Howdy all you Buddy fans,

Although I have seen some of the less than flattering things said about the Bopper in this discussion board, I still believe a lack of framiliarity with the Big Boppers music and life are the reasons some of you might feel like launching insults about a guy you would have to be an asshole not to like and who has done more than you might have guessed for rock music during its fragile infancy.

Everybody knows "chantilly lace" and you probably like it, but besides that top ten smash the Big Bopper had 3 top 100 hits in less than 6 months with "Big Boppers wedding" and "little red riding hood" also he wrote the #1 hit "white lightnin'" for music legend George Jones and another #1 hit "running bear" for Johnny Preston. This is all within a 6 month performance career!
Also the Big Bopper was as a dj who helped popularise rock n roll music in eastern texas at a time when black music was not accepted there he came up with the idea for "short films" to accompany songs and gave us the term
"music video" and was the first to make one!
Also at the time of his death the bopper held the record for longest continuing broadcasting going six days without sleep and spinning nearly 2000 records .


P.S. lets not forget that day the music died incident stole a husband from a woman a father from a son and a generation of big bopper fans were cheated out of even knowing his music.

I you have any love for rock and roll music or any thing resembling a heart please go to www.officialbigbopper.com and sign the petition to get him in . Every signature helps get him closer.

WHY NOT ? THANKS YALL AND KEEP ON RAVIN' ON.

Why not? Because Buddy Holly and Ritchie Valens deserve to be in that hall of fame, they were both accomplished musicans.Granted, the Bopper was a good songwritter and came up with the whole music video thing, and if there was a DJ hall of fame or a songwritters hall of fame, you bet your ass I would vote for him, but I dont think he was quiet there when it came to fitting the bill of musician.And I'll admit it, I do like "Chantilly Lace", but when compared to anything by Buddy or Ritchie, it doest really measure up.And when you say the day the music died to a husband from a woman ect... well that was kind of the case with all the performers we lost that night. Buddy was married, and had a baby on the way, Ritchie was on the verge of getting engaged, and was all his mother had, and we were cheated from all of their music, especially when you think of what Buddy had in the works.Sure the Big Bopper was making great strides toward being in that hall of fame, and I think should he have lived longer he would have got there, but from where he stood at the end of his career....well you'll have to forgive us if were a bit skepical.Im sorry if your a Bopper,fan but you have to face the truth....Chantilly Lace was a great song that was obviously enough to get the Bopper into a headlining spot on the Winter Dance Party, but it isnt really enough to get him into a hall with musicans that accomplished twice as much as him, and in some cases, not over a very long period of time.And I dont think DJing skills count when there deciding whos gettin in.........So, again, Im sorry if I've insulted you or anything, but in my opinion, the Bopper wasnt quiet there.......

There's one thing that we do have to thank the Bopper for, and that was music videos.
The Bopper was on the tour because of Chantilly Lace, yet Ritchie and Buddy were on the tour because of a whole slew of hits that they had sent into the top ten because of their talent. The Bopper was a disc-jockey, and I think would have done quite well in the producing aspect, maybe, because of his DJ experience, etc.
Ought of curiosity, I went to the above website, though not to sign the petition, don't worry, just to look at the site. I clicked a on video clip of Winter Dance Party 1959, and it turned out to be a clip of the John Mueller performance of "Buddy". If there is any reason to go to that site, this is it. There's clips of all the performers doing some songs, amd there's a lot of Buddy. Though there's one part where John Mueller (Buddy) is on his back, playing the guitar, and it looks, well, odd. I would love to see that performance.
J.P. Richardson has made rock and roll history because of his untimely death, and of whom with his death coincides, and how it occured. But, as crazy_for_buddy said, just as DJing skills don't get you into the hall of fame, it's not how you died that gets you into the hall of fame either. Sorry to be so cynical (I think that's the word) but though the Bopper was a good man, probably had a good sense of humour, sure, he was at the same status as Buddy and Ritchie, but he was captapulted to that status by one song, and had not worked his way there like Buddy and Ritchie had.
Everyone lost something that night, and none of it for the better.

The Bopper was on the tour in support of "Big Boppers wedding" not chantilly lace and ritchie is far less qualified than him as far as charting songs, popularity at the time and a whole host of other reasons namely his 2 #1 hits he wrote, his early promotion of rock music and incredible live shows and while i am a huge Ritchie valens fan he is not as important in the evolution of rock as the Big Bopper . check the news paper headlines he was huge at the time. if Ritchie is inducted(2001) than its only right to induct J.P. Richardson facts speak for themselves its just too bad the bopper didnt have Lou Diamond Phillips playing him in a cheesy made up hollywood movie.

P.S. the hall does have a non performer category and have you ever listened to the Boppers music? and if so how could you not love it? he freakin rocks!

though he is no Buddy Holly he will be inducted with or without your help I just wish it was with but ....

Ok, theres a couple things you need to get staight before you go on insulting one of the best musicans of all time.Ritchie Valens was in the music industy for 9 months, and in the 9 months had 3 records hit the charts. Come On Lets Go reached number 42, La Bamba, which was barley realesed before his death, reached 26, and Donna, which reached number 2. The man was the first Latino ever in the music industry, which is why his last name had to be changed from Valenzuela to Valens, in case of backlash.He took a Mexican folk song, a language that he couldnt even speak, and arranged it into one of the most popular songs ever to be covered. He came from extreame poverty ans had to make his first guitar by hand. By the time he was 14, he was already known as the Little Richard Of San Fernando. How can you say Ritchie was not as important to the evolution of rock as the Bopper was? He created an entire new form of rock n roll with just one song!! Why isnt the Bopper inducted? Because he was a damn disc jockey, that why. I have a best of Ritchie Valens cd, and it as 20 songs on it, all of which kick the ass of anything the Bopper did. And for your information, La Bamba happens to be my favourite movie of all time, I know the words to it for God sakes, and I know that very little of it is fiction. I know everything there is to know about Ritchie Valens, and that movie is about as close to his actual life as a movie could be. I own tons of best of the 50s cds, and Ritchies on every one of them, and the Bopper isnt on any. But ya, I have heard his music, and its so incomparable to anything Ritchie did that its no wonder he got inducted and the Bopper didnt. Have you ever heard of anything by Ritchie besides Donna or La Bamba? The guy was almost as ahead of the times as Buddy....whearas the Big Bopper sounds directly out of the 50s..There are so many things we have to thank Ritchie Valens for, as without him rock would be almost as bad as it would be if we had no Buddy.Give the Big Bopper a guitar and mabey then I would vote for him, but Ritchie could play circles around almost anybody. I dont think the Bopper shouldnt be in the hall of fame, I just feel that Ritchie has more right there. He was a genius, and was still a teenager.Im sorry, but I cant stand it when people bash one of the most important pioneers of rock n roll.

