I'm in constant dispute with friends over this: who was better: Elvis or Buddy?
Don't get me wrong, there are some of Elvis' songs that I love, like I Beg Of You, Wooden Heart, In The Ghetto, that's a couple of his good songs. But when I watch Elvis and compare him to Buddy, there's so many things that he doesn't do that Buddy does, and it makes Buddy better. It has already been discussed how Buddy kept time in about three different fashions, all at the same time. Except for the swiveliing of his hips that restricted him to being only filmed from the waist up on TV, Elvis does not rarely move, much less keep time. Every Ed Sullivan show on which he makes an appearance, he always had back-up singers. Do you recall seeing Buddy with back-up singers? Cause I don't. Name one song Elvis wrote (without any surfing the net or other resources!) I can name at least 10 of Buddy's songs off the top of my head (That'll Be the Day, That Makes It Tough, Peggy Sue, Peggy Sue Got Married, Oh Boy, Not Fade Away, Words of Love...you get the picture and I'm taking up space.) Another arguement is that Elvis could make the girls squeal, scream and make other obscene high noises like no one's business. All right, I may have to give them that point, as while Buddy could emulate a couple shrieks and screams, he got no where near the pitch range that Elvis recieved. I think what was more important is the impact that Buddy left. Sure, elders can say that Elvis smiled at me or pointed at me during one of his shows, even just say that they went to one of Elvis' shows. But it seems to me, that in the music world, Buddy's influence seemed a lot more heavy than Elvis', or aven't I been paying attention. I believe without arguement that the Beatles were one of the world's most famous and best rcognized group. Have they ever said they were influenced by Elvis? Sure, they were influenced by the whole rock and roll era of the fifties, but have they ever mentioned Elvis' name? Same thing with the Rolling Stones. They credit Buddy as one of their influences-do they credit Elvis too? Don't get me wrong. I know Buddy has been quoted as saying, "Without Elvis, none of us would have made it." And that I agree with. But Elvis only started the ball rolling. He gave the impression that only sexy guys with great hip movement capacity and low voice could make it. In short, Elvis was the showman and Buddy got out there and blew that image to pieces. Watch some clips of Elvis performing live. About half the time, he has a guitar around his body, but only does a half of that time does he actually play it. There may be complete songs where he doesn't touch the instrument. And when he does, it's painfully obvious that his rhythm guitarist is the one screaming out the solos, such as in Heartbreak Hotel. Call this, to quote, knowing your enemy. So although this may be a little biais asking on a website dedicated to Buddy Holly, who was better? Buddy or Elvis?
It's all right, tell the truth, we won't run you off the board.

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

I think that is a very valid and great argument to have. Dispute who and which artist meant more to his art. And i have to say, being a fan of both artists, its hard to choose. But you do bring up some very valid points. But no one can ever dispute what both meant to music and their influences might of been in different fashions, but both had lasting affects on their generations and generations to come.

I, too, am a fan of both The King and The Great One... but I don't think you can compare the two guys, although they shared the limelight at a crucial moment in the development of Rock-n-Roll.

I make a very clear distinction between the two: Buddy was a singer/songwriter/musician/arranger/producer... And Elvis was just a product. Elvis has been repeatedly quoted as admitting that he wasn't a musician---and he wasn't. You can count the number of songs Elvis ever wrote on one hand (with several amputated fingers), and he wasn't a proficient guitarist.

I say Elvis "was a product" because Sun Records pretty much built Elvis out of their stable of other artists, including Jerry Lee Lewis, Johnny Cash and Carl Perkins. Elvis was the prettiest of them, had the best natural voice, by far, and had the best rapport with young audiences---certainly more so than foul-tempered Jerry Lee Lewis or the deadpan Johnny Cash. They sure as hell couldn't sell Carl Perkins on his looks, but he was the musical innovator of the group. It was the Perkins song, "Blue Suede Shoes," that really launched Elvis. So, Elvis was "chosen" to be the star---he was the most sellable "product" that Sun had to offer.

Trying to compare Buddy and Elvis is like trying to compare the guy who designs and builds race cars to the pretty girl who poses for photos with race cars. Yeah, they both make a living with race cars---but that's the end of the comparison.

Just so, Buddy and Elvis both made a living with Rock-n-Roll... But Buddy (the designer) was building the music from the ground up, while Elvis (the pretty girl) was just showcasing it.

The hardcore Elvis fans out there will rave about his impact on Rock-n-Roll, and many modern musicians will credit Elvis for his influence on them---but his impact was the impact of saturation marketing. Everywhere you turned there was Elvis---like Coca Cola, he was everywhere, man, thanks to his promoters.

That might get me in trouble with the Elvis fans, but I've never met one who could look me in the eye when I mentioned the Elvis song "Yoga Is As Yoga Does"... Elvis fans hide their faces and slink away in shame from that one, and there are others---because Elvis was just a product, he'd sing whatever piece of crap you put in front of him, as long as there was a paycheck attached.

I can't think of any Buddy Holly songs that could make me feel ashamed.

I've said this before, and I'll say it again: what bugs me about Elvis is that so many people pay him due when they don't pay Buddy due at the same time. To me, rock and roll is exactly what Buddy defined it as: a self contained band that writes their own music. Pop groups on the other hand, are free to use back up singers, studio musicians, people who write songs for them, etc. So maybe Elvis really should have been crowned the Prince of Pop.
Don't get me wrong, after all this bashing of Elvis, but I do like some of his songs. It's just his popularity status, even today, that gets me. Someone asks what I was listening to in the cafeteria. When I tell people I'm listening to Buddy Holly, to date I've gotten two sorts of answers: "who's that", or "the guy with the glasses, right?" She gave me another answer. "the guy that died in the plane crash, right?" Do you notice a pattern here? No one has mentioned his charicteristic hiccup, his fingers working the fret board of the Strat. Yet Elvis, any stranger on the street could reel off a number of facts about him, besides the fact that he died of a heart attack or was grossly overweight in his last years. But Buddy, well any stranger on the street would go, "Buddy who?"

It's interesting to listen to the covers that Elvis and Buddy each did; same cover, yet the song is totally different. That can be good or bad, depending on the way you want to look at it. Both Rip It Up and Ready Teddy are good examples of the point I want to make. Buddy, overall, has so much more energy that he projects into his songs. Half the time, you really have to work at figuring out what he's saying, because he rolls out the words so fast. Heck, even Dearest, which is relativeley slow, you have to work at figuring out what he's saying (million miles away?). You know people like that. They get excited about something, and the more excited they get, the faster they relate the story. (I'm one of those people.) In other terms, as Charles Austin has said, Buddy was excited about building the race cars. Elvis, on the other hand, I was listening to Rip It Up the other day, and it just wasn't the same. He just didn't have the energy.
http://www.buddyhollycenter.org/htm/Buddy%20Holly%20Exhibit/bhe_b.htm
Please note the following especially: what Sonny Curtis says about Elvis impressing Buddy. It's not like the two were ever competing, and I never said that. It's more like Buddy saw Elvis, loved what he was doing, and took Elvis' stuff one step further, making it better in the process.

