i have to agree with jim's comments and actions - the thread here was getting a bit too intense, and unnecessarily so.

i think it's better if we all focus on what we have in common, that is, a love for
Buddy Holly and his music, rather than what we differ on.

i do want to say, however, that had Buddy lived, i don't think he would've been a fan of much of today's music. he was very open-minded and loved music in most every style, but his music and worldview was more of a wholesome one.
in the words of sonny curtis 'he was a good ol' boy and he had a good Christian soul.'

Buddy had respect for others and never used his music to go around offending people with raunchy words, and he never exhibited offensive behavior, on or off the stage. in short, he was classy.

not all, but a lot of the music that has been mentioned on this thread, whether or not it's popular or will be 'remembered', is not really very wholesome, nor are the lifestyles of those who create it something generally positive and uplifting. Buddy's music is loved by everyone from grandmothers to children and most of us in between.

anyway, let's agree on Buddy whenever we can, and agree to disagree about other types of music and the importance thereof.

I agree with most of what you said.., we can agree to disagree however. But for the record saying things like " is not really very wholesome, nor are the lifestyles of those who create it something generally positive and uplifting" does nothing for this board either. Im in a punk band and we play agressive music.., does that mean my life is not positive or "wholesome".., It's generalizations such as these that really put me off comming to this board and posting... I think these comments should be edited by Jim as well since I find them to be very offensive.

[jim:I generally prefer to discuss moderation in private messages, but since you've raised the matter openly, I'll answer openly -- I don't agree that jerry's comments about Buddy's lifestyle are offensive -- if jerry were posting on a hardcore punk band's site and calling their fans 'unwholesome' then a moderator there might think differently than I do. DDK, I hope you do continue to feel comfortable posting here, your contributions are appreciated]

~ DDK

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

Ok, I havent gotten in on this one yet, mostly because I like alot of todays music and I dont wanna fight over what I like. But when you mention how wholesome Buddy was and how classy, while it may be true, you have to consider the time he lived in. The 1950s was hardley an era when anyone acted offensivly. I mean, these were people that thought Oh Boy was raunchy, and Buddy was great mood music to steal hubcaps to. Have you ever heard a 50s song with swearing in it? No, because the general lifestyle and culture was different back then. Yes, Buddy was an exception as far as manners and being polite and all that went, but he was an exception in everything, and its hardley fair to compare him to any of todays artists. Times have changed, and thats all there is to it. While I dont think I'll ever love anyone as much as I love Buddy, I cant say I dont listen to anyone else, and there not all from the 50s either. I think, just as DDK said, its unfair to generalize all the artists that play agressive music into being "unwholesome" or whatever, because thats certainly not the case. There are several bands that play hardcore music and still have a positive message behind alot of it, no matter how much your parents might not think so. I went to an Alexisonfire concert, and they scream and swear and have heavy guitars, but alot of there music has an "anti drug/alchohal" message. Even at the end the lead singer told us not to do drugs. jerry, and dont take this as me being a bratty little teenager, I think you should learn more about the music of today before you heard everyone into the same boat. I think the fact that there are so many young kids on this board, and alot of them like DDK and I, is a testimony to the fact that music doesnt make a person. The truth of the matter is, I love alot of todays music, and I love Buddy Holly, but I will never compare the two...Buddy would win hands down anyways.

I think that was very well said CraZY. Not that I specifically listen to it but there are a whole slew of straight-edge bands who preach animal rights, human rights, good moral values etc. Then you have Christian bands who have the same message. And those bands, from what Ive seen of the hardcore Christian metal bands are often more "hardcore" than non-Christian metal bands... anyways As far as our boy Buddy is concerned. I just read Rave On and there was a few paragraphs which shocked me somewhat as they would tend to comprimise somewhat this "wholesome" notion.

Im not quoting as I dont have the book on hand and Ive been up for about 23 hours working on websites sooo., please dont go too harsh on me if I mix up any names... hehe

[removed by request]

I certainly am not trying to start up anymore arguments here nor am I trying to saying anything BAD about Buddy., for the very few questionable moments in his life he has a thousand positive ones., and I really envy and respect him and anyone else who lives that way.

