Black Leather or Suits?
-
Didn't the boys look more sexy and rocker-ish in their Hamburg black leathers? Would that look have been too much for the masses? Lennon said he resented being made to appear more proper and prim. He felt he had "sold out." Getting their music out there was more important than cool looking stage attire and Eppy thought the "cleaned up" look was vital to achieving their musical end. Even the Stones stopped short of black leathers, but it didn't hurt Jim Morrison of The Doors. Hamburg hair wouldn't have made it?-- but the Beatle moptops hair style resembled uniform helmuts.
-
Typical Lennon in his post-Beatles myth-demolition mode. I prefer suits. Can you imagine the Beatles appearing on the Ed Sullivan Show wearing leather from shoulders to toes?
-
I think they looked like the Village People in leather. More like a parody on tough rocking guys. Jim Morrison of The Doors had a wilder appearance and it suited him better. Brian Epstein had a good influence when he came with the suits, to the young Beatles. I've always liked the late 60s Abbey Road hippie band look.
-
The leather look was kinda cool, but leather is dead animals, so I much prefer them in the suits. I'm sure Paul is happy too he doesn't have to see himself in leather every time The Beatles early years of fame are shown. I prefer the 68ish colourful look though
-
The leather was sexy, but I agree they never could have made it big and been on Ed Sullivan dressed like that! Also prefer the '67-'68 garb.
-
I remember Ringo joking about Paul wearing a vegetarian leather jacket in the Anthology extras.
Epstein was a genius. The suits were much better. -
beatlesfanrandy:
I remember Ringo joking about Paul wearing a vegetarian leather jacket in the Anthology extras.
Epstein was a genius. The suits were much better. That was George who made the joke.
-
Nancy R:
beatlesfanrandy:
I remember Ringo joking about Paul wearing a vegetarian leather jacket in the Anthology extras.
Epstein was a genius. The suits were much better. That was George who made the joke.
Thanks.
-
Suits. They looked like German gay boys in leather. Leather jackets I get, they look cool. Leather pants are a joke. Hutchence and Morrison looked cool because of their personas not their pants.
-
Had to be the suits! And yep, Michael and Jim certainly pulled off the other look with brilliance.... although Michael could pull off any look with brilliance.
-
Suits. We would not even know who they were had they kept the leather.
-
Suits indeed. Leather worked in the chaos of the Reeperbahn but would have been totally incongruous with polished studio work, even by 1964 standards.
-
I think they looked sexy in their hair metal years.
-
Ha-ha, that was a funny picture. I guess one can never know, we are molded into our own time. Not that I was very hair metal in the 80s as a teenager but I experimented with a little hairspray.
-
-
-
I vote for suits. Leather is stinky.
-
Nancy R:
And their "Kiss" period: http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v319/njr/Paul%20McCartney%20and%20The%20Beatles/Beatles_Kiss_zpse5196ec6.jpg
That's funny!.... and brings back a lot of memories!
-
liv4art:
I vote for suits. Leather is stinky.
Yeah, I think it was Mike McCartney who said he couldn't understand how Paul and the Beatles got so many chicks after their shows because between the sweat and leather they stunk to high heaven!
-
Nancy R:
Then there was their "D i c kensian" period (the censors wouldn't let that by without spaces!)
That's crazy. The censorship, not the pictures. We can't say "Charles Dickens", one of the greatest English authors, or "Emily Dickinson", one of the greatest American poets, but we can say "asshole"? That's pretty dicked up.
