Here you can discuss other musicians and CD reissues etc

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Sat Mar 24, 2012 12:01 am

brian wrote:
Lonely Summer wrote:For years I've heard/read this kind of speculation about Buddy if he had lived, but I don't have any reason to believe he would've fared better than his contemporaries from the 50's. I don't know where this kind of thinking comes from. .


It's because Buddy died so young that people tend to only think of the positive possibilities that could have happened.

It has happened with James Dean as well.

If Elvis had died in 1958 everybody would have said that he would have become a great actor if he lived.

Yeah, forever the rebel rocker.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:01 am

drjohncarpenter wrote:
likethebike wrote:It's impossible to tell. It's easy to get all excited when you hear a track like "Well All Right" that anticipates the folk singer/songwriter movement, but it's important to remember at the same time that Holly was struggling mightily from a commercial perspective when he died. He hadn't been in the Top 40 in almost five months, a very long time at that time, and he hadn't a record in the Top Ten in more than a year. His last two records prior to his death were flops in the US although they did decently in the UK. "It's So Easy" didn't even make the charts. The godawful "Heartbeat" crapped out in the 80s. It's possible when you consider that and the quality of a track like "Heartbeat" that his days as a hit maker and popular influence could have been done.

"Heartbeat" was "godawful"? It's one of his most well-liked recordings, from Lennon to Blondie. And this from a guy who defends Elvis' worst moments in the '70s!

You have your facts wrong as well. Buddy Holly was not "struggling mightily" as of February 3, 1959. In fact, in the previous year he nailed the Top 40 six times, starting with two in the top 10, "Oh, Boy!" (Brunswick 55035) hitting Billboard U.S. Pop #10 and "Peggy Sue" (Coral 61885) making it to Billboard U.S. Pop #3 in January 1958.

He did OK on the 1958 R&B charts, too, with "Peggy Sue" making #1 in January, and "Maybe Baby" getting to #4.

His other pop hits through 1958 were "Maybe Baby" (Brunswick 55053, #17), "Rave On!" (Coral 61985, #37), "Think It Over" (Brunswick 55072, #27), and "Early In The Morning" (Coral 62006, #32). The last one was in the Top Forty in September, just four months before his fatal accident.

His solo New York session in October 1958 with live orchestra pointed to new directions, and the single released in the new year was doing well at the time of his death.

It's very easy to tell that Holly would not have stood pat as the decade ended, whether he reunited with the original Crickets and producer Norman Petty or not. He would not have faded away.


I've actually never defended Elvis' worst moments in the '70s. Being that appreciation of nuance and subtlety are skills beyond your pay grade I can understand where you would think that though.

Taste is the great divider. But woe to Elvis if he recorded a wimpy toy like "Heartbeat" for one of his movies. Why, by the way, is it irrelevant when someone else quotes a celebrity's preference for a track but somehow an affirmation from on high when you do it?

As for the facts Holly had indeed not been in the Top 40 since September. And it should be pointed out it was the bottom of the Top 40. Again, were it Elvis to do such a feat in say the 1970s it would be the height of irrelevance or so you're always telling us. Fact is after "Maybe Baby" left the Top 40 April, Holly was not even in the Top 25 until "It Doesn't Matter Anymore" hit in March, almost a year later. Almost a year later. Almost a year later. Almost a year later. Almost a year later. He went from September until March without spending a week in the Top despite two releases. That's six months, an eternity in the era. I'm not saying he couldn't have bounced back. After all Dion reversed course with "Runaround Sue" after a much longer drought. However, Holly wasn't exactly on top of the world commercially at the time of his death. As I pointed out the great rockabilly "Rave On" could only muster #37.

And truly great artist that he was, he was not Elvis' equal commercially or artistically in the 1950s-ever. And there's no reason to think he would have been Elvis' equal in the 1960s.

As for your question lonely, it is the points summarized by Brian as well as the movie and "American Pie."

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:07 am

It kind of sucks, that one. But then again, there's "Raining In My Heart." I thought you guys were talking about that one.

