Hello fellow Buddy fans!

I'm looking for others who wish to trade mp3's of Buddy Holly via MSN, AIM or any other chat program which allows the sending and receiving of files! I have many Buddy Holly bootlegs, rarities and interview mp3's and I am always looking to expand my Buddy Holly collection and help others expand theirs!

[edited by request]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jim,

I've never traded music like this, I'd be worried that I was ripping off the artist, or I guesss in this case, his legacy.

Wouldn't it be the opposite? This is sharing his music and keeping the legend alive...

The opposite? Sorry mercer, I don't understand your point ...

Keeping the legend alive? I don't know about that -- I think I'm keeping the legend alive when I slap down my $20 for a CD. How else would anyone know I'm interested in "new" CDs of Buddy's music?

No offense, but it sounds to me more like your way turns the legend into a myth.

I almost forgot to say: money makes the world go 'round

I'm not looking for an argument here, as the post states I'm looking for those who want to exchange Buddy's amazing music.

However, Buddy Holly strikes me as the type who'd be thrilled knowing that almost 50 years on his music was still being spread around and enjoyed, albeit without profit, which I don't think was Buddy's reason for making music.

i think when people bootleg music and bypass the usual legitimate methods of buying and obtaining music they are, in essence, stealing.

i disagree that buddy would be 'thrilled' about the people who came to his mother's house on false pretenses after she'd lost her son, and recorded some of his music without her knowledge or permission. and i disagree that buddy would be 'thrilled' knowing that those same charlatans took that music, and began selling it to people without any of the proper credits or acknowledgements that lead to the payment of royalties to the proper copyright holders, writers, producers, etc.... i think, rather, that he'd be ashamed that people felt they had a right to have every single scrap piece of tape associated with him for free, when he literally gave his life for music.

of course he loved music, but he did it for a living. there are right ways of doing things, and there are criminal, unethical ways of doing things. bootlegging and all that goes with it is no different than taking some extra candy bars at the grocery store without paying for them, under the guise that they 'won't be missed' or 'those people are already making enough money'.

Well said jerry, I totally agree, but you said it better than I could.

I guess it goes with the territory, but there seem to be a few posters here who seem to want to assert "what Buddy would have wanted ...", to suit their argument. That feels creepy to me.

hey all,

Just wanted to say that if it wasnt for mp3 sharing I wouldnt have really gotten into Buddy Holly. I downloaded a 10 cd torrent with tons of amazing "rare" and unreleased songs and now Im completely obsessed. Ill be more than happy to share with anyone who is interested.

[edited by request]

~ DDK

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jim,

I don't see how someone could read this thread, then offer to share mp3s illegally. Unreal.

the fact is that I am more inclined to purchase not only Buddy Holly CD's but also memoribilia. I just placed an order for a Buddy Holly Shirt. My point is that Mp3 sharing does more good for music than harm. There definitly is two sides of this. I can realize that however the old model of music lables and big corporations is changing and in its wake is a new paridigm. I never said anything about not compensating the Holly's.., Id send them a personal cheque if I knew their addy...Like I said., more people would be turned on to his music by sharing than not.

more people would enjoy movies if we could sneak in without paying....

more people would enjoy certain foods and beverages if we could hide them under our coats and walk out without paying....

the point is that there is a right way and a wrong way - it's not an "old" way or a "new" way.

it's not just the holley family that is deprived when you steal buddy's music. it's all the producers, musicians, labels, songwriters, etc.... who were part of the music and deserve a share of the royalties. that's the way music works. and while you could say that since most of the people involved with holly are deceased now, that you're not hurting anyone, but what you are doing is illegal and unethical, and something tells me that you don't just 'share' buddy's music, but a lot of other music as well. and all of the people who labored to produce and record and write that music are being deprived of part of their livelihoods as a result.

music sharing is stealing, plain and simple.

