The Smiley Smile Message Board

Any fans of his around here?

Yup! Love me some Buddy Holly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDw48r7HFBU


Jerry Allison is one of my favorite drummers. The Crickets were simply a great band

I have been a Buddy Holly fan longer than I have liked the Beach Boys. The course of history would be very changed if he had lived.

The greatest wrote and composed all his own music unlike elvis but hey the great die young

Listening to his music man makes me wonder how different music would have been had they just took the freezing bus instead of flying

http://youtu.be/bibSBoOAMRA

http://youtu.be/Zf4B5_L3Rkc

http://youtu.be/wdIPgtLthX8

http://youtu.be/gL9CjiIPmUs
Sad how they died and the promoters with money on their minds, just wanted to forget and move on with other acts..

I agree with everyone here. A Great, and a tragedy that he died so young.

John Lennon: "Buddy Holly was the first one that we were really aware of in England who could play and sing at the same time - not just strum, but actually play the licks"

Paul McCartney: "I remember talking to John about this. 'Cricket. What a fantastic idea, it's a little grasshopper, and it's a game.' Well, they came over, they had no fucking idea cricket was a game, to them it was just a little chirping grasshopper from Texas, so it was actually quite a boring name. But we were turned on like nobody's business by the idea of a double meaning, so with our wit and wisdom and whatever, we wanted something that would have a double meaning. Beetles were little insects, so that took care of that, but with an 'A' it became something to do with beat"

As they say. Never agreed with this statement. Many greats still live.

About subject, good singer-songwriter. I read in "Rolling Stone" in library that as engineer he was innovator, the recordings he did, there isn't muddiness to them - sth. to the effect.

When I see them live and when I hear these songs I wonder how many different groups and types of music that this enabled. I seem to think that hundreds and hundreds of important artists and genres and albums and types of music go back to Buddy Holly. Would any of you consider that to be a correct if rather General and broad statement?

In recent years, I have seem comments like "Buddy Holly was the first singer songwriter". Sorry, but Chuck Berry and Fats Domino came along before Buddy. "Buddy was the first guy that could sing and play the guitar, and not just strum". Again, what about Chuck? Carl Perkins? Buddy Holly made great records, had a great style of his own, but let's not overstate his importance and influence. I doubt that Buddy would have come along with his style of rock and roll music had it not been for those who preceded him - Chuck, Fats, Elvis, Little Richard.

What about Hank Williams, Jimmie Rodgers, Robert Johnson, Arthur Crudup....? Fact is that singer-songwriters have always been around in "Folk"-music*. It's the most natural thing to happen. You play guitar, you don't have money to buy a radio or record player let alone have electricity, so you make up your own stuff. And this wealth of songs and styles is one of the foundations of Rock and Roll. Many big Rock and Roll song's are based on songs that no one can remember their authors.

Regarding Buddy Holly, as I said, I love much of his music. Some of it hasn't aged very well, though. But I always sense a tendency to over estimate Buddy and his work. Much of it based on the fictional Buddy Holly Story with Gary Busey (very entertaining movie though). It seems that people always want to focus their fantasies on one individual as the artist-of-artists, the one and only starting point. And when this becomes accepted by the mainstream they look for other people who aren't as big or well known. I don't know if it has to do with not wanting to be part of the mainstream and through this way trying to secure one's own taste's individuality or if it is a certain kind of history revisionism maybe just for making it all simpler for pointing a finger on one "fact" instead of accepting that you can't do that when it comes to music styles (and why should anybody want to do that, anyway?).

Well, I'm listening now to one of my favorite Buddy recordings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QjFRHIhSvwc


Sooooo beautiful  :love

John wasn't giving am history lesson. He was saying that Buddy was the first of HIS heroes who he was aware wrote and sang his own compositions. He wasn't giving an absolute statement on music history.

Context folks.

Lonely Summer didn't mention Lennon nor was he quoting him. Granted, his quote was close to Lennon's but he also made clear that "In recent years, I have seem comments like" - insert rest of the quote here.