I dont even remember what my point was.., hehe.., grrrr

I think what it is about Buddy is that he was pure.., and everyone who knew him loved him and even those who didnt know him love him and that really says a lot about a person (dispite what negative moments may occur)

And in this respect. Yes Jerry you are very correct. Nobody will ever in the future history of rock and roll be loved quite like how we all love Buddy for the essence of this purity has been forever lost in a tangled mess of corporate music, dollar bills and declining moral values.

I think we all have been saying the same thing.. just in very different ways.

~ DDK

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

I'd check that book again before quoting anymore from it. There is a rumour that Buddy did get a girl pregnant and that according to Niki Sullivan, Buddy took some time to visit an unwed mother's home during a tour....but I'm not about to open that can of worms again...and only Bill Griggs knows the truth to that story, and he's not telling. As for the slapping and yelling part...Sonny Curtis replies "he never knocked nobody down in his life/he loved us all and he treated us right" I don't think that went just for his bandmates, but also for anyone that was blessed enough to interact with Buddy Holly. I will not deny that Buddy Holly had a temper, because I've heard it from enough reliable sources. But in that same breath, they never fail to mention what a gentleman he was. I would guess his temper was like his secret weapon. He was being treated unfairly in the studio, JI and Joe B weren't getting their fair share...and it was at that point people realized they weren't naive schoolboys from West Texas...or at least Buddy wasn't.
The gun rumour, is, as much as I can tell, true. Think about it though. A young man, looks like he's about 100 pounds dripping wet...at least he was smart enough to know he was gonna get picked on.
Listen to Midnight Shift or Shake Rattle And Roll. Not very innocent music. But Buddy made us believe it was innocent. For a 17, 18 year old guy to be completely pure and innocent? In what world? But nor do I believe what some biographers care to lead us to believe about him. In this same sense, if you believed some of what Philip Norman said, I would stay far far away from Ellis Auburn.
All in favour of electing Bill Griggs to edit the final copy of any Buddy Holly bio?.....

i'm sorry to point this out, but CFB and DDK have taken my words out of context. in every post where i've been critical of today's music, i have been careful NOT to broadbrush every band or every song. in fact, here's my quote from above:

quote:

not all, but a lot of the music that has been mentioned on this thread, whether or not it's popular or will be 'remembered', is not really very wholesome, nor are the lifestyles of those who create it something generally positive and uplifting. Buddy's music is loved by everyone from grandmothers to children and most of us in between.

notice that the quote starts with "NOT ALL". therefore, it's not accurate to say that i am making broad generalizations about today's music. it is factual to point out that MANY of today's bands and artists in rock, pop, grunge, alternative, etc.... DO go out of their way to be offensive in their lyrics and in other aspects of their music as well. i don't agree with that, but it's not my place to say that someone else couldn't enjoy that. i just don't see how it will truly last, as art.

secondly, regarding this notion that since Buddy lived in the 50's, and that 'times have changed now', i would absolutely disagree with that. you see, classy behavior and decency and a positive image don't ever go out of style, no matter what times we live in. little mention has been made of country music or Christian music on this board, but the fact is that those artists, by and large, DO have wholesome lifestyles, and write and perform songs that are uplifting and have good messages. so it hasn't gone out of style to have some class and not appeal to the lowest common denominator like many (NOT ALL) of today's rock, pop, rap, grunge, and alternative bands and artists do.

as to your challenge that i learn more about today's music, i do know a considerable amount about today's music. but i don't spend time and energy listening to bands and music with inherently offensive qualities, and my point was that many (NOT ALL) of today's groups do that intentionally to get attention.

Buddy Holly would never have done that, no matter what era he lived in, because of his Christian upbringing and the kind of person he was. and i don't think it's necessary for anyone to do that in order to be noticed - just write, sing, play and perform the best music you can. that's what Buddy did, and i think that's why he's loved 50 years after the fact.

as far as the point about 'midnight shift' or 'shake, rattle and roll' - i never said Buddy or his music was completely pure or innocent - i said it was 'wholesome'. but if you look at the songs Buddy wrote or co-wrote, that is true. both of the examples you cite are cover songs by other people. also, i was referring to his lifestyle and the kind of person he was, as well as his music.