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

It's interesting to find out that Elvis was only one year older than Buddy, born January 7, 1935, if my math serves me correctly, as Elvis would have been 70 this year. Not to call my mother old or date her, but she was born two years after Buddy died, yet has no real recollection of Buddy's music or name being promoted. This being only two years after his death, and already he had been forgotten. It was now Elvis who was all the rage.

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

Well, as I've mentioned a couple of times, I was born the same year Buddy died---born in Texas and raised there. And, I can tell you, Buddy was never forgotten in Texas. As a little kid, I remember hearing Buddy on the radio all the time... The DJs would always announce a song "from the late, great Buddy Holly" with a little reverence in their voices. Or they called him "The Great One," which is how I still refer to Buddy.

Today, the general perception of 50s rock & roll is that it's just a quaint relic from a bygone era, like a jiggy ghost from long, long ago, and that it somehow just stopped being a valid form of music on New Year's Day, 1960. But 50s rock & roll didn't die at all... As a very young child, I heard it on the radio every single day, and not on "oldies" stations, either. The rock & roll of the 50s was still hot stuff in the early 60s, with new acts (such as Bobby Vee and The Beach Boys and The Beatles and the Rolling Stones, etc) cutting their teeth and breaking into the music business using 50s rock & roll hits.

So, I mean, there was no sudden death of 50s rock & roll on February 3, 1959, when Buddy Holly died. The music was still playing, getting bigger and bolder, and Buddy's hits from the 50s were still getting as much air time (in Texas) as the newer groups in the early 1960s. So much so, in fact, that I could sing Peggy Sue, hiccups and all, by the time I was 3 years old, just from hearing it all the time on the radio.

This was a source of amusement for my older sisters and brother, who actually did remember Buddy Holly when he was alive.

So, no, Buddy was never forgotten, not by his home state, and never by the music industry... There are still groups out there, just starting up, who are amazed and influenced by Buddy Holly. He's still alive, his music is still alive, flowing from one generation to the next---so Buddy is as close to being immortal as anyone from the 20th Century.

I think that the reason is that everyone remembers Elvis is because he was around longer. People that are still relatively young (say 35, 40) remember what they and their parents were doing when the news in 1977 came over the radio that Elvis was dead. But to find people that remember what they were doing when the news came over the radio that Buddy Holly was dead, well, you have to go back to people that are at least 46, and they would have just been newborns, if born at all when the news came. It's all about the timing, and though Buddy made just as big, if not bigger (all right, that could be a biais opinion ) as Elvis in less than half the time, people remember Elvis because he was around longer. I don't ever wish that Buddy is forgotten, because as you said, sure Buddy and Elvis were selling the same thing, but Elvis never really showed anyone how to do rock and roll. He just was rock and roll. Buddy was rock and roll too, but he built it up from the ground, in front of people, to insure that rock and roll would be around long after he and Elvis were gone.
I said when I joined this board that I was born 30 years and 2 months too late to ever have the chance to see Buddy Holly on the TV or live. And though I don't have a band, his music amazes me, especially when I try playing the guitar, and I marvel at how he could make even just four chords sound like forty chords. The radio station I listen to is an oldies station, but it's like pulling teeth to get them to play Buddy Holly. I've never actually called in to request, though I've thought about it. If they do play a Buddy Holly song, it's often a cover, like Terry Jacks' I'm Gonna Love You Too, or a couple different versions of It Doesn't Matter Anymore, though interestingly, the most "frequent" played original Buddy song is It Doesn't Matter Anymore, I've heard Oh Boy! and That'll Be The Day a couple of times, and I've never heard Peggy Sue. Maybe they still think that if kids hear that song, they'll be looking to steal hubcaps.
Sure he still remains immortal in the 20th century, and Keith Richards names him as one of "the union, because he's in everyone, everyone has passed his stuff on," but even that status can't get his unrealeased songs, demos and interviews released. Just before Norm Petty became seriously ill with lukemia, he had found some fogotten tapes of Buddy's and was looking to release them. I wouldn't hold my breath that he would relinquish them without adding the Picks or someone to the tapes, but at least they would have still been released. I say I want to see Buddy's name revered by the masses, just as Elvis is, but it also seems like a nice secret, that only some people, you might call them the true rock and rollers, just as the true rock and rollers never forgot him during those lean years in rock and roll, when the same old surfin' songs were all the rage. But the rock and rollers know who Buddy is, and know what magic he had, and I guess I'll have to settle for that for now. Buddy Holly is a secret that is almost too well kept, sadly, in parts other than Texas.
As you said, groups that are just coming out now are influenced by Buddy. I wouldn't call them a great group, but they were just one of the many boy bands formed and promoted through the 90's-with a difference. Hansen directly credits Buddy Holly as an influence, though it is possible to trace groups like the Backstreet Boys back to Buddy Holly, because they claim influence from the Beatles, and well, to quote Jerry Allison, "Whenever I hear someone like Paul McCarteny say that without the Crickets there would be no Beatles, I say, 'Excuse me? I'd like to hear that again!'" Fifties music is forgotten in a way that no one realizes that everything that's coming out now, it has all been done before-for the most part by one great man. Others did it first and Buddy copied in some instances, but nonetheless, he did it. So I mean to say that people don't know who their influences are, truly when it comes down to it. But Buddy's still there.