Buddy holly wasnt the first singer/songwriter everytime hes mentioned or talked about it seems is in the context of the tragedy of his death never a mention of music.  As for elvis that was a personal opinion nothing against leadbelly or chuck berry or fats domino
 
Ive never seen the buddy holly movie just la bamba(great line but who knows what was really said) & my knowledge of buddy holly is what i learned in music history classes in school and from official documentaries and interviews

Good point Rocker.

My absolute favourite Holly track, the spooky slow version of "Slippin' and Slidin'" with overdubs by The Fireballs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOTT_DIclDQ

2Rocker: tastes differ. My favorites:

from classic: "That'll Be the Day", "Peggy Sue". Don't care for "Rave on", "It's So Easy", "Oh Boy", "Maybe Baby", "Mailman Bring Me No More Blues", "Not Fade Away" best by The Rolling Stones plus any slow ballad song.
obscure: "Wishing", some cool guitar work there. & catchy melody.

some of my favourite obscurities are, rock me my baby, dearest, reminiscing, fools paradise, your so square,
lonesome tears, raining in my heart, learning the game, cryin waitin hopin', what to do.

Guess I love my Buddy stuff.

Rather foolishly I missed this. Yes, professor, I'd say it's certainly a correct statement. There is a select group of artists in the mid to late '50s who have been vastly influential on pop until this day. Holly is definitely among them. Who else? The Everlys, Chuck Berry... there can't be many as influential as these three. But any other Big Names are more than welcome. 

Holly was one of the all-time greats. I don't get into debating legacies among greats (just as I give rankings or halls of fame no serious attention), but he's certainly among the legends of his era. His legacy also has the benefit of his early death preventing any of the sullying that the inevitable ebbs and flows of both popularity and material.

Both his original albums are fantastic.

  The 60s were generally unkind to 50s rock & rollers, so imagining Buddy Holly throughout the course of that decade and beyond makes for an interesting parlor game. Holly was probably better equipped than some to survive and/or prosper.

  Having said that, he was not as distinctive a guitarist as Chuck Berry, Bo Diddley, or Carl Perkins. Nor was he as good a singer as Elvis Presley. Sometimes I wonder if his late period string-laden course was a wise one, even though "True Love Ways" is a great one.

It's easy to imagine Buddy succeeding in the 60's because he didn't live through it. Chuck Berry had a handful of hits after he got out of prison in '63, but most of his records in the era failed to find a wide audience. The Everly Brothers seem to have done pretty well in the UK, but after 1962, their chart appearances in the US were pretty scarce. Even Elvis saw his record sales go down by 63-64. At least he had the movies to keep him in the public eye. I can't imagine Buddy doing better than those guys. Ditto for Eddie Cochran.

If Buddy sticks to this style which will be dated by the 60s, doesn't appreciate the new "trends", isn't flexible to the ensuing changes & doesn't have new ideas in accordance with them etc., then yes, he wouldn't do any better than the other 50s-going-into-60s artists.

I think that's exactly correct. It's why musicians (or any artists, or celebrities, etc.) who die young can maintain that sheen, to some extent. When you die before you fail, speculation can always be overly optimistic (if not especially realistic).

Holly wrote some really, really great songs in a short career--more good ones than any of the other guys you mentioned in my opinion, though I know that's debatable--and also had already expanded his stylistic palette (which shows some versatility), so it's always possible his career could have had an assortment of resurgences along the way. But who knows? He might have had a consistent career, he might have had an Orbison-like late resurgence, or he may have just always been a nostalgia trip or has-been.

Buddy was only 22 years old when he died in 1959. It is unlikely that he had already reached his creative peak. I don't think there was another '50s rock n roller who was as talented and young as Buddy would have been entering the '60s. I can imagine his success continuing into '64-65 unbridled (and riding waves of nostalgia through the 80s). Beyond that? Well, that would depend on if he had yet to create his 'Pet Sounds' or 'Good Vibrations'. Even still, the public at large will eventually get tired of you. My point is, I don't think it's all that appropriate to assume that Buddy would have suffered the same fate as many of the other rock n rollers mentioned in this thread, simply because his best was most likely not behind him. Of course, it's perfectly fine to consider it.

