Page 5 of 31 FirstFirst 12345678915 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 308

Thread: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

  1. #41
    Border Rebel Houston Debutante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    789

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector View Post
    I must say that I am impressed with the civility and well thought out replies.
    In my experience, everyone here is free to express their opinions ~ even Felder apologists ~ as long as they do it respectfully. I like that. You'll see some people handle debate better than others though. I'm glad you're not one of those people who gets all affronted and pouty if someone challenges them.
    ~Sara


  2. #42
    Stuck on the Border Prettymaid's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Somewhere out on that horizon
    Posts
    11,245

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    I'm glad you quoted that part HD. I'm proud of our group for that reason.

    Welcome to The Border, Vector! I hope you'll stick around and join other discussions.
    ~ Cathy ~

    And I dream I'm on vacation 'Cause I like the way that sounds,
    It's a perfect occupation for me.

  3. #43
    Border Desperado Vector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    135

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts View Post
    Welcome, Vector! Although I am saddened by your disillusionment with the band, I respect the amount of time and thought you put into your post.

    If you cannot appreciate a band's music any longer because you do not like certain members' personalities/actions, then that is your right and I certainly am not going to try to convince you that such a viewpoint is invalid.
    Thanks for the welcome and certainly for the thoughtful reply.

    I have not lost my appreciation for the bands music that I always enjoyed. I suspect however that their newer material might be less likely to catch on with me. My overall perception of them has changed, and not for the better in many cases as we will see.

    However, I also don't approve of drug use, but if I were to refuse to listen to any musician who ever did drugs, I would have a pretty empty CD shelf.

    It is funny that you would mention the drug use, as that is something that bothered me as well. Despite coming of age in the 80's, I never did a single drug in my life. This despite me looking like I did with longer hair very similar to Frey's & Meisner's. My father would always say after I got back from a haircut, "which one of them did you have cut".
    Having said that, in those days I really didn't care who was doing what drug because I was not aware of all the negative aspects it had on others, and society as a whole. I left it out of my OP since I was already mentioning a bunch of other disturbing revelations about the band, but it is another thing I find not to like about them.


    While Glenn was definitely the main guy butting heads with Glyn Johns at the outset, when Desperado flopped, even Bernie - who was Johns' favorite - was saying "Glyn Johns missed it." And, as much as I love it (it's my favorite Eagles album), Desperado was most definitely not a successful album commercially.

    Hindsight is always 20/20, but lets not forget Johns was a world famous producer who helped make some of the greats R&R bands in the world. So he most likely knew what he was talking about.
    I'm sure he felt vindicated when those songs and the album became such a smash.

    As to the Bernie comment, you certainly got the wording correct, but I was under the impression he was saying the band had felt "that Johns had missed it", not specifically himself. I'd need to go back and listen to it again to be sure.
    Regardless, them leaving Johns might very well have been a blessing in the long run, as he might not have allowed them to develop into the R&R side of things as much. This is therefore an example of how Frey might have helped make the right decision, but was never the less caustic in the way he went about things. Hence it made my list despite possibly being the right move.


    I assume you got this out of one of the books you read, since it wasn't in the documentary... could you remind me what your source/evidence is for this conclusion? Based on the documentary, Glenn was the reason they went to Geffen in the first place, and they all were fine with him until Geffen sold Asylum (Geffen left, not them). After Geffen left, they wanted their publishing money back and Geffen refused. That's why the lawsuit was filed... not because of some personal vendetta by Glenn.

