When did the Slide Toward Casual Begin in Earnest?

[LizzieMaine]

The vent in the back of a man's suit is there so the tails can flop over the back side of a horse.

This is especially true among radio executives.

 

[reetpleat]

I don't see as much can be gained from this thread, as the whole idea is rather vague. Not that it is not fun to discuss. But there is no simple line that starts somewhere and leads to t shirts.

Think about it. In roman and greek times, men wore togas, or tunics. Pretty casual. In other countries, men wore what we would consider to be pajamas, but they were just pants. In japan, as fancy as they look, people wore robes. Even in our modern times, that would be considered a little too comfy.

In England of france, 200 years ago, royalty and wealthy people wore fancy garments and wigs, but a farmer wore rough woolen or cotton pantaloons, tunic, and probably a rough jacket or cloak. It would be odd for the nobleman to complain about the farmer on his estate being a slob. It would make no sense.

A hundred years ago in this country, farmers, ranchers and miners wore levis jeans. It was not considered informal or casual. It was work wear. A wall street broker would not turn his nose up at him as a slob. But he wouldn't be allowed in a fancy restaurant.

As pointed out, in the 70s guys wore long hair, beards and cut off shorts. In a lot of the country, even casual people would not wear cut off short shorts in this day and age.

Further, back in the twenties, upper class people started wearing casual clothes for sport and leisure. At the same time, working class men wore work clothes, and donned their best suit for a Saturday night.

In the forties, lots of rural boys started wearing t shirts or casual shirts. By the late forties, striped or plain t shirts were not uncommon at all. Girls were wearing rolled up levis and their dads shirts. But for a date or school, it was generally better clothes.

Since the 20s, many farmers or other workingmen wore overalls, bt with a shirt and tie.

So my point is, it would be very difficult to make the case of one line from formal to informal.

For that matter, thee is a recent trend where a lot of guys are dressing up more.

Anyway, Just some thoughts. An interesting thread, but pretty hard to pin down.

 

[Tiller]

..after all, he should know, right!?

"I rue the day that the Beatles were unfortunately born into this world. They are, in my mind, responsible for most of the degeneration that has happened, not only musically, but in the sense of youth orientation politically too. They are the people who made it first publicly acceptable to spit in the eye of authority." lol

You tell 'em Franky! See you in Branson!

-dixon cannon

I actually think Frank JR is right, but then again I'm 24 and the Beatles aren't some sacred cow to me as they are to some of the people who lived threw that age . I think Craig Ferguson figured out what happened in general though .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xFQkMAPVoIo

 

[reetpleat]

..after all, he should know, right!?

"I rue the day that the Beatles were unfortunately born into this world. They are, in my mind, responsible for most of the degeneration that has happened, not only musically, but in the sense of youth orientation politically too. They are the people who made it first publicly acceptable to spit in the eye of authority." lol

You tell 'em Franky! See you in Branson!

-dixon cannon

Funny point of view from a guy who is famous for claiming to do things "my way." and had many mob connections. he was not exactly a guy I would call a real "respecter of authority."

 

[Carlisle Blues]

..after all, he should know, right!?

"I rue the day that the Beatles were unfortunately born into this world. They are, in my mind, responsible for most of the degeneration that has happened, not only musically, but in the sense of youth orientation politically too. They are the people who made it first publicly acceptable to spit in the eye of authority." lol

You tell 'em Franky! See you in Branson!

-dixon cannon

Who's his daddy?? lol lol lol Ole' Blue Eyes was a great power of example for respecting authority. Just the wrong kind of authority...lol lol

The Sands was owned by Lansky, Frank Costello, Joe Adonis and Doc Stracher. Frank Sinatra too had a 9% share in The Sands, but at the time, it was reported that the Mob did not want him involved in their criminal activities, they only wanted a guarantee that he would perform at The Sands each night. With old blue eyes singing, the Hotel was reputedly always filled to capacity!

 

[Tiller]

Funny point of view from a guy who is famous for claiming to do things "my way." and had many mob connections. he was not exactly a guy I would call a real "respecter of authority."

Frank actually hated the song My Way, and said so many times over the years, although he also admitted that the song was good for him (read made him lots of money), he hated the message, and the song itself . From the article I link to below

Deep down, as Shirley MacLaine and others who knew him intimately have insisted, Sinatra was a genuinely humble man who never took his own success for granted. Even though the outline of Mr. Anka's text seemed to be based on The Sinatra Story -- a superstar who stumbled, fell, and against unbelievable odds scaled the mountaintop of fame a second time -- the attitude of the song was something he just couldn't relate to.

