There are a lot of parallels between Harry Styles and Mick Jagger. Both were frontmen for two of the biggest bands of their generations — One Direction and The Rolling Stones, respectively — each with borderline "stans" fanbases. Their collective stage presence, which is fueled by expressive singing and theatric movements, is also eerily similar. And as of today, Jagger and Styles have both made solo appearances on the cover of Rolling Stone, the latter of which just hit newsstands today. As you might have guessed, the resemblance between the two issues is uncanny — especially in the hair department.
If you, like Kimmy Schmidt, missed the last few decades of pop culture, you might think the Rolling Stone photo of Styles posing in a high-neck, white-collared shirt with mussed-up hair was actually Jagger. (Or at least someone in his bloodline, considering he does have a flock of children.) Put the two artists side by side, and you'll notice the same round eyes, big lips, sharp bone structure, and just-rolled-out-of-bed shag. They are practically twins.
Back in the day, Jagger and his bandmates were famous for their unkempt mops of hair. At the peak of their success, salons across the U.K. were complaining about a lack of business because of the rising band’s influence on rebellious British youth. The messy hairstyle slowly but surely became synonymous with The Stones, and there's no denying the look lent a lot to Jagger's widespread recognition today. And it seems as though Styles is following suit, so much so that even SNL noticed, asking him to imitate the legendary singer on the show last weekend.
But the former boy band member's hair didn't always hold such a jarring similarity, and that’s why it all matters. This cut, this interview, this album — they all scream Mick Jagger. And if Styles' new shag is any depiction of what his career might look like 30 years from now, then we'd say this move is a step in the right direction.
Read these stories next:
Like what you see? How about some more R29 goodness, right here?