Who Was The Biggest Loss To Music? (Death) :/

[Newguy562]

Out of all the young singers who passed away early... buddy holly,ritchie vallens,john lennon,marvin gaye,elvis presley,jimi hendrix,otis redding,kurt cobain,amy winehouse,aaliyah,jim morrison,michael jackson,freddie mercury,selena,2pac,Bradley Nowell,ricky nelson,eddie cochran,janis joplin,hank williams,ronnie van zant,bon scott,bob marley,marc bolan,jim croce,duane allman,mama cass,sam cooke,frankie lymon,ian curtis...

Who do you feel could've contributed so much more but was cut short(pre-maturely)?
I'd have to go with jimi hendrix I wondered what new direction he would've went with the music..such a shame to lose such a musical genius so early...
When I listen to cry of love/rainbow bridge it gives me a glimpse of what was about to happen next..

[Lowbacca]

Buddy Holly. Not a second thought about it. He had barely started and already was so damn sophisticated. I can't imagine what he would have achieved in the 60's and 70's....

[I. Spaceman]

Buddy Holly, Sam Cooke and Bobby Fuller.

[guitarfool2002]

The older I get, the more I listen to his music, I can't help but think Jimi Hendrix as a guitar player and as a master of the recording studio was simply light-years ahead of what most of his peers were doing at that same time. Credit the amazing talents of an engineer like Eddie Kramer as well, who could translate Hendrix's visions and capture them on tape, but it is simply amazing how futuristic and forward-thinking some of his music was...with the caveat applied *when he was focused*. He was also prone to ramble on during blues jams and playing up for guests in the studio (as some studio sessions and other unreleased recordings suggest), but if there was anyone who could sound like a fortune-teller and create sounds and ideas that wouldn't be mainstreamed for another decade or so after his death, in several styles, it's hard to top Jimi.

With Lennon, Morrison, Joplin, even Elvis...I could see them carrying on being their own great selves and doing what they did best had they lived, and making solid new music using the talents they had. I don't feel as much new and uncharted musical ground would have been explored as would have been the case with someone like Jimi Hendrix had he lived and continued making music. He was always looking ahead.

[guitarfool2002]

I got so wrapped up in Hendrix, I forgot one of the worst losses among guitar players and musicians in general in modern times:

Duane Allman.

That guy was on a different plane, a different universe. Some of the tapes you hear and see of him in full flight, playing his heart out, are as close as a musician could probably get to the notes he's playing, it's like hearing someone's soul and life just pouring out (the exaggeration is deliberate on my part). There are clips of him playing blues where the notes are soaring from his guitar, and the look on his face is as close to pure joy and enjoyment of living in that moment as we'll probably see. It's eerie, almost like he knew he didn't have much time left to share these things.

He is already considered one of the best, I could imagine him being in the upper echelon of guitarists had he lived and continued making music.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I would also add Otis Redding to the list. But Buddy Holly is a huge one.

[PhilSpectre]

The older I get, the more I listen to his music, I can't help but think Jimi Hendrix as a guitar player and as a master of the recording studio was simply light-years ahead of what most of his peers were doing at that same time. Credit the amazing talents of an engineer like Eddie Kramer as well, who could translate Hendrix's visions and capture them on tape, but it is simply amazing how futuristic and forward-thinking some of his music was...with the caveat applied *when he was focused*. He was also prone to ramble on during blues jams and playing up for guests in the studio (as some studio sessions and other unreleased recordings suggest), but if there was anyone who could sound like a fortune-teller and create sounds and ideas that wouldn't be mainstreamed for another decade or so after his death, in several styles, it's hard to top Jimi.

With Lennon, Morrison, Joplin, even Elvis...I could see them carrying on being their own great selves and doing what they did best had they lived, and making solid new music using the talents they had. I don't feel as much new and uncharted musical ground would have been explored as would have been the case with someone like Jimi Hendrix had he lived and continued making music. He was always looking ahead.

I agree that Hendrix was the single greatest loss to MUSIC. His brief four year career was like a resume of the possibilities in electric guitar playing, recording and production techniques, past, present and future. For me, he was the single greatest electric guitar player I have ever heard. There will never be another - there are many many great 'rock' electric guitar players in history but for me, he is the master, able to shift from the blues, to jazz, to flamenco to avante-garde, all with equal confidence and originality. As you say, he found it hard to really focus on his music much of the time (especially after losing Chas Chandler as his manager), but as long he as was focused, his skill and technique could only grow.

