where would they be now?

[tom]

Throughout the history of popular music, many stars have died tragically young - Buddy Holly, Marc Bolan, John Denver, etc.

Had they lived out their 'three score years and ten', how do you think their careers would have progressed?

Would their music have evolved, or would they have become 'stuck in a rut' and eventually fade from the scene? Or would they have spent the latter part of their career in cabaret, a shadow of their former selves. And, in some cases, was their death the kick-start of an otherwise mediocre career?

What are your views?

Tom

[peridot44]

Sometimes wondered that myself. Buddy Holly was, to me, so good and inventive that I feel sure he would have had a great career both performing and writing and producing for others. I was acutely aware of a sense of loss with his death. I will always wonder what we missed. In serious music I wonder what marvels we missed when Mozart died. Would he have outshone Beethoven as an early romantic?
John Denver had already gravitated to the 'middle-of-the-road' and who couldn't like such a likable personality? I think the TOP 10 was no longer his scene. I could, however be wrong.
Elvis was struggling to get back to his former self and still, it seems, had great stage presence, but perhaps his reputation was better served by his unexpected end (if you forget those awful films).
Don't know Marc Bolan at all - heard of him but only barely.
Most of the old crooners and great singers from the 40s onwards went on almost for ever. So maybe it's a case of live fast and die young.

What do you think, yourself, Tom? MM? Socal (are you still there?)?

P

[socal]

hello, peridot, and yes i am still here, thank you for asking. I tend to believe that the major pop music artists have three choices as they age gracefully (in most cases): say with their formula(s) of success, try to keep current (not always a good idea), or retire on their royalties. Given the "sacred" demo group of 18-35yr olds that ad companies drool over, it is increasing difficult for older artists to be played on commercial radio or to be featured in record shops/TV/newspapers to have their material exposed. And to me, that is a sad state of affairs.

[tom]

Totally agree with you about the lack of media exposure for older artists, socal.

As for my own opinions on some of the sadly deceased stars:

I think that, as a songwriter, Buddy Holly would have had many successful years ahead of him. However, as a performer I doubt if he would have lasted beyond the mid-60s, mainly because I don't think that he would have had the ability to re-invent his vocal style. Also, I think he may have decided to retire early to enjoy family life.

John Denver, though not a chart success, would have continued to write and perform until that marvelous voice failed him.

Elvis, at the time of his death, was desperately trying to deny that it was time to slow down. There comes a time when you should listen to what your body is telling you. If he had not tried to burn the candle at both ends, he would still be singing now - but his rock and roll days were already gone when he died.

Marc Bolan - though having great potential - would probably not have lasted beyond the Glam Rock era. His pretty-boy looks and his fan base would have proved a hindrance, and he did not possess Bowie's powers of re-invention.

John Lennon may have lasted - he had just made a comeback when he died, and there were signs that his writing was beginning to come good again. However, it seemed to me that his output was coming in quick bursts, with quite a long gap between them. Would a new album every 3-5 years have been enough? Also, had he become stuck in the protest song era?

The danger with Mozart was that he was so prolific, and bordering on genius, that he could have ended up having a complete mental breakdown, resulting either in a writer's block, or even madness (it's often been said that genius is next to madness). There could also have been a danger that at a later stage of life, having gone as far as he believed he could in his compositions, and having nothing to look forward to, he could have eventually committed suicide.

These are my views on the above people. I hope I haven't upset anyone with these opinions. What do you think may have happened to them?

Tom

[M.Maestro]

Good topic, Tom. Everyone so far is right on target in their opinions on this; let me add a little something: The great artists of ANY genre will never have a problem in adapting to change in their particular landscape. The problem wil ALWAYS be with the executive types (most nowadays are snot-nosed out of college & have no sense of history in their short lifetime(s) ) & have never heard of Al Jolson, Paul Whiteman, Jimmie Rodgers (the C&W pioneer), The Carter Family (not Jimmy, the 39th President), Benny Goodman, Fats Waller, you get my point. This is a fascinating topic, & I will expand on these thoughts in the near future, so stay tuned!

[peridot44]

Yes I see what everyone is getting at. I'm afraid I've long been of the opinion that Radio 1 (BBC pop station in the UK) is for the kids so it plays the music that folk with no history as yet, want to hear. Perhaps there should be a station devoted to 'older artistes', crooners, middle-of-the-road singers and older songs etc. As the youngsters get older they will almost inevitably become jaded and start investigating the greats of the past. All such stuff has never been more available.

Some of the past successful performers are so addicted to performing that they cannot stop, and follow the downward spiral regardless. Helen Shapiro may be one such.

I never had the high opinion of John Lennon that so many have. Some of his songs were silly some nasty and some show naivete ('All You Need Is Love' 'Imagine' etc) that he never grew out of. But, I expect that he would have continued to be successful as he had his loyal crowd of fans. He, and all the Beatles to the same or lesser degrees, were off into every new fad that came along. Ringo always seemed to be the most sensible.

