Okay, no Aftermath in this poll: the reason being, that I intend to focus on the releases where they were primarily a rhythm and blues outfit and the Jagger/Richard writing team was in its infancy.

Decided between 12x5 & Now! I picked Now, a lot of Blues & R & B on that album, I don't think the Jagger/Richards songwriting really got going until Out Of Our Heads.

Yes, Out Of Heads featured a few self-penned compositions, but is included here as it fits the era specified. If anything, you could argue that the album pointed to a new direction: soul music.

I voted for the UK debut. Its a blistering collection of RnB scorchers and slow blues numbers: Tell Me (You're Coming Back), being the exception, of course

for me, the stones didn't really do R&B until Black and Blue -
the early Rhythm and Blues stuff was stiff and awkward, but the later, more funky stuff was the stones blueprint for white rock and roll guys with soul.

i've always had a soft spot for their debut.

texile wrote on Nov 18^th, 2009 at 6:24pm:

for me, the stones didn't really do R&B until Black and Blue - the early Rhythm and Blues stuff was stiff and awkward, but the later, more funky stuff was the stones blueprint for white rock and roll guys with soul.

Have you seen the NME Poll Winners footage from ’64 and ’65? Absolutely nothing ‘stiff and awkward’ about their early RnB years at all! There may have been over more, how shall we say, serious blues-style acts working the London club circuit – John Mayall, Alexis Corner, Cyril Davis, etc – but the Stones were excellent at working and crowd and were surely one of the more convincing British acts of the day. Little Red Rooster is the blueprint recording of a blues staple by a 1960’s group – and lets not forget that it is the sole pure blues recording to reach the UK top spot.

Black and Blue?  Funky?  ;D

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 11:50am:

texile wrote on Nov 18th, 2009 at 6:24pm: for me, the stones didn't really do R&B until Black and Blue - the early Rhythm and Blues stuff was stiff and awkward, but the later, more funky stuff was the stones blueprint for white rock and roll guys with soul. Have you seen the NME Poll Winners footage from ’64 and ’65? Absolutely nothing ‘stiff and awkward’ about their early RnB years at all! There may have been over more, how shall we say, serious blues-style acts working the London club circuit – John Mayall, Alexis Corner, Cyril Davis, etc – but the Stones were excellent at working and crowd and were surely one of the more convincing British acts of the day. Little Red Rooster is the blueprint recording of a blues staple by a 1960’s group – and lets not forget that it is the sole pure blues recording to reach the UK top spot. Black and Blue?  Funky?  ;D

What he said!!  ;D

I love all of these albums.

Rolling Stones Now is my selection.  Its a great R&B record.  Little Red Rooster is beautiful and mesmorizing. Down The Road Apiece, Mona, Pain In My Heart, Weve Got A Good Thing Going, Everybody Needs Somebody To Love, .....I love every song on that album.

I feel this is the early Stones at their best.

I agree with tex - Blackand Blue is funky!!

While i think their first LP may be the best of their entire catalouge things like  Mercy Mercy and Hitch Hike from OOOH are great RnB (imho)  - also Moving On is fantastic- the stones invent country punk!!

I’m quite surprised that 12x5 seems to be a favourite for a few here. I remember being quite disappointed upon first listen: particularly with the ‘organ’ version of Time Is On My Side. In hindsight, it’s a solid release, but, IMO, the weakest of their early long players.

Rolling Stones Now! and Decembers Children, are both cracking releases. I especially like the latter, with the rip-roaring She Said Yeah and Brian’s exquisite harp on Look What You’ve Done: it’s a travesty that UK fans were deprived of such a fine number until the Stone Age compilation.

Keep the voting coming!

I don't think there's any possible way I could vote for just 1....or even 2 or 3. Such a dynamic time for the band! Just the way it was envisioned from the beginning... :)

More voting please!  :willya

Honky Tonk Man wrote on Nov 19^th, 2009 at 11:50am:

texile wrote on Nov 18th, 2009 at 6:24pm: for me, the stones didn't really do R&B until Black and Blue - the early Rhythm and Blues stuff was stiff and awkward, but the later, more funky stuff was the stones blueprint for white rock and roll guys with soul. Have you seen the NME Poll Winners footage from ’64 and ’65? Absolutely nothing ‘stiff and awkward’ about their early RnB years at all! There may have been over more, how shall we say, serious blues-style acts working the London club circuit – John Mayall, Alexis Corner, Cyril Davis, etc – but the Stones were excellent at working and crowd and were surely one of the more convincing British acts of the day. Little Red Rooster is the blueprint recording of a blues staple by a 1960’s group – and lets not forget that it is the sole pure blues recording to reach the UK top spot. Black and Blue?  Funky?  ;D

Maybe its the term R&B...
to me, Rhythm and Blues is the early stuff, like Mercy, Hitch Hike, Walking the Dog etc....
but when i think of R&B, i think of the more funky soulfull stuff starting with Black and Blue...when Mick seemed to be listening to the Ohio Players...things like that -

But itstill prefer the later stuff when the stones developed their own kind of soul...rather than copying

Okay, textile: each to their own, of course,

But there is no getting away from it: Rhythm and blues = RnB!!

