I was recently watching Get Back (beatles doc) and was struck by how much variety there was in men's clothes in the 60s, or at least in the sample set of ppl in this documentary. It reminded me of modern women's fashion. All the collars, sleeve lengths, designs, even the wrist cuffs of the shirts, all were unique from everyone else on the screen. I feel that, in my average mall visit, I basically encounter one shape of button-up, one shape of suit, one shape of t shirt, and 2-3 shapes of sweater/hoodie/etc, and that is basically it. I'm not saying you couldn't find unusual clothes online if looking for examples, but does readily shoppable men's fashion lack variety in the current year?
watched the doc too, great stuff btw (not a huge fan of their music but they're funny guys)>flora prints>corduroys>turtlenecks>earthtones>vests>conspicuous layering>the odd ascotit's an attainable style if you shop vintage/thrift. but i feel you in regards to new fashion
Hate to be that guy but I think the fact is most of it wasn't mass produced overseas. You get a lot more variety, not to mention quality in your clothes with local tailors. Also consider that the Beatles (and the Beach Boys in picrel from the same year) were fabulously rich and could afford to have any style of clothes made for them. Also yeah layering is important. Al Jardine looks like a goddamn cowboy.
>>16738858there are modern equivalents to everything here. people no would just rather dress like shit
>>16737872>>16738858mostly agree with this anon. mass production and standard patterns have moved us away from fresh ideas and to things that are more of the same to make production and sizing easier, so you end up with alot of the same bases and differences in the extra pieces such as pockets epaulettes etc. though there is definitely a cultural element that has been pushing mens fashion more samesame and bland in terms of colour i will agree there, even if i can't diagnose it accurately. yeah, alot of these outfits were probably bespoke or altered since they were rich, you could still do this today on a regular budget if you saved up for higher quality clothes and had them altered. it would just mean picking your wardrobe based on outfits rather than a more generalist type like today.
>>16739074The market just gives people what they want
madcap makes stuff like this
>>16739079the market is capable of grabbing onto trends quickly and they wouldn't make the money they do if there weren't some smart people involved but i do think its fallible. some people are entirely practical though yes.
>>16739086Don't you think you can find zaney patterns and colors if you just look for a reasonable price?
>>16739089i'm not sure what you want from me.>>16739079his mini-me is getting abducted
>>16739078>>16739081>>16739084>>16739093I don't need the aesthetic of the beatles/60s, just looking for unusual things like sleeves that fit differently than average T shirt/ button up. I noticed a lot of john's clothes had sleeves tight on the biceps even though his arms were spaghetti thin, for example. Its not about the aesthetic, just the lack of mass-produced shape
>>16738964see, here, even though their outfits are largely the same basic outfit, we have at least 3 types of collar and 4 types of lapel on the jacket.
>>16739074You said it really well, and good points about thinking in terms of outfits. Most people today think in terms of general pieces of clothing they can smash together, and this makes them buy the most generic things they can, whereas if your plan is to actually build an outfit, you can add some variety and complimenting colors and weird stuff you know will look good when put together. Women still think about building an outfit, but men don't seem to anymore.
>>16737872>>16738647god they were so ugly
yes it does
The Beatles are so sexy
>>16739081I own a load of Madcap stuff and it's excellent. I highly recommend them. Give Freeborn Designs a look too - it's all jackets made out of Indian brocade, but they're cut in really cool styles archaic and they do customs.
>>16737872There is more variety in mens fashion now than there has ever been, go back not even 10 years and you will notice that everyone dressed the same pretty much.
>>16740498>10 years90 years
>>16740502I think he meant ten years from The Beatles.
>>16737872>Does men's fashion lack variety?no, you can get men's clothing in a huge variety of styles and colors now
Partially I think the era and location (60's Britain) just tended towards exceptionally loud/zany/diverse men's fashion, even by the standards of the day. You can see it in other movies from the era. Like nobody/very few (I guess Camp Freddie is) in the Italian Job or even the Ipcress File is supposed to be a hippie or even particularly 'hip', but the wardrobes for the characters in those movies include some of the same crazy patterns, cuts, outfits, accessories. If you'd looked at America at the same time, for example, I don't think men's fashion was quite to the same level.However, even American fashion was still more diverse at the time than it is today. I think it's close enough to the advent mass-produced cheap fabric and clothing that the ability to produce out-there shit for cheap was still a novelty, and people took advantage of it.