Your right, Ritchie was no Buddy Holly, but he was the closest thing to it, and still is.

Dude I´hate to burst your bubble but La Bamba is complete fiction ask any one who knows and while a badass movie it was even less accurate than the buddy holly story and the Bopper had just as many hits as Ritchie plus his other innovations, please dont get me wrong because I love ritchie valens with all my heart and hate to even compare the two but Ritchie and the Big Bopper were damn near equals when it came to accoomplishments and while Ritchie was a greater guitar player than the Bopper but Bopper none the less played guitar on every song he recorded and his music is just as good .
In fact more people that I know grow to love the Bopper more than Valens who the world knows through the fake movie , do your home work on these guys man! Ritchie wasant even credited on the soundtrack at all and none of his life is accurately portrayed .
Donna and him were not even together when the accident happened and yes Ritchie did speak spanish very well and spoke it to his mother and maria elena Holly you would do better to research this stuff before you start preaching
plus you would gain an even greater respect for Ritchie try more research because someone as passionate as you with the real facts in there hands is going to help keep Ritchies memory alive ask Bill Griggs both the Buddy holly story and La Bamba are as bogus as your assessment of the Big Bopper .

P.S. Valens does sound better than Valensuela anyway i mean what a cool name Ritchie Valens
and saying the Big Bopper was just a dj is like saying that buddy was just a tile setter or that ritchie was just a teenager!

Do my homework? How many Ritchie Valens websites have you been on? I have been on every one in exsistence, Im a member of every fan club there is, I've been obsessed with the guy since I was three!! Please dont argue with me over this, because I do know all there is to about Ritchie Valens, I've spent weeks "doing my homework". The guy didnt speak fluent Spanish, he picked up some words here and there from his family.La Bamba was fairly close, although I realize that a lot of theatrical liscence was taken, and lots stuff was made up, but it was way closer than the Buddy Holly Story. Granted, I dont know much about the Bopper, and I'm not pretending I do, but I do know everything there is about Ritchie, so I think your the one who better do your homework. And I have the soundtrack to La Bamba, the original record, and while Los Lobos perform all the songs, the writting is credited to Ritchie Valens. I'm not sayin the Bopper doesnt deserve to be in the hall, I'm just sayin my preference is Ritchie, and I believe he deserves to be there. Plus, I dont think either of them would apprieciate us arguing over whos better......I like some of the Boppers stuff, you like some of Ritchies....enough said.

quote:

Originally posted by nikliss:
anyway i mean what a cool name Ritchie Valens
and saying the Big Bopper was just a dj is like saying that buddy was just a tile setter or that ritchie was just a teenager!

The Big Bopper was a DJ because that's what he was first known as. He was a DJ that sang rock and roll music. Buddy and Ritchie, on the other hand, well. Buddy was a rock and roller who did come from humble backgrounds, and he was a rock and roller that happened to be a carpenter apprentice in his early days. Ritchie Valens just happened to be a teenager when he made it big.
I do admit that my knowledge of Ritchie Valens is very limited, most of what I know of him I have picked up on this board, or picked up because of various bits and pieces of info disclosed in articles on the crash. But I have no doubt that he was bigger than the Bopper, sorry. Really, the Bopper needed more time on this earth to make it big, because he was going on a one hit. Did he have anything in the studio that he was going to jump on when he got back? Ritchie sure had plans for the future, what he was going to record and such, and Buddy, well. The guy had recorded a slew of things in his apartment, never mind waiting to get back into the studio for pity's sake!
This is the thing about the crash: they were all equal in the end. Nobody got spared because of his Djing skills, because of his guitar skills, because of his age, because of the famiily that was waiting to see him back home. The crash made them all equals, and in the end, they all lay in the same spot. No one was a better rock and roller than the other, and that's that. Look at what the hall of fame (and numerous awards) have gotten Buddy. Bootleg box sets, a very fictional and almost throwing-things-at-the-TV-set inducing movie, and a name that is nowhere near as recognized as Elvis. Hall of fame isn't everything.

Well now,thats a damn good point...and a very true one too.The whole thing was a huge tragidy, and arguing over who was better in life is just depreciating all three. It shouldnt matter which is in the hall of fame and which isnt, what matters is that they're music is still enjoyed by scores of people who keep their memory alive. And as you say, the hall of fame sure as hell hasnt done anything but harm for Buddy and Ritchie, so mabey its a good thing the Big Bopper hasnt been inducted yet....

I want to apologize for the misconception that I was trying to compare the musicians as far as the raw talent in each of them goes I never would in a million years suggest that ritchie wasant amazing in every sence of the word, because he was. I have every known Valens recording and they are incredible and he is even better live as the live at pacoima j.r. high album shows so please dont think that I have anything against Ritchie because he is on my mind daily.
but he was not the first latino in the music industry there were others a la Rickey Ricardo
with popular hits but rather the first latino
rocker to hit the big time and yes ive spent my life as a Valens fanatic and have done some serious and exausting research on him for years
and the movie la bamba is a total farce with but a few historcal nuggets thrown in because they were too important to ignore and that my friend is 100% fact and though I have not a copy of the movie soundtrack on 33rpm
I do have a c.d. and cassette of it and neither
list valens on any part there are no writing credits listed even for other artists not performing Valens songs. Also according to his mother connie,bob keane,waylon jennings,tommy allsup,carl bunch,dion,and carlo and freddie of the bellmonts as well as maria elena holly have all testafied to his speaking spanish the movie was trying to give the impression that he didnt fit in with either culture causing him to feel alienated and that is the myth before ritchie even signed with del-fi or recorded come on lets go he was a favorate of latinos all over the valley a favorate that spoke perfect spanish that is.(he is mexican and surrounded by mexicans his entire life do you think they spoke english at home?) Also the buddy holly story was released nearly a decade before the hall of fame existed.
but to make a long story short an argument was noy my intention when I posted the request for signatures for the big bopper, my intention was to inform people who love rock and roll that they could help one of its pioneers get inducted into the hall and at the same time mabie turn a few people onto his music,music that he died bringing to his fans.
and while the Big Bopper might not have a hollywood movie made about him he still deserves the credit and respect due to him
I figured that this site would be a good place to find friends of the Big Bopper people who care but mabie that was my mistake and I apologise for trying to do so I thought there would be exietment at the prospect of being able to push a few buttons and help a man get his dues all ive gotten mostly is dont get me wrongs and insults from people who should care .
Regardless though the Bopper wants in the hall and cleaveland wont let him down so if you want to help the website is www.officialbigbopper.com
though the site is under construction the petition is waiting for your signature and some day just mabie the Big Bopper will thank you himself in the next world.

