Who do you guys side with? Felder or Henley/Frey?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sodascouts

Siding with whom on what issue? The firing that occurred 15 years ago? The HFO arrangement that occurred 20 years ago? The tensions from the 70s that occurred 40 years ago?

Korean eagle, It sounds from your post that you want us to judge them as people - who's the better man or something. We don't even know them! In my own limited experience, Glenn has been the nicest by far, but even so I acknowledge that I don't know these guys well enough to pass judgement on the entirety of their moral characters. I leave that to them and God.

For me, it's about the music. I enjoy the Eagles, both as they were then and as they are now. When it comes to solo work, I much prefer Henley and Frey's catalogs to Felder's. He's a great guitarist, though.

I wish Felder the best in his career, and I wish Frey and Henley the best with the Eagles and on their own. I'm very grateful that they decided to carry on without Felder rather than disband... especially since if they had disbanded in 2000, I never would have "rediscovered" them in 2005, and this site would not exist. To me, the Eagles are a pretty big deal. ;)

More power to 'em all.

---

not at all, just wanted to hear what Eagles' fans have to say about this. I just found this site after watching the documentary on Netflix. I've been a fan since listening to my sister's old vinyl lps since the 80's. Had always been under the impression the original break up had more to do with Henley and Frey. Just wondered what others thought, that's the reason I started this. NOthing more, nothing less. If you don't want to judge, you don't have to.

And while I love Glenn's work in the band, his work outside is lacking. If not for the Eagles' Glenn would be no more than a eighties also ran. Something like Billy Ocean. Henley's solo stuff is very good on it's own.

On the wrongful termination, I side with Felder.

But I'm glad that they didn't disband. However I believe Felder is sorely missed in their sound. Steuart Smith is a fabulous guitarist, but there is only one Don Felder.

korean_eagle,
your comments seem fairly typical of a superficial response to the documentary. My feeling is that the more I learn about it, the less clear it becomes.

I can't make a judgement of someone based on how nice they seem in interviews - that's a talent or skill and just because someone is relaxed in front of the cameras doesn't mean they are nicer than someone who is tense and uncomfortable. What I've found is that although Felder is personable, when I take a step back and think about what he is saying, I see the distortions and pettiness. Frey may look less comfortable, but he usually has a lot of praise for other artists and rarely has a bad thing to say about anyone (the documentary being the rare exception and even then he gave Felder a lot of credit for his guitar skills).

I believe that anyone had the right to renegotiate terms after a break of 14 years. In 1994, the music business was very different to 1974 when the band was incorporated. For many reasons - not just their solo careers - Frey and Henley had better bargaining power than Felder. Frey's strongest card was that everyone knew he was capable of walking away if he didn't get what he wanted.

I also believe that men in their fifties have the right to decide that they don't want to work with someone. However, it doesn't seem to have been handled very well.

Before the last year or so, I had little exposure to any of the solo work. I get your Billy Ocean comment about Glenn because I found myself comparing "When the Going Gets Tough" to "The Heat is On" a few days ago. However, I find I like some of Glenn's deeper cuts a lot.

Anyway, welcome. I think you'll find lots of interesting threads discussing the minutae of the documentary, Felder's book and interviews given by everyone over the last fortysomething years.

Yes, please do look around the board, there are lots of links to articles posted, both back right after the original breakup and more recently, and it lends a much more well-rounded background than just the documentary.

Everyone's tastes are different, and I am one that loves Glenn's solo work. It took a couple of years for me to stop being mad at him for breaking up the Eagles, but once I got over that (more or less), I bought everything he put out. I certainly didn't do that with the others except for one of Henley's. (Since the mid-90's, I have since purchased all of Henley's stuff as well). Maybe it was the area I lived in and the age I was, but between being on soundtracks and being on Miami Vice, Glenn's music was talked about more, both on the radio and among my friends and coworkers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VAisForEagleLovers

Yes, please do look around the board, there are lots of links to articles posted, both back right after the original breakup and more recently, and it lends a much more well-rounded background than just the documentary.

Everyone's tastes are different, and I am one that loves Glenn's solo work. It took a couple of years for me to stop being mad at him for breaking up the Eagles, but once I got over that (more or less), I bought everything he put out. I certainly didn't do that with the others except for one of Henley's. (Since the mid-90's, I have since purchased all of Henley's stuff as well). Maybe it was the area I lived in and the age I was, but between being on soundtracks and being on Miami Vice, Glenn's music was talked about more, both on the radio and among my friends and coworkers.

---

I'll try to do that. I do remember Don's firing and read what I could get my hands on back then. Seems more has come out since his book and the doc. The doc actually made me side more with Frey. But after reading more after that, I'm sorta mixed.

But it does strike me as funny that Glenn puts himself in with Don in terms of success and then there are these other guys.

Glenn had some very limited success in the early eighties. He had two gold (not platinum) selling albums.

Henley had a gold album, one platinum, one triple platinum and one that sold six million. And enough material from those to make a greatest hits that also went platinum.

Henley's work won more awards and has gotten better critical reviews. Henley is the only guy that comes close to superstar status beyond the band.

Maybe Don gets more than him now, I don't know. But by Glenn's own rationale, Henley should make substantially more than Glenn does off what they are doing now.

There's a lot more to it than number of sales.

I'm sure it's because an overwhelming number of people I worked with stopped listening to Rock stations and started listening to Pop in the 1982/83 time frame. Howard Stern had just gotten fired from DC101 (right after hundreds and hundreds of local people died when an Air Florida jet flew into the 14th street bridge, he called Air Florida and asked, on air, how much they charge for a flight from National Airport to the 14th Street Bridge. I have not and will not listen to the man since, and don't have much respect for those that do), so most stopped listening to that station for a long time, and Pop was all that was available. Miami Vice was always a huge topic of conversation, and Glenn got his share of that. I don't ever remember having a conversation with anyone about Henley, except one girlfriend. So what Glenn said about he and Henley being the ones to keep the Eagles name out there rang true for me. It was a lot more than the number of solo album sales. There's a lot more to both of them than album sales, and I don't think it's fair to Henley to reduce his contributions to sales.

Obviously, you can't have the Eagles without Glenn. If they could have gone on without him, they would have in 1980. You can't have the Eagles without Henley and no one disputes that. Others, there's a lot of back and forth and differing opinions, and while I would be horrified if Joe or Timothy left, there's also the fact that the Eagles enjoyed success before they joined. To me, this is why Glenn and Don make more, and Felder must have assumed they'd keep him on no matter how irritating he became. He was wrong. Whether they are 'less' without him can be debated, but the fact they have been successful without him cannot.

Lastly, it was made public and so discussed what the shares were when they reunited. They are very private with the information, and none of us know what the agreement may be now. To be honest, I don't feel it's any of our business. I have a lot of respect for all of them, and what they decide is fine with me as long as they all agree on it. To reduce the conversation about them to 'salaries' is somewhat insulting to all of them in my mind.

Financial success is of course important but I agree that an artists influence can't be measured just by sales, it's the inspiration they provoke that's important

I thought this was a troll question so I answered it silly. Hmmmm..... :shrug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Midnight Visitor

I thought this was a troll question so I answered it silly. Hmmmm..... :shrug:

---

So you don't always side with Joe? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by VAisForEagleLovers

So you don't always side with Joe? :D

---

No, of course not. The man was drunk for 35 years. The older I get the less I side. I wasn't in the room. Ever. We all know nothing really. Only they know.