everyone knows that Don Mcclean wrote this song as a tribute to Buddy Holly. the meaning of the lyrics have been the subject of endless debate, especially the identity of 'the jester'. some have said that the jester is Bob Dylan - i disagree, and will explain my point of view in a minute.

here are the lines that refer to this mysterious character:

"Now for ten years we've been on our own
And moss grows fat on a rollin' stone
But that's not how it used to be
When the jester sang for the King and Queen
In a coat he borrowed from James Dean
And a voice that came from you and me
Oh, and while the King was looking down
The jester stole his thorny crown
The courtroom was adjourned
No verdict was returned....."

i'll give my interpretation of these words, with the understanding that it's controversial, and that no one will ever really know what Mcclean meant to say, since he refuses to divulge the meaning of the song, other than to say that he wrote it basically in tribute to Holly. (when asked to be specific about the meaning of the song, Don says "it means i'll never have to work again.")

the line "for 10 years we've been on our own" refers, i believe, to the fact that Buddy died in 1959, and 1969, 10 years later, was the year of both woodstock, and the Rolling Stones' altamont performance (referenced in a subsequent verse), where a fan was killed right in front of the stage (the Stones kept playing through it all). the next line, about 'moss' growing fat, references the Stones, and i think, the darkness and moral ambiguity that accompanied much of what they were about.

then Mcclean says "but that's not the way it used to be". this refers, i believe, back to the simpler, more innocent time of the 50's, when Holly was alive and making music. this is one of the main reasons why i don't believe Mcclean can be referring to Dylan, because of this line. also, Dylan was essentially a folk artist/poet, rather than a rock n' roller. i don't see how it's possible that Dylan could ever have been in the position to wear the crown of "King" of rock n' roll. it just doesn't fit.

i personally believe that the jester is Buddy Holly. he sang for 'the King' down in lubbock when Elvis toured Texas, and he drew from Elvis' approach to music in a lot of ways, also. he sang for the 'Queen' (a euphemism for England) when he, that is Buddy Holly, toured England in 1957.

the 'James Dean' reference i believe, is regarding a figurative 'coat', symbolizing Buddy's nonconformist approach to music - a 'rebel', if you will, like James Dean. Dean's nonconformist approach was to life itself - Buddy's, to music. it may also have to do with the immortality that goes with dying young, as they both did. and the jester had a voice that 'came from you and me'. Buddy sang about things we all know and understand, notably love, and he did so in a way that everyone could relate to.

next, the lyrics refer to the King 'looking down', and the jester stealing 'his crown'. this, i believe, is a reference to Elvis' army stint, and how Buddy was absolutely the hottest thing in rock n' roll during approximately the same period. and as we know, Buddy's innovative and ground-breaking achievements laid the foundation for everything that followed in the 60's, including the British invasion. so while Elvis was called the 'King', Buddy, in truth, was the rightful heir. hence, he 'stole' the crown. it's a thorny crown because of all the pressures and intensity that go with being at the top.

the lyric about 'the courtroom' and 'the verdict' i believe, refer to the fact that while Elvis returned from the service and got back into his music career, and Buddy had already died, the 'verdict' of who was the "King" of rock n' roll has never really been resolved, and never will be. Mcclean hints at the distinct possibility that Holly truly deserved the honor, but having died, the question was effectively ended without an actual 'verdict'.

the jester is mentioned once more in the song, as being 'on the sidelines in a cast' while a figurative 'football game' is underway, which is likely to be a reference to the music 'field' of sixties' artists, of which the Beatles ("Sergeants played a marching tune") held the undisputed top position. i believe this refers to the fact that Buddy could not be in the game anymore, but his music was still extremely relevant and even continued to chart throughout the period of the 60's.

i welcome any critique or criticism of this interpretation - i may be wrong, but since Mcclean isn't talking, we'll never know for sure.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry,

I recently found this analysis by Bill Griggs

http://www.buddyhollyonline.com/ampie.html

which I'm sure you are familiar with, Jerry. At the very least, it serves as a useful comparison piece to yours. Additionally, Bill says here that McLean himself said there weren’t any "glaring" mistakes...

I must say, personally, I pretty much agree with what Bill says, especially in light of his elaborations on why Dylan is the jester, as well as who the "King and Queen" are, and the James Dean coat reference.

There are a few typos and inaccuracies in the lyrics, but nothing too horrendous. And I always thought the lyric said "Lenin read a book on Marx", not Lennon, as Bill has transcribed it. Especially given that virtually all other pop-culture references are somewhat veiled.

david

yes, i'm quite familiar with that analysis.

with due respect to bill and yourself, i still don't believe the jester can be Dylan. for one thing, Mcclean has never revealed any specific details about American Pie - he refuses to do so to this day. as far as i know, even though Mcclean is familiar with the griggs' analysis, he has neither confirmed nor denied it. in other words, if he did confirm it, then he's just done what he said he'd never do, which is to reveal the song's meaning. again, with due respect to bill griggs, whom i've met and have great admiration for - i just don't happen to agree with his take on this aspect of the song.

Mcclean also made a video of the song a few years back and in the video, there's an Elvis character and a Holly character. but Dylan is nowhere to be found.

in my opinion, Dylan could never have been the heir to the crown of "King" of rock n' roll. he was a folk singer, with an acoustic guitar and a harmonica. i like Dylan as much as anyone, and he was and is a brilliant songwriter. he was an important part of the 60's, but the artists referred to in American Pie are groups, following in the Crickets tradition for the most part, and i think that's relevant. Dylan was never much of a rock n' roller - anything but.

another reason why i don't think the jester is Dylan is because the 'coat' reference in the song doesn't seem to be about someone who simply puts on a coat for a photo shoot for an album (as Dylan did), but rather, someone who 'wears' that coat, or the figurative equivalent of it. also, while Dylan did perform for the "Queen" at one point, i still don't see how he 'stole' the crown while the "King" was looking down. how could a folk singer end up stealing the crown of the "King" of rock n' roll? especially since most of us in the know agree that Holly was the rightful heir to that crown.

as to the "Lenin" line, you are correct. if you go to http://www.americanpie.com, the official Mcclean website, and click on 'lyrics' it clearly shows that Mcclean's original lyric says "Lenin".

anyway, i just laid out my analysis for discussion, and you are welcome to disagree, as i'm sure others will. as i said, i may be wrong, but i don't think bill can lay claim to an official confirmation of accuracy from Mcclean in any case. by the way, the American Pie album is a theme album, and all the songs relate in some way to the Holly legend.

Jerry, no "due respect" needed (although appreciated); I don't mind one bit if people disagree with my opinions...!

Although, obviously, I've been familiar with American Pie for probably 20-some years, I have never really analyzed the lyrics in great depth. And, to be honest, despite being into a lot of US music across the decades and Americana in general, I think it's quite difficult for a Brit born in 1970 to fully grasp all that might be intended by McLean.

In response to your mention of the video made a few years back, although I am not familiar with it I might make a guess that McLean did not want to include the likeness of someone who was still alive. Additionally, it may be that Dylan did look, once upon a time, like he might steal Elvis's crown - although it is not necessarily a rock-'n'-roll crown; rather a music crown. Even so, time has shown us that this did not, in fact, happen. Well, certainly not in any long-term sense. So perhaps a reimagining of the song has happened on McLean's part. Of course, Buddy must appear; and likely Elvis is the King, at least in one of the references, anyway. But it does not necessarily follow that the same person must be the king in both references. This is only a pop song, after all!

I very much like your take on the coat being something other than a literal coat. But if I go down that route, I can't help but feel that it being "borrowed from James Dean" might then be a reference to attitude, which was not something for which Buddy was known. His image was far more clean-cut (at least until certain biographies hit the shelves).

I'm going to take another listen to the record!

