Hey guys and gals!,

I was just wondering where Buddy Holly played in Toronto. I believe he only came up this way once but I could be mistaken. Also, did he play anywhere else in Ontario (if so where?)... Thanks in advance.

~ Davey

Check out the topic anyone else think Buddy is incrediably attractive-Charles Austin posted a newspaper article of Buddy's visit there. The boys were there not once but twice within about 2 months. The following website has all of Buddy's venues and dates.
http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/8157/bhlive.html

You rule Buddy_Blue...Always so fast for the reply's and are always very informative!! Thank you!

~ Davey DK

Ahh They played Maple Leaf Gardens. They tore down that building about 15 years ago or so I did however go to see several WWF events there when I was around 8.. so I guess Im somewhat happy knowing I was in the VERY SAME building!!. I just read THE DAY THE MUSIC DIED which said that he met Dion (I believe it was Dion...) in the basement of the Toronto venue. I assume this was in the basement of Maple Leaf Gardens.... Were both TO shows at M.L.G? I can only find show info. for the first one... cheers !...

~ Davey DK

My bad....he was only in Toronto once but he was in Ontario twice..once on September 14 in Toronto, and then later on in November in the Arena Auditorium in Ottawa.
I just found out recently that Buddy played here at the Stampede grounds (though not during Stampede time which would have kicked ass) and I have been in the same building many times (without knowing it and there is no chance of that building coming down anytime soon as it's part of the Exhibition grounds) so I've resovled during this Stampede I'm going all throughout the Corral, as there's many pictures on the wall of different events that have happened there, with the faint hope I'll find one of Buddy.

quote:

de I'm going all throughout the Corral, as there's many pictures on the wall of different events that have happened there, with the faint hope I'll find one of Buddy.

Right On!.. I dont know what has gotten into me but I've really become quite obsessed with All that is Buddy Holly lately. My friends keep telling me to hush it up whenever I start talking about how much of a genius he was and still is. I live in London Ontario but my mum lives in North Carolina. I really want to start planning a trip down there and continue south and do a Buddy Holly trip... Dunno where I would go though.... but it wouldnt be the destination rather the journey... sort of like a 2000'nds Kerouac excursion...... I really wanted to start in Toronto though.. Shame about the M.L.G.'s. Ahh well, The Hulk Hogan vs. Kamala match was pretty good though... hehe Oh and I met Andre The Giant that night........ YAY!

~ Davey DK

quote:

Originally posted by DDK:
I dont know what has gotten into me but I've really become quite obsessed with All that is Buddy Holly lately. My friends keep telling me to hush it up whenever I start talking about how much of a genius he was and still is. ~

All I have to say is get used to it. My mom and I have constant arguments about Elvis and Buddy-Elvis was nothing in my opinion compared to Buddy but of course my mom begs to differ. Most of my friends have just learned to smile and nod their heads at appropriate times by now, but what's sad is one of my friends (well, a couple of them) still have no idea who he is.
And, according to my mom, I only get an hour a day to talk about Buddy, and then I have to find a new topic. Which is really hard, because the man did so much in his 22 short years. "He's in everyone. You turn on the radio and there's a brand new release. Buddy Holly's in there. How much, that's a different story." -Keith Richards of the Rolling Stones
He influenced the Beatles for cryong out loud. And the Beatles influenced everyone. You get influenced by the Beatles, you get influenced by Buddy. Can you name one artist of the top of your head that names Elvis as an influence? Sure artists credit that the whole rockabilly generation, but not Elvis in particular.
Wow, I really went off topic.

quote:

Originally posted by DDK:
Ahh They played Maple Leaf Gardens. They tore down that building about 15 years ago or so

Maple Leaf Gardens is still in Toronto.

ahhh ya know yer right!!.. I got it confused with the stadium at the C.N.E.. D'oh., That got torn down about 15 years ago... I saw a Jays game there once...... I was supposed to see Skid Row and Areosmith there but I was only 13 and my mum wouldnt let me go.... anyways this is very off topic now., haha.

~ Davey DK

buddy blue

you did get a bit off topic, but your points were valid. buddy is STILL underappreciated by many people. but not by the musicians and songwriters who grew up in the 50's and 60's.....THEY know. and you and i know. buddy was IT.

ask your Mom (politely, of course) about elvis as as songwriter. or a producer. or an arranger. or about the time that the steve allen show producers had him sing 'hound dog' to an actual dog! now that is something buddy would NEVER, EVER do. because he had too much class and too much musical integrity. elvis did whatever colonel tom told him to.

also, you may want to share this quote that elvis made in 1977, just before he died, about buddy:

"...i guess the person who's made the biggest impression on me over the last 20 years has been buddy holly."

case closed.

In reference to the two posters who commented on Elvis Presley and Buddy Holly and, aside from the fact that Elvis was Buddy Holly`s primary influence as a rock musician, here`s a list of musicians, on public record, as having been directly influenced by Elvis.

Of the first generation rockers, I would need much more space than I would probably be allowed here. At least a third of them, were not just influenced, musically, but took up a serious career in rock music BECAUSE of him.

Should any poster here know the names of well known singers, songwriters, or just entertainers who took up "a serious career in music directly because" they either heard, or saw Buddy Holly perform, the emphasis being on taking up "a seripus career in music because of..." please post the list here, since I would certainly like to know.

From my part, I would then mention the people who became singers, for life, after just listening to Elvis, or seeing him perform live. Some of them, in fdact, never even had the need to see him, not even a picture of him, to make the decision. That voice, the voice of early Elvis, did it for them.

So, let us just concentrate on the second, third, fourth and fifth generation of musicians on record as having been directly influenced, amongst others, by Elvis Presley.

