Tracklist:

Released by London Records on 30 May 1964.

1 Not Fade Away (Hardin, Petty)
2 Route 66 (Troup)
3 I Just Want To Make Love To You (Dixon)
4 Honest I Do (Hurron, Calvert)
5 Now I've Got A Witness (Phelge)
6 Little By Little (Nanker Phelge, Spector)
7 I'm A King Bee (Moore)
8 Carol (Berry)
9 Tell Me (Jagger; Richard)
10 Can I Get A Witness (E. & B. Holland, Dozier)
11 You Can Make It If You Try (Jarrett)
12 Walking The Dog (Thomas)

Credits:

Arranged By – Rolling Stones, The
Bass Guitar, Vocals – Bill Wyman
Drums – Charlie Watts
Guitar – Keith Richard, backing vocals
Guitar, Vocals, Harmonica – Brian Jones (5)
Maracas – Phil Spector (tracks: A6)
Mastered By [Runout Etch] – sf*
Organ – Ian Stewart (tracks: B5)
Photography By – Nicholas Wright (2)
Piano – Gene Pitney (tracks: A6), Ian Stewart (tracks: B3, B4)
Producer – Eric Easton
Producer, Liner Notes – Andrew Loog Oldham
Vocals, Harmonica – Mick Jagger



What are your thoughts of this album?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-08 23:56 by DandelionPowderman.

Is the only difference between this and the UK-version a shorter version of 'Tell Me'?

2 1 2 0

Quote
Come On
Is the only difference between this and the UK-version a shorter version of 'Tell Me'?

Not Fade Away is included, instead of Mona (I Need You Baby). It kicks off the album.

No, no, no! The album we should be discussing is The Rolling Stones, their U.K. debut. England's Newest Hitmakers is just a bastardisation of their fine debut long-player.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-08 17:02 by Big Al.

Quote
Big Al
No, no, no! The album we should be discussing is The Rolling Stones, their U.K. debut. England's Newest Hitmakers is just a bastardisation of their fine debut long-player.

Look below on the thread list

Strange how Keith isn't listed for background vocals yet in the other thread list for The Rolling Stones first UK album, he is.

A little slip there. Corrected!

What's to say?
The album is great on it's own terms and it worked to include the single hit Not Fade Away as well. It's a different listening experience.

Horrible bastard album! Not fade away is stupid pop compared to the real deep Sexy Mona. And the album has to start with Route 66. Thats the attack. And why is there a title on that great group shot?

YEP!!! UK all the WAY ............



ROCKMAN

King Bee , 66 & Tell Me are outstanding, the rest not so much. Would've liked Fortune Teller, Wanna Be Your Man & Stoned.

The 'England's Newest Hitmakers' plastered on the sleeve totally ruins that fine David Bailey portrait. The whole point being, no words necessary.

Quote
DandelionPowderman

Quote
Big Al
No, no, no! The album we should be discussing is The Rolling Stones, their U.K. debut. England's Newest Hitmakers is just a bastardisation of their fine debut long-player.

Look below on the thread list

Ah, okay!

Bought the UK version on the day it was released, King Bee and Mona were my favorites from the start--I still can't believe they dropped Mona for the US release. Insanity, I tell you.

Quote
Aquamarine
Bought the UK version on the day it was released, King Bee and Mona were my favorites from the start--I still can't believe they dropped Mona for the US release. Insanity, I tell you.

Probably thought that Mona + Not Fade Away = too much Bo Diddley on the same album. Given that the US system dictated that the hit single had to be included, what should they have dropped instead?

Quote
Aquamarine
Bought the UK version on the day it was released, King Bee and Mona were my favorites from the start--I still can't believe they dropped Mona for the US release. Insanity, I tell you.

Insanity yes but also a serious offense to the mind if you ask me. Mona, a real Diddley song, performed by five guys who doesn't sound like five guys but some ancient old act on a crusade. Mona is part of their DNA, a part of why the exist. One of the principles of their dogma.

Not fade away is just a Diddlish song by (genius) Holly. Mona is the real thing. A proof of deep real emotion, realness on a "boyband" debut. Not that the album is a boyband album but they were partly a boyband of course.

Quote
Redhotcarpet

Quote
Aquamarine
Bought the UK version on the day it was released, King Bee and Mona were my favorites from the start--I still can't believe they dropped Mona for the US release. Insanity, I tell you.

Insanity yes but also a serious offense to the mind if you ask me. Mona, a real Diddley song, performed by five guys who doesn't sound like five guys but some ancient old act on a crusade. Mona is part of their DNA, a part of why the exist. One of the principles of their dogma.

Not fade away is just a Diddlish song by (genius) Holly. Mona is the real thing. A proof of deep real emotion, realness on a "boyband" debut. Not that the album is a boyband album but they were partly a boyband of course.

><

This has to be played on repeat. Volume is not an issue. Mono is really the only way to go here. I apologize for the stereo.

Thank you uploading crusaders.

Although I'd known them since Come On, it was the single Not Fade Away that truly convinced me that this was the band for me, and so I will always love it, "Diddlish pop" or not (it's absolutely wonderful Diddlish pop) - but Mona, which I didn't know at that time, is undoubtedly the better performance. The slightly slower tempo helps: you don't need to take things at a gallop or turn the volume up to 11 to make them urgent and compelling. My goodness, I'd have loved to hear that live!

Thanks for the mono track, redhotcarpet. It was made to be listened to in mono.

It is indeed a good piece of Diddlish pop but I stand by my strict rules. Mona is the number for that album. No soup for Mr Holly.