Buddy was no angel, but he was a class act, and most every song he wrote, co-wrote, produced, or had any involvement with was positive and uplifting. and all of the songs were fun. this is what don mcclean referred to in American Pie - 'a long, long time ago, i can still remember how that music used to make me smile...'.

ah this was mentioned a while back!
But i'll tell you this about Nirvana...I tell you for sure Nirvana will still be remembered...as i am part of the youth...I'm noticing grunge is becoming popular again (unfortunately there hasn't been any new bands tho) but for a decade many bands espeacilly bands that i've grown up and have been raised from got their sound mostly from Nirvana. I don't really like that band too much...But i'll never forget their influence in music. I'd say it was them who finally put an end to the 80's....Like Buddy they Modernized music for their generation ;-)

regarding the continual references to nirvana, i don't want to seem like i'm trying to rain on anyone's parade here. but it's important to put these things in perspective.

all bands will be remembered by certain groups of people someday, to some extent. but i must point out that nirvana's sphere of influence is not really that large, comparatively. to say that they 'modernized music' for their generation is just not the case. because by definition, 'grunge' is a style of music that has limited appeal. you'll never hear a grunge song covered by a pop group, or played on a country station, for instance. the audience is what it is, but there is no cross-over potential at all. and that's fine, but there are a limited number of people who will buy and enjoy that type of music.

nirvana definitely influenced other bands, and it's safe to say that they broke some new ground with what they did. but while nirvana was doing what they did, other great bands in other fields of music were influencing people as well, such as in the Christian rock, country, rock, blues, and pop fields. that is the nature of art - people are influenced by what came before them. nothing new there. but it's important to take into consideration what people are exposed to. as an example, Buddy toured england and australia. those performances literally planted the seeds of the british invasion, as mccartney and lennon and others were exposed to Buddy and were never the same. JI Allison has said that the people who came to hear the Crickets were the musicians, not the teenyboppers. they came to hear Buddy, and then they went on to form bands and make history, in all types and styles of music. some went into the country field, some rock, some pop; and some went into producing and other related areas. that is enormous, broad influence that literally cannot be measured.

what Buddy did was to literally invent an entire new way of producing, recording, writing, and performing an entirely new and fresh kind of hybrid music that combined elements of country, gospel, blues, pop, south of the border, rhythm and blues, etc.... and what he did has had repercussions in all fields of music ever since. not to mention the fact that he did his own songs his own way, which was
highly uncommon at the time, and went completely against established music industry protocol. that is nothing less than miraculous, given that Buddy was a poor kid from texas with a guitar and two teen-aged friends for bandmates. even if kurt cobain was still alive and nirvana was still making their music, they would've never been able to have that kind of massive influence on the world - on musicians, songwriters, producers, and performers everywhere, like Buddy did. and he did it all in about 2 1/2 years. amazing. everyone who's picked up a guitar since the late 50's has been influenced by Buddy Holly, whether they knew it or not.

personally, i don't see any common ground between the grunge movement and what Buddy did, on any level at all. but i don't begrudge anyone who wants to listen to and enjoy that type of music or any other. to each his own.

One thing thats totally not fair here is how Buddy keeps geting compared to the bands of today. Its difficult to make a fair comparison with groups from his own time, never mind today. You simply cant do it, because they are not in the same league. But mabey the reason todays groups are so inferior is because there is nothing left to pioneer. Its all been done, heck, Buddys did most of it. We really havent seen anything so startling and new since the grunge movement, which was a revolution of significant caliber no matter how you put it. And even that doesnt compare to the rock n roll revolution. The point is Buddy Holly was an exception in everything he did, hes always going to have the upper hand over any group or artist you can name, the man is an outright ledgend. You cant compare him to anything, but if your going to try, at least do it with people that might be able to stand a chance, other rock n roll pioneers. If theres one pioneer that truly deserves to be remembered and isnt, its Ritchie Valens, hands down. And he can be compared to Buddy and stand his ground, because he was an innovator as well, not to mention one hell of a guitarist and song writter. And his innovations dont end at his ethnicity. Alright, im going to say this before someone else says it for me, he wasnt the innovator Buddy was, but he also didnt have the extra year Buddy had either. But point being his influence was massive (isnt La Bamba one of the most covered songs of all time?) and he deserves almost as much as Buddy to be remembered and in that hall of fame (and before 2001 for goodness sakes!) In the end, Buddy is incomparable, but there are a few who can put up a fight.

I'd like to chime in here with a long-winded reply, if I may.

Jerry mentioned the "wholesomeness" of Buddy Holly's music compared to the expletive-laced hip-hop and punk, etc. that we find today. Jerry's 100% right. I don't think anyone can deny that popular music today is quantum-leaps more crude, rude and lewd than it was in Buddy's time.