From the second, "only" Paul Mc Cartney, John Lennon, Mick Jagger, Ray Davies of the Kinks, Otis Redding, Jackie Wilson, Al Green, Isaac Hayes and Bob Dylan, amongst countless others. Combined worldwide sales of these particular artists, for both albums and singles, either individually or as part of the groups they belonged to? In excess of one billion and three hundred million units.

Buddy Holly influenced some of these musicians, also directly, but the "diversity" of people Presley influenced, which escapes Holly, is pretty much obvious from the list.

Form the third generation, "only" Elton John, Eric Clapton, Jim Morrison, and Jimi Hendrix. Combined worldwide sales of these particular artists? Four hundred million units. Holly influenced one or two of these, at least, but again it is the "diversity" of those Elvis influenced that is striking. For those who do not know, Jimi Hendrix requested a guitar from his parents, and got it, then took up singing ALL OF IT after seeing Elvis perform live at Seattle`s Sicks`s stadium, in 1957.

He was barely 12 years old. His drawings of that influential moment in his life, done at the concert itself are there, at Seattle`s Rock Museum, for any one to see.

From the fourth generation, "only" the likes of Barry White, who realized his life had to change after hearing Elvis, from his cell, in 1960, to Billy Joel, Bruce Springsteen and Marc Bohan. Their combined worldwide sales? In excess of three hundred million units.

From the fifth generation, Billy Idol, Garth Brooks and Chris Issak, amomgst others. Their particular worldwide tallies? In excess of 200 million units.

Summing up, Elvis Presley is credited by rock, country, and pop songwriters and singers whose combined worldwide tallies are in excess of 2 billion and two hundred million units, as being one of their primary influences, in many cases, the most important one.

In fact, he directly influenced many of the biggest amongst the biggest. Several of them, once their early careers started to take off,
are on public record as having wished to be
"as big", or "bigger than Elvis".
No cumpliment could be more striking than that..

Moreover, and when considering that these songwriters and singers are only a small percentage of the people he influenced in the music, and other field(s), and that Presley himself is credited with selling a billion units worldwide without, I repeat, without ever writing a song in his 24 years as an entertainer, it can be safely assumed that his influence was such that he, (like some top level entertainers before him, Sinatra and Bing Crosby come to mind...), did not need, I repeat, did not need to write a single note of music to directly influence thousands upon thousands of songwriters, singers, or musicians alike. Case closed.

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

your "case", gallivant, is far from closed.

i don't see where you've proved a thing. you certainly haven't convinced anyone that Holly was a flash in the pan and Elvis was God, if that was your intention. you get a "C" for effort, though.

it's interesting that you would use 'record sales' as the primary support for your argument.
i think it's a weak argument at best. for one thing, influence cannot be attributed to just one person. the same people who were influenced by Elvis were also influenced by Fats Domino, Little Richard, and of course, Buddy Holly. while Hendrix and others may have said that Elvis caused them to become excited about music, that doesn't signify what you are seeking to prove that it signifies. i think it's more likely that Scotty Moore's guitar playing was what intrigued Hendrix - not Presley specifically. Jimi was never known for his singing really, but rather, his guitar virtuosity.

i would say that when you have anyone referencing Presley in this way, it's likely to have been the Sam Phillips productions, or the guitar playing of Scotty Moore, or the choice of material that Presley covered, as much as anything else. i'll give you the fact that those who saw Elvis in person in the early years were likely to have seen an exciting show. but the same could easily be said of Holly. in Holly's case, it was primarily about the music. and that's what really stuck with people like Mccartney and Lennon and others. not Elvis and the girls going nuts. MUSIC. those who are on record as having been influenced by Holly KNEW that he was the writer of most of the material, the guitar player, etc.... THAT was what influenced them - the fact that a self-contained little group was writing and performing their own stuff! and the guy leading the band was playing electric guitar! and it wasn't just the blues played faster, like a lot of early rock - it was original and different and stretched the boundaries of all that was going on at the time.

they also knew that Holly was doing amazing things in the studio (they could hear him singing with himself on songs like "words of love" and this was a revelation to them. it opened up worlds of possibilities, as did most everything Holly did.

as far as Elvis influencing songwriters and guitarists - well, that simply isn't possible, since he never wrote and could barely play. you could say that his choice of material intrigued young listeners to become songwriters, but the songs weren't Presley's, and the guitar work on his records wasn't his either. just because the first exposure some had to what was referred to at the time as 'race music' was through Elvis, does not mean that Elvis singlehandedly sparked all of them to pursue lifelong careers in music. Elvis obviously inspired many who were white to pursue this 'new' music, but those people were not unaware of that music prior to hearing Elvis. it's just that he helped to open a door that was perceived to be closed.

rock really wasn't that new when Elvis came along, since Fats Domino had recorded "the Fat Man" in 1949 and many had been playing and singing and writing what later came to be called rock n' roll for years. that's where Elvis drew his material from.

you refer to diversity, and insinuate that Holly's influence wasn't diverse. that is just ridiculous. i would suggest you do a bit of research before weighing in again on this matter. Holly's influence was extensive and broad and included producers, pop stars, singers, country stars, country rock acts, rhythm guitar players, lead guitar players, acoustic guitar players, electric guitar players, songwriters, etc, etc, etc.....

and, as i've stated, Holly's tour of England and Australia planted the seeds of the British invasion and the music world has never been the same. that alone influenced the future of music more than just about anything anyone else in the 50's, including Elvis, did.