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

I dont think I've ever agreed with a group of people so much in my entire life. Elvis or Buddy? What the hell kind of question is that? How can one even compare two things that are so different? Ok, granted, Elvis had a few catchy songs, but how can anyone stand to listen to them when theres no heart or scencerity behind them? Mind you, I dont see how there could be, seeing as Elvis sang about someone elses feelings because he didnt write any of his own material. And as for his stage show, well thats a joke. It kind of reminds me of Avril Lavigne, (sorry if your a fan) you know, with the playing a couple chords here or there to try and make you look like legitament guitarist when everybody knows the guy in the back is the one wailin on the guitar.And as for the swivling of the hips and what not, that just adds to the fact that he was a product, because as we all know, sex sells, and Elvis sure had a hell of alot of sexual energy onstage. Buddy on the other hand, used his body to keep time with the music, rather than to make the girls squeal. But I guess,as Iv'e said, Elvis wasnt playing the music, so there was really no need for him to keep time to it was there? As for the squealing and the crying ect..Id scream for Buddy before Elvis anyday.Theres a couple of reasons for that: first of all, Iv'e always thought Buddy Holly was goregeous, and although Elvis was fairly good looking, the glasses win baby!! Second of all, Buddy just seems like an all around sweet and innocent guy, the kind that would put his coat in the puddle so that you wouldnt get your shoes wet.Elvis on the other hand, seems like the kind of guy that you would find in a strip club after the show refusing to sign autograhs. So why is Elvis remembered like he is, while Buddy, although leading the pack musically, is left in the dust comercially? I believe there are several reasons for it, and none of them are justifiable.Perhaps first and foremost, is the fact that even today, Elvis Presley is highly comercialized.He followed the "boy band" formula if you will, in that he was good looking, completly manufactured, and absolutly everywhere. The other day I saw a girl walking around with Elvis' face plastered on her purse, and not too long ago my mom bought an Elvis action figure."That'll Be The Day" when we see someone with Buddy Holly slung around someones shoulder. Secondly, i believe that the sheer amount of time Elvis had in the music industry may have affected why so many more people remember him. His music was directly available to 3 more generations of rock fans then Buddys. However, while he may have been around for 20 extra years, the quality of his material, and well himself, was quickly deteriorating.At least Buddy went out when he was still on top,although i highly doubt that he would have ever left there should he not have passed away.It also amazes me as to how ignorant many Presley fans are about there idol. Forgive me if Im wrong, but did we see any musical innovations or firsts ever come out of Elvis Presley?Sure, he is credited as being the "first rock and roll star", but in reality he was the first Justin Timberlake. Rich and Famous for nothing more than a pretty face and a fair voice.I could name you 10 things Buddy Holly was the first to ever do, things that are now standards in how music is created. Over-dubbing, the use of 2 guitars, orchastral ans string arrangements, writing, producing, arranging and preforming your own music and the list goes on. So, naturally it really,really,really bothers me that Elvis is so fondly remebered for esentially being a comercialized sex-drivin product when we have such a wonderful innovative talent to look back on. If Buddy Holly had left music up to Elvis Presley all we would have today is boy bands and pop princesses.
I apologize if I have offended anyone with my comments about Elvis Presley, howvr it really gets under my skin, as it does with most hordcore Buddy fans, that Buddy is kinda left in the dust while you could go up to any random person an theyd know who Elvis was. Buddy will always be the guy with the glasses that died in the plane crash....what a shame.

Thank God, or rather thank Buddy that today we're not just left with boy bands and pop princesses, because I surely wouldn't love music as much as I do if that's all there was out there. There was a special on a while back, near Elvis' birthday, called, "Elvis, from the waist up" because they weren't allowed to film him below the hips. I was so mad when I saw this. He really did count on his sexuality to get him through, and to watch him try a few chords here and there is almost painful, I swear I'm cringing in my seat. But then I go and listen to one of his records, and it's not so bad without the visual. The man had a bit of talent. But Buddy had more, and people wanted to see him both live and hear him on records. He had the best of both worlds. Buddy would be the guy that would put his coat in a puddle, I have no doubt about that, and the version of Elvis sounds pretty realistic too.
We can't forget that Buddy saw Elvis however, and from then on, he was hooked. So in his early days, Elvis had a lot to do with Buddy. Let's give him a tiny thank you and then move on, cause that's about all he did.
Elvis fans really don't know about their idol. My mom was born 2 years, almost 3 years after Buddy was killed, and growing up, she says she never remembers anything about Buddy being promoted. I guess I should ask her brothers if they remember him, as they would have been young when Buddy was actually around, though they would have been very young. But, in the same breath that my mom admits that she doesn't remember Buddy Holly, she also admits that about all she knows about Elvis is his death date and birthdate.
It's already been shown many times in these boards how easy Buddy's songs were to relate to.....look at how many people slip the song titles into their postings, for instance. But yet, how funny does it sound to tell you that, oh yeah, this weekend I'm going to Heartbreak Hotel, or that someone has a Wooden Heart?

I agree with you on the fact that many of Buddys songs can be easily slipped into conversation, and that some Elvis songs can be aswell, however as seen in the examples you provided, there not commonly used phrases.I also agree with you on the fact that, although he was torture to watch, Elvis was not a horrible singer.When I was little I used to listen to him aswell as Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens.....however now that I have learned more about the man, and have been exposed to a greater variety of Buddys musical genius,any Elvis records that once polluted my closet have long since hit the garbage. I liked when you said that Buddy had the best of both worlds, because he sure as hell did. He was bueatiful to watch, and even more so to listen to.This fact yet further proves Buddys superiority over Elvis, as it is an example of the pure, raw talent Buddy was able to excentuate.However saying that Elvis got Buddy "started"(this I have read else where) Im not so sure that I can agree with that. Lets not forget that Buddy came from a very musical family, and in his early years was already able to play the fiddle and piano(which i think he quit, but Im not real sure)Hooked on rock and roll might be a better term, so as you said, lets squeak out a small thank you and move on.My mother too, born 4 months before Buddys death, says she never once remembers hearing a Holly song on the radio,a telivision apperance, or even so much as any conversation about the man.Did the world forget that fast about the man that fundamentally created rock and roll? Mabey February 3rd really was the day the music died, seeing as the world seems to have forgotten the best part about the music:Buddy Holly.

When I listen to a Buddy Holly CD, I find it's like listening to a mixed CD. Every song is different, and the next song always sounds like it's a new artist. Sure, Buddy knew what would sell (something that sounded like That'll Be The Day) but he chose not to bother to change a word or two there and basically reduplicate That'll Be The Day so that he could have another hit. Instead, he sounds different on every track he ever did because he chose to sound different. Sure, he wanted people to hear what he heard in his head, but it seems that it was more important that he be proud of what he produced before releasing it to the public. That's why he sounds different everytime, it must have been important to him. Sure, there's the charicteristic hiccup and stuff, but every song is still different.
Probably the reason that Elvis is so widely recognized still is that he was the opposite of Buddy. You turn on any Elvis song, and people recognize it whether they've heard it before or not because Elvis was the same old singer just singing a little bit different tune. His CDs never change. But half the time, when I listen to Buddy, I think I've grabbed a mixed CD by mistake.

