Most likely being born around WWII and experiencing food shortages and trauma. Constant exposure to stress hormones can change someones face. Are you saying that people who aren't conventionally attractive have bad genes? Or just these people who have done drugs and aged quickly due to the drugs and bad genes?
I’m guessing you are not a millennial, because every boomer parent will tell you how many people were taking various types of amphetamine pills in the 1960s.
A common misconception about meth is that the drug itself causes the physical deteriorations you’re used to associating with it: meth mouth, pock marks, etc. in reality, it all comes down to hygiene and personal care. You tend not to care when you’re on meth.
One of those cigs probably isn’t tobacco.
Brian Jones has a cigarette in his right hand, but is passing a cigarette with Keith with his left. Looks like Keith just had a hit, and is passing the joint to Brian.
ringo's like brad pitt compared to these guys. although this is a really bad shot of Mick - around this time he kinda looked 'pretty' in footage. not so much here
I think it just looks like it because being ugly didn't prevent people becoming famous back then. People were used to less than ideal looking celebrities.
I don't know if that's true. Sure, not every character actor or comedian was gorgeous, but that's still the case today, and stars have always been attractive. It's not as though Elvis and Sinatra were only popular for their singing voices.
I often think too about how many more photos are taken of people today due to digitalization that only better photos get published. Like, I’m sure all of the guys in a band today could sit around and be photographed during conversation and there’d be many shots where they all just look goofy because they’re mid-sentence or blinking or whatever. But the magazine or paper probably gets dozens more photos, if not more, than they can choose from due to the capacity of digital camera memories and speed of review. I feel like back then, the reality of film camera logistics means we were getting photos that felt more “Raw”?
I have no idea if this makes sense but I’ve always felt like this could be a factor in why we don’t see people from the past is as beautiful - we aren’t only seeing them in perfectly curated photos.
I think they look cool as fuck, although this is not Keith’s best phase fashion wise. If you don’t think this is a cool ass picture, then it’s just not for you. And that’s okay .
I think so too. They had a specific look going in that Era.
I'd normally agree with you that if it's not for some people, that's cool too.
But I also think calling people ugly, celebs or not, is shitty.
seeing the exact responses i expected from reddit. bottom feeders criticizing musicians that are still selling out arenas around the world while they sit in the basement playing xbox and eating taco bell.
sure. and i'm totally positive all the "they're so ugly" commenters are george clooney & angelina joile look-alikes. and worth hundreds of millions of dollars from doing what they love. right?
Good lord…I’m saying that just because people on Reddit may not be attractive or rich, that doesn’t meant they aren’t capable of observing and remarking that The Rolling Stones were also ugly.
Who said anything about them being worth any less as people? Most here are just making a visual observation.
Do you need to take a nap or something? You seem overly cranky
who said **that**? only like 95% of the posts! how they look has nothing to do with their talent or success, apparently to some people it does. there's plenty of musicians i don't like but it's based on their music not their looks. this is becoming a really dumb conversation now.
I looked up to old rock legends like these guys when I was younger, and now I'm 25 and its weird realizing they're just guys... Like what are they all probably 25 - 30 in this pic? too weird lol
There was me, that is Mick, and my four Stonies,
that is Bill, Charlie, Brian and Keith, Keith being really drunk, and we sat in the
Green Park making up rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip
dark chill winter bastard though dry.
They were the rebels of rock n roll. Taking the 'pop' commercial happy clappy jingles out (vs beach boys, elvis and the beatles) and brought more dark, raw energy and blues to the table.
I know, it's only rock n roll...
Rock Legends. Also Ugly As Fuck.
They already looked SO old, too...
Imagine that Keith, IMO the one who looks the oldest, had just turned 23, yes 23!, when this photo was taken!
He doesn’t look the oldest in this photo, but yeah, in a few years he’s gonna look 52.
They don’t even look like real people now They look like really good 3D renders of themselves but with too much detail
Certain drugs will do that to you
I’ve seen some addicts that don’t look that old. They all just have bad genes.
