I mog him at my prime, with hair.
Boomers have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of how good they had it.
SuicideFuel Daily reminder that this was the looks threshold for being an internationally successful boyband member at the 60s
I mog him at my prime, with hair.
Boomers have ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA of how good they had it.
yes bro.
his bandmates made up for it tbh
Damn wtf happened. You look at musicians nowadays and all of them look like part time Male models. I cant think of a single Male musician that's ugly, not even ed Sheeran, hes just normie tier.
I wish I was born at an earlier time tbh
The incels of the future are going to look like chads compared to us if standards keep going up.
Paul was the best looking one and I rate him as a 6 in his prime.
You could rate him a bit higher but one thing is certain, none of them was even a Chadlite.
hes incel tier.
Even the members of Metallica would be incel today. Hell, Lars Ulrich even admitted that he was an incel before he became famous.
I call mentalcel.
I disagree, he looks like a goblin. Also 5'5. It didn't help that he was mogged by the other band members. If he claims to have been incel back then, no doubt he'd be incel today.
Oh, ok, I concede. His face isn't good enough for that height.
It's because consumer tastes in bands shifted from actually having talent (i.e. The Beatles) to just needing to look good because that's what brings all the roasties in.
I mog him lol.
The earth is so gay
The earth is so gay
It baffles me how they wrote so fucking many good songs within so little time.
The Beatles are to good songs like Kointo or Insomniac are to posts on incel forums.
Some modern musicians can't write one single good one through decades.
I mean, these guys would never be able to break into the music industry in 2019 because they don't have the looks.
Its because Lennon and McCartney were generational talents in song-writing. Even Harrison and Ringo could write songs, and they were so catchy that they could span countless genres and still produce hits. The Beatles didn't write anything complex on par with the progressive rock bands, but they had radical ideas, and Lennon was especially good at writing simple lyrics which meant a lot.
And really, they had a lot of time. They released tons of albums, and then their solo projects contain even more good stuff. There's a reason why the Beatles are the gold standard of rock. Are they slightly overrated as musicians? Probably. But when it comes to songwriting, I would say they were better than Michael Jackson.
Last edited:
How about having two massive warts on the side of your face and then going on to bed a thousand women
Metal is the only hope for truecel musicians tbh.
When you compare the 60s to the 90s for example you can already tell the looks threshold got higher. All Nirvana members were good-looking IMO. Cobain was a Chadlite and Novoselic and Grohl are high tier normies.
D
tbh right one would be incel rn but left and middle are normies, left being chadlite tbh
also back then it was easier for ethnics to famemaxx
exp.
Freddie Mercury of Queen(Curry)
Kirk Hammett(White and Filipino(SEA), like ER)
The members of Nirvana always came off to me as kinda faggy, except maybe Grohl.
I remember watching this in VHS as a teenager, when they come back with Grohl wearing a bra the crowd screams "viado, viado!" (Portuguese for faggot).
None of them was actually a fag, they were just big in provoking homophobes.
I wonder if he borrowed that from Courtney
R
Oh yeah 90s was when the Chad rockers came in a big way. They already existed to an extent since the 70s but in the 90s it was fangirl male model rockers.
Even Billy Corgan was good looking back then:
Even Radiohead, which was famous for the supposed truecel frontman (I don't think Yorke is that much ugly, he mogs me at his prime EZ), had a Chad member.Oh yeah 90s was when the Chad rockers came in a big way. They already existed to an extent since the 70s but in the 90s it was fangirl male model rockers.
Even Billy Corgan was good looking back then:
R
Yeah I don't know why people always say Thom Yorke is ugly. I'd love to look like him. He has a great and unique face.
In some pics he's actually really good looking.
he looks like fucking dogshitYeah I don't know why people always say Thom Yorke is ugly. I'd love to look like him. He has a great and unique face.
In some pics he's actually really good looking.
R
Just for you and your Norwood, @Mainländer , tell me, did the band Presidents of the United States ever make it in popularity to your neck of the woods?
Oldcel NW6/7 singer. Pretty popular song.
I guess it's all relative depending on what you're coming from. I'd love to have his face. Even in the 90s when I was young I liked it and thought it was much better than mine. He's aging poorly but his face is still far structurally superior to mine.
Oldcel NW6/7 singer. Pretty popular song.