influence cannot be measured directly, and using record sales as the yardstick is probably the least reliable method, in my view, although chart action would be a close second. when you consider that payola was rampant then and is still widely practiced today, what appears to be popular has gained much of its momentum from bought and paid for exposure and airplay. i'm not saying that those who sell lots of records aren't talented or worthy - no, far from it - but i am saying that one cannot just add up record sales and come to conclusions about what that signifies. for instance, Holly barely charted 7 records in his lifetime, with a few more in England, and didn't sell enormous amounts of records. and yet, his influence was huge and reverberates today. the small list of artists that are referenced on this site as having been influenced by Holly is by no means limited to those few. and it really isn't necessary for people to articulate who influenced them. it shows up in their music, and Holly's influence was stamped all over just about everything that went on on both sides of the Atlantic for many years after his death. in fact, you'd have to be deaf to listen to music that came along in the early and mid-60's not to hear Holly in just about every record.

also, this seems like a strange thread to choose to post your thoughts about Elvis, though i guess you picked up on the previous off topic comments by myself and Buddy Blue. but i would suggest going to the "Elvis vs. Buddy" link and reading some of those posts. this thread was started in relation to performances he did in Canada, specifically, Toronto.

Your points are well taken, but you certainly need to do some serious research on early Presley.

I used the records sales variable to demostrate that he was one of the artists who influenced the biggest amongst the biggest of the songwriters, without having to write a single note of music.

Read the names of those he influenced, again. They sold millions upon millions of records because their songs were truly fantastic. He opened up their minds to both music writing and a career in music, even when he was not known as a somgwriter, or as a guitar player extraordinaire.

As to your comment on Hendrix, just look at the drawings. Scotty Moore is not even on it. He carefully drew everything that he was seeing about Elvis, even his guitar cover. You are not obviously familiar with the power of experiencing Elvis Presley, live, in the fifties.

It has nothing to do with the Dorsey, Berle, Allen or Ed Sullivan Shows. Those are 17 lame performances, watched by a cumulative audience of 290 million viewers in less than a 12 month period, yes, but they tell little about how he operated. The early movies didn`t either.

What you need to look at, and read about ( the internet is full of them), are the reviews from the 60 or so performaces he gave in 1954, or the 279 performaces he gave in 1955, or the 246 performaces he gave in 1956 or, finally, the 27 performeces he gave in 1957 THAT WERE NOT TELEVISED, to really understand the power of Elvis Presley as an influence on countless of performers, whether they later wrote music, or not.

I have read all that there is to read about Holly, since he is also one of my favourites, but please, do not engage me in a debate before knowing the early years of Elvis.

Even after you become knowledgeable on them, you will not be able to win any argument, but it is better if you do.

As to why I am on this thread, let us say that Elvis`s 5 performances in Canada in 1957 were so devastating, that

i) girls were expelled from catholic schools, for attending his concerts

ii) a marker was said to be erected near Maple Leaf Gardens, in Toronto, because of his historic concerts there and

iii) he played at Vancouver stadium, to a larger audience (25,600) than saw the Beatles there, eight years later...

And he didn`t even fininshed the concert, or didn`t you know that a riot erupted, after he sang only seven songs? I bet you don`t know how he got out of there, alive, either. Well, after hiding inside the stage, one of his band members took his gold lame coat, and ran some hundred yards in the direction of the far away stands, which prompted all the teenagers to follow him, while Elvis ran, in the opposite direction and into his waiting automobile, and safety..

As to Holly's tour of England and Australia planting the seeds of the British invasion and the music world never being the same, or that the latter alone influenced the future of music more than just about anything anyone else in the 50's, including Elvis, did, that is simply historically inaccurate, especially since Presley` s first three movies predated Holly`s tours there.

"Love me tender", "Loving you" and "Jailhouse Rock" were all released both in Australia and England prior to Holly`s late January 1958 tour of these two countries.

In fact, Presley`s the single "Jailhouse Rock" was # 1 on the UK charts when Holly landed at Heathrow Airport. Give me a break, OK?


How do I get to the Elvis vs Buddy thread?

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

i think for you to use what any twelve year old boy drew as the basis for your argument is demonstrably lame. at 12 years old, Hendrix probably thought that the guitar sounds were coming from Elvis's guitar! but rest assured, the guitar sounds were the exciting thing for him - he asked for a guitar after that, not a microphone.

i'm familiar with Elvis - no need to lecture me on that. i could care less about doing further research on him. this is a site dedicated to Holly for good reason, and since you're on this site, i think it's YOU who should do the research. i don't mean reading, specifically, but rather, listening. and if you don't play guitar or write songs, then that would partially explain why you don't comprehende the depth of Holly's influence.

if i choose to go post on some "Elvis is God" site, then perhaps i would feel obligated to do some further research. also, i don't need to look at your list again to subscribe to your thinking - as i already said, each of those people had Holly as an influence also, along with others. it wasn't just Elvis, Elvis, Elvis.

sure, singers who don't write and can't play an instrument can influence people. but you miss the whole point of what rock n' roll was about! it was about writing your own stuff and making your own music your own way, with your guitar. and in this, Holly was King.

as to the British invasion, my comments were entirely accurate and beyond dispute. Holly's performances were LIVE - the Elvis movies and record releases were not. live, in person appearances by Buddy Holly and the Crickets were what inspired Lennon and Mccartney - not Elvis movies. besides, Holly's records were also on the charts in England PRIOR to his tour.

as far as reading reviews....please. all i need to do is listen to Holly and then listen to music from the early to mid-60's and i know that he was the primary influence on just about everyone. and please don't give me 'the power of Elvis Presley'. big deal. you may wish to read a few Elvis quotes, wherein he admits that his so-called sexual power was really just nerves! he had no idea why women got excited about him, and he moved because he was nervous. and the quote 'i don't know anything about music - in my line you don't have to' is pretty much all you need to know to put Presley in perspective. Bing Crosby and other crooners would never say something that foolish, because for one thing, they DID know things about music. Elvis, obviously, by his own admission, knew next to nothing.

it isn't necessary for you to 'read' anything about Holly.