    Although the books are the freshest in my mind, I have read many a magazine interview, watched interviews like 60 Minutes or the plethora of ones on Youtube that all seem to meld together. In one of the interviews it was mentioned that Azoff felt he needed to stand up for them, and Frey relished the thought. It was said that Frey actually enjoyed how Azoff "terrorized" the powers in the front office.
    Now I agree with you that Geffen and Frey were tight in the beginning, gave Frey great advice, and later through Frey's persistence, gave the Eagles their first shot. As to who left who, I think Geffen probably was right to separate his new position from managing them, hence the reason he broke off Azoff and Elliott to watch over the Eagles. Clearly the Eagles saw it differently, but there was a lesson to be learned there by Azoff that he never applied as it pertained to him eventually managing Eagles Ltd., and also being each individuals members manager as well. Felder clearly saw the conflict as things developed, but by then Henley and Frey were locked at the hip, and Azoff knew where his bread was buttered. The Doc does cover Geffen giving the publishing money back to Jackson Brown, which prompted the Eagles to say "where the hell is ours". However at the time, it was not a common industry practice, and Geffen "thought it very ungrateful of them". From Geffen's point of view he gave the Eagles their start, convinced a reluctant world renowned producer to take them on, and helped them through several successful albums.

    Now of course Henley made an interesting comment saying "lets face it, we were idiots to have signed that contract", but at the time, it was standard fare.
    That is not to say they should never have negotiated a better one down the road, but to up and file a lawsuit based on not getting what another artist got, was a slap in the face to Geffen.
    In fairness to the Eagles, they were also concerned that the Asylum sale/merger with Warner Communications would include the Eagles copyrights. So there are certainly no innocent parties involved in big time business decisions like the one between Geffen and the Eagles.

    As for the rest, Glenn definitely was involved in the band member conflicts, but he was the leader. The leader is the one who has to deal with things like Randy freaking out and refusing to perform his job, or Felder being dissatisfied and refusing to sign his contract.

    I agree, but also believe that you can lead with the carrot or the stick. Some find the right balance like a coach with different personalities of team members.
    Some need just a simple pat on the back, others need fawning/encouragement, and still others need a swift kick in the a$$. The issue with Meisner was deplorable in my view based on everything I've researched. This comes mainly from sources outside the Doc. Watching the way it was explained in the Doc, you'd be left with the impression that because Meisner was concerned about his voice and ability to hit the high notes after a night of debauchery, that was his only reason for occasionally refusing to sing it.
    However there were plenty of other things going on behind the scenes that helped to tear down his fragile confidence. Regardless, you don't take one of your best guys (who lets not forget was a equal partner), and who sang one of the most popular songs, and just badger him until he quits. A great leader would either find a way to reach him, or find someone else who could.

    As to Felder refusing to sign a contract, again we get back to Frey taking a "my way or the highway" attitude. That is not being a great leader, especially in dealing with a fellow owner of the group. So while I respect Frey as a gifted songwriter, singer, and musician, he was ill suited to be the leader of men.

    Regarding politics....

    I understand where you're coming from in a way. My parents are extremely conservative Republicans and I used to be one. While I became disenchanted with the party and became an independent, I am by no means a liberal either. I'm kind of an issues voter nowadays, I guess. What I've never done, though, is "punish" people who disagree with me politically by refusing to patronize their businesses/buy their products. I'm not saying you're wrong for doing that, but for me, we shouldn't just define people by their political party. That kind of thinking has led to a divisive spirit that is tearing this nation apart.... but I digress.

    This is a touchy subject, but it certainly played a part in my view on them, so I included it in my OP. I certainly do not want to get into a partisan debate between various forum members about their politics. Suffice to say that if someone like Ted Nugent was not known to be a bombastic right winger, yet one of his unknowing liberal fans discovered that about him, it might change their perspective somewhat.
    That is not to say they would stop listening to their favorite hits of his, but it might have them decide not to financially support him in the future.
    Regardless, I'd like to keep that aspect to a minimum unless it pertains directly to the Eagles.

    Regarding your examples: Jerry Brown has been kissing up to musicians (literally in some cases *cough*Linda Ronstadt*cough*) for decades. Have you also sworn off the other legions of 70s musicians Brown has gotten money from?

    The Eagles supported Cranston because he was anti-nuclear. It turns out that he also happened to be very corrupt, but how were they to know that? They were young and naive.