This is "Heartbeat." (Crummy video, too! Dude doesn't know to use photos with half-way decent resolution.)

phpBB [video]



This one is gorgeous!

phpBB [video]



rjm
P.S. -- It's like Bruce said the other day: you either think something is genius, or "it sucks!" Which is probably not a very nuanced view at all. It is how people judge things, nowadays. Perhaps unfortunate. It's almost like whatever he tried to do with "Heartbeat," he nailed with "Raining In My Heart." Don't even know which came first. (The guitar part on the first one is sort of interesting - perhaps influential. But it's not "Raining In My Heart." Not only is it a great piece of music on its own, in so many ways, but you can hear the Wall of Sound in it. Well, I can.)

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Sun Mar 25, 2012 10:55 am

"Heartbeat" has always been one of my favorite of Holly's songs. His original is the best, of course, but I've also heard good versions from John Lennon (acoustic), Herman's Hermits, Denny Laine, and The Knack.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Mon Mar 26, 2012 4:12 pm

Actually if I never heard "Raining in my Heart" again, I wouldn't exactly consider my life to be much lesser. Its string cues are too obvious and Mickey Mouse for me. If a less untouchable figure like Jackie Wilson or Elvis had recorded it, it seems to me it would have been subject to heavier criticism over the years. Sadly, I think Holly's premature death and early rock martyr status have made in depth, as opposed to reflexive, criticism of his work relatively rare. "Raining in my Heart" is to my ears not very good and it's certainly not very rock n' roll, that in itself is certainly not a dismissal. However, that was the main thrust of criticism at Elvis tracks like "Are You Lonesome To-night?" for the past 50 years. Again, though, as your Springsteen comment points out RJM, taste is the great divider.

Again, it's just me but I hear the birth of the Wall of Sound more in the great tracks L&S made with the Drifters in the late 1950s and early 1960s.

I don't mean to set up a standard by which to dismiss Holly's achievement with strings. "True Love Ways" is one of the most sublime of all ballad performances of the 1950s. And I also think Holly's experimental work in other mediums like his collaboration with King Curtis "Reminiscing" and the beautiful introspective folk ballad are also worthy of the highest respect. I just don't see where the idea that Holly would have been rock n' roll's great leader in the 1960s has any resonance based upon the facts of his life. He had had two successive flop singles, preceded by a small string of disappointing performances when he died. He was never the most popular rocker, a position that would have given the broadest swath over the popular audience. And leaving personal taste aside, stuff like "Raining in my Heart" was not rock n' roll, nor was his swan song "It Doesn't Matter Anymore." And it's tremendously important to remember that as adventurous as he legitimately was, the industry was moving toward elaborate arrangements and song structures as a whole in the late 1950s. It was a natural evolution. Given all that, I think its presumptuous to believe that Holly would have been this great leader providing the natural evolution to Sgt Pepper. On the other hand, as Greil Marcus pointed out in one of his great Elvis essays, it's easy to dismiss the dead because they don't have the ability to change and do new things. (This is a paraphrase for the sticklers.) They can't prove you wrong. So maybe he would have been this great leader, but many of the facts on the ground are against it.

A good comparison here might be to wonder not what Elvis would have done if he were not drafted but to wonder what the public would have imagined for Elvis if he had died in a plane crash in say early 1961. There would have been only a few hints that he was a few years away from a career slump. After all in 1960 he had done on one of his greatest pop albums, a great personal pop album, made one of his best movies and had a pair of singles that redefined his image. Can you imagine the castles fans would have built in the air? That's kind of what's happened to Holly.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Mon Mar 26, 2012 8:31 pm

And what if Bobby Fuller had not died that mysterious death in 1966? Here was a guy that was going to be the biggest star of all.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:44 pm

likethebike wrote:And truly great artist that he was, he was not Elvis' equal commercially or artistically in the 1950s-ever. ...

Commercially, no one sold records like Elvis did in his 1950s heyday, so what's the point of throwing Holly under the bus? Perhaps to buttress your weak argument. I won't even get into your shifting of the Pop chart landscape (and avoidance of the R&B charts) in an attempt to defeat my posted facts.

As for artistically, the influence of Holly's work dominated the next decade's crop of musicians, especially those attached to the British Invasion, while Elvis took his talent and flushed it down the toilet in cheap Hollywood travelogues with false music, like "Spinout."

likethebike wrote:And there's no reason to think he would have been Elvis' equal in the 1960s.

