sorry, anon. you're too ugly for the band. you can still play some cuts on the album and go on tour tho. but stay near the back of the stage
>>131211477could be worse, i could be ralated to the beatles aka one direction
>>131211477they all look like little monkeys
Oh. Okay
>>131211558>the Beatles were hard men too. Brian Epstein cleaned them up for mass consumption, but they were anything but sissies. They were from Liverpool, which is like Hamburg or Norfolk, Virginia--a hard, sea-farin' town, all these dockers and sailors around all the time who would beat the piss out of you if you so much as winked at them. Ringo's from the Dingle, which is like the f***ing Bronx. The Rolling Stones were the mummy's boys--they were all college students from the outskirts of London. They went to starve in London, but it was by choice, to give themselves some sort of aura of disrespectability. I did like the Stones, but they were never anywhere near the Beatles--not for humour, not for originality, not for songs, not for presentation. All they had was Mick Jagger dancing about. Fair enough, the Stones made great records, but they were always shit on stage, whereas the Beatles were the gear
>>131211770it turns out the rolling stones were for the sissies. The beatles are for tough men
>>131211770Lemmy was a very sharp guy
>>131211770>>131211802>The Beatles were hard menIncredibly gay statement to make. He was gay, Lemmy?
>>131211836>motorhead gay
>>131211770So true! Me and by boyfriend (we're gay not sure if that matters) are two very masculine men who regularly have steamy gay sex and we both agree The Beatles are better than The Rolling Stones
>>131211836>>131211973Lemmy got more pussy in one night than what you've had in all your present and past lives, forevercel.
>>131211477This actually happened to me
>>131212033Mick got more poon than Lemmy though and he was more influential
>>131212231All rock guys had plenty of pussy and some pussy fatigue from time to time. Only Jagger dressed like a literal faggot and had a faggot era that he avoids talking about though.
>>131212436so what, all the rockstars were being flamboyant and having tons of straight sex. The only real gay rockstar i can think of is elton john
>>131211477kekarooni
>>131212436He was not a faggot though and women love men who are in touch with feminine energy.>inb4 the Bowie rumorThey were just lying next to each other. By that logic I wouldn't be a 30-year-old virgin because I once was so drunk I fell and didn't notice there was a woman in the same bed I lay in
The funny part is that they actually did that to this guy >>131211577Ian Stewart was originally a full member of the Stones but was demoted to their touring and session pianist because their manager told him he was too ugly to be in their marketing material or to be up front on stage. He stayed with the band until his death in 1985. I'm sure he probably still got hella laid.
>>131214224>tfw you get told you're too ugly to be in the StonesFucking brootal blackpill
>>131214224strange how the stones are also ugly as fuck
>>131214277>>131214282I think the wording was more like "he didn't fit the image" and I see what they mean. The Stones were ugly in like the sketchy vagabond way while Stewart was ugly in the dorky way.
>>131211477The one thing I never got is why they never invited him back officially once that manager was kicked off. He was still playing on all their albums and contributing ideas, touring with them and remained in good standing with them the entire time, they could have done so without any pushback once they hit it big
>>131214224it’s cool that they still involved him in some way. the manager was right, in group photos he looks like their accountant or parole officer.
>>131211836I could easily knock your lights out
>>131214224Stewart was literally a train autist. I don't think he wanted to be in the spotlight. There are stories about The Stones inviting him to get fucked up and party with them and he just wanted to read thick books about history instead.
>>131211477why were the stones always described in the media as the ugly band when they mogged the Beatles in looks department?just because they didn't smile as much? has journalism always been retarded?
>>131217772I think even today most people would find Paul and George and probably John are more attractive than any of the Stones. Only Brian Jones was conventionally good looking. Jagger looks like a frog and Richards is a mouth breather.
>>131217822Charlie was handsome thru most of his life. and Bill just has a goofy haircut here, but he was moderately handsome.And when Keith covered his jug ears, he was handsome in late 60's, early 70's.Mick has some odd features, but makes up for it in a wiry athletic look (something none of the Beatles had except maybe George).George only handsome Beatle (and only after, like Keith, he covered his jug ears).Paul was handsome in later years, but looked way too choir boy when they started. Other two had sub par looks.Stones win easy.
>>131217888Keith and George look similar now that I think about it
>>131211477Mogged
>>131217772>>131217888In today's dating market of the two bands only Brian and John could have any hopes of finding anyone. Maybe also Mick if he used his off-the-charts charisma card. >Paul McCartneyWould have to grow a beard since he looks atrocious without itBut as this >>131218518 guy says Ray Davies moggs all, truly the GOAT of the British Invasion
>>131217330tell more?
