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 (a terrific hair word, but only for those
who have plenty of it). 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. This is where the jealousy comes in. Many of us would take a second
mortgage on our homes if we thought there was a foolproof way to add back realistic-looking
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.”
A headline last year in the Daily Mail asked, “Had a little Help! Sir
Paul?” The report said McCartney had been “sporting a much thicker
hairdo of late, reminiscent of his luscious lock worn while in The Beatles.” A
spokesman for Paul told the paper that speculation about hair weaves was “total
rubbish” (a fine British term for things that are false or, on the other
hand, might be true).
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. But the Mirror
had no dirt on the state of McCartney’s or Jagger’s heads.
There was, however, a detailed analysis of Jagger’s health habits in
the Daily Mail, disclosing that Sir Mick is particularly fond of La Prairie’s
caviar skin cream from Switzerland, and the miraculous Crème de la Mer,
which sells for $1,900 per pot (a proper British term for a 16.5-ounce jar).
Jagger’s regime is also said to involve “lashings of hair dye” by
an in-home technician, the result of Mick’s “having exhaustively
researched hair colouring and its application.”
Well, now we’re getting somewhere. At least there’s evidence – if
that’s what you call the work of a British tabloid – that Jagger’s
getting some help up top. Both he and Paul seem to have auburn highlights that
really must come from a bottle or pot.
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. Joel, a mere 63, has gained a few pounds and lost most of his
hair – and what remains on his dome is appropriately gray. He also refrains
from bouncing around the stage (leaving us to wonder if he even can). 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.
Oh, who am I kidding? These three guys probably look at Paul and double over
in envy. (I’m sure they’d prefer to comb over in envy, if they had
enough hair to do it.)
(c) Peter Funt. This column was originally distributed by the Cagle Syndicate.