Whew,
This one has no doubt been a hot topic here this year. Truth be known, this year’s Rolling Stone cover story AND Felder’s book sparked my reinterest in the band.
Here’s where I agree with the theme of most posts of this topic: Felder was naïve and occasionally could be labeled a whiner. After he was canned, Schmidt’s comment that “You keep harking back to a deal you made in the 70s, that’s history, you should have just signed the papers and sent them back” is one of the bright lights in the book. From my view, if he’d taken the Walsh/Schmidt attitude of ‘go with the flow/take the bucks they give you,’ he’d be an Eagle today.
Where I disagree: The theme of -- Felder was dead wood, he was holding them back, he’s a jerk, our beloved Glenn and Don are better off now.
Musically, I don’t think they’re better off. I don’t care for 80 percent of the new record. The Walsh tunes are the only ones that got better to me with repeated listening. Anything that would give them more edge would be a welcome improvement. This may be largely due be a fault of the songwriting, which isn’t up to their 70s standards (blasphemy! I’m sure some posters are thinking…) and Felder’s playing wouldn’t help anyway.
Back to Felder…No he wasn’t a fit personality-wise but only because he joined a band that was conceived as equals and he couldn’t adjust to becoming a lesser—the black figures in the “Hell Freezes Over Tour’ mock up did say a lot as to what they became in the resumption. His take that two pigs crowded the others on the trough is accurate. Both Frey and Henley leave a lot to be desired as personalities. That came through in Marc Eliot’s book too.
I’m not being tougher on them than I would be on any major other band and their members. Through a bunch ‘o books I’ve read (including Bill Wyman’s) there is little question Mick and Keith took over the Rolling Stones and in many ways screwed their fellow bandmates. But long term, their music held up better.
In the end, it is about the music a band leaves behind.
Perhaps what bugs me most about the comments on Felder’s book is: Where on earth could you possibly get such an inside look of this band?!! Eliot well detailed how Henley & Azoff screwed him on pretty much the only book that tried to give a detailed, honest look at Eagles in his updated version.
So taking this book with the grain of salt that it’s just one man’s view, it still gives tremendous insight and details of band that really doesn’t have much written about and for that alone, is a worthy effort.