Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

[Houston Debutante]

Why single out Felder apologists vs. apologists of other band members? I ask because I see few to none of the posters names or avatars with Felder, yet a ton of Frey and Henley. There are a few Walsh, Schmit and L-eadon fans, but poor Felder seems like the odd man out.

Yeah, Felder doesn't inspire much passion. People like his guitar playing and some think his voice is OK, but otherwise, eh.

There's more vocal Tim fans than Henley fans here. It's kind of funny, because you wouldn't think that would be the case, but it is. If anybody started attacking Tim, there would be hell to pay. Truth be told, if you dissed Tim the way you've been dissing Don Henley and Glenn ~ ie calling them 'jerks' ~ you wouldn't find yourself at the center of a pile of roses.

First, is that book worth the read compared with all the others I've read so far?

I like it.

Here I think you are giving Frey too much credit, or not enough to the other guys. When faced with coming up with material, they would have created more songs. Henley had taken the lead in the number of vocals anyway, singing the lions share even with Frey.
Additionally, Walsh certainly has had plenty of hits over the years, and Schmit was no slouch either. While Felder was not a strong lead singer, his voice is not bad, and lets not forget how he added so much to many of the songs with his creative music/playing.

Lastly, it is not inconceivable that L-eadon and/or Meisner may have come back once Frey was no longer with them.
Food for thought.

Why would they have both Randy and Tim?! This 'alt Eagles' without Glenn just gets more and more ridiculous. Reality check about 'plenty of hits' ~ um. no. Do some 'research' on the post-Eagles careers of these guys and see what you come up with.

[Houston Debutante]

Sorry for all the replies in a row but putting all of this in one post is just too much for people to read.

Accepting peoples personal opinions are one thing, especially if you decide that no amount of reason or reality will make a difference in their point of view.
I think saying Frey started the band has both merit and flaws. I certainly give him credit for his wise choices in helping to assemble an incredible group of talent. Yet he, by his own force of will did not create Frey and the Widgets.
Rather he helped to create a group that was talented and equal. You and others can certainly think he is your favorite Eagle, yet you cannot deny the fact that in the eyes of the law, he was 1/4, then 1/5, and eventually 1/3 owner. Why some of you put him atop Mount Olympus, and say he was a god among mere mortals, and his wish was the others command, is emotion based, not reality.

Maybe there are a couple people here who occasionally get carried away but it's not the majority. Glenn isn't even my favorite Eagle and you just dismissing people who disagree with you as crazy Frey fans is insulting.

I don't think you give Don Henley enough credit. I never got the impression from anywhere that Glenn 'commanded' him. Glenn made final decisions but it seemed to me from the documentary that they were partners in every way and that Don Henley was cool with all of his decisions eventually.

[Houston Debutante]

I am curious about what the final outcome of your research materials will be. I would hate for any quote of mine, and certainly my name, to show up in a blog or magazine article somewhere.

As if this kind of thing would get published in a magazine! No fear there! Some crappy blog that nobody cares about, maybe.

[Vector]

Back to topic--Like others, I would really love to know what "final cut" approval, or editing control, and of the band or Irving had on the film. Really, it should have been none, if they wanted it objective. But I did at times feel there was a narrative being forced upon the film and its events--at certain times, as others have said, it felt as if Glenn and Don's comments and voiceovers were scripted or rehearsed into becoming forced transitions into different parts of the film.

I agree, and because of the way it was done, it begged more questions than it answered. So while I certainly give them credit for allowing some opposing points of view so to speak, there is a lot more that could/should have been covered.

And to me, if the "real life" story wasn't coming together enough for them to stitch together the film, that's the filmmakers' faults for not asking the questions that needed to be asked and not getting the footage that needed to found/filmed.

To me, of all the former members, Bernie comes off the best and gets the best overall treatment to his Eagles journey. We see clearly why and how he joined the band; they reiterate several times what his issue was with the band's progress, and we hear clearly from several sources why and when he left.

I agree, and enjoyed his segments and perspective.


Neither Randy or Felder got such compete "arcs." Randy really gets the worst of it--there had to be a 30 minute+ stretch where he wasn't spoken or at all, in footage or modern "talking head" interview. It could have been due to his health or due to not remembering things, or that the interviewer simply didn't ask the right questions to illicit a story from him that could make it on the screen. But the fact we don't hear from him about his feelings about leaving the band is an egregious error on the filmmakers' parts.

Again, I feel the same. I just assumed it was in keeping with his shy nature and unwillingness to be confrontational. Even from early clips of him being asked questions, he seemed short and sweet, never seeming to be upset, frustrated or anything negative. Out of all the guys I think he came off as the most sympathetic, and the least at fault.


As for Felder, his saga devolves into a "He said/They said" game that clarifies nothing. The entire lawsuit is glossed over, and what exactly each side was fighting for, past just money but RE: contract specifics, isn't delved into at all. A good filmmaker would have covered that--this film seemed content to leave it vague in the worst possible away for all involved in the conflict.

