The Day the Music Lived?

What if the Holly-Valens-Bopper plane didn't crash? I'm sure this has been covered before, but I haven't seen it.

Well, what happens? Would it be a big blow to the future of "funky rock" fueled by hippies and leave rock and roll number one for another decade or so? This actually might have huge repercussions for the hippie movement. I mean, really, if they had lived, bands like the Beatles, whose name was inspired by Holly's Crickets, might go for a more traditional rockabilly style. If the Beatles do that, all bets are off. I can hardly imagine "funky rock" ala Woodstock growing popular if they live. IOTL, it seemed almost like an act of God to bump off the main Rock-n-Roll singers in 1959 to make way for the "Drugs-n-Peace Generation." Perfect set-up.

Discuss. :D
 
If you accept the Beatles as the engine of 60's musical development (which is a pretty narrow view), I don't think much actually changes. Not many stars of the 1950s had a lot of success during the sixties; how much of that was due to the death of three somewhat-successful rock musicians is pretty debatable. I think the British Invasion would still happen, and Holly et al. would be the ones adjusting to it, not the other way around.

And when you consider the sixties in a broader sense--social changes, Vietnam, etc. it seems almost inevitable that the "Drugs and Peace" Generation would arise in some form--with or without the Beatles (or Johnny and the Moondogs, if you prefer).
 
If you accept the Beatles as the engine of 60's musical development (which is a pretty narrow view), I don't think much actually changes. Not many stars of the 1950s had a lot of success during the sixties; how much of that was due to the death of three somewhat-successful rock musicians is pretty debatable. I think the British Invasion would still happen, and Holly et al. would be the ones adjusting to it, not the other way around.

And when you consider the sixties in a broader sense--social changes, Vietnam, etc. it seems almost inevitable that the "Drugs and Peace" Generation would arise in some form--with or without the Beatles (or Johnny and the Moondogs, if you prefer).

No, no, not the engine, just a strong turning point; many of the 40s and 50s singers OTL hated the Beatles with an extreme passion and saw them as beatnik invaders. Buddy Holly I could possibly see adapting a bit, but I can't see people like Big Bopper just going with it. Rockabilly is their thing. I see that "Druggie" rock might win out like you say, but I think there would be some intense resistance (it's almost inevitable; I'm talking more about delaying it, and not outright eliminating it).

As of 1960, Holly, Valens, Bopper (Richardson) had died, Little Richard became a pastor, and Elvis was conscripted, not to mention the Payola scandals. That's just a perfect set-up for the new sound of the Woodstock era to come in. I'm wondering if the H-V-B trio might continue in popularity long enough to at least push back the hippie era.

Also, what if regular (Presley-Holly) rock became anti-war? Minus the drugs, long hair, etc, it's still the hippie movement for all basic purposes. That's kind of an original idea. I could see a bunch of rockabillies saying they don't want to die in a godforsaken Vietnamese jungle just as much as anyone.
 
Instead of Buddy Holly and the Crickets, you'd get Buddy Holly and the Beatles.

Imagine Buddy with long hair.

Thanks for the nightmares. :p

Ironically, the Crickets almost named themselves the Beetles.

I wonder what a Presley-Holly '68 Comeback Special would be like. :D

EDIT: I just remembered Holly was a conservative from Texas. That has an impact. I think he'd either fade into obscurity in the 60s or outright combat the Brits.
 
Last edited:
No, no, not the engine, just a strong turning point; many of the 40s and 50s singers OTL hated the Beatles with an extreme passion and saw them as beatnik invaders. Buddy Holly I could possibly see adapting a bit, but I can't see people like Big Bopper just going with it. Rockabilly is their thing. I see that "Druggie" rock might win out like you say, but I think there would be some intense resistance (it's almost inevitable; I'm talking more about delaying it, and not outright eliminating it).

As of 1960, Holly, Valens, Bopper (Richardson) had died, Little Richard became a pastor, and Elvis was conscripted, not to mention the Payola scandals. That's just a perfect set-up for the new sound of the Woodstock era to come in. I'm wondering if the H-V-B trio might continue in popularity long enough to at least push back the hippie era.

Also, what if regular (Presley-Holly) rock became anti-war? Minus the drugs, long hair, etc, it's still the hippie movement for all basic purposes. That's kind of an original idea. I could see a bunch of rockabillies saying they don't want to die in a godforsaken Vietnamese jungle just as much as anyone.

To be frank, those 40s and 50s people disliked the Beatles and the British Invasion and 60s music because those critics were schmucks. The 40s generation was traditional pop who understood music as Jazz and Swing and those songs from the Great American Songbook, and they hated Rock and Roll period (Jimmy Durante said Rock n Roll only had three notes, two of which were wrong). And frankly they disliked it because that new sound made them out of fashion and old hat, and increasingly no one wanted to hear them anymore. Those 50s guys disliked it for similar reasons, as well as the fact that guys like that assumed Doo Wop was going to go on forever somehow and the Beatles ended that.