Unfortunately, our modern society is ALL that and a side of fries (SUPER-sized).

I think the music artists who will be best remembered are the ones who most reflected their times - in a positive way.

Frank Sinatra and Glenn Miller (who died in a plane crash during World War II - and even looked a bit like Buddy) are the two best remembered 1940s musical icons.

Elvis will always be THE icon of the 1950s. For that matter, he may long be the icon for America (hopefully it's YOUNG Elvis).

So, will Buddy be remembered? Absolutely, as will Ritchie Valens and The Big Bopper. They represent "the good die young" more poignantly than any other people I can think of, matched only by President Kennedy, Princess Diana, and actor James Dean.

Chuck Berry and Little Richard also make my rock & roll list, and in country: Hank Williams and Patsy Cline.

Who will still be remembered from the 1960s? THE BEATLES. Along with John F. Kennedy, they were the icons of the decade.

The Beach Boys, The Rolling Stones (who may still be performing 20 years hence!), Jimi Hendrix, Janis Joplin, Barbra Streisand, Diana Ross & The Supremes, and The Monkees will still be remembered by the general public in 20 years. What will definitely be remembered, thanks to "oldies radio" are tons of '50s &'60s rock & roll songs. Even pre-teens today recognize Blue Suede Shoes, Peggy Sue, La Bamba, I Wanna Hold Your Hand, or Fun Fun Fun.

From the '70s? Well, now it gets ugly...John Travolta, with his Saturday Night Fever pose, will forever be the Poster Boy for the 1970s.

Others will be remembered depending on what radio station you listened to. The Ramones will still be sited by music critics as being one of the most influential bands ever - yet the general public will be unable to name even one Ramones song.

Could the 1980s' biggest icon be Max Headroom? What's tuff about the '80s is that MTV became bigger than the music it promoted. But, we'll at least remember Michael Jackson (for all the wrong reasons), Blondie, The Go-Go's, Bruce Springsteen, Cyndi Lauper, The Police, U2, and of course, Weird Al Yankovic.

I think Ronald Reagan wins the "Icon of the 1980s" award. His powerful "Mr. Gorbachev
...Tear down this wall!" - will be remembered long after we forget Michael Jackson's 'moonwalk', or why we once held hands across America.

The 1990s' Music Icon? . . . Garth Brooks - Period. This was the Garth Brooks decade. So, will this musical icon of the 1990s be remembered in 20 years. Yes, but probably not with the 'reverence' one might expect, considering his stellar success. There's one icon whose legend looms larger than Garth's - and she WILL be remembered - Princess Di.

But what about KURT???...Yes, Kurt Russell will be remembered.

As for Kurt Cobain and Nirvana - that remains to be seen. Nirvana's appeal was more of an emotional connection than one of musical prowess. They were the voice of "disenfranchised" youth.

People will still be singing The Beatles, The Beach Boys, Elvis and Buddy Holly songs in 20 years, because they're fun and catchy. Do you see yourself in 20 years at somebody's backyard barbecue, singing "Smells Like Teen Spirit" or "Heart-Shaped Box"?

Today's Icon: Uhhhhhhh.....hmmm.....no.....oh, whats-his-name?.....hmmmmmmmmm.....

Balcony Buddy
Seattle, WA USA

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

The 1990s' Music Icon? . . . Garth Brooks - Period. This was the Garth Brooks decade.

hehe that was quite funny..thanks for the laugh

~ DDK

balcony buddy

i'm not sure i understand how john f kennedy or princess diana ended up in this discussion about what musicians and songwriters will be remembered in the future. while it's true they both died before their time, in my view, they are completely and utterly irrelevant as far as this discussion goes. (but since you mentioned princess diana, and i mean no disrespect to you or to her memory - what did she really accomplish? other than being famous for being famous, i don't see her as being that significant.)

one other thing i want to point out, and that's that celebrities and artists can be hyped by the media, by publicists, etc.... far beyond what their real contributions to society actually were. and while they may end up being 'remembered' it will largely be because they were interviewed and written about constantly, with their photos on every magazine cover, while people who accomplished far more with far less and made genuine lasting contributions were not given proper recognition. which is why i say that only time can really put someone's legacy in proper perspective - often it doesn't happen during the lifetimes of those who live through it, but much later.

i think we've exhausted this thread beyond any rational point, because as i pointed out earlier, there are 100's of different answers to the question, and 100's of points of view on each of those answers. i don't see the point, really.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry:
.....there are 100's of different answers to the question, and 100's of points of view on each of those answers. i don't see the point, really.