Ironically, I was thinking the exact same thing today. Actually what got me on the subject was that I heard the song Midnight Shift for the first time today(of course it kicks total ass)and it got me into thinking just how far ahead of the times Buddy Holly was. A song about infedelity? In the 50s? Whereas any of Elvis' songs sounds like they came directly from that era, many of Buddys sound as if they could have came from any era, and have been from any artist. It is in this sense that I feel that, should he have lived, Buddy Holly would still be rockin out to sold-out audiences today.He had amazing diversity in his music, and I feel that any generation would have accepted him as they have say, The Rolling Stones. However Elvis' career was, Im assuming slowly coming to a halt. Ya, it was the same old song and dance over and over again, and its only so long before the audience loses interest(unfortunatly they still havent). Buddy worked damn hard on every song so that he could look back and be proud, and he should have been, he not only gave us volumes of music to marvel over, he gave us such variety that we can ask little more of him. Granted, about 85% of his songs were about love, but each time it was a different story, a different heartbreak. His music can kind of be realated to a good soap opera, and I mean that in the most complimentry way possible. Elvis.....well Elvis is more like that bad sitcom that gets cancelled after 2 episodes......

quote:

Originally posted by crazy_for_buddy:
The other day I saw a girl walking around with Elvis' face plastered on her purse....

I actually just saw someone in my school walking around with a Elvis purse....and this post came to mind. Wouldn't that be the day if we saw people walking around with Buddy Holly's face, or charicteristic glasses, or even just his trademark Strat on someone's purse?!?

Yeah I know....it sickens me.I've actually been on the hunt for a Buddy purse for a while now. Myfriend has a Beatles puse, and theres Elvis and Marilyn Monroe. Im actually so sickened that Im gonna stick Buddys face on my back, seeing as I cant find him anywhere else. I found a pic of someones Buddy tattoo on the net and I've been hooked on the idea ever since. This way, Buddy really cant "Fade Away", hes there forever.

I've been working on a Buddy Holly t-shirt forever....my first hold up was getting the proper transfer paper, then it was getting a t-shirt, and now that I have all that I find out that my printer is crap and no matter what I do, the desgin will print with lines in it, fading the colour in and out, wreaking the graphics and words. So my friend said she would print it for me, but I have to transfer everything into another program so that she can open it, as the program I used she doesn't have! Not like that would be a big deal, but the graphic I used won't transfer to the other program, and I can't refind the Strat picture that I used. It's a close-up of a sunburst strat, and the picture is awesome. But God forbid I be able to find it again! It could still be awhile before I'm wearing my Buddy tee. It's nothing fancy either, it just has a strat on the front with Rave On, and then on the back it says Buddy Holly, 1936-1959, Rock never would have rolled without him. AH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!,<----(not part of the wording) lol
Elvis did have some good years, there's no denying that, and I don't mind that he gets as much recognition as Buddy. What I do mind is that Buddy doesn't get as much recognition as Elvis, because Elvis' later years....well, let's not talk about that. There's so much about Elvis, that while he had his good points, in looking at Buddy (ie their stage shows) that I don't know why more people don't remember Buddy, cause his performances were a heck of a lot more memorable.

I got my Buddy Holly T-shirt made at Staples for $1.75. The reason that I dont think as many people remember Buddy is this:first of all, Elvis was first and was around longer, although Buddy was cut down in his prime and had no control over what happened.Secondly, while yes, Buddys performances were far more professional and far more memorable, they didnt contain that "shock factor". Even though they pissed a buch of people off for advertising rock n roll, there was none of the disgusting sexual energy that radiated from Elvis' performances. Unless your like me and think Buddy Holly is super sexy .lol. Finally, look at what the majority of Elvis' fan base was...teenage girls. Although I really really hate to admit this, to normal girls, Elvis was more attractive than Buddy. I have a thing for super skinny guys with glasses and dorky personalities, so obviously I think Elvis was crap and Buddy was like a sex god. But Elvis was a pretty boy, and Buddy was music, thats all there is to it. And that fact yet furthers Buddys superiority in integrety and legitemency.

The end is near!!!!!
My brother just brought home one of those book order things from school, and I was flipping through it. Saw a book called Love Me Tender.....wait, does this sound familiar to anyone? Yes, they now have a book out on the Elvis song Love Me Tender. The little blurb beside the picture of the book says something along the lines "now you can share the joys of one of Elvis' most romantic songs with your child."
Excuse me, but where is the book titled True Love Ways?!?!?!

.......
I am so utterly speechless....blinded by rage is perhaps a better trem. Elvis is the worst possible role model for chilren, and should never be introduced to anyone under the age of dead! Love Me Tender? Does anyone else realize what that could mean, and probably does knowing Elvis?!?! I saw a cover of an Elvis Cd once where he had his tougue sticking out and touching some girls...For the love of God man, who had the bright idea to place that kinda crap in the minds of children!?!?! OMG!!! True Love Ways is a beutiful, clean song about love, and not just the physical kind...but after we calm down we can all realize that this is ok, because there is a childrens book out on Buddy, I bought it for my cousin. Of course, therer are better literary works out on Buddy, but hell, this is ment for 7 years olds...as long as the words gettin out there Im happy.

I have seen this book....was in Indigo and found it. The language used is....interesting, shall we say, though as you say, this is a book meant for 6 or 7 year olds. The early illustrations I'm not too impressed with, but as you get further into the book, the likeness is amazing, especially the page where it has all four of them, you can really tell it's Jerry and Niki, Joe B's features are done all right, and of course Buddy.
I was really excited though to find the book, although it's understandable where the book ends when it does, not going into the WDP and the plane crash (there's a sentance on the very last page where it has a quick bio of him, and it just says Buddy Holly died on Febraury 3, 1959, in a plane crash at the age of 22.) I mean, how do you expect kids to understand why a legend like that is allowed to die? I'm more than twice the age that this book is intended for, and I don't understand why a legend, any legend, is not allowed to live to a ripe old age, just being.

Lol. Ya the language and illistations were kind of amusing, and in some ways uneccesary because my brothers 7 and hes nearly as fluent on Buddy Holly as I am! Although, living with a Holly obsessed teenager who cant stop talking about the guy, its kinda hard not to be . And yes it is completly understandable as to why the book ended so ubruptly, although perhaps it would be better to introduce the kids to the fact that Buddy died earlier on. My parents didnt tell me until I was 12, and I took it pretty hard because I always had that hope that mabey Buddy would stop by Edmonton for a show and Id be able to meet him. Perhaps this is the one time when it would be acceptable to quote Steve Rash..."we should have givin the kids some warning"...because Buddys dead, and, as heart wrenching a fact that is, its a fact nonetheless. I have this theory that everything happens for a reason, and that some good comes out of that reason, but what came out of this? Extreame remorse and saddness, all the what if questions that will eventually drive you insane, and the loss of the most amazing musical genius to grace this earth. But, as Waylon Jennings said, Buddy Holly was an evolved soul, and mabey this was his last time around.

