That being said, Buddy
Holly's death was more significant than Michael Jackson's. Buddy was born in 1936 and he died in 1959. He was only 24 years old when the plane that was carrying him, Richie Valenz, and the Big Bopper went down. The next day there was only a small note in the newspaper the following day. I would argue that Buddy's death is more significant for the following reasons:
1. Buddy was a true musician. He wrote, arranged, played, and recorded all of his own music.
2. He gave us a truly unique sound, no one previously had sounded quite like he did.
3. He was a pioneer. Buddy was the first artist to use orchestral arrangements in "rock n roll".
4. Buddy crossed racial boundaries before many other artists. One of Buddy's first major shows was at the Apollo Theatre in Harlem, at which he received a hugh ovation.
5. Buddy died at the young age of 24, he did no
t have the chance to become more of an icon. He was robbed of time.
While Michael Jackson had several of these attributes, he did not
embody all of them to the extent that Holly did. Michael should be remembered as a great performer, but not a great musician.
I would also like to put out the idea that it would have been better for Michael's legacy had he died soon after the release of thriller. If this had been the case there never would have been the other side of Michael.
One last point, when Buddy Holly died celebrities did not capture the publics attention as much as today. Holly did not have the opportunity to become an icon because of the lack of exposure. I truly believe that people today are more attached to celebrities than in 1959.
