This has sometimes been an onrunning thing in music mags via readers letters.
Everyone had differing thoughts on this as Holly rung the changes many times in his own music,was always willing to do cover versions and even to have strings added to his music.
And this is an indicator that Holly was gradually being eased into what the Germans called High School Pop.
In other words Holly could very well have become Bobby Vee.
However changes were afoot in England which began to influence the Crickets by 1965 and thats the Beatles.
The Crickets made at least 4 covers of Beatles songs,cashed in on Merseybeat with All over you and rewrote Twist & Shout as They call my girl La Bamba.
The Beatles covered one of the early Liberty songs Don't ever change for their Decca Audition.
I reckon by this reasoning that Holly would have been influenced himself by the Beatles the same way many others were

You are very right , I don't think very many artists of that time and even now COULD escape being influenced by the Beatles and seeing as how the Crickets were the Fab Four's favorate band they might have been not only musical collaborators but also might have been good friends

quote:

Holly.....was always willing to do cover versions and even to have strings added to his music.
And this is an indicator that Holly was gradually being eased into what the Germans called High School Pop.
In other words Holly could very well have become Bobby Vee.
However changes were afoot in England which began to influence the Crickets by 1965 and thats the Beatles.
The Crickets made at least 4 covers of Beatles songs,cashed in on Merseybeat with All over you and rewrote Twist & Shout as They call my girl La Bamba.
I reckon by this reasoning that Holly would have been influenced himself by the Beatles the same way many others were

i think this line of thinking leaves much to be desired, Richard, with all due respect.

first of all, Holly was never "eased" into anything. he was the driving force behind his own musical direction and production ideas. his decision to incorporate strings was a brilliant move. it did not, however, indicate that he was moving away from rock n' roll, but rather, that he was expanding the definition of music in general.

as to him becoming another Bobby Vee, now really....that is just plain silly, since Bobby Vee was a huge Holly fan and one whose music was enormously influenced by Holly. to imply that Holly would've 'become' like someone he influenced is an illogical train of thought.

as to the cover versions - Buddy did songs for any one of a number of reasons - sometimes because people in his life (like his brother or mother) asked him to, sometimes because he really liked the songs, sometimes because he thought he could do the song better or more effectively than the original. but it was never a case of the music business dictating to him what he should do. Buddy was his own man in every sense of the word, and followed his own direction when it came to writing, recording, performing, etc....

as to the Crickets later recording some Beatles material, you should be aware of the quote McCartney made that J I Allison referred to later - McCartney said 'without the Crickets there would be no Beatles'. and J I's response was "Excuse me? I'd like to hear that again".

so in covering the Beatles, the Crickets were simply illustrating that they were the primary influence on the Beatles. to say they 'cashed in' is just not reality-based. the Beatles cashed in on the Crickets influence, and the rest was history.

sure, we can speculate about Holly later being somehow influenced by the Beatles, but since he was the one who motivated them in the first place, it's kind of an irrelevant point. it's like saying that George Washington might've been able to learn something about the presidency from Abraham Lincoln. perhaps, but the point is that the pioneers are the ones who blaze the trail for others to follow, and those that follow always owe them a debt of gratitude, even if those that come later achieve what could be called greater things.

without Holly blazing the trail, there may not have ever been a Beatles, and this is consistent with the remarks that Lennon and McCartney and many others have made about Buddy's influence. let's give credit to the genius of Holly and not try and dilute it with speculation about what might've happened later.

Not really THAT illogical.If Holly had lived Vee's career would have either followed a different route or just not existed.I was thinking more in terms of those who made their name with Goffin King songs whatever,that Holly may have been approached to do songs like that.
I simply used the Vee name to illustrate the point that Holly could have become a massive mainstream star.
You're saying Holly had complete control? Not many had until the Beatles even Billy Fury,also from Liverpool,was unable to carry on with his own songs after Decca turned him into a teenage idol

quote:

Originally posted by Richard Astley-Clemas:
You're saying Holly had complete control? Not many had until the Beatles even Billy Fury,also from Liverpool,was unable to carry on with his own songs after Decca turned him into a teenage idol

I don't know what you mean to imply, but let me tell you that yes Buddy Holly did have control. It doesn't matter who's name you use to compare to Buddy Holly and say that they didn't have control, Buddy Holly was Buddy Holly and he did have control over his music and god help you if you tried to cross him on that. I think that that's one thing that the Buddy Holly Story took care of well, that Buddy didn't like what Nashville did to his music, although it probably most certainly didn't happened the way Hollywood tells us it happened. Maybe Buddy didn't have good control over his fiances from his music, but when it came down to the raw deal, that was all Buddy. Compare him to Elvis for a moment, who I believe was a sell-out. I'll admit to liking some of his songs, but the way I see it, Elvis didn't really care about the music-he just wanted the paycheck attached to the song. Buddy cared, and he wouldn't sacrifice anything for his music. Especially not the control over it that he needed so badly.

Theres been so much through the years about this sort of thing,namely the state of pop music in the early 60s.But what state? Some of us genuinly liked what the Germans called High School Pop and its rubbish to think that clowns like Jerry Lee Lewis could assume that "thank God for the Beatles they saw all the Bobbys off.." No such thing as the 4 names he mentioned continued to chart through the 60s like Bobby Vee.
When he was interviewed once he said the artist had no say really they were given a song to learn told where to stand and that was it.
I just thought that applied to everyone else until the Beatles but as you say Holly was one on his own here and good for him.
Here in 1963 we're told that some tracks have been discovered and had new backings by the Fireballs-known her for Quite a Party.Purists were knocking the stuff saying Holly would never have allowed it but this is what relaunched his career in this country.
As for It doesn't matter anymore its not to my taste even though I liked American pop at least till the end of the 60s but Paul Anka was never high on my list either then or now

Should have made that clearer-it should have read "when Vee was interviewed..."
But Jerry Lee Lewis,known as a "no compromise artist who would do his own thing etc." is possibly a sign of what popular music could have been without the Beatles.
Everything would have turned into Country-he did that because his own music wasn't selling so he joined the other side,made Green green grass of home and along came Jones