I watched The Buddy Holly Story today and wondered at the end of it,i wonder what Buddy would have gone on to become. Would he have been as popular as back in the 50's? This is a very good film,I have seen it before but only just got the dvd.
share[deleted]
Agreed. With the British Invasion in 1964, he would have dropped off the map like every other early Rock and Roll star except Elvis. Many late 50s acts bigger than Holly just faded into obscurity by the mid-sixties. The only fortunate thing about an early untimely death is it can immortalize someone who may have otherwise been forgotten.
share[deleted]
Many people on here are talking about the way Buddy Holly would've certainly disappeared after the British Invasion along with all the other '50s performers. I've been thinking a lot about this subject since reading through these threads a day or two ago. I'm not so certain Buddy would've disappeared. I'm not going to go on a rant about how he was the best artist ever or anything like that. I will say, though, that there was a bit more artistry to his music and his recordings than many others in his day. What really died with the '50s was the music...not the artists. Had Buddy been able to evolve his music with the times (which I personally think he could've done), he would've had some staying power. Every era has its throwaways because they can't change with the times. Psychedelic music died with the '60s, disco died with the '70s, etc. Maybe he wouldn't have created such smash hits for the next fifty years but I can almost guarantee he would've at least been in the business, releasing music.
shareI think Buddy would have thrived. buddy was an innovator. Writing and producing his own songs. The Beatles credit Buddy as a song writing influence. Buddy's understanding of studio technology at such a young age makes me wonder if he would have gotten to sounds faster than The Beatles did? Buddy would have been a great maker of music, whether it be as a singer/songwriter or a producer.
shareEveryone involved in R&R in the 1950s was an innovator, and they were all forgotten with the British Invasion. Buddy's "innovations" were mostly those of producer Norman Petty. The movie exagerrated Buddy's role and didn't even recognize Petty's. And the Beatles (and Stones) credited a lot of people, like Chuck Berry, who was unable to reproduce his prolific sales after the early 60s and Bo Didley, who seemingly didn't do didley after the British Invasion.
shareEveryone involved in R&R in the 1950s was an innovator...
Hardly. There were numerous cover acts such as Pat Boone who made a nice living off the rock 'n roll written and performed by others. There was nothing innovative about many of these performers.
Okay, almost everyone. Certainly not worth the response "hardly' from you. And, btw, I wouldn't consider Pat Boone a rock and roller. He covered literally a few rock songs.
sharePat Boone and other cover artists were marketed to rock n' roll fans as a "safe" alturnative to the real artists. Their records easily out sold the original recordings. These cover artists were impactful in the late 50's/early 60's and helped lead to significant changes in how artists record and rights contracts were negociated.
I think that Buddy Holly would have gone into country music, he would have fit into that genre of music perfectly.
shareHe was actually planning on opening his own recording studio when he came back from the Winter Dance Party Tour. (I don't recall where I read that, but he actually had the plans made up for it). I thought he probably would have gone on to the production end of the music business. His other goal was to get back together with The Crickets. So I think he would have become a successful music producer, while still maintaining his popularity. He was already producing the first recordings of Waylon Jennings, who was a friend of his, and who acted as his bass guitarist during the Winter Dance Party Tour.
shareAgreed. He was a country boy at heart.
shareAgain, Pat Boone did exactly 3 rock and roll covers. That was not his bread and butter. And the person who said Buddy would have gravitated torward country is probably right. He wouldn't have continued as a rock and roll star after the British Invasion, that's for sure. That's just the way it went back then with those first rock and rollers.
shareyep. agree.
I'll talk some jive. I'll talk some jive like you've never heard!
Hmm, since he did in fact die, its hard to say really, In my mind (I'm a huge elvis fan) but I almost think that buddy could have gotten just as famous as Elvis, but than again there's a part of me that thinks that if his child would have been born and he was alive, that he might have steped down from the lime light and raised his kid, but all in all this is all just what if's, the only fact that I can say is that He f'in rocked back then, And this 27 year old kid for detroit listens to his music all the time..
Rip Charles (buddy) Holly
Holly is remembered and revered because he died young and tragically. But to understand what would have happened to his career had he lived, you have to understand what happened with the British invasion of 63/64 - most all early rock and rollers like Buddy Holly were tossed aside and forgotten (even Elvis, for awhile, until his comeback). If lucky, Holly might have been a nostalgic act like Chuck Berry was for years, or turned to country like Jerry Lee Lewis and if unlucky he would have been forgotten like Ricky Nelson and Dion.
sharejust use your imagination for a minute...
Elvis presley: written and produced by Buddy Holly
the Beatles: produced with the sounds that Buddy Holly heard...
The big Bopper, Richie Valens, both alive to release more music.
Sometimes i hate airplanes more and more, because of what they've taken away from us.
Buddy Holly, Richie Valens, J.P. Richardson, Patsy Cline, Aalaya, Jim Croce, ect ect ...
Buddy's early death saved us perhaps the decadence of his success and decline. Then maybe not. He would have survived the British invasion had he lived. The Beatles, Stones, Grateful Dead and Fleetwood Mac all covered or emulated his music. If Paul McCartney can still plague us Buddy could have done the same. He'd have toured with Beatles, done Woodstock with a new sound and moved off to Vegas. Rolling Stone continues to push "Satisfaction" as the greatest rock hit but for me "Fade Away" is the ultimate, classic rock tune.
I'm not saying we won't get our hair mussed!share
I think he definitely would still be writing songs and maybe even performing them.
shareListening to his original recordings, I realize that Buddy Holly was a rather prophetic talent. Rather than falling back upon the blues and country structures of other 'fifties rockers, his songs used a minor chord "jangle" sound more associated with The British Invasion era. Even his final recordings, done with a string orchestra, seemed to predict the trend towards reverberating violins that peaked in 1961.
I believe that Buddy Holly would have remained ahead of the pop music curve. While his commerciality may have gone through peaks and valleys, I think he would have maintained his popularity in the British market and would have been very competitive with the English bands he inspired.
Most Buddy Holly scholars are aware that he made acoustic recordings of six new songs in the weeks before his untimely death. I have wondered how formal studio versions would have sounded. Would Holly have returned to the guitar-based rock of The Crickets or would he have continued to record with orchestration? "Learning The Game," possibly the finest song Holly ever wrote, could have gone either way and would have been excellent regardless of the instrumentation. No one will ever know for sure, and that is possibly what keeps fans discovering the magic of Buddy Holly for decades after his death.