    Like I said, I really never have paid attention to what goes on behind the curtain with musical groups, including the Eagles. If they were generally (D's) or (R's) it would not have fazed me. Even if they put signs out on their lawn and that was seen on the Doc, I would not have cared as that is the American way. But when I see them doing fundraisers for some of the most liberal (and in Browns case kooky) politicians, it gives me pause. Young and naive or not, they were actively supporting people on the extreme left, not reflective of typical (D's) of the time.


    Regarding all this, I wonder how the other band members felt? I have not read or heard about L-eadon or Meisners politics. Yet most country musicians who speak out tend to be (R's), so L eadon might have not liked Frey/Henleys enthusiasm for ultra liberal causes/politicians?
    Meisner was from Nebraska, not exactly a blue state. Yet he seemed so easy going, I doubt he had any strong political leanings, one way or the other.
    Felder comes across as ambivalent, but gleening his personality from his book, he might very well have not liked Cranston. Yet how could he butt heads with Frey/Henley at that point if they were making most decisions for the band.

    Anyway, I think entertainers would be well served to keep their political views to themselves, lest they upset one half of their fan base, or the other.

    `

  4. #44
    Stuck on the Border Topkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    3,321

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote from Vector
    QUOTE]
    Regarding all this, I wonder how the other band members felt? I have not read or heard about L-eadon or Meisners politics. Yet most country musicians who speak out tend to be (R's), so L eadon might have not liked Frey/Henleys enthusiasm for ultra liberal causes/politicians?
    Meisner was from Nebraska, not exactly a blue state. Yet he seemed so easy going, I doubt he had any strong political leanings, one way or the other.
    Felder comes across as ambivalent, but gleening his personality from his book, he might very well have not liked Cranston. Yet how could he butt heads with Frey/Henley at that point if they were making most decisions for the band.

    Anyway, I think entertainers would be well served to keep their political views to themselves, lest they upset one half of their fan base, or the other.
    [/QUOTE

    Regarding Don Felder, he said in his interview that he didn't follow politics at that time, & had no idea who Cranston was or what he was about, which is why he made the statement, "I think" that made Glenn so furious with him, which turned into the concert from hell with the two of them about to duke it out right on the stage....In my opinion, Frey over reacted here & took this to a whole new level... Felder said he was not involved in politics, so he was just clueless about this guy.

  5. #45
    Border Desperado Vector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    135

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote Originally Posted by TimothyBFan View Post
    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.
    Thanks for the welcome, and let me say yours is a reply I can relate to on several levels.

    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".

    When it comes to the Eagles, I almost wish I were still in ignorant bliss. I cannot explain why this Doc grabbed me in the way it did, because I am normally not into stuff like this. Heck I will not even watch the SB anymore until the game starts because of all the back stories about every players upbringing and opinion. As I mentioned earlier, I was more or less a blank canvas when it came to who they were as individuals, and why they broke up. I more or less thought it was a spat between Henley & Frey and didn't give it another thought. My only hope was that some day they would get back together, and that I'd make every effort to see them, even if it were a one off concert.

    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.

    Reading the books can be a double edged sword. On the one hand it will certainly fill in a lot of the gaps and inconsistencies. However it will further expose the seedy underbelly the Doc did not cover. While I commend both Frey and Henley allowing "others to have their say", you get the feeling they had sugar coated some of their flaws and accentuated other peoples.
    So while I'd encourage any fan who likes information about what goes on behind the scenes to read the books, I'd caution those who do not want to see the Eagles grounded with oil on their feathers.

    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.

    While I have read a few of these accounts, fortunately I never experienced it. Then again, I've only seen them once since they got back together, early on during HFO. If I were a fan and was treated that way, I'd be pissed off also.

    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.

    I'm with you in that regard. Even if I thought Frey was Hitler & Satan all rolled into one, how could I not get a warm feeling when Tequila Sunrise came on the radio. Fortunately my view of him is not anywhere near that bad, but he certainly put me off more than any other member of the band. Then again if you read Felder's book, it seems as if Henley was certainly not an angel either. Heck some of Frey's personal issues might be attributable to Henley and his demand for perfection. Felder is very complimentary about both of them, yet he paints a picture of how their habits/quirks affected each other, and other members of the band.