Only one person truly knows the answer to this riddle, and he ain't talkin'.

david

intriguing points. my view on the "King" character is that it's Elvis throughout the song, because of the fact that the song is basically about Holly's death, what came after that, musically, and how his death affected Mcclean and everyone else. plus, as a songwriter myself, i can't see Mcclean using the same title (King) for two different people in the same song.

on the matter of the video, my recollection of it (and i do have a copy stored at my Mother's in another state - i'll have to see about having her ship it to me) is that the Holly character is at one point, sitting behind the wheel of a cadillac, and the Elvis character comes up to the driver's side and asks the Holly character something, and he shakes his head 'no' and drives off, leaving the Elvis character standing there. the Holly character is clearly 'in the driver's seat' as it were.

it's possible, i guess, that Mcclean intended to indicate that the crown is a 'music' crown, but that doesn't fit with Elvis' long-held title of the "King of rock n' roll". i've never known of anyone referring to a 'music' crown. plus, when Mcclean put out AP, it was 1971 i believe, and Dylan's reputation had been long since established as a poet/folk artist.

the line "but that's not how it used to be" seems to be clearly indicating the past, and the line which follows is "when the jester sang....". i just can't reconcile that with Dylan.

on the 'coat' matter, it's true that where attitude is concerned, Buddy was not anything like James Dean. but Buddy was definitely a musical nonconformist, who did things his way. remember the line in the BH story, when Busey says, in response to a large sum of money being offered to have Holly record with studio musicians and big shot producers - "i'd rather shovel sh-t in lubbock". Buddy was in some ways, a rebel, at least musically. personally, though, he was every bit the gentleman - you're right about that.

another thing - if Bill Griggs' analysis is correct, then i don't see how anyone in the song can be the Holly character. it means that Holly is only mentioned directly during the first verse - and yet, in the video, Holly is featured throughout.

i don't think any of us will ever understand what was in the mind of Don Mcclean as he wrote this song, but there are certain things we do know, and these have to do with the fact that the album is dedicated to Buddy Holly, and Mcclean has clearly stated that the album was intended as a 'theme' album, like "sergeant pepper's". also, we know that Mcclean was and is a huge Holly fan. my view of the song's meaning is relative to these considerations.

why are you all making this sound so deep philisophical and complex. the most probable reason the truth about the lyrics has never came out is probably because Mclean doesnt know what hes talking about himself. just random thoughts that sound good, sound complex, and let the public decide for themselves. we all know the first verese is definatly about Holly, after that, who cares. most videos in fact have nothing to do with the song anyways, why should this one be any different. personally, ive read too many varying accounts of this to care any more. this was the 70s, chances are when he wrote the song, he was on something anyways. after all, Feb 3rd 1959 was everything but the day the music died. doesnt any one but me find that just a bit offensive? the music was the one thing that didnt die! sheesh!

CFB

i guess we're having a philosophical conversation because i felt it would be interesting to have the discussion. this is America and it's ok for us to do that. if that bothers you, then you needn't join in. but you may wish to do a bit of homework before you do. for one thing, the reference to the "music" dying is a reference to Holly himself. Mcclean calls Buddy "the music" as a honorary title. if you were more familiar with Don Mcclean's career and music, i'm sure you'd be much less inclined to insinuate that he was 'on something'. the entire AP album is dedicated to Buddy Holly. it's a 'theme' album, much like "Sergeant Pepper's" - that is, where every song relates in some way to the central theme, which is Holly.

and as far as Mcclean not knowing what he himself is talking about, well, i'm sure there are people who don't know what they are talking about, but Mcclean is not one of them.


The following is from the Don Mcclean website:


'Buddy Holly is of course one of Don McLean's biggest influences and his untimely death in a plane crash in 1959 is immortalised in 'American Pie' as 'the day the music died'. Though Buddy Holly is a superstar today, his fame had almost vanished by the end of the 1960s. That all changed in 1971 with the release of 'American Pie' and it is often said that if it wasn't for Don McLean then nobody would have heard of Buddy Holly today. In fact not only is Buddy's music highly popular, but his life story has been made into a successful movie and musical. The inspiration for the movie 'The Buddy Holly Story' was John Goldrosen's definitive biography of Buddy Holly written over a 12 month period in 1971-72. John Goldrosen was one of the first to acknowledge Don McLean's success in rejuvenating interest in Buddy Holly. In 1975 John wrote to Don and this intriguing document has been made available to us by Don McLean. In it you will see how important 'American Pie' was in the Buddy Holly story. As Don says, "this is not patting myself on the back, it's just how it really was."'


Here is the text of the letter that John Goldrosen, the writer of the original Buddy Holly biography, wrote to Don Mcclean in 1975:


Brockton, Mass.
October 4, 1975

Dear Don,

I got your letter, and I thank you for it. In writing my book, I was exposed enough
to the world of show-biz to know that I wouldn’t want to be part of it, but I retain enough innocence or naivete to find it a thrill to get a letter from someone like you.
In December 1971, I had just arrived in Lubbock, Texas and was beginning to
work on a draft of my book. The first thing I did was to write a sort of introduction - a
justification for writing seriously about a rock ‘n’ roll singer from the Fifties. After all, the prevailing orthodoxy was that early rock ‘n’ roll was primitive and meaningless, and
that things had been improving ever since. If you’ve even seen collections of articles by
critics put out around then, that’s the attitude that emerges. But I know I didn’t feel that way, and I knew that most of my friends had turned off their radios by ’67 and were
waiting for music that you could listen to and dance to and understand. They went to
oldies record hops and Sha-Na-Na shows to enjoy the music, not to make fun of it. But it
seemed like the media couldn’t see that, and so I found myself writing an apology or
defense for what I was doing. Then one day, I heard your song, and was absolutely
floored. In a couple of lines, you had poetically made a point that I had spent fifteen
pages trying to express. And by the time I was ready to approach publishers, I could scrap
that introduction - it was unnecessary, because that “progressive” view that rock ‘n’ roll
was always improving was no longer much accepted. Maybe you were just the right
person in the right place, but that’s what history’s all about.

Like you, the most pleasure I will get from my work will be the people who get
exposed to Buddy Holly through my efforts. Also, there’s the satisfaction of doing
something that a lot of fans have been hoping would get done for some time.
It took a long time to get the book published. I sent it to a lot of big publishers,
but their attitude was, “Who’s Buddy Holly?” Or more gently, they didn’t think there was
a market for it. One reader put it more bluntly (in a memo I wasn’t supposed to see):
“Rock fans don’t read.” So that is why I wound up with Bowling Green Popular Press.
The problem now is that it’s a small publisher, and I’m not sure they can distribute or
promote it adequately. (Indeed, my initial reaction when I got your letter was, “How did
he find out about the book?” Because if there have been any reviews, I haven’t seen
them.) It’s not important to me that the book “sell” - I was lucky to have the opportunity to meet the people I did and learn as much about Buddy as I did, and that’s all I need. But I do hope that the book gets some exposure so that Buddy’s fans will know that it exists. And I’m worried that might not happen. Writing the book was easy compared to all this
stuff. (In England, of course, things have been easier. The book’s been put out in
paperback there and has sold 10,000 copies in a month, and has had all sorts of publicity
on radio and in magazines.)

Right now, I’m working as an environmental planner. As you can probably
understand, I didn’t write the book in order to become a “professional” writer - I never
felt the need for someone’s stamp of approval, and getting a book published didn’t make
me a better writer. I just did it because no one else had, and it was about time. So now
I’m writing reports on local groundwater supplies, and if it’s not so dramatic, it has its own satisfactions.

I almost got to see you perform in Lubbock, just before I left there in March 1972,
you were due to come in for a show, but then you were ill and the show was cancelled. I
live about 25 miles from Boston now, so if you’re ever going to be there, let me know.
I’d like to meet you sometime.