Buddy Holly actually did come to Edmonton, don't you know?
I was checking the tour dates because I wanted to see if he had ever been to St.Louis or Chicago, and as I'm scrolling down the list, I see Stampede Corral, October 28, 1957. That would have be 27 days after That'll Be The Day was a number one hit. Not only did Buddy come to Calgary, he also went to Vancouver, Regina, Toronto, and Edmonton. Man, I was on a cloud for days, thinking that Buddy Holly actually came here. I pass the Stampede Grounds on my way home from school every day, and every day I stare at the Stampede Corral, thinking, Buddy Holly was here. Buddy Holly, Jerry Allison, Joe B. Maudlin and Niki Sullivan were here. I had known that Buddy had been to Toronto, because I've heard an interview with him there, but to think that he was actually here, in Calgary. You can probably sympathize with me when I say, sure, we get some big acts through here, but nothing like the amount of big acts that Toronto and Vancouver get. But Buddy Holly was here. Elvis never came here.

Omg!! I didnt know that! Do you know which venue? Holy crap would it be amazing to be standing in the same concert hall Buddy Holly performed in! Wow!

http://www.geocities.com/SunsetStrip/8157/bhlive.html
He performed in the Edmonton Gardens.
In Calgary, Buddy performed in the Stampede Corral, which I have been in many times during Stampede week, and I wonder what it was like back in 1957. That building, though not as big as the Saddledome, can hold a lot of people. We've already discussed the sound system in Buddy's day, I wonder how they set it up. There's pictures in all the Stampede buildings of past events, now, I have this faint hope of finding a pic of Buddy in the Corral. I know, I wouldn't get my hopes up. But just something, I would be so happy to know that they've got something in the Corral to say, Buddy Holly was here, we remember him.

i must admit im not a bit fan of elvis...now dont get me wrong i havnt got a problem with him...its just i dont see why elvis is more famous then buddy, i think buddy had the best lyrics and songs

lol, good answer elseb, because if you read all the above posts youll soon realize theres litte love for Elvis on this discussion board. Mind you though, I suppose this was an incedibly biased question to ask here, this being a place for Holly lovers. Curious what the Elvis fans would have to say if we were to throw all those arguments in their face. Because in reality, and not just saying this from the prospective of a Holly obsessed teenager, Buddy was the superior, in every way shape and form. Very curious what ammunaition they would use to defend their idol........I guess all they would really have to show us was their Elvis purse.....bastard.

how about we let Elvis answer this question in his own words, from an interview he gave in 1977?

"I guess the person who's made the biggest impression on me over the last 20 years has been Buddy Holly".

no question, Buddy was the real king of rock n' roll. it's a well-known fact that colonel tom parker is the one who first called elvis "the king" - just because a someone's manager gives them a title doesn't mean they've truly earned it.

don maclean references this question in american pie, when he says "and while the king was looking down, the jester stole his thorny crown, the court room was adjourned, no verdict was returned".

i am of the belief that 'the jester' in don's song is Buddy Holly.

There was a 2 part Elvis movie on t.v the other night. My mom made me watch it, saying "mabey afterwards you'll have a different perspective on him". Said I highly doubted it, but that I would induce vomiting (lol) just because she had watched The Real Buddy Holly Story with me the night previous. And perhaps there would be a glimpse of Buddy in there, after all, he did open for Elvis on several occasions, and Feb 3rd is hardly a date any movie set in that era can ignore. Well, all it did was make me hate Elvis even more, not to mention solidify my thoughts that he was a greasball, and of course...no mention of Buddy. Not that I truly expected one, I mean, what does Elvis owe Buddy, besides, you know everything grrr...

there's a live performance elvis did on the steve allen show, i think it was, where the show's producers had elvis singing 'hound dog' to an actual dog. needless to say, elvis fans don't like to talk about that too much.

if anyone had asked buddy to do that, we all know that the reaction would've been something similar to what busey said in the movie - 'i'd rather shovel sh-t in lubbock'.

in my opinion, elvis was unfit to
even carry buddy holly's guitar pick.

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

I wonder if there is no recognition for Buddy Holly when pitted against Elvis because people don't recognize the distinction between the two. Due to the record companies "pre-occupation with money" they apparently won't officially release songs that show how Buddy built a song up from the ground, such as all the outtakes of Mona, or the take of Brown Eyed Handsome Man where Buddy loses his place but keeps going, or the first version of Peggy Sue, where Buddy did the solo before he got Niki to kneel at his side and flip the Strat's switch, facilitating the switch from rhythm to lead guitar, something Buddy couldn't do fast enough. No one was pulling the strings in that studio, but not a lot of people will ever realize that not only was Buddy a singer and a songwriter, he was a producer and arranger too.
But Elvis on the other hand...nothing really exists except his polished works, I could be wrong, but I don't believe he built a song up from the ground the way that Buddy did. And yet that distinction will never be made to the public.

it may be true that certain outtakes would help to solidify buddy's genius in the minds of average people. but i doubt it, since most average elvis fans don't give a rat's hind end who produced the record, who wrote the song, who played the solo, who arranged the record - nothing. they just want to see elvis snarl his lip and gyrate his hips. and, as JI has pointed out, the early fans of buddy holly and the crickets were not really the teeny boppers - they were the musicians. all the rockers of the 60's were teenagers when holly was king and they went to hear the crickets to learn what rock n' roll was all about. then, they went on to establish it throughout the next decade as an art form.

so in answer to the buddy vs. elvis question really depends on who you ask. ask the musicians and songwriters, and they'll answer buddy, without fail. ask the simple-minded women who fainted when elvis gyrated his hips, and you'll get a different answer. but the ones who matter, know. and they know that buddy was IT, and elvis was, in many ways, a manufactured product, courtesy of colonel tom.
now it's true that elvis had talent, and could sing. but there is no comparison between these two rock n' rollers. buddy was a genius in all the ways that matter - performing, recording, writing, producing, arranging, etc.... - while elvis simply stepped up to the mic and sang his part. elvis had the best writers, the best musicians, the best producers, and million dollar promotion, courtesy of RCA. buddy had JI and Joe B (both teenagers), and his own creativity, and he had norman petty. that's about it. but those in the 'know' understand the differences between elvis' career and buddy's, and still give buddy the credit for his amazing contributions to rock n' roll, and to all that's gone on in music since, actually.

you'll never hear mccartney or any of the 60's greats mention elvis, but they ALL reference holly as a big influence. the best elvis fans can do is to point to his many chart hits over the years, but they can't demonstrate how elvis 'built songs up' or anything like that, because he didn't. and the guitar he wore around his neck was little more than a prop.
buddy put the stratocaster on the map, and changed rock history forever with his songs, arrangements, production, lyrics, chord structures, and the wide variety of styles that he covered in his short career.

