Why did John dominate the Hard Day's Night album?
-
SusyLuvsPaul:
A superficial reason, but that's when John looked his sexiest, his most handsome. He looked like a man (but didn't act grown up, not very!) while the other Fabs looked like boys (Paul, like a "pretty boy"). You think?
Paul was certainly cute then, but they all looked like men, even at age 21 or (almost) 22 in 1964 . Guys for some reason looked older back in the '60's. My son is 28 and if he didn't have a beard he'd look about 18!
-
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
-
RMartinez:
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
I blame the internet. People mature slower online.
-
HaileyMcComet:
RMartinez:
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
I blame the internet. People mature slower online.
Internet, lack of parenting and guidance, allowing being a teenager to extend well into the 20s. There are many factors at play. I taught high school for ten years and witnessed parents demand their "genius" kids get As when they were not deserved. Watched as parents took their kids out of school for a week to go on vacation. Things like that.
-
RMartinez:
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
I disagree with your first sentence. You really think John & Ringo looked 23 on The Ed Sullivan Show? No way. I do agree with your last 2 sentences, though.
-
Nancy R:
SusyLuvsPaul:
A superficial reason, but that's when John looked his sexiest, his most handsome. He looked like a man (but didn't act grown up, not very!) while the other Fabs looked like boys (Paul, like a "pretty boy"). You think?
Paul was certainly cute then, but they all looked like men, even at age 21 or (almost) 22 in 1964 . Guys for some reason looked older back in the '60's. My son is 28 and if he didn't have a beard he'd look about 18!
Check out Buddy and The Crickets from the Sullivan show in the '50's. Those guys looked 40+
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
I disagree with your first sentence. You really think John & Ringo looked 23 on The Ed Sullivan Show? No way. I do agree with your last 2 sentences, though.
Well, that is your opinion and mine. I mean, what does a 23 year old look like? When I see the Beatles, they look older than me no matter what, because I grew up with them being older than me. Do you know what I mean?
-
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
I disagree with your first sentence. You really think John & Ringo looked 23 on The Ed Sullivan Show? No way. I do agree with your last 2 sentences, though.
Well, that is your opinion and mine. I mean, what does a 23 year old look like? When I see the Beatles, they look older than me no matter what, because I grew up with them being older than me. Do you know what I mean?
Yes, because I had the same experience. When I was 9 and Paul was 22, he seemed so much older than me! (that didn't stop me from being in love with him though!) And the "definition" of what a 23 year old looks like has changed (to me) over the years. When I speak of John & Ringo not looking 23, it is because by the time I got to that age, guys looked much younger.
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
The Beatles didn't look older than their ages in 1964. In 1964, by the time you were 21 years old, you were a man. Today, at age 28 or 30, many still act like boys so are perceived as such and are.
I disagree with your first sentence. You really think John & Ringo looked 23 on The Ed Sullivan Show? No way. I do agree with your last 2 sentences, though.
Well, that is your opinion and mine. I mean, what does a 23 year old look like? When I see the Beatles, they look older than me no matter what, because I grew up with them being older than me. Do you know what I mean?
Yes, because I had the same experience. When I was 9 and Paul was 22, he seemed so much older than me! (that didn't stop me from being in love with him though!) And the "definition" of what a 23 year old looks like has changed (to me) over the years. When I speak of John & Ringo not looking 23, it is because by the time I got to that age, guys looked much younger.
Yeah, I am 51 now, and Paul at 21 still looks older than me, to me! Ha ha! Weird.
-
RMartinez:
Yeah, I am 51 now, and Paul at 21 still looks older than me, to me! Ha ha! Weird.
Paul at 21 looks older than you at 21 or 51? I want to see a photo of you if the latter is true!
-
Nancy R:
RMartinez:
Yeah, I am 51 now, and Paul at 21 still looks older than me, to me! Ha ha! Weird.
Paul at 21 looks older than you at 21 or 51? I want to see a photo of you if the latter is true!
Clearly at 51 I look older than him at 21. I just mean, the Beatles always look older to me because they always were. If that makes any sense!
-
Imagine how Paul feels when he sees those old pictures.