December 8, 2012

It's not the looks (or the clothes)

There are millions of young men and millions of old men living there lives with the quiet conviction that they were robbed of fame, fortune and adulation - not from lack of musical talent, but a failure of their genes to bestow the right rock-star look.

It's not true.  (Smash: there goes delusion number three.)

A glance through the fashion-wearing history of the Rolling Stones illustrates that they are an especially ugly bunch of guys, at every age.  Their collective gene pool is asthetically mongrel, not thoroughbred, and there is nothing, nothing at all, about their visual appearance that suggests their place in musical history.

In terms of their music, the Rolling Stones set the gold standard of consistency. Ignore a few unfortunate dabbles in psychedelia and disco — their sound has never really betrayed its bluesy essence. The same cannot be said of their fashion sense, however. The Stones, who celebrate their 50th year with three New York-area concerts, starting with Barclays Center in Brooklyn, have enjoyed an improbable half-century run as style avatars, stretching from the “Mad Men” era to “Mad Men” reruns. Here are nine of the band’s more memorable looks.

The difference in the clothes they wear 

3 comments:

  1. Now I realise why my early ambitions of being a kind of rock star never got past the wank stage.

    It's because I'm good looking.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fuck Caz

    Do you realise I just had to sign some sort of "write this shit and we will accept you as a human being" horse shit?

    After all these years?

    Fuck.

    What is this? My blog?

    Not impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  3. YES!

    The talent scouts were blinded by your beauty, your raw talent never had a chance of being noticed.

    ReplyDelete