As far as how much he "respected authority", when he was both on the left (his younger days up till about the Kennedy years), and the right (post-Kennedy and famously being an ally of Ronald Reagan through his rise to power) Frank always was conventional. He played the party games, and made money for both the Dems, and the Repubs in his time. He was friends with the movers and shakers, and knew everyone from Elanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan. The man could hardly be said to be outside of the "establishment". Even his (supposed ) Mob connections weren't that "rebellious/ anti authority" for an age where even President's slept with mob bosses mistresses.

Sinatra vs 'My Way'

 

[LaMedicine]

In japan, as fancy as they look, people wore robes. Even in our modern times, that would be considered a little too comfy.

Really? Then I guess I shouldn't attend formal parties in the U.S. dressed like this.

It must have been a horrible faux pas for me to have dressed thus and attend a White House party hostessed by the then First Lady, Mrs. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy--ah, of course, her husband is guilty of the decline of fedoras lol lol lol

 

[Tiller]

Really? Then I guess I shouldn't attend formal parties in the U.S. dressed like this.

It must have been a horrible faux pas for me to have dressed thus and attend a White House party hostessed by the then First Lady, Mrs. Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy--ah, of course, her husband is guilty of the decline of fedoras lol lol lol

A true thing of beauty LaMedicine . As far as Kennedy goes he gets praised and blamed for a lot of things he had absolutely little influence or no control over. The decline of the fedora being one of them . Pretty sad considering the poor guy actually wore them .

Hell forget the fedora, the man was one of the last(if not the last) President's in America to actually wear a top hat.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

Frank actually hated the song My Way, and said so many times over the years, although he also admitted that the song was good for him (read made him lots of money), he hated the message, and the song itself . From the article I link to below



As far as how much he "respected authority", when he was both on the left (his younger days up till about the Kennedy years), and the right (post-Kennedy and famously being an ally of Ronald Reagan through his rise to power) Frank always was conventional. He played the party games, and made money for both the Dems, and the Repubs in his time. He was friends with the movers and shakers, and knew everyone from Elanor Roosevelt to Nancy Reagan. The man could hardly be said to be outside of the "establishment". Even his (supposed ) Mob connections weren't that "rebellious/ anti authority" for an age where even President's slept with mob bosses mistresses.

Sinatra vs 'My Way'

One article does not make the myth a reality. He was crooked and went with whichever "tide would carry boat to shore", so to speak. If what you propose is true regarding "My Way" then Sinatra is nothing more than an ingrate; humility was not part of his character makeup.

Sinatra's "hoodlum complex" only worked one way. While he was apparently enthralled with mobsters, ultimately the mob just used him the way they used anyone else—to make money and lots of it. But it would be unfair to characterize Sinatra as simply the mob's patsy. He was a complicated man whose life was defined by contradictions.

As a young man he had been investigated for sympathizing with radical left-wing Communists, but after being rejected by the Kennedys, he turned conservative, becoming a staunch supporter of Ronald Reagan.

Sinatra had always been a vocal supporter of civil rights and had made Sammy Davis Jr. an equal member of the Rat Pack at a time when black entertainers, no matter how famous, were not allowed to stay in the hotels where they performed. Yet Sinatra reveled in the company of wiseguys who as a group have never been known for their racial tolerance. (In a wiretapped conversation between Sam Giancana and one of his chief henchmen, Johnny Formosa, the two men vented their anger over Sinatra's failure to "deliver" President Kennedy. Formosa suggested that they "whack out" the entire Rat Pack to "show those a****** Hollywood fruitcakes."

Very humble indeed, " .. he could also be crass and crude in public, cursing out underlings and making scenes when he was displeased.."

Further, " Frank Sinatra had a "hoodlum complex," perhaps he publicly suffered that syndrome for many men around the world who secretly harbor a desire to hobnob with enterprising outlaws, hoping to inspire a little fear and respect by association".

If he disliked "My Way" by all accounts he would have not performed it. Anything after a while gets old and tired. It appears that he was simply tired of performing a particular song. [huh]

 

[Cobden]

I think the point to look for is when isn't really when people dressed casually due to practical or financial reasons, but rather when it became desirable to dress casually.

In the late Victorian era, if you had the money and no good reason not to wear a frock coat, one wore a frock coat and with all the Victorian trimmings. They would dress more informally if there was need to, or if they couldn't afford it, or if frock coats were impractical - but it was desirable to dress formally. By the end of the 19th century, and in the early years of the 20th, this changed. People dressed informally (i.e. lounge suits) unless there was a reason to dress formally - the desirable wear for everyday, given a certain amount of wealth and taking into account practicality, was the suit with hat and tie, not the frock/morning coat. Of course, some of the older generation retained the frock coat, but on the whole the young lead fashion, and the fashion was set.