Quote
Big Al
The 'England's Newest Hitmakers' plastered on the sleeve totally ruins that fine David Bailey portrait. The whole point being, no words necessary.

Quote
Redhotcarpet
It is indeed a good piece of Diddlish pop but I stand by my strict rules. Mona is the number for that album. No soup for Mr Holly.

The Stones already had their name in the British press by the time they released the album.

It was different for the states, were they had to build up their name from ground zero. Therefore, stratetic marketing-wise, there were obviously changes to be made:

1: Not one single released american album, was released without the bands name appearing on the cover. It was necessary to draw attention.

2: They were being marketed as a part of 'The British Ivasion', hence the sub-title.

3. In America, it was common practice to include the latest single as a part of the album, therefore Not Fade Away was chosen as the album opener, as it was familiar to those who knew the song.

4. In the US, there were strict rules, royality-wise, to include maximum 12 songs pr. album. Therefore, one song had to be cut. We can forever debate if Mona should have been included instead, but both songs are played in the same style, which leads to why Mona was left of.

It is so easy to sit 50 years later and tell what's so wrong about what they did. Not Fade Away was their first single in the states, and had to be included, otherwise, they didn't follow the rules of the american recording industry, to which they had to assign to at this point.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-09 19:42 by Blueranger.

Clued me in to a lot of good music, the early covers and there early songs, very good too.

Quote
Green Lady

Quote
Aquamarine
Bought the UK version on the day it was released, King Bee and Mona were my favorites from the start--I still can't believe they dropped Mona for the US release. Insanity, I tell you.

Probably thought that Mona + Not Fade Away = too much Bo Diddley on the same album. Given that the US system dictated that the hit single had to be included, what should they have dropped instead?

That's a really tough one, I wouldn't want to lose anything from this album. I suppose if something absolutely had to go I'd very reluctantly have to pick Tell Me, which I never thought was one of their stronger songs, but as it's a Jagger/Richards composition I can see why they'd want it in there.

One witness could have been sufficient?

Unlike the UK, US LPs usually contained the "singles". (as mentioned above) I'm not sure about the 12 song thing as unless memory fails there were some early US Beatles and Stones LPs with 11. I also always thought there were far more US LPs (and singles??) released than UK due to the fairly high disposable income that American teenagers had at the time. Seems like there was a single released every 3 months and LP 2-3 times a year. Capital even released 2 or 3 Beatle singles almost an once before, didn't they? Personally I thought that the 3rd US LP(NOW!) had a splendid track list and MONA fit right in. Its my favorite among the early ones. To mention the demand for product in the US again at the time, that's why some tracks from "Revolver" (UK version) were released early in the US to fill out the "Yesterday & Today" wasn't it? Also the Stones "Flowers" was compiled for the same purpose? I always found it kind of crappy that London would force fans to buy two consecutive LPs using the same couple of songs on them.( Lets Spend The Night/Ruby Tuesday-come to think of it Lady Jane was just on Aftermath) Just an observation from the 1st LP, I always loved the rockin' 'Walking The Dog" but could have really done without the whistling... screws it up for me..



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 2015-05-10 02:32 by scottkeef.

To answer my own question: I think either You Can Make It If You Try or one of the Witnesses - but it's a tough choice.

I didn't know that about the 12 songs - always thought it was a simple question of available time.

The same brillant debut like the UK version, although the drop out of Mona is a real loss. The album is a phenomenon: over 50 years old, but never over the years it sounds "old". Highlights are "King Bee" and "Walking the Dog" (what a solo by Keith!)

My favourites are King Bee, Carol and IJWMLTY.

It's a safe bet to assume that the title references the Beatles, or at least the series of acts that had already crossed the Atlantic and had some degree of suggest. It's equally safe to assume that Andrew Loog Oldham most likely conceived the competitive sounding title. The title is ironic because in terms of their longevity, it is the most short-sighted of their album titles (even more so then NOW!), signifying a passing moment in time--they could be the "newest" hitmakers only for so long. Ironic also for the fact that the album didn't exactly make any hits in the U.S. The album just missed the U.S. top 10, and Not Fade Away barely cracked the U.S. top 50.

Still, it's a great album, pure club-vibe "live" Stones, and I'll often play this back to back with 12X5 and then NOW!

Quote
stonehearted
It's a safe bet to assume that the title references the Beatles, or at least the series of acts that had already crossed the Atlantic and had some degree of suggest. It's equally safe to assume that Andrew Loog Oldham most likely conceived the competitive sounding title. The title is ironic because in terms of their longevity, it is the most short-sighted of their album titles (even more so then NOW!), signifying a passing moment in time--they could be the "newest" hitmakers only for so long. Ironic also for the fact that the album didn't exactly make any hits in the U.S. The album just missed the U.S. top 10, and Not Fade Away barely cracked the U.S. top 50.

Still, it's a great album, pure club-vibe "live" Stones, and I'll often play this back to back with 12X5 and then NOW!

That's not the way Andrew puts it!
From "2Stoned":
"The Stones' first LP outing, dressed and sold to no. 1 in the UK - via its urgent accuracy and my immaculate no-name imagery - had been repackaged behind my back by London Records and given a title, "England's Newest Hitmakers", putting the event lower on the graphics pole than a Freddie & The Dreamers cover. We were pissed off".

" ...I hated the ad equally as much as the tacky title London Records had put over the top of the Stones' debut UK LP....I was angry but what could I do?"


"As we say in England, it can get a bit trainspottery"