    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.

    Again, you hit the nail on the head. My motivation was to see early concert footage and hear some live performances I would otherwise never have a chance to. I also wanted to hear what they said about the lyrics of Hotel CA as that has always puzzled me. I figured it would be better hearing it straight from the horses mouth, rather than what some stoner from the 70's thought it meant.

    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.

    That is where we are different. I never allow others to shout me down or try to bully me into submission. While this is an internet forum where anything can be said without consequence, I take comfort knowing the keyboard commandos would not act like that in person.
    Now as you mentioned I do understand the "homer" instinct to defend ones family/loved ones. I suspect some here would marry these guys given a chance, but they are after all human with flaws. That blind adulation should not cause them to act like they are defending their spouse or children.
    I bet many of them would not have put up with some of the shenanigans dished out by these guys during their nasty moods. I know I certainly wouldn't have. Pouring a beer of Frey's head would have been the least I would have done.

    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).

    Not to be redundant, but it is one thing to vote, and even place a sign on your front lawn. However what makes any entertainer think they know about particular issues better than everyone else. When you think about it, you had 5 guys, most drugged out of their minds half the time, wanting to convince fans and others to support a cause they were probably ignorant of themselves. Look no further than their anti-nuke beliefs and how the years have proved their uneducated fears to be wrong.
    I do like how you used Ted Nugent as the opposite end of the spectrum, and I borrowed that analogy. If I were to go to a concert of his, I'd expect to hear his music, not a political rant. If I wanted to hear that stuff, I'm sure I could find and listen to him at a NRA convention. Just because I might find his message more palatable from a political standpoint does not mean I want to be lectured to by him if I paid to listen to his music.

    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 not be able to bring myself to pay for it for several different reasons aside from their politics. These guys started out dirt poor, yet now their is way too much focus of cashing in. Granted they are entitled to make a great living for being so talented and having millions of fans. However greed is an ugly trait that stems from money being the root of most evil. Their hypocrisy in this area is too much for me to get beyond, especially having read how they think about themselves.
    For instance, one of the things that stood out about them money wise in Felder's book was how they were raising money for politic causes, yet they were not doing anything to enrich their road crew beyond the money they were paid. Felder said he suggested they do a one off benefit concert with the money going to all the guys in their entourage/crew. It would help set them up for retirement, and be a way of saying thank you for all the loyal work that helped run the Eagles machine. This idea was dismissed by "the gods" as Frey & Henley were referred to. Yet when they wanted to support some political cause, no meeting or vote was taken, everyone was just expected to participate.

    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

    Exactly
    The memory of laying on a beach at sunset with someone special as their tunes lofted in the breeze will not change. We may be less enamored with them personally, but their creative artistry will forever be appreciated by us.

    `

  6. #46
    Border Desperado pueblo47's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    469

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    TBF is much more articulate than me, so I consider the majority of her opinions to echo mine. Since you started this thread, I and many others have followed it with great interest and appreciation for the time and thoughtfulness you have put into the discussion.

    The one thing that stands out in the documentary that has everyone going one way or the other is Frey's, and to a lesser extent, Henley's arrogance all the way through it. Since this has been discussed, defended and talked about with no end in sight, I won't add any more except to express disappointment.

    They are and will remain a fabulously talented bunch of artists.
    So if you see me walking all alone, don't look back. I'm just on my way back home.

  7. #47
    Administrator sodascouts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where Faulkner collides with Elvis
    Posts
    33,663

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts
    While Glenn was definitely the main guy butting heads with Glyn Johns at the outset, when Desperado flopped, even Bernie - who was Johns' favorite - was saying "Glyn Johns missed it." And, as much as I love it (it's my favorite Eagles album), Desperado was most definitely not a successful album commercially.
    Hindsight is always 20/20, but lets not forget Johns was a world famous producer who helped make some of the greats R&R bands in the world. So he most likely knew what he was talking about.

