Another fan checking in. The plane crash was the first big music loss for my generation, and we all remember where we were when we heard about it (band class for me).
Maybe some of the music historians in this thread can help me with this. I remember hearing (or reading) that “people” (critics? his band? his fans? don’t know) were unhappy with the direction his music was taking, based on all the strings in Raining in My Heart. Anyone know if that’s true? Was Buddy going more middle-of-the-road or was he just experimenting?
I met a woman years ago who said when Buddy died all the girls in her convent school were crying and one of the nuns was heard to exclaim “Who in the world is Biddy Holly?”
Anyone ever seen Six String Samurai? It’s a great idea, not so well executed.
I’m just still in awe when I look over the list of songs that Buddy Holly wrote that were fantastic. His catalog is as good as some of the top musicians of all time. And he was 22 when he died. 22! Unreal. Hard to speculate what would have become of him had he lived. Maybe he would have cranked out 50 more fantastic songs and been the best musician ever. Maybe the times would have changed in the 60s and he wouldn’t have been able to adapt. I’m leaning towards the former. The man was a genius.
Buddy Holly’s songs - which were great, I’d like to say - were all just a little bit off somehow; I don’t really know how to explain it, but I think it helps account for his enduring popularity (and rightly so). There’s some kind of mystique there, even without the fact that he died so early. There’s something about his work - like much of The Beatles’ stuff - that keeps it from getting old. I’ve always thought Marshall Crenshaw was a similar songwriter, and not just because of the obvious similarities in appearance.
This view is probably controversial among Holly fans - but I don’t think he would have been a rocker for very long had he lived.
His music was trending towards sheer pop (including lush string arrangments). I can see him surviving the rock n’ roll dead zone of 59-63 quite handily with ballads, only to be killed off by the Beatles and the rest of the British invasion - eventually going on to produce other artists successfully. He might have wound up in the mold of Neil Sedaka (cringe).
The other possibility is that he would have returned to country roots and done a Charlie Rich.
Speaking as someone who likes and respects Holly’s music, I think he died at exactly the right time to become a rock n’ roll legend.
As for the others, I see Valens as a short-term phenomenon and the Bopper as essentially a one-hit wonder.
One of the wierdest and trippiest movies I’ve seen in a while. I don’t know if I’d watch it again. But i do agree- it SOUNDS like a great idea on paper and the character does look badass… But watching it? Not so much.
Though I did like Death and the whole… feel of it. But it def. could have been better.
Again, he was TWENTY TWO when he died! No artist is anywhere near their peak at 22, and he already had a monster catalog at that point. While it is hard to speculate where his career might have gone, comparing him to Neil Sedaka is nonsense.
I suggested he would have been successful for quite awhile. What I don’t think is that his hits would have been rock n’ roll. You have to remember that starting about 1959, the rock n’ roll greats (who were also quite young) were either slumping, in the Army or dead. Holly likely had the tools to adapt better than people like Chuck Berry, Little Richard or Jerry Lee Lewis, who stayed with the styles with which they’d been successful (or in Little Richard’s case, found religion).
I wasn’t making the comparison talent-wise, but indicating that Holly might similarly have gone pop and then concentrated on producing other acts.
I’m no Oasis fan but I think most people would say that (What’s the Story) Morning Glory is a better album.
touche
You could argue Stevie for hours. I think a lot of people would go with Songs in the Key of Life. Either way, I certainly wouldn’t say he peaked with Talking Book. He had 5 straight albums that were fantastic, and this was only #2 in that sequence.
I listed what were my favorite albums by these bands, but yeah, obviously it is debatable. Anyway, even if you consider later albums better, I think we can agree that they are not markedly better.
The clear winner from your list was Paranoid. I tried to refute this one, and when I glanced at the tracklist of their subsequent albums it wasn’t even close. I hereby amend my statement to read “Very few artists are at their peak at 22.”
I think he would have survived the 50s with an astonishing body of work. The interesting thing to speculate about would be how would he handle/anticipate the counter culture movement. His geeky, wholesome act wouldn’t have sold in the mid/late 60s, and he would either have to reinvent himself or, as you say, go into producing or something. I honestly can’t say I know enough about the guy to do more than guess.
Absolutely, on all three counts. When he was coming up, R&R was not a longterm career path. Being the next Sinatra was. Elvis took the same path. And like Elvis, dying was a “good career move,” words that I first uttered when Jim Croce died and again when Elvis died.
Valens was a nickle rocket. There were limits on how successful a Hispanic who wasn’t much of a singer could be in 1959. Trini “Zzzzzzzzzzzz” Lopez tried it a few years later with a better voice and had more success. The Big Bopper was a novelty act.
Another thought I just had - Beatlemania would have been good for his career too, since most of their early stuff owed a lot to him. That would have bought him at least an extra year or two.
