The Afterword

Musings on the byways of popular culture

Menu

You are here: Home / Blog / Making small children cry: the ugliest bands in pop.

Making small children cry: the ugliest bands in pop.

by 99 Comments

I want the sorts of faces that induce actual screaming. Nausea. Involuntary bowel evacuation.

0

Comments

  2. I’m nominating The Who.

    A midget. Two – count em – TWO guys with a face like a bag of dicks. A bass player who looks like that moustachioed sex-case of a woodwork teacher you had in middle school. Surely unassailable.

  17. You have to credit The Handsome Beasts with a measure of self-awareness for their name, always assuming that it was meant to be ironic (on think we’re on safe ground saying that it was).

  18. NWOBHM stalwarts Samson. If you’re in a band with a moustachioed cocker spaniel, Bruce “Moose” Dickinson and a man in a fucking GIMP MASK, you’d fancy your chances of being the good looking one. But no, the bassist managed to come in fifth in a four-dog race.

  19. Oasis. They all look as though they have some kind of genetic abnormality, a different one each.

    Happy Mondays. Their name is misleading, their appearance isn’t. I’ve never inspected all of their bodies but my guess is the teeth to tattoo ratio is perilously low. Avoid after dark. Or during daylight hours.

  24. Isn’t this why guys start up bands though? It’s generally not driven by the creative urge is it? More like the procreative urge amirite?

    PS i knew this thread would be funnier than the “sexy” thread.

  29. Twisted Sister

    Nausea inducing? check
    Nightmare causing ? check
    Make small children cry? check

    and that’s just the music

    (in the interests of full disclosure and balance, I actually quite like Twisted Sister – may not be essential, but a whole lot of mad fun)

  31. All the above pale beside the utter muntyness that is 70s nearly men Brownsville Station.
    I’d put up a picture but I fear for sensitive types erm…sensitivity.

    NOT because I have no idea how……honest

  32. The original Mothers Of Invention made a point of looking as absolutely revolting as they could.
    Same goes for the Fugs.
    Both bands not so much unkempt as looking like they had never been kempt.
    They looked as though they probably smelled bad.

  36. OK. I come here for the music and dislike this kind of thread. But I read it.

    I know I’m about to make myself unpopular (but nothing new there, and I’ll be leaving now) but here goes . . .

    A couple of weeks ago the Bing n Bob Show (as this site is increasingly becoming – how do these “dudes” ever get any work done?) got super-uppity (ha ha) about a reviewer being “viciously personal in the most puerile way” because they didn’t like some music (I agreed with them, by the way).

    https://imgur.com/DiCA877

    But now, here we are being “viciously personal in the most puerile way” about the way people look.

    You can tell me I’ve had a sense of humour failure but I don’t think so. It’s just unpleasant.

  37. I think the difference between the awful slagging-off of the Cranberries singer and the the tongue-in-cheek uggos vs hotties threads (and to some extent the affectionate Van-bashing) is that the latter are ordinary people mucking about on a forum, whereas the former was written by a journalist and published in a magazine. Also, the Cranberries thing was properly, scythingly, carefully and deliberately vicious.

    Or am I missing something?

Leave a Reply