If I'm not mistaken, at least 98% of the Stones' first two albums or so were cover songs, and yet they became popular regardless of that....How come they elected to do covers rather than original songs at first? The Beatles did much the same. And why were cover artists so accepted back then, whereas cover bands are just looked down upon as hacks?

An easy answer is that the music that they covered...was not as readily available in the UK...Blues, for example...plus it was very common
for MANY artist then to re-do songs that were just a few years old.

Not really much different today...how many songs are "re-mixed"...sampled...covered...and mashed up these days?

I agree with P.A., sampling is just another type of cover...
most bands do covers to begin... in the early days of rock and roll there was less competition and bands hit the stage right away... you playerd whatever you could get together... and songwriting isn't easy... Beatles went for it, Stones were forced into doing it... Thank God for andrew Loog Oldham, locing Mick and Keith in a room til they wrote some tunes...

StonesFan1990 wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 6:45pm:

If I'm not mistaken, at least 98% of the Stones' first two albums or so were cover songs, and yet they became popular regardless of that....How come they elected to do covers rather than original songs at first? The Beatles did much the same. And why were cover artists so accepted back then, whereas cover bands are just looked down upon as hacks?

because they weren't a pop band and the notion of 19 year old English kids writing blues songs was preposterous. Which when you think about it, is a pretty reasonable perspective.

There wasnt so much of a link between being a songwriter and being a recording artist back then. The 'Tin Pan Alley'/ 'Brill Building' method of 'house' songwriters was still very common. The singer-songwriter trend became more the norm as the decade progressed.

Its a thing that a lot of people who dismiss the likes of Sinatra, Elvis etc lightly because they werent writers tend to forget. It just wasn't that common back then for commercially popular artists to also write their own material.

The fact that it became de rigeur for rock/pop acts to write their own material after that is probably part of the reason why the latter day trend of boybands doing soulless and lifeless covers of old songs is seen as a trend that is regressive.

Keith is on record as saying that when he started out in the Stones, the notion of being a songwriter was about as relevant to him as being a blacksmith.  It was seen as (for the most part) an entirely different discipline.

This best way to learn who you are is to learn who they are, the ones you love.
Do them as best you can, add your feel , put in your input, many artist have done other songwriters material and made it their own.

Keith always says there is only one song...just different versions....

My guess is that they belonged to a group of kids that fell deeply in love with a musical style and they became famous when they were still trying to master the blues. Nothing weird about that.

Another probable suggestion is that back in the early 60's the Stones were more or less normal lads and they preferred masturbation over songwriting as a passtime...pick the one you prefer  ;)

Their one and only mission when they began was to "turn people on to Muddy Waters" and the other American blues artists they loved. This music was the "alternative" music of the day - rare, outside, forbidden, hard to get your hands on. When Mick and Keith met on the train that fateful day, it was Mick's armload of imported blues records that made Keith strike up a conversation.

And Gazza is exactly right - artists writing their own songs wasn't common back then. The Beatles admired Buddy Holly and Chuck Berry for doing just that, and set out from the beginning to write their own songs. Their success changed the playing field in many ways, but that was the big one. Even though the Stones loved Chuck Berry, they initially had no real desire to become songwriters.  They were just afraid that they would eventually run out of cool obscure blues songs to cover.

Gazza wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 7:46pm:

StonesFan1990 wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 6:45pm: If I'm not mistaken, at least 98% of the Stones' first two albums or so were cover songs, and yet they became popular regardless of that....How come they elected to do covers rather than original songs at first? The Beatles did much the same. And why were cover artists so accepted back then, whereas cover bands are just looked down upon as hacks? because they weren't a pop band and the notion of 19 year old English kids writing blues songs was preposterous. Which when you think about it, is a pretty reasonable perspective. There wasnt so much of a link between being a songwriter and being a recording artist back then. The 'Tin Pan Alley'/ 'Brill Building' method of 'house' songwriters was still very common. The singer-songwriter trend became more the norm as the decade progressed. Its a thing that a lot of people who dismiss the likes of Sinatra, Elvis etc lightly because they werent writers tend to forget. It just wasn't that common back then for commercially popular artists to also write their own material. The fact that it became de rigeur for rock/pop acts to write their own material after that is probably part of the reason why the latter day trend of boybands doing soulless and lifeless covers of old songs is seen as a trend that is regressive. Keith is on record as saying that when he started out in the Stones, the notion of being a songwriter was about as relevant to him as being a blacksmith.  It was seen as (for the most part) an entirely different discipline.

I think gazza has it.

Id just like to say I love those early Stones albums.  There may have been allot of covers on them, but the Stone's covers in most cases were/are better than the originals, in my humble opinion.

Gazza wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 7:46pm:

Keith is on record as saying that when he started out in the Stones, the notion of being a songwriter was about as relevant to him as being a blacksmith.

Or any other job, for that matter.  :forfucksake

Gazza said it exactly right, one thing should be pointed out here, is that regardless whether you like The Beatles or not, before them (except for Buddy Holly/Chuck Berry/Little Richard, etc) nobody wrote their own songs, & The Beatles got The stones into writing their own songs, or as it's pointed out Andrew Loog Oldham, who got it because The Beatles were doing it.
When one starts of in a band when their young, it's pretty common to do covers, the only band I ever heard of that was bad doing covers was U2, they said it themselves, their band was created to do their own stuff because they couldn't play other people's music, which amazes me because everybody who wants to be a musician is influenced by playing other people's music.

StonesFan1990 wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 6:45pm:

If I'm not mistaken, at least 98% of the Stones' first two albums or so were cover songs,

Just to clarify this.

The first two Stones UK albums (and their US debut) both had 9 covers out of 12.

The second US album, 12 x 5 (released october 1964) had five original compositions out of 12, credited either as Jagger-Richard or Nanker Phelge. 'The Rolling Stones, Now' released in the US in February 1965 had four original songs out of 12.

If you look at the breakdown of songs released by the band in the first few years of their history, you can see the progression :

1963 - 1 out of 4 songs is an original
1964 -  12  out of 35
1965 -  13 out of 29
1966 -  21 out of 22 (the exception being a studio version of 'I've Been Loving You Too Long' recorded mid 1965 for 'Out of Our Heads' overdubbed with audience screams in October 1966 and released as a 'faux live' performance on 'Got Live If you Want It!' in the US)
1967 -  28 out of 29 (the exception being 'My Girl', a May 1965 outtake recorded for 'Out of Our Heads', released in the US on 'Flowers')

So, basically the Stones stopped recording covers for their own use in mid 1965. They wouldnt record and release another one for three years until they recorded 'Prodigal Son' for use on 'Beggars Banquet' in May 1968. The first of the celebrated 'Big Four' albums, all of which included a blues cover (in the case of 'Exile' they included two of them).