[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Re: Buddy Holly and The Beatles were not the first

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: Wed May 15, 2019 11:03:46
In reply to: Darren Mullins 's message, "Re: Buddy Holly and The Beatles were not the first" on Tue May 14, 2019 23:59:22

Darren, you make good points about Holly's songwriting talent.

But you start out by saying Carl Perkins, Bo Diddley and Little Richard didn't have many hits with their original songs. And then you go on to say it doesn't matter that many of Holly's songs weren't hits. It almost seems like your second paragraph contradicts your first.

Certainly, if some of Little Richard's, Carl Perkins's and others compositions were not hits, that should also not disqualify them, the way it doesn't disqualify Holly.

I personally believe Holly's songwriting was more inventive and less formulaic than most of his contemporaries. So I'm not sure if it's a matter of who did it first, but instead who did it better.

I agree with Austin that some of the claims I've seen in the rock press are often exaggerated. Like "He was the first rocker to wear glasses!" which ignores Bo Diddley. Or "He was the first rocker with his own self-contained band!" which ignores Elvis with Scotty Moore and Bill Black.

I saw this in the '70s more often with British journalists who were unfamiliar with
the American music that had preceded Buddy & The Crickets. I remember one British biographer who was amazed that a rocker let out a yell before the guitar solo. He was convinced nothing like that had ever happened in the history of recorded music.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Subject Author Date
Re: Buddy Holly and The Beatles were not the firstDarren MullinsSat May 18, 2019 06:12:37

Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

Type your message here:

Note: This forum is moderated -- new posts are not visible until approved.

Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-6
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.