Once again, thanks for writing. I like your music, and as much as that, I like your
attitude towards “stardom” and your refusal to let people make something of you that you
didn’t want to be. Being true to yourself is such a simple notion, but the pressures to do
otherwise are immense. That’s one thing I’d like to have people learn from my book on
Holly - that he grew with success, but was not destroyed by it. He had a sense of personal
responsibility, and he wasn’t scared off by how tough it was going to be to do what he
wanted to do.

Thanks for singing our song, and best wishes in all you do.

Sincerely,

John Goldrosen

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry,

first of all, im not an american, so to me, no, this is not america, so could you please stop refering to it as such? secondly, the reason i said anything about this is simply because i thought it was a rather pointless discussion. its a song, thats it. dont you find that by disecting it like this, isnt that taking the point of a song away? to me, a song does not have a rigid criteria of what it is and what it isnt. it should be open to personal interpertation, should be relatable to almost anything. yes, this particular song does somewhat tell a story, but to each individual, that story could mean anything. to Mcclean,it ment Buddy Holly, but to another person, it could be describing anyone. a song shouldnt need any homework, even though ive read too many interpertations of this to count, i would say my homework is efficently done on the matter. as to Mcclean being on something, well, that was a general reference to the era. no, i dont know anything of his career, nor do i care frankly, but take the 70s for what they were.the discussion never 'bothered' me, but i have a right to add my opinion, and thats what i did. i dont think he had specific references in mind when he wroite the song, not as much as everyone makes them out to be at least. obviously there were some, but i just dont think this song is as 'deep' as everyone else does.

CFB

well, you keep missing the point, in my view.

as to "this being America", it really doesn't matter where you are physically at. because the website is an American site, Buddy Holly was born and died in America, and we Americans pride ourselves on freedom of expression. so i think you might want to lighten up on that. there is no need to take offense just because someone points out that they have a right to speak their minds. i don't post on every thread on this site - the ones i find that are not interesting to me, i just pass by. but i don't feel the need to question why others would find those topics interesting. each to their own.

as to American Pie, i must echo what the Mcclean website says - before Don released the album, Buddy was largely forgotten. that is significant, whether you acknowledge it or not. John Goldrosen thought it was significant as well, and i would say that he and Don Mcclean are the two individuals who did the most to resurrect Buddy's memory. because of the work of these two men, thousands upon thousands of people were suddenly made aware of or reminded of a guy named Buddy Holly. it's easy for you to dismiss that now, but at the time, it was extremely important. Mcclean is probably one of the biggest and most well-known and loved Buddy Holly fans of all time. the rear of the album bears the inscription "Dedicated to Buddy Holly". and as i've said, the entire album, not just the song, is dedicated to and relative to Buddy Holly. so i'd say that in my view, if you haven't listened to the album, you haven't 'done your homework'. perhaps a song doesn't require 'homework', but perhaps a theme album does. also, if one is inclined to make comments about supposed mind-altering substances that others were on when they wrote something, perhaps knowing something about that person's career would be in order prior to doing so.

incidentally, the chord progression on the chorus is the one that Holly used on many of his turnarounds - I-IV-I-V.

other people can find other meanings in the song - that was my whole point in starting the discussion. because mine is different than the conventional view, but has merit, all the same.

further more, the song is the subject of numerous college courses. i would say that qualifies it as being more than 'just a song'. it's the type of work of art that people will be talking about and commenting on for years and years. it's been 34 years already, and the song makes over 1 1/2 million dollars A YEAR in royalties alone. few songs or works of art can boast of that kind of phenomenol success and sustained interest.

yes, you have a right to your opinion. we all do. but if you 'don't care', then why weigh in?
let those who wish to discuss it, do so, and those who 'don't care' find other threads that they can find some value in. it's pretty simple actually.

First to crazy_for_buddy: I'd agree with you except for one thing - American Pie is legendary because it was the most closely scrutinized pop song since Louie Louie. When it came out in 1971, everybody had to dissect it. My high school English teacher dropped everything (as many did) and spent several days in a classroom discussion of the lyrics.....

American Pie contrasts two opposing themes: "Innocence" (symbolized by dancing and early rock & roll), and "Loss of Innocence" (symbolized by a jester, Satan, a generation lost in space, and the music dying.

I don't necessarily agree with the premise that Buddy Holly IS the "music dying". He's symbolic of the music dying in 1959 - and with it the age of innocence and wholesome values (as AMERICAN as apple PIE). The plane crash is clearly the pivotal point in Don's story. It's all downhill from there.

Why is the jester probably Bob Dylan?
1) Elvis (The King) was the voice of a generation in the 1950s - Dylan was the voice of that generation during the 1960s. He talked The Beatles into "progressing" from writing good ol' rock and roll love songs to "deeper music" - and he introduced them to marijuana in 1964.

2) The age of protest music, drugs, riots, hippies, Kennedy assasination, and Viet Nam started to unfold months after Buddy's plane crashed. By 1962, Dylan was the beat generation's poet laureate, conscience, and leader.

3) The jester was on the sideline in a cast - While recovering from a serious motorcycle accident in 1966, Dylan was hiding out in Woodstock, New York - leaving everyone wondering if he'd ever record or perform again.

4) Looking back on the 1960s, I think Dylan was often smirking at our "inferior society" - a jester & a joker (and a midnight smoker), thumbing his nose at the passing parade.

Balcony Buddy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balcony Buddy,

Well, I'm new to this site but I'm not new to Buddy Holly OR Don McLean and I've been biting my tongue quite frequently because I DID read the required reading before I got started. Forgive me but Jerry's original question is why I came to this posting but the surprising level of passion and depth of this discussion is what has me still here knowing I should have gone to bed already. And here I go sticking my 2 cents in. But I won't sleep if I don't, and I have valid proof, so bare with me...

crazy_for_buddy has presented an overwhelmingly common opinion of "American Pie" - lots of people who don't know McLean or Dylan (or the myriad of unpublished poetic artists out there, for that matter) simply dismiss it as he got lucky, didn't really have that deep of a meaning, and if he were to say so his success would be diminished forever. Ok. Fine. IN DEFENSE of crazy_for_buddy, one of your posts in one of the newbie meet and greet discussions states that you are 16. I can't speak for what you've experienced but I unfortunately can guarantee you that your views will be at least slightly different when you've doubled that age - I'm older than that even.

I promise I will get to my part of the discussion but I'm still a bit warm under the collar so give me just a moment's liberty here...

Now in defense of jerry: crazy_for_buddy, you said the only reason you said anything was that you thought it was a pointless discussion and further that the discussion never bothered you but that you had a right to add your opinion and that's what you did. Well, had you only done that, you would not have gotten the response you did. In actuality, you condemned the rest of us for being interested in something that has been discussed for 30 years by billions of people. And in your last reply you beckoned to me personally. You poured the proverbial salt on the wound. You took offense to jerry's statement that "this is America and it's ok..." That is an expression here (yes, here in America). When one is told not to do something even young children will retort "this is America and I can blah blah if I want." The salt pouring didn't start until you said that you weren't an American (notice the capital A) and that this is not America. Eeeeaaasy, now... This site is hosted in America so this IS America - when I visit a site that is hosted in Europe I revel in the fact that I have transcended international borders and I am ever cognizant of the fact that I am not from that country. I probably shouldn't have taken any offense to your statement but I did, as I am American by birth and Southern by the grace of God. I'll come down off my soapbox and get back to the original reason we're all here.