There's every reason to think Buddy might have surpassed Presley as long as Elvis chose to grind out garbage movies and throwaway soundtracks.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:00 am

But would Holly ever have done anything to equal the 1968 sit down shows, From Elvis in Memphis, or Elvis live in Vegas 1969? Oh yeah, let's forget all about the great work Elvis did from 1968 to 1970, and pretend Holly wouldn't have slipped and stumbled a few times through the years if he had lived. Gee, how would we view Carl Perkins if he had died in that 1956 car crash?

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Tue Mar 27, 2012 8:35 am

Lonely Summer wrote:But would Holly ever have done anything to equal the 1968 sit down shows, From Elvis in Memphis, or Elvis live in Vegas 1969? Oh yeah, let's forget all about the great work Elvis did from 1968 to 1970, and pretend Holly wouldn't have slipped and stumbled a few times through the years if he had lived. Gee, how would we view Carl Perkins if he had died in that 1956 car crash?


Well, they were different. Let's not forget that. Buddy was not only different, but he seemed to be going for more. I don't know if he even wanted to be "rock and roll" anymore . . . not then. I think it might have been interesting. Certainly, he didn't have the "68 Special and FEIM in him . . . Elvis was much more gospel-based, and deeply into R&B in his own ways, and I don't think they can be compared after a certain time. That isn't fair to either one of them.

I just think he had the potential to go a different road, and wouldn't everyone have liked to watch? (Everybody stumbles. . . but still, the roads they take pave new roads for others. Always. Buddy never got the chance.)

And, I guess it doesn't matter anymore. (Couldn't help it.)

rjm

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Wed Mar 28, 2012 3:17 am

I'm at the point where I don't even know why I bother to address your posts, as you never have an individual argument, and your mastery of facts is dubious, deceitful and haphazard at best. But at the possibility that there may be some innocent soul out there who might take the drivel you spew forth seriously, I feel obligated.

Let’s address my avoidance of the r&b charts. Sorry Doc, but after April 1958 Holly never had an R&B Top 40 single again according to chart historian Joel Whitburn, a fact documented in his book Top 40 R&B and Hip Hop Hits. Being that Holly had a couple of pop hits that made the bottom third of the Pop Top 40 that means he did even worse on the R&B charts than he did on the pop charts. Yes, I’m sorry these are verifiable facts. And I know you weren’t counting on that. That's the pesky thing about making an argument like that. People can check.

And for a person who rambled on about the relative lack of success of Elvis’ “My Boy” in 1975, a record that went to #1 on one of the specialty charts and made the Top 20 it seems extremely hypocritical of yourself to even bring up numbers outside the Top 25 and the specialty charts to bolster your argument. Of course, your argument doesn’t even hold up when you visit the side charts. “Facts” like yours could have gotten you a job in the Bush administration.

In terms of Elvis’ sales, of course, everyone knows Elvis’ sales obliterated the rest of the industry from 1956 to 1962. That’s extremely relevant when considering which artist is going to set the industry trends.

“As for artistically, the influence of Holly's work dominated the next decade's crop of musicians, especially those attached to the British Invasion,” ……. And Elvis had no influence on the British Invasion or subsequent musicians….. ?

“while Elvis took his talent and flushed it down the toilet in cheap Hollywood travelogues with false music, like "Spinout." I love this one. Great to see how Holly somehow surpassed artistically with music he didn’t even make. What a master of facts. Gosh we should compare the recordings we imagined would be making today with what Lady GaGa's doing. Because that's really sane and productive.

Whether Holly would have surpassed artistically is an opinion you’re entitled to have. However, as we have labored numerous times on this board, you have a major problem differentiating between statements and statements of fact.

As for this opinion, I don’t see anything to substantiate it. From 1956 to 1962 Elvis was the dominant commercial force in the business. During that time, he was amongst the most artistically ambitious artists challenging himself vocally and aesthetically covering and integrating various strands of the pop landscape. Holly was commercially floundering when he died without a major hit in eight plus months and two consecutive records that were unequivocal flops peaking outside the Top 60. He had a few innovative recording sessions with strings and orchestrated backings. Yet even in his complete oeuvre he had not touched nearly the ground or changed the industry in the way Elvis did. In fact, the style he created is unimaginable without Elvis’ example coming first. Holly himself would have told you that. So, there’s definitely a lot less reason to believe that Holly would have been a leader in Elvis’ place in the mid-1960s. If you choose to believe differently you're free to do so. That's what opinions are all about.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Wed Mar 28, 2012 4:05 am

likethebike wrote:I'm at the point where I don't even know why I bother to address your posts ...