As to others, I also think that Buddy Holly was a terrible loss at such a young age. I feel he could have been a serious challenge to the Beatles conquest of American pop music in the mid-60s, as he was interested in exploring the possibilities of record production and song-writing and could write solid gold songs that have proved to stand the test of time.

Hank Williams, though kind of lost to us in the mists of time now, was also a great song-writer and a major figure in the pre-history of rock n' roll. His songs have survived to this day and it would have been interesting to see how '50s rock n' roll might have panned out with Hank still on the scene. Buddy and Elvis for two, I think, might have been different as a result.

Elvis, John Lennon, Roy Orbison, Frank Zappa and Marvin Gaye, also left far too young, but I feel they both gave so much in their careers as we have them, that while it would have been wonderful to see how they have continued through the '80s, '90s and beyond, their major impact on music had already been made.

I would also add that there are many artists who did not actually die, but whose careers were cut short one way or another and arguably never developed to their full potential, eg. Little Richard, Chuck Berry, Syd Barrett, even Brian Wilson from the late '60s to at least the late '80s. Certainly, for my money, Little Richard could/ should have moved more into the soul/ funk field in the '60s and '70s (he tried, but with little commercial success, until the early '70s, when he seemed to give up), but he was pushed out of the spotlight by his early rival James Brown, as well as others. What a voice Richard had.

[MyGlove]

How about John Lennon? There were rumours the Beatles were gonna get back together until he died. But i guess that probably wasn't the biggest. I'd say Buddy Holly, not just cuz everyone else said it, but can you imagine if someone with his songwriting prowess had teamed up with someone like Bob Dylan or something in the 60's. It would've been inevitable. However it's also quite possible that the British Invasion would have happened the way it did, had he not died.

[JohnMill]

I don't think there has ever been a loss of a pop culture figure that has affected so many and by many including millions who never even knew the man as the way the loss of John Lennon affected not only the world of music but a generation at large.  There is a reason why when Vh1 several years back polled the "Most Shocking Moments In The History Of Rock And Roll" that the assassination of John Lennon on 12-8-80 charted out at #1 because it is quite definitively the day the music died.  Is that to say that there have not been great bands or great records since that date?  Certainly not.  But the generation that for all intents and purposes defined the form, lost their innocence on that day.  I personally don't think any other loss even comes close.

There are so many hidden tragedies in the lost of John Lennon.  From a personal level that fact that he had this wonderful relationship with Sean whom he adored and wanted nothing else but to see come of age.  That was taken away on 12-8-80.  From the perspective of someone who had finally come to terms with letting go over the burdens he carried on his shoulders for most of his adult life and was finally becoming comfortable in his own skin.  Well that too was taken away on 12-8-80.  From the perspective of someone who was perhaps finding a true palatable joy in writing, creating and recording music instead of viewing it as a job.  Well that too was taken away on 12-8-80.  Finally the possibility that  one day The Beatles could reunite, that too was taken away on 12-8-80.

Sometimes in trying to communicate the enormity of a loss especially in this sense, the words don't seem to do the events justice.  But a lot of people lost a great deal on that day and throughout the various tributes, interviews and reminiscences that have come down the line since that day I think have served well to remind us just what we did lose as music fans.  I don't think anything in my life outside of the death of a loved one compares to it.  It's just a very empty, hollow feeling and quite frankly something I don't like to spend too much time thinking about.  But it was a day that certainly changed the course of music.  It was probably a day that changed the way a lot of those people who grew up with Beatle wigs and Beatle boots looked at the world and now thirty plus years later I think music fans and certainly fans of The Beatles are left with the same thing that we were left with on that evening thirty years ago: our memories and our thoughts.

[guitarfool2002]

The problem with any discussion like this becomes the parameters, and what some folks use to explain their choices versus others.

Lennon, obviously, was and is in many ways the single greatest loss to popular music culture, if not popular music in general. The tragedy of it and the fact that it was neither a death from natural causes nor something for which he had any measure of control makes it so. At least in my opinion.

John Lennon was as much of a presence as anyone I can think of offhand, a presence across the board and across all cultural, economic, whatever lines we can think of. There is a tape of someone who recorded the radio in New York the night he died, and it is still heartbreaking and very poignant to hear nearly every station simultaneously playing his music or talking about it. Very, very few individuals command that level of attention. And this is a man who was coming out of a 4-5 year period where he stayed out of the public eye and basically stayed home to raise a family.