You are correct on the music problems of the era for Rock. By the late 1950s that first era of Rock (and at the time the only era of Rock) had pretty much burned out, with Elvis in the army and returning not as a musician but as a film actor, Little Richard as a pastor, Jerry Lee Lewis reviled for his underage incestuous marriage, Big Bopper, Valens and Holly dead, and the other big names of the era gone for one reason or another. So in the late 50s and early 60s, you had a interregnum between the two eras of Rock and Roll (the 50s era and the 60s era ushered in by the Beatles). That was an era where, as said, the artists were mostly all gone and what you were getting was bands artificially cobbled together from session musicians or guys plucked off the street, given catchy names or band names, given vapid music about cars and girls and other teen interests which were written by corporate song writers, and recorded and the record released to the teens to have interest in for a week and for them to spend their allowance on, with the process repeated over and over with session musicians broken up and moved around and cobbled and made to release albums and singles under some random name for allowance money from dumb teens. It was a fair bit like boy bands in that regard, except worse because it wasn't just artificial, it was artificial and the guys weren't even the names they were written as on the records nor actually an actual permanent group. This was also the era that "How Much is That Doggie in the Window?" was a top ten hit and a best seller. Not to say all was bad for the music scene in that interregnum (nor that all music was corporate produced rock and roll, given you did have other genres and still some good rock and roll artists around as well), but the things I've said should indicate there were serious problems with it.
There could be a serious argument that there was the potential that Rock and Roll could have died in that era, or at least have evolved permanently into artificial corporate rock with R&B and other genres (perhaps the Swing revival/easy-listening as well) rising to become the popular music instead. That's where the Beatles and the British groups helped, because while Rock and Roll was having those difficulties in America, it was incubating in Britain and burst onto the American and world stage, and also brought forth new American groups to prominence and popularity since labels were seeking out their music, and that revived Rock music.
 
Last edited:
Well put! There were some 40s guys who did like rock, though; Louis Prima for one. :D

Judging by the interesting proposal in your last bit, what might happen is sort of like Fallout or something. Michael Buble in the 60s and 70s, sort of, which I think would alter all of American history. The "Second Greatest Generation," uber-nationalist, side-hair-parted, suit-wearing America Ra-Ras might dominate the second half of the 1900s, with the '50s being "that silly rebel era." Americans might actually rally for Vietnam and support world policing, possibly resulting in a patriotic meatgrinding of the war to a victory. :eek: I'd say that McCarthyistic mentalities win out if the British Invasion is contained, and there would be a much smaller rise of the Left. The Beatles and others were shockingly leftist, another reason why the 40s and 50s singers would both want them gone.

Shows you how much music changes things.
 
Well put! There were some 40s guys who did like rock, though; Louis Prima for one. :D

Judging by the interesting proposal in your last bit, what might happen is sort of like Fallout or something. Michael Buble in the 60s and 70s, sort of, which I think would alter all of American history. The "Second Greatest Generation," uber-nationalist, side-hair-parted, suit-wearing America Ra-Ras might dominate the second half of the 1900s, with the '50s being "that silly rebel era." Americans might actually rally for Vietnam and support world policing, possibly resulting in a patriotic meatgrinding of the war to a victory. :eek: I'd say that McCarthyistic mentalities win out if the British Invasion is contained, and there would be a much smaller rise of the Left. The Beatles and others were shockingly leftist, another reason why the 40s and 50s singers would both want them gone.

Shows you how much music changes things.

I could frankly lean towards those non-rock genres of music having to evolve to tackle things like Rock did. After all, music will always have younger artists and new artists. Country and Folk could do so easily, but think of Swing Revival having to tackle the destruction of the Vietnam war and the youth rebellion and civil rights. Think of a Sinatra analog to "Paint it Black" or "Jumpin' Jack Flash". It's not too out there. Rock and Roll was just music to dance to, but it matured and tackled all those things and had seriousness. And compare the Temptations' "My Girl" to "Ball of Confusion" and "War" (the latter song they recorded before Edwin Starr). Swing war protest songs have to exist somewhere on the internet.
 
I don't think it would have changed much. Maybe Holly holds on until 62 or 63,but he kind of fades out. Maybe he turns country in the mid 60's, or he tries to have a film career only to try to come back in the late 60's and early 70's.
 
See also
Buddy Holly's plane doesn't Crash (
multipage.gif
1 2 3)
David M.