Indeed, and this was one of things that raised more questions than it answered. Part one almost left you with the impression that Frey and Henley were not having any problems, save those created by others which started to effect their relationship. Many casual Eagles fans will be left with the idea that Frey and Felder not getting along were the main cause the Eagles broke up. Maybe that explains why there seems to be so much animosity toward him compared to the other members of the group?

(The only other segments that have this cohesion and compasssion are those regarding Joe's personal journey.)

I believe we see things in a very similar light. Walsh also came across as not only genuine, but more of a B type of personality than I would have imagined. When he was speaking of the guys being "alpha's", I would have thought he fit that category, and maybe he was to an extent. However he is humble enough to say he was in awe of the other guys, and had feelings of inferiority. This coming from a guy who was/is a great guitar player, who was also very successful in his own right prior to joining.

And this is totally off-topic from what I've been saying, but since Glyn Johns' name has been bandied about--this is a 2012 essay Glenn wote on he and the Eagles' time in London of the UK Telegraph. It's actually a really good read, and touches a bit on Johns:

Thanks, I will read it soon.


`

[Vector]

As if this kind of thing would get published in a magazine! No fear there! Some crappy blog that nobody cares about, maybe.

I just noticed this post after replying to another one, so I will make a quick comment.

I am not sure, but I detect a little hostility on your part.

[Vector]

I've been dying to says this since you started posting -- and only those who are fans of the the movie "Airplane" will get it, but:
"What's your vector, Victor?". And stop calling me Shirley!!! But, I digress .

Funny enough, I was up flying the other day, and the young pilot I was speaking with said he had never heard that before. I am not old by any means, but I expected a pilot, even one still wet behind his ears to have heard that classic line.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVq4_HhBK8Y[/ame]


I say "don't call me Shirley" a couple of times per week any chance I get.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0A5t5_O8hdA[/ame]


My reply to you that we should agree to disagree was actually my polite way of saying I really don't care to rehash this subject anymore. I appreciate the fact that you are a new member and therefore you would like to continue the discussions and express your fresh pov.

I understand, and am glad you see why I, as a new poster, am interested in doing so.



`

[Vector]

Yeah I certainly dislike folk/bluegrass/country and am all about rock n' roll and so I definitely prefer the Walsh era. It just is better IMO. I'm not a huge fan of the 71-75 album, it's just not my thing. It has some songs I like, but ultimately I'd take Hotel California (the single album) over any other album studio, greatest hits, live, etc they've ever done. I certainly think it's better than the 71-75 collection. There is not one bad song on that album and it's where they really made their group a supergroup with Walsh and really came into huuuge success. They still did softer stuff (ala NKIT) to please some of their early fans, but man for us electric guitar rock n' rollers it was heaven. IMO it started heading in the right direction with Already Gone, then One Of These Nights was pleasing to us with that great electric solo and playing but more into the RnB thing, and then when you get Hotel California you are in classic rock heaven. So many good rockers on HC. HC, LITFL, VOL, etc.

I think HC covers every kind of song you could want from the band in that one album. It leaves no stone unturned.

Obviously it's to each his/her own.

I know exactly where you are coming from, hence the reason I am torn between the pre-Felder/Walsh era and after.

Funny enough I never really considered the Eagles earlier albums country in the true sense of the definition. Back in those days, country music consisted of Merle Haggard, Conway Twitty and other such twangy sounding artists.
So the Eagles were in that nexus between the two genres. One could argue that todays country is more R&R than ever before, and the Eagles may very well be part of the reason.

I certainly give props to Frey for wanting to go even more R&R, and the groups decision to add Felder to the original lineup helped to bring them to new heights.
The addition of Walsh and him playing off Felder added yet another dimension which made them as you put it, a "supergroup".
I have little doubt the original 4 guys would have continued to be very successful, but they would not have had such a wide audience.


`

[Vector]

Welcome Vector....and to each his own!

Thanks for the welcome.

I guess I just have the misfortune of getting started here late as some of the posters here seem to be argued out over this subject. Still I'd assume they would like a fresh perspective, and one that does not come with a built in bias. Since my goal is to discuss rather than argue, I'd assume that is also a welcome change compared with some of the things I've read in other threads.

[Vector]

Pink Floyd into the thread

What is this Pink Floyd you speak of.

Some type of a British cocktail?

[Vector]

Not many bands kept managers for long. How The Eagles stayed with Irving Azoff for 40 years is a mystery.

Based on your posts, you have forgotten more behind the scenes band history than I will ever know.

As to Azoff, he is shrewed and savvy, but certainly not beyond being a hypocrite regarding conflicts of interest. He knew full well that attaching himself to Frey & Henley was the smart play, yet he pretended as best he could that he had all the band members interests equally in mind.