JUST LISTEN!

Holly was about music, and every group and artist that came after owes him something.

in closing, when expressing opinions, there is no 'winner' of an argument - it's all subjective, despite your unconvincing attempt at trying to blow everyone away with the tally of record sales. and as i've said, since you're on Buddy's site, you should know more about Holly before trying to come on here and claim that Elvis was the greatest thing since sliced bread. he was a singer, but so were many others. give it a rest. there are sites where the worship of Elvis is the main topic of conversation - i'm sure you'd be at home on any of them.

as to this notion about the Canada performances of Elvis - i don't know what it proves. to me, it proves that he excited girls. but
we all knew that.

Holly excited musicians and songwriters, and continues to do so today.

you say i should 'give you a break'. well, when you cease and desist from trying to convince everyone to worship Elvis the way you obviously do, then perhaps we can have a discussion about Holly and what he accomplished, which you have yet to even mention, except in derogatory terms. if you come on a site like this and expect to win friends and influence people by speaking disrespectfully about the man who the site is dedicated to, then i would say you're fighting a losing battle. the site is not about trying to build up the already overblown reputation of Elvis Presley. Colonel Tom spent years doing that and made a lot of money at it. this site is about Holly and what he accomplished.

the link you refer to is under 'general music discussion'.

There you go again...What is striking is [jim: what is striking is that the poster is indulging in personal attacks, please avoid personal attacks, they have no place here]. Very strange, as Holly himself was quoted as saying he started in rock, because of him, amomgst many accolades. Do you actually think you know better what Holly felt about Elvis` contrubutions, when you were not tere to experience them, and he was?

You keep quoting Elvis saying this, and saying that, and no matter how modest, or cumplimentary he was about other musicians, especially Holly, you still look down at him.

But that is only because you feel Holly is seen, by 100 million people (LOL), as an inferior to Elvis. He is not, definitively, especially as an arranger, guitar player, and producer, but my pointing out to you facts should not lead you to interpret them wrongly.

Example. Tell me when I said that Elvis was the best thing since slice bread (LOL). Also, just because he stumbled into this, or into that, does not mean that once he understood what he had, that he did not master it. And he did that, in 12 months.

By that time, he was a master showman, an incredible manipulator of audiences and the media alike, a fantastic singer of at least five musical idioms, with an unerring ear recognized by every music critic.

Incidentally, [jim: incidentally, another unnecessary insult]. Did you ever see Hendrix on stage? Do you think that all he knew was playing the guitar? Are you out of your mind? He was a showman extraodinaire, with a great voice. His first songs, recorded in the early 60`s show no signs of him becoming the guitarrist he actually became. He was devastated by the show Elvis put on at Sick`s stadium, and that is a fact. And there is another story that lnks them both. When he went to England, the first time, he bombed. Hopeless, he moved to Parsis, where for awhile he was seen gallivanted the streets, looking for something to cheer him up. And there it was, that sign that said, tonight, "King Creole" at a neighborhood theather, the movie been show 8 years after it had been originally released in Paris. He went in, alone, saw the movie, again, and when he left the theather, he was a changed man. When he returned to England, the week after, he delivered an atomic bomb. Am I saying Elvis saved his ass? No, but he certainly influenced his career, one last time.

Think Roy Orbison was a better singer than Elvis, in the early days? Check what they both do with "Trying to get to you". But Elvis thought Roy was the best singer ever. So, now, criticize Elvis for being cumplimentary...

Think that Holly could even compete with Presley, as a singer? Check the commitment of both in, say, "Baby I don`t care". But, in 1977, Presley did not think he was a better artist than anyone, and that is why he said what he said about Holly.

In fact, Buddy and Elvis were a lot better at interpreting their own contributions than you and I will ever be.

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

A picture speaks a thousand better than words

Here is what Buddy Holly thought of doing when in the presence of the then still nationally unknown, but nevertheless radically different 19 year old singer by the name of Elvis Presley, in Lubbock, TX, on January 6, 1955...

Seeking for an autograph, perhaps..?

http://www.maronis-world.de/JPG+GIF/Buddy+Elvis.jpg

gallivant

i would say that you are descending into very childish territory now. this comment in particular, is beneath the dignity of any intelligent person:

quote:

Incidentally, you are the one with a 12 year old brain.

i have no 'inferiority complex' about anyone.
that's another unnecessary and irrational comment. the truth is that Elvis is massively over-rated, and i find your need to come on this site and promote him to be quite odd. you denigrate Holly, while trying to build up your hero's legacy. that is a strange thing to do on a Buddy Holly website.

as far as your suggestion that i compare this version of a certain song to your hero's version, that is a non-issue. everyone knows that the beauty of music is in the ear 'of the beholder'. some people will say they like one version, others will say another. it's all subjective and completely meaningless, in the sense of trying to prove something.

as far as Hendrix, sure he was a good singer, but he was known for his guitar proficiency. that's all i said, and i stand by it.

it is true that Holly admired Elvis. he also admired a whole lot of other people. there's a story Gene Vincent told of Buddy seeking his autograph. it's a touching story, but it doesn't prove anything, except that Holly was a Gene Vincent fan. big deal. and he was an Elvis fan too. so what? but what you miss is that during roughly that same period, Dave Stone sent the telegraph, after having seen Holly perform on one of those same shows, saying "have Buddy Holly record four songs on acetate - don't change his style at all". Buddy was a pioneer in every sense of the word, and a trailblazer. as i've stated, Elvis primarily showed white people like Holly that a door they'd previously thought closed was opening. he deserves credit for that - no one can take that away from him. but to ascribe to him god-like status is not realistic.

