I was looking through my aunts senior yearbook from 1967. Not a single long haired guy, not even Beatle length. No facial hair. The girls still had early 60s style haircuts. The older people in it were still short haired and clean cut unlike the 70s, with sideburns and such.

How “60s” (in terms of the popular memory of the 1960s, which in a lot of ways was the 70s) was 1967? How close to say, the Kennedy 60s was it?

1967 was about as "60s" (ie cultural 60s) as it gets. The Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" that year, for heaven's sake. The first  "Human Be-In" took place in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco in January 1967. The legendary Monterey Pop Festival ("if you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair") was that year, with Jimi Hendrix setting fire to his guitar during "Wild Thing". The summer of 1967 was the still talked about SUMMER OF LOVE. Surely you've heard of that? The Vietnam War was escalating (though the TET Offensive was still a year away). Campus unrest was seething, and in October 1967. In Berkeley, California, several anti-war groups organized "Stop the Draft" Week from October 16th-20th, 1967 . October 27, 1967 saw the March on the Pentagon, a massive demonstration against the Vietnam War, in which some hippies (and others) tried to "levitate the Pentagon". Norman Mailer wrote his classic book "Armies of the Night" about this event.  Oh, trust me, 1967 was peak 60s.

However, I am not surprised about your relative's yearbook. Was she in a podunk town or in the South? Much of this "60's-ness" of 1967 was taking place on college campuses, in larger cities and on the coasts. That doesn't mean those clean cut, fresh-faced kids you saw in the yearbook weren't INTO it, mind you. Hey, they were listening to the radio like everybody else. They heard "A Whiter Shade of Pale", "All You Need Is Love" "I Can See For Miles", "Light My Fire" and all those wild 1967 hits just like everybody else. They just didn't LOOK the part yet. America is a big country, in those pre-internet days it took awhile for everybody to catch up. On the Rolling Stones 1969 tour of America Mick Jagger marveled how all the kids looked hip and had long hair, etc, while the last time the Stones had toured the Us (in 1966) they still had short hair and the girls wore corsages. But they were THERE.. they were still into the Stones. 1967 couldn't have been further away from the "Cameot" of the JFK years.

1967 was about as "60s" (ie cultural 60s) as it gets. The Beatles released "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" that year, for heaven's sake. The first  "Human Be-In" took place in Golden Gate Park in San Francisco in January 1967. The legendary Monterey Pop Festival ("if you're going to San Francisco, be sure to wear some flowers in your hair") was that year, with Jimi Hendrix setting fire to his guitar during "Wild Thing". The summer of 1967 was the still talked about SUMMER OF LOVE. Surely you've heard of that? The Vietnam War was escalating (though the TET Offensive was still a year away). Campus unrest was seething, and in October 1967. In Berkeley, California, several anti-war groups organized "Stop the Draft" Week from October 16th-20th, 1967 . October 27, 1967 saw the March on the Pentagon, a massive demonstration against the Vietnam War, in which some hippies (and others) tried to "levitate the Pentagon". Norman Mailer wrote his classic book "Armies of the Night" about this event.  Oh, trust me, 1967 was peak 60s.

However, I am not surprised about your relative's yearbook. Was she in a podunk town or in the South? Much of this "60's-ness" of 1967 was taking place on college campuses, in larger cities and on the coasts. That doesn't mean those clean cut, fresh-faced kids you saw in the yearbook weren't INTO it, mind you. Hey, they were listening to the radio like everybody else. They heard "A Whiter Shade of Pale", "All You Need Is Love" "I Can See For Miles", "Light My Fire" and all those wild 1967 hits just like everybody else. They just didn't LOOK the part yet. America is a big country, in those pre-internet days it took awhile for everybody to catch up. On the Rolling Stones 1969 tour of America Mick Jagger marveled how all the kids looked hip and had long hair, etc, while the last time the Stones had toured the Us (in 1966) they still had short hair and the girls wore corsages. But they were THERE.. they were still into the Stones. 1967 couldn't have been further away from the "Cameot" of the JFK years.


NYC

NYC


I'm not all that surprised. Something else I can point out is that the school systems in those days, unlike today, had a very conservative slant to them. This was probably reflected to some degree in the students, but I also wouldn't be surprised if not long after they busted out all over. Some of them probably went to Woodstock two years later. NYC wasn't that far away from it.:) Among the general conservatism of the school system there were always one or two "radical" teachers as well. Mind you, I am talking here about grade school and high school. College campuses at this time were very radical and volatile, as is well known and documented.

I was looking through my aunts senior yearbook from 1967. Not a single long haired guy, not even Beatle length. No facial hair. The girls still had early 60s style haircuts. The older people in it were still short haired and clean cut unlike the 70s, with sideburns and such.

