When They Were Boys (58 page)

“In truth,” he would say later, “in truth they had already made themselves over with their boots and the acceptance of the Franco-German mod hair style. All I did was get them the clothes, and tell them to bow.”

In truth, as Epstein would say, he did a lot more.

Joe Flannery explains that “the boys were independent. . . . They liked the way they dressed. After all, the leather jackets and wilder hair gave them a real reputation when they came back from Hamburg. What Brian brought to them was not really a clean-cut look, but a dramatically futuristic fashion look. It was advanced for the time, sort of futuristic with elegance. And the only reason they accepted it was John's reluctant acceptance of Brian as an authority, a father figure.”

In reality, the makeover was a real struggle. Even though John Lennon could be satirical and offensive in his remarks chiding Epstein, sometimes
driving him to cry when the boys were not around, he deeply respected the man when it came to business. But he was reluctant to change their “raw” look—jeans, T-shirts, leather jackets, and “creeper” shoes. Paul and George also liked the raw look, but in the end, it had to go.

The new look was a combination of the sleek look of the John F. Kennedy Camelot era and the growing ascension of the space race in America. In addition to the polite bow, the made-over Beatles had a complete look from head to toe. The hair came from their friend in Paris, Jürgen Vollmer, and Astrid Kirchherr in Hamburg. The suits were from suburban Liverpool, the shirts and ties an inspiration offered by the elegant Epstein. And the shoes? The change in footwear was a direct result of the daring of John and Paul, who first noticed the Chelsea boot in a high-end store in London's Chelsea neighborhood. The boots were born in the Italian culture of the late fifties and early sixties, although the boys adapted them to have Cuban heels. The boys provided the boots. They saw them, they wore them, but they were still convinced that for the rest of the body, the Hamburg style, inspired by Astrid Kirchherr, was very good for them—leathered up in black with tight trousers. It was Epstein who at first pressured them, and then mandated, a more streamlined look—out with the leather, and in with what he thought was a more modern look.

To me, who observed their new look close up—in the airplane, on stage, and in all the Beatles' public moments—it was pure genius. Of course, at that time I didn't know the real history, but I was impressed. The boots as well as the rest of the collection set a fashion trend, only, of course, to be replaced by colorful uniforms and psychedelic outfits during the Beatles' so-called acid era in the late sixties. It's also interesting to note that the dress code, in strict conformity to Brian Epstein's wishes, vanished after his death.

But in 1962, there was a reason for the makeover. Epstein was able to alleviate—even diminish, quite methodically—what would turn out to be a major concern about the boys.

One has to think what the domestic reaction in America would have been in 1964, if the Beatles had arrived in those tight leather pants and the gang-style jackets. By 1964, the aura of the movie
Blackboard Jungle
, with
Bill Haley's melodic tune “Rock Around the Clock,” was done and over with. The gang mentality of the “JDs” (juvenile delinquents) in America had given way to the dreamy songs of the Philly sound—the clean-cut performances of Bobby Rydell, Frankie Avalon, and James Darren.

And think about this: all the fuss about the Beatles' hair was neutralized by the neatness of their look. They were always in modern, sleek-fitting trousers and jackets, some of those jackets with no lapels. Their ties were always tied neatly. Their high-heeled boots looked sharp and appeared to be uncomfortable, but they were not. It was rare to see them in public without the proper attire. Once inside the touring aircraft, they would loosen up considerably, happy to be more informal, but rarely did they allow themselves to be photographed like that, with the exception being a vacation at the beach, or that quick trip they took near the end of 1964 to ride horses and relax in the Ozark Mountains.

Ultimately there was a plan, and the plan was always etched in stone at the hands of Brian Epstein, who was a regal dresser himself. He never hoped they would emulate his English businessman style; all he was looking for in the makeover was to make them look legitimate with a touch of style. Little did he know that the touch changed the way men around the world tried to look.