I'm not in favour of music sharing, let's get that straight before everyone attacks me, but I would like to make a point. Is not borrowing CDs from a public library the same thing, especailly if you make copies of this CD? All right, let's just go with the first scenario to avoid compications. In the best case scenario, I would imagine that when purchasing a CD or even a book a library pays a bit more because they have to compensate for how many people are going to look at the book or listen to the CD, but it's still the same idea. Thousands of people listen to one CD for the cost of a library card.
The thought that some bootleggers will carry tape recorders into the Holley house and record what is played for them, against the wishes of Mrs. Holley, is lowest of low.
I was born way too late to ever be part of the rock and roll generation. And I'm glad his music is still around where I can find it, on CDs, on tapes and the odd vinyl. I think Buddy loved his music. Someone on here said he died for it. Which is true. The best way we can remember him is by illegalling copying his songs?
There's other kind of bootlegs though....What You've Been a Missin, etc. Without those, we'd be stuck with That'll Be The Day, Maybe Baby (just the final version) Peggy Sue, the other great hits and maybe the dubbed versions of the Apartment Tapes. No Mona, no outtakes, not really knowing how Buddy built a song up from the ground. And that's just as much a part of his legand...that he could do it. That's there almost to show us that there was no one pulling the strings, telling Buddy to hiccup there and sigh here. It was all Buddy telling himself.
Turning others on to an artist's sound by sharing music is one thing-done legally.
Finding an artist's sound through a download program is even okay....but afer one or two songs it's time to find a program where you can legally get the music.

Well said...

I wouldnt have purchased any Buddy Holly CD's before I downloaded some mp3's.. Now I'll buy anything and everything related to Buddy.. I just cant see how that is hardfull.. argh., this debate could go on forever though..... I think we all are right and that this isnt a cut 'N dry issue...

~ DDK

buddy blue

thoughtful post.

legally speaking, if i buy a CD, it is legal for me to copy it for my own use. it becomes illegal and unethical when i take the music from that CD and start making it available to other people, for a fee. and that's what bootleggers do.

as far as mona and some of the other rare stuff goes, the reason that would never be released officially is because it's not a complete song. it's a rough outtake. record labels won't release rough outtakes of any artist - they have certain standards they require for any release, and unfinished songs don't qualify. of course, those of us who love buddy's music can listen to him do most anything and appreciate it - but we're a special rare breed of people.

as far as 'maybe baby' and other rare cuts, they are available officially. MCA put out an album called 'for the first time anywhere' that contains songs like 'maybe baby', 'baby won't you come out tonight', 'bo diddley' and others WITHOUT any overdubs. the raw deal. and it's great. plus, the Complete Buddy Holly has a lot of that stuff, too.

i just feel it's wrong to steal buddy's stuff, no matter how good our intentions or how pure our motives.

quote:

Originally posted by jerry:
record labels won't release rough outtakes of any artist - they have certain standards they require for any release, and unfinished songs don't qualify.

Have you ever listen to the full 11 minute track of Mona? There are parts in there where he gets through the full song. In a couple of different ways, speeding it up, slowing it down. Sure it's intermixed with false starts, and as much as I'd like to see the full 11 minutes out there, it'd also be nice just to see a full version of Mona out there.
Some people like what overdubs add to a track. Me, I hate what they take away. Buddy's stuff is hard enough to find without spending a small mint. Record companies need to do their homework and see what they'd gain by releasing Buddy's raw cuts, rather than what they'd lose: nothing. Sometimes you just gotta break the rules.

buddy blue

the other thing to remember about rare cuts is that there are a limited number of people who will buy that kind of thing. so again, the record labels are thinking with that one track mind - which is MONEY.

in the 60's, most of this stuff was actually released officially. alternate takes of nearly every song, etc.... of course, that was on LP, before there were cassettes and certainly, CDs. but they didn't sell well. only the die hard fans bought them. and the labels didn't make any money. to release a buddy holly record that will only be purchased by a few people will not make the labels any money - they can't release something from someone as big as buddy without a lot of promotion, artwork, etc.... and that kind of stuff costs money. after they go through the trouble of spending enormous sums of money on a project like that, they want to be able to at least break even. and they found when they did release these type of rare recordings, they lost money. if they repackage songs like 'peggy sue', 'that'll be the day' and others, those type of projects WILL sell, and they'll make their money back and then some. but a project with extremely rare and obscure cuts is just not something that will appeal to the masses. this is universally true in all of business - why put out a product very few people will buy?

