting as the start. Oooh wikipedia says the original release is only the front bit, the rock standards are bonus from the re-issue, so thats why they are a bit mundane i suppose.
not bad but very forgettable.
Ehhhh Idk dude
it was not a bad album but definitly not my taste
Nothing special in my opinion. May have influenced a lot of albums and artists that I love, but sounds quite boring by today's standards.
Had one or two fun tracks. A lot was just elvis inspired nonse
I don't know man. Flamin Groovies?? C'mon
Old rock n roll. kinda boring
A few of the tracks are pretty darn fun; like the dark bluesy stuff and their rockabilly track is pretty cool (almost a spoof on Elvis? can't tell...the music is great). A couple songs get a little surf-rock sounding, which adds some nice texture. I like the 'Louie Louie' cover; has a nice little breakdown section, good jam. Hadn't heard of this band or album before. It's fine, but not likely one I'll return to; not really their fault, I suppose, but in the 50 years since this album was released there are just far too many more interesting offerings out there in this style.
Not bad, not that special
This album sounds like it was made by multiple artists. I’m hearing Elvis, Arthur Russell, a little honkey tonk n roll, just doesn’t feel like one original, unique sound. I liked it. But was confused.
eh? i think i skipped most of the record boourns. its fine for background
Yep this sounds like a knock off Rolling Stones or Aerosmith. not really my vibe. Yea its a louder, faster blues album.
3/10. The best part was the random screaming during "Yesterday's numbers"
Meh. Had potential, but didn't really enjoy it.
Unremarkable
okay 2.5
Tämä ei kyllä jaksanut kiinnostaa yhtään. Tylsää bluesrockia ilman mitään massasta poikkeavia elementtejä.
2.5
Boring old man music
Meh
Rolling Stones in America
not my cup of tea
alright power pop album, some tracks slaps but really nothing special.
Feel like im on a farm or something not for me
no.
Sure, they might not be the tightest band... And their music might not be the most original... And their band name might be a little stupid... And the album name might be a little sus... And their singer might not be very good... Along with the rest of the band... And their lyrics might suck... And the production might be a product of its time to put it lightly... And the album might be a little long... But uh..... yeah I got nothing.
Lyrically not my vibe and this type of songs there voices are boring 1.89/10
This album was close to a one-star after some uninspired muddy blues-rock but it sort of won me over by the end. It's definitely long and forgettable, though. I've just finished listening to it and the only song I can even remotely recall is Louie Louie, a classic cover, and it's worse than the original. Okay, maybe this is a one. I don't think it's offensively awful but it was definitely a waste of time. Listen to literally any Rolling Stones album instead. Fav tracks: Whiskey Woman
Just really not for me, kind of doesn't sound like anything.
awful. Trying, but not succeeding, to make a sequel to exile on main street?
Too close to the 60s to be enjoyable. Snoozefest. Due for one given the two weeks of good music I've had so far.
This must have hit so hard if you were cis, straight, white, a teenager, and middle class in 1971.
Kanske bara är en Stones-parodi men jag ruttnar rätt rejält på detta efter några låtar. Tyvärr är det väldigt många låtar.
Meh
No thanks
Poor facsimile of The Rollings Stones, which is a poor facsimile of [insert any Black American blues artist]. I truly don't get it anymore, what are we doing here boys???
I got an STD from listening to this.
NAH
Raw and electric, but I feel like there are better examples in the genre of garage country band. Whiskey Woman was about the only song that caught my ear. 1 - doesn't deserve to be on this list.
Meh