Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

[Vector]

`


Aside from me putting Felder instead of Leadon(or did the programming do that ), there is not much to respond to in the first few replies.


`

I don't agree with you at all, Vector. The band is a business -- just like a bakery is a business. Just because their "product" strikes a place in your soul rather than your stomach, doesn't mean it isn't first and foremost a business.

Frey & Henley as equal managing partners started the business with a shared vision. Each brought individual strengths and weaknesses to the partnership and between them had sufficient drive and determination to make it happen and reach their goals. If a business is to be successfully maintained or substantially increased, then change is inevitable. If their relationships with Glyn Johns, Geffen, Bernie and Felder were not in the best interest of the business as they saw it, then things needed to be changed.

Felder might have been the greatest guitar player on the planet, but if you are trying to run a successful business and you have an employee whose behavior on a day-to-day basis is derisive and contrary, then things need to be changed.

IMO, Glenn was and continues to be the driving force behind the band. He has fought to maintain his and Henley's original vision. I don't see him as the primary antagonist. I see him as a smart and savvy businessman who has also proved himself as an extraordinary musician, composer and arranger.

As far as their "political leanings" I'm glad that they are not complacent in this area. I'm glad that they are concerned about the world that they and their children live in. If their higher profile gives them greater influence to bring about change and they use that influence when and how they choose, then good for them.

Just my opinion.

Hello, and thanks for your opinion.

However I am not sure your reply means you "do not agree at all". Instead it could mean that you agree XYZ happened, but you are ok with it. So in taking the list of examples where I believe Frey was the main antagonist/bully, you might believe every move was for "the good of the Eagles".
The same could be said about their political stance. That would be especially true if you lean in the same direction that they do.

In no way do I believe every move Frey made when it came to Glyn Johns for example, was wrong. Yet he clearly was the primary person who pushed the envelope. In some cases it might have been better for the band, in other cases it clearly was not. I would say his tactics and attitude left a lot to be desired even if he was right about certain things. Another words you can approve of the end result without approving of his methods.

Regardless, I fail to see how someone can be credited with helping to create and be a leader of something, yet also not be taken to task for the eventual unraveling of that very creation.
Taking the Felder situation as an example, it is clear the Eagles had a certain sound and creative mix without him. Yet what Frey and to a certain extent Henley wanted for the band, occurred in no small part because of Felder. Along that same line of reasoning, why insist that he be a full fledged member of the group (i.e. 1/5) when you later decide you do not like the arrangement, and try to change the rules midstream?
Much of Felder's "derisive and contrary behavior" was in fact due to Frey & Henley deciding they were entitled to a larger cut of money, and I guess they expected him to be a lamb about it.
When he wasn't, they interpreted that as him being a problem. The eventual huge settlement tells me that Felder clearly had a legitimate grievance. So his behavior was only "derisive" to those who did not get away with something they were wrong to do.


`

[Henley Honey]

`


Aside from me putting Felder instead of Leadon(or did the programming do that ), there is not much to respond to in the first few replies.


`



Hello, and thanks for your opinion.

However I am not sure your reply means you "do not agree at all". Instead it could mean that you agree XYZ happened, but you are ok with it. So in taking the list of examples where I believe Frey was the main antagonist/bully, you might believe every move was for "the good of the Eagles".
The same could be said about their political stance. That would be especially true if you lean in the same direction that they do.

In no way do I believe every move Frey made when it came to Glyn Johns for example, was wrong. Yet he clearly was the primary person who pushed the envelope. In some cases it might have been better for the band, in other cases it clearly was not. I would say his tactics and attitude left a lot to be desired even if he was right about certain things. Another words you can approve of the end result without approving of his methods.

Regardless, I fail to see how someone can be credited with helping to create and be a leader of something, yet also not be taken to task for the eventual unraveling of that very creation.
Taking the Felder situation as an example, it is clear the Eagles had a certain sound and creative mix without him. Yet what Frey and to a certain extent Henley wanted for the band, occurred in no small part because of Felder. Along that same line of reasoning, why insist that he be a full fledged member of the group (i.e. 1/5) when you later decide you do not like the arrangement, and try to change the rules midstream?
Much of Felder's "derisive and contrary behavior" was in fact due to Frey & Henley deciding they were entitled to a larger cut of money, and I guess they expected him to be a lamb about it.
When he wasn't, they interpreted that as him being a problem. The eventual huge settlement tells me that Felder clearly had a legitimate grievance. So his behavior was only "derisive" to those who did not get away with something they were wrong to do.