plus, you have the issue of buddy's reputation, which is kept intact when his classics are re-released, but it's questionable that the obscure outtakes and false starts will be loved and well received by the record buying public and critics. it's likely that they won't, because most of those people haven't even got to the point of appreciating the genius of say, 'that'll be the day' yet. or in the words of don mcclean...."they would not listen, they did not know how, perhaps they'll listen now.........they would not listen, they're not listening still, perhaps they never will....".

like you, i believe that everything buddy holly did was magic, including the stuff he did in his bedroom as a teenager. but one thing we buddy holly fans know is that buddy wasn't appreciated when he was alive, and he still isn't today.....it's an absolute travesty.
you only have to turn on the radio nowadays to know that a lot of people are still unable to discern good music from garbage. that was true in buddy's day, and it will be true for a long time to come, unfortunately. all we can do is be grateful that someone as wonderful and unique as buddy came along and blessed us all with such amazing music, not because of the music business, but IN SPITE of it. and not because of the labels he was on, but IN SPITE of them. buddy was one of a kind, in more ways than one. he was a trailblazer.

one of the scenes in the movie, while not accurate, nevertheless portrays buddy's vision and integrity more than anything else. that was when he was in the label office and they were telling him that they'd give him $75,000 or so to record 'that'll be the day' and other songs, but they'd bring in such and such producer and certain musicians......and busey, portraying buddy, gets up and says, "i'd rather shovel s--t in lubbock".

that's our buddy - a man who knew what he wanted to do with his music and wasn't going to let anyone tell him how to do it. that is one of buddy's greatest contributions to the field of music right there. because no one had that kind of artistic control back then. the labels told you when to sit down, when to stand up, and when to go to the bathroom. buddy changed all that, and things were never the same after that.

unfortunately, the music business has gradually assumed control again, over the years, and they now have the same kind of monolithic control over artists that they had in buddy's day. the only exceptions to that are if you are a huge star, like a garth brooks or something, they let you have a lot of the say about what you record and how you record it. but new artists are subject to whatever the labels want them to do or not do. rather than say that all buddy's work and effort in this area was in vain, i prefer to marvel at the vision and integrity this young kid from texas had, and what he was able to accomplish in such a short time. no one can take that away from him, though many people haven't really thought this through.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jerry,

[jim: we don't trade MP3s here]

This message has been edited. Last edited by: jim,

This is a long one with lots of opinions, so I may as well add my tuppence worth:

Bootlegs, more recently referred to as RoIO's (Recordings of Illegitimate/Indeterminate Origin) are for the most part filled with material that the artist never intended to release. This also goes for the publishing houses that sign the artists, be it live concerts or demo tracks.
Without these bootleggers we would never have heard the incredible sounds that Buddy put together in his New York apartment. Or the little cock-ups that allow us to see more of the man that was Buddy. Before these extra parts were put on disk, we all had to assume that Buddy (or whatever artist) was perfect, he had no musical flaws. However since these extra parts have appeared we now see a more rounded picture, which makes him all the more listenable.
I for one will always try to get my hands on bootlegs/RoIO's if they have material I don't currently have or will never get through the normal means, i.e. legitimate CD's.

As for sharing these bootlegs via MP3, nope, won't do it. The music should be shared in it's original form or as close to that as digitally possible. I am not condoning booleggers because quite a few of them (not all) are in it just for the money but bootlegs are a beautiful natural offshoot of these bootleggers and everyone should not be ashamed to have them (bootlegs) or get them as long as no money is ever transferred

the apartment demos were officially released on The Complete Buddy Holly, or at least six of them were, and ten undubbed Holly tracks were released officially on For the First Time Anywhere.

dealing with bootleggers amounts to essentially dealing in stolen merchandise. the fact is that no money is transferred by the original bootlegger either - he gets the product completely free. that doesn't make it right, anymore than taking a candy bar from the grocery store without paying for it would be.
if i steal that candy bar, and give you half of it, but no money changes hands, does that absolve me of the original theft? of course not. the store has lost product that they had ownership of, without just compensation for that product, and the item was taken illegally and without permission. it's the same with bootleggers, though it's even more sinister with bootleggers, since they can duplicate what they've stolen and distribute it to others, all without the legal right to do so.