>>16742132No, you're just not familiar enough with the collectionsPick a designer and watch all their menswear runway shows from early years until recent so that you can see their progressionYou will see lots of unique ideas presented that never caught-on with the mainstream
>>16742424I suppose your answer wasn't really for me.
>>16738647Gf got me this for xmas
>>16737872they're a fucking band buddy.Your average person did not dress like this in 1969
>>16738967They look fucking wack
feel this needs to be postedhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5zk0eyKzp1c&ab_channel=guyjonesthe audio is fake
>>16744847Replying to this from the location of where that's filmed rn
>>16739906I do what you're saying about men's fashion choices being simple and safe to mash together. how would I go about "building" more complex outfits?
>>16742132George was the real hottie of the band
>>16744993Fellow goblin enjoyer i c
I like to dress in a 70s style and have to get second hand stuff off ebay as modern stuff looks too much like a costume or costs a fortune. Also with shoes I wanted a nice pair of shoes with a crocodile texturing to them and had a hard time tracking down a pair
They have NO RICK OWENS.
>>16739887its much much more expensive now to design/produce small runs of stuff like this relative to back then and much less expensive to just mass product garbage and design for the lowest common denominator
>>16747812their hair is so bad. LOL
>>16744983I'm not the best at fashion advice, but I'd start by trying to build your own aesthetic. This thread appealed to me because I usually dress with a early 70s kind of style. Lots of wide collared shirts, blazers and coats and boots with heels. Thrifting is a great option if your style consists of clothing that isn't mass-produced anymore. Try to find an article of clothing that stands out to you, and build your outfit around that. Most important is to know what you're going for.
>>16749874These guys look so fucking awful
>>16749874compare with the superior
>>16749879>>16749881That's fair kek, I was just trying to demonstrate how much variety all their outfits have, Jesus and Mary Chain do have far more style than Gentle Giant, certainly.
>>16743555Pretty cool. This brand makes good shirts, as far as modern shit goes.
>>16740498You can argue this, but it's only true on virtue of us having widespread access to older styles. The clothes that are being manufactured right now (aside from the odd designer brands which have always existed) are mostly the same patterns of athletic clothing in the same cheap fabrics. Hell, even designer brands are taking very few risks right now as opposed to 20-30 years ago. It's a byproduct of globalization and outsourcing. Late stage capitalism. The only long term solution is to support local artisans/tailors and ensure they don't go the way of the dinosaurs.
>>16750630No one commonly dressed like this in 1969. In fact more people look like this now than they did then. Your example is one of the most flamboyant rock bands of all time. LOL
>>16750630Watch gimme shelter, even their fans didn't dress like this. Only Keef Mick and Charlie pull it off
>>16750658They look like faggots.>Pic related is the one of only good bands from the 60s
>>16750713Pretty much every group in a major city dressed like this. It was readily available in many boutiques. Normal young people weren't far off. Mods (and all the runoff subcultures) were working class teenagers that regularly spent thousands in modern day dollars on bespoke suits and boutique fashions as well. That's not really my point though, go into any vintage store and you will immediately see that even the most basic shirt from back then seems opulent and luxurious compared to whatever they sell at Zara.
>>16750658Keep you pink fag scarf in the UK>another actual fa 60's band comin in hot
>>16750725No one person on the street wearing that shit...in fact what is the first guy wearing? Levis>lol explaining mods to me...fag
>>16750730Once again, that's not my point. When did I ever suggest that the Rolling Stones dressed like the average joe? Post some inspo, nigger.
>>16750725What do we have here? Levis, Desert boots, t-shirt...yeah nothing like today!
>>16750735looks like every indie band ever.
>>16750734I did...actual fa groups.here>>16750728>>16750719>>16750735
>>16750735Examine the details. Levi's are high waisted, 100% cotton, selvedge denim, assembled in a first world country. T-shirt is single stitch, made in a first world country. The desert boots are an unfair comparison because the same brand still makes them, but these are made in a first world country. These clothes would (and do) cost hundreds of dollars now to acquire. You seriously think that that outfit under those conditions isn't practically a luxury item right now?