I guess it's all relative depending on what you're coming from. I'd love to have his face. Even in the 90s when I was young I liked it and thought it was much better than mine. He's aging poorly but his face is still far structurally superior to mine.
W
Already happening in Toronto, Canada.
His only true problem is his lazy eye. I also have a lazy eyelid (I have symmetrical eyelids) though not as bad as his, and I have plenty of other stuff which makes me uglier than him.Yeah I don't know why people always say Thom Yorke is ugly. I'd love to look like him. He has a great and unique face.
In some pics he's actually really good looking.
Looks threshold to make it big in rock at the 00s:
Tom Delonge is also 6'4, lol.
R
Yeah they were pretty damn good looking. A lot of emo pretty boys in the 00s too like this:
Just for you and your Norwood, @Mainländer , tell me, did the band Presidents of the United States ever make it in popularity to your neck of the woods?
Oldcel NW6/7 singer. Pretty popular song.
I guess it's all relative depending on what you're coming from. I'd love to have his face. Even in the 90s when I was young I liked it and thought it was much better than mine. He's aging poorly but his face is still far structurally superior to mine.
I know that band but they weren't really that much famous. Not nearly comparable to the likes of The Beatles, Nirvana and others posted ITT.
We will always have successful musicians which are bald/ugly, but they never make it really big, at least not anymore.
I miss the emo days. People talked shit about it all the time but pretty much every trend that came after it was worse.Yeah they were pretty damn good looking. A lot of emo pretty boys in the 00s too like this:
I lived my prime at those times and had emo hair myself.
R
Aw that's sad dude you must miss your emo hair. My life was shit in the emo era even more than now so I have no particular affinity for it.
The only era of my life I'm fond of was the 80s and 90s when I was a little kid playing NES, listening to grunge, with all the hope in the world for the future.
And yeah, Presidents were just a one (or two or three) hit wonder. Novelty act.
I do miss it. I recently purchased a cosplay wig to go to animecons and putting it was a shock, I look 15 years younger and 2 points higher, I'm totally considering the hair system thing after this experience.
I barely aged in terms of face, it's just my hair that it's gone and that utterly ruined my looks.
you're right about that.
balding automatically takes 3 points from your looks.
R
Accurate.
His jaw is the only thing keeping him from being incel.
D
JFL if you aren’t Ringomaxxing
Cope. He has various other gl features that mog 98% of this site to oblivion.
He's weird-looking, ok, but even so I'd give him an 8 in his prime.
Think about how shit and low resolution TV was in the 60s. Did they even have TV? It was probably black and white, with a 4 inch square picture on a box the size of a living room.
Nowadays we have photoshop, trenbolone, advanced gym routines and nutrition. The top 1% of men have never looked so good.
Nowadays we have photoshop, trenbolone, advanced gym routines and nutrition. The top 1% of men have never looked so good.
I agree that all of those are factors but photography was already developed more than enough to tell people like Ringo were ugly.
Yeah but everyone hated Ringo anyway to be fair, he was always meme status beatle.
Fair enough but nowadays you wouldn't make into a band of that magnitude with his looks even as a meme member.
Also, how would you rate the other Beatles? George and John look like normies to me and Paul is an upper tier normie at best. He looked kinda pretty boy-ish but his face has lots of flaws like negative canthal tilt, bulldog cheeks, etc.
You are right nowadays the looks standard has absolutely skyrocketed, for the reasons already described + more. I've talked about this a lot before, but essentially there is a globalised "choice paradox" for women now. Women are the ones who select a mate, which itself is unprecedented. But even worse, they can now evaluate men purely on looks for all over the world, and for many this leads to choice paradox - where there is no satisfaction in making a choice because of the huge number of potential choices available. Its a scientifically demonstrated concept - tell people to pick one of three jams, they pick one and are happy. Tell them to pick one of thirty jams, and they can't decide and agonize over it, and don't feel happy with their eventual choice.
Women can pick from tens of thousands of men now straight from their phone, as a result choice paradox means they will never be happy (except for the few that can hook and reel that 10/10 slayer for life).
The beatles were big in an era in the UK where most people never even left their towns, and going to another country was a sign of super high status.
I
Ed Sheeran would be posting here if he did not have musical talent.
Similar threads
Users who are viewing this thread