Music WI: Buddy Holly lives, but Waylon Jennings dies? (
multipage.gif
1 2)
Hadley

WI: The Day The Music Doesn't Die
APreston

Buddy Holly,Ritchie Valens and JP Richardson live
Mister Abbadon

The Music Does Not Die
Gass3268
 
Search function is your friend.;)

I continue to wonder why everybody thinks Buddy Holley would disappear. He was in his time as innovative as McCartney & Lennon. He was already moving toward producing. So, why couldn't he have adopted sound from, say, Tejano? (Think "Cry! Cry! Cry!", or Linda's cover of "That'll Be the Day".) Or from surf rock? (Too early?)

If not Holley, surely Valens would be listening to Dick Dale & the Surfaris & the Beach Boys & Jan & Dean. So who says he couldn't as easily have written & recorded *"Surfin' USA"? Or "Dead Man's Curve"? Or, for all that, "It Never Rains in Southern California" (with a more rockin' & more Latin beat)?

Either way, you could see them paving the way for a "Latin Invasion"...
 
If Buddy Holly doesn't die, he just continues his musical evolution as both a musician and song writer. He was already writing material in 1958 and early '59 that was nothing like his earlier stuff and showed a maturing song writer.

Had he lived, there's a very good chance that Crying, Waiting, Hoping sounds much different than the posthumous version that was released using his vocals and rhythm guitar track from a demo he recorded in his apartment in New York in late '58, early '59 as, rather than a producer putting together some session players to flesh it out the way they thought a 'Buddy Holly song' should sound, the song would have been recorded the way Buddy Holly actually wanted it to sound. That very well could have involved The Crickets, as they were talking about working together again at the time of Holly's death.

Interesting note there, Sonny Curtis had written I Fought The Law in 1958 and that song very well could have been a blockbuster if Holly and Curtis opted to record it as part of the project, with Holly on vocals and working on the arrangement with his old band mates and Curtis.

Holly was also getting more heavily involved in producing when he died, a path that could have led to God knows what in terms of experimentation with different recording and mixing techniques that guy who was just 22 when he died might have come up with, given time.

The only difference it probably would have made to the British Invasion artists is that, rather than being solely influenced by Holly's existing body of work to 1959, bands like The Beatles and Stones would have been further influenced by where Holly went musically from beyond that point and that would have been the influence of a maturing, dynamic performer whose music would have sounded A LOT different in the early 60's than it did in 1958.

A Buddy Holly who lives is a Buddy Holly who gets more exposure to a much broader set of musical influences and his music would have reflected it.

If anything, I think we get a Beatles that never go through their 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' phase and, by the time they first show up on American radio are well into their more matured Help!/Rubber Soul/Revolver phase or are right on the cusp of that phase from OTL.

The Stones, having been more influenced by Chuck Berry and Bo Diddley and the other rhythm and blues/blues rock artists of the time probably sound much like they did OTL, but there would probably be some signs of Buddy Holly influence there, mainly because the guy would have been the biggest rock star on the planet by then.

Now, what would be even more interesting would be how Holly progresses as a guitarist; does he pretty much stay a rhythm guitarist in his recorded materials or does he take to doing leads as his skills progress and perhaps he starts incorporating more instrumental interludes into his compositions, including solos and improvisational jams.

As to Elvis, if he had stayed a straight up recording artist, rather than getting wrapped up in the film industry, THAT'S a guy we already know the story on, because we see the musical direction he moved towards after he ditched the acting gig and returned to being a musician and that's a very broad index of musical styles, ranging from gospel music to ballads to rhythm and blues and straight up rock and roll.

Basically, you get Elvis minus the film soundtrack stuff he didn't write, recording albums that feature songs influenced by a broad variety of musical styles and genres. Difference being, Elvis is younger and more dynamic when he's writing those songs. Best POD for this is have him cut ties with Col. Tom Parker after he leaves the Army and focus on what he was good at (music) rather than something he was barely passable at (acting).

Hopefully, somewhere in there, a very different film called Viva Las Vegas is written and made and Doc Pomus and Mort Shuman send it off to Elvis to see if he wants to record the film's title track and Elvis says yes.

Mainly because I really like that song, especially the way Elvis did it.

Of course, in a world where Buddy Holly lives and Elvis sticks to making records, rather than making movies, the music of the 60's might end up turned on it's ear as those two would be so big and influential, a lot of bands and musicians would be influenced by them, even if only a little. That's not to say Bob Dylan wouldn't have still been Bob Dylan or Jimi Hendricks wouldn't have still been Jimi Hendricks, but they might show flashes of Holly/Elvis influence in their work, especially Bob Dylan, if Elvis and Buddy Holly do more country and Elvis (who we know liked to try out different styles of music and wasn't afraid to do so) even tries his hand at folk music in the early 60's.