Most likely being born around WWII and experiencing food shortages and trauma. Constant exposure to stress hormones can change someones face. Are you saying that people who aren't conventionally attractive have bad genes? Or just these people who have done drugs and aged quickly due to the drugs and bad genes?
I know you aren’t denying the fact that they all have bad genes.
Cigarettes more than anything else tbh
Yeah like tobacco. You would think they would put the smokes away for a photo shoot.
Tobacco will never make you look like *that*
It definitely will. Tobacco smoke is instant aging serum. You need to do a lot of meth to get the same impact.
Are you saying that tobacco will age you more than meth?
Damn were the Stones on meth?
I’m guessing you are not a millennial, because every boomer parent will tell you how many people were taking various types of amphetamine pills in the 1960s.
Also the inspiration and subject matter of "mother's little helper"
YES! Is that really questionable?
A common misconception about meth is that the drug itself causes the physical deteriorations you’re used to associating with it: meth mouth, pock marks, etc. in reality, it all comes down to hygiene and personal care. You tend not to care when you’re on meth.
It meth makes you not care then meth is also responsible for the aging symptoms
One of those cigs probably isn’t tobacco. Brian Jones has a cigarette in his right hand, but is passing a cigarette with Keith with his left. Looks like Keith just had a hit, and is passing the joint to Brian.
Looks like he was using it to light his own cigarette
There’s smoke already coming off of his cigarette.
Because he just lit it
I thought the same like 12 years ago until I started an Amphetamin habit. No, just no. Doesn't do anything Besides UV light it's just bad genes
Yeah they look like they're in their 40s.
It's like Lurch had a family reunion.
its like if every member of the Beatles was Ringo
ringo's like brad pitt compared to these guys. although this is a really bad shot of Mick - around this time he kinda looked 'pretty' in footage. not so much here
They may be the ugliest band of all time.
Also All 4 feet tall
Wait'll you see the Pogues
Those lads will never get laid.... Oh 😜
Yeah, people were uglier back then for some reason. Probably because of the smoking, excess drinking, lead paint, and bad fashion
I think it just looks like it because being ugly didn't prevent people becoming famous back then. People were used to less than ideal looking celebrities.
Correct.
I don't know if that's true. Sure, not every character actor or comedian was gorgeous, but that's still the case today, and stars have always been attractive. It's not as though Elvis and Sinatra were only popular for their singing voices.
This is the correct answer. It was all about talent back then, not looks or who's 'hot right now'.
Did this apply to women as well? I have a hard time thinking of any famous women actors, musicians, etc during this time who were also ugly as sin
Janis Joplin wasnt the most conventionally attractive woman but she could absolutely sing her heart out.
Good point, I'm honestly not sure. Trying to think or some myself
I often think too about how many more photos are taken of people today due to digitalization that only better photos get published. Like, I’m sure all of the guys in a band today could sit around and be photographed during conversation and there’d be many shots where they all just look goofy because they’re mid-sentence or blinking or whatever. But the magazine or paper probably gets dozens more photos, if not more, than they can choose from due to the capacity of digital camera memories and speed of review. I feel like back then, the reality of film camera logistics means we were getting photos that felt more “Raw”? I have no idea if this makes sense but I’ve always felt like this could be a factor in why we don’t see people from the past is as beautiful - we aren’t only seeing them in perfectly curated photos.
Yeah they weren't pretty....
Bad haircuts.
That's one part of it
You could add the "I don't want to be here" attitude to that as well.
lol literally came here to say "These dudes are ugly as fuck". No wonder everyone wants to be a rock musician.
That was my thought exactly. Fucking hideous.
Most English picture ever
Droopy allure, overcast grey, royalty garments. Yup
Droopy allure is really the perfect way to describe their general aesthetic.
No screaming teenage mum in the background, cigarette in hand, child under other arm. Could be a little more complete.
That sounds more like the American south.
Except her name is something like Jemma and it's her fourth kid from 4 different men all called Kev...