My parameter in choosing Hendrix and Duane Allman was all about the musical influence, trying to gauge the influence and the weight of their work which we imagine would have happened had they lived. It's almost like you forget Lennon in some ways in something like this because his example is always present when talking over these subjects.

Lennon, definitely, but I will say in more of a culturally significant way *had he lived* than in a musical way. Again, just my opinion. But look at 2012 - is any of his music post-1975 anywhere near the influence of what he did in the 60's into the early 70's? Would he have broken new ground musically after Double Fantasy? Sometimes I think he would have by the sheer fact that he was John Lennon. I feel the same about Buddy Holly. It's an iconic thing.

[JanBerryFarm]

wow....all this chatter... 

when two words do the trick.

BUDDY HOLLY

[JohnMill]

The problem with any discussion like this becomes the parameters, and what some folks use to explain their choices versus others.

Lennon, obviously, was and is in many ways the single greatest loss to popular music culture, if not popular music in general. The tragedy of it and the fact that it was neither a death from natural causes nor something for which he had any measure of control makes it so. At least in my opinion.

John Lennon was as much of a presence as anyone I can think of offhand, a presence across the board and across all cultural, economic, whatever lines we can think of. There is a tape of someone who recorded the radio in New York the night he died, and it is still heartbreaking and very poignant to hear nearly every station simultaneously playing his music or talking about it. Very, very few individuals command that level of attention. And this is a man who was coming out of a 4-5 year period where he stayed out of the public eye and basically stayed home to raise a family.

My parameter in choosing Hendrix and Duane Allman was all about the musical influence, trying to gauge the influence and the weight of their work which we imagine would have happened had they lived. It's almost like you forget Lennon in some ways in something like this because his example is always present when talking over these subjects.

Lennon, definitely, but I will say in more of a culturally significant way *had he lived* than in a musical way. Again, just my opinion. But look at 2012 - is any of his music post-1975 anywhere near the influence of what he did in the 60's into the early 70's? Would he have broken new ground musically after Double Fantasy? Sometimes I think he would have by the sheer fact that he was John Lennon. I feel the same about Buddy Holly. It's an iconic thing.

Well I've often heard that "Double Fantasy" is his second best solo record after JL/POB if that means anything.  Something that should be said for the direction in which Lennon's music was heading at the time his life was taken from him is that it possessed a sheer quality of buoyancy to it unlike anything else in his catalog.  Check out the lyrics to "Borrowed Time" for example.  "When I was younger, living illusion and deep despair...good to be older, would not exchange a single day in a year".  Then you have something like "I thought I'd been in love before, but in my heart I wanted more, guess that all I was really was doing was waiting for you."  These were statements of emotional maturity seldom found in any of Lennon's earlier work.  As I referenced earlier the tragedy of Lennon's death is that his life was taken from him at a time when he was really starting to enjoy life.  He was finding the ability to be at peace with himself as well as poke fun at some of his obvious foibles.("You want to save humanity, but it's people that you just can't stand"/"Don't be afraid, for Mister Hyde has really gone away.  He won't be back until next full moon so we can bill and spoon").  

I'm not sure if he would have broken new musical ground but he was certainly at the point in his life where he had finally dropped that bag of rocks and was starting to enjoy creating music again and considering how long he had carried that sack of rocks, that was a heck of a start.  

There of course is also the elephant in the room that is The Beatles as a collective unit.  Lennon and McCartney both found success on their own during the decade of the seventies but as a unit in the sixties they were almost unparallelled.  I really do think that as George Harrison put it back in 1975 that "The Beatles could still reform and kick down some doors".

[The Dumb Angel]

Mozart, Buddy Holly, The 27 Club (Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Kurt Cobain, Amy Winehouse), Freddie Mercury, Bob Marley, John Lennon, George Harrison, Frank Zappa, Keith Moon, Elvis Presley, Michael Jackson,  Duane Allman, Layne Staley, Bon Scott, Stevie Ray Vaughn, Tupac, Notorious B.I.G., Bradley Nowell and of course The Wilson Brothers (Carl and Dennis).

[guitarfool2002]

Good points all around. The tragedy of it, and what makes anyone's opinions in these discussions nothing more than opinions based on speculations, is that we'll never know. How's that for stating the obvious?  