Popular music in the 1960's (and beyond) would probably be a lot different for it.

And that's just TWO artists.

Richie Valens was 19 years old when he died. 19! He was already showing a broad range of musical styles and, as he matured and grew as both a person and an artist, I think really had potential to make an impact on music in the 1960s. He could rock, he could slow it down, he could mix it up with infusions of different cultures (like he did on La Bamba) and he was a damn good guitarist too.

I think he had every bit as much potential as Buddy Holly to end up a 'Rock God', possibly even more so, due to his age at the time of his death. (The guy would basically have been in his twenties for the entirety of the 1960's, PRIME age for a rock superstar.)

Holly and Valens live, Elvis sticks to music...fasten your seat belts, folks, because the rock/pop scene of the 60's wouldn't have spent 3 years emerging from the hangover of how the 1950's ended, they'd be erupting from the speakers of stereos and car radios from coast to coast. The Singing Nun, Pat Boone and 'How Much is That Doggy in The Window' need not apply.

Throw in Eddie Cochran not getting in that cab in London in 1960 and things could get even wilder.

You'll still get surf rock, soul and all that good stuff that was pretty much an inevitability from the minute rock was born (like progressive rock) but the music scene will be a lot more diverse in it's influences earlier on and God only knows what those four would have done with their incredible talents if Holly, Valens and Cochran lived and Elvis got himself the hell away from Parker upon return to civilian life.
 
What would happen to the Big Bopper? I can see him having a couple more novelty hits. After that, i see him becoming a Wolfman Jack-style DJ.
 
Sigma7 said:
Interesting note there, Sonny Curtis had written I Fought The Law in 1958 and that song very well could have been a blockbuster
:eek::eek::eek::eek: I so hate that song.:mad:
Sigma7 said:
Holly was also getting more heavily involved in producing when he died, a path that could have led to God knows what in terms of experimentation with different recording and mixing techniques that guy who was just 22 when he died might have come up with, given time.
This is probably the biggest imponderable. What does it do for lesser-known artists who get Holley as producer? Or artists who OTL were unknowns? (Just think how much production mattered to The Beach Boys' sound. Or, much later, ABBA's.)
Sigma7 said:
The only difference it probably would have made to the British Invasion artists
With Holley, & Valens (don't forget), alive, the Invasion faces stronger U.S. competition. Is there a chance it's less an invasion?
Sigma7 said:
The Beatles and Stones would have been further influenced by where Holly went musically from beyond that point and that would have been the influence of a maturing, dynamic performer whose music would have sounded A LOT different in the early 60's than it did in 1958.

...If anything, I think we get a Beatles that never go through their 'I Wanna Hold Your Hand' phase and, by the time they first show up on American radio are well into their more matured Help!/Rubber Soul/Revolver phase or are right on the cusp of that phase from OTL.
Which makes their early music so different, it's about impossible to imagine, isn't it? Or can we extrapolate? TTL's The Beatles sounding more like Santana? Or The Fabulous Thunderbirds? Or Poco?:cool:

Whatever the sound, IMO it's likely their music is more mature...but maybe not, since they've still got to develop & grow as a band. They've still got to find their own internal center, just like, say, The Guess Who. So they might start out as a fancy cover band, & still need a couple of years to get it right.
Sigma7 said:
the guy would have been the biggest rock star on the planet by then
Which means he'd have the mantle of "King of R&R", instead of Elvis. Which could do good things for Elvis' later career, if not for him immediately out of the Army.

With Valens alive, too, I wonder if it butterflies The Beach Boys or Jan & Dean or anybody entire... He was younger, so probably more inclined to the likes of "409" & "Fun Fun Fun" or "Hot Rod Lincoln"...
Sigma7 said:
As to Elvis, if he had stayed a straight up recording artist, rather than getting wrapped up in the film industry, THAT'S a guy we already know the story on
Do we? Allowing he doesn't stay in movies (& without being "King", he might have a harder time getting in to start with), with Holley dominating R&R, what's to say Elvis doesn't stay in gospel? He was already troubled by doing "the devil's music", & scored all his Grammys in gospel...
Sigma7 said:
younger and more dynamic when he's writing those songs
Except, how many of them did he actually write himself? IIRC, he recorded mostly other people's songs...

As for getting loose of Col Leech, if The Music lived, why can't butterflies make that happen?:cool:
Sigma7 said:
the music of the 60's might end up turned on it's ear as those two would be so big and influential, a lot of bands and musicians would be influenced by them, even if only a little.
Unquestionably. IMO, country rock & outlaw country are bound to be a lot bigger & a lot sooner...

Also, I'd suggest Holley wouldn't protest Vietnam. I'm seeing him writing songs more like "Still in Saigon" (more tribute to the vets), or "Leaving on a Jet Plane" (with a patriotic spin), or "One Tin Soldier" (without the criticism).

