According to the Beatles Encyclopedia Paul McCartney owns the publishing rights for 38 Holly songs.Some of these have a credit on the 2003 THE CRICKETS COLLECTION of all the Coral singles
Was he then not able to obtain rights to all the songs bearing the Holly name?

This CD has a sleeve note by one David McAleer which says thet Holly first cut That'll be the day in 1956.I know he made 2 solo singles pre Crickets but this was not one of the known of titles

He made a lot more than 2 solo singles pre-Crickets...try about at least 11 or 12 that he recorded with Bob Montgomery. Most all of these, if not all, were recorded at home, probably using a wire recorder. My Two-Timin Woman, (I believe pre-Bob Montgomery) although it is quesstionable at first if it really is Buddy singing with his pre-teen voice, upon listening to the guitar work there is no doubt it can be anyone but.

Only 2 official singles though.The sleeve notes indicated that the first Crickets song That'll be the day was made by Holly a year earlier but would it have had the Norman Petty credit if it HAD been issued as a single?

technically, you're correct. the Nashville sessions, which took place in 1956, produced only two single releases. the first was "Blue Days, Black Nights" with "Love Me" on the B side. and the second was "Modern Don Juan" with "You are My One Desire" as the B side.
neither of these singles did well, unfortunately.

"That'll be the Day" was originally recorded on the second Nashville session, but wasn't released until after the Clovis version began to chart. this version credits only Jerry Allison and Buddy Holly as writers. obviously, Norman was given credit on the Clovis version due to his production contributions, though the song was already written. the first recording is interesting, but doesn't approach the sheer genius of the Clovis version. for one thing, it's in a higher key, and Buddy strains at the notes.

How could Blue days,Black nights not do well?

quote:

How could Blue days,Black nights not do well?

one reason this song didn't do well has to do with promotion and distribution - the song DID do well in certain markets, but not nationally. Coral didn't have a clue how to market Buddy - they just thought they needed a rockabilly artist on their label. but they didn't know how to record him, really, nor did they know what to do once some tracks were laid down.

many great songs don't do well, and it's largely due to how they are promoted and distributed. many of Buddy's greatest songs weren't marketed and promoted well - just study the charts and ask yourself how a great song like "Heartbeat" could barely make the Top 40. the same goes for a lot of his best stuff. worse yet, many additional great songs were not even released until after Buddy's death.

one additional reason for the lack of chart success and record sales is that Buddy was so far ahead of his time, that many of the songs he wrote and recorded were simply too hip and sophisticated for the 50's record buying public, for radio, and ultimately, for his label.

I think,
in the main Buddy was on the wrong record label,
the head of Coral was married to Debby Reynolds
and they were run by a bunch of squares from the old school.
In those days there was very little selling to the public, it was all about air play. Elvis took several years to take off nationally. for the same reasons, these days a video can sell the song of far less talented people.

Sales in the U.K. were much higher than the States, and we did not buy magazines telling us that Buddy was the best, we made up our own minds after hearing a voice that was warm, and
different.

As Jerry says, the best songs for many reasons are out sold by songs that are mediocre,
simplicity often triumphs over Class.

The song quoted Blue Days was never played ,
in the U.K. until many years after his death

John Berry Franklin