Buddy Holly could have also gone the way of "It Just Doesn't Matter Anymore", and become a standalone singer of popular songs along the lines of a Bobby Darin (another big loss). Or he could have gotten into production, or focused on writing songs and making memorable hits. Or he could have gotten drafted and joined the army like Elvis. Or the times could have changed as they ultimately did in the late 50's and his style of music wouldn't have been as successful. It's easy to say how great and how successful someone would have been if/then...but on the flip side, they could have just as easily fizzled out, and relegated to playing the state fair circuit after being on Ed Sullivan.

We can assume, but we just don't know.

[Newguy562]

John could've brought us more John & Yoko albums lol..
No but seriously I think Lennon contributed enough for Rock & Roll..It seems his music was getting weaker as time went on :/ as crazy as it sounds and with all due respect I think him dying helped his career and legacy.

[JohnMill]

John could've brought us more John & Yoko albums lol..
No but seriously I think Lennon contributed enough for Rock & Roll..It seems his music was getting weaker as time went on :/ as crazy as it sounds and with all due respect I think him dying helped his career and legacy.

I think in a way it actually did because of how his legacy has been marketed since his passing.  Unfortunately what has happened to him is he's been somewhat canonized which is something that he evidently never wanted to happen to him in death.  Even George Harrison admitted that after John's passing, the song "Imagine" took on a whole other meaning to it. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm not sure if he would have broken new musical ground but he was certainly at the point in his life where he had finally dropped that bag of rocks and was starting to enjoy creating music again and considering how long he had carried that sack of rocks, that was a heck of a start.  

No, but as the lyrics you posted indicate, what he was doing that no artist really did quite so well, was capture the mood of the age group that were always fans of his. These people were now married, settling down, had kids. The dream of the 60s may have been alive to some degree, but now there were other important things to consider too. However much one can critique the slickness of Double Fantasy, it is an album that meant something to people like my father, as the album came out five months after I was born. It was not an album for the punk rock or new wave fans though, to be sure. They were interested in the subjects that Lennon himself had been interested in twenty years earlier.

[Aum Bop Diddit]

With great respect for so many of the artists mentioned, and I'd say Holly, Redding, Morrison (him with his band), and Allman had some of their best music in front of them, there isn't any hesitation in saying Hendrix.  The guy was just hitting his stride as a genius and single most revolutionary guitar player ever.  Just beginning exploring funk, fusion, Africa, and bringing it to the cosmic blues...where it could of gone is a heartbreak of a dream.

But who knows really of course.  Grateful for the great music we got to hear!

[hypehat]

George Gershwin.

[Mark H]

Just in terms of age I'd second all the Buddy Holly shouts.

Definitely the first name to mind when reading the thread title. 

[Aum Bop Diddit]

And though I find the blues a musically limited genre (not emotionally or even aesthetically), worth mentioning is Robert Johnson.

Also I find it interesting no one has mentioned Kurt Cobain (unless I missed it -- very possible!).  He's not my favorite and I can see why this board's tastes would veer away from him -- nonetheless he is revered by millions.

[GreatUrduPoet]

Buddy Holly, Sam Cooke and Bobby Fuller.

Can I hear an "Amen"?

[rn57]

In terms of deaths which ended potential that might have altered the course of rock music - Hendrix and Buddy Holly would lead the list, in different ways. Hendrix was moving toward explorations of jazz-rock that went beyond the fusion stuff of that time - he was discussing with Gil Evans the idea of putting his sound into a jazz-orchestral thing.  Holly was taking steps into a number of areas - he had an interest in Latin music and might have done productions akin to what Leiber and Stoller and Spector later did. He also was much interested in Ray Charles's work - who knows what might have happened had he been around when Charles did Modern Sounds in Country & Western?

[Rocker]

Buddy Holly, Dennis Wilson, Hank Williams, Robert Johnson, the early Blackwood Bros.


When Elvis passed away he didn't seem in mood or shape to really come up with something new in the next year or so. But the thing is that you always had to be prepared for something great from him, even on his bad days. On the other hand he was there for 23 years and although I'd loved to see him live on and record, he has such a great catalog.


I think many people that should be mentioned in this thread won't get so because of the fact that they died so young and couldn't leave a legacy as big as some others who died young (Buddy Holl for example). People we maybe haven't even heard about

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

BUDDY HOLLY

but what about Ritchie Valens?

Kid was only 17 years old and off to a crackin' start!