Probably because I consistently point out the flaws in your reasoning.

likethebike wrote:... your mastery of facts is dubious, deceitful and haphazard at best.

There's another one.

I daresay my facts are the most irrefutable, well-researched and often primary in nature of anyone's on this forum. A search of my contributions on FECC is proof enough. That you try to crudely dismiss them is typical and desperate.

The chart data I offer is absolutely verifiable and correct, and helps to destroy your peculiar attempt to slander the last year of Buddy Holly's professional life and diminish his influence in the 1960s.

drjohncarpenter wrote:You have your facts wrong as well. Buddy Holly was not "struggling mightily" as of February 3, 1959. In fact, in the previous year he nailed the Top 40 six times, starting with two in the top 10, "Oh, Boy!" (Brunswick 55035) hitting Billboard U.S. Pop #10 and "Peggy Sue" (Coral 61885) making it to Billboard U.S. Pop #3 in January 1958.

He did OK on the 1958 R&B charts, too, with "Peggy Sue" making #1 in January, and "Maybe Baby" getting to #4.

His other pop hits through 1958 were "Maybe Baby" (Brunswick 55053, #17), "Rave On!" (Coral 61985, #37), "Think It Over" (Brunswick 55072, #27), and "Early In The Morning" (Coral 62006, #32). The last one was in the Top Forty in September, just four months before his fatal accident.


As for some of your other absurdities...

likethebike wrote:Being that Holly had a couple of pop hits that made the bottom third of the Pop Top 40 that means he did even worse on the R&B charts than he did on the pop charts.

I only reference the successful Buddy Holly singles on Billboard's R&B chart in 1958. As may be plainly seen above.

They are not my main point, but cited because they further demonstrate how Holly was doing far better than you claim. They are facts you probably never considered. Sorry if I was being pesky in bringing them to the discussion.

likethebike wrote:In terms of Elvis’ sales, of course, everyone knows Elvis’ sales obliterated the rest of the industry from 1956 to 1962.

"Obliterated the rest of the industry"? This is, um, incorrect. You need to research sales figures for the years 1958, 1959 and 1962 before making such blithely ignorant declarations.

likethebike wrote:From 1956 to 1962 Elvis was the dominant commercial force in the business.

Again, incorrect (see previous answer).

likethebike wrote:During that time, he was amongst the most artistically ambitious artists ...

Beyond the lost years of 1958 and 1959, you'll need a truckload of Bibles to explain the "artistically ambitious" Elvis Presley movie soundtracks of 1960-1962 that offered songs like "Big Boots," "Britches," "I Slipped, I Stumbled, I Fell," "Ito Eats," "I'm Not The Marrying Kind," "A Whistling Tune," "Song of the Shrimp" and "Cotton Candy Land" to the masses.

Bottom line: your lambasting of Buddy Holly, covering a very short period in an amazing career that was still in its infancy, is irksome and infuriating, and I'm not the only one who feels your thoughts are short-sighted, unfounded and more than a little odd.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Wed Mar 28, 2012 6:50 am

Again nothing of substance. Again no understanding of nuance. There is no slander here. To say one figure is not the equal of another is not slander. To say an artist is struggling is to lambaste him. Again, though, it's reflective of your chronic inability to discriminate in evaluating information. Anything less than unqualified praise equals condemnation. Anything less than a complete dismissal equals approbation. That's not the case.

"Probably because I consistently point out the flaws in your reasoning. "

Never on your best day.

"I only reference the successful Buddy Holly singles on Billboard's R&B chart in 1958. As may be plainly seen above. "

You do this because you love half truths. It had been almost a year since Holly been on the R&B charts at the time of his death. That's an important fact. Oh yes, you only count the success ignoring the other half of the information.

Again you have three smallish Top 40 singles in the last seven months of the year and the two months of 1958 with a total of ten weeks in the Top 40 and two consecutive records that missed the Top 40 completely. Five straight singles, none of which reached the Top 25 let alone the Top 20. No R&B hits in the same period. I leave it to the reader's logic. Is that an artist on a hot streak? Gosh, it seems to me there a was poster, I can't recall his name, maybe it was Carpenter or some such, who said that after 1973 that Elvis was an oldies artist, that there was no one coming out to his shows who wanted to hear the new stuff. That he was irrelevant as a hits artist. Yet over a similar time frame in 1974 Elvis had three singles in the Top 40 that clocked in 18 weeks in the Top 40 including two that peaked inside the Top 20. All three had at least one side make the C/W top ten. What is it oh wise one, that makes this Top 40 success irrelevant, and Holly's lesser streak of hits a sign of a booming career?