I knew there were some staunch Big Bopper fans lurking out there, with the same old arguments---that the Big Bopper wrote this and that, oh, and everything he wrote was a hit, and he was changing the face of Rock & Roll, oh, and he invented music videos, and... Sheesh.

First, saying that J.P. Richardson invented music videos is like saying that Al Gore invented the Internet. LOL... The practice of filming musical shorts dates back to the earliest days of "talkie" films, in the 1920s. These evolved into the feature-length musicals of the 30s, 40s, 50s and 60s. Throughout the 50s---well, when television really took off---there were a number of televised variety shows that featured musical guests, with their performances captured on film and video for posterity (including Elvis and Buddy Holly), which are still shown today on some music video channels... In the 60s, groups such as The Beatles, The Beachboys and others went back to filming musical shorts, similar in many ways to the very first "music videos" of the 1920s.

So, how in the hell did J.P. Richardson invent something that already existed before he was even born? Answer: He didn't.

As for his songwriting abilities, I've said it before and I'll say it again---J.P. wrote childish novelty songs. Sort of in the style of Weird Al Yankovich, with absolutely no musical originality, and always with some sort of campy premise. "Running Bear" was a hokey tale of star-crossed Indian lovers. "White Lightnin'" was a goofy song about hillbillies making moonshine. And who can forget "The Purple People Eater Meets The Witch Doctor"? Fortunately, most people forgot it, even though it was the A-side of "Chantilly Lace"... And J.P. pretty much consistently misjudged which songs were "hot"---the guy had terrible taste in music.

Was he a musician? According to his mother, he plinked around on his acoustic sometimes, strumming some basic chords. And, because he ad-libbed many of his lyrics, he couldn't even lip-sync his own songs. Does this qualify as a musical innovator?

More importantly, we might ask did the Big Bopper have staying power? Would he have lasted another year in the music business? Two years? I think two years is really pushing it---I mean, on his last tour the guy was pushing "The Big Bopper's Wedding," which was a perfect example of what a poor songwriter he was. It was right on par with "The Purple People Eater Meets the Witch Doctor" for musical value.

So, no, I don't believe the Big Bopper was headed for super-stardom, nor even a position of influence in the music industry---unless he was just going to write childish novelty songs for the rest of his career, which would get him plenty of airplay on Dr. Demento.

And, no, Ritchie Valens didn't speak Spanish. His aunt had to coach him on the lyrics to LaBamba.

THANK YOU!!! For the love of God its nice to get some hard hitting support around here from people who actually know what there talking about. Hell man, I didnt try to insult anyone, but saying that the Bopper and Ritchie Valens were equals is pretty much the same thing as comparing Elvis to Buddy, and we all know how that turned out. And no, nikliss, Ritchie DIDNT speak Spanish, as we all have told you countless times. He admits to it in an interview I have seen, and every known Ritchie site out there states that he did indeed need his aunts coaching in the pronuciation of La Bamba. And as for living in a house full of Mexicans, well he was kind of bounced around between family members when he was a child before finally settling with his mother. Why would they teach him Spanish? He was growing up in America, with predomiently white kids(although Im aware that his neighborhood was largely Hispanic) and would really have no use for the language, most of his close relatives spoke English. And I have said before that I have always refrained from harsh judgement for the Big Bopper because I do know so little of him, but from what I've picked up here, its not sounding like he made too much of an impact on the face of rockn roll, and certainly not as much as Ritchie. Listen, I respect your love for the Bopper,and I dont mean to insult you, but you just cant compare the two. And it was obvious how the majority of this board felt about the Bopper from other forums, so to come round and say that he is more deserving of the hall of fame than Ritchie is kinda stupid dont ya think? Especially after I stated that Ritchie makes a close second only to Buddy...But as buddy_blue said, in the end, does it really matter? There all gone, but their music is still around...as I've said, this argument is just depreciating all three...

Okay, maybe "music videos" were around before the Bopper was born, but it seems that he at least coined the phrase music video. This is an interesting question: did the Bopper actually do any music videos himself? The only reason I knew he coined the term, if you will, is listening to some other person do an english project on the Bopper, like I said, my knowledge of the Bopper extends not much past the plane crash, and while my knowledge of Ritchie Valens extends a little bit further, not that much further.
So why then does the Bopper get credit for the music videos, then, if Charles Austin claims that no, he didn't actually "invent" something that was around before his time? And are there videos of the Bopper?

[posting removed -- personal attacks]

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

BOOB!

[personal attacks removed by request]

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

Sorry I was not all together sober when I layed down all that crap, didnt think ahead, sorry Charles Austin.

quote:

nikliss

nikliss, nikliss, nikliss,

Where are you getting your information concerning Ritchie Valens? I run the official website of Ritchie Valens and I cannot believe that you know for fact the movie was fake. The movie is about as real as you are going to get on Ritchie, sure there are some fiction writings in it, like all films do. But the major part of film is not, the situation with Donna is different than what was portrayed on film, but that's how it was made to create a love story that would draw a conclusion to the film. The love of Donna, but real life they were not really an item, he had an eye for her and did see each other several times, but a huge romance, not so. Although Donna may say differently now, due to the fact that she would not have any part of the film unless she was portrayed the love interest for Ritchie. There is so much to this story, but here is not the place to write about it.

Bob Keane portrayed as a caring manager, not so in real life in the end like managers of that era and some today all think of the dollar. If he cared so much about Ritchie why the tour for winter dance?

He had other options and guest appearances on many shows, that was & were offered, he wanted the big money, unfortunately it cost Ritchie his life. But in the end Keane wins because in 1987, he made a killing on Ritchie Valens when his star rose again and the rest we say is history.

Now for those who say they really know Ritchie, well if you are going by Del-fi Records, then you actually don't. Visit our website as we will put out a full bio one step at a time.

As for Ricky Ricardo as he is a good singer, he is not rock and roll. Ritchie Valens is the first latino rocker like it or not. Even the rock & roll hall of fame recognizes this, so who knows what! Even the Rolling Stone magazine recognizes this, of course it may not be saying much, but don't get me started on rolling stone.

This is the first time Ritchie Valens has an official website that is endorsed by his brother Bob and this is it folks.