`

What I'm saying is that I don't consider Glenn a bully. I consider him a shrewd and tough businessman. As the primary managing member -- CEO "Chief Eagle Officer" if you like, it was Glenn's right if not his responsibility to "push the envelope" when he felt it necessary. You don't have to like his decisions, but you have to respect his right as co-founder of the band to make them. You don't have to like his tactics or his attitude either. I think he could have shown a little less temper and a little more tact, but I'm not judging him.

The importance of Felder's contribution to the band is subjective and will probably be debated into the next millennium. As to the 1/5 th or full-fledged member argument -- again, I think of it in business terms. Just because I offer a new employee a profit sharing plan as part of our deal at the time of hire, doesn't mean that I can't dissolve that plan tomorrow. If I feel that an employee is becoming more of a detriment than an asset to my organization, then he's either asked to leave or I can change my mind "mid-stream" and see that he is paid proportionately to his value to me. IMO that's not being a bully. That's being a boss.

[OutlawManNJ]

Vector...

Your post was going sooooo well until you decided to bad mouth Democrats (Liberals). As if any politician is real trustworthy or as is Republicans or any political party isn't in the pockets of Lobbyists and you and I are that last thing on their minds. Too bad you had to add that. At least us liberals tend to be against invading other countries and killing their people for no good reason. Republicans seem to think thats A O K. Not to mentions spending trillions on these bogus wars that later Republicans want to save on important things like Health insurance for Americans or rebuilding our infrastructure. Republicans hate thinking about spending on Health Insurance for all Americans...and rebuilding our old infrastructure...If Democrats suggest that we are "spenders". But as soon as a Republican President decides to spend Billions a week on killing people overseas you gusy have no problem with that.


Yeah, Republicans make so much sense.

[TimothyBFan]

First and foremost, welcome Vector!!!

When I pulled up the board a bit ago, the title of this thread popped out at me and so I clicked it first and might I say, I love how you expressed yourself very respectfully with your point of view.

That being said, there are certain things in your post I could not have said better. Count me as one of those long time fans that have become disillusioned by my favorite band also and, to a degree, I'm sorry I ever watched the documentary. There's something to be said about the old saying, "ignorance is bliss". I've said on this board several times that I own all the books about these guys, and even tho the books are in my possession, I've yet to read a one of them, mainly for fear of what I might read to make me think they are less than the rock n roll Gods I have built them up to be for the several decades I have loved them. Some will say that's my own fault because I have put them on those pedestals and they are human, just like everyone else, and entitled to mistakes, etc... I get that. But to be honest, my disillusionment started a few years back. The price of the tickets, the picture taking policies, the no standing at concerts, and the members of the band actually calling people out for it, sometimes in the middle of songs, all added up and just put me off to some degree. But nothing deterred me from still loving the music and the musicians. Afterall, they had been with me through most of my life and had actually gotten me through some very tough times of loss, etc...with their music. Then came the documentary....

I had looked forward to this documentary with as much anticipation as the next person. After watching it the first time, with everyone else the night it aired, I was left with a bittersweet taste in my mouth. LOVED all the behind the scenes stuff, loved the interviews with those who were there through it all and knew these guys, etc... but some of the stuff I saw just made me angry.

I've discussed, at great length with other fans and did my own research and found enough online and through the conversations to know, I'm not the only one that felt this way and saw things that really put them off with some of the members of the band. I learned shortly after I posted my first thoughts in the documentary thread, that I was better off just keeping my mouth shut on here because, as you put it, there were those that will defend them at all cost. I'm ok with that and so I just gave up trying to defend my opinion.

As for the political stuff, I really don't care which way they lean as long as they're not ramming it down my throat. I hate when I pay money for a concert ticket, and get the artist ranting and raving about their political views-- (That's you Ted Nugent!!! I will not easily forget the political rally I attended last summer when I thought it was suppose to be a concert).