Informal wear remained the standard for much of the rest of the 20th century, but I personally think it was the 1950's that this started to change. Films like "The Wild One" and those starring James Dean made casual wear desirable, and amongst the younger generation especially people would prefer to dress casually unless they had a reason to dress informally or formally - though this shift took perhaps the longest time to fully grow

 

[dhermann1]

There should be a special thread for "Conversations we always seem to drift into, that never really go anywhere or prove anything".

 

[Amy Jeanne]

There should be a special thread for "Conversations we always seem to drift into, that never really go anywhere or prove anything".

lol
First thing that came to mind when I saw the thread title!

:::Goes back to the Powder Room:::

 

[Edward]

What I hope I never see, however, is the day when cotton jersey briefs are proper attire for the Nobel Awards ceremony. On the outside, I mean. lol

Well, it depends what they cost.... I mean, if a pair of underpants cost me what some ladies regularly spend on a pair of silk knickers, I'd damn well be wearing them over my trousers!

 

[Foofoogal]

There should be a special thread for "Conversations we always seem to drift into, that never really go anywhere or prove anything".

:eusa_clap :eusa_clap lol lol

 

[Foofoogal]

LaMedicine. You are welcome anytime to come to our home wearing one of your stunning kimonos. fftopic:

 

[Tiller]

One article does not make the myth a reality. He was crooked and went with whichever "tide would carry boat to shore", so to speak. If what you propose is true regarding "My Way" then Sinatra is nothing more than an ingrate; humility was not part of his character makeup.

I think you underestimate his fall from being one of the biggest names in the 40's-60's to the 70's afterwords. Listen to what he sang up until My Way, his songs are almost all love balads, or have a connection to the Great American Songbook. I have no doubt he had an ego the man after all was famous, and it requires one to have an ego on some personal level to make it to that level of success. He had his problems, there is strong evidence that he was bipolar. With that said though I think the Kitty Kelly myth that he was a miserable ba***rd, who forgot what it was like to be starving, and never gave a damn about the fans, and was an ungrateful ba***rd is a huge myth.

I believe Frank knew what it was like to be on the bottom, as well as on the top, and he was thankful for what he had. I don't think he took it all for granted, and I think he was humble on many accounts. His songs up until (and many ways after) weren't "look at me and how great I am" songs.

He was a complicated man whose life was defined by contradictions.

Who's isn't? I'd say generally the more famous someone is the more contradictions there are in their life, because their is the public image and the private realities, there are the drives it takes to reach that level of success, and the drive to stay on top. Combine that with the fact that he had a mental disability that wasn't well understood and went untreated.

Sinatra had always been a vocal supporter of civil rights and had made Sammy Davis Jr. an equal member of the Rat Pack at a time when black entertainers, no matter how famous, were not allowed to stay in the hotels where they performed.

There are plenty of men and women who backed civil rights, who either were or eventually became men and women of the right. Charlton Heston being a famous example. Hell Sammy himself was a huge supporter of Nixon, although he stayed with the Dems after Nixon.

Yet Sinatra reveled in the company of wiseguys who as a group have never been known for their racial tolerance. (In a wiretapped conversation between Sam Giancana and one of his chief henchmen, Johnny Formosa, the two men vented their anger over Sinatra's failure to "deliver" President Kennedy. Formosa suggested that they "whack out" the entire Rat Pack to "show those a****** Hollywood fruitcakes."

My point was that having mob connections, or knowing mob members didn't mean that you didn't respect authority, or the system at that time. Kennedy slept with Judith Exner. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am stating that it was a reality of the age. Frank had the same connections that many night club singers, politicians, and businessmen had. Look at Joe Kennedy, and other "importers" of the generation before Franks. It was what it was, good and bad. I had written more, but we are already dangerously close to the "no politics" rule.

Very humble indeed, " .. he could also be crass and crude in public, cursing out underlings and making scenes when he was displeased.."

A man with bipolar showing extreme emotions? Shocking. Especially considering he lived in an age that didn't medically know how to deal with people with mental disabilities it becomes even more shocking. With that said I don't think being bipolar, and having mood swings means one is ungrateful for ones success, nor that one believes everything is about them, no matter how much Kitty Kelly and other mudslingers may want to believe it does.