See you at the website!

http://www.ritchievalens.org

Your
RitchieValensWebmaster

ultimately, since the Big Bopper, Richie Valens, and Buddy Holly all died in the same plane crash, their legacies are forever linked. but i don't feel there's any real comparison to be made between the three, although Buddy was obviously the most gifted, by far. in fact, as we all know, Buddy was one of the most gifted singer/songwriter/performers of all time. it's safe to say that Richie was also gifted. both were huge losses to the music world, though Richie was too young to have really made a mark yet. i believe he would have, in time, become great also.

now, as to the Big Bopper, i really don't agree that we can or should sit here and trivialize the man and his life. he accomplished quite a bit and deserves credit for that. to be the writer of three number one songs is nothing to
make light of. and novelty songs have a place in music - people such as ray stevens, bobby bear, jim stafford and many others had careers that consisted in part, of novelty songs. those type of artists are not in the same category as a Buddy Holly or a Richie Valens, but they have something to offer, just the same. humor in music is a timeless tradition, and there always has been and always will be a place for it.

weird al yankovic isn't a good comparison, really, since his career was in doing parodies of existing songs. yes, that's novelty, but the Big Bopper wrote real songs and at least three of them are notable - Running Bear, White Lightnin', and Chantilly Lace. some may dislike these songs, or feel that they're inferior, but it's really an exercise in futility to criticize them. they succeeded, and are still in rotation on many stations, even today. the mother of a high school friend of mine loved Chantilly Lace and it was probably her favorite song. i'm not convinced that she was a blithering idiot for liking the song, as some would tend to imply, because frankly, i like the song too.

it's good to appreciate music for what it is, and not expect everyone to approach it the same way. when i listen to country, i listen differently than i would if i were listening to mozart, or to led zeppelin. each artist/composer/writer has something to say and something to offer, and they must be listened to and appreciated on their own merits.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry:
ultimately, since the Big Bopper, Richie Valens, and Buddy Holly all died in the same plane crash, their legacies are forever linked. but i don't feel there's any real comparison to be made between the three, although Buddy was obviously the most gifted, by far.

Buddy was the most gifted of the three because he had the most time. crazy_for_buddy can give you the exact numbers here, but Ritchie had maybe 6 months to record what he did. And it's even harder to find his stuff than it is to find Buddy's outtakes. (okay, that might be a slight exagggeration, but not my much ) But the point is, what he recorded is very very good. I said before that listening to Buddy is like listening to a mixed CD-the next song sounds completely different than the previous song. Now, listening to Ritchie's recordings, I can say the same thing. There's some tracks where I wonder if the producers screwed up and put a Los Lobos track on the Cd instead of a Ritchie track...just cause they sound so different, in tone and pitch and rhythm. But it's all Ritchie. And he was a hell of a guitar player apparently too. (Malaguena anyone? )Ritchie and Buddy were both very gifted, neither more than the other. You may notice that I have left the Bopper out of this so far. Possibly because I've only heard Chantilly Lace by him. He was a disc jockey, that perhaps got lucky. Who knows what he would have done, I'll speak optimistcally here. But I refuse to speak ill of the dead here, as it seems no one was really lucky in the final moments of their life.

quote:

Buddy was the most gifted of the three because he had the most time.

i disagree with this statement, and find it hard to believe that you'd make it, buddy blue, with all due respect. there is no way that Ritchie Valens could've ever accomplished anything close to what Buddy accomplished - as a matter of fact, there's no way that anyone could've. why? because Buddy had already done it. Ritchie was gifted, but let's be honest here. Buddy was THE trailblazer of all trailblazers. the overdubbing, the harmonizing of his voice, the use of strings, establishing musical freedom for artists to do their own songs their own way, being one of the first to use two guitars, bass and drums as the line-up for rock n' roll, popularizing the stratocaster, using clever chord progressions, rhythms and melodies, combining numerous styles into a hybrid style (pop, gospel, country, blues, latin, etc....), and on and on and on. Buddy was the one who blazed these trails, and all people like Ritchie Valens could do was to follow Buddy's example. in addition, there is no way to tell with certainty if Ritchie would've gone on to greatness, given more time, although as i said in my post, i personally believe he would have, for all the reasons you mentioned. he was a great singer/songwriter, no question about it. but Buddy, as your signature says, was the true king of rock n' roll. which brings me to your second comment, which i disagree with even more.

quote:

Ritchie and Buddy were both very gifted, neither more than the other.

again, with due respect to you as a Buddy fan and a Ritchie fan, and with due respect to Ritchie Valens' memory, this statement is simply not supportable, for all the reasons aforementioned, and many more. if you really believe that Ritchie Valens and Buddy Holly were equally gifted, then shouldn't your signature say "they crowned Elvis as king, but Buddy and Ritchie were the rightful heirs"? i'm not trying to be argumentative, or disrespectful, but in my view, Buddy Holly had no equal - in talent or any other category. that said, i agree that Ritchie was talented and had tremendous potential. but let's not try to claim that they were 'equally gifted' somehow, just because they happened to have died in the same plane crash.

Buddy Holly is the best icon of the fifties, hands down. I will never argue that with anyone on any day. Because what Buddy did was ages ahead of his time, and it wasn't popular at all, and yet he pushed for it, believed in it, loved it so much that he would die for it. In band, we're constantly being told to put passion into our music, make it our own. Tell a story. Make the audience feel what you feel about this music. Get lost in it. Just love it.
I think Buddy was born knowing how to do that, music was just in his blood, and you can't have a better blood type than that.

As for "Ritchie following in Buddy's footsteps" really...? I knew Buddy wanted to experiment with flamenco guitar and the likes when he was in New York, but he sang a song in Spanish? There's been rumours that he sang the song Maria Elena with his wife, but jerry, really, if you've heard these tapes of Buddy playing Mexican/Spanish music and singing the likes, really, you must share.
My point is that the two had different styles and were gifted equally I believe, as I'm sure I'm entitled to my opinion here, in their own respective areas. Who knows, maybe all Ritchie loved was performing the music, and that's what he would have done for the rest of his days. It's easier for me to speculate about Buddy as I know more about his background, but it seems he could have gone inot any number of areas, including producer as he had already proven for Waylon Jennings and a number of other artists. Again, the two had their special areas. Even JI Allison will admit to that perhaps Buddy's status was elevated a bit by his tragic end. This no doubt goes for Ritchie and the Bopper, though I will keep away from the subject of the Bopper for now.

Someone's got to keep the music living. Someone's got to keep on what Buddy started. They miscrowned Elvis, and with no Buddy, we are missing an heir. There cannot be two heirs to the throne, and that one heir is Buddy.