When I returned to Miami after the first summer tour, in 1964, so many people would ask me the question, “Are they as clean-cut as they look?” The answer was yes. The so-called mop tops were easily recognized for their music as well as their appearance, which to adults and children in 1964 was viewed as shocking and provocative. But the makeover allowed them to be viewed as serious and refreshing artists, as well. It offered a level of credibility. Just as the Boston Pops' recording of their music legitimized the Beatles in the eyes of most Americans over the age of eighteen, their fashion change made them look distinguished and important. An important note: the boys were always sharply shaved; I never saw anyone in the group unshaven at any point.

Tony Bramwell remembers the contrast from the early look to the iconic new look:

M
OST OF THE
L
IVERPOOL GROUPS
, R
ORY
S
TORM FOR EXAMPLE, WORE GOLD LAMÉ
, D
AY
G
LO PINK, OR WHITE TUXEDOES, THE TUXEDOES BEING
COSTLY TO CLEAN
. Q
UITE OFTEN, THEY WERE NEVER CLEANED
. T
HAT WAS BAD
. . . . T
HE EARLY
B
EATLES WORE BLACK-AND-WHITE TWO-TONE LOAFERS . . . THEY GOT SMITTEN WITH THAT HIGH-HEELED BOOT LOOK, INFLUENCED BY
C
UBAN AND
S
PANISH DESIGNS
. B
UT WHEN
B
RIAN SAW THEM AT FIRST, AT THE
C
AVERN, HE WAS IMPRESSED BY THE SKIN-TIGHT LEATHER TROUSERS AND THEIR ZIPPED-UP BOMBER JACKETS
. H
E REALLY LOVED IT, BUT AS THEIR MUSIC WAS MORE ACCEPTED, HE HAD TO MAKE THEM MORE ACCEPTABLE TO AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE
.

Even early promoter Sam Leach admits there was genius in Epstein's moves, but he still savors the early days.

H
E TOOK THE RAW OUT OF THEM
. W
HEN THEY CAME BACK FROM
H
AMBURG, THEY WERE GREAT
. B
EFORE THEY WENT TO
H
AMBURG THEY WERE PRETTY POOR
. W
HEN
I
FIRST SAW THEM
, I
WAS CONVINCED THEY WOULD BE AS BIG AS
E
LVIS
. T
HEY HAD THIS CHARISMA
. W
HEN YOU SAW THEM ON STAGE IN THEIR LEATHER JACKETS, BACK IN THE EARLY DAYS BEFORE THEY WERE MANAGED BY
E
PSTEIN, THEY WERE THE BEST ROCK 'N' ROLL ON THE PLANET
, I T
HOUGHT, AND WAS CONVINCED THEY WOULD BE REAL BIG
. U
NFORTUNATELY
, B
RIAN TOOK AWAY THE HARD, RAW WILDNESS OF THEM AND HE MADE THEM MORE PRESENTABLE, YES, BUT THAT THING THEY HAD WAS UNBELIEVABLE
. P
AUL USED TO GYRATE ROUND THE STAGE LIKE A LUNATIC
. B
RIAN GROOMED IT OUT OF THEM AND MADE THEM MORE PRESENTABLE, BUT IN '61
, I
THINK, THAT WAS THEIR BEST YEAR
. T
HEN IT WAS ON WITH THE SUITS
. O
N TO
M
OM AND
D
AD
.

Although Leach longs for the early memories, loving the magic after Hamburg, he admits the change was fundamental to the group's worldwide success.

“Brian did the right thing, but in the climate of those days, although I liked the early feel, it was quite important for them to be presentable.”

The makeover began with Epstein's campaign to get the boys to trash their Hamburg suits. The leather disappeared. Their first big change was in a concert on March 24, 1962, at the Barnston Women's Institute. After shopping at Burton's chain outlet in Liverpool, the difference was dramatic—very thin lapels on lounge suits, and collars in velvet. Within months, they would at times wear collarless jackets as well.