in this sense, the Buddy Holly Story movie does do buddy a lot of justice, by showing that the true genius was his. although elvis isn't mentioned in the film, one is left with the obvious conclusion that this kid from texas was the REAL king of rock n' roll, as we all know he was.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry:

buddy put the stratocaster on the map

And yet there's a new Fender Strat video coming out, and even though there is mention of Crickets on the cover, and the Crickets do play on the video, there is no mention of Buddy inthe promotional little blurb that Fender has released. They mention other artist, including artists we know were influenced by Buddy to pick up the strat. But Buddy himself?
I don't know how you could call JI and Joe B "just teenagers" either, because while they may not have had the title of professional musician attached to the end of their names, they were excellent. Start off with JI. Every other drummer I know rolls up his or her sleeves if they're wearing a hoodie or long sleeve shirt, or makes sure that they're wearing a T-shirt that day. For performances, when our shirts are long sleeved, they undo the cuff buttons and roll up the sleeves. They do this to have more room to move, and that material won't get caught in the drumset. In marching band, the drummer's uniforms are slightly bigger, both so they can fit their harnesses underneath and that they have roon to drum. Jerry is in a suit and bowtie, just like his bandmates, and doesn't roll u[ his sleeves or anything. The exception tothis might be on the Ed Sullivan show when he's just in a dress shirt while the others are in suits, then again I may be confusing it with the Busey movie. He has this relaxed look about him, smiling and talking wtih Joe B, mouthing the words, slumping and hitting the skins. This has already been discussed already though, and that is that Jerry Allison was no slouch. He looked at ease because he seriously was at ease. Yes, Holly asked some demanding things of him, and it is no easier to play drums to a Holly song than it is to play guitar because of the rhythms, but JI could do it.
Both him and Joe B have been ranked the top third drummer/bassist respectively, and I have a feeling it's much to do with how they started out with Buddy and what they added to his music, taking the challenge. I don't think they could have kept that different sound in their music as they evolved if they hadn't started with Buddy. To quote Waylon Jennings on one of his CDs: "Thanks to Buddy."
They were all just schoolboys, but schoolboys who loved what they did and got good at it.

it's true that the fender strat would likely have never been more than a trivia question were it not for buddy holly. but as with many of the milestones and trailblazing accomplishments attributable to buddy, the world was quick to appropriate them, take advantage of them, and build on the foundations he laid, but very, very slow in giving buddy proper credit. never have so many owed so much to one man, and yet denied him proper acknowledgement and honor. it's a shame, really.

at least the fender strat 50th anniversary led off with the crickets - that is tacit acknowledgement of buddy's importance. but of course there should've been more homage paid to him. as buddy holly fans, we ought to be used to this kind of thing (the obsession people have with elvis, for instance, always makes me sick).

the injustice of it all....

all we can do as loyal fans is keep trying to remind people of his greatness. in this sense, we all have a debt of gratitude to pay to folks like don mcclean, john goldrosen, bill griggs, and others who've been trying to do that for many years.

In my personal oppinion I swear Buddy Holly is better than Elvis. At least when Buddy Holly passed on he became famous for it, but when Elvis died he was on the toilet. I mean how famous can that be. I also think that Elvis is to commercalized, and when it comes to Buddy Holly you either have to look him up or hear about him from a friend. Which makes him more special.

Buddy is obviously more talented and deserves more recognition...I'd say Elvis was the king of Pop
If you wanna compare rock...Than Buddy vs Chuck Berry
i have no idea who'd win that. I think Maybe Berry has heavier songs, unless there is some heavier Buddy songs i'm missing?

this quote from Elvis just about sums it all up, when comparing Buddy and Elvis on any level:

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

buddy....hands down

I'll give Elvis this: He did inspire Buddy to do rock and roll (Lets face it, Country Western....eh...wasn't really so much his style and its in his voice, he was rock and I think he knew it back then too but hadn't discovered just what he was yet) but Buddy took it farther, and yes, Elvis was a product and in my opinion, overrated. I believe him more to be the first "Britney" or "American Idol" it's not secret that thats mostly where all that trash came from. Buddy had the talent, the drive, and the amibition to make it where he did...Elvis is put right in your face every year thats why he is so popular---so in my rant I think I said it: Buddy Holly was the king of rock

Well, I`ve finally made it here. And, after reading every post, I am not appalled at the lack of balance in the statements made here, as this is precisely a Buddy Holly website, for Buddy Holly fans.

But just as a great percentage of Elvis fans know little about Buddy`s outstanding contributions to the development of rock music, so I witness a similar lack of knowledge, about Elvis Presley, in these here boards, from Buddy Holly fans.

There are at least three dozen errors from posters here, all factual, and I am not going to name each one of them, but will try to focus on the more obvious. Luckily, after some of you read my post, you will have an idea of why Elvis Presley is so remembered.

For starters, the question, namely "Buddy or Elvis", who was better? (which is, in itself and considering how great each was at what they each did), is an incredibly "general" question that could not, under any circumstances, yield a qualitatively rooted answer. It will always be either quantitative, or very subjective.

Of course, if we were pitting any one of these two great rock founders against, say, an artist with the same characteristics, as either Elvis or Buddy, then the answer, in both cases, could be a quantitative one, since it would be easier to determine who was better, again, in both cases.

But they were not.

One was a boy, later named Buddy Holly, from a middle class family in Texas, who was a great singer and a songwriter, the latter almost from the start, who was also a known arranger, an extraordinaire one, both vocally, and musically, who was also a great player of his instrument, as well as others, who was also a pretty nifty performer and, finally, a person whose life was cut short definitively much earlier than any of us had wished would have been the case.

Luckily for all of us, he is still remembered, and influences musicians, and people everywhere around the world fortunate to hear his music. I am one of those.

The other, Elvis Presley, was simply a very poor boy who grew up, and lived, in the two states which were, and probably still are, at the crossroads of the blues, country music and gospel music in America.

With just a rudimentary knowledge of both the guitar, and the piano, he was able to absorb, not just copy, all of these musical idoms, by age 16.

Tremendously influenced by his mother, who loved all sorts of music, namely pop standards, and especially Mario Lanza, this young boy was able, by age 17 to dwell, vocally at least, into most any musical idiom he wished.

By the age of 17, this youngster was neither pretty, nor was he a good singer, let alone a good guitar player. None of that. Should anyone here have any doubts about what I have just said, it will be easy to corroborate. He was, even then, destined and already on the way to be the most photographed, filmed, and recorded entertainer in history.