Thanks buddy_blue, your the best! And you know better than to speak ill of Ritchie Valens in my presence (not that youd want too though, especially since I just got you hooked on him lol) I pride myself on being a Ritchie Valens fan, perhaps even more than a Buddy Holly fan, because with Buddy there are enough to go around. And I was a Valens fan long before I was a Holly obsessor. jerry, Im curious as to how many Ritchie Valens tracks/outtakes youve actually heard to make such bold statements. When it comes to raw enerygy and laying it down on the line, Buddy compares only with Ready Teddy. I highly doubt youve ever heard Malaguena if you can say that that Ritchie Valens would have never accomplished what Buddy Holly did. The kid was 17 and belting out with perfection one of the hardest guitar pieces known to man. I think very highly of Buddys guitar playing, I perform it, I know how difficult it is. But there is simply no comparisonto that of Ritchie Valens. jerry, I belive you play guitar, how many Ritchie tabs have you picked up? Its a rare thing to hear a chord in a Valens song, no one can ever argue that he used the 4 chord scheme. In the singing department, I would definatly say Ritchie had a far more unique voice than Buddy Holly did, although Buddy was defiantly the more perfected singer of the two. But Ritchie did have a great range, as buddy_blue exclaimed to me several times in great surprise (lol). Now as for Ritchie following in Buddys footsteps? Ritchie Valens and Buddy Holly are nothing alike, as far as style, as far as anything goes really. Listen to Ooh My Head, that will come apparent with the first two words. Ritchie followed no one, not Buddy Holly, not Elvis Presley, if anything he was a big fan of Little Richard, and a comparison can be drawnbetween the two through the energy both produce. jerry, I suggest you go become a "historian" on the Ritchie Valens board before you say such things. Now, I DO NOT want to give the idea that i think Ritchie is the king of rock n roll Because that is about the only statement that can be made that is unsupportable. Buddy was the king, Ive stated that hunderds of times, and I will continue to state that. He was the father as well. Period, no arguments to be made. We all know what Holly did, so I dont want a big lecture on all his innovations, Im well aware of them thank you. But jerry you speak so often about being narrow minded, when I really dont belive youve givin Ritchie his due, not even close. I have no idea what all you have heard but as I have said In very curious. Perhaps you just didnt listen hard enough to whatever you have heard, because Im sure that Buddy Holly himself was impressed at what a 17 year old kid with nothing but a guitar could do. To me, Ritchie Valens is a legend, plain and simple. But I believe if God had givin Ritchie more time on earth, allowed him to record more than 25 songs,(not including outtakes and different versions) than the entire world would feel as I do. I agree with buddy_blue when she says the two were equally talented, equally gifted, but you have to know an equal amount of information about the two before you can draw that conclusion. Because they were so different, in style and what not. If theres one major common ground that can be drawn, its the search for perfection in every piece recorded. The both deserve respect, and there place in rock n roll history. And perhaps buddy_blue and I can say that because we do not have ears exclusivly for Buddy Holly (despite him taking up the majority of our cd collections lol).

ironically, the original purpose of my post was to defend the Big Bopper from some of the disparaging and insulting remarks that were made about him. i only referenced Valens in passing, but every comment i have ever made about any of these three greats has been complimentary.

Buddy Holly clearly had spanish influences - one need only listen to the gypsy/latin/south of the border rhythms and strum patterns that he employed on many of his records to know that. he had those influences, plus that of gospel, country, r & b, blues, pop, etc.... no recordings exist of Buddy doing the spanish stuff you refer to - but then, no recordings exist of him doing 'rock house', 'the girl can't help it', 'jim dandee', 'rock around the clock', 'let the good times roll', 'harbor lights', etc.... either. that does not mean that Buddy didn't perform these songs. he most definitely did. and there are many, many others that didn't get captured, sadly. but his influences were broad and deep. still, should Buddy's influences be the same as Ritchie Valens'? hardly. they grew up in different parts of the country. but Buddy grew up in a tumbleweed town that had almost no culture or musical history whatsoever. the mere fact that he created the extraordinary music that he did, coming from lubbock, is just breathtaking. besides, if you've read interviews with Bob, Ritchie's brother, you know that one common thread between Buddy and Ritchie was the great Hank Williams Sr. another one is Little Richard. Buddy is known to have covered five Little Richard songs - "ready teddy", "rip it up", "dearest", "send me some lovin'", and "slippin' and slidin'". that's a lot of LR. but Buddy's versions were always different and unique.

please note that while Buddy covered or performed almost every song that was current and popular during the 50's, no one else ever did any Holly songs, except the diamonds, who covered "words of love". the reason is that Buddy's songs were just so unique and different that no one dared to cover them. but it's also true that Buddy fearlessly and confidently covered other people's material because he knew he could do it justice, and he always did the covers in his own style, instead of just copying the original. that is innovation the likes of which was simply unheard of in the 50's era.

but in referring to Ritchie Valens, you two are simply stating that you like his music and are impressed with his talent. no argument there, as i like his music also and appreciate his talent. but i would urge the two of you to actually pay attention to the points that are being made here, because i give Ritchie his due in all that he was capable of, and the potential that he had. but it's simply absurd to state that Buddy and Ritchie were 'equally talented and gifted'. no two people on this earth are equally talented and gifted. you all are making the mistake of using the coincidence of the two artists dying on the same night in the same plane crash to make irrelevant comparisons. it is not realistic to compare two artists on any level, really. every artist, as i've said countless times, has something to offer, and must be listened to on their own merits. Ritchie can be appreciated for what he did, and Buddy for what he did. but you ignored my points about the trailblazing that Buddy did. i will repeat, Ritchie could only follow in those footsteps.
i'm well aware of Ritchie's music, and frankly, i don't need a lecture, thank you. for instance, have you ever heard 'boogie with stu' from led zeppelin? i rather doubt it, but if you had, you'd know that it was literally a re-write of 'ooh my head', and zeppelin gave writing credits on the song to Ritchie's mother. i would appreciate it if you could just find some points of agreement with people such as myself instead of always trying to be smarter and more knowledgeable than others, when you haven't had the wealth of experience that many others, including myself, have had. there is no reason to leap to conclusions and make assumptions. assuming is one of those things that makes an "-ss" out of "u" and "me". my knowledge of Ritchie Valens has nothing to do with the subject matter. i don't dispute his talent, in fact, i affirmed it. CFB, you need to read more carefully before lashing out in such a defensive manner.

the "historian" title was given to me as a term of respect, because i know something about music history. that would tend to include other artists, not just Buddy Holly. other artists such as Ritchie Valens, for instance. you should be careful before leveling accusations at people based on limited information and whatever preconceived notions that you may hold. perhaps you should consider posting your Ritchie Valens appreciation thoughts on his site. i mean, no one has ever disparaged Ritchie Valens, least of all me. again, you need to read more carefully. i simply pointed out that Buddy was the real king of rock n' roll, and i'm sure if Ritchie were here right now, he'd concur fully.