sure Holly was in awe of Elvis - he was in awe of pretty much anyone who had succeeded or was in the process of succeeding at what he wanted to do - music. that's consistent with Holly's school project, where he wrote at age 16 "i have thought about making a career out of western music if i am good enough, but i will just have to wait and see how that turns out". Holly was a humble man, and didn't realize just how great he really was. Elvis, on the other hand, was idolized to the point of the absurd and still is today. the 'fact' that millions, like yourself, are obsessed about Elvis and think he's diety, doesn't prove what you want it to prove. in fact, you previously tried to attribute the Beatles success (and many others) to Elvis, when if anything, it was Holly who motivated those people. your version of reality on the 'influence' question is simply not supported by the facts. Mccartney has said 'Buddy's influence on the development of rock n' roll cannot be overestimated' and he also said 'the first 40 or so songs that the Beatles wrote were all Holly influenced'. i don't hear any mention of your hero in those remarks. when the Beatles met Elvis, in the mid-60's, they were thoroughly unimpressed. that is a matter of record.

your remarks about who was the better singer and whatever are simply irrelevant, because again, it's all subjective and proves nothing. all it really proves is your obsession with Elvis, which again, is a rather strange motivation for coming on Holly's official site and on one hand, putting Holly down while repeating the usual Elvis-worship. spare us - we've heard it all before. there are plenty of sites where you can go and bow down before the idol of Elvis Presley. this isn't one of them.

It's great to see such spirited debate, and I think there's room for Elvis fans here too, but please don't let the discussion devolve into personal attacks.

Thanks

quote:

Originally posted by Gallivant

Should any poster here know the names of well known singers, songwriters, or just entertainers who took up "a serious career in music directly because" they either heard, or saw Buddy Holly perform, the emphasis being on taking up "a seripus career in music because of..." please post the list here, since I would certainly like to know.

You've mentioned some that Buddy Holly directly influenced, but you missed a couple of others. Keith Richards is in awe (as seen in the Real Buddy Holly Story) of what 'a guy from Lubbock could do' and that he was a 'lucky devil' because 'god knows how he got it [his contained band] together' and kept it together. Paul Macarteny, the driving force behind this movie tribute, admits that the Beatles' first songs were written in imitation of Buddy's, Love Me Do with all the ummms and ahhs in it, and the four chord rhythms. I believe Please Please Me is another example of this too. John Lennon isn't around to speak of how he was influenced by Buddy, so Paul Macarteny does it for him. "And John, who normally wore specs, could now put them on and see the world [because it was uncommon for a performer to wear his glasses on stage]"
Robert Zimmerman, who would later change his name to Bob Dylan, was there that night in Duluth, when the Winter Dance Party of 59 hit town. He will always remember when Buddy looked right at him and smiled. Two days later, Buddy died.Interestingly enough, Bob Dylan recorded tapes that were titled, the Basement Tapes. Change a couple of letters around, and what do you get? The Apartment Tapes.
I do not know quite as much about Jimi Hendrix, but I do know that he played a Stratocaster. The same is the case with Eric Clapton. Would both have picked up the stratocaster if they hadn't seen Buddy playing it first? When Buddy chose the strat, it was a brand new instrument. For Joe B, it was 'the first solid body guitar I'd ever seen. And with that gear shift on it, and he could change tones...'
Buddy Holly was the first to come forth with a contained band. The Everlies at the time weren't even a contained band (and they had their difficulties with that, as one night the booker supplied them with three high school boys who could hardly play. During the show that night, Buddy worked the crowd over, Jerry Lee Lewis worked the crowd up and then it was the Everly's turn. Because they had no real backup band, Buddy volunteered to play for them. As Phil Everly likes to say, "It was only by the grace of God and Buddy Holly that we pulled that one off."
As for a singer that has lasted through the years (though no one's quite sure how he did it, after all he'd been through) is Waylon Jennings. He only knew Buddy for a few short months, but one of two things must be certain. a)Buddy talked Waylon's ear off in teaching him all about the recod business and who to avoid (ie Nashville, though Waylon ended up there anyways, and he told them, well......) or b)the two were simply special souls that understood music and who shouldn't be in the business, and what to do to those people (ie ignore them). Anyways, Waylon turned out to be one interesting person, one interesting person with an amazing command of his word choice. Listen to his songs, there's a hint of sarcasm in there. Reading his autobiography, he is constantly admitting his mistakes, but he looks back on all of it with a humourous light. He's open about his drug history. And maybe the most important thing, is that he never let anyone mess with his music. A tempermental man, maybe. But a man who loved his music too much to let someone else take that sound out of his head.
Looking back at 50s music, numerous artists would have done one single song. Rip It Up was done by Little Richard, Elvis, Buddy, and the Everly Brothers. It's entirely possible that I'm missing a few. They all looked at what one another was saying, and didn't want to do what the guy next to him was doing, so they took it one step further. Buddy was the master at this, cause he didn't care about the formula for a hit. He cared about the formula for music. One thing that Gary Busey really drives home truthfully is that "I got a sound in my head."
The way I see it, Elvis was the foundation for pop music. Sure he played rockabilly, but everything else he did screamed pop artist. Why? He was a pretty boy who would stand on stage and wiggle his hips and other body parts as he crooned some other lovesick song that he only knew half the emotions too, cause he didn't write the song. He only knew the basis of the emotions of the story the writer was trying to tell when he wrote the song.
Buddy Holly was rock and roll. Certainly a lot less rock and roll from what we hear today, but those were the standards of the time, and he was rock and roll. Writing your own songs was unheard of, having a self contained band was seen as unnecessary. But Buddy did it anyways, just cause he thought that was the way it should be. I won't deny Buddy loved Elvis. But he took what Elvis was doing and took it one step further, making it better in the process. Elvis' target audience was the teeny boppers, the ones who would scream and throw things on the stage. Buddy wound up with the audience who was there to dance, but there to listen too (though he didn't like playing nightclubs, cause there 'of course they're more interested in their dancing and it's nice to play to an audience that's watching.') Buddy Holly and the Crickets attracted boys and their girlfriends, and at those shows, the boys didn't get jealous of Buddy cause he was taking way too much attention from the girls. They were there for the music. But just for the record, Buddy Holly was not bad looking. Unfortunately, because Elvis was around longer and was the pretty boy, (apparently *shakes head in confusion) he gets remembered by the teeny boppers. The musicians are the ones who remember Buddy.