I don't think Frank forgot what it meant to be starving, anymore then he forgot what it was like to be on the bottom. His career much like fellow Rat Packer Dean Martin went up and down, and I believe both were grateful for their success when they had it, and how hard they worked for it.

If he disliked "My Way" by all accounts he would have not performed it. Anything after a while gets old and tired. It appears that he was simply tired of performing a particular song. [huh]

He did hate My Way, and he talked about it on more the one occasion. He didn't agree with it's message, and said so. He sang it because the people loved it, and it's what they wanted and he knew it, which meant it made him money.

Frank was no different then the vast majority of the people of his age.
He was hardly an outsider who rebelled against authority and "the establishment", even his mob connections weren't unheard of for people in authority at the time. He respected the government of the time, and went through the conventional roots as far as politics went. He played the party game, he hung out with the rich and powerful, and wasn't anything like the Beatles, and the hippie age that followed. He wouldn't sit outside protesting something without wearing a suit. The Beatles protested, and tried publicity stunts when they took up a cause. Frank organized the political party that shared his view on the topic, and put in time and money through traditional ways.

Was he bipolar? Yes. Was he the ba***rd that Kitty Kelly tried to make him out to be? Hardly. He was a man of his time, much like Kennedy, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, and others were. There was good and bad, but they where defiantly not like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and what came after them. They where the World War II Generation, they where the establishment, not the counter culture of their children.

And in my long winded way to get back on topic, I think the big slide towards the casual started with the late 60's, with the Beatles, and the connection of "youth" culture. There WAS under pinning of it in earlier times, but it's major push corresponded with the hippie movement and it's after affects. It was that mentality that turned against the suit, the hat, the tie, and many other things that we enjoy as far as style. It called for a type of conformity to fight against their parent's conformity, and has brought about the sub cultures we have today including our own in many ways.

The vintage community is by in large a rejection of the late 60's fashion and the fashion that came from it. We are people who conserve the style of the Golden Age. In many ways that is the only thing we all have in common lol.

 

[Carlisle Blues]

I think you underestimate his fall from being one of the biggest names in the 40's-60's to the 70's afterwords. Listen to what he sang up until My Way, his songs are almost all love balads, or have a connection to the Great American Songbook. I have no doubt he had an ego the man after all was famous, and it requires one to have an ego on some personal level to make it to that level of success. He had his problems, there is strong evidence that he was bipolar. With that said though I think the Kitty Kelly myth that he was a miserable ba***rd, who forgot what it was like to be starving, and never gave a damn about the fans, and was an ungrateful ba***rd is a huge myth.

I believe Frank knew what it was like to be on the bottom, as well as on the top, and he was thankful for what he had. I don't think he took it all for granted, and I think he was humble on many accounts. His songs up until (and many ways after) weren't "look at me and how great I am" songs.



Who's isn't? I'd say generally the more famous someone is the more contradictions there are in their life, because their is the public image and the private realities, there are the drives it takes to reach that level of success, and the drive to stay on top. Combine that with the fact that he had a mental disability that wasn't well understood and went untreated.



There are plenty of men and women who backed civil rights, who either were or eventually became men and women of the right. Charlton Heston being a famous example. Hell Sammy himself was a huge supporter of Nixon, although he stayed with the Dems after Nixon.




My point was that having mob connections, or knowing mob members didn't mean that you didn't respect authority, or the system at that time. Kennedy slept with Judith Exner. I'm not saying I agree with it, but I am stating that it was a reality of the age. Frank had the same connections that many night club singers, politicians, and businessmen had. Look at Joe Kennedy, and other "importers" of the generation before Franks. It was what it was, good and bad. I had written more, but we are already dangerously close to the "no politics" rule.



A man with bipolar showing extreme emotions? Shocking. Especially considering he lived in an age that didn't medically know how to deal with people with mental disabilities it becomes even more shocking. With that said I don't think being bipolar, and having mood swings means one is ungrateful for ones success, nor that one believes everything is about them, no matter how much Kitty Kelly and other mudslingers may want to believe it does.

I don't think Frank forgot what it meant to be starving, anymore then he forgot what it was like to be on the bottom. His career much like fellow Rat Packer Dean Martin went up and down, and I believe both were grateful for their success when they had it, and how hard they worked for it.




He did hate My Way, and he talked about it on more the one occasion. He didn't agree with it's message, and said so. He sang it because the people loved it, and it's what they wanted and he knew it, which meant it made him money.