I often wonder if John and Paul's admiration for Buddy Holly could have aided Buddy's career in the '60s. Particularly, the late '60s. Of course, if Buddy had lived, it would have changed how they felt about him to some extent. He would have become a competitor, he may have experimented with music that John and Paul didn't care as much for at the time. Who knows? Okay, now I'm going off into fairy-tale land... imagine if they brought Buddy in during the Get Back sessions? That would have been amazing. I doubt The Beatles end in despair, and it would certainly help the longevity of Buddy's career (if needed).

I am going to catch flack for this but here goes...

I believe Buddy would have out Brian-Wilson'd Brian Wilson.

Yep.

Just because an artist is doing their best music doesn't mean the public will follow. Rick Nelson arguably bettered his late 50's/early 60's records when he recorded with the Stone Canyon  Band in the 70's. Critically, those albums are well regarded, but aside from She Belongs to Me and Garden Party, they didn't mean much in terms of commercial acceptance.
But I can imagine a long haired, sunglass-wearing Buddy showing up at Madison Square Garden in 1971 and getting a similar reception to Nelson.

This is fair, esp. the 1st sentence. He'd be loyal to the 50s rock&roll etc. There's doubt he'd change much.

But you can't compare Ricky Nelson to Buddy. Had Buddy lived,  the entire course of popular music would likely have changed as a result. The Beatles (and so many others) were immensely influenced by Holly's death. Take Buddy's death out of the equation and the Beatles' change. Change the Beatles and ALL the rules from the 60's and 70's onwards are changed.

Had Buddy lived he probably would have hit his peak creatively/commercially around 1964 (27 years old seems to be the creative/commercial peak for many big acts).

Who knows? It's kind of interesting to speculate about though.

Rick was roughly 29-32 when he hit his creative peak.  So I can see that for Buddy as well. But I still think he would have been wiped out by the British Invasion; might have had a few hits in later years. If you stick around long enough, people eventually rediscover your music, as happened with the Everly Brothers in the 80's, and Roy Orbison.

Agree again. We shouldn't overestimate Buddy. He's not be-all end-all. Beatles were influenced by many artists. Yes, he was good, jolly good. But he wasn't the best of the bunch. I never bought into "The day music died" thing. Such stupid statement. The Beatles kept going, if they were affected, not to the degree to call it a day & give up. They moved forward & underwent many changes bent with the styles etc.
I doubt Buddy would stick around in music business to the 80s.

I don't believe the British Invasion would have happened had Buddy lived. That is my point.

I disagree. But I was talking generally, that Buddy isn't too big (& only) influence to Beatles (or anybody for that matter).

I don't think you could be more wrong. A Grand Canyon in our difference of opinion.  :lol

You can't know for sure too. You just speculate, just like any poster here.

Some people just shouldn't be allowed to comment on music.

Buddy was just one of many influences on the Beatles. Chuck Berry was a huge influence on them, especially John. I'm sure one of the highlights of his life was sharing the stage with Chuck on the Mike Douglas show in 1972. Paul was a huge fan of Little Richard, he learned how to do "Lucille" and "Long Tall Sally" almost as good as the Originator. George idolized Carl Perkins, wanted to play guitar just like him - and I think he succeeded. Remained friends with him for many years. Even in the years when he was out of the biz, he gladly grabbed his guitar to jam with Carl for an HBO special. The Everly Brothers are an obvious influence on the Beatles' harmonies, and if you sat down and talked with them about music, they would rave about Johnny Burnette and the Rock and Roll Trio, Gene Vincent, Bo Diddley, Jerry Lee Lewis, and yes, even Ricky Nelson (especially his guitar player James Burton).
Buddy was no different than other stars of the pre-British era. Roy Orbison had a #1 record the year the British invaded, but it would be his last major hit stateside for many years. After the Beatles hit, if you didn't comb your hair forward or perform as a member of a group, you were old hat. The kids wanted a new image, a new style they could call their own. It amazes me the 4 Seasons survived the onslaught of the British, because they definitely had the old look, but they were the exception.