>>16750740>hese clothes would (and do) cost hundreds of dollars now to acquire.yeah if it's vintage. You can still get the same looks for cheap. Levis 501 are under 100 bucks, 100% cotton same cut everything. T-shirt...get a vintage t-shirt for cheap anywhere. Desert boots, clarks $100 bucks. Same. If you can't get the look for cheap then you don't know how to shop. You really think every indie band is spending hundreds on clothes? LOL
>>16750740>this fool actually thinks desert boots t-shirt and selvedge jeans is luxury
>>16750747You can get the look but not the quality or the same details. How many posts is it going to take for you to get that? And 501s are not the same cut as they were in the '60s what the hell are you tripping on mate? >>16750749Compared to their MODERN COUNTERPARTS. Fucking hell.
>>16750750>You can get the look but not the quality or the same details. How many posts is it going to take for you to get that? And 501s are not the same cut as they were in the '60s what the hell are you tripping on mate?I literally bought vintage 501's for 20 bucks. Learn how to shop.
>>16750750>501s are not the same cut as they were in the '60s what the hell are you tripping on mate?That's why you get them tailored.
>>16750807As I said, they don't manufacture clothing like this anymore at the same quality for the same price on the scale that they did. There has been a drop in quality and a rise in price overall. I have said this about four times. The fact that you need to buy old stock is proof of this. I have a large collection of vintage jeans, all eras. You're the one that didn't even know 501s aren't made the same way that they were 50 years ago. What are you even trying to argue over at this point
>>16750821You're saying the look can't be had for cheap, but it can. You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference upon glancing.BTW the bands you post look like shit, get some taste.
>>16750821compare this shitty band with these fa/lords>>16750728
>>16750821>he keeps posting the who
>>16750834>You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference upon glancing.If it's modern make, yes I would. I deal vintage clothing. I literally notice every difference. And VU is an alright band but I hate this retarded generic boots/leather jacket/tight pants 'rocker' style. You only like it because it was in vogue on /fa/ about five years ago so it's safe to like now. I'm bored by you, get a personality.
>>16742424All you need is the wookie mask
>>16737872Rich celebrities have always been able to dress however they want. The average Joe has always been limited to what is socially accepted though.
>>16751648Undeniable that there was more flavor and variety in average men's wardrobes 50 years ago.
>>16750849Literally can buy this look for cheap today
>>16750849>If it's modern make, yes I would. I deal vintage clothing. I literally notice every difference.Lol no you wouldn’t
>>16739887Merz b Schwanen has t shirts with vintage looks.
>>16750849This could have been taken last year
>>16751991except the haircuts are awful.
>>16751695No one was dressing like this on the streets. The market is dictated by what the consumer wants, there is a reason levis 501 are still worn and this shit is not. No one bought it. If it was demanded thats what they'd make. The classics whether converse all-stars, schott perfectos, barracuta jackets, whatever, are still around is because that's what people wanted.
>>16751695Watts 1966, now please post a group of guys wearing these ridiculous outfits in a candid setting...
>>16751991''normal'' fashion hasn't changed much if at all apart from rise of trousers etc and some of the materials, polyester was a massive thing in the sixties too. It wasn't the 1930's when nearly every person was wearing a heavy wool 3 piece suit and a cloth cap, the sixties was one clothing became liberalized and modern.The seventies is a strange enigma, but even then alot of people didn't look like they were going to the local disco. catalogs etc are not generally representative of what people wore people were mainly buying stuff locally.
>>16752025dude with the red socks is killing it
>>16752010I don't know, they don't look any worse than the zoomer pube tops.
>>16750811>getting levis tailoredi really hope you're joking dog
>>16752025Yes, these outfits are good and undeniably not modern in style.>>16752019Goddamn people on /fa/ are retarded. Not everything I'm posting is an example of the way the average man dressed in midcentury America. Stop trying to argue that the athleisure and yeezys of today is somehow comparable to this shit.