How “60s” (in terms of the popular memory of the 1960s, which in a lot of ways was the 70s) was 1967? How close to say, the Kennedy 60s was it?

I was 10 years old in 1967. I believe I started seeing long hair on men in and around 1968, not 1967. Even the Beatles themselves in 1967 (see cover of Sgt Peppers) didnt have long hair, but in the posters we got from the white album in 1968, they did have longer hair.  Even most of the acts that appeared on Ed Sullivan didnt have that much long hair in 1967.

And as Voiceofthe70s has already said, 1967 couldn't have been further away from the "Camelot" of the JFK years.  1967 was so different than 1962, just 5 years earlier. Like night and day.

I was 10 years old in 1967. I believe I started seeing long hair on men in and around 1968, not 1967. Even the Beatles themselves in 1967 (see cover of Sgt Peppers) didnt have long hair, but in the posters we got from the white album in 1968, they did have longer hair.  Even most of the acts that appeared on Ed Sullivan didnt have that much long hair in 1967.

And as Voiceofthe70s has already said, 1967 couldn't have been further away from the "Camelot" of the JFK years.  1967 was so different than 1962, just 5 years earlier. Like night and day.


Keep in mind, the Beatles of 1964's Ed Sullivan Show and "Meet the Beatles" were seen as having radically long hair for males. As short as it may look to us now. That's why they were called 'the moptops". In 1964 and 1965 enterprising merchants made a killing with "Beatle wigs". Mainstream culture hadn't really seen long hair on men before in the 20th Century. Little did we know the Beatles themselves themselves were only emulating what they had seen on artsy people in the clubs of Hamburg when they were getting their start there. But  between 65 and 68 men started growing their hair longer and longer, so by 1968 and the "White Album" pictures, the Beatles were just following the trend they themselves had set in motion.

Keep in mind, the Beatles of 1964's Ed Sullivan Show and "Meet the Beatles" were seen as having radically long hair for males. As short as it may look to us now. That's why they were called 'the moptops". In 1964 and 1965 enterprising merchants made a killing with "Beatle wigs". Mainstream culture hadn't really seen long hair on men before in the 20th Century. Little did we know the Beatles themselves themselves were only emulating what they had seen on artsy people in the clubs of Hamburg when they were getting their start there. But  between 65 and 68 men started growing their hair longer and longer, so by 1968 and the "White Album" pictures, the Beatles were just following the trend they themselves had set in motion.


I can't remember which Beatles movie (or which Beatle for that matter) but someone asked, "What do you call your hair style?" The answer, "An Afro."


Cat

Keep in mind, the Beatles of 1964's Ed Sullivan Show and "Meet the Beatles" were seen as having radically long hair for males. As short as it may look to us now. That's why they were called 'the moptops". In 1964 and 1965 enterprising merchants made a killing with "Beatle wigs". Mainstream culture hadn't really seen long hair on men before in the 20th Century. Little did we know the Beatles themselves themselves were only emulating what they had seen on artsy people in the clubs of Hamburg when they were getting their start there. But  between 65 and 68 men started growing their hair longer and longer, so by 1968 and the "White Album" pictures, the Beatles were just following the trend they themselves had set in motion.


Ironic thing is that the Beatles hair inn 1964 was not that much longer than Kennedy’s had been in 1963.

A question for you:

If 1967 is 60s, to the extent that it’s not like the Kennedy years -

When did the 70s clearly become the 70s? What I mean is-

I look at family photos from 1969 and there’s a definite hippie inspired look to things. But not the out and out crazines in clothes or aesthetics of the early 70s.

Ex. I have my grandfathers 1969 driver’s license. He has fuller hair then he wore in the early - mid 60s, and sideburns that come just below his earlobes.

Cut to his driver license in 1972, and he has full sideburns that go almost to the end of the ear, and a mustache; and he is wearing colorful wide collared shirts (as opposed to his rather conservative and colorless clothes say in 1967)

Bear in mind, he was 49 in 1967 and 52 in 1972.

Or my father. My father in 1967 at age 13 has short hair, parted; is wearing jeans, a button up shirt, and Beatle boots.

Cut to 1970, he has mid length hair, almost but not quite chin length, but is clean shaven. No sideburns. 

Cut to 1972 at 18, he has the same haircut as Mick Jagger did on the cover of Time in 1972, bushy sideburns coming past his ear, and a mustache. Wearing all denim. Or in other pictures, overalls over a t shirt.

Or on the front of the ladies, my one grandmother goes from looking like your average 1960s wife in 1964 (she’s still wearing pill box hats in 1964), to wearing a mini skirt in 1969 or 1970, to looking  like a middle aged 1970s movie star in 1972. Gold sandals and gold bag.