And that's not counting the chances of Holley being influenced in his turn by Dylan & doing electric folk or proto-folk rock.
Sigma7 said:
in his twenties for the entirety of the 1960's, PRIME age for a rock superstar.
Unfortunately also an age for believing you're indestructible, & susceptible to the temptations of drugs...:eek: How square was he? I've had the impression he was pretty straight. Holley, too, for all that. Both might avoid the "curse of 27".:eek:
Sigma7 said:
Pat Boone
Maybe not in rock, but in pop: "blanched" black music will still have a market for parents of the rockin' kids. Or in pure country.
Sigma7 said:
You'll still get surf rock, soul and all that good stuff that was pretty much an inevitability from the minute rock was born (like progressive rock) but the music scene will be a lot more diverse in it's influences earlier on and God only knows what those four would have done with their incredible talents
Amen. Good as the '60s were for R&R, they'd have been a bunch better, & stunningly different.
 
The most notable thing that happens is that we lose a fantastic Don McLean song.

Otherwise rock history (and any other history) would have been essentially unchanged.

Valens, Bopper, and Holly were at their commercial peaks at that point. Though there's some limited hope that Holly could have had some years of good artistic product ahead of him, it's hard to think that these three wouldn't have shared the fate of virtually every other non-Elvis 50's rock star had they lived. That doesn't make their deaths less tragic, or soften the pain of their fans. It's just that it wasn't a history-changing event.
 
What would happen to the Big Bopper? I can see him having a couple more novelty hits. After that, i see him becoming a Wolfman Jack-style DJ.

Entirely possible, especially if the plane still crashes, but all three survive, just with non-fatal, non-crippling injuries.

If he gets out then, with the notoriety he had when he died, and pitches a 'Big Bopper Radio Show' in one of the big markets, he might eventually end up with a radio show that's syndicated nationwide fairly quickly.

:eek::eek::eek: I so hate that song.:mad:

I like it. I really like the idea of Buddy Holly recording it.

This is probably the biggest imponderable. What does it do for lesser-known artists who get Holley as producer? Or artists who OTL were unknowns? (Just think how much production mattered to The Beach Boys' sound. Or, much later, ABBA's.)

Depends on how good and creative a producer Holly becomes in some cases, who he records that didn't otherwise get recorded in others.

It's so unknowable, I won't even hazard a guess.

With Holley, & Valens (don't forget), alive, the Invasion faces stronger U.S. competition. Is there a chance it's less an invasion?

I still think it's a big wave (there were just so many bands and too many of them were too good for the public to ignore) but they don't fill a vacuum like they did OTL. They have competition, but they'll still get recognition for their talents.

Which makes their early music so different, it's about impossible to imagine, isn't it? Or can we extrapolate? TTL's The Beatles sounding more like Santana? Or The Fabulous Thunderbirds? Or Poco?:cool:

I think the Beatles still have enough influences that they end up a lot like they did, perhaps a little more likely to try the Southwest Style as they progress, but...I think their personalities also drive them in a similar direction they took from Sgt. Pepper on.

Now, whether that means they turn into a progressive rock band, rather than going heavily experimental (ala The White Album)...that's somewhat intriguing...

Whatever the sound, IMO it's likely their music is more mature...but maybe not, since they've still got to develop & grow as a band. They've still got to find their own internal center, just like, say, The Guess Who. So they might start out as a fancy cover band, & still need a couple of years to get it right.

True, BUT, it's the songs they're learning and covering that make the difference here as to what type of sound they develop when they finally start to catch the public eye.

If they're covering a more mature sounding Holly in the early '60s, that could make for a more mature sounding Beatles circa 1964. Perhaps not Rubber Soul/Revolver yet, but an album like Help! might be their first major exposure to American audiences.

Which means he'd have the mantle of "King of R&R", instead of Elvis. Which could do good things for Elvis' later career, if not for him immediately out of the Army.

That one could cut both ways; on the one hand, it feed Elvis' drive to make a strong comeback as a musician. On the other hand, if Holly seems unassailable at the top, it might lead Elvis not only into Hollywood for his 'Movie Period', but maybe Elvis never gets out of the more general 'Entertainer' role and...becomes a Vegas draw for people who grew up with his music and are a still too young to be followers of The Rat Pack.

With Valens alive, too, I wonder if it butterflies The Beach Boys or Jan & Dean or anybody entire... He was younger, so probably more inclined to the likes of "409" & "Fun Fun Fun" or "Hot Rod Lincoln"...

I think those acts would be in the same orbit as Valens, probably good friends with him to boot and, hey, if Richie takes a shine to surfing...like I said, the guy enjoyed a lot of different musical genres and wasn't afraid to try new things.