>>16752145>undeniably not modern in style.I think you mean undeniably modern. khakis, blue jeans, t-shirts, desert boots, flannels...are you blind?
>>16752225Structure and make of the clothing is different. Good luck finding that outside of repro brands. When you see a person dressed exactly like that, is the first thought in your head really "wow, so fresh and 2022"? No, because it's a direct rip of outfits that were worn by young people half a century ago. Face it kid, your sweatpants and gay little techwear windbreakers look like shit.
>>16752310>Structure and make of the clothing is different. Good luck finding that outside of repro brands.You’re just not good at shopping, don’t know what to tell you. You could get those looks at Uniqlo with a pair of clarks
>>16752368Yeah, I'm sure you know all about shopping at Uniqlo.
>>16752423>so much lock n loll
>>16752423The point is you can get the same clothes there...if you don’t know how to make them fit or put them together that’s on you. LOL I picture you walking around think all these guys that look cool must shop at high end vintage or wearing expensive repro brands when they’re just wearing old navy Uniqlo and gap but know how to make it work
>>16752468>all these guys that look cool must shop at high end vintage or wearing expensive repro brandNigger I literally am one of those guys.
>>16752473you can't get that cut of pants at uniqlo weirdo
>>16752423it's amazing all the retards who are hating on you anon. you've been right about everything. >>16750834>You wouldn't even be able to tell the difference upon glancing.this retard is really telling on himself here
>>16752544looks good until you get to the pants
>>16752544>Nigger I literally am one of those guys.mfw he thinks he is cool. kek.
>>16752549How would you know? Thought you don't shop there.
>>16752567I'm a different anon. I have used the internet before
>>16752544What does this picture prove? One of the most out there rockstars of all time...is this supposed to imply that there was more variety in mens clothing in 1977? Literally no one dressed like Bowie.
>>16752578Doesn't prove anything, wasn't intended to prove anything. Also that's not a sensational outfit at all. Easily could've been worn by any young person. Tight jeans and a sweater. Fucking shocking.
>>16752624LOL could have been taken at a Mac Demarco concert last year WOW truly different and not possible to attain this look now! Jeans and a Black Sabbath t-shirt!
>>16752624>Easily could've been worn by any young person.maybe now, not then
>>16752730Missed the point.>>16752733Look at any photo ever taken inside a discotheque and come back to me.
>>16752737Yeah there is reason this look didn't catch on...
>>16752747Who could guess that a shitty band would also dress like shit?
>>16737872Short answer : People are cowards. The 50s and 60s saw an explosion of colours. Everything colour was availble. My aunt had a lavender sink and bath and toilet in her bath room. Clothing was multicoloured. Cars came in every colour (mostly green and blue. Now you get white, beige or black cars. Houses used to be all sorts of colours. Now they are all butternut or black. Everyone dresses in black or grey. And if anybody dresses up in coloured clothing they are labeled a fag and beaten up.
>>16750821>501s aren't made the same way that they were 50 years ago.I'm intrigued. What has changed in 501s?
>>16752812They are, it's just that they vary more due to production facilities; they remain classic and unchanged mostly
>>16752816Could you give some side by side examples?
>>16752820This looks nothing like the catalog
>>16752873Color reproduction will do that.
>>16752887its the outfits not the colour
>>16752816Selvedge is obviously gone, back pocket placed differently, small E instead of big E on red tab, lower rise, thinner denim woven in China or other third world countries, etc etc. LVC is one of a few repro brands where you can still buy these items made to old specifications, if you really want to see for yourself short of buying vintage. Don't listen to this retard caveman that thinks all clothing is the same as it was in the 20th century.
>>16752967LOL falling for the Le LVC go back r/MFA. You don’t know that your are talking about.
>>16752990Nah, I don't like workwear or drab colors. I don't remember how much of my wardrobe is repro but it isn't a lot.
>>16752997Holy shit not a denim jacket and adidas!!? How could anyone get that look today?
>>16753001They couldn't, brah.
>>16753003Literally every teenagers wears jeans and adidas,you cannot be serious
>>16753007Deadly serious. Elaborate, I don't understand. Give me a couple paragraphs please.
>>16753022>franz ferdinand kek