Peter Funt: Hair yesterday, today and forevermore
Written by Peter Funt
Dec 26, 2012
Sure, Paul McCartney can still sing at age 70, but have you taken a good look at his hair? During the concert to benefit victims of Sandy, and a few nights later on “Saturday Night Live,” McCartney’s locks were positively mesmerizing.
Madison Square Garden’s gentle breezes made Sir Paul look like he and his hair were at a photo shoot for “Vogue.” As a BBF (balding Beatles fan), I was torn between adoration and raging jealousy.
Most of us who attended the 1965 Shea Stadium concert are now gray and lucky to have any hair at all. Paul’s mop, on the other hand, doesn’t appear to have changed a bit.
And what about Mick Jagger? He bounded across the stage with his shoulder length hair looking thick and lustrous. Of course, Jagger’s just 69.
I’ve seen famous folks with bad hairpieces, obvious dye jobs, and telltale transplants. But if Paul and Mick have had work done, it’s mighty hard to tell.
As soon as the concert ended I Googled. Sure enough, the ever-vigilant British tabloids had more versions of the story than Alan Brady had toupees on the “Dick Van Dyke Show.”
The Daily Mirror dug deep into the follicles of British scalp trends under the headline, “The bald truth behind celebrity hair transplants.” Seems quite a few Brits invest in dramatic and expensive hair jobs.
Paul’s voice is thinning with age, while his hair remains frozen in time. Wouldn’t it be nice if science could flip that around?
By the end of the Sandy concert I decided I was more of a Billy Joel fan than I had realized. He’s a real New Yorker, a survivor in the manner of Billy Crystal and Matt Lauer, who also make do with pretty much whatever hair they have at the moment.
Paul McCartney at the 12-12-12 The Concert for Sandy Relief at Madison Square Garden in New York
Paul McCartney at Saturday Night Live