There was nothing on the cards for him. His name, and last name, was an added negative. Ridiculed in school, because of it, he had barely a friend or two. Teachers remembered him for, even in retrospect, he had a way with people.

Then, something happened. It had nothing to do with Thomas Parker, his manager, who was at least a year away from watching him perform. One day, the acne disappeared, and his face started to change. There are a million stories about how people remembered him changing from age 17, to 18.

Although he still could not play, or sing any better, at this point, he did something that was only natural, and that was to make a recording, a couple of ballads, so that he could hear how he sounded, on tape.

It did not sound any better, so he left it at that. He tried recording himself one more time, months later, and it did not not get any better. There were another two ballads. Simultaneously, he worked to help his family, and one day, was called at the studio.

They needed a ballad singer, and had a song for him to try, which he failed to deliver. But his way with people helped the producer remember him, and so a bass player, and a guitarrist were requested to help him out. They got together and, after failing with numerous ballads, they inadvertently struck gold.

In an unwanted, unplanned, unrehearsed way, they fused what hundreds of artists had not previously been able to do, vis a vis the two most important music idioms in America then, namely, r&b; and c&w; music and created a third, different one. It was soon to be called rockabilly, and Elvis Presley and his band created it. There is absolutely no question about that. For this alone, he would have been forever remembered, but there was of course, a ton of other milestones to come.

This particular one happened to take place on July 5, 1954, at SUN records, in Memphis. If this was not done purposedly, it is neither here, nor there. It was done. Marveled at their luck, they went on to create further brilliantly innovative music, for the next 14 months, while touring incessantly throughout the South.

During this period, they influenced dozens upon dozens of future musicians. Whether Presley and his band were seen live, or not, people in the South listened to a sort of magical voice backed up by a magical guitar, via radio. There was a bass, but no drums. The voice, no matter how good Scotty Moore played the lead guitar, is what made people listen the most.

In 1954, they played to live audiences, some 50 times, usually to small audiences. In 1955, still in the South, that number grew to 278 performances. Elvis` voice gained more confidence, and little by little he realized his movements were creating a response that was, how do I put this, very proactive from the point of view of the audience itself.

The relationship between Elvis and his audience started here, on the stage, and it was never to be altered, or let go of, even after his move to RCA, his departure for the Army, the movie years, the comeback, or his last 1,117 performances, delivered from 1969 to his death, in 1977.

That he became, little by little, and at the outset, the most approachable of all his contemporaries helps to explain the solid nature of his relationship with the public. Even today, people remember his manners, with the fans, the patience he had to never "disqualify" the dozens, and sometimes hundreds of people who waited outside his concerts, both in the early, as well as during his last years.

If people think that 2,456 payees to Graceland, per day, for the last 24 years since Graceland was opened to the public is something that Elvis would find surprising, please note that there were, on the average, 120 people, if not more, waiting for him to come out of Graceland, or return to it, for every day, for every month, for 21 years straight, from early 1957, when he purchased it, to his death there, on August 16 of 1977.

He never passed by them, without either greeting them from his car, bike, or whatever vehicle he would be riding, but on many occasions stopped altogether, to greet them and signed autographs. That is why his autograph, of all things, is the only thing of his that is worth little. There are millions of them.

With 5 singles released, but played little outside the South, and with a new manager who knew what he was doing, and had increased Elvis` reach for the last 6 months of 1955, Elvis moved from SUN to RCA.

At first, not even the brilliant, yet subdued delivery of his first single, via the 6 Dorsey Shows he appeared in February and March of 1956, was of any help. RCA, for a moment there, thought they had hired the wrong person from SUN, thinking Carl Perkins was the one they should have hired instead.

And then, something else happened. His first single went number one, followed by his second going also to the top, and finally by his first album doing what no rock album before had achieved, the top of the album charts. Not only most songs in the album showed a versatile artist, but he was now scheduled to appear on Milton Berle Show. The first time, it was actually uneventful, as he appeared on top of an aircraft carrier.

But the second drew 800,000 letter of protest, as he delivered, with gusto, his still to be recorded, next single. Eight hundred thousand letters of protest, against a 30 million TV audience. Steve Allen, on another network, took notice. When he appeared there, he was seen by 40 million, his subdued performance, with a tux and tails, notwithstanding.

Then, Ed Sullivan took notice. At the first of three appearances there, in September of 1956, he drew 58 million TV viewers. The second, a month later, drew 60 million.

Add three more # 1 singles, and another # 1 album, add the 245 sold out performances of that year, add the seven million teenagers who went to see his first movie, and the US$20 million in memorabilia he was able to lend his name to that year, and it is little wonder that, in late 1956, the weekly "Variety" would dare call him, in a huge headline, the "king of Rock and Roll". At no time did they say, in the accompanying article, that he was the best, or the most gifted. Simply, he had put rock and roll on the map, selling half the output of RCA, then the biggest company in the world. Had he done just this, and passed away, or retired, his contribution to the development of rock would have been, still, immense.

And then, something else happened. By the end of 1956, Presley sang better, 200 hundred times better, in fact, than he did in 1955.

And how did this occur? Lessons? Hardly. Well, if you sing more than 500 times in public, in a 24 month period, you will sing better, that is for sure. The best singers, when young, are the ones who sing the most. In 1956, in addition to his live singing, he recorded 56 songs. But all those extra takes are there, even today, for anyone to listen. He could deliver, back to back and in a three hour period, 40 takes of a song as hard on the voice as "Hound Dog', as he did on July 1, 1956, then listen to the forty takes, and signal take 27 as the one he loved the most.

By this time, Presley`s ear, already somewhat known for its accuracy, became what many rock historians later called, "unerring". The first rock producer, before rock producers were called that, he had total control over everything he recorded, from January 1956 until his departure to Germany. Takes upon takes, usually with everyone else making mistakes, were done, and redone, with Presley delivering brilliant singing until he felt the song was now the result of how he had interpreted it would sound, in his head.

That was a massive undertaking. He played rythm guitar, with great feeling, in most all of those early recordings, piano in some and bass in at least one of them. He had a great rythm for music, without knowing more than the basic chords. In 1957, he again topped the charts for an amazing 26 weeks, just as he had in 1956, with 4 additional number one singles, as well as two other albums, including a Christmas one. He also topped every chart imaginable, pop, country, r&b; and even had a number one Extended Play, with a gospel album.

So, here we are, in late 1957 and early 1958 and now Elvis, of all things, is drafted. He makes three more movies, cementing rock in that industry, for sure, then records 8 new songs so that they are released while he is serving overseas. He does his duty, brilliantly considering what he was up against ( the most famous, fairest looking already by this time, man on the planet, suddenly transported and of all places, with the toughest outfit in the US Army, the 82nd Army Division). By his grace, dilligence, and professionalism, he becomes right there, and then, the most famous G. I. in history.