Wouldn't say it better. I kind of made the same point but you expanded. Thank you.

2Billy: maybe not "Pet Sounds" but it's easy with Brian to imagine he'd step forward, change style. Not get stuck with surf'n'turf ditties. Buddy, IMO, would be loyal to the 50s music. But as I said, we just speculate here, what you think, B.E. thinks etc. - anybody here can't be right. This is aftermath discussion, Buddy's out of picture.

I think Buddy Holly likely would have had a comeback of some kind directly as a result of people hearing his music through The Beatles.

I think you're getting what I'm saying..there's no way we can say that he would have been "loyal" to the 50s music. I use Brian as an example, but to go from tripe like Cuckoo Clock to Surf's Up in just a few years is a massive leap. We have no way of knowing if Buddy Holly would've also made a huge leap (not saying what he is known for is on the level of Cuckoo Clock, mind you). Sadly, we lost that chance. For all we know, he might have one day dropped acid and invented a style of music that sounds like a mashup of hip hop and opera...a hip hopera, if you will. Point is, we'll never know.

Didn't say I'm right, did I? I agreed with Lonely Summer about Buddy not being bigger influence to Beatles than other artists. Besides it, said that he would be writing in that 50s style, not going with the times a-changing. I really, really, really doubt Buddy'd make massive leap. It's my view & I stand by it, you & others got different view.
You say "there's no way of knowing" - who argues? But it goes to everybody here, not sure why you quoted me to say that. This is speculation thread, I joined it to add my 2 cents, like I would to any thread where I feel like saying anything related to subject.

Buddy was already making artistic leaps with songs like "True Love Ways".

Imho Buddy had enormous potential. At 22 he was probably at least some years before his creative peak, and I think he WOULD have "evolved", and maybe spearheaded the evolution of rock'n'roll. Of course we'll never know, and that's a tragedy.

Call me crazy, but I have a feeling that had he lived, Buddy might have ended up collaborating with Paul McCartney, or maybe John.

I really like his debut album with the Crickets - definitely one of the more solid rock and roll albums of the era.

You clearly know very little about Buddy Holly. And that is not a matter of opinion.

Exactly. It would be like Brian Wilson dying shortly after Shut Down vol. 2. You could have made an educated guess on where his creative powers were heading.

2pixletwin: what is "very little"? Fwiw, I didn't deny Buddy Holly's talent & creativity - in fact, said in the other thread that I read he was innovative engineer or sth. to the effect. Writing introspective songs, with full orchestration doesn't convince me that he'd go from there making album akin to "Pet Sounds" or weird psychedelic stuff. There's many country artists that didn't change radically, I think Buddy would be ilke them. It's just nagging idea I've got.

I had some good comments on that, but internet connection is dodgy now and too tired to write it all again.

Sure. If the Internet works, will you write them down? Shortly maybe. Curious.

I can easily imagine Buddy leaning more towards country music as he got older. The Everly Brothers 80's records got more airplay at AC and country than pop or rock radio. Jerry Lee Lewis had a long string of country hits from the late 60's on through the 70's. And Buddy would have added his own unique slant on it, as the Evs did, as Rick Nelson did, even Elvis.

The great Tommy Allsup died:


Tommy Allsup, guitarist who backed Buddy Holly, Kenny Rogers and others, dies at 85


https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/obituaries/tommy-allsup-guitarist-who-backed-buddy-holly-kenny-rogers-and-others-died-at-85/2017/01/12/6645d724-d8e2-11e6-9a36-1d296534b31e_story.html?utm_term=.53a593a2127c

It's sad, to be sure, but 85's a better age than that of his unfortunate colleagues back in 1959.

I must check out his discography.

R.I.P., sir.