so in closing, i'm not sure what your point was. mine was that Buddy was the true genius of the 50's. that is a fact, and not in dispute among anyone who truly appreciates rock and the development thereof. other people contributed greatly, and came up with cool stuff that has proven to be innovative and lasting - Ritchie among them. but if you've studied music history, as i have, you'd know that sometimes people have a burst of talent that lasts a short time, and then they fade away. i simply pointed out that Ritchie, in my view, was NOT going to be one of those people. (that's complimentary, by the way). but we don't know for sure. he died too young, before his career could fully take off. that's a tragedy, but let's not make the absurd and ridiculous claim that Buddy Holly and ANYONE were equally ANYTHING. that is just ludicrous and down right silly. no one is equal to anyone else - that is the wonder of God's creation. but in the innovation department, Buddy simply had no equal. Ritchie Valens happened to die the same night as Buddy. but that's largely where the comparison ends. i don't mean to say that both men were not talented - they were. but Buddy might've flown that night with Chuck Berry, or Fats Domino, and we'd all be comparing them now instead of Ritchie Valens. it is really silly to compare these two artists because they died in the same plane crash. give Ritchie his due, and Buddy his due. but before Ritchie was even known around his neighborhood, Buddy had already accomplished extraordinary things that can never be equaled, and again, if Ritchie were here right now, i'm sure he'd agree 100%.

incidentally, i am a big Ritchie Valens fan, but i am capable of putting things in perspective. i would hope the two of you could learn to do the same. and while you're at it, please try and be polite. i've tried to be nice to both of you. i can be a Ritchie Valens fan, and a Buddy Holly fan, and i don't ever have to put them on equal footing just because they died the same night. because they were NOT on equal footing. have the beatles ever raved about Ritchie? the stones? the beach boys? dylan? no, they have not, to anywhere near the degree that they rave about Buddy. but i'm sure they all appreciated Ritchie's talent, as i do. led zeppelin certainly did like Ritchie, but then, they drew from literally everyone.

one last thing, i must vehemently disagree with the notion that 'ready teddy' is the only thing that compares with Ritchie Valens. Buddy Holly had many songs that were incredible, and were far ahead of anything going on at the time. "rock a bye rock" for instance, or "i'm gonna set my foot right down" were just phenomenol, and had energy and drive superior to literally anything going on in the 50's. and they were never even heard by anyone till well into the 60's. that's how far ahead of his time Buddy was. those are but two examples - there are many others. these two classics were recorded when Ritchie was about 14, and as yet, completely unknown. this is what i mean when i say that all Ritchie could do was to follow the trail Buddy (and others) had blazed.

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

jerry, you are the one that came here, acted smarter than everyone else, told us all over and over again what we already know, and continue to do so. I could care less to be polite to you, mostly because youve made this a horrible place to visit. you make everything argumentitive because you cannot not see anyones elses thoughts.i was not defencive in my post, because trust me jerry, if i wanted to offend you, i have no doubt that i would be kicked off here immideatly. you think your better than us just because your older, well i would say for 16 year old girls we have not to shabby knowledge about Buddy and realted subjects wouldnt you say? no one else i know my age has any clue who Buddy Holly is, what he did or anything about him. and they frankly dont care. and why should they when they have people like you thrusting the same obvious information again and again about him in their faces. unlike you jerry, i dont think Buddy is god, hes not my one and only music influence, and hes certainly not the only artist i listen to. you preach so much about being narrow minded, and presently about being able to put things in perspective,when your the only one that cant seem to realize that Buddy wasnt the only one that helped revolutionize music. I personally dont like Nirvana, but i can accept that they started a revolution, created a genera and changed the face of music. because thats what grunge was. i never said Buddy and Ritchie had the same degree of influence,i said they were equally talented, and your not going to change my opinion of that. i would still love to hear Buddy handle a Ritchie piece, particualrily malaguena, because as impressive as Buddys guitar work was, he was not as good a guitarist as Ritchie was. he is the better singer, he influenced more people, but hes not the better guitar player, period.you could listen to la bamba and realize that for goodness sakes. i never said readdy teddy is the only song that compares to Ritchie, i said it was the only one that matches Ritches raw energy, and i stand by that.Buddys music is far more laid back and slow IN GENERAL. Buddys music is too perfect to keep you on your toes, whereas Ritchies music your always amped up and waitng for that high note. i also never said they were equal or that i compare them because they died in the same plane crash, ive expressed time and time again my anger at how Ritchie is considered only as one of the artists that died with Buddy Holly. They were my favourite artists for a very long time, and during much of that time i was unaware that either of them were even dead (i was young...). ive also said that i agree completly that Buddy was the king of rock, and the father, but im sure if i had never heard such recordings as mona and heard all of the stories of how Buddy built a song and the various techniques he used, i would definatly not think that. not all of Buddys songs were pure rock n roll, and im not just talking about the earlier country stuff. and yes jerry, im quite aware of Buddys country roots...ive always said i like every Holly song, but thats certainly not true. raining in my heart, everday, its too late even true love ways has me screaming hurry up for the love of God! yes, there beatiful songs, but they are not what i class as rock n roll. and no i dont need a definition of what rock is. give me Donna over those songs anyday, because its not perfect, its raw and take it for what it is, and thats rock n roll. and if all you can come up for Valens influences is led zepplin, they go do somemore research mr historian. and by the way, i have heard that zepplin song, boogie with stu? i know very well its a re write of ooh my head, and i also know that the writting credits to that song, the ones that matter, are to Ritchie not his mother. your knowledge of Ritchie Valens has nothing to do with the matter huh...go aquire some knowledge and we'll speak of this again. you preach politness? well then stop judging me by my age and thinking im uncultured because of it. i'll no doubt have a new pm tomorrow and this message erased, but whatever, its time someone said this to you jerry. youve destroyed this board, and made it absolutly no fun, and i dont care what you think of me for saying that. practice what you preach, particularly about being narrow minded. at the moment im listening to japanese heavy metal, a language i happen to be nearly fluent in. hows that for narrow minded.

Wow, it's getting steamy round here...

I've been reading these posts with interest, partly because in my own opinion neither the Big Bopper nor Ritchie Valens were particularly great. My brother was a big fan of Ritchie for a while (he probably still is; I'll have to ask him!), but I never quite got into his music.

But anyway, the point is that is my opinion. Clearly crazy_for_buddy and Jerry have differing opinions on this guy, but it would be a shame for people to stop visiting the forum because they feel belittled.

We all of us know some stuff about our idols. I've probably forgotten much of what I knew about Buddy when I was a kid. I got into BH when I was 10 and had pretty much read everything that was available about him by the time I was 11. So much so that my ambition was to go on Mastermind (a UK TV show; don't know if you have it in the US) with Buddy Holly as my specialist subject!

So many more biographies have been published in recent years that it's impossible to keep on top of everything. But I'm sure each of us can learn something from the others.