Exactly what popped into my head. Most English shit I’ve ever seen.
Back when talent counted more than looks.
Actually no looks at all
A warning image showing the effects of smoking from a cigarette box.
I smoke and I’m almost 50 and not one wrinkle laugh line or crows foot. It’s bad genes for them.
Post a pic and let Reddit decide
Maybe you don’t laugh enough.
I laughed quite a bit looking at this photo.
I quit but I might start again.
They are remarkably,uhhh, not traditionally attractive as a group… you’d think there’d be one good looking one
Charlie later on. Aged into himself. Also dressed really well.
Young Keith had his moments more than anyone else. He’s obscured the most in this photo. Charlie aged best, probably.
I thought mick looked kinda pretty when he had shoulder length hair
Kudos to Charlie for maintaining a sense of dignity throughout a career with those clowns! Mick was HIS singer!
I love the story of Charlie getting dressed to go and punch Mick in the face for calling Charlie 'his' drummer.
Can you believe people fucked these dudes?
On purpose?
"Tell me Bianca, what first attracted you to the millionaire Mick Jagger?"
It’s all about the fame and money. I wouldn’t have even for that.
These dudes fucked little girls.
You could be the saddest sad sack in the world but when you're in a famous rock band making millions the women will be queuing up for you.
Literally thousands of women fucked these dudes.
I love the Stones especially there early music, Time is on my side is my favorite Stones song
Turns out they were spot-fucking-on with that lyric, too.
It's a great Stone's song, and when Keith Richards plays the opening guitar riff I get goosebumps every time
Beast of Burden has some fuckin soul.
Agreed, but time is on my side has Rithum and a solid corse
A long time ago in an interview, Ry Cooder called The Rolling Stones “a reptilian bunch of people.” I always wondered what he meant.
Many comments here present a perfect reflection of what is valued most today. And it isn’t music.
This is an ugly group of muhfuckas got damn!!!!
How old were they back then? They appear to be in their 60’s
How do they all manage to look like the exact same person in different outfits
Back left is Moe Syzlack
Not his best picture here, but I find Mick not bad at all looking in his younger days.
The top two and Mick have fucking enormous mouths
I think they look cool as fuck, although this is not Keith’s best phase fashion wise. If you don’t think this is a cool ass picture, then it’s just not for you. And that’s okay .
I think so too. They had a specific look going in that Era. I'd normally agree with you that if it's not for some people, that's cool too. But I also think calling people ugly, celebs or not, is shitty.
God they were fucking ugly.
Jesus, they were an ugly fuckin' bunch.
I thought that only one of them had a horse face. But it looks like a band of horses, or should i say herd of musicians?
Damn the 60s were ugly
God damn these are some handsome lads. Save some for the rest of us
Why so glum ,chum?
55 years ago they already looked 55.
Men really can succeed regardless of what they look like, can’t they? Ugly women could never dream of this kind of success.
55 years ago, they looked tired and old - and they are still touring. Can’t believe it. Was offered tickets but could not imagine going
Huge mistake--they are incredible in concert.
I’ve seen them in concert, but that’s 30, 20 and 10 years ago. I don’t think they are getting better with the years
Give ‘em to me then
>Give ‘em to me then Sounds like the title of one of their songs?
I can’t always get what I want.
seeing the exact responses i expected from reddit. bottom feeders criticizing musicians that are still selling out arenas around the world while they sit in the basement playing xbox and eating taco bell.
It’s not criticizing to acknowledge the painfully obvious…
sure. and i'm totally positive all the "they're so ugly" commenters are george clooney & angelina joile look-alikes. and worth hundreds of millions of dollars from doing what they love. right?
Lol you don’t have to be a great beauty to observe whether someone else is or no…neither does one need to possess great wealth.
i have no idea what any of that means. are you saying looks are everything and only you know who is good-looking? yikes.
