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?
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.
I don't smoke, I don't drink, I don't eat trash... I work out hard everyday and have a healthy life. And I'm proud of it.
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 "
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..) http://www.inachildseye.info
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!
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.
Paul Mc Cartney is the true bass god! Getting Better
Posts
405
Gender
Female
Posts Per Day
0.80
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...
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.
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.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
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?
Please visit Albert's Awsome Adventures at Better Than TV .... it's Better Than TV!
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
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.
All you've got to do is choose love. That's how I live it now. I learned a long time ago, I can feed the birds in my garden. I can't feed them all. -- Ringo Starr, Rolling Stone magazine, May 2007
For all I know, Ringo might be a yogi disguised as a drummer! - George Harrison
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
george george whoops george whoops george george george
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??!!
~Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans~ ~Give me love, give me peace on earth~ ~All day long I'm sitting singing songs for everyone~ ~The sun is up, the sky is blue, it's beautiful and so are you~
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.
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.
Home
Calendar
Search
Register
Login
Buttmunker
Male
Female
Logged
shocking innit?