From this one posting I have gained some insight to something I have even argued with my father about. My opinion was solidified after reading the letter from Goldrosen to McLean. He is REPLYING to a letter from McLean and in response says, "Like you, the most pleasure I will get from my work will be the people who get exposed to Buddy Holly through my efforts." It is very obvious to me that McLean has said something to this affect. It caused me to do more research. And then BAM, it fell right apart. I submit to you a quote from Don McLean's web site:
"In his 2000 'Starry Starry Night' video, Don says: I'm very proud of the song. It is biographical in nature and I don't think anyone has ever picked up on that. The song starts off with my memories of the death of Buddy Holly. But it moves on to describe America as I was seeing it and how I was fantasizing it might become, so it's part reality and part fantasy but I'm always in the song as a witness or as even the subject sometimes in some of the verses.You know how when you dream something you can see something change into something else and it's illogical when you examine it in the morning but when you're dreaming it it seems perfectly logical. So it's perfectly okay for me to talk about being in the gym and seeing this girl dancing with someone else and suddenly have this become this other thing that this verse becomes and moving on just like that. That's why I've never analyzed the lyrics to the song. They're beyond analysis. They're poetry."

So I'm back to no confidence in my opinion, but I am now even more certain he ain't talkin' 'bout Dylan!

Good Lord!!!

Good Lord, indeed! I take one day away from my machine and all hell breaks loose!

Like Brian, I have no great confidence in my own personal interpretation of American Pie, and I blame that, in part, on (as I said before) my age and nationality. Yes, from where I am typing, this is not America, but it is England (for me) and Canada (correct?) for c_f_b, and don't we all pride ourselves on our freedom to discuss whatever we want in these countries? Jeez, we are sitting at computers linked up to the entire world. Y'know, some people don't have this freedom. In some countries, not so very far from the US, people are not allowed access to the Internet and are not allowed to send email. And I'm not talking about places where they don't have computers, either. So let's just stay crazy for Buddy and not get crazy in general.

I enjoyed reading the letter from John to Don; thanks Jerry. It was nice to see John put to paper that things were easier in England. As you all know, BH has always been a bigger, more constant figure on this side of The Pond. And while I totally agree that McLean reopened the eyes of the US to the genius of Buddy Holly, we in the UK never closed ours.

To think that American Pie is not worthy of discussion is very silly. Sorry if that sounds condescending. ...In fact, no, I'm not sorry. It's perhaps to be expected of a generation who may well only have become familiar with the track via that bastardization put out by the Princess of Pop, Madonna. (Now there's an idea for a sequel to AP: "When the Princess sang for the uneducated masses a track she'd borrowed from the 70s, in a hat she stole from a Wild West show", or something...) c_f_b, I believe you have posted elsewhere on this site how (and I'm paraphrasing) you don't want to be judged on or patronized because of your age, but seriously, if you go into a discussion just to diss what's being said simply because you "don't care" you end up sounding like a bratty teenager.

I'm not hung up on the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, or noughties (well maybe the 80s a little). I like a whole heap of stuff. In fact, my tastes in popular music go back to a time when there was no chart for records and a song's success was gauged by how many copies of sheet music were sold. And the undoubted king of that era (IMHO) was Al Jolson, who is another artist I collect.

I don't care about Marilyn Manson, but I think he's an interesting character worthy of discussion (even if I don't think he said anything particularly profound in Bowling For Columbine.) I don't care for the Rolling Stones and have no interest in discussing them. So I don't go on Rolling Stones website forums. If you don't care about who the jester is in American Pie, here's a tip for you: don't go to threads that say "American Pie lyrics - who is the jester?" The clue, my friend, is in the title.

Grr. This has gotten way off point, sorry to all. And really the likelihood that the intended recipient has got this far is so slim as to make posting irrelevant. But since I've spent this long typing it I'll be damned if I don't post!

By the way, I don't really like classical music. And, of all Buddy oeuvre, pretty much the only tracks I don't care for are the instrumentals. I buy and listen to music almost solely for the lyrics. (I too, Jerry, have been a songwriter in my time and a lead singer with several bands, although I'm only a very poor to average rhythm guitarist.)

My point is this: if lyrics are not worth analyzing, if they tell us nothing about the author, then what the hell are we doing wasting our lives listening to the stuff? I have said many times to many people that if instrumental music was all that was available, I would read poetry instead. I like words. I like to hear them. I like to think about them. I like to interpret them. Perhaps this is why I am a book editor. (Some may ask why I didn't edit this post a little more judiciously!)

A good song is open to many interpretations, c_f_b, I agree. But, equally, a good song is one in which even though we know exactly what is being written about and sung about, even though we have lived through the feeling being shared, and perhaps even if we haven't, that we can still relate. That we can still be moved. That we can still shed a tear. That we can shiver with excitement.

That we can discuss.

Rather than just say, "Whatever. Don't care."

[edited for inappropriate content]

Ive said it before and I will say it again.

[jim: I've said it before and I will say it again: personal attacks will not be tolerated]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jim,

I don't think assimilation was part of the program, to be fair.

However, I don't consider fora to have any nationality. They are global. And any respect paid should be to the individuals participating rather than to the country in which the site is based.

I won't drop the "u" in colour, favour, etc just because I'm posting on a board that is based in the US. And I write with "z" spellings (analyze, rather than analyse, for example) as a matter of course, rather than because I'm trying to fit into Jerry's world.

And of course Jerry will disagree with other people's opinions; otherwise there is no discussion:
- "I think Holly is the jester."
- "Me too. Let's have a beer."

Y'know?

I won't kiss anyone's butt on here or anywhere, but I don't see why everyone is on Jerry's case. Is it a Canada thing?

Brian

thanks for weighing in. i'm aware of that Mcclean quote where he talks about the song being 'poetry' and 'beyond analysis'. surely, there's no sense in Don Mcclean analyzing his own song. but i do think it's kind of his way of keeping the mystery alive. i mean, the minute he reveals anything about what he meant by a line or verse, he has closed the discussion and the song becomes less legendary at that point.


Balcony Buddy

must beg to differ with your points about Dylan. for one thing, you say that Elvis was the 'voice' of the 50's. i don't agree with that, for several reasons. one, Elvis only came on the scene in about 1954 and then disappeared off the radar screen when he went into the service. during roughly the same period, Buddy essentially eclipsed Elvis and was the biggest thing in rock. and we can't discount other rockers of the same era who were also significant - Elvis gets far too much credit for being basically a good singer with sex appeal. i don't think the 50's had
a voice, really, the kids of that era were just finding theirs, and the early rockers like Holly helped them to do so. in addition, Elvis was not a writer, so he really had nothing to say, artistically. he sang other people's songs.

now, as to the Beatles being 'turned on' by Dylan, i've heard that story and consider it an urban legend. but even if it's true, the Beatles likely would've 'grown' without Dylan.
and some would argue that music written through the haze of drug induced consciousness is not 'progressing' or 'deeper' anyway. if you read the letter Goldrosen wrote Mcclean, that is precisely his point. that the perception was that rock was always progressing past the simplistic stuff of the 50's, but in truth, even Dylan has stated that the music of the 50's, specifically Buddy Holly, was to him, the most meaningful music of all.

quote:

By 1962, Dylan was the beat generation's poet laureate, conscience, and leader.

considering that Dylan's first album only came out that year, i would have to disagree with the fact that Dylan became all those things in the space of a couple of months. it's true that he came to be viewed in that way, but not quite that early.

quote:

The jester was on the sideline in a cast - While recovering from a serious motorcycle accident in 1966, Dylan was hiding out in Woodstock, New York - leaving everyone wondering if he'd ever record or perform again.

i'm aware of that historical fact, however, in the same verse, Mcclean is referring to events that were happening later than 1966, such as the release of Sgt. Pepper's. plus, again, i don't see Dylan as ever being in the position of stealing the crown of King of rock n' roll.
while he was viewed as the generational spokesman, so to speak, many of his songs were complicated and not easily understood. i'm not sure that translates to being the 'voice that came from you and me'.

in any case, i considered all those arguments in making mine, and while i do think they have merit, and i know i'm probably outnumbered with my take on this, i still felt compelled to make the case for my perspective. i'm glad to see that it has inspired some interesting and thoughtful posts, though i can't say i would include DDK's post in that category.