Since watching the doc the first time, I've only watched bits and pieces of it since and haven't even pre-ordered it yet. I know I will purchase it, if for no other reason because I want the bonus dvd of the concert footage.

I will always love this band and they will always be my favorite band of all time. How could they not be, they've been that since I was 11 or 12 years old, so for decades now. But I guess that's also why I can say that I have the right to be somewhat disappointed in them and some of their behavior.

[RebeccaLovesEagles]

Hi Vector and Welcome to the Border

`

Taking the Felder situation as an example, it is clear the Eagles had a certain sound and creative mix without him. Yet what Frey and to a certain extent Henley wanted for the band, occurred in no small part because of Felder. Along that same line of reasoning, why insist that he be a full fledged member of the group (i.e. 1/5) when you later decide you do not like the arrangement, and try to change the rules midstream?
Much of Felder's "derisive and contrary behavior" was in fact due to Frey & Henley deciding they were entitled to a larger cut of money, and I guess they expected him to be a lamb about it.
When he wasn't, they interpreted that as him being a problem. The eventual huge settlement tells me that Felder clearly had a legitimate grievance. So his behavior was only "derisive" to those who did not get away with something they were wrong to do.


`

This is a sticky point for me too. I feel that Glenn made him a full partner with the best of intentions. Then as Bernie and others started to leave, he realized it didn't have to be that way in order for the band to work, but by then Glenn was stuck. It did become a major source of friction and I can understand how Felder felt being cut out of what the band had agreed to.

I think a lot of the Felder/Frey stuff would have been avoided if Frey hadn't had him become a partner and just a member of the Eagles. Felder himself said he was surprised by the offer in his book and even Bernie wasn't happy about it.

That being said, Felder was made a full partner but that meant he should have had the right to see and vote on matters IMO but if you are constantly going against the other 2 partners that is going to cause trouble. I know if in my job if one person is constantly causing all the trouble, that person doesn't stay for long. Felder made that choice and if you think about it, he might have had the right but it wasn't smart. That being said I do think Glenn and Don should have included Felder, Bernie and Randy in the decisions as partners. I don't know how if everyone had an equal share how that was loss. I'd think it would have had to have been voted on, like a board of directors.

As for Glenn and Felder being the reason the Eagles separated in 1980, I think it was just a final straw. In alot of interviews in the break Felder wasn't mentioned. It was always DH and GF that were not seeing eye to eye. They couldn't write songs together anymore and they weren't agreeing on things. Without that relationship it seemed IMO it was making the whole band teeter and the Felder scene just pushed it over the edge. Any trouble between Glenn and Henley was glossed over in the Documentary but they and their friends talked about it a lot during the break.

In the end however, I still love the whole band. I go to concerts for the eagles and solo members whenever i can. I wish all the member could get along but I understand in the real world people will be people and money brings out a lot of bad characteristics. I am glad that the 4 of them are still playing and see happier. I'm loving that Bernie will be rejoining for a bit this tour. I still love Felder and have went to see him tour and he seems happy and is still very talented. I still hold out the hope that maybe he can rejoin for a few shows, but until he stops rehashing past problem that is going to be difficult(it is his choice but I dodn't think its a good on if he wants to rebuild relationships). Still I hope.

[WalshFan88]

First and foremost, welcome Vector!!!

When I pulled up the board a bit ago, the title of this thread popped out at me and so I clicked it first and might I say, I love how you expressed yourself very respectfully with your point of view.

That being said, there are certain things in your post I could not have said better. Count me as one of those long time fans that have become disillusioned by my favorite band also and, to a degree, I'm sorry I ever watched the documentary. There's something to be said about the old saying, "ignorance is bliss". I've said on this board several times that I own all the books about these guys, and even tho the books are in my possession, I've yet to read a one of them, mainly for fear of what I might read to make me think they are less than the rock n roll Gods I have built them up to be for the several decades I have loved them. Some will say that's my own fault because I have put them on those pedestals and they are human, just like everyone else, and entitled to mistakes, etc... I get that. But to be honest, my disillusionment started a few years back. The price of the tickets, the picture taking policies, the no standing at concerts, and the members of the band actually calling people out for it, sometimes in the middle of songs, all added up and just put me off to some degree. But nothing deterred me from still loving the music and the musicians. Afterall, they had been with me through most of my life and had actually gotten me through some very tough times of loss, etc...with their music. Then came the documentary....