If he takes a liking to surfing (and surf rock) he might cut a few killer songs of that genre in the early to mid sixties.

Maybe even working with Dick Dale!:cool:

Do we? Allowing he doesn't stay in movies (& without being "King", he might have a harder time getting in to start with), with Holley dominating R&R, what's to say Elvis doesn't stay in gospel? He was already troubled by doing "the devil's music", & scored all his Grammys in gospel...

I think there's a possibility that not being 'The King' takes some pressure off him and allows him to explore more (provided he's out of Parker's grip) and record (maybe even write with) a lot of different artists.

Maybe he and Holly collaborate on some rock, maybe he and Johnny Cash do some country. Without movies eating up his time and limiting his range of musical styles, he might score some Grammys in other genres...or release albums of diverse material that really grab people and win Grammys in their own right.

Except, how many of them did he actually write himself? IIRC, he recorded mostly other people's songs...

I'd have to check, but if he's not doing the movies, I think he has to develop as a song writer, and working with other good song writers may very well help him in that regard.

Just got a flash of Elvis, trying his hand at folk music and recording John Denver's Leaving on a Jet Plane.

That might be pretty cool if he did it write, especially with that voice of his...

As for getting loose of Col Leech, if The Music lived, why can't butterflies make that happen?:cool:

That's the thing: If the Music Lives, I don't see rock losing steam in '59-'61, but still going strong when Elvis comes back from the Army. I think Elvis could come back, see where guys like Buddy and Richie and Eddie are at and want to get back into the music himself. Parker disagrees (more dollar signs on movies where Elvis has no competition from the young blood of the music industry) but Elvis says "No, I don't think so, Colonel. I think I'm gonna...get back in the studio an' write me some new songs. TCOB. Now pack yer bags, because I got a crown to win back. Hoo-wah!":D:cool:

Unquestionably. IMO, country rock & outlaw country are bound to be a lot bigger & a lot sooner...

Bigger Johnny Cash and Roy Orbison!:cool:

Also, I'd suggest Holley wouldn't protest Vietnam. I'm seeing him writing songs more like "Still in Saigon" (more tribute to the vets), or "Leaving on a Jet Plane" (with a patriotic spin), or "One Tin Soldier" (without the criticism).

Depends.

I think, like a lot of folks, he'd support it so long as it seems like Washington isn't just throwing away American lives with no real plan.

The minute it becomes clear there IS NO PLAN...I think a guy like Holly would probably know a lot of guys either over there or KIA over there and, as a result, he'd turn on it too.

Big difference, I don't see him as the type of guy who'd rag on the troops or taunt them over it. I think he'd write songs like Fortunate Son that attack the establishment for being so careless with the lives and health of an entire generation of American boys. Perhaps, initially, his position would be "Are you in it to win or not?" and, when it becomes clear Washington just doesn't have the will to make the losses count for something, it's "Stop sending our boys over there to die for a lost cause."

I think his focus would be on 'Don't send our boys to die for no good reason or without a plan.' rather than the more general anti-war themes.

The again, he have thought the whole thing was a bad idea from the get go.

Who can say for sure?

And that's not counting the chances of Holley being influenced in his turn by Dylan & doing electric folk or proto-folk rock.

I totally see that happening.

I could see him working on some outlaw country with Johnny Cash and country ballads with Roy Orbison too.

Unfortunately also an age for believing you're indestructible, & susceptible to the temptations of drugs...:eek: How square was he? I've had the impression he was pretty straight. Holley, too, for all that. Both might avoid the "curse of 27".:eek:

Always a possibility, but I don't think they'd get dragged into the drug culture like the people who followed them did. They're already on top; who do they need to impress? They don't need to come off as 'edgy' or 'avant garde'. They're Buddy and Richie.

They can be as 'square' as they want and their entourages will be just as 'square' to keep them happy.

Maybe not in rock, but in pop: "blanched" black music will still have a market for parents of the rockin' kids. Or in pure country.

Good point.

Amen. Good as the '60s were for R&R, they'd have been a bunch better, & stunningly different.

So different, it might just turn people on without the need for LSD.


The most notable thing that happens is that we lose a fantastic Don McLean song.

Otherwise rock history (and any other history) would have been essentially unchanged.

Valens, Bopper, and Holly were at their commercial peaks at that point. Though there's some limited hope that Holly could have had some years of good artistic product ahead of him, it's hard to think that these three wouldn't have shared the fate of virtually every other non-Elvis 50's rock star had they lived. That doesn't make their deaths less tragic, or soften the pain of their fans. It's just that it wasn't a history-changing event.

Big Bopper was never going to get bigger.