Let's all take a deep breath. Surely no one wants to flat-out offend others, do they?

quote:

Originally posted by crazy_for_buddy:
jerry, you are the one that came here, acted smarter than everyone else, told us all over and over again what we already know, and continue to do so. I could care less to be polite to you, mostly because youve made this a horrible place to visit ... i'll no doubt have a new pm tomorrow and this message erased, but whatever, its time someone said this to you jerry. youve destroyed this board, and made it absolutly no fun, and i dont care what you think of me for saying that. practice what you preach, particularly about being narrow minded.

Crazy_for_buddy, clearly you're crossing a line here and indulging in personal attacks.

Because we appreciate your interest and your posts here, I won't jump right to the delete button, but I want to be clear that personal attacks won't be tolerated. If you have a private disagreement, please use private messaging.

As to your comment that these boards are a horrible place to visit, I am very sorry you feel that way and I hope that you reconsider and continue to contribute.

CFB

i think you, young lady, need to take a deep breath. also, using paragraphs instead of one long rant is a better way to communicate.

your opinions about Ritchie Valens are your own. and that's fine. you began this process by claiming that i was not knowledgeable about Ritchie (i am) and that i hadn't been sufficiently respectful towards him (i have). so you were wrong on both counts.

now, as to led zeppelin. i never said that they were the only band Ritchie influenced. i used them as an example of one band that was. but to list the artists that have influenced led zeppelin would fill a small book. secondly, 'boogie with stu' is on the album physical graffiti, side three, track three. and the writing credits are NOT given to Ritchie, but to his mother. a lawsuit was later filed regarding that song, resulting in changed credits being given to Ritchie. but the original album, which i have, shows 'mrs. valens' as a co-writer with no reference to Ritchie at all. jimmy page explained that by saying that they'd heard that Ritchie's mom got almost nothing of her son's royalties, so they wanted to see that she did. but they ended up getting sued anyway.

as to your views about Ritchie's ability as a guitar player, they are simply your own speculative conclusions. others feel differently, and those of us who play guitar may tend to hold the view that Buddy was the better player. but it's an irrelevant issue, because 'beauty is in the eye of the beholder', and in music, my taste may be different from yours. this is an area where your age is clearly a factor, because at times you have trouble recognizing that other people may see and hear things that are contrary to what you see and hear, and it doesn't make them wrong.
for instance, you say you like 'donna'. fine! but that's your opinion about a song you like.
can't you just leave it at that, and let other people like the songs they like? that's a real mark of maturity, to be able to do that.

as to the softer side of Buddy, that was again, part of his genius. he expanded the definition of rock n' roll to include that softer approach.

you may continue to hold the view that Ritchie and Buddy were 'equally talented'. but i must point out that there is no way to really evaluate how talented anyone really is. it's all pretty subjective, and can't be determined with any certainty. for instance, what are the standards used to arrive at that conclusion? accomplishments? awards? hit records? you see, it's all a matter of opinion. it's like saying that Babe Ruth and Hank Aaron were 'equally talented'. Hank Aaron fans would disagree from one side and Babe Ruth fans from the other. most everyone would consider them both to be great ball players. but they were not equally talented. Ruth, for instance, was a great pitcher at one time, and Aaron never was. but Aaron ended up hitting more home runs. you can go on and on with this line of thinking and never really reach a conclusion that can be proven with any degree of accuracy. so i don't see the point in making these type of broad sweeping statements, though you're welcome to hold the view you hold. far better, in my view, to conclude that both men were great singer/songwriters and accomplished much in their short lives.

my point was simply that before Ritchie ever had a hit or was even known to the public, Buddy had already done about 90% of what he was ever destined to do. so he blazed the trail for Ritchie and others like him. i don't see how that's arguable.

now, as to my repeating commonly known Buddy Holly facts, well, everyone on these boards does that to one degree or another, including you. but when i do that, it's in context and there's a purpose to what i am referencing, such as a previous post from someone else.

as to this matter of you and buddy blue being knowledgeable about Buddy, i have complimented both of you on more than one occasion. perhaps you have forgotten that. and i think i've been polite and respectful towards both of you. i'm not aware of single time where either of you have said anything complimentary towards me. that's fine - i don't need 'atta-boys'. but i continue to hold to the view that a little courtesy goes a long way. and i don't feel Buddy or Ritchie's memory is well served by any of their fans attacking one another personally. do you?

now, in regards to the 'narrow minded' aspect. sometimes it's easy to practice what i call 'selective amnesia'. and this is a case in point. because i never used that phrase originally. it was used against me, just because i disagreed with the concept that nirvana was an extraordinary band. i simply pointed out that perhaps i wasn't the one being narrow-minded, since i was basing my comments of the totality of music history.

you claim that i should 'acquire some knowledge' and we'll 'speak of this again'. well, i have no idea what you are referring to. i have a wealth of knowledge, and for your age, you're pretty knowledgeable yourself. but don't let it go to your head. just be a Buddy Holly fan, as i am, and we'll get along fine. but i would still urge you to read more carefully before you post, because i don't make 'everything argumentative'. i acknowledge what is correct, and clarify what i believe is incorrect. that is one of the purposes of these boards, to share knowledge and thoughts about Buddy, and to offer corrections when something isn't accurate. you have done this on many occasions - so have i.

i think you've really gotten off the subject here, and unnecessarily so. i posted something in defense of the Big Bopper because someone ridiculed him. and everything you and BB have posted since then has pretty much been about Ritchie Valens. which is fine, but don't make the mistake of trying to insinuate that anyone, least of all me, ever showed Ritchie Valens and his memory anything but respect.

i came back to this??

omg, people get over it.they were all great, they deserve to be in the hall of fame. even if it was based solely on the fact that he died in that plane w/ buddy & ritchie, who cares they all made their mark in r & r history

blah blah blah....

now i'm a die hard buddy fan, always have been, always will be. i will /have jumped down anyones throat with bad comments/jokes on that plane crash....

bottom line, they all had talent. now lets knock off the the BS and get along. and i belive the ones who really made this place crappy to come to are not posting anymore and good. sheesh some people have NO SENCE OF HUMOR.....

~lisa

quote:

Originally posted by jerry:
i will repeat, Ritchie could only follow in those footsteps.

Keep repeating jerry, cause I haven't heard you yet.
I don't think Ritchie could have followed in Buddy's footsteps, because the two had different styles and maybe wanted the same goal, loved their music dearly but each took a different path to get there...so they couldn't have been treading on the same path.
I love what Ritchie did with the fast songs, he made amazing dance tunes. The slow songs take a bit more energy to learn to love. Buddy I will take anything from any time.
Let's not forget that not only was Buddy only 22, but Ritchie was only 17. He didn't have time to do the things that Buddy did.