    I'm sure he felt vindicated when those songs and the album became such a smash.

    As to the Bernie comment, you certainly got the wording correct, but I was under the impression he was saying the band had felt "that Johns had missed it", not specifically himself. I'd need to go back and listen to it again to be sure.

    Regardless, them leaving Johns might very well have been a blessing in the long run, as he might not have allowed them to develop into the R&R side of things as much. This is therefore an example of how Frey might have helped make the right decision, but was never the less caustic in the way he went about things. Hence it made my list despite possibly being the right move.
    Remember that Glenn Frey was the one who recommended Johns in the first place; he understood that the man knew what he was talking about. However, he didn't like not having creative control, and he wasn't the only one. Johns didn't want to mic the drums for Henley either, and Randy also chafed at the "no drugs" policy. Only Bernie, I believe, has voiced no complaints against Johns, but even he was ready to leave after the failure of Desperado.

    I think the guys were willing to take out what Johns dished at first precisely because of the reason you mentioned for the first album; plus, they were insecure then. However, again, I must remind you that Desperado was NOT a smash. It was a commercial failure. I think that's what gave the band the courage to leave Johns in spite of his pedigree. They did not leave Johns until AFTER the sales figures for Desperado came in. You may wish to believe that Bernie was expressing band sentiments and not his own with his statement "Glyn Johns missed it"; you may wish to believe that he secretly wanted to remain with Johns. However, as he didn't say so in the documentary or in any other interview that I'm aware of, I think that belief is difficult to support.

    If Johns felt vindicated, it wouldn't be through the failed Desperado but for "Best of My Love." It was the last song they recorded with Johns and it appeared on On the Border. Unlike Desperado, it WAS a smash hit. I'm sure he took pleasure in that.

    There was no confrontation with Johns; indeed, by then, Johns seems to have tired of the Eagles. Therefore, I really don't see Glenn acting so terribly here. You have some good points in other segments of your argument, but I think holding the leaving of Johns against Glenn is a stretch.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector
    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts
    I assume you got this out of one of the books you read, since it wasn't in the documentary... could you remind me what your source/evidence is for this conclusion? Based on the documentary, Glenn was the reason they went to Geffen in the first place, and they all were fine with him until Geffen sold Asylum (Geffen left, not them). After Geffen left, they wanted their publishing money back and Geffen refused. That's why the lawsuit was filed... not because of some personal vendetta by Glenn.
    Although the books are the freshest in my mind, I have read many a magazine interview, watched interviews like 60 Minutes or the plethora of ones on Youtube that all seem to meld together. In one of the interviews it was mentioned that Azoff felt he needed to stand up for them, and Frey relished the thought. It was said that Frey actually enjoyed how Azoff "terrorized" the powers in the front office.
    As webmistress of a network of Eagles sites, I too have read, summarized, and cataloged an entire database of articles - including the ones you mentioned - that I was forced to later take down because of a copyright troll. Despite that, I have no recollection of such a statement. Now, perhaps I've just forgotten it - that's not impossible - but I'm afraid without a citation, I'm not ready to just accept such a condemnation without proof. I think it is probable that you are remembering wrong - such as your mistaken assertion that Desperado was a "smash hit."

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector
    Now I agree with you that Geffen and Frey were tight in the beginning, gave Frey great advice, and later through Frey's persistence, gave the Eagles their first shot. As to who left who, I think Geffen probably was right to separate his new position from managing them, hence the reason he broke off Azoff and Elliott to watch over the Eagles. Clearly the Eagles saw it differently, but there was a lesson to be learned there by Azoff that he never applied as it pertained to him eventually managing Eagles Ltd., and also being each individuals members manager as well. Felder clearly saw the conflict as things developed, but by then Henley and Frey were locked at the hip, and Azoff knew where his bread was buttered. The Doc does cover Geffen giving the publishing money back to Jackson Brown, which prompted the Eagles to say "where the hell is ours". However at the time, it was not a common industry practice, and Geffen "thought it very ungrateful of them". From Geffen's point of view he gave the Eagles their start, convinced a reluctant world renowned producer to take them on, and helped them through several successful albums.