Yep my bad, I should have included the word "all" when I was talking about the Apartment recordings. Oops

The interesting thing is, though, Jerry, that there are some websites out there that have unreleased music files available for download. I'm not necessarily talking about Buddy Holly, and I won't give examples because I don't want to upset the apple cart, but the availability of these files on at least one site I go to is condoned by the artist's family, and the files (in some instances, at least) have been provided by the studios in which the tracks were recorded. Clearly, though, the copyright is owned by a publishing company, and that company probably takes a different view. No doubt, this is a knotty situation, but when family and collaborators are keen to get a deceased artist's music (written by the artist in question) out there and the publishing co is not interested in releasing it (for whatever reason), we can at least turn to the Internet.

There are also many artists who advocate the bringing of recording devices into their gigs. I believe Bob Dylan was one of the best known of these. Again, copyright is being infringed, in terms of the corporate beasts getting their cash, but the artist (and their families, where appropriate) must surely be entitled to some say? I know, of course, legally that they probably aren't entitled to any say, but you know what I mean!

interesting post. in some cases, you may be referring to music that has fallen in to the public domain, where the copyright has expired. in other cases, you may be referring to music that was never copyrighted or published at all. songs recorded as demos or as work tapes may have been copyrighted, but it's unlikely that they would have been published yet, especially in cases where the artist passes away suddenly. publishers don't publish songs unless they have the expectation of making some money on the song someday. as to studio outtakes, those are versions of a song that were not considered 'keepers' due to mistakes that were made by the singer, musicians, or the engineer, so while the songs would be copyrighted and published, the actual versions would not have clear ownership in these cases. because there are two types of copyright - one for the words and melody, the other for the actual sound recording. when a CD is released, for instance, the label/publisher will file a form SR with the copyright office, which protects the actual mix of the instruments and voices, in addition to the words and melody of the
song(s). but a basic copyright is form PA, which only protects the words and melody.

so the outtakes are unlikely to be protected by the full blown copyright, if that makes any sense. it's a grey area, i guess. hence, the studio may feel they have the right, especially if no one opposes it, to release those tunes. but it's unusual that no one WOULD oppose it, in my view.

there may be situations where the artist has set up their own publishing company, which would tend to involve his/her family, and in this case, the publishing would be 'all in the family' so to speak, and not subject to the approval of an outside publisher.

the thing is, that when you refer to people who 'want the artist's music out there', i would wonder why those people are so willing to just give away that artist's work, when his/her fans would probably pay for it, if given the chance.

personally, i'm not aware of any artist who advocates the bringing of recording devices into live performances. for one thing, it's not legal, as far as i know, and furthermore, forbidden by most venue management. if an artist is signed to a label, say MCA for example, then that label would definitely not want people making bootleg recordings of the artist's music at their shows - it's likely they'd put a stop to that as soon as it was discovered. and they monitor artists while they are on the road and doing shows, interviews, etc..., so i doubt that an artist could or would encourage something that could get them in hot water with their label. plus, artists spend huge amounts of money paying their band, their road crews, managers, booking agents, etc.... i'm not sure why anyone would encourage their fans to record them, knowing that those recordings could end up for sale somewhere, without any renumeration to the artist. in addition, most artists are very sensitive about how they sound and how they look. and most want artistic control over the recordings that are made of them - live or studio - to some degree. in the case of bootlegs, of course, you'd have substandard recordings made, which don't redound positively to the artist's reputation ultimately.

i'm not saying that there aren't cases where some artists have done as you say, but they weren't very bright in doing so, since it only hurts them.

as to Dylan, there are definitely a lot of bootlegs of his shows, though i'm not aware that he encouraged that. you may be right however, i'm just not aware of it.

all in all, you make some excellent points.

There is a very significant tradition in the jam bands community (e.g. The Grateful Dead, or more recently Phil Lesh and Friends, The Dragonflys, The Allman Brothers) that "tapers" are welcome at all shows, subject to the venue's restrictions. Usually the only restriction imposed by the band is that the tapes are only traded and never sold.

edit: I think the origin of this tradition is based on the fact that these bands are touring bands, and while they have studio releases their focus and love is live gigs and musical improvisation in front of live audiences.