He was a DJ with a booming voice in his late 20's. He was never going to get bigger as a recording artist. Best bet for him, if he lives, is to get a nationally syndicated radio program playing lots of big hits from his former contemporaries and the young blood coming up.

Hell, he might end up a hell of an entertainer in general, possibly on TV.

But he really had reached his peak.

To say Buddy Holly and Richie Valens, two guys who played instruments, wrote their own material and sang (and did those things well) at the ages of 22 and 19 respectively, were 'at their commercial peaks' in 1959 is ridiculous.

Deaths like theirs are tragic, regardless.

What really grips people about it is just how much potential was lost when those two died.

Those two, with their talents, with a good head on their shoulders, could have been two of the biggest stars in rock history with influences that would still be seen today.

One of the things I'm most interested in: How do Buddy Holly's glasses change? Will we see Holly with late-60s Lennon glasses?

I think Buddy's glasses get thinner (in terms of frame width) but I think he'd have the long thin frames, more like Jerry Garcia would wear later on.:cool:
 
Sigma7 said:
pitches a 'Big Bopper Radio Show' in one of the big markets, he might eventually end up with a radio show that's syndicated nationwide fairly quickly.

Big Bopper was never going to get bigger.

He was a DJ with a booming voice in his late 20's. He was never going to get bigger as a recording artist. Best bet for him, if he lives, is to get a nationally syndicated radio program playing lots of big hits from his former contemporaries and the young blood coming up.

Hell, he might end up a hell of an entertainer in general, possibly on TV.
Works for me (& I never particularly liked him...). I can easily see him doing a switch on the Wolfman, or doing a *"Bandstad".
Sigma7 said:
Depends on how good and creative a producer Holly becomes in some cases, who he records that didn't otherwise get recorded in others.

It's so unknowable, I won't even hazard a guess.
In '60 or '61, it's probably a minor artist or one-hit wonder. By '65, you could make up people. I don't favor that, myself, but using OTL local musicians or session players needs way, way more knowledge of the U.S. music scene than I've got.:eek:
Sigma7 said:
I still think it's a big wave (there were just so many bands and too many of them were too good for the public to ignore) but they don't fill a vacuum like they did OTL. They have competition, but they'll still get recognition for their talents.
I'd expect imports, but less "invasion" than "infusion". More exchange between them, too, I'd say.
Sigma7 said:
I think the Beatles still have enough influences that they end up a lot like they did, perhaps a little more likely to try the Southwest Style as they progress, but...I think their personalities also drive them in a similar direction they took from Sgt. Pepper on.
Makes sense. I wouldn't rule out a touch more Tejano/Latin, even a cover of something like "La Bamba" becoming a top hit by them (& here, I confess ignorance of Latin music, so there's probably others in the early '60s more likely to get covered).
Sigma7 said:
Now, whether that means they turn into a progressive rock band, rather than going heavily experimental (ala The White Album)...that's somewhat intriguing...
If Holley is producing, & innovating, I wonder if that doesn't push others to be even more innovative.
Sigma7 said:
True, BUT, it's the songs they're learning and covering that make the difference here as to what type of sound they develop when they finally start to catch the public eye.

If they're covering a more mature sounding Holly in the early '60s, that could make for a more mature sounding Beatles circa 1964. Perhaps not Rubber Soul/Revolver yet, but an album like Help! might be their first major exposure to American audiences.
Except they'd have to gain their own maturity as a band, too. That's what I'm thinking. A high school band playing Beethoven's 8th Symphony is still just a high school band.
Sigma7 said:
That one could cut both ways; on the one hand, it feed Elvis' drive to make a strong comeback as a musician. On the other hand, if Holly seems unassailable at the top, it might lead Elvis not only into Hollywood for his 'Movie Period', but maybe Elvis never gets out of the more general 'Entertainer' role and...becomes a Vegas draw for people who grew up with his music and are a still too young to be followers of The Rat Pack.
:eek: Elvis as Wayne Newton?:eek:

That could have serious butterflies in law enforcement. I don't see Elvis being a fan of working with the Mafia.:eek:
Sigma7 said:
I think those acts would be in the same orbit as Valens, probably good friends with him to boot and, hey, if Richie takes a shine to surfing...like I said, the guy enjoyed a lot of different musical genres and wasn't afraid to try new things.

If he takes a liking to surfing (and surf rock) he might cut a few killer songs of that genre in the early to mid sixties.

Maybe even working with Dick Dale!:cool:
:cool: There's a guy who deserves to be more famous.:cool: (I wonder if you'd see Valens doing the theme from "5-0".:cool: {Not that I'd want to butterfly the Ventures' version.:eek: It's about the best TV theme ever.:cool::cool:})
Sigma7 said:
I think there's a possibility that not being 'The King' takes some pressure off him and allows him to explore more (provided he's out of Parker's grip) and record (maybe even write with) a lot of different artists.