In a later appearance at the Manchester Playhouse, they wore mohair suits tailored by Beno Dorn, of suburban Liverpool. The shirts were buttoned down, the tie quite thin but neat and kempt. As time moved on, the outfits became more sophisticated.

The Beatles' look changed fashion worldwide. It became the standard for menswear for much of the sixties. Did they know that would happen? John was so concerned about the exit from leather, but was convinced that there was reasoning in Epstein's makeover. According to Joe Flannery, John said, “If it takes a suit to give us all more money, let's do it.”

They did. The makeover was in progress by the time of the Parlophone success in the summer of 1962.

Historian Denny Somach believes that Epstein's basic instincts made such a difference:

B
ASICALLY WHAT
B
RIAN DID, LOOKED AROUND AT ALL THE OTHER GROUPS, AND HE DIDN'T LIKE THE TOUGHNESS
. H
E ALSO BASICALLY LEGISLATED THAT THEY WOULD ALL WEAR MATCHING SUITS
. T
HE CONCEPT OF MATCHING SUITS WAS NEW, ESPECIALLY SINCE MANY BANDLEADERS WORE A DIFFERENT JACKET THAN THE REST
. B
UT WHAT IS INTERESTING, THAT BY WEARING THE SAME OUTFITS, THERE WAS NO PERCEIVED LEADER, EVEN THOUGH
J
OHN AND
P
AUL HAD A SPECIAL PLACE
. T
HE UNIFORMITY MAY HAVE DISCOURAGED INDIVIDUAL STYLE, BUT IT CERTAINLY MESHED WITH THE MUSICAL HARMONY
.

By the end of 1962, Johnny's boys had gone from grunge to sleek and futuristic fashion, and the timing was, excuse the cliché, “picture perfect.”

The imagery was set, although the biggest tests were yet to come. Would the small Beatles bubble burst, and would the genuine movement fly in Europe and the States? Thanks to ingenuity by two powerful journalists-turned-promoters, and an amazing nonstop schedule, the year of 1963 turned into 365 days of imagery and success that began with an unusual cascade: the Beatles versus the Beatles.

WHEN

THEY

WERE

BOYS

P
ART
S
EVEN: 1963—
N
EW
Y
EAR'S
D
AY

 

“People forget the time frame. When you think about it, Larry, it was just over seven hundred days since they thought it was all over. Seven hundred days . . . ”

—Tony Barrow

“My friends were in lights. My bus buddy George was now riding in cars driven by strange people.”

—Tony Bramwell

“Of all the craziness of 1963, the queen's event, even without the queen, was the highlight, even if I may have pissed her off by returning her medal years later.”

—John Lennon, in 1975

T
he time frame of this story is astonishing. New Year's Day 1963 came a little over two years after the first Hamburg visit ended with a nightclub fire, Paul and Pete's quick exit, and George's embarrassing underage deportation dilemma.

It was two years after the terribly despondent boys looked inward and saw nothing worth continuing, with John Lennon beyond despair.

It was two years and three days after the Litherland concert provided a brief tonic for the boys' loneliness; exactly one year after the Decca crisis; and almost a year after Bill Harry declared the Beatles number one in
Mersey Beat
. A new year dawned, and it would be no ordinary year at that.

On January 1, 1963, Astrid Kirchherr was alone in her solace, the Sutcliffe family longed for Stuart, and fans in Hamburg recollected the sweet and sometimes high-pitched tones of the boy singing “Love Me Tender,” the boy whose face could light up the night.

Sam Leach was still promoting, but the boys had passed him by. His toothy smile and that wonderful, melodic accent illuminated even the most boring of conversations. Would his place in history be bookmarked for future generations?

Julia Baird, sister of the child Mimi was “waiting for,” watching from a bit
of a distance, was shell-shocked by the rise of John and the boys. Sister Jackie was startled; Baird remembers: “It was amazing. The radio, the TV, the papers. It was totally unreal, but from that Woolton church fair that we witnessed back in 1957, and now to this . . . and to think, this was my mother's little boy . . . my brother.”