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

Hi Buddy Blue. This is in direct reply to your post referencing my earlier one to someone else.

Thanks for reminding me about Jagger. Considering what he has said about Elvis, one will never know which of the two influenced him the most to take up music as a profession.

Thanks also for mentioning Paul Mc Cartney, who spent close to thirty years making the world think that it was Buddy and Little Richard who influenced him the most. Even he (unlike Lennon who always had the guts to say it was Elvis), had a certain difficulty coming out of the closet...

Please refer to his last interview with Larry King (last year), in which he definitively set the record straight, not once, but twice, about who influenced him the most. It was neither, but Elvis, actually.

And, only three days ago, the press throughout the world quoted him when justifying his choice for the song that changed the world. For him, it was Heartbreak Hotel.

This does not mean Buddy did not influence every singer and band that came after. He did, tremendously.

Quotes from Dylan about Elvis? There are so many that I would not know where to start. Since most were made inmediately after he died, let us assume that he just wanted to be nice, and let us just discard them all.

So, let us go to Dylan`s latest TV interview. The one that made all the news, this year. Asked by the CBS reporter what he wanted out of life, the thing about being the messiah, etc, he said the only thing he could think about his wishes then, that is, was that he wanted to be Elvis.

You say Elvis was the foundation for pop music, yet there are very few pop artists, which is what Elvis gradually became, who also delivered massively in the rockabilly, rock, gospel, blues, r&b; and country mediums.

You admit he played rockabilly, but then you tell me that "everything else he did screamed pop artist".

Have you ever listened to his output at RCA, from 1956 until he left for Germany? He could rock like the best of his contemporaries. He could also sing gospel, brilliantly, even then. But are we to penalize him for thet? he could deliver aballad brilliantly, even then, but why penalize him for, say, Teddy Bear, when on the other side of the Loving you album, he offered you, and the world, a blues rendition as touching, as heartfelt, as "I need you so" ?

Anyways, by the time 1958 came and went, both Elvis and Holly had decided, for different reasons, to leave rocakbilly and rock itself behind.

Holly, because he wanted to experiment in pop, and was great at it. He had a great voice, was a fantastic guitarrist, and a great mind, no doubt about that. Presley because, whilst in Germany, he realized he also had the voice for it. And boy, did he have it.

The passage in your post that I could not grasp, although accept is a better verb for it, was the one that said that

"He was a pretty boy who would stand on stage and wiggle his hips and other body parts as he crooned some other lovesick song, that he only knew half the emotions too, cause he didn't write the song. He only knew the basis of the emotions of the story the writer was trying to tell when he wrote the song. Buddy Holly was rock and roll. Certainly a lot less rock and roll from what we hear today, but those were the standards of the time, and he was rock and roll. Writing your own songs was unheard of, having a self contained band was seen as unnecessary. But Buddy did it anyways, just cause he thought that was the way it should be"

If that is the case, then Frank Sinatra never "fully delivered", nor did Tony Bennet, nor did Bing Crosby. But they did, or would`t you agree? They never wrote a song in their lives, but they "felt" those songs, just like Elvis did.

You said you can not deny Buddy loved Elvis, but that he took what Elvis was doing and took it one step further, making it better in the process.

But making anything better, arrangement, guitar licks, dubbing, etc, was not why Holly, along with countless, million others loved Elvis
in the first place. His instrument was his voice.

You say Elvis' target audience was, initially, the teeny boppers, and that is a fact. But his work was so ecclectic, even then, that it is loved, today, as much by a two year old, as it is by people over ninety. And let us not talk about the nine million "teeny boppers" who bought Elvis 30 #1 hits, worldwide, as recently as in 2002. What do ypoui make of that? Again, it must be the voice.

That was his main instrument, a voice so different, as his career unleashed right before our eyes, that he may be the only popular singer whose vocal chords kept changing dramatically with each month, then year that passed. For 21 years, that voice changed.

Finally, you say that "they crowned Elvis as King, but Buddy was the rightful heir".

Nothing, and I mean, nothing, would have pleased me more, if that, indeed, was what Buddy Holly was destined to be, his heir, with Elvis dying earlier, instead.

I loved Buddy Holly, and I still do but, had he lived, he would have had the same impact of say, a Paul Anka, who is still one of the greatest songwriters and arrangers in the world, as well as top entertainer. But neither could have replaced Elvis at what he did best, which was, simply, to sing.

Rollingstone Magazine has recently up dated their biographies of everyone, since day one.

Here is what it says about Buddy, and Elvis.

First, Holly

Buddy Holly's shockingly early demise -- he was only 22 when the light plane carrying him, Ritchie Valens and J.P. "The Big Bopper" Richardson crashed outside of Clear Lake, Iowa, in February 1959 -- brings an extra dimension of appreciation to his legacy. Holly's accomplishments as a singer, writer and bandleader run deep, and his music remains a favorite of casual oldies listeners, hardcore music fans and musicians nearly 50 years after his death.