Ok, after a night's rest i will concede that
I let my emotions get the best of me. Due respect to all that are here. I must say that the fervor and excitement generated by the diversity of opinion here is exhilarating.

Jerry, I agree whole-heartedly that if McLean did divulge his interpretation that the magical allure of his most-selling song would disappear.

Hi Jerry,
RE/ "Buddy essentially eclipsed Elvis and was the biggest thing in rock."

On what planet? Jerry, I like Buddy a lot - but, that's just revisionist history. Buddy Holly eclipse Elvis? - It never happened. Though Elvis was in the army in Germany from 1958-60, he was never out of the public eye. He was on the cover of countless magazines, RCA repackaged his Sun recordings and issued two greatest hits LPs that were best sellers. Elvis' movies, like Jailhouse Rock and King Creole were playing at the drive-ins. I forget - exactly how many movies did Buddy make?

When Elvis was discharged from the service, it was a major news event, culminating in a "Welcome Home, Elvis" TV show hosted by Frank and Nancy Sinatra. They don't do that for fallen idols - they do that for the reigning King of Rock & Roll.

If anybody came even halfway close to eclipsing Elvis while he was in Germany, it was Ricky Nelson. Buddy Holly never got within the same ballpark as Ricky Nelson (or Chuck Berry, Fats Domino, or even Pat Boone) in terms of record sales and popularity. And you can't just blame that on his dad's TV show. Ricky was extremely talented, and very good looking. He had it all.

Buddy was simply no more popular (in America) in his own lifetime than say, Jerry Lee Lewis or Eddie Cochran. Sure, without Buddy, you have no Beatles. But, without The Beatles, Buddy's influence might have been only marginal. The reason he is remembered today is that he influenced the Beatles - who in turn, changed the course of modern popular music - and in doing so made Buddy a visionary.

But - suppose The Beatles were not influenced by Buddy Holly, but instead by Eddie Cochran. Not a far-fetched possibility. Bands that were more influenced by Eddie included The Kinks and The Who. In that event, it would not be Buddy who was the visionary - it would be Eddie Cochran.

In any event, we need to be somewhat careful in our zeal for Buddy, that we don't turn him into someone he never was. Was he brilliant? Absolutely! Is his influence still felt today? Without a doubt! During his lifetime, was he ever the biggest thing in Rock & Roll?
Not in his wildest dreams.

Buddy's genius wasn't recognized until after he had left us. Isn't that always the way?

Balcony Buddy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balcony Buddy,

balcony buddy

what you refer to as 'revisionist history' is really just putting things in perspective. because what Buddy did was in many ways, under the radar screen, so to speak. as JI Allison has stated, the people (kids) who came to hear the Crickets were the musicians and singers, as opposed to the teenyboppers. those people went on to form groups, produce records, and change the course of music history. Holly didn't just influence the Beatles. now that is revisionist history. Buddy and the Crickets influenced pretty much everyone - there's a link on this site showing but a few of the artists who have given Holly the nod as the one who inspired them to pursue music or to approach it in certain ways. Clapton has said that the first album he ever got was "the Chirping Crickets", not to mention all the quotes from Jagger, Richards, and even Elvis himself. (in 1977, Elvis said in an interview "i guess the person who's made the biggest impression on me over the last 20 years has been Buddy Holly".)

his tours of england, australia, canada and other places cannot be underestimated. Elvis didn't plant the seeds of the British invasion - Buddy did that. or as Gary Busey has said "Buddy was responsible for long hair and a guitar on every corner". Elvis could only dream about having had that kind of influence on an entire generation of rock n' roll bands.

as far as Ricky Nelson, a talented artist in his own right, without question - where do you think Ricky got his influence? i mean, in large measure, it was Holly.

also, i think we must be careful not to obsess on the 'charts' and what they supposedly tell us - you may have certain songs and artists doing well on the charts, while meanwhile, those in the know are paying closer attention to lesser known music. 'popularity', as determined by how many fan magazines someone's picture appears on, and even record sales or chart action, is not as significant as you make it out to be. i refer you again to the quote from Jerry Allison. when the girls were buying Ricky Nelson and Elvis records, and swooning over the Elvis' pictures here or there, the aspiring musicians and bands were listening to Holly. that isn't revisionism - it's just fact. as far as Elvis' movies.....well, let's not go there, shall we? Elvis was one of the poorest actors to ever hit the big screen. of course, his fans didn't much care, nor did Hollywood. anything for a buck was always colonel tom's motto. but asking how many movies Holly made is irrelevant. we're talking about influencing an entire generation of rock n' roll bands, and in this area, Holly was king.

sure, if you use the standards of record sales and such, it's hard to support that. but with all the accolades and testimonials that have surfaced over the years from the biggest artists of the 60's about the Holly influence, it's clear now that Buddy and the Crickets changed the course of rock music forever. you can say Elvis did, and to some degree, i agree with you, but Elvis didn't write, play guitar (ok, he 'played' but he really didn't play) or produce his own stuff. and he did not tour countries that later produced bands that were the biggest thing the music business had ever seen. and Elvis didn't pave the way for artists to do their own music their own way, as self-contained bands, which has literally come to define rock music, thanks to Holly.

as far as the 'major news event' that resulted when Elvis came home from the service, i don't see how that relates to anything. the media have always tended to ignore great artists like Holly and obsess out on people like Elvis who have the charisma or sex appeal - that doesn't make it significant, really. no one said Elvis was a 'fallen idol' just for going to the service. but his importance in the development of rock n' roll was largely in the past by that point. sure, he had great records in the 60's, but the foundational stuff had already been done in the 50's.

quote:

But, without The Beatles, Buddy's influence might have been only marginal.

this is statement that can't really be supported, balcony buddy - as much as i appreciate your thoughtful and intelligent posts....the facts simply don't lie. Buddy's influence was huge and still reverberates today. reasons why are numerous, and have been duly noted by others. i will go into that if you'd like, but i think you know what those reasons are, having to do with overdubbing, etc...

as far as your closing comment about Buddy's genius not being recognized until after he had left us - sure, that's true - as it relates to the public at large. but the bands, writers, producers (ever heard of Joe Meek?), and artists of the 60's knew it BEFORE he died.

as to nashville, glad to hear that there's another fellow nashvillian (albeit, once removed) on the boards. i live over in what's called East Nashville, very close to where the football stadium is located, and a hop, skip and jump from Music Row. a decent part of town, but not quite as nice as the neighborhood you hail from, if it was near Bell Meade.

Jerry, I think you're maybe missing your own point. You claimed Buddy eclipsed Elvis in the 1950s, and that is what I was addressing. Buddy's ultimate influence on popular music is another subject.

Balcony Buddy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balcony Buddy,

with all due respect, balcony buddy, i think you're being too smart by half. i was addressing exacty your point - that Buddy's influence was the reason he eclipsed Elvis. that is, with those who mattered. you referred to chart action, record sales, and magazine covers - i referred to the massive influence Holly had both here and abroad on everyone from producers to writers to bands to singers, etc.... and that is simply unarguable.

as your own list clearly shows, music AFTER Holly died was nothing to write home about, for several years. the Holly influence was enormous, both here and abroad, but it took years for the impact to be felt and to manifest itself in popular music. that's how enormous the Holly influence was - the music business was in many ways, unsure of where to go after he died. he was that much a pioneer, and that much ahead of his time. or in the words of the character from American Graffiti "rock n' roll's been going downhill ever since Buddy Holly died". that wasn't just a line from a movie - it was a prevailing view at the time.
this is why Holly releases continued to chart throughout the 60's - because his recordings were advanced enough that they were contemporary sounding, even into the next decade!

i'll quote from Lillian Roxon, author of "Rock Encyclopedia", regarding Holly's influence, which contrary to what you are saying, was NOT limited to the Beatles.