The point would be exactly that....that everyone sees something different in songwriting and singing criteria. To quote Keith Richards, "You turn on the radio and hear a brand new release, and Buddy Holly's in there. How much, that's a different story.....Not bad for a guy from Lubbock, hey?"
I find particulary interesting the last part of this quote. Everyone who is influenced by Buddy will take away something different from his music. You can't even compare two artists of the same decade that were influenced by Buddy, simply because something completely different in Buddy's music probably wolud have caught their attention that they would have carried over to their music. Sure there could be some simalarities, like both (hypothtical here) groups writing there own music, but certainly some differences.
So if you don't care to read the hundreds of different answers and the hundreds of points of view, I invite you to read every topic on this board but this one.

Hi Buddy_blue,

Excellent post. You're so right, everybody who enjoys Buddy Holly will come away with something special to them. That's the unique thing about the man and his music.

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

buddy blue

if you're referring to buddy's influence on others, that's one thing. but this idea of 'who will be remembered' is not the same issue. many of the posts on this thread are about people's favorite groups and artists and why they personally believe they'll
'be remembered'. and that's fine, but Buddy's influence on musicians and songwriters is really quite a different topic altogether, though i've attempted to show why they're in many ways, intertwined.

my point is that we've pretty much beat the topic of 'who will be remembered' to death, and that there are 100's of different answers to that question, with no end in sight. as long as Buddy is part of the discussion, i'm always interested. i just think that when the topic strays to ex-presidents and english royalty, we've pretty much exhausted the thread.

Who will be remembered???
Bob Dylan, the influence that he has had and the vast collection of music he has released can never be forgotten. Someone who writes songs as beautiful as his will always be remembered.

Looking over people's posts I noticed that a lot of people who were mentioned have died very young and perhaps that is why they will always be remembered, they will always be young, beautiful and just starting out; people like Jimi Hendrix, Jim Morrison , Janis Joplin, Kurt Cobain and of course Buddy Holly. The music that all these people produced was incredible and because they died young became almost mythical!!!

Others who will be remembered will be of course the Beatles, the Stones, Led Zeppelin and the Who! These bands and many more from that era have an almost mythical quality about them, especially for people my age!

And perhaps from my generation, although it may be too soon to tell: Oasis, Coldplay, Nirvana, the Foo Fighters and the Red Hot Chilli Peppers, there are i suppose countless that people will say i didn't remember!!

Just at the risk of being stoned, i think that people will remember Robbie Williams!! Especially in Britain, not a lot of people can make the transition from being in a boy band but he has and people adore him, his songs are just beautiful, Listen to Better Man and tell me that you can't hear the emotion in his voice and words!!

Just quickly in answer to Jerry. Nirvana did change the face of music, well at least for my generation. I remember the first time i heard them and i was amazed, for people of my age they were an incredibly important band and I and my friends will always remember them because they were such a huge part of our youth.

as to Nirvana 'changing the face of music', i really must beg to differ. because "music" is much too broad a term, and it encompasses everything from jazz to blues to country to pop to classical to folk and on and on and on...

so my view is that while Nirvana may have affected, changed, or influenced a small part of music, they can't be said to have 'changed the face' of the entire artform.

First of all, you guys and gals have made several great points for your cause. Those people who follow "music" can answer they know who Patsy Cline is, who Buddy Holly is, who Lynyrd Skynyrd is, who Kurt Cobane is. It's not about one style, is it? I honestly find it interesting that one would know who Buddy Holly is, but hasn't a clue who Patsy Cline is. If you aren't aware who Hank Williams is, or Patsy Cline, or Buddy Holly, or The Big Bopper, you're really missing out on the big picture. It's about music. MUSIC! I've been involed in the music business since I was 11, and I was born the year Buddy died. I've been involved in the radio business for 30 years now. I've never labeled myself, or the music i love, because I love it all. And i'm influenced by most of it. (liking today's music is a whole other topic). To say one artist has a greater influence is wrong.....each one played their part, and should be respected for his or her role. I love Buddy Holly's music with a passion, and there are other artists I think highly of, as well. To each one, I say....thank you for your contribution.