"Obliterated the rest of the industry"? This is, um, incorrect. You need to research sales figures for the years 1958, 1959 and 1962 before making such blithely ignorant declarations."

You're joking right. Joel Whitburn ranks the Top 40 artists for each year. There was a striking similarity between the #1 artists in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961 and 1962. They're all Elvis Presley. In 1962, the margin is only 28 points between Elvis and Ray Charles. That's as close as it gets. In 1962, that close year there was an LP, a soundtrack recording, that spent the first 16 weeks of the year at number one. Gosh I wonder who the artist was. Oh yeah, it was Elvis Presley's Blue Hawaii. That LP occupied the #1 spot in the final four weeks of the previous year, the previous Presley LP spent three weeks at #1 in that year, and the one before that spent six of its ten weeks at #1 in 1961. When 1960 changed into 1961, the number one single and LP were by Elvis Presley. Top singles artist, top LP artist. In 1958, when Whitburn found Elvis more than 100 points ahead of Ricky Nelson, Elvis spent basically the entire year at the top of the EP charts. This is an artist obliterating the rest of the industry. Oh yeah, he also in this period racked up more hits on the R&B charts than any white artist ever. I don't even know why this is controversial. The only year where Elvis is not #1 is 1959 and the only reason for that was because his output of new music was reduced to two 45s. And among those two 45s were four titles that charted better than "It Doesn't Matter Anymore."

"Beyond the lost years of 1958 and 1959, you'll need a truckload of Bibles to explain the "artistically ambitious" Elvis Presley movie soundtracks of 1960-1962 that offered songs like "Big Boots," "Britches," "I Slipped, I Stumbled, I Fell," "Ito Eats," "I'm Not The Marrying Kind," "A Whistling Tune," "Song of the Shrimp" and "Cotton Candy Land" to the masses."

Again, failure to appreciate nuance. Some bad songs somehow means Elvis wasn't an ambitious artist. That Elvis tossed off some lesser tunes for movie commitments in these years, does not erase or even mitigate the fact that during these years he gave us Elvis is Back, His Hand in Mine (two actual full length LP statements, something most rockers did not even consider in 1960), "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender," "Suspicion," "Little Sister," "(Marie's the Name) His Latest Flame," "It's Now or Never," "Fame and Fortune," "King of the Whole Wide World," "There's Always Me," "Crying in the Chapel," (a hit single in waiting), "Are You Lonesome To-Night?" "That's Someone You Never Forget," "Surrender," "A Mess of Blues," "She's Not You." Yeah, he wasn't ambitious. He should have hung his head in a shame for a streak of music like that one.

"I daresay my facts are the most irrefutable, well-researched and often primary in nature of anyone's on this forum. A search of my contributions on FECC is proof enough. That you try to crudely dismiss them is typical and desperate."

You would be the only one to say so. Proving you wrong is practically an FECC pastime, one that don't normally indulge in because I like a little sport.

"Bottom line: your lambasting of Buddy Holly, covering a very short period in an amazing career that was still in its infancy, is irksome and infuriating, and I'm not the only one who feels your thoughts are short-sighted, unfounded and more than a little odd."

Well Snooki from the Jersey Shore has her sycophants as well. I'm glad to hear you're in such company.

Re: Had He Lived . . . Buddy

Wed Mar 28, 2012 8:02 am

likethebike wrote:Again nothing of substance. Again no understanding of nuance. There is no slander here. To say one figure is not the equal of another is not slander. To say an artist is struggling is to lambaste him. Again, though, it's reflective of your chronic inability to discriminate in evaluating information. Anything less than unqualified praise equals condemnation. Anything less than a complete dismissal equals approbation. That's not the case.

"Probably because I consistently point out the flaws in your reasoning. "

Never on your best day.

"I only reference the successful Buddy Holly singles on Billboard's R&B chart in 1958. As may be plainly seen above. "

You do this because you love half truths. It had been almost a year since Holly been on the R&B charts at the time of his death. That's an important fact. Oh yes, you only count the success ignoring the other half of the information.

