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

He is now.

Quoted from Bobber

He is now.

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

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

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!

In my opinion, Mick Jagger is ugly. There is a difference between being this vanilla pretty boy that has no appeal for me at all and having a personality and attraction. Jagger is attractive without being good looking. I suppose that's why there's a debate; the Stones have charisma and that trumps looks any day. Looks can get you noticed for a second or two; to have lasting power, you have to have something that connects and reaches out. All successful people have that.

Chances are, if you find a really good-looking person that you're attracted to, you'll find that they are much more than a pretty face. A good mind and engaging personality will be part of the package. Otherwise, no matter how "pretty" they are, they will turn ugly. At least they do for me! And conversely, if you're attracted to someone, they get better looking. I find no better rule for this than the icons people post. If I don't know the actor or singer, I'll often say, "What is attractive about this person?" But if I see the person move and speak, I'll often say, "Oh, yes, I get it. Yes, s/he is certainly attractive." It's funny.

If the Beatles were ugly, there probably be no Beatlemania... And it might not even hurt their popularity. I mean it will be something like "My god, they can sing! but they are so ugly.... but they can SING!"

Did you know, that a friend of mine considers Paul to be not very good looking...   shocking innit?

i don't think that having good looks would have made any difference to there success it was there charisma and energy in the early years that got them noticed, there were plenty of bands around at the time that had probably better looking members in there band, but they lacked in the personality and charisma side as they say the beatles had the X factor and thats what got them noticed but being half decent looking obviously helped a little.

i aint a fan of U2 but i know they are one the biggest bands of the last 20 odd years and they are neither good looking nor trying to be bad boys, so that can only leave the music and there energy/charisma ?

and mick jagger looks great for his and i would be happy to look like him when that age infact id be happy to look him in 20 years time

Quoted from Kaleidoscope_Eyes

a friend of mine considers Paul to be not very good looking...   shocking innit?

Not really. His looks don't appeal to me, either. I think you can easily find people who think each of the Beatles is ugly. I've heard George and Ringo called ugly the most often, but I'm sure you'll find a few John and Paul fans who don't care for their looks and like (or adore) them anyway.

Still, it does beg the question if there would have been Beatlemania, at least to the insane extent. I have to say, the fact that you can have four attractive (in nonstandard ways) guys standing around on a poster saying "Please, oh please love me, I'm nice in a suit (therefore safe) and practically a fuzzy toy" would have been a contributing factor for younger fans.

And for the record, I think Mick has aged amazingly well. Must be all that aerobic romping on stage.

when my big sister saw the beatles on my wall she just shook her head and said "i can't believe that those four ugly guys were once the most famous boyband ever"
well, my friends think the same... even when they like their music they usually don't think they're attractive in any way

Well, if the Beatles were the same except for extreme ugliness, I don't think they would be as famous as they were/are. Sure, the girls absolutely loved their music, but why do you think they're screaming at those concerts? Because they adore the way they look. If they loved the music more, they would'nt have screamed so much that they couldn't even hear it. So, yeah, back then looks helped a lot.

But, today I think the looks still play a part. It's almost like they're FUN to look at, ya know, there's something appealing about them, 'cause I think they're all handsome. It just all combines to make the Beatles: the music, the great looks, the charming personalities, the clothes, everything. Not just the early days, but even later on too. If they didn't look good and where suits and cool clothes, etc, then I think back then and today something would be missing.

Well, I'm glad they're not ugly! God, how more perfect could this band get with the amazing talent, great looks, great voices, charm, personalities, cool clothes etc that they have??!!

Quoted from komakino

when my big sister saw the beatles on my wall she just shook her head and said "i can't believe that those four ugly guys were once the most famous boyband ever"
well, my friends think the same... even when they like their music they usually don't think they're attractive in any way

I think it's worse calling The Beatles a boyband than saying they're ugly.

Quoted from Buttmunker

  Mick Jagger wasn't a very good singer, but I guess swagger goes a long way.

????????...wow, that's like saying Michaelangelo wasnt a good painter!   ---------(IMO)
Jagger was/is the GREATEST blues/rock singer that ever drew breath.

no way, i wouldn't be able to get over George singing Everybody's Trying To Be My Baby with a beer belly and a comb over.