Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Buttmunker]

I mean, what if they weren't the lovable mop-tops we know today?  What if they were the four ugliest guys to ever walk the planet, but they could really play their guitars and such - they're the Beatles!!  But ugly.

I saw some segment somewhere - on YouTube, on TV, I don't remember - where four guys were pretending to be the Beatles when they just got famous in America, and they were the funniest-looking four cats I've ever seen.  That was, of course, the whole point of the segment.  Everyone in the audience was laughing, including myself.  It was a comedy.

Anyway, what if it was a reality that they were so stupidly ugly?  Would the girls have been screaming their heads off then?  Would we, today, be looking for pictures of them, comparing their facial hair growth, putting their images on our screensavers?

Would they, in two words: be famous?

Great post!!!!!!!!

but to answer the question, UGLY never hurt the Stones!!! (or me! HAHAHAHA  I love it)

[Buttmunker]

Great post!!!!!!!!

but to answer the question, UGLY never hurt the Stones!!! (or me! HAHAHAHA  I love it)

lol - I always considered Keith Richard(s) the grungy brother of George Harrison.  

[BlueMeanie]

Great post!!!!!!!!

but to answer the question, UGLY never hurt the Stones!!! (or me! HAHAHAHA  I love it)

Ah, but the Stones were always considered the bad boys. It doesn't pay to be pretty if you're expected to be hard!

Can you imagine John singing  'This Boy', with a wart on the end of his nose?

[wingsman]

lol - I always considered Keith Richard(s) the grungy brother of George Harrison.  

  Yeah, me too!!
Would they be famous??? Well, I don't know. I mean, how much ugly you're tellnig me? Really ugly? Well, that would be really hard to tell. I don't think so. Looks it was always so important in the record business.  :-/

Well, they weren't Westlife!!     I mean, they were not male models, they were normal boys. Not ugly, but not extremely handsome. C'mon, I know every girl loved them, but that always happens, doesn't matter how good boys looks.

Quite a lot of the 60's stars were not what you would call handsome or pretty , i think people were less hung-up on looks back then , it was more about the music .
Black and white film and photographs are very flattering ? also when the hippies arrived on the scene you could hide behind a mass of hair and beards , it was a lucky decade for a lot of them UGLY sold millions .
Brian scrubed them up just enough to fool the kids , you would maybe have only got Paul into a boy band today ?
I like the fact that a lot of the 60's stars looked a bit ruff and odd, today they all look and sound the same " Pretty But Vacant "  

DaveRam

What if they looked like Fred Astaire and Bing Crosby?

Beatles "rocky raccoon" and astaire video

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7JgLdYto2M" target="_blank" class="aeva_link bbc_link new_win">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7JgLdYto2M</a>

search youtube for  beatles astaire to get link above.

Music from the classic Beatles "White Album"
"Rocky Raccoon" synced to video of Fred Astaire
and Bing Crosby. This is a class Project
to see how a dyslexic with no sense of
rhythm edits a music video. Project was
mentioned by Ringo when he appeared on
the Arsinio Hall Show. He thought the
reduced size newspaper article I faxed
to him was hard to read.  Anyway, the clip
I am posting is small because I had to
upload it by "dial-up" connection.
(we live so far off the main road,
we don't get "Saturday Night Live"
until Tuesday afternoon..)
www.inachildseye.info

I like the fact that a lot of the 60's stars looked a bit ruff and odd, today they all look and sound the same " Pretty But Vacant "  

DaveRam

exactly..Timberlake comes to mind. I wouldnt be caught dead listening to that "pretty boy's" garbage. Gimme those ugly Stones ANYDAY !!!!!

Ah, but the Stones were always considered the bad boys. It doesn't pay to be pretty if you're expected to be hard!

Can you imagine John singing  'This Boy', with a wart on the end of his nose?

knowin' John, if he did have a "wart on the end of his nose", he'd STILL go out and sing "This Boy"...(and he's probably throw in Help! for good measure !) --that's why I loved the guy--he didnt give a flyin' f*ck what anyone thought. Long Live Lennon!

[Buttmunker]

I'm not just talkin' ugly, but the whole ball of wax - premature balding and fat, too.

I'm not just talkin' ugly, but the whole ball of wax - premature balding and fat, too.

A bit like Elvis and Elton John that fat and bald ? or like many of the fat Hip Hop Stars ?
These people are among the best sellers in music ?

DaveRam

[The Fox Drummer]

Great post!!!!!!!!

but to answer the question, UGLY never hurt the Stones!!! (or me! HAHAHAHA  I love it)

Exaaaactly. You really get how ugly they are until you see that random shot of them in the Anthology after several hours of Beatles...it's quite a shocker...

Still, I think for the purposes of Beatlemania and such, it was very, very helpful that they were good-looking. Even then, people found ways to excuse some of their worse traits because they were just that damn cool. xD Some people think Ringo is unattractive (pfft), but everyone still loves him because he's got a lovely personality.

[Buttmunker]

Some people think Ringo is unattractive (pfft), but everyone still loves him because he's got a lovely personality.

Its true that Ringo is not as good looking as the other three, but Ringo's look wasn't an ugly one.  It was a peculiar one.  Difference!  Difference!  

Ringo actually reminds me of my cousin Carl.  Same eyes and nose.  So when I see Ringo, I see my cousin, who is not ugly either, by the way.

[Dark Phoenyx]

I think back then music were more important than looks, although to Beatlemania purposes the fact that the guys were good looking helped a lot.  When I think of my favorite music performers I don't think about if they're ugly or not, if they're young, bald or fat.  I only care about their music.

As far as I'm concerned John Lennon would had a wart on his nose and I would be listening to him no matter what...

[Buttmunker]

Great post!!!!!!!!

but to answer the question, UGLY never hurt the Stones!!!

When the Beatles came to America, they were adored!

When the Stones came to America?  I don't even know.  The Stones' music prevailed because the music was good.  Mick Jagger wasn't a very good singer, but I guess swagger goes a long way.

If there was no Beatles, there would have been The Rolling Stones, wah-BANG!  However, there'd have been no RollingStoneMania, because only their music was good.  I don't think they had the personalities to be Personalities like the Beatles were able to be.

Of course, I'm going beyond looks and into personalities, which is not the point of this thread, so I apologize.  So, despite personalities, even if the Beatles had been shy and tongue-tied during the conferences, there still would have been Beatlemania because of their looks.  The girls loved them.  

I don't think any other English band had good looks, quite frankly.  

Now, you fast forward to 1967-68 to Jim Morrison and The Doors.  Morrison was a good looking cat, but even for someone like him to be as famous as he became, and as great as the music was, Morrison could still walk down the streets in Los Angeles without being bothered.

John Lennon couldn't step out to the corner-store for a pack of smokes without being attacked.  The Beatles had good looks, but I also think they had a sort of strange and erotic magic.

[Sondra]

Let's clear something up. MICK JAGGER WAS NOT UGLY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Bobber]

He is now.

[Andy Smith]

He is now.

ha, you took the words right out of my mouth!

[wingsman]

His arms are the ugliest arms ever seen. I suppose the non-muscular and old Paul's arms looks better.  

[Buttmunker]

for a sixty-plus old man, Mick is looking awesome, you ask me!  He never got the weight, he never lost his hair or his teeth, what more can you ask for?

...I hope to be as ugly as Mick Jagger when I'm that age!