Frank was no different then the vast majority of the people of his age.
He was hardly an outsider who rebelled against authority and "the establishment", even his mob connections weren't unheard of for people in authority at the time. He respected the government of the time, and went through the conventional roots as far as politics went. He played the party game, he hung out with the rich and powerful, and wasn't anything like the Beatles, and the hippie age that followed. He wouldn't sit outside protesting something without wearing a suit. The Beatles protested, and tried publicity stunts when they took up a cause. Frank organized the political party that shared his view on the topic, and put in time and money through traditional ways.

Was he bipolar? Yes. Was he the ba***rd that Kitty Kelly tried to make him out to be? Hardly. He was a man of his time, much like Kennedy, Jimmy Stewart, John Wayne, Henry Fonda, Richard Nixon, Barry Goldwater, and others were. There was good and bad, but they where defiantly not like the Beatles and the Rolling Stones and what came after them. They where the World War II Generation, they where the establishment, not the counter culture of their children.

And in my long winded way to get back on topic, I think the big slide towards the casual started with the late 60's, with the Beatles, and the connection of "youth" culture. There WAS under pinning of it in earlier times, but it's major push corresponded with the hippie movement and it's after affects. It was that mentality that turned against the suit, the hat, the tie, and many other things that we enjoy as far as style. It called for a type of conformity to fight against their parent's conformity, and has brought about the sub cultures we have today including our own in many ways.

The vintage community is by in large a rejection of the late 60's fashion and the fashion that came from it. We are people who conserve the style of the Golden Age. In many ways that is the only thing we all have in common lol.

Your answer is not responsive to my position...[huh] It appears that you hold his psychological makeup as if have first hand knowledge i.e medical records and other such sources. Further, I have no knowledge of the Kitty Kelley book, I have not read it. My information was gleaned from statements attributed to those including: J. Edgar Hoover, Sinatra's longtime friend and associate Jilly Rizzo, Paul Anka and archivist Anthony Bruno.

 

[Undertow]

Please forgive my ignorant Occidentalism here but I believe the "west" and it's philosophy is very focused on individuals, or individuals in groups (followed by groups in cultures, cultures in nations, nations in countries, etc.) and this opposes the so called "oriental" view of many for the few.

I realize there are obvious stereotypes, etc. that may rise from this analogy, but keep in mind that the "west" tends to be very focused on one's self, one's enjoyment, one's responsibilities, one's own gain. As we've shifted from monarchy to republic, and as we've moved away from traditional organizations such as the church, America and Britain (and much of Europe) has also slid away from Tradition and tends to value innovation instead. We're less strapped with pomp and circumstance (not to say that we don't still have some) and we're more forward thinking on what's next - as opposed to considering what was.

There's nothing wrong with this, and there's nothing wrong with any other approach, but I think it helps answer some questions. We as a culture don't tend to value "Tradition" as much as some of our old world counterparts. And they, in turn, have also begun moving towards innovation at the expense of Tradition.

I think a few of you here can agree that this approach may be a part of what causes some of the friction between the "West" and other countries that don't exactly appreciate us. Perhaps they see us as a society with no “lasting values" or a people who only possess a shallow, decadent appreciation for life.

Obviously, this is all mostly false, but to some degree, we at the Lounge also struggle with it via threads such as this. We hate to see Tradition and propriety thrown to the wind, but as others have mentioned, we're not all too concerned about the powdered wigs, etc, that have also gone by the wayside. Fortunately, we live in a country that allows us to express our selves via fashion with little to no recourse (aside from the occasional Inspector Gadget reference).

 

[Cigarband]

Don't overlook the influence that central heating and air conditioning have had on clothing choices.

 

[Widebrim]

It is interesting that yesterday's casual often becomes today's formal. I've seen pictures of Woodstock and the protests of the '60s and have noticed that, in addition to the ubiquitous tie-dyed flower children types, significant numbers of the participants -- who by today's standards -- would actually be considered conservatively dressed.

As recently as the early '80s when I was a high school student, I seem to recall that among the boys the T-shirt/button-down or polo shirt ratio was perhaps 60:40. Now it seems to be 95:5! Also a greater percentage of the girls back then -- compared to today -- still wore dresses and skirts.

On that note I shudder to see the day when jammies becomes formal attire.

Very true, that regarding the presence of "conservatively dressed" young people in the late '60s/early '70s, including the high percentage of girls wearing dresses/skirts. This, to me, shows what others have said on this thread: The "slide" toward casual attire cannot be pinpointed to any one decade or era. Having said that, I do believe that there have been certain periods in history in which the "de-evolution" of attire went through rapid acceleration, such as the French Revolution, and the days of Beau Brummel. (Yet even in the case of Brummel, it has been said that he would take hours just to get the proper knot on his neckwear[huh]).