    Now of course Henley made an interesting comment saying "lets face it, we were idiots to have signed that contract", but at the time, it was standard fare.

    That is not to say they should never have negotiated a better one down the road, but to up and file a lawsuit based on not getting what another artist got, was a slap in the face to Geffen.

    In fairness to the Eagles, they were also concerned that the Asylum sale/merger with Warner Communications would include the Eagles copyrights. So there are certainly no innocent parties involved in big time business decisions like the one between Geffen and the Eagles.
    I understand why Geffen perceived the lawsuit as ungrateful. However, the band - not just Glenn, as you stated in your OP - saw it differently. Holding the lawsuit against Glenn in particular seems to be another stretch to me. As far as I know none of the other Eagles has stated they didn't want to sue Geffen, and I daresay none of the Eagles refused to take back their share of the publishing rights once they were granted as a result of the lawsuit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector
    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts
    As for the rest, Glenn definitely was involved in the band member conflicts, but he was the leader. The leader is the one who has to deal with things like Randy freaking out and refusing to perform his job, or Felder being dissatisfied and refusing to sign his contract.
    I agree, but also believe that you can lead with the carrot or the stick. Some find the right balance like a coach with different personalities of team members.

    Some need just a simple pat on the back, others need fawning/encouragement, and still others need a swift kick in the a$$. The issue with Meisner was deplorable in my view based on everything I've researched. This comes mainly from sources outside the Doc. Watching the way it was explained in the Doc, you'd be left with the impression that because Meisner was concerned about his voice and ability to hit the high notes after a night of debauchery, that was his only reason for occasionally refusing to sing it.

    However there were plenty of other things going on behind the scenes that helped to tear down his fragile confidence. Regardless, you don't take one of your best guys (who lets not forget was a equal partner), and who sang one of the most popular songs, and just badger him until he quits. A great leader would either find a way to reach him, or find someone else who could.

    As to Felder refusing to sign a contract, again we get back to Frey taking a "my way or the highway" attitude. That is not being a great leader, especially in dealing with a fellow owner of the group. So while I respect Frey as a gifted songwriter, singer, and musician, he was ill suited to be the leader of men.
    You're entitled to your opinion; however, when I look at the fact that the Eagles are the most successful rock'n'roll band in the history of recorded music and are filling arenas with fans to this day, it seems reasonable to conclude that his leadership style was fairly effective in the end.

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector
    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts
    Regarding your examples: Jerry Brown has been kissing up to musicians (literally in some cases *cough*Linda Ronstadt*cough*) for decades. Have you also sworn off the other legions of 70s musicians Brown has gotten money from?

    The Eagles supported Cranston because he was anti-nuclear. It turns out that he also happened to be very corrupt, but how were they to know that? They were young and naive.
    Like I said, I really never have paid attention to what goes on behind the curtain with musical groups, including the Eagles. If they were generally (D's) or (R's) it would not have fazed me. Even if they put signs out on their lawn and that was seen on the Doc, I would not have cared as that is the American way. But when I see them doing fundraisers for some of the most liberal (and in Browns case kooky) politicians, it gives me pause. Young and naive or not, they were actively supporting people on the extreme left, not reflective of typical (D's) of the time.

