Song power or what?

[UndertheWire]

This came up in the underrated song survivor but I wanted more!

The Eagles say their longevity is down to song power but having witnessed many great songs murdered by awful performances I think a large chunk of the credit should be given to the band's enduring musical talent.

You have hit the nail on the head, F50! Obviously, great songs are needed, but it's only part of the reason they are selling out venues. They know how to put on a high quality show and still make it about the songs.

When asked the secret of their success, Glenn gives a long list of song titles. Tim is more succinct: "It's the songs." Are they right? How much is the song and how much is the arrangement, the performance or something else?

How often are Eagles songs covered by other artists and how successful have they been? Exclude Eagles tribute bands and the Common Thread recordings where it's more about the Eagles than the song.

I often see people dismissing the Henley/Frey writing partnership by pointing out how many Eagles songs were written with or by other people, and yet those songs sound just as, if not more, Eaglely (Eaglish?). What gives them that sound?

And then there are the Eagles songs that don't really sound like the Eagles. Someone pointed out The Disco Strangler which doesn't have the characteristic harmony singing or much in the way of music.

I'm sorry, I don't have much to offer other than questions .

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Good topic, UTW! I think that when they say their enduring success is due to the songs, they are including the arrangements in that statement. Perhaps not, but Glenn's comments during interviews for After Hours, when he was talking about other people's songs, he said there was a reason they were sung the way they were by the original artists, right down to the key it was in. So that tells me that when he thinks of a song, he thinks of the entire thing including the arrangement.

As for the songs themselves, to be successful over the long haul, you need a few great songs and a lot of good songs. I don't think it matters how great an arrangement is, how fantastic the harmonies, how mind blowing the guitar riffs are if the songs are mediocre. That formula will get you a couple great tours and a couple high selling albums.

We can't say that Jackson Brown 'covers' TIE, but he said recently in an interview that when he plays it in his acoustic set, people sing along, and they're singing the Eagles' version instead of what he's singing.

We know Linda Ronstadt sang Desperado. Diana Krall recently released a version of it as well. Michael Buble did Heartache Tonight. Over the years, to hear songs on mainstream radio, I really don't remember others.

[UndertheWire]

Also, it's not about the lead singer - the Eagles have had hits with four different leads - and yet they're all Eagles songs. There are other bands whose identity is closely tied with the lead singer possibly because he's also the main songwriter (eg Bread/David Gates, Police/Sting).

[VAisForEagleLovers]

There are so many aspects to their success, it's no wonder they've gone as long as they have. I've given this some thought since my last post... Please forgive the verbosity.

1...the songs. Songs people can relate to. Songs about life sung in fun ways. Even the songs they sing they didn't write, they were smart enough to pick the ones that people could identify with. Look at Already Gone, who hasn't been in that position?

2...the voices. The line up has changed over the years, the original four could all sing and sing well. Two of them left and the two that replaced them could sing and sing well, and in ways that fit in with the existing band. The two that have been in the band throughout and do most of the leads have voices that perfectly complement each other. Back before a shuffle option on thousands of albums at a time was an option, you put a vinyl album on a record player and listened to another side before the next album dropped down. Having so many who could sing leads meant you didn't get the same-old-same-old even on the filler songs.

3...the harmonies. If you've got it, flaunt it. They wrote songs that played to their strengths. Our guys were always ambitious and driven to succeed, which meant they did a lot of what they did best.

4...the arrangements. Besides the harmonies (which is part of the arrangements), they sang their songs in ways that made it easy to sing along with (even the guitar parts). There are a lot of people in this day and age that criticize them as being too 'pop'. They didn't write and sing 'pop'. They wrote and sang what they wanted and it was so freaking great it defined what was popular.

5...the performances. They did and still do perform their songs at the highest of levels. They know what the fans want, and they give it to them. Even songs that have been rearranged. In the HOTE tour, when Glenn mentions rearranging a song to be like the Beach Boys, I've often heard groans around me, because no one wants a rearranged song. Then they play it and those same people are up dancing, clapping, and smiling from ear to ear. They call it 'rearranged', but it's still the same song and still something everyone can sing along to, and it always works.

6...the work. While our guys want to be paid and paid well for performing, they believe very strongly in earning what they make. Even back when the songs were being written and originally recorded, while they partied a lot, they put the work first. They still have a very strong work ethic that a lot of us could learn from in whatever jobs we have.

The reason it comes down to Song Power is because without #1 above, it doesn't really matter how well you do #2 through #6. Like I said, you can do it without great songs, but not for 43 years.

[MaryCalifornia]

Yeah, I think when the guys say "it's the songs" they're attempting to be modest. Timothy's not going to say, "It's because we're all extremely accomplished musicians and vocalists who adhere to an old timey work ethic of much rehearsing and clean living, and we've managed to stay in good health all these years, and we are still up for the grind of world tours, etc..etc..." Neither is Glenn, Don or Joe going to say that. Of course it's the songs, but many other acts would not still be playing them to the level that our guys do, and the songs have survived the decades and still sound good.

[Diana Krall just released ICTYW, too!]

[Brooke]

VA, very good analogy!

I think it's the songs WITH those voices that make those songs everlasting, that make them magic. I know all the rest has something to do with it too, but those first two parts.....magic!

[Funk 50]

Yeah, I think when the guys say "it's the songs" they're attempting to be modest. Timothy's not going to say, "It's because we're all extremely accomplished musicians and vocalists who adhere to an old timey work ethic of much rehearsing and clean living, and we've managed to stay in good health all these years, and we are still up for the grind of world tours, etc..etc..." Neither is Glenn, Don or Joe going to say that. Of course it's the songs, but many other acts would not still be playing them to the level that our guys do, and the songs have survived the decades and still sound good.

I'll second all that MaryCalifornia

I've yet to hear an Eagles cover that betters their original.

Apart from Love Will Keep Us Alive. I like all the live versions I've heard (Eagles (with Smith), Timothy solo, Winwood & Walsh at the Capaldi Tribute concert, Carrack maybe) more than the original HFO recording but that is the Eagles covering a previously unreleased song.