My other grandmother dresses pretty normally in 1964. In 1973, she’s wearing frill front blouses with bell sleeves.

My mother in 1967 (age 13) has mod style blouses and a short Rosemary’s Baby styled hair cut. She’s a big fan of the film Bonnie and Clyde, and sits in her room listening to Simon & Garfunkel as the 60s close.

Her mother finds her hand written lyrics to “White Rabbit” in 1967 and leaves them on her night stand as to say “I know what you’re up to.”

In 1972, my mother has frilly long hair, artificially curled, and is wearing floral type hippie sort of dresses.

When did that happen? I don’t mean just for them; I mean in general

1967
https://resizeimage.net/mypic/UOfgOztuQ8AqyTA5/2AMyA/274524963_1017982728813211_301.jpg

1972
https://i.ibb.co/S3ZkDMy/july-1972-1-orig.jpg

Ironic thing is that the Beatles hair inn 1964 was not that much longer than Kennedy’s had been in 1963.

A question for you:

If 1967 is 60s, to the extent that it’s not like the Kennedy years -

When did the 70s clearly become the 70s? What I mean is-

I look at family photos from 1969 and there’s a definite hippie inspired look to things. But not the out and out crazines in clothes or aesthetics of the early 70s.

Ex. I have my grandfathers 1969 driver’s license. He has fuller hair then he wore in the early - mid 60s, and sideburns that come just below his earlobes.

Cut to his driver license in 1972, and he has full sideburns that go almost to the end of the ear, and a mustache; and he is wearing colorful wide collared shirts (as opposed to his rather conservative and colorless clothes say in 1967)

Bear in mind, he was 49 in 1967 and 52 in 1972.

Or my father. My father in 1967 at age 13 has short hair, parted; is wearing jeans, a button up shirt, and Beatle boots.

Cut to 1970, he has mid length hair, almost but not quite chin length, but is clean shaven. No sideburns. 

Cut to 1972 at 18, he has the same haircut as Mick Jagger did on the cover of Time in 1972, bushy sideburns coming past his ear, and a mustache. Wearing all denim. Or in other pictures, overalls over a t shirt.

Or on the front of the ladies, my one grandmother goes from looking like your average 1960s wife in 1964 (she’s still wearing pill box hats in 1964), to wearing a mini skirt in 1969 or 1970, to looking  like a middle aged 1970s movie star in 1972. Gold sandals and gold bag.

My other grandmother dresses pretty normally in 1964. In 1973, she’s wearing frill front blouses with bell sleeves.

My mother in 1967 (age 13) has mod style blouses and a short Rosemary’s Baby styled hair cut. She’s a big fan of the film Bonnie and Clyde, and sits in her room listening to Simon & Garfunkel as the 60s close.

Her mother finds her hand written lyrics to “White Rabbit” in 1967 and leaves them on her night stand as to say “I know what you’re up to.”

In 1972, my mother has frilly long hair, artificially curled, and is wearing floral type hippie sort of dresses.

When did that happen? I don’t mean just for them; I mean in general


All of the posts we have posted here don't answer this for you? Just because SOME people aren't doing the same thing at the same time, it doesn't mean the aesthetic of the decade wasn't in full swing by 1967. Some people just lag behind, some people resist, some people NEVER catch up. (I knew people who lived and looked like it was the 1950s well into the 80s.)

But to elaborate on what I more or less already said in my first post of this topic...the last FULL FLEDGED year of the 1960s was 1970. By this point the 60s aesthetic was as entrenched as it was ever going to get. It was by 1970 that you had network newscasters, etc. with longer hair and sideburns, wearing turtlenecks (which were somehow considered a substitute for a shirt and tie), etc. A LOT OF THIS HAS TO DO WITH THE VIETNAM WAR. By 1970, even the staunchest supporters were questioning it. As I said before, 1971 and 1972 have the very unique distinction of being 60s and 70s AT THE SAME TIME. The 70s aesthetic had come in, but the 60s was still going strong, although by 1971 nobody was really calling themselves a "hippie" anymore, and the whole hippie thing seemed dated (though LOOKING BACK NOW everything still looks sort of "hippie-ish"). The 60s ended in late 72. It petered out. 1973 was the true blossoming of the 70s (even though it had been going on for the previous two years concurrent with the 60s).

I'm not sure how much more clear we can make this. You have correctly pinpointed 1973 as the full blossom of the 70s, by which time these "holdovers of Camelot" had more or less fully integrated. Is that what you're looking for?

PS--LOVE the story about your mother and the "White Rabbit" lyrics".  ;)