Hey Guest!
smilie in place of the real @
Pretty Please - add it to our Events forum(s) and add to the calendar! >> Here's How << 
........'Sides, I'm still singin' dirges in the dark.
That's different. It's your job :friendly_wink:
:lol: Got me there!
I never really got the whole idolization of Buddy Holly. Sure he was a decent rock and roller for his time, but I never understood why so much adoration was ascribed to him. Please understand, I'm not saying he wasn't decent, but technically his music was nothing special. "Peggy Sue, Peggy Sue - pretty pretty pretty pretty Peggy Sue
oh Peggy - my Peggy Sue" With three chords strummed on the guitar. Deep. In my view he was an "ok" musical talent but certainly no Paul McCartney. I agree, however, that he died much too young and that's a shame, as who knows what great things he may have done in later years had he lived.


Ok, let's compare Paul & Buddy. Paul was 23 when he recorded his first hit, which only made it to #8 on the UK charts. Buddy was only 22 when he died, but had already recorded "That'll Be the Day", which hit #1 on US "Hot 100" and UK charts, while simultaneously hitting #2 on the US R&B chart. He had also recorded 9 other songs that made it into the top 100 on at least one of those charts. Paul was 40 before he managed to hit all 3 with the same song.
So sure, Paul has done better over a career of some 45 years, but he was a late bloomer compared to Buddy. There is no telling what Buddy might have done if he had survived.
Personally, I prefer Paul's music (and Don McLean's for that matter) but then I was not buying records in 1959. Tastes change.