The Rolling Stones
The Rolling Stones No.2


3.5
great

Review

by I II II L USER (37 Reviews)
September 16th, 2015 | 13 replies


Release Date: 1965 | Tracklist

Review Summary: "Shark reviews the Rolling Stones because why not?" part 5

The Rolling Stones were on a roll commercially speaking in their early days. Their debut had been met with critical and commercial acclaim, and 12x5 had spawned a number of hits in the United States. But the thing was back in those days English bands would record enough songs for two albums and sell the first one in the Americas. The American one was released earlier due to the the LP format being far more popular in those parts than in their native country England, and a little bit later would release a second album exclusively in Europe. So as the Stones were celebrating their success on the western side of the Atlantic, their European sophomore album was still waiting to be released. The Rolling Stones No. 2 and its North American counterpart 12x5 were essentially 2 sides of the same coin. The songs were both recorded in the same sessions, and released within less than a year of one another. Even the cover arts that were used for both albums were taken in the same photo session. The reason I mention this is because this translates musically as well. Both albums are mixes of old-school R&B covers and original material, and level of quality and consistency from front to back. The two albums even share a bit of overlap. The four tracks "Under the Boardwalk," "Suzie Q," "Grown Up Wrong," and "Time Is on My Side" appear on both albums. The Americans and Brits may have ended up with different products, but at least they heard something similar to the album they were missing out on.

The two albums do have a major musical difference however. Where 12x5 had an almost even balance between covers and original tracks, No. 2 is almost entirely covers, with only 3 out of the 12 tracks actually written by members of the group as opposed to artists before the Stones’ time. On one hand, this helps No. 2 as the covers are all solid and give the album a sense of consistency. On the other hand, the original tracks on 12x5, while not particularly strong, were signs of progression for the band as opposed to the band’s debut which primarily consisted of R&B covers.

Essentially, The Rolling Stones No. 2 is more of the same stuff that made up the two albums they released up to that point. Some really good covers of old-school R&B, and a couple original tracks that aren’t quite as strong, leading to yet another strong early Stones album. But while it’s another solid entry with solid tunes that make up for an overall solid listen, it’s not going to be long before the Stones make their true breakthrough with Out of Our Heads, which released the same year.



Recent reviews by this author
Palm Desert Pearls From the Muddy HollowThe Haggis Horns What Comes To Mind
Hills FridEcho Tail King Defeatism
Masta Ace SlaughtahouseAll Them Witches A Sweet Release
user ratings (138)
Chart.
3.3
great

Comments:Add a Comment 
SharkTooth
September 16th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

this took a bit longer than I thought it would take tbh



anyway feedback is appreciated

TheSonomaDude
September 16th 2015


5734 Comments


Never been a stones fan but I do like this review bro

SharkTooth
September 16th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Danke

wham49
September 17th 2015


3640 Comments


Love the stones especially the early stuff, they are a good blues band, much cooler than the Beatles, how has this not been reviewed before

SharkTooth
September 17th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Same reason their first other 2 albums weren't reviewed until recently

KILL
September 17th 2015


80922 Comments


cooler but not as GOOD

Digging: Morbid Angel - Kingdoms Disdained

SharkTooth
September 17th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

yea pretty much

SharkTooth
September 17th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

it's kinda strange, The Beatles were originally a tough bar-group that played in clubs and bars in leather jackets before they became famous for which they adjusted to the squeaky clean pop-group everyone pictures them as



but these guys were a bunch of suburban kids who just played a bunch of R&B covers and somehow landed a deal, and these guys somehow ended up portraying themselves as the "bad boys" when they became famous

doctorjimmy
September 18th 2015


386 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

FINALLY :p Good review man, although a bit short, but then again that might have been your purpose after all. Anyway, it IS informant about the album, so a pos from me ;)

SharkTooth
September 18th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

yeah everything else I needed to say about this album I said in my 12 x 5 review, which is why this is short



also thanks

wham49
September 18th 2015


3640 Comments


The squeaky clean image is Epstien, Stones had more of a groove and, darker lyrics, check out the songs: family, if you let me, stoned. This was early 60's, The Beatles were releasing I want to Hold your hand, Stones/adult bar music, Beatles/boy band, early on anyways.

SharkTooth
September 18th 2015


13794 Comments

Album Rating: 4.0

Yeah the Beatles were going all boy band after the record deal, but before that they were also playing at adult bars with a get-up similar to the Stones



Also I am aware of the Stones being darker

wham49
September 21st 2015


3640 Comments


Figured you were, just saying



You have to be logged in to post a comment. Login | Create a Profile





STAFF & CONTRIBUTORS // SITE FORUM // CONTACT US

Bands: A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z


Site Copyright 2005-2017 Sputnikmusic.com
All Album Reviews Displayed With Permission of Authors | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy