new thread
I know many have credited them for starting the trend towards longer hair and long hair in Albany has stated that was his inspiration, but the Beatles actually had short hair during the early days of Beatlemania.
my question is why are the Beatles credited with starting the long haired trend when they actually had short hair until about 1965 and was only what many would consider longish until about 1968?
Relative to the male "Brylcreemed" styles of the early 60s. The Beatles with full sides about to but not quite covering their ears, nearly touching the collar and of course bangs swept acorss their foreheads were considered 'Long" I was 12 when I saw the Beatles on that legendary Feb night, on the Ed Sullivan show. Had heard the music, but not seen the musicians until then. I loved the look and immediately eschewed my regular trip to the barber. I had what was/is called a
Princeton" cut. as a kid. Long on top with neatly trimmed back and sides. So my travel to Beatlelength hair was a short trip. MY parents balked as would be expectedm but did relent so long as I kept it neat and clean. which I did. The only other social gorup at the time that was condiered having long hair were some of the 'Beats" )Beatniks) and was where the Beatles got the idea for the name. And of course, The loose and long (relatively) look was common among young surfers. It's all relative.
Here's what google has to say:
http://www.hairfinder.com/hair2/princeton.htm
Long hair is a relative term. In 1964 the Beatles hair was
long by the standards of that year. And by 1969 their hair
was still relatively short by the standard of other rock stars.
Yes the Beatles hair in 1964 was relatively short by todays standard but it was also long by mainstream standards. When the Beatles first appeared on Ed Sullivan you almost never saw men on TV with long hair. It was very controversial at the time, and they met with alot of resistance from the establishment.
I would also mention that David Bowie had long hair before the Beatles but it wasn't until years later that he broke onto
the scene in the US of A. It wasn't until last year that I even heard about him having long hair before the Beatles.
hears about him
Yes, that was considered rather long in 1964.
My parents were teachers back then and I've seen the yearbooks from that time. Most guys in 1964 had very closely cropped hair.
;so you're telling me THIS was considered long hair in 1964???
As a matter of fact yes. On the day that the Beatles appreared on
the Ed Sulliovan show the standard hair style of the day was
the crew cut or something equally short. Yes the Beatles hair
style was short by the standard of later years but it was long
compared to the standard crew cut/buzz cut/etc.
And when I started growing my hair long it Beatles length and
I got a ton of complaints about ti. Yes it is short by the standards of later years but it also took many more years
to fight against the people who hated long hair on men.
It wasn't until I hit my mid 40s (in the 1990s) that I stopped getting complaints about having long hair.
I don't know how old you are but I would guess you didn't live through that time period and didn't experience first hand the
resistance us long hairs faced in those years.
And today even though i'm now 59 years old and stopped getting complaints about my hair when I hit my mid 40s I would mention that we have members on this site who are in their teens
twenties and thrities who are gettting a mountain of complaints about their long hair.
So guess the question I have is what is the point you're trying to make? And why are you trying to slam us older guys who lived through that era?
I'm not slamming "older guys", but asked a general question since I was not around back then and ran across a band with much longer hair than the early Beatles from the same year.
I think you're getting way too defensive.
Let's not forget one other thing. Those three years from 65 to 68? That's about how long it takes to grow it out.