During this period, and together with his contemporaries, he ensures, by his huge notoriority, that rock is listened to, not just in Australia, or England, but even deep behind the Iron Curtain. In the USSSR, his records are illegally available, through X rays, of all means. Serving in West Germany, the East German Government calls him the secret weapon of the West, against communism.

Had he not returned to America, and been killed in manouvers (he was stationed near the East German Border, but in peace time), he would have still been remembered by, and given a huge credit for, the development of rock not just as an important musical idiom, but as the most important one, and as a prime mover for the advancement of one of the cultural aspects for which America was, and still is, most known for throughout the world, namely the creation of a rock movement so influential that it still lives, 50 years after.

By the time he returns from the Army, in March of 1960, his voice, as a result of normal natural growth, not of coaching of any kind, has matured even further. He can now tackle napolitan songs with deadly accuracy, walk through the park with talking bridges and deliver the old stuff, with equal ease.

His only live, recorded concert of the early sixties, a benefit show which resulted in the building of the USS Arizona Memorial, in Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was proof of his continuing love for rock, and its roots.

Here is what he sang that day.

"Heartbreak Hotel"
"All Shook Up"
"A Fool Such As
"I Got A Woman"
"Love Me"
"Such A Night"
"Reconsider Baby"
"I Need Your Love Tonight"
"That's All Right Mama"
"Don't Be Cruel"
"One Night"
"Are You Lonesome Tonight"
"It's Now Or Never"
"Swing Down Sweet Chariot"
"Hound Dog"

Had Elvis Preslsy not made a single picture in the 60`s, and had retired to his home in Graceland, or had passed away in 1961, he would still have been remembered, througout the world, as the extraordnary vocalist he was, and as the man who put rock on the US, then world`s map.

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

gallivant

the 'accomplishments' of Elvis, that you have selectively chosen to summarize, don't really tell us much that we don't already know. and quotes like this don't help your cause much, in my view:

quote:

With just a rudimentary knowledge of both the guitar, and the piano, he was able to absorb, not just copy, all of these musical idoms, by age 16.

it is commonly known that Elvis could barely play any instrument, throughout his life. and your later comment, about him being the 'producer' is just not supportable. what was Sam Phillips, again? just someone who happened to be present when Presley recorded? come on, gallivant. you know better, and so does everyone reading these posts.

and the idea that we should have pity on Presley, because people made fun of his name.....please. shall we cue the violins here?

the brief, short paragraphs that you afforded 'the Great One', Buddy Holly, was obligatory, on your part. but it doesn't detract from what we all know - that rock n' roll wasn't about a man and a microphone - it was about bands with electric guitars and people writing their own songs. Elvis had a place in the development of rock n' roll, but he wasn't quite the genius that you make him out to be. Carl Perkins was doing rockabilly during this same period, as were others - Elvis simply got the credit because for one thing, Carl had been seriously injured in a car wreck.
there were others who were doing this music that you attribute soley to Elvis.... historically, your version of events is not accurate.

Elvis' quote "i don't know anything about music - in my line you don't have to" seems to summarize my points as well as anything i could say. he could sing, and was good at that. but he wasn't a musically creative genius, by any standards. even Elvis recognized this.

quote:

There are at least three dozen errors from posters here, all factual, and I am not going to name each one of them..........For starters, the question, namely "Buddy or Elvis", who was better? (which is, in itself and considering how great each was at what they each did), is an incredibly "general" question that could not, under any circumstances, yield a qualitatively rooted answer. It will always be either quantitative, or very subjective.

convenient of you to bypass the so-called 'errors' in previous posts... i will postulate that they are not really errors at all, but just the opinions of people who consider Buddy more relevant and important to the development of rock n' roll than Elvis.

as far as the rest of your above quote, it would seem to have the effect of nullifying most everything you say. because pretty much everything you say, is in essence, subjective.
as is most everything i say, or anyone else on this site. the idea that you feel the need to come on here and try to make us all love Elvis as much as you do is somewhat pathetic, in my view. i mean you no disrespect, but what's the point? we love Holly, for reasons previously stated, and none of your comments will change a single thing about what we all know and love about Buddy.

most of us on this site consider Elvis to be seriously over-rated, and Buddy to be seriously under-appreciated. and sadly, that's probably how it will remain for all time.

some brief additional observations - yes, Elvis performed X-number of times during the years you cited. but those performances were not concerts, as we know them now. only about three songs were performed at each appearance. not taking anything away from Elvis, but you make it sound like he was doing these massive concert appearances, when he was just showing up to do three tunes and move on. that was standard at the time, and true for Elvis' contemporaries as well. it had an influence, clearly. but it had an influence when Chuck Berry performed as well. Elvis was one of many performers who helped to popularize rock n' roll. the headline you refer to about the "king" or rock n' roll was due to Colonel Tom's public relations efforts - the title of "king" came from him.

one other thing - Elvis's career ended in an embarassing fashion. there are many accounts of concerts he gave in the 70's where he couldn't get through his most well-known songs - he is on tape stumbling through them, unable to remember the lyrics to his own songs. as a singer, that is pretty sad. i don't mean to speak disrespectfully of Elvis, but let's face it - he was a drug addict, and he hurt his own reputation by virtue of the addictions he had.
the first time that happened (forgetting his words and making a fool of himself) he should've immediately sought help. but he continued to do the same thing over and over again. and his bandmates eventually left, unwilling to see him deteriorate. yes, he was known for being good with his fans, but most artists are. that's their bread and butter, after all. this deterioration was sad, and shows, in my view, that he was not as extraordinary a man as you make him out to be.
he wasn't able to recognize his own self-destruction. sure, it's true that addiction, by definition, is the inability to recognize what's happening to oneself, but if Elvis was truly the musical genius that you say he was, then shouldn't he have noticed what was happening, when he couldn't remember the words to his own songs, and rambled on and on with gibberish in front of thousands?

that said, i give him the credit of helping to open the doors for white artists to do rock n' roll, or as you call it 'rockabilly'. someone had to do what Elvis did, and he deserves credit for that. but as i've previously pointed out, the tradition Elvis was following - that of singers singing other people's songs - was pretty much obliterated during the 50's, by people like Buddy Holly, and things in the music business - rock, pop, country, etc.... - have never been the same. nowadays, the music business is pretty much defined by artists who do their own stuff, and this is has been true for decades, with few exceptions.

and the credit for this goes in large part, to Buddy Holly.