"Holly brings back a time when music was fun, when rock was fun, when no one was trying to push it as an art form and when sheer animal exuberance was what counted. As well as his own material, he did all the standards of the day...you only have to listen to know where a lot of the early Beach Boys and Beatles come from, not to mention the hundreds of groups that literally wouldn't have been possible without him".

this brings to mind another aspect of Holly that you are overlooking. to my knowledge, only one group ever covered a Holly song in his lifetime (that was officially released anyway) - and that was the Diamonds, doing a version of 'words of love'. but Holly fearlessly and creatively covered just about everyone else - he covered Little Richard, Fats Domino, Elvis, Bill Haley and so many others. i have a copy of Holly's notebook, which shows the group's repetoire from about 1956-7, and there are songs on there from just about everyone. artists didn't cover Holly material because they were intimidated by his versions - blown away might be better terminology - but Holly covered everyone else. and he did so with his own intimitable style and grace. and he performed many of these songs at his shows, along with his own. so he was basically the first ambassador of rock n' roll, spreading it around the world for all to hear. yes, you had radio and records, but Holly performing live in other countries was electrifying.

quote:

Nobody back then was saying, "Listen to The Beatles - they sound like Buddy Holly!" Everybody saw The Beatles, and forgot all about everybody who came before - including Elvis.

he didn't just influence the Beatles, he planted the seeds of the British invasion. you can speculate about what might've happened if he didn't, but it's irrelevant. he did, and the history of music has been forever altered because he did. it doesn't matter whether anyone was saying 'listen to the Beatles - they sound just like Holly' - the influence had already occurred, and the people influenced were contemporaries of the Beatles. just because few people connected the dots is beside the point. those who were influenced by Holly went on to become legends in their own right, and it wasn't just the British groups who did so, though they led the way. Holly was way
ahead of his time, and it took a few years for most people to catch up. that is why American music was so bland post-Holly, and why the British invasion didn't hit until about 1964.

you can say what you want in trying to minimize Holly's influence and importance, by using terms like 'marginal at best', but rock historians like Lillian Roxon and others have long ago documented how deep the Holly influence was on literally everyone who came after, and even on many of his contemporaries.

as to the post you edited above, about the 'urban legend' thing, my understanding was that the Beatles were using some drugs as early as the shows they did in Germany, before they were even famous yet. i seriously doubt Dylan was the first to smoke marijuana with them. then again, does it matter if he was? music is one thing, and drug use is another. it doesn't necessarily follow that having smoked pot, artists become prolific and super-creative, though most of them think they are geniuses when stoned, and that everything they do is simply fabulous. time tends to tell a different story.

Jerry, you write with an air of authority, and articulate your points well, though I do think you tend to dismiss other members' points of view too easily.

I don't imagine they give "Historian" titles here to just "Any Buddy". So, I'd be very interested in learning your credentials concerning music, and rock history.

Balcony Buddy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balcony Buddy,

Jerry's title seems to be a frequent target for negative comment, and I find that discouraging.

Jerry was granted the title "Historian" because he stood out as being respectful, thoughtful, inclusive, and knowledgeable. I have especially come to appreciate the way that Jerry can disagree in a polite and respectful way. This is a rare skill. A skill that I'm sure he would agree has been tested a few times lately.

Please note that everyone is eligible for titles, if you'd like to nominate a peer for a title, just post here: Nominate someone for a Community title

Regarding the "nationality" of this forum, I agree with David T-W -- we don't generally consider the forum to have any particular nationality, and I don't think any arguments around this have any place in this forum.

Balcony Buddy,

I'm sorry that I was unclear in my post, it was written in haste.

I didn't mean to say that your particular comment about Jerry's title was itself negative, but there have been more negative posts about the title than I expected, and certainly more than I'm comfortable with. I saw Jerry's title mentioned again and used this thread as context to explain how Jerry got the title, and why.

i would agree fully that this forum has no 'nationality'. i simply used the expression 'this is America' when referring to my right to express my views. and it primarily relates to where i am from. i am truly amazed and honored that so many countries are represented here on
this site - it's a testimony to Buddy's universal appeal.

as to your comment balcony buddy, i never want to offend you or anyone else. but if i do write with authority, it's because i feel confident of what i am saying. and frankly, you have a tremendous amount of knowledge yourself, and a good deal of confidence in your own expressions of your views. and that's cool. we can be "Buddies" and disagree, can we not?

Hi Jerry,
Buddies? Of course. Whenever I'm back in Music City, the fried catfish and hush puppies are on me.

Now then . . . Where we differ in our assessment of Buddy Holly is this (and it will probably always define our discussions):

I believe your view of Buddy Holly's stature during his lifetime is somewhat inflated, and taken out of context with what was actually going on in the world of Rock & Roll at the time. You've suggested that Buddy created a sound so mind-blowing that it intimidated all other rock musicians of his day.

Intimidated who exactly - Elvis? How many white R&R; artists' songs can you name that Elvis did cover during the 1950s? The only one I can recall off the top is "Blue Suede Shoes", which he covered to help with Carl Perkins' hospital bills following the 1956 auto accident that derailed his career.

Jerry, nobody was intimidated by Buddy Holly - Not Chuck Berry. Not Fats Domino. Not Little Richard. Not Bo Diddley (who left a huge imprint on Buddy's music). So, why didn't they cover his songs?

Probably for the same reason that Buddy did cover theirs. Black artists didn't covered white rock & roll artists. It was the other way around. Why? Probably for the same reason (he opined redundantly) that white teenagers were switching from Patti Page, Perry Como and The Four Aces to Johnny Ace, Wynonie Harris, Big Mama Thornton, and Bull Moose Jackson & His Buffalo Bearcats.

The music was earthy, sexy, and dangerous. These mysterious blues shouters who rode the airwaves after midnight, didn't sing about doggies in the window. They told tales of Smokey Joe, Bow-Legged Women, and Cajun Gypsies sellin' Mojo Hands. Sixteen year-old girls parked along the river with their pimple-faced dates were listening to black men who weren't asking for their phone number - these guys were howling at the moon and pleading, "Baby, Let Me Bang Your Box"!

These are the sounds and images that drove Buddy straight into the clutches of Rock & Roll. Buddy was posthumously one of the most influential artists in R&R; and Country - but not during his lifetime. He never eclipsed Elvis, and never become the biggest star in Rock & Roll. That's wishful thinking.

Elvis was the single biggest musical influence Buddy had. You could have had Elvis without Buddy. You already did. But you couldn't have Buddy Holly without Elvis.

Let's honor Buddy - but let's keep it real. Rock & Roll had been on the public radar screen since 1954. There was a more to Rock & Roll than Buddy Holly - and a lot of artists contributed to the music on the other side of the great divide known as February 3, 1959.