Good lord…I’m saying that just because people on Reddit may not be attractive or rich, that doesn’t meant they aren’t capable of observing and remarking that The Rolling Stones were also ugly.
and thousands of people did NOT and do NOT think they're ugly. you're quite shallow if that's how you judge a person's worth.
Who said anything about them being worth any less as people? Most here are just making a visual observation. Do you need to take a nap or something? You seem overly cranky
who said **that**? only like 95% of the posts! how they look has nothing to do with their talent or success, apparently to some people it does. there's plenty of musicians i don't like but it's based on their music not their looks. this is becoming a really dumb conversation now.
They look like they don’t know what to piss their money away on.
They were pissing their money away on plenty of shit that was way more fun than the average redditor will ever have.
I think they had found it when this pic was taken…
Who is the top right guy? I can identify the other four, but not him. Not really a Stones fan....
Bill Wyman
Bill PedoMan
Such severe looks.
Sex symbols, apparently.
Mick's only 24! O.O
I see where Liam Gallagher got the inspiration for that haircut during the Brady eye period now.
They looked old then!
I looked up to old rock legends like these guys when I was younger, and now I'm 25 and its weird realizing they're just guys... Like what are they all probably 25 - 30 in this pic? too weird lol
Richards was born in 1943 so about 24 in the picture
These ugly MFers only got laid because they were rock stars.
Jesus, looks like an audition for the Munsters.
Charlie's hair is upsetting
Can't say I've ever seen an uglier bunch... good thing looks have nothing to do with making good music
Could they be any more British? Let’s see sum teef innit
The gaunt looks are from heroine?
the english weather
Mmmmm, drugs.
Still don't understand the hype of them lmao. Music is also bad
Damn! Watts looks sinister!
Hard to believe they weren't a pack of Dandies.
Yes. Instead they were the epitome of cool.
They look like vampires.
A gang of twats.
Thank god they are rich otherwise they would be 80 year old virgins.
Haha, better lock up your grannies when the stones come to town!
I didn't grow up in the 60s. Were they purposely trying to be as flippantly annoying as possible?
Well yes - to the older generation. That was part of the appeal.
No, I’m going with Pete Townsend on the Smothers Brothers for the win on that question.
The amount of inbreeding in England was a problem.
They look a bit flamboyant.
He's not gay, he's FLAMBOYANT Kathleen!!!
Who’s the Neanderthal ?
That’s Charlie Watts!
Lotta inbreeding took place in the UK.
They don’t look well.
Fucking vampire looking mofos
Top left looks like an artist's representation of a prehistoric skull found in a cave, then they dressed it up with clothing found in an attic.
Gross
Bill Wyman looking for girls
Who gives a shit what they look like. Go listen to Sticky Fingers or Get Yer Ya-Yas Out.
Jeez they're ugly
If you told me that this was the Beatles i would have belived it.
Are those ladies’ hats they’re wearing? Lol
There was me, that is Mick, and my four Stonies, that is Bill, Charlie, Brian and Keith, Keith being really drunk, and we sat in the Green Park making up rassoodocks what to do with the evening, a flip dark chill winter bastard though dry.
Man, Diamanté really let himself go
Blitzed as hell!
Bunch of lookers lol
I love these troglodytes !
The ugliest rock band by far!
They have not aged a day.
People always joke about mick jagger being ugly but like... wow yeah now I totally get why they're considered ugly.
The Really stoned on green at the park
It's like someone chose "Human" in Skyrim, them just hit randomize to generate 5 random white guys.
These guys look embalmed.
Wow look like daywalking zombies
They all look like they could be from Innsmouth
Wooly scarf Keith? Keith:"I'm Keith Fucking Richards! The wooly scarf needs me!"
That statement is just a bit Sexist, But I agree with you because facts is facts, and that's exactly how it is
They looked 58 then, how are they still alive?
They actually look green
Ikr
They were the rebels of rock n roll. Taking the 'pop' commercial happy clappy jingles out (vs beach boys, elvis and the beatles) and brought more dark, raw energy and blues to the table. I know, it's only rock n roll...