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

He was the only one who wrote songs that weren't dated or obviously American. In 1962,3,4, he would have been writing songs in the current idiom and having hits, either as a writer or a performer (which he did anyway even though deceased), and judging by his later material, progressing and being inspired just like The Beatles, Brian Wilson, Jagger/Richard, The Byrds, etc were in 1965/6. He would still have only been 26 in 1965, same as Bill Wyman, younger than John Phillips and John Mayall for example. John Lennon was older than Buddy was when he died when The Beatles made their first record. He progressed just fine in the 60s.

 

I would say, by the way, that the minimum requirements for something being cool are that:

* We're talking about the opinions of some "in-crowd"--that is, some at least loose social grouping that has at least informal requirements of knowledge, opinion, behavior, etc., so that you have to meet those requirements more or less to be accepted as "in with the in-crowd" and not be considered an outsider to it

* Something gains "cool" status with that particular in-crowd if it's not only well-respected by that in-crowd, but it's more or less paradigmatic for in-crowd membership to be familiar with it and respect it, so that not admiring it, and/or admiring something that's the antithesis of it instead, would require pretty good reasons (that are accepted by the in-crowd) if one is not going to be denied membership or excommunicated from that in-crowd (and thus be not cool oneself to that in-crowd)

So something staying cool over time requires that the thing maintains cool status as above, without cessation, and where we're not talking about significantly diminishing populations with respect to the status.

 

Good points. Some of his songs seem to anticipate 60s British Invastion rock though, like "Words of Love,""Listen to Me"...

 

Paul McCartney

 

Yeah, you're right - if only they'd been white like everyone at the 60s hit machine record label Motown. Oh, wait...

 

...and the Everly Brothers were BOTH younger than Buddy Holly (by one and three years), and their efforts at remaining current during the 60s hardly had them setting the charts ablaze on either side of the Atlantic past 1965 (one year longer than everyone else mentioned). They had one UK Top 10 hit single in 1965 (their first and only Top 10 after 1962). In the US their final Top 10 hit single was in 1962.

 

But the measure of cool isnt whether YOU like it or not. There needs to be some objective yardstick to gauge success with the public (sales/chart stats) and/or the critics (how many "Greatest 100 (or even 500) Albums" lists contain that 1968 Del Shannon album you mention). He was largely forgotten by the public by 1968, and he's pretty much completely forgotten by the public today aside from *maybe* one song.

 

I think it's an album that's very much viewed as a cult favourite, above and beyond my own (admittedly unimportant) view.

I don't want to get too hung up on the Shannon comparison, my point around Holly is that unlike the other rock and roll acts you mention, I really believe, like most of the great artists who have stuck in the collective psyche, he was able to transcend genre. Chuck Berry and Little Richard faded from view because they couldn't move with the times. Presley wasn't a writer so he was slightly immune to it as long as he chose decent songs (and his country and gospel work was often excellent). The people who will be remembered from the last 60 years of popular music are those who were able to step outside of a movement, those who defined a genre (like Berry and Richard) or those individuals who completely ploughed their own furrow.

Of the artists in this poll I think Holly and Hendrix best fit that - and I'd possibly add Winehouse and Cobain although their work means very little to me personally.

I get that you don't see that ability in Holly's recorded work, my own view is that based on a recording career that was little more than 3 years in length, only The Beatles showed a similar progression in complexity and maturity. Given he died at 22, I'd say he could have created something quite astonishing given the chance. Sadly we will never know which of us was correct!

 

Bon Scott

 

Nice try. In the western world, expectancy for men has now crested at over 80.

David died of a condition. 70 is not that old nowadays. Your stats belie the fact that he left us too soon.

 

Warren Zevon

 

Why do people think Amy Winehouse had much more to say? She started her career in the early 2000s, her last album was in 2006 and she died in 2011. She had plenty of time to do something and... she didn’t. Why do we think she would have done something else? I don’t mean to diss her, I recognize and enjoy her talent. But it seems to me she gained this legend status when she didn’t deserve it.
PS: I read that a producer said he had to destroy some final unreleased songs of her because they were too embarrassing, so it was something he just had to do to not ruin her.

 

Agreed, although I think the hope was always there that she would recover and get back to the top of her game. I don't think it was possible, not least of all since promoters and management were clearly ok to some degree with her taking the stage in no condition to perform right up to the end. Made great copy, didn't it? </sarcasm>

 

That's not how it works Chemguy. It depends on the year you were born and geographical area. I quoted you the correct number above. And since Bowie was born 70 years ago, his life expectancy was not as high as a child born today. It generally goes up as our medical knowledge and technology advances, but there have been some trends going the wrong way in some places due to other factors.

 

John Lennon lived to the age of 40 (after the OPs cut off point) and well past his era of coolness.

 

wait what? you really don't think it was easier in the 60's for a white talented singer to remain relevant than it was a black talented singer?

Motown existing does not mean there was true equality, pretty naive for you to think so or did you just want to take a cheap shot?

 

I'd rather have a drink with a 40-year old John Lennon than a 20-year old Sid Vicious.

 

Lowell George - the Fatman in the Bathtub would still have those blues down to a T

 

Of course you would. Sid Vicious was never cool.

 

Ol' Hank.

 

Good catch.

He'd already dabbled a bit in other styles and also experimented with '80sitis' (Yellow Pearl), but his songwriting remained special till the end. I have the feeling Thin Lizzy would've been back with a vengeance in the 90s.

 

...and you think it was easier for black singers to make an impact/have a career/crossover to the white audience in the 1950s than it was in the 1960s? Why would it be harder for an black artist who already had a successful career in the 50s to continue to do so in the 60s? In the 1950s segregation was still enshrined in law - in the 1960s it wasn't (though of course it did take some areas in the south a bit longer to accept that fact). Things were easier (comparatively) in the 60s (though still not exactly easy) to gain top 40 pop airplay (unlike in the 50s where as soon as a black artist starting gaining traction on the charts with a song, they'd rush-release a sanitized for white ears cover by someone like Pat Boone.

Tutti Frutti:
Little Richard version US #21
Pat Boone version US #12

Long Tall Sally:
Little Richard version US #13
Pat Boone version US #8

Ain't That A Shame:
Fats Domino version US #10
Pat Boone version US #1

I don't remember reading anything about black artists being so willfully torpedoed by competing white artists in the 60s, and certainly the white record companies weren't making a habit of doing so to black artists/black record companies (like Motown) in the same way/to the same degree in the 60s.

Pretty naive for you to think that Motown existing (and run quite successfully by a black man) and having a massive musical (and cultural) impact on not only black, but also on white America wasn't an indication of the fact that things were getting easier for black artists in the 60s than they were in the 50s, or are you using the strawman of claiming that I claimed that the existence of Motown somehow proves there was "true equality" because "you just want to take a cheap shot?"

 

I chose Buddy Holly
also What about Bon Scott, he died before 40

 

None of them. Only Jazz guys stay cool

 

My vote for her was purely about whether her being considered cool. Winehouse was well-respected by the hipster/Pitchfork crowd, and in her case that was somewhat unusually bolstered for that crowd by her achieving widespread commercial fame, too. She was seen as one of the minority of commercially popular artists who were still artistically worthwhile. It's not unusual for well-respected contemporary artists to have 4-6 years between releases, and in this century (actually, starting in the 90s), there hasn't been the same pressure there used to be for artists to rapidly change stylistically to remain successful.