The term has evolved to mean something quite different in today’s music world, but, IMO, the Stones didn’t stray too far from the origins of the term.

KEEP VOTING, PEOPLE!  :willya

my understanding of the térm R'n B has never been the same since i heard Bo Diddley define it in Hail Hail Rock and Roll...

"R 'n B don't meaning nothïng but Rip - off and Bullshit"

BUMP!

KEEP VOTING, PEOPLE!  :willya

Now! is their best early album IMO. I think that's where they peaked in the early years, as an album band. A lot of early lp's have greater individual songs, but contain a bit more filler songs.

I remember "Time is on my Side" Alot Different and I heard it, when it was on the air waves, the way I remember,  it was   :blankfriggingstare1spooky when we first heard it , like nothing else.............

---

the first three albums are essentially peas of a pod...that being said, the debut can't be topped...it's still the Stones album I play the most (the UK version preferably)

for a great number of R&B  see "MORE STONED THAN YOU'LL EVER BE"

an encyclopedia of early stones.    i.e., 'hitchhike'  

keef's  riffs are unbelieve....

30 votes thus far???

Folks, the Rolling Stones DID exist pre-Jumpin' Jack Flash

KEEP VOTING  :willya

The one thing I always notice about the debates on the early stuff is that while most Stones fans dig them, it's but a small group that spins them very often.

I surprised to see 12X5 this close to Now! btw.

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE!  :willya

I always like all the first Stones' albums. Pre JJF as someone said. :)
But I picked up Now, and I was been not so sure for 12 x 5 and Now.

VOTE, VOTE, VOTE  :willya

Teiz wrote on Dec 1^st, 2009 at 3:00pm:

The one thing I always notice about the debates on the early stuff is that while most Stones fans dig them, it's but a small group that spins them very often. I surprised to see 12X5 this close to Now! btw.

Yes...I find this odd too...My friend Richard...a HUGE fan...doesn't listen to or even know early Stones...like nothing before Flowers/Buttons...has never listened to TSMR...but gives me a CD copy of Dirty Work because he knows that I don't own or care for it...I did have the cassette when it came out...but still...he says i should own it if I am a fan...what irony that is, eh?!?

Paranoid Android wrote on Dec 19^th, 2009 at 10:07pm:

Teiz wrote on Dec 1st, 2009 at 3:00pm: The one thing I always notice about the debates on the early stuff is that while most Stones fans dig them, it's but a small group that spins them very often. I surprised to see 12X5 this close to Now! btw. Yes...I find this odd too...My friend Richard...a HUGE fan...doesn't listen to or even know early Stones...like nothing before Flowers/Buttons...has never listened to TSMR...but gives me a CD copy of Dirty Work because he knows that I don't own or care for it...I did have the cassette when it came out...but still...he says i should own it if I am a fan...what irony that is, eh?!?

There are many here who do not fully appreciate the pre-Jimmy Miller/ Jumpin’ Jack Flash years. Yes, they’re partial to Satisfaction, The Last Time, et al, but they don’t care enough to truly explore their early UK/U.S. LP’s. Partly, I think the era you appreciate and lean to in terms of listening pleasure, is tied in with when you became a fan. Someone who was 15 in 1965 may not be as hot on Some Girls and Tattoo You as those who were teens in the late 70’s. For those as I, however, those who became fans after their peak, - around ’99-’00 - it is different. I have the hindsight and ability to look at all era’s and measure their individual greatnesses and weaknesses without nostalgia. Whether it is 1975 or 1965 neither is my era. This – initially, it must be said – enabled the young Honky Tonk Man to listen to each era and judge it fairly without any particular attachment or sense of loyalty.

[quote author=Honky Tonk Man  Someone who was 15 in 1965 may not be as hot on Some Girls and Tattoo You as those who were teens in the late 70’s. For those as I, however, those who became fans after their peak, - around ’99-’00 - it is different. I have the hindsight and ability to look at all era’s and measure their individual greatnesses and weaknesses without nostalgia. Whether it is 1975 or 1965 neither is my era. This – initially, it must be said – enabled the young Honky Tonk Man to listen to each era and judge it fairly without any particular attachment or sense of loyalty.


[/quote]


Good points Honky,
I was about 12 when i discovered Some Girls on the radio in 1979....
and i always felt that the earlier Stones fans didn't appreciate the 70s stones as i much as i did - i felt i had that same lack of nostalgia enabled me to really listen to the stones' entire catalogue up to then objectively.
I love that early stuff, it was all part of the education - sitting on a fence, backstreet girl etc....its timeless.
But, having said that, the post 68 stones period is what i go back to whereas i haven't listened to out of our heads in literally decades....
Can't put my finger on it.