Charles Hardin Holley grew up listening to country music in tiny Lubbock, Texas. The advent of Elvis Presley as a regional star on Sun Records in 1954 and '55, along with a general acceptance of the newest rhythm and blues sounds among hip white kids, pushed Holly toward his own rocking style. While those leanings were tamped down on his earliest singles for Decca (including the first version of the later smash "That'll Be the Day"), the rechristened Holly was soon punching out a highly original version of rock 'n' roll with his small band the Crickets. Holly's music displayed a number of colors; he was able to blend soft and hard to differing degrees, helping his smart, romantic songs range across the emotional spectrum. There are varying levels of assurance ("That'll Be the Day," "Well All Right") and joy ("Peggy Sue," "Rave On," "Every Day"), but straightforward pain is curiously absent from much of his work. Holly is much more likely to manifest an adult bewilderment, as he did in one of his last compositions, "Peggy Sue Got Married." Critic Jonathan Cott would later point to that song as prefiguring folk rock and the Beatles' Rubber Soul -- six years before their advent.

Holly's death is all the more tragic given what we now know about the business pressures that led him to join the poorly managed Winter Dance Party tour of early '59. His legend has been burnished by the horrible results -- Bob Dylan has testified to a sort of metaphysical passing of the baton during a show he attended -- but that alone hardly explains the ongoing love for the tough, innocent sounds Holly left behind. The Beatles, Stones and Hollies (wink, wink) all took major inspiration from him, as did later generations of Bruce Springsteens, Elvis Costellos and the participants in several tribute albums and countless cover versions. But one only has to put on a recording by the man himself to feel that, as the old slogan goes, Buddy Holly lives.

Now, Elvis

Elvis Presley is rock 'n' roll. He sang like a dream, he was sexy enough to send girls swooning, and he exuded enough cool not to have the boys resent him. Adults worried about his rebellious nature, but they were eventually comforted by his polite, courteous manner. Yet, as perfect as Presley's 1950s rock recordings are, he excelled at so much: down-home country crooning, raucous R&B; belting, enraptured Gospel singing, and classic pop balladeering. Elvis wasn't a vocal chameleon: these styles seeped out of him naturally, allowing his own personality to shine through. Despite his high level of talent and achievement in his craft, it was Elvis who made rock 'n' roll the international language of pop and inspired countless kids around the world to pick up a guitar, or step up to a microphone. That said, Elvis didn't have a faultless career: he starred in plenty of bad movies, sang dozens of lame songs, got fat, and wore a kitschy white suit. But so what? He forever changed pop music, recording acres of perfect material over two short decades.
Elvis (deservedly) remains the King.


NOTE> Reading these two short bios, what is left unsaid is that neither could, let alone would want to be the other, at least not completely. Each had a mission to accomplish, and they each, in their own way, delivered it with gusto.

Here is a list of what Rollingstone calls Elvis perfect rock recordings in the nineteen fifties.

I have deleted every slow ballad, and the ocassional teeny bopper song written for one of his movies, as well as anything even remotely "smacking of popular music".

With an output such as this, delivered in slightly less than four years, there can be little argument as to whether he rocked, or not.

He does it (rock), ironically, fifty times.

In half of these rockers, he doesn`t even sound as he does in the other half.

Example. The way he sounds in both hard "Headed Woman", and "Jailhouse Rock", recorded three months apart, is totally different. Moreover, his voice in "Big Hunk of Love" , recorded less than 3 months after "Hard Headed Woman", bears little resemblamce to either of the two.

Here they are, Elvis 50 rock recordings of the nineteen fifties


That's All Right
Blue Moon of Kentucky
Good Rockin' Tonight
Milk Cow Blues
Baby Let's Play House
Mystery Train
Trying to Get to You
I Got a Woman
Heartbreak Hotel
Money Honey

Blue Suede Shoes
My Baby Left Me
One-Sided Love Affair
So Glad You're Mine
I'm Gonna Sit Right Down and Cry
Tutti Frutti
Lawdy Miss Clawdy
Shake, Rattle & Roll
Hound Dog
Don't Be Cruel

Long Tall Sally
Too Much
Ready Teddy
Rip It Up
Got a Lot O' Livin' to Do
All Shook Up
Party
Mean Woman Blues
Hot Dog
One Night of Sin

I Beg Of You
One Night
I Need You so
When It Rains, It Really Pours
Jailhouse Rock
I Want to Be Free
Baby I Don't Care
Santa Claus Is Back in Town
Hard Headed Woman
Trouble

New Orleans
Crawfish
Dixieland Rock
King Creole
Your Cheatin' Heart
Wear My Ring Around Your Neck
I Need Your Love Tonight
A Big Hunk O' Love
Ain't That Loving You Baby
I Got Stung

quote:

Originally posted by Gallivant:
Thanks for reminding me about Jagger.

Sorry about that, that was a typo. I don't know how many people that have seen the Real Buddy Holly screamed at me as they read it, but it was actually Keith Richards shown and quoted on the RBHS, not Mick Jagger. Really, believe me, among my mistakes, I know what I'm talking about.

Back to the roots !

The whole thread started on my 59th birthday asking for Buddy in Toronto.

You should ask Brian Wilson, the man with the best knowledge of all.

He's the president of the Buddy Holly Appreciation Society Ontario and he is looking for the stolen Buddy guitar when he was in Toronto.

If you look at my website YEAH, BUDDY !, you'll find a large photo of Brian holding Buddy's original Fender Stratocaster. I wrote a lot about him and you'll find the link to his great website. He met Maria Elena, Larry Holley, he visited the HIDHO (closed down now) and he is the historian with the best knowledge. Year by year he goes to Lubbock for the annual BH Symposium.

Ask him for further informations about Buddy in Toronto, not about Elvis.