Tom, you're very hard on Mozart. He had the problems of being treated as a servant and under better conditions he might have survived much longer. Judging by his last symphonies, what was still to come would have been thrilling to hear. The Romantic period was beginning to show in his music. As arguably the greatest genius music has ever seen, music seemed to flow from his brain with no difficulty whatever. We'll never know.

I found out recently that a late 50s favourite of mine, Vince Eager, is still singing, after nearly 50 years.

Cheers
P

[tom]

I didn't mean to belittle Mozart's genius, peridot (although I will always prefer J S Bach, myself ;D). What I was trying to say was that he was so prolific that there was a danger that the ideas would flow much faster than his ability to write them down (no computers then!). This would lead to increasing frustration on Mozart's part, with the possibility of 'burn-out' being the result. A more up-to-date example of what I mean is the case of Brian Wilson, of the Beach Boys, who ended up becoming a virtual recluse, but thankfully has now recovered.

Tom

[peridot44]

Hi Tom,
Somehow, I don't think Mozart would have burned out. He was overflowing with ideas but had a hard time. Given more control, we might have seen an early flowering of the Romantic era.
So you're a JS Bach man? I'm partial to some JS myself. To mention a very popular piece, the first part of Brandenberg Concerto No 3 is, to me, the most perfect, tuneful, fugue I know. It used to be the signature tune for Antiques Roadshow and as I already loved the music, I enjoyed hearing it at the start of a prog. I loved. Now the piercing piece that is used I find off-putting.
Where do you stand on CPE Bach? I find him the most joyful and tuneful of the Bach dynasty, and while I am just a big soft romantic at heart (Mahler, Bruckner, Wagner, Strauss etc) some Baroque or Classical makes the whole more digestable.

I suppose a mixture of all music is probably the best thing and my own 'mixture' CDs contain all sorts. Currently, I am enjoying CDs of Vangelis music especially the pieces contained in 'L'apocalypse des Animaux ' and the 'Cosmos' theme (that GREAT Carl Sagan series). I surprise myself sometimes at what I like.

Cheers
P ;D ;D ;D

[tom]

To tell the truth, peridot, I haven't really heard much of CPE Bach's music, but I do like what I have heard. As for JS Bach, I think he would have been writing Jazz if he were alive today. Another Baroque composer I like is Telemann - I don't know if you've heard anything by him.

I don't like opera that much, apart from the odd aria, but Mozart's 'The Magic Flute' is one I do actually enjoy listening to from time to time.

I do like Gilbert and Sullivan's operettas, though purists would probably not class them as classical composers.

I used to hate classical music - and music theory - when I used to have to learn about it in school. It was only a year or two after I left school that I really got into it. I even taught myself to read music and play the piano and the guitar. (I love playing the theme to 'Tales of the Riverbank').

My musical tastes - popular music, that is - have changed many times over the years, with some C&W, Crooners, Big Band, Novelty Records, Musicals, TV and Movie Theme music, Chart Music (mainly from the 50s to the early 80s, but I still keep in touch with the charts, even today) Rock and Roll, Rock, Progressive Rock, and, more recently, English Folk Rock. Although my favourite musical genre changes from time to time, I have never actually 'fallen out of love' with any of the music I've liked over the years, and still listen to bands like Yes and Focus that were my favourites in my late teens.

As for classical music, I am continually being introduced - usually by accident - to (for me) previously unheard-of composers and music that give me enjoyment. Not bad for something I thought I hated when I had to learn about it!

One thing that it's taught me, though, is to never dismiss any new music I come across out of hand, without first giving it a fair hearing. (That goes for today's popular music, as well)

Tom

[tah64]

peridot44 said:

I'm afraid I've long been of the opinion that Radio 1 (BBC pop station in the UK) is for the kids so it plays the music that folk with no history as yet, want to hear. Perhaps there should be a station devoted to 'older artistes', crooners, middle-of-the-road singers and older songs etc. As the youngsters get older they will almost inevitably become jaded and start investigating the greats of the past. All such stuff has never been more available.

Peri there is such a station we listen to it all the time.... Classic Gold!
My kids have never listened to R1, - well they probably have at some time but not in our house - and because of that they like a wide range of music, we used to play a game in the car where they would have to try and guess who the artist/band was singing. By the age of 6 Perry could tell the difference between Elvis, Buddy, Cliff and many more!

To get back onto the topic of where would they be now..... I think that most of the already named people would still be 'doing their thing' as they were all artists who just loved to play to an audience, even if it were a small one, and due to their following's this would be possible. Although are their followings so big because they died?

Not being an overly knowledgeable person on the Classics such as Mozart, Bach and the like I can't pass opinion. BUT I do have a few classical LP's and we listen to them for relaxation mostly