Who Would've Stayed Cool Had They Not Died Before Their Time

No that's an absurd (and wrong) analysis Chemguy. The point is, he didn't die "before his time" as the original poster was asking about. Bowie was 69+ years of age. In fact, he exceeded his life expectancy.

"Worldwide, the average life expectancy at birth was 70.5 years (68 years and 4 months for males and 72 years and 8 months for females) over the period 2010–2015 according to United Nations World Population Prospects 2015 Revision,[3] or 69 years (67 years for males and 71.1 years for females) for 2016 according to The World Factbook."

List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia

Also, for males born in the UK in 1960 (much later than Bowie), the life expectancy is 71.

Life expectancy at birth, total (years) | Data

 

Several accounts confirm John Lennon was emotionally if not physical abusive towards Cynthia and Julian. I love the music too. But the John Lennon so many idolize is a fictional character of his own creation...

In no sense of the word "cool."

The true tragedy is John didn't live long enough to rectify this. As accounts of his Dakota years truly do suggest a better person.

 

Morrison was a hippie? He was a mean confrontational drunk both on and off stage and he wore leather, so...

Was Iggy Pop a hippie too?

As for Brian Jones, he didnt write or sing, so what was he going to do musically post-Stones (since he had been fired before he died). He had in Bill Wyman's opinion (as detailed in one of his books) an undiagnosed mental disorder (IIRC it was either bi-polar or schizophrenia) and he backed this up by saying that he met and interviewed one of Brian Jones' many illegitimate children and discovered she had the disorder (which can be hereditary) and the symptoms she described were very similar (if not identical) to those Brian Jones exhibited in the 60s. He also theorized that his drug abuse was at least in part an attempt to self medicate the effects of his undiagnosed condition. So if you also consider inactive, post-breakdown, mentally disabled, recluse Syd Barrett to have "continued to be cool" fine, but otherwise I don't get it.

 

Can you imagine a double bill of Jim Croce and Harry Chapin? Both come out at end to do several duets! A night with full band backing. Sold out in large theaters.

 

The way I see it, Buddy Holly would have either gone into production or straight up country music like most of his contemporaries. I get the feeling that the lush overdubs smeared over his posthumous recordings would have happened whether he lived or not.

 

While it is nice and fun to imagine certain people staying in a place we admire them forever, I don't think any of these artists would be who they were had they lived a long life.
Stevie Ray Vaughn is a great example of this.
He was pretty cool in his own way, but he was also musically adventurous.

Because of this I would guess he may have adventured into something potentially uncool, just to give it a try, as he aged and changed.

You never know what a guy is going to do until he is finished doing his thing.

 

The answer depends on if the person continued using drugs and/alcohol the rest of their lives.

If going forward clean and sober is part of the deal, then I agree, Jimi Hendrix would be the coolest.

If the artist just continued on the course that they were on, then the image of an old, smacked-out Kurt Cobane doesm't sound too attractive. Or an old, bitter drunk Jim Morrison, Janis Joplin, or even Jimi Hendrix doesn't sound too cool either,

Answer is:
Buddy Holly--The biggesr name on the list that wasn't a drunk.
Stevie Ray Vaughn (honorable mention) --was 4 years sober at the time of his dearh and his star was still rising

 

Buckley
Hendrix
Winehouse

I think these three had more yet to say than the others. They hardly got a chance.
The stupid, talentless twat Sid Vicious shouldn't even be on the list.

 

EXCEPT Buddy Holly, who, even though he'd been dead up to five years, had more hit singles (as writer AND as performer) in the UK in 1962-4 than anyone, including The Beatles.

 

This question is difficult for me to answer since "cool" is so time/context related and nobody dies before their time........when they die then it's their time.
Fantasizing what and how sucessfully different music personalites might create if they had survived is interesting but how they lived up to and when they died does not really project forward.
I knew many people especially in the late 60s,70s and early 80s (including myself) whose lives transformed drastically and are now still around , many leading quite substantial lives.
I would guess many of the individuals listed in the poll could still be creating interesting music or would have in the intervening years since their deaths.
And many were would be playing state fairs and nostalgia cruises.
And many would have just faded away.
And many would certainly have just died at a later date.
But unless they were "rediscovered" and developed a fervent modern cult following , which definitely happens , they probably would not be referred to as "cool".

 

At of those artist had passed their peak (aguably) at the time of their demise. It could be argued that some of them might have regained their cool at a later stage, but that would be more unpredictable than speculating about who was still cool and would have remained cool. Anyway, Bob Marley was pretty much still at the top (or near the top) of his game at the time of his passing.

 

I was talking about living/making NEW music, and I also acknowledged that his career (while still alive) never stalled in the UK like it had in the US. I also said he may have decided to do as Gene Vincent did and base himself in the UK in the 60s to take advantage of that, but it did nothing to help Gene's career as since past the early 60s Gene (like the rest of the 50s rockers) was done as a chart presence in the UK as well.

Buddy likely continued having hits into the early 60s in the UK due to the fact that Rock & Roll never died there the way it had it the US by that time, and music in that style had not yet gone completely out of fashion in the UK. Anyway all that Buddy having posthumous hits in the UK proves is that the best career move one can make is dying young, which is the opposite of what this thread is about - which is people who would have kept their coolness (popularity/impact) had they lived and continued making NEW music. Posthumous hits (in a foreign and much smaller country, no less) is no proof that he would have had hits with new music (keeping up with/or at least trying to keep up with current musical trends) had he lived. He was already a fading star in the US when he died. Even his death didn't turn that around aside from his first posthumous single, after which he disappeared from the US charts.

