On a non-musical podcast, they started talking about the plane crash and buddy holly … and someone else brought up how the movie (and Los Lobos)made him more famous than when he was actually alive and asked if Richie hadn’t died would he have been a real cross-over star or just a footnote with a couple of hits like “donna” and la Bamba?
There’s no way to know, but I think he was a talented singer and performer. His success would have depended on the songs he could get to sing. La Bamba was a hit long before Los Lobos came along.
It would all depend on him turning out more hits. He was only 17 on the day the music died, too young for us to reasonably guess how his life would have turned out. We do know that he was charismatic and he was successfully pioneering a new form of rock and those were good signs of future popularity. But it’s also a business that can turn on a dime, many others never duplicated an early success.
Most of his songs (“La Bamba” being an exception) were pretty ordinary stuff comparable to what was being churned out by others in the '50s. If Valens had had a chance to follow up with music from his roots he might have had future success - but sufficient independence to attempt that was a rare commodity back then.
Now if he’d had Los Lobos as a backing band and writing songs for him, who knows…
I once expressed an unpopular opinion on the Dope that Buddy Holly would have steered away from rock n’ roll and become a pop star on the order of Neil Sedaka, likely shifting into country music later on like Charlie Rich.
He might have had a bigger career singing in Spanish. Do many yanquis become popular in Latin America?
Was the Big Bopper ever anything more than a novelty act?
I wouldn’t say he was a novelty act, but I think of him more as a radio personality despite Chantilly Lace. He was only 28 when he died, who knows what his career might have been? The same goes for the others. The tragedy here is that Valens, Holly, and Richardson were at a point where their careers were really taking off and their futures were wide open.
Well, I’m not sure about him shifting to a style as Pop as Neil Sedaka at some point, but I agree that Buddy Holly might eventually have moved to pure Country, kind of like Conway Twitty and Charlie Rich did. He was already experimenting with expanding his musical style at the time of his death. He would have been quite successful as a Country performer, I think.
Richie Valens…well, he was a raw talent to be sure, and there’s no way to tell what he may have gone on to with competent management guiding his career.
Over the hill! He wasn’t Beethoven, he was a guy with one hit at 28. You can accomplish a lifetime’s success by 27 with talent… See
Jimi Hendrix
Janis Joplin
Jim Morrison
Kurt Cobain
Amy Winehouse
I picture him still playing Chantilly Lace, and other nostalgic songs, into his 70s.
Buddy Holly? He’s have replaced John Lennon in the 1970s Beatles. 
If you look at the deep catalog of the 50’s, there were a lot of great acts that only enthusiasts of the era remember. How long would Valens’ fame have lasted in a world where Lillian Leach and the Mellows have been forgotten? If you’re generous about which of his sides deserve to be considered classics of the era, The Mellows still have that over Valens by a lot. And what about The Nutmegs? Lee Andrews? The circumstances of Valens’ death did a lot for his reputation.
Who was it that said “dying young was his best career move”, and about who?
Like James Dean. He never turned into Fat Brando like he might have if he had lived.
OTOH Fat Brando made a heck of a lot more movies and had a heck of a lot more fun, money, and women than Dean ever even looked at.
Given a choice, I’d be Brando every time. Net of his later descent into wacko and ill health.
He was already more than a one-hit wonder at the time of his death; he cracked the Top 40 twice with “La Bamba” and “Donna,” and just barely missed with “Come On, Let’s Go,” which peaked at 42.
I believe that those three songs would still be well-known today regardless of whether Valens had died young or not.
As others have pointed out, there’s no way to know for sure. But my gut feeling is that he was just getting started.
This is what I was thinking. From reading the Wikipedia article about him, there were only four songs put out before he died, and 3 out of the 4 did pretty well. Even his other albums that were released after he died did okay.
I could see him doing quite well were he alive to re-record old tracks, or record whole new tracks, based on fan feedback, if the stuff he did before he had any notable hits was still selling after his death.
He might not have become the most famous singer of his era, but if the choice is between “One hit wonder” and “Had a decent career”, I’d bet on decent career.
Mine, too. I still find the songs he did do very listenable – not just for the sentimental value. They hold up as good songs, well sung.
Can i of an autographed copy of La Bamba?
Um, that’s because Dean died at 24 after making only three movies. And he had some hot women, too. By benefit of not dying young, Brando got all the roles that might have gone to Dean.
If there was any one actor of that time who might have been somewhat in the James Dean mold, it may have been Steve McQueen, not Brando. We’ll never know how Dean’s career would have progressed. He might have flamed out. McQueen had a similar swagger, but he was ultimately a much better actor, and more versatile as time went on, IMHO.
Maybe I misunderstood your earlier post. I thought you were saying Dean was an example of someone whose best career move was dying young, whereas Brando just got old & weird. My point was the middle that e.g. Dean missed out on and Brandon didn’t.
On rereading your post I think we’re talking past each other. Not in hostility, just not on the same topic at all. My bad.
Actually, the actor he beat out for roles back then was Paul Newman.
Yeah, I can see that. McQueen was the first that came to mind but Newman is probably a better example.