[jim: edited for content that is not suitable for these boards]

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

buddy blue

i think you are missing my point, as CFB was doing. my point about following in Buddy's footsteps wasn't in regards to musical style, really, but rather, the milestones that Buddy had already achieved and the trails that had already been blazed by Buddy, long before Ritchie appeared on the scene. those include (and i really am repeating myself here, but for some reason, i continue to be taken out of context): overdubbing his voice with his guitar, using strings in rock, popularizing the strat, popularizing what later became the traditional rock line-up of two guitars, bass and drums, freedom to do one's own music, etc, etc, etc.... and in these things, Ritchie and others could only follow in Buddy's footsteps.

these truths are unarguable.

as to Ritchie's particular approach to a song vs. Buddy's, that is called style, and every truly original artist, then and now, had/has a particular style that was/is uniquely theirs, albeit influenced by others who came before them. musically, i don't think anyone could say that Ritchie influenced Buddy Holly in any way, but it's certainly fair to say that Holly influenced Ritchie, since Holly influenced everyone.

but the trails that were blazed by the pioneers of rock were already there when Ritchie appeared on the scene, and most of those trails were Holly trails. that is not to say that Ritchie didn't carve out a niche for himself - he did. but no one will ever know what he may have done later. it's anyone's guess. i personally feel he'd have gone to be truly great, and have said so repeatedly, despite being accused of practically calling him a no-talent or something.

i don't hold to this view, but it's also possible that Ritchie may have faded out after having achieved a few successes - some artists burn brightly for a short while and then begin to repeat themselves and are largely forgettable after that. we'll never know. with Buddy, we KNOW he had staying power - he proved it in spades throughout his life right on up to february 3rd, 1959, with creativity and depth that was unequalled in the 50's.

Ritchie appeared on the scene in 1958 and by then, much had already been accomplished, which enabled Ritchie and others to have careers in music and do what they did. John Lennon once said that without Holly, there would've been no Beatles. so i think it's equally fair to say that without Holly, there would not have been many of the guitar playing rock n' rollers, doing their own music their own way (another Holly milestone), who came along later, such as Ritchie Valens. let's give credit where credit is due. the trails blazed by Holly and others enabled Ritchie to have the freedom to do what he did. or, to quote gary busey "Buddy was responsible for long hair and a guitar on every corner....".

jerry...we know what Holly did, you never needed to say it in the first place. i suppose i did misunderstand your points about Ritchie having to follow in Buddys footsteaps about innovations and what not, and that is true. but, and forgive me if im wrong as i havent listen to him in a while, he never bothered with any of Buddys innovations. No overdubbing, certainly no strings, one guitar generally, and for percussion, it was just drums, no knees, no cardboard boxes ect. although, Ritchie did use a fender stratocaster, and he had musical freedom...obviously, or we would have never had la bamba. call it simple, but to me thats the essence of rock n roll. this is porbably why i generally perfer the simpler Holly songs as well. as to him fading away after a few hits...well, we will never know, but i highly doubt that would have happened. Ritchies music i think was more suited for the 60s and so on then Buddys music. and i mean this as complimentary to Buddy. he was far too ahead of his time. people back then werent getting it. Holly songs that barley made a dent in the charts in the 50s are favourites now. Buddys music i think was on a higher plane, more sophisticated, and as time went on, it became more so. as ive said, Ritchies music was far simpler and to the point. so as far as the 60s went...i think Ritchie would have done well, and while i would never say Buddy would have fizzled off, i would say that it would have been more of a background era for him. but i strongly belive he would have adapted...and probably startrd with getting rid of the suits for petes sakes. its just the more i listen to Buddy, his later stuff particualrly, the more i see him as becoming "adult" music. and man, would i have hated it if that had happened...k, im rambling...ah well, Buddy does that to ya...

CFB

i appreciate the calm tone of your post.

it's hard to disagree with anything you said. however, isn't the solo on 'la bamba' overdubbed? because the rhythm guitar is playing throughout the solo, and i think they're both Ritchie. but i may be wrong - i don't know as much about Ritchie as i do about Buddy. also, 'donna' does feature Ritchie harmonizing with himself on the choruses.

as you mentioned, Ritchie played a strat, at least after he got signed and had some money coming in. and that was, no doubt, due to Buddy Holly, since no one else was playing a strat back then but Buddy and a couple of english artists (who got their inspiration from Holly's england tour!). and Ritchie's music was guitar based. so i think those are at least some areas where the Holly influence was evident.

as you and buddy blue have pointed out, Ritchie didn't have as much time as Buddy. so i think due to the fact that Buddy and he were talking about doing some recording at the Prism studios when that got going, it's likely that Ritchie would have been even more influenced by Buddy, in the production area, over time.

on Holly, i think he would've always been a rock n' roller, but his creativity wouldn't let him just do the same thing all the time. so he did the string sessions and then unfortunately, not too long after that, left us forever. but i think he and the Crickets would've gotten back together had he not died, and kept rockin'. his set list from the WPD tour included plenty of rockin' tunes. you know, Niki Sullivan recounted a show Buddy and the Crickets did down in Carlsbad, New Mexico, just before "that'll be the day" was released. the headlines the next day were "Buddy Holly and the Crickets break up Carlsbad". (apparently it was quite loud).

also, during the england tour, a reviewer name keith goodwin titled his review "Holly-Crickets give us loudest rock show yet!".

Maria has said "...whatever happened, i don't think Buddy would've deserted rock n' roll".

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

Sorry, crazy_for_buddy, I know this post was addressed directly to jerry, but I must say that I disagree with a couple of the points you made here. I believe quite the opposite of what you said: that is, I think Ritchie would have had to adapt to the '60s, which was a time of greater sophistication, musically speaking. The rock 'n' roll era was essentially over, and Buddy's music, which was ahead of its time, would have been even more popular. He was already starting to move away from rock'n'roll anyway, so he would have been ready for the '60s. Just look at the number of bands that were covering Holly songs in the '60s, among them The Beatles and the Rolling Stones, two of the biggest, most influential bands of that decade. And when they covered Buddy's songs, they did not need to adapt them in any way, because they were already just right for the '60s. And as to getting rid of the suits: suits are exactly what The Beatles, the Stones and many other bands were wearing in the early '60s.

Finally, whether or not Ritchie took advantage of Holly's innovations is totallly irrelevant. He would have had no choice in using overdubbing, because that was a necessary evolution in popular music. From Words Of Love right up until the present day, virtually all pop records made in a studio have overdubs. It is a necessary part of making records, and it was pioneered by Buddy Holly. To resist would have been futile. The point, I think, being made by jerry is that by using overdubbing, and being probably the first pop artist to do so, Buddy Holly shaped the future of pop music. But we already knew that, didn't we...?

We cannot know what would have happened in these artists' futures. We can only speculate. And the theories that we come up with will, of course, reflect our personal preferences. Bottom line, for me: Ritchie was of his time; Buddy was ahead of his.