Cheers from the other side of the planet from

Buddy's German buddy

HANS

quote:

Anyways, by the time 1958 came and went, both Elvis and Holly had decided, for different reasons, to leave rocakbilly and rock itself behind.

Gallivant, you keep demonstrating that you don't know as much as you think you do. the above statement may apply to your god, Elvis, but it does NOT apply to Buddy Holly. Buddy's tastes in music were incredibly diverse, but Maria is very clear about the fact that while the string sessions were awesome, and broke further new ground, Holly would've 'never deserted rock n' roll'. those are her words, and i think she might know a little about his hopes and intentions for the future. also, i would urge you to check out the set list that Buddy was using on the WDP tour - there were plenty of rockin' numbers included. Buddy demonstrated to everyone (Elvis included) the potential of music. in his short career, he covered probably more ground musically than just about anyone ever has, and he did it by exploring new ways of recording and making records, playing electric and acoustic guitar brilliantly, and writing his own stuff.

Elvis was ok, and he could sing. and he helped to open some doors for a lot of white artists. but other than that, he is intensely over-rated. to me, if he's as great as you make him out to be, then he doesn't need you to come on the official Holly website and pay him homage.
Elvis is already idolized beyond any rational point.

as far as the Rolling Stone articles, please. that magazine is so totally irrelevant as to be a virtual laughingstock. they are more concerned with advancing liberal politics than they are with music, and that's been true for years.

the fact is that the Beatles met Elvis in 1966 i think it was, and they all related how completely unimpressed they were with him. Mccartney's sincere and lasting love for Holly is a matter of record, as is that of just about everyone who wrote, recorded, produced, played guitar, or performed in the 60's and beyond.
you can do your level best to try and discount Buddy Blue's summary of but a few of the artists who were Holly influenced, and try to turn all those people into Elvis worshippers like yourself, but it just doesn't wash.

i agree fully with Buddy Blue's signature, about Buddy being the rightful heir to the crown of king of rock n' roll. no question about it - a man who wrote and sang his own stuff, his own way, playing his guitar, was exactly in sync with what later became rock n' roll, and for that matter, most of pop and country as well. the Elvis method of covering other people's stuff really went out of style decades ago (a little more than four to be exact), and is distinctly rare today. that method was common prior to Holly, but Buddy almost singlehandedly changed that for everyone who came after. i don't mean that he set out to change it, willingly, but i do mean that his example was so stark, so strong, and so undeniably right, that no one ever really went back to the old way of doing things.

and this is one of the strongest reasons why Holly is the real king of rock n' roll.

Thank you Hans for trying to bring us back to the original topic, though some people continue to ignore it cause they know best and must state their opinion . Just thought I'd let you know that I do appreciate your efforts even though others don't.

funny post, Buddy Blue.

i asked "Gallivant" why he was posting his pro-Elvis stuff on this thread, since it was so off-topic, and i directed him to the "Elvis vs. Buddy" thread. but he continued to want to post here....

go figure.

here's my comment to him about this, which ironically, includes a reference to you
(and i) getting off topic earlier in the thread:

quote:

also, this seems like a strange thread to choose to post your thoughts about Elvis, though i guess you picked up on the previous off topic comments by myself and Buddy Blue. but i would suggest going to the "Elvis vs. Buddy" link and reading some of those posts. this thread was started in relation to performances he did in Canada, specifically, Toronto.

by the way, i don't know of anyone who doesn't appreciate Hans' posts - not sure why you'd say that you do, but 'others don't'. i certainly do, and have said so. but we ALL express our opinions on these threads - that's the whole point!

incidentally, i noticed that your response to Gallivant had nothing to do with Toronto, but rather, was an expression of your opinion and in response to his Elvis-obsessed postings.

Hi Buddy Blue!! Your point about Keith Richards is well taken. I also want to comment on what has been said by another poster here, about Buddy Holly`s intentions not to forego rock and roll, as noted by his wife Maria Elena.

She has stated that, his magnificient contributions with strings notwithstanding, she knows his objective was to continue making rock, and to make it even more mature. Helping rock, so to speak, continue to be the major musical idiom of the early 1960`s in America.

What do you think about this? I think it would have been great for rock, but I myself, have serious doubts that he would have chosen, at his age, to make additional, big contributions in that particular medium ( big enough to withstand the power of folk rock and surf music, which were waiting around the corner to make a huge dent in american music, anyways).

What do you think about this? Do you believe that he, had he lived to, say, today, would have remained a constantly changing rocker, in fact, the only one of his entire generation to hit us with a constantly changing, succesful and permanently evolving rock style?

quote:

Originally posted by Gallivant:
....big enough to withstand the power of folk rock and surf music, which were waiting around the corner to make a huge dent in american music, anyways.

Folk rock Buddy could have probably done, he knew how to play an acoustic. . But really, I think he could have done anything if he liked the style of music, whatever caught his fancy at the moment. Right before his death, he wanted to a)take dance lessons b)take acting lessons and c)learn how to play flamenco guitar. Not to mention the number of demos he turned out in that time before the tour. (from about December to the end of January)

quote:

What do you think about this? Do you believe that he, had he lived to, say, today, would have remained a constantly changing rocker, in fact, the only one of his entire generation to hit us with a constantly changing, succesful and permanently evolving rock style?

If his 18 months of recording is any indication, then the answer of course is yes. Something else to note about this man is that he never followed the formula for a hit. After That'll Be the Day made it big, he stepped back and turned his back on that, and started from scratch again. Mainly, his whole sound was rock, but every rock song he recorded had a different something to it that made it a different style of rock then his last one.
He also wanted to produce, so had he decided to step down from the mic as he got on in years, he still would influence the music industry in the music that he would choose to produce and the fashion in which he would produce it.
p.s.-look closely at the poster's name....I have yet to say anything about Keith Richards.