    Regarding all this, I wonder how the other band members felt? I have not read or heard about L-eadon or Meisners politics. Yet most country musicians who speak out tend to be (R's), so L eadon might have not liked Frey/Henleys enthusiasm for ultra liberal causes/politicians?
    Meisner was from Nebraska, not exactly a blue state. Yet he seemed so easy going, I doubt he had any strong political leanings, one way or the other.
    Felder comes across as ambivalent, but gleening his personality from his book, he might very well have not liked Cranston. Yet how could he butt heads with Frey/Henley at that point if they were making most decisions for the band.
    Here is what I know about the other band member's viewpoints:

    Felder is quoted in this article praising the "kooky" Jerry Brown and is happy to play a benefit for him. He includes himself as part of the decision to support Brown over Ted Kennedy after "shopping" multiple anti-nuclear candidates. I direct you to the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page to read his (admittedly shallow) statements for yourself. I realize this contradicts his statement in the documentary that he didn't like political benefits, but there you have it in black and white. What he didn't like for sure was doing a benefit for Cranston in particular; that indeed can be laid at Glenn's door.

    You may take comfort in the fact that more recently, Felder has become actively involved with the Republican party, and now plays GOP fundraisers. However, if you find such involvement in politics distasteful regardless of party, Felder comes off no better than the others.

    Joe Walsh recently came out in support for Democratic congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth, as stated in this article.

    As far as I know, Timothy, Bernie and Randy have not made their political viewpoints known in interviews. I do have a 1974 bootleg where Bernie criticizes Nixon from the stage. Oops! Another political activist!

    So it's not as black and white as it may seem; perhaps your heroes and villains are more alike than you think.

    Always in our hearts, Never forgotten

  8. #48
    Administrator sodascouts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where Faulkner collides with Elvis
    Posts
    33,663

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote Originally Posted by Vector View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by TimothyBFan
    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.
    That is where we are different. I never allow others to shout me down or try to bully me into submission. While this is an internet forum where anything can be said without consequence, I take comfort knowing the keyboard commandos would not act like that in person.
    Now as you mentioned I do understand the "homer" instinct to defend ones family/loved ones. I suspect some here would marry these guys given a chance, but they are after all human with flaws. That blind adulation should not cause them to act like they are defending their spouse or children.
    I bet many of them would not have put up with some of the shenanigans dished out by these guys during their nasty moods. I know I certainly wouldn't have. Pouring a beer of Frey's head would have been the least I would have done.
    I suggest you look at the treatment you have received here and ask yourself if you feel bullied. Willie is a sweet person who doesn't enjoy heated debate, so when several members vehemently disagreed with her, she decided not to continue arguing. However, she has not been bullied. She wouldn't put up with that either (would you Willie? ), nor would I.

    Always in our hearts, Never forgotten

  9. #49
    Border Desperado Vector's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    135

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    Quote Originally Posted by RebeccaLovesEagles View Post
    Hi Vector and Welcome to the Border
    Thank you


    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.

    Interesting you would put it that way. It seemed that once the writing was on the wall, Frey already was sizing up someone else who could replace the guy who was going to leave. Now if Frey was not the primary antagonist in the member leaving, it would be viewed as a sharp/smart move. However when he is motived in part because he knows someone else is waiting in the wings, you begin to wonder.

    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.

    If you accept most of Felder's version of events, it went beyond just the money issue. When L-eadon and Meisner had ideas for songs or expected to sing a certain number, they were essentially told no, or ridiculed. If the contract stipulated that each guy was to sing at least two songs per album, you can certainly see where the ones who were left out felt slighted. It is funny how the Doc seemed to make that a huge bone of contention regarding Felder/Victim of Love, yet Felder was very complimentary of Henley's voice and the final outcome with the song.
    Another book [Eagles/Jackson] indicated that Frey and especially Henley were not too pleased when L-eadon insisted that Patti Reagan get a song writing credit for "I wish You Peace". Nor were they happy with the song being included on the record. Henley went so far as to characterize the inclusion of the song as "a cuckoo in the nest".
    So it is clear that the original contract did in fact lead to more problems than any of them probably imagined. However they were damn successful, and trying to change things mid-stream was a mistake. Lets face it, if you own 1/4 or 1/5 of something, how well would you handle 2 of the partners saying it's our way, like it or leave?

    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.