Balcony Buddy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balcony Buddy,

sure, you are welcome to your views on music history, as i am to mine. but your summary of 'what defines' our discussions is simply not accurate. my view is not inflated, taken out of context, or wishful thinking. it's exactly consistent with what people like Mccartney and others have consistently said.

i see your perspective as being one about surface appearances, such as fan magazine attention, chart action (largely tied to how much money is spent on promotion, and in the 50's, payola), and record sales. those things indicate something about popularity, but they don't tell the real story. sure, Elvis was big, but he was heavily promoted, with considerable money being spent on that promotion, and his nervous actions on stage (which were unintentional, but later proved to be a big sexual draw) were also a big part of his success. and let's face it - between Elvis and Holly, Elvis had the 'look' and Holly did not. but you see, none of those things mattered to the "hundreds of groups that wouldn't have been possible" without Holly. (see the quote above from rock historian Lillian Roxon). those people were teens when Holly was king and were paying rapt attention to the Crickets and what they did with their music. they didn't give care a whit about chart action, fan magazines, or record sales.

it's a well known fact that Holly was on one of the worst labels, and received very little promotion. not only were many of the released songs not promoted, but many of those that should have been released as singles and promoted weren't. so you can't gauge his success by the lack of chart action. but you can gauge it by how many great artists went on to copy his ideas and style. again, the tours of England, Australia, and other places cannot be overestimated. planting the seeds of the British invasion cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be attributed to Elvis, or frankly, any of the other artists of the time. Holly was the one who did that.

when you use terms like "what was actually going on in the world of Rock & Roll at the time", you are simply using the standard of perceived popularity based on chart action, magazine covers, and record sales. but the rockers who went on to make music throughout the 60's were not obsessed with those things at all. they paid attention to groups like the Crickets and their music clearly reflects that.

as to my comment about no one covering any Holly songs, i stand by what i said. my main point was that Holly DID cover other people's stuff, and he did so with class and charm. few others of the time did that to the extent he did, black or white. and as to the 'intimidation' factor, you are misreading my point. what i mean is that when Holly did a song, it was DONE. his versions of his songs were simply done to perfection and no one in music will typically dare to cover a song that has been recorded so well the first time. there are exceptions, but that has been universally true throughout music history. it's just not good business to try and out-do a version that was done magically well the first time. perhaps a better word would be 'impressed'. his contemporaries were impressed with his records - after all, when many of them were simply speeding up the blues, Buddy was taking music in new and creative directions that were more and more unique with every new song he recorded. and they knew that he was overdubbing his voice and doing other groundbreaking things with recording, in addition to using unique chord progressions and arrangements.

when you say that black blues artists were what "drove Buddy straight into the clutches of Rock & Roll", i would agree that he was influenced by Fats Domino and Little Richard probably most of all. but on the other side of the equation, Buddy was very heavily influenced by Hank Williams Sr.

Buddy's influences were wide, and can't be narrowed down to one artist or style.

you can continue to say that he was "posthumously one of the most influential artists in R&R; and Country", but again, i refer you to the quote from Jerry Allison (who ought to know) wherein he states that those who came to hear the Crickets were the musicians. you see, one of the traps that you're falling into, i believe, is in your use of terms like 'star'. by definition, that is someone who is publicly very popular. and Buddy was never able to be appreciated in that way during his lifetime.

think this through a bit, balcony buddy. as you've stated in your previous posts, once the british invasion happened, people forgot all about Holly and even Elvis, in many ways. ok, that was 1964. so, how is it possible that Buddy's influence was posthumous, when the very ones who brought the British invasion to America have stated that Holly was their biggest influence? that happpened in his lifetime, not after he died. teenagers like John Lennon and others were watching Holly in person or on TV when he was alive, and their perspective on music was forever altered as a result. Elvis didn't have that influence - bands of the 60's rarely mention him at all. they do mention Holly however, invariably. since music post-Holly was so bland, at least until about 1964, that only leaves five years for teenagers like Jagger and Mccartney to form bands, begin their careers, and embark on what later became known as the British invasion. and it wasn't Holly's posthumous reputation that inspired them during those five years. it was what he did while he was alive.

therefore, i stand by my assertion that while Elvis appeared to be 'the King' (and would've easily won any popularity contest during that era), Buddy was truly rock's innovator and the primary influence for literally everything that came later. this is a prevailing view, by the way, not one i concocted on my own.

Elvis' career forever altered how the business viewed the almighty dollar, and how to exploit and promote an artist, and make huge sums of money. but musically speaking, Elvis wasn't really that innovative. sure, he made great records, but so did a lot of people back then.
besides, Elvis' contributions to his own records and their finished sound consisted basically of him walking up to the mic and capturing a vocal performance. (i've covered this angle in a previous post in more detail, should you wish to scroll up and read that.)

quote:

Elvis was the single biggest musical influence Buddy had. You could have had Elvis without Buddy. You already did. But you couldn't have Buddy Holly without Elvis.

Elvis influenced Buddy, but so did most everyone else he was listening to at the time. the main thing wasn't Elvis' music, so much, but the fact that he was white and doing the music he was doing. as Dylan has stated, about the 50's, "rock n' roll was a dirty word". well, how much more so from a little country town like lubbock? Buddy had an uphill battle to pursue rock music - as is referenced in the Sonny Curtis tribute - to even appear in a newspaper in lubbock required the eyes to be covered up, when you were known to be doing rock n' roll music. but Elvis gave Buddy the courage he needed to pursue his heart's desire, being white. but don't discount the fact that Buddy influenced Elvis too. i have given you the quote from 1977 where Elvis says exactly that. Elvis wasn't that big yet when he toured lubbock, and Buddy played back up for him, as well as performing on the same bill. during that same period, the Dave Stone telegraph was sent, saying "have Buddy Holly record four songs on acetate. don't change his style at all".

i have never intimated that other artists didn't contribute to music, balcony buddy. you could probably trace elements of what became rock n' roll clear back to robert johnson. and from Hank Williams Sr's 'move it on over', released in 1947 (compare this song to 'rock around the clock' - eerily close in chords and melody), to Fats Domino's 'the fat man' released in 1949, and beyond, music began to develop and continued to do so. but Buddy was the most creative and innovative artist of his time, and those who mattered (not the giggly girls and the lap dog media tyes) were paying close attention and music from the 60's confirms that in spades.

by the way, balcony, do you play guitar, or have you had occassion to study the development of multitrack recording techniques, or songwriting? my guess is the answer to these question is no, because if you did, you'd have a greater appreciation for the kind of innovator that Holly was. if i'm wrong, and you do have experience in one or more of these areas, then i apologize in advance. but i'm still puzzled about your tendency to minimize these extraordinary contributions, while focusing on surface appearances, like fan magazines, movies, and chart action.

those who were influenced by Holly when he was alive DID do or were learning to do those things, and the rest, as they say, is history.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry,

Don't go, Balcony Buddy!

I knew Jerry's last post was going to get your goat, because I know some of your background from other threads.

I think this is a good forum on the whole, and I don't always get the time to contribute as much as I'd like. And sometimes it's good to "listen" from afar. However, I do tend to fall more on Balcony Buddy's side of the fence than Jerry's when it comes to who was the King of R'n'R. Of course it was Elvis. I can't believe this is even under discussion. Buddy Holly is by far my favourite of the two, but I can at least recognize who is/was the most influential -- in terms of getting people turned on to music in the first place, if not necessarily in innovation, songwriting etc. We all know Elvis was lacking in these areas. Jerry: you often mention the McCartney quote about BH, but Lennon has said there would be no Beatles without Elvis, too.

And by the way, where does the Elvis '77 quote about BH come from. I've NEVER heard this and my brother is one of the biggest Elvis fans I know. For sure if he knew this quote he would have found occasion to rub it in!

Oh, it seems that Balcony Buddy's post to which I was replying has been deleted... Oh well.

Balcony Buddy deleted his own post, hopefully he'll visit us again and share his thoughts.

Hope so, Jim. Although it didn't sound promising...

Boy, I don't know, David. You never know what Balcony Buddy might do. Well, ultimately I went to the fridge for a sandwich, but I'm back. Did the "Private Message thing" to resolve the issue. Got exactly the response I expected. You move on.

Balcony Buddy

David

i will dig up the source for that quote from Elvis about Buddy - it's on the back of one of the Buddy Holly sheet music books, along with quotes from Bruce Springsteen and others, about Holly.

but here's another quote from Elvis that tends to support my position:

"I don't know anything about music. In my line you don't have to." Elvis Presley

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry,

Welcome back Balcony, it's like you never left

I am still hoping that people will jump up and start nominating each other for titles ... I'm poised to second all nominations

Glad to have you back, BB. Hope you enjoyed the sandwich!

