A serious question that challenges the notion of ‘rock stardom’: how many would still go to see the Stones if they were fat? I don’t mean 2 or 3 pounds overweight, but if they all looked like Mick Taylor does now. That’s one to consider.

A fat Mick? Impossible!!!

Anyway I don't like Keith's overweight. He has to lost weight for the Budapest gig.

Look at the attendance numbers of Mick Taylor lately. That should answer your question.

Anyway I don't like Keith's overweight. He has to loose weight for the Budapest gig.

1962 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway I don't like Keith's overweight. He has to
> lost weight for the Budapest gig.


Where is Keith overweight? I can see it now, Keith Richards on Celebrity Fit Club. Wonder if he would listen to Harvey?

And please Keith cut the moustache!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mick, Ron and Charlie look very good, very rock and roll, very Rolling Stones!

Charlie has got to dye his hair and I'd like to see Mick with a beard again like in early 1980.
Ron definately looks better with at least 10 cm longer hair and Keith would even look better with some 15 extra kilo's.

Wilco

WilcoMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charlie has got to dye his hair

I think Charlie is smart to leave it the way it is. Sort of gives him a "father figure" appearance, especially onstage, keeping the beat, watching over the boys.

Practically speaking, his light hair color makes his bald spot less noticible than if he were to dye it.

What a perfectly useless thread! 1962: is there a law against a small beer belly in Hungary? Since you instruct Keith to get rid of his love handles before Budapest? Or are you just trying to provoke people? Or are you just a little less intelligent than one could wish for?

Does size matter? You bet baby!!

Oh, sorry! I was joking. Don't be so serious. Im already satisfied with Keith's shape.

GOD what a superficial, disgusting thread, what a question.... Well gee, don't go see BB KING cause he's a big fatso, Oh, MUDDY WATERS there towards the end was putting on some weight - skip that show, he ain't gonna be rockin', That STEVIE WONDER'S a big chubby, balding guy - how about that VAN MORRISON guy, GLORIA was another lifetime, eh I mean short, fat AND balding - YUKKY YUK ... How about big mama ETTA JAMES ??? Holy Shit.... Maybe you shouldn't go see THE STONES or THE WHO or BOB DYLAN or PAUL McCARTNEY or (especially) BONO and PRINCE cause they're all very short people and we know what Randy Newman said about short people. BALD SPOTS, yeah well forget about CROSBY, STILLS, NASH, and YOUNG, TOM PETTY ain't getting anymore hair up there, neither is ROBERT PLANT or JIMMY PAGE..... But I got some good news for all you SERIOUS music fans, just saw Paris Hilton on LARRY KING the other night and she looks HOT - thin and cute. She puts out music so pick up her CD.... Who sits around and thinks up these IMPORTANT topics??? BRAVO, let's worship the "NEW SUPERFICIAL EMPTINESS" BTW, when did musical talent stop counting? What a sad time we live in..... Hey "Rock'n'Roller", just a FYI thing but KURT COBAIN and JIM MORRISON are now very skinny, how does that sound for a live show??? I hear MORRISON has got a tight 6 pack gut - you like?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-06-28 15:05 by HelterSkelter.

WilcoMick Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Charlie has got to dye his hair and I'd like to
> see Mick with a beard again like in early 1980.
> Ron definately looks better with at least 10 cm
> longer hair and Keith would even look better with
> some 15 extra kilo's.

what about Blondie?

I think Keith's moustache suits him very much. He looks younger and very cool.
However he could afford to lose a few inches round the waist. Starting to pack on the pounds, just lately.

Rock'n'roller Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> A serious question that challenges the notion of
> ‘rock stardom’: how many would still go to see the
> Stones if they were fat? I don’t mean 2 or 3
> pounds overweight, but if they all looked like
> Mick Taylor does now. That’s one to consider.


I go for the music. If I'll want to see people on the catwalk I would rather see some nice looking girls on it.

rknuth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I go for the music. If I'll want to see people on
> the catwalk I would rather see some nice looking
> girls on it.

BRAVO !!! VERY WELL put rknuth - must be another MTV brainwash going on here - lol......

Hello HelterSkelter.

I quite agree with you. My question wasn’t aimed at the dedicated, serious Stones fan, or any fan of real music in general. I’m thinking about the general context in which bands like the Stones operate – it’s a very critical, can’t do anything right environment, and while we may appreciate the music I wonder how many casual fans – or those that just want to be part of rock history so attend the live shows but really have no understanding of liking for the Stones – would tolerate a certain appearance. And there’s no denying the fact that the Stones have always fashioned a coolness that is tied into their ability to retain a sense of youthfulness and rock and roll swagger. And good luck to them – they do it bloody well. But they have always trodden a path between pop fashion and being the bearers of real music – something which shouldn’t pose a problem for anyone.

Does everyone really go just for the music - of course not! Many go because the Stones represent an unobtainable aspiration that thrills them - or for the reasons I mention above.

My comment was not intended to detract from the value of the Stones in any way.
I’ve seen BB King and all those other fantastic players but they don’t/didn’t function in the same market as the Stones.

Elvis could sell out any place and he was very heavy. I think the voice or musical talent outweights the physical image.

Jim Morrison got heavy, no one complained. Meatloaf is still heavy and he has fans.

Stupid thread, why am I writing???????

Solomon Burke appeared with the Stones during Licks and he ain't no lightweight!

iamthedj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think Keith's moustache suits him very much. He
> looks younger and very cool.
> However he could afford to lose a few inches round
> the waist. Starting to pack on the pounds, just
> lately.

our Keith likes his shepherd's pie!

It´s Only Rock´n Roll

ROTFL !!

See! Size does matter after all!

Harlix Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> [www.pubfoto.com]
> nce_european_vs_american_girls.sized.jpg


Hey now.....I've seen LOTS of nice rearends in America. Not every woman is fat here, you know.

HelterSkelter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> rknuth Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I go for the music. If I'll want to see people
> on
> > the catwalk I would rather see some nice
> looking
> > girls on it.
>
> BRAVO !!! VERY WELL put rknuth - must be another



yes Bravo.....I have participatd in some silly threads before but this one is just....just......childish....

there's no doubt that staying fit has been more important to the Stones' success than playing well. Look at the current tour--they don't sound very good, but they look great. It's part of the spectacle to see classic images of rock alive in front of your eyes.

I'm currently taking donations so I can move to Europe. Please help. Sorry, not tax deductible.

"No Anchovies, Please"

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Solomon Burke appeared with the Stones during
> Licks and he ain't no lightweight!


500 pounds of heavenly joy! ;-)