Maybe he and Holly collaborate on some rock, maybe he and Johnny Cash do some country. Without movies eating up his time and limiting his range of musical styles, he might score some Grammys in other genres...or release albums of diverse material that really grab people and win Grammys in their own right.
Makes sense. IMO, it depends more on what he wants to do, & that strikes me as gospel.
Sigma7 said:
I'd have to check, but if he's not doing the movies, I think he has to develop as a song writer, and working with other good song writers may very well help him in that regard.
I can see it, I'm just less sure he needs it. It's possible to be really big & never write your own music.
Sigma7 said:
Just got a flash of Elvis, trying his hand at folk music and recording John Denver's Leaving on a Jet Plane.

That might be pretty cool if he did it write, especially with that voice of his...
I'm hearing that sounding really, really strange...:eek:
Sigma7 said:
That's the thing: If the Music Lives, I don't see rock losing steam in '59-'61, but still going strong when Elvis comes back from the Army. I think Elvis could come back, see where guys like Buddy and Richie and Eddie are at and want to get back into the music himself. Parker disagrees (more dollar signs on movies where Elvis has no competition from the young blood of the music industry) but Elvis says "No, I don't think so, Colonel. I think I'm gonna...get back in the studio an' write me some new songs. TCOB. Now pack yer bags, because I got a crown to win back. Hoo-wah!":D:cool:
That could be epic. That could be really, really epic.:cool::cool: That could be almost as big as the duel between Lex & Guitar Man.:eek:
Sigma7 said:
Bigger Johnny Cash and Roy Orbison!:cool:
:cool: And Waylon & Willie. Probably the Oaks & Poco & ARS & CDB, too.:cool:
Sigma7 said:
Depends.

I think, like a lot of folks, he'd support it so long as it seems like Washington isn't just throwing away American lives with no real plan.

The minute it becomes clear there IS NO PLAN...I think a guy like Holly would probably know a lot of guys either over there or KIA over there and, as a result, he'd turn on it too.

Big difference, I don't see him as the type of guy who'd rag on the troops or taunt them over it. I think he'd write songs like Fortunate Son that attack the establishment for being so careless with the lives and health of an entire generation of American boys. Perhaps, initially, his position would be "Are you in it to win or not?" and, when it becomes clear Washington just doesn't have the will to make the losses count for something, it's "Stop sending our boys over there to die for a lost cause."

I think his focus would be on 'Don't send our boys to die for no good reason or without a plan.' rather than the more general anti-war themes.

The again, he have thought the whole thing was a bad idea from the get go.

Who can say for sure?
I can definitely see criticism of DC for not being in to win, & support the troops regardless.

That said, I wonder if they don't manage to change who wins in '62 & '66. Or, for all that, change JFK being in Dallas.:cool:

Come to think of it, this might be enough to keep JFK from winning in '60. Or enough to change who gets picked for Cabinet, so it's not Robert Strange at DoD.:cool:
Sigma7 said:
I totally see that happening.
:cool: TY.
Sigma7 said:
I could see him working on some outlaw country with Johnny Cash and country ballads with Roy Orbison too.
:cool: Definitely. I'm hearing Holley covering "Love Hurts" & "Oh, Pretty Woman" & "Only the Lonely".

Also room to butterfly away some of the tragedy in Orbison's life.
Sigma7 said:
Always a possibility, but I don't think they'd get dragged into the drug culture like the people who followed them did. They're already on top; who do they need to impress? They don't need to come off as 'edgy' or 'avant garde'. They're Buddy and Richie.

They can be as 'square' as they want and their entourages will be just as 'square' to keep them happy.
Works for me.:cool:
Sigma7 said:
So different, it might just turn people on without the need for LSD.
Could be. I'm thinking the hippy/free love movements are going to do the "turn on, drop out" thing regardless, if only as a protest against their parents.
Sigma7 said:
Those two, with their talents, with a good head on their shoulders, could have been two of the biggest stars in rock history with influences that would still be seen today.
Agreed.

This is a bit like asking what happens if Elvis is killed before he joins the Army, or in Germany.

One last thing: how do Valens & Holley deal with the change from single releases to album releases? IIRC it was mid-'69 when albums became the standard.
 
Last edited:
It's interesting, because the DJ on one of my local radio stations was talking about this very scenario earlier today.

According to him, Valens was tough to predict, because he was so young and his career was just starting. He might have stuck around doing Hispanic-styled music for a few years before calling it quits, and would eventually be recognized as a pioneer of Latino music, paving the way for people like Selena and Gloria Estefan. He continued to say that Holly might very well stick around for a long time, perhaps dabbling into country music in the '70s.
 
Top