Jerry, it would be cool if you could post the source of that quote, preferably with the original source if the book lists it. I would imagine it must be in a published interview somewhere if it's being referenced on a BH book.

Thanks.

quote:

However, I do tend to fall more on Balcony Buddy's side of the fence than Jerry's when it comes to who was the King of R'n'R. Of course it was Elvis. I can't believe this is even under discussion. Buddy Holly is by far my favourite of the two, but I can at least recognize who is/was the most influential -- in terms of getting people turned on to music in the first place, if not necessarily in innovation, songwriting etc. We all know Elvis was lacking in these areas.

on this matter of who is the "king" of rock n' roll, i think it's a question of how you view the situation. for one thing, the term was coined by Colonel Tom Parker, Elvis' manager. in that sense, it was purely a marketing ploy. but if you take his terminology and seek to apply it seriously, then what exactly is the 'crown' and what does it signify? who is doing the 'crowning'? Mcclean's point, i believe, is that the "king" can be and was, dethroned. or at least that 'there was no verdict' on who ultimately was deserving of wearing the 'crown'.

i think if you consider only the extemporaneous things, like fan magazines, television, record sales, etc....., you would have to conclude that Elvis was the 'king', with only Fats Domino rivaling him for record sales during the 50's. (that's another story, since Fats is arguably the first rock n' roller, with his "The Fat Man" being released in 1949.)

but if you consider the sheer number of innovations and groundbreaking, trailblazing accomplishments, resulting in bands forming with two guitars, bass, and drums, overdubbing, songwriting, producing, doing your own songs your own way, etc...., then there is no question but that Holly was the real 'mover' in the development of rock. Elvis may have kicked off the show, so to speak, but Buddy laid the foundations of everything that followed, for the British invasion and just about every guitar playing songwriter who came along.

as far as 'turning people onto music in the first place', there is a certain truth in the fact that Elvis took the black man's music and made it ok for white people to listen to, and to play and sing that same music. but virtually all of the Elvis 'groundbreaking' that went on must be credited, in part, to all the great songwriters and lesser known artists whom Elvis opted to cover, not to mention people such as Sam Phillips, Scotty Moore, etc...., who made someone who was basically just a singer sound like a million bucks. Buddy of course, owes his success in part to other people as well - no one is a success strictly on their own - but he was a visionary and innovator and creative genius, where Elvis simply stepped up to a mic and sang. and his hip gyrations, by his own admission, were simply nerves. the women who viewed his early performances went nuts over that, and the first time Elvis got that kind of reaction, he asked Colonel Tom afterwards "what did i do? what did i do?" and the Colonel's response was "i don't know, but whatever it was, do it again".

i simply believe that Elvis is over-rated, and Buddy is extremely under-appreciated. and Don Mcclean clearly felt the same - hence, American Pie was born.

Jerry, check out my "That's Not Cricket" album under Photos & Videos. I think you'll enjoy my Buddy vs Elvis photo. But no, I don't think Elvis is over-rated by anybody except guys named Bubba, who swear they saw him inside a UFO while they were duck hunting. Elvis may have been the greatest baritone since Bing Crosby; as a teenager he helped pioneer Rockabilly and Rock & Roll; and he was one of America's most original and exciting entertainers. Saying he just "stepped up to a mic and sang" is silly.

But onto some Jolly Holly, by golly - 'cause I'm just burstin' my bottom buttons with rump-bumpin' bronco-bustin' Buddy, Buddy, BUDDY! . . . . . ~GREAT GOOGLI-MOO!!!


Hey Buddies!
Buddy Holly did so much to chart the future course of Rock & Roll and Country music, that we're all here at his wife Maria's tribute website, honoring him more than 40 years later.

In 1958 Buddy Holly & The Crickets showed Britain's teens the future. Where early 1960s American singers like Tommy Roe ("Sheila") and Bobby Vee ("Rubber Ball") saw in Buddy's music a classic style that should remain pure and unaltered - the British teens saw a Revolution! They used Buddy as a launching pad to explore musical universes where no bands had gone before.

By 1961 the first wave of these bands, led by The Beatles (and including other Merseyside groups like The Searchers, The Swinging Bluejeans, Gerry & The Pacemakers, Billy J. Kramer & The Coasters (later The Dakotas), and Rory Storm & The Hurricanes (featuring Ringo Starr), were pounding out an earthy British-flavored brand of loud, frantic Rock & Roll in steamy underground clubs like The Cavern.

The Beatles were clad in Teddy Boy black leather - head to toe - ala Gene Vincent - appearing more like a street gang than a singing group. Their electric guitars wailed like Eddie Cochran and Chuck Berry. They sang tight harmony like The Everly Brothers with the wild abandon of The Isley Brothers. They screamed like Little Richard - but best of all, they crafted timeless pop songs in the tradition of Buddy Holly.

By 1964 this new sound could no longer be contained. Beatlemania and the British Invasion swept across The Pond. America couldn't believe its ears.

It wasn't long before the U.S. answered back with bands like The Beau Brummels ("Laugh Laugh"), The McCoys ("Hang On Sloopy"), The Bobby Fuller Four ("I Fought The Law"), The Lovin' Spoonful ("Do You Believe In Magic"), The Byrds ("Mr. Tambourine Man") - and back and forth it went.

It's been more than 40 years - and back and forth it still goes.

Good Lord, I think I "Great Googli-Moo'd" Jerry back under the stairs. Here, kitty, kitty, kitty...

Balcony Buddy

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Balcony Buddy,

^^you guys crack me up....

and jerry is so right with everything he said.
hey i love elvis, but buddy always came first. he would have been so huge if it wern't for....well, you know..

Balcony Buddy

while your take on the development of rock music is interesting, you are mistaken if you think that Elvis Presley is not over-rated. his comment "i don't know anything about music - in my line you don't have to" kind of sums up what i've tried to say.

quote:

But no, I don't think Elvis is over-rated by anybody except guys named Bubba, who swear they saw him inside a UFO while they were duck hunting. Elvis may have been the greatest baritone since Bing Crosby; as a teenager he helped pioneer Rockabilly and Rock & Roll; and he was one of America's most original and exciting entertainers. Saying he just "stepped up to a mic and sang" is silly.

i don't make silly comments, Balcony Buddy. nice try, though. Elvis did not produce, craft songs, arrange songs, direct his bandmates to play certain things a certain way, play guitar (except primarily as a prop), or have any real vision about music. (i refer you to his own comment, again.)

as far as him helping to 'pioneer' rockabilly and rock n' roll - all the songs he did were covers, BB. with Scotty Moore on guitar, and Sam Phillips producing, sure, there was pioneering going on, but that wasn't Elvis' creativity blazing any trails. as i said, all he had to do was step up to a mic and sing, and here i am referring primarily to studio recording. but even in live situations, all the other work was done for him. not so with Holly.

as to the 'great entertainer' aspect of Elvis, sure he was a good entertainer. but Holly was an equally good entertainer, with different, and i would argue, more relevant and important strengths. for one thing, Holly was primarily about music - Elvis was primarily about working girls into a frenzy. and if he had done that intentionally, you might have a point. but by his own admission, Elvis' gyrations were the direct result of inadvertant nervousness. after the first show where the girls went nuts, Elvis came off the stage and asked Colonel Tom "what did i do? what did i do?" and the Colonel responded "i don't know, son, but whatever it was, do it again'. i'm not sure that qualifies as greatness, BB. perhaps in your book, not in mine. i don't take away from Elvis the fact that he became a good entertainer, and that he had the 'look' (which didn't hurt, obviously), that he helped to popularize what was called 'race music' for the white masses, and that he was a good singer. but his so-called greatness is highly over-rated.

by the way, BB, who is under the stairs? a strange comment to end your post with....

^ jerry, did you sleep at all last night???????

lol...