Plus I was going to argue your 'more hits than the Beatles' claim, but then If I'm reading that correctly "as a writer" means you're including cover versions not performed by Buddy in that tally. Well in that case what's the Beatles tally including the Beatles as writers (Lennon/McCartney) in their number of hits, since I'd imagine if you included cover versions in the Beatles' tally (Lennon/McCartney) the Beatles would have beat Holly in total hits (as writer(s) AND as performer(s)) in that timeframe, so....

 

While 56 isn't "young", it's not old either. Warren Zevon would've certainly seen a nice resurgence in his popularity had he lived.

 

Why?

 

His use of songs in movies. Hipster kids rediscovering him. Judd Apatow always speaking highly of him in interviews.

 

But none of that requires him to be either alive or making new music. Plus he was never huge even in his prime, was he? He was highly respected by his peers, and had several hit cover versions of his songs, but as a performer was he really anything more than a one hit wonder (40 years ago) cult artist at best?

 

He'd be like Leonard Cohen or Tom Waits, having Top Ten album by way of touring and cult following. Both those artists never a Top 40 hit or a Top 40 album in their prime, yet late their careers they had a major jolt in popularity.

 

Well no, no need for you to imagine anything, I was quite precise in including songwriting.
It's hard for Americans to see the huge impact Buddy Holly had on the 1963 Beat Boom in the UK. He was far and away the most influential writer and performer in the UK in 1962/3. In 1964 The Beatles overtook him. But as you point out he was dead. IF he was still living in 1964 his prodigious output would probably have continued, energized by the unexpected reverence and respect of the British bands. Chuck Berry (not dead, just in prison) had a career revitalization in 1964 due entirely to his status in the UK, and even wrote some of his best known songs. Little Richard (not dead, just got Religion) was the next most popular US act with the Brits, but his career never got back on track fully. Elvis (not dead, just in the Army) had become a movie Star but he had a resurgence years later in 1968 and even became more relevant for a while.
But Buddy really was dead yet maintained his attraction in the UK. In spring 1964 a record hit number 1 in the US that was clearly inspired by Buddy Holly, especially in the way the joint lead singers sang with the Holly hiccup: "You think you've lost your love; well I saw her yesterday-i-yay".
The Rolling stones first big hit was a Buddy Holly song. The Hollies were named after Buddy. The Beatles were named after The Crickets.

 

I'm not sure that having a Top Ten hit album nowadays really means much. Almost every legacy artist has been having "their first Top 10 album in decades" or even "their first Top 10 album ever" because older music fans are (almost) the only ones who actually still purchase music. All it takes for a Top 10 album nowadays is something like 20 thousand copies sold, which cult artists probably always sold in their first week anyway, but 20 years ago that number of units sold in a week probably wasn't even enough to guarantee any chart position at all.

I'd hardly consider selling the same number of copies they always have (to the only demographic that still regularly purchases CDs) to be a "major jolt in popularity".

 

All of them would have something to offer and I`m sure would have matured.Some of these are argueably more heartbreaking than others.Personaly I wish Kurt Cobain was here.I`m sure he would have still been a very interesting charactar from many aspects.

 

I think he'd already stopped being cool before he died. He's always been quite a divisive figure, I just can't see where he would have gone, I feel his talent was very much of its time, unlike many on the list who seem even now to be modern and forward thinking. Holly and Hendrix for example.

 

From The Hollywood Reporter
"Tom Waits makes waves as the singer/songwriter nets his first top 10 album -- and highest charter ever -- with his Bad As Me bowing at No. 6 with 63,000. The album nets his best sales week since SoundScan began in 1991, and is his first set of new studio recordings in eight years. In a chart career that began with 1975's No. 164-peaking Nighthawks at the Diner, his previous high-water mark came with 2004's Real Gone, which debuted and peaked at No. 24."

Leonard sold 41,000 copies in his first week, both high watermarks for those artists. You can say that declining sales are causing them to debut higher than they would have, but you cannot argue that both their audiences grew.

 

Sure you can, because that requires knowing what the total sales figures for the album is over time. Higher first week sales only proves that their albums are initially selling faster than in the past, possibly due to greater awareness of release dates nowadays. There's a link on Amazon for a list of new releases by date going forward for several weeks, plus all accumulated pre-orders made, no matter how far in the past they were made, count towards the first week sales. I'd say for example how long does it take an album to go gold compared to how long it took previous albums to go gold would be a far more accurate and trustworthy measure as to whether their audience has grown or not.

 

I think his music was far ahead of its time. When hearing The Doors besides the first and third album, few seem to think it's from the 60's. Hendrix stuff is very clearly from the 60's, even despite his totally original guitar playing. Holly is unmistakably 50's.

 

Many on the list would have remained cool, some would have burned out, and a few might not have stayed interesting musically. Hendrix, Otis and Amy were all at stages in their career where they seemed to be considering changes in direction. Hendrix might have gone into jazz fusion or something else experimental, Otis was taken by where acts like the Beatles were going and might also have broadened his music business ownership, and Amy's work with the likes of Tony Bennett suggested she could have become a great jazz diva. Marley could have ended up in politics as maybe Jamaican Prime Minister or some other leading role.