Again you have three smallish Top 40 singles in the last seven months of the year and the two months of 1958 with a total of ten weeks in the Top 40 and two consecutive records that missed the Top 40 completely. Five straight singles, none of which reached the Top 25 let alone the Top 20. No R&B hits in the same period. I leave it to the reader's logic. Is that an artist on a hot streak? Gosh, it seems to me there a was poster, I can't recall his name, maybe it was Carpenter or some such, who said that after 1973 that Elvis was an oldies artist, that there was no one coming out to his shows who wanted to hear the new stuff. That he was irrelevant as a hits artist. Yet over a similar time frame in 1974 Elvis had three singles in the Top 40 that clocked in 18 weeks in the Top 40 including two that peaked inside the Top 20. All three had at least one side make the C/W top ten. What is it oh wise one, that makes this Top 40 success irrelevant, and Holly's lesser streak of hits a sign of a booming career?

"Obliterated the rest of the industry"? This is, um, incorrect. You need to research sales figures for the years 1958, 1959 and 1962 before making such blithely ignorant declarations."

You're joking right. Joel Whitburn ranks the Top 40 artists for each year. There was a striking similarity between the #1 artists in 1956, 1957, 1958, 1960, 1961 and 1962. They're all Elvis Presley. In 1962, the margin is only 28 points between Elvis and Ray Charles. That's as close as it gets. In 1962, that close year there was an LP, a soundtrack recording, that spent the first 16 weeks of the year at number one. Gosh I wonder who the artist was. Oh yeah, it was Elvis Presley's Blue Hawaii. That LP occupied the #1 spot in the final four weeks of the previous year, the previous Presley LP spent three weeks at #1 in that year, and the one before that spent six of its ten weeks at #1 in 1961. When 1960 changed into 1961, the number one single and LP were by Elvis Presley. Top singles artist, top LP artist. In 1958, when Whitburn found Elvis more than 100 points ahead of Ricky Nelson, Elvis spent basically the entire year at the top of the EP charts. This is an artist obliterating the rest of the industry. Oh yeah, he also in this period racked up more hits on the R&B charts than any white artist ever. I don't even know why this is controversial. The only year where Elvis is not #1 is 1959 and the only reason for that was because his output of new music was reduced to two 45s. And among those two 45s were four titles that charted better than "It Doesn't Matter Anymore."

"Beyond the lost years of 1958 and 1959, you'll need a truckload of Bibles to explain the "artistically ambitious" Elvis Presley movie soundtracks of 1960-1962 that offered songs like "Big Boots," "Britches," "I Slipped, I Stumbled, I Fell," "Ito Eats," "I'm Not The Marrying Kind," "A Whistling Tune," "Song of the Shrimp" and "Cotton Candy Land" to the masses."

Again, failure to appreciate nuance. Some bad songs somehow means Elvis wasn't an ambitious artist. That Elvis tossed off some lesser tunes for movie commitments in these years, does not erase or even mitigate the fact that during these years he gave us Elvis is Back, His Hand in Mine (two actual full length LP statements, something most rockers did not even consider in 1960), "Can't Help Falling in Love," "Return to Sender," "Suspicion," "Little Sister," "(Marie's the Name) His Latest Flame," "It's Now or Never," "Fame and Fortune," "King of the Whole Wide World," "There's Always Me," "Crying in the Chapel," (a hit single in waiting), "Are You Lonesome To-Night?" "That's Someone You Never Forget," "Surrender," "A Mess of Blues," "She's Not You." Yeah, he wasn't ambitious. He should have hung his head in a shame for a streak of music like that one.

"I daresay my facts are the most irrefutable, well-researched and often primary in nature of anyone's on this forum. A search of my contributions on FECC is proof enough. That you try to crudely dismiss them is typical and desperate."

You would be the only one to say so. Proving you wrong is practically an FECC pastime, one that don't normally indulge in because I like a little sport.

"Bottom line: your lambasting of Buddy Holly, covering a very short period in an amazing career that was still in its infancy, is irksome and infuriating, and I'm not the only one who feels your thoughts are short-sighted, unfounded and more than a little odd."

Well Snooki from the Jersey Shore has her sycophants as well. I'm glad to hear you're in such company.

Well, I, for one, believes likethebike is making his points very well. No one is knocking Holly here; great artist whose life and career were cut tragically short. But he was not the second coming of Elvis Presley, he never claimed to be.