I had looked forward to this documentary with as much anticipation as the next person. After watching it the first time, with everyone else the night it aired, I was left with a bittersweet taste in my mouth. LOVED all the behind the scenes stuff, loved the interviews with those who were there through it all and knew these guys, etc... but some of the stuff I saw just made me angry.

I've discussed, at great length with other fans and did my own research and found enough online and through the conversations to know, I'm not the only one that felt this way and saw things that really put them off with some of the members of the band. I learned shortly after I posted my first thoughts in the documentary thread, that I was better off just keeping my mouth shut on here because, as you put it, there were those that will defend them at all cost. I'm ok with that and so I just gave up trying to defend my opinion.

As for the political stuff, I really don't care which way they lean as long as they're not ramming it down my throat. I hate when I pay money for a concert ticket, and get the artist ranting and raving about their political views-- (That's you Ted Nugent!!! I will not easily forget the political rally I attended last summer when I thought it was suppose to be a concert).

Since watching the doc the first time, I've only watched bits and pieces of it since and haven't even pre-ordered it yet. I know I will purchase it, if for no other reason because I want the bonus dvd of the concert footage.

I will always love this band and they will always be my favorite band of all time. How could they not be, they've been that since I was 11 or 12 years old, so for decades now. But I guess that's also why I can say that I have the right to be somewhat disappointed in them and some of their behavior.

Very well said! I completely agree.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Vector - I, too, believe that you have a perfect right to your opinion. I, however, do not share your opinion either. Honestly, I am rather tired of rehashing this over and over again, so I’m not going to spend a lot of time responding to you. My opinion and many others have already been stated repeatedly all over this board. If you are really that interested in reading it as you say, you can certainly feel free to read any of the threads on the board. The one down side of the documentary for me is that it does serve as a catalyst to open up this discussion again.

I do want to address some points in your post though. First of all, I am amazed that you claim to be unbiased in your opinion unlike the rest of us Eagles fans here. You are no less biased than anyone else here - in fact, even maybe more so. By your own admission, you are basing your opinion on a very limited amount of information and facts. There is lots of other information available about the band that would maybe change your mind if you were aware of it. But, then again, maybe not, since you seemed to have already made up your mind. And that is your prerogative, but, please don’t come here and claim to be the voice of reason among us frenzied fans. Just as a simple example …

The eventual huge settlement tells me that Felder clearly had a legitimate grievance. So his behavior was only "derisive" to those who did not get away with something they were wrong to do.

I could be wrong, but this statement makes me wonder how aware you are of the details of the settlement.

Many of us here do not believe that there were any angels in this band and none of them deserves to bear all the blame for what went down. Glenn is the focus and center of most of the disputes because he was the leader of the band and the one that was expected to address the issues. By, his own admission, he didn’t always handle everything as well as he could have, but to place all of the blame on him is very unfair.

Let me close by saying that, I, personally, choose to avoid the subjects of religion and politics here since, to me, they are emotionally-charged no win topics.

[sodascouts]

I'm ok with politics being discussed here as it pertains to the Eagles but anti-Democrat/liberal or anti-Republican/conservative rants are not appropriate here. If you want to talk politics outside of the context of the Eagles, start a thread in "Cheap Talk and Wine." Debate is fine as long as it's respectful and reasonable.

[Vector]

What I'm saying is that I don't consider Glenn a bully. I consider him a shrewd and tough businessman. As the primary managing member -- CEO "Chief Eagle Officer" if you like, it was Glenn's right if not his responsibility to "push the envelope" when he felt it necessary.

May I suggest that you are looking at this from a fan based lens? I say this because there are thousnads of examples of where CEO's are not brutes that rule with an iron fist, yet manage to have wildly successful companies. Warren Buffet comes to mind, and Berkshire Hathaway is not exactly small potatoes.


You don't have to like his decisions, but you have to respect his right as co-founder of the band to make them. You don't have to like his tactics or his attitude either. I think he could have shown a little less temper and a little more tact, but I'm not judging him.

I believe the first thing I disagree with, is your characterizing him as the "co-founder" of the group, as if to imply he and Henley were two of two, and picked up L-eadon (aka Felder ) and Meisner as sidehands.

Based on my research all four of them had negative experiences with members being cast as sidemen, and they desired to be a group of equals. Furthermore, when Geffen suggested Frey not try to be a solo artist and form a group, that is exactly what he set out to do.
So it never started with the notion of it being Glen Frey and the Widgets, rather he set out to find a group of guys with mastery of their respective talents, to form what many would call a super group. The only reason they were not called such a thing was because none of them had made a significant name for themselves, even though they were known within the music industry as being very talented.
Yet I give the man credit as he chose wisely. Of that I am certain we both agree.


My second objection to your post is limiting your criticism by only saying "a little less" temper and "a little more" tact. He could have done much better, even by his own admission. When you resort to, or cause others to want to have a physical confrontation, you have gone well beyond the pale. I know the drug and alcohol use were cited as examples, but to me it comes across as more of an excuse for his and the others poor behavior.

Lastly, unlike you, I am judging him, which is part of my disillusionment with the band.

The importance of Felder's contribution to the band is subjective and will probably be debated into the next millennium.

Yes it is, but only to degrees. I do not believe anyone, especially true fans could argue that had they not brought in Felder, they would not have reached the great heights they did.
Additionally Frey's vision for the groups transformation into a more R&R band was achieved precisely because he chose to bring him on board. Heck give Frey credit where credit is due, even if it means Felder get more credit as well.

As to the 1/5 th or full-fledged member argument -- again, I think of it in business terms. Just because I offer a new employee a profit sharing plan as part of our deal at the time of hire, doesn't mean that I can't dissolve that plan tomorrow.

No personal offense is intended with my next comment, but you are characterizing it incorrectly. Felder was not hired as an employee. If he had been your analogy would be sound. Instead he was brought in as a 1/5 partner, so he was a partial owner equal to every other member of the band. The irony is that it was again Frey who, through his force of will, insisted on it. Heck L-eadon who was Felders best friend, grumbled about it to no avail. Of course part of his objection was based on the direction Frey wanted to take the band, and adding his buddy Felder was a step in that direction. Had Felder just been hired as a sideman, he could have been jettisoned with any trouble.


If I feel that an employee is becoming more of a detriment than an asset to my organization, then he's either asked to leave or I can change my mind "mid-stream" and see that he is paid proportionately to his value to me. IMO that's not being a bully. That's being a boss.

Without the need to be redundant, your comparative analogy does not fly. They all signed a contract and Incorporated as equals within the corporation. So they were all bound to each other legally, and no mid-stream changes could occur.

On a side note, things are much worse than that in my view, but I am going to save that for later as it involves Azoff, and what I perceive as his conflict of interest. Don't get me wrong, the guy was/is shrewed and knew where the bread was buttered. But being the Eagles manager and also each individual members manager was a conflict waiting to happen.


`

[Vector]

`

First let me say I intend on responding to everyone, but it might take some time. Also thanks to everyone who offered a warm welcome. As a lifelong fan I knew many would welcome me, but I also knew that my critisism/view would draw the ire of others.

`

Vector...

Your post was going sooooo well until you decided to bad mouth Democrats (Liberals). As if any politician is real trustworthy or as is Republicans or any political party isn't in the pockets of Lobbyists and you and I are that last thing on their minds. Too bad you had to add that. At least us liberals tend to be against invading other countries and killing their people for no good reason. Republicans seem to think thats A O K. Not to mentions spending trillions on these bogus wars that later Republicans want to save on important things like Health insurance for Americans or rebuilding our infrastructure. Republicans hate thinking about spending on Health Insurance for all Americans...and rebuilding our old infrastructure...If Democrats suggest that we are "spenders". But as soon as a Republican President decides to spend Billions a week on killing people overseas you gusy have no problem with that.


Yeah, Republicans make so much sense.

To be perfectly honest with you, I knew it would be risky to mix in the political aspect, especially this being my first post/thread. I do not plan on getting into a partisan debate, and will elaborate on that further when I respond to Sodascouts thoughtful reply.
Suffice it to say, it is but one aspect of the overall picture, and will be dealt with on a limited basis from a personal perspective.

`