    I totally agree. If not for wanting Felder to help get them closer to the goal of being more a R&R band, Frey might not have insisted on making Felder a full partner. As you will recall, when L-eadon spoke up, it was Azoff who made a compromise suggestion that Felder only get a portion of the albums proceeds equivalent to his contribution to that album. Then from that point on, he was an equal partner with the other four.

    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.

    One of the most interesting things in the contract dispute issue was Felder's passive nature. In the beginning he was trying to play the peacemaker between his buddy L-eadon and Frey/Henley. He was also trying to help keep Meisner in the band and didn't like the way he was being treated. After Meisner left Felder felt alone/isolated despite being friends with Walsh, and eventually Schmit. However before the other two guys departure, he began to notice things like greater expenditures by Frey/Henley for their entourages, while the other three guys barely had any personal support staff. Now one could say he was being petty because Henley had back problems, so he needed special beds, a masseuse and chiropractor traveling along. Yet if those expenses were coming out of everyones profit, who wouldn't speak up about it? So he started to ask more questions of Azoff, but didn't insist on a time frame for answers. Once L-eadon & Meisner were gone, it was 2/3 vs 1/3 with Azoff always going along with what Frey/Henley wanted.


    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.

    One of the things I'm curious about is what happened to Eagles Ltd. once any member of the band "quit". None of the books, including Felder's explain what happened to L-eadons or Meisners shares/interest in the group. It is almost implied that the only money they continued to receive was related to songs they wrote/co-wrote.
    Now according to Felder, when he was sacked, an immediate offer was proffered to him in the form of a check that was sent for his shares in the company. Had he cashed the check that would have been the end of it, so maybe that is what happened with L-eadon/Meisner when they quit?

    Obviously Felder didn't agree to the firing nor did he cash the check. I just cannot find any source which goes into detail what happened to L-eadon/Meisner interests in the corporation.


    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.

    My limited understanding at the time was exactly that. Frey & Henley were at a crossroads which led to the breakup of the Eagles. I later got the impression Henley just wanted to take some time for the band after the blowup, as did everyone except Frey. When Frey called it quits, it came as a blow to Henley, who got very depressed about it(among other things).

    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.

    That was one of the biggest inconsistencies of the Doc to me. When you read articles, watch interviews from the early 90's, and read the books, it is clear those two were fed up with each other, including their inability to write together.


    This is where I wish Azoff had more of a proactive hand in making sure these guys had more time off, and apart from each other. Either due to fear about his own position of crossing them, or maybe his own greed to get it now while the getting was good, he failed to see they were being driven too hard by both themselves, and the label.

    I understand in the real world people will be people and money brings out a lot of bad characteristics.

    Sadly, that seems to be an overriding theme with them. While I am at a place in life to be able to afford $100+ tickets now(if I were to want to go), many people cannot. If they are also being petty with fans regarding cameras, standing, or other such things, that makes it all the worse.

    I am glad that the 4 of them are still playing and see happier.

    That is something else I wonder about. They seemed happy on the surface before the breakup, and also before the Felder firing. According to Felder's book, it was all for show, sticking to their policy of not airing dirty laundry. While that is always a smart thing to do, we have no idea what is going on behind the scenes. Supposedly they all keep to themselves while traveling and only come together for the concerts. If Walsh and Schmit are passive, I imagine the only thing that could go wrong is if Frey/Henley have it out again.
    Yet if they are making 2-3 times the amount of the others, they have self serving reasons to grin and bear it. The others including Smith might have a go along to get attitude.
    Then again Smith is not treated as an equal, rather a hired hand. So it would seem on the surface everything is ok. Yet the cynical/suspicious side of me thinks it is partly because no one is rocking the Frey/Henley gravy train.


    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.

    You wonder how Henley/Frey would react if they asked Felder to go on tour with them again, and he were to say "fine, but I want just as much money as you two are getting". On principle he could ask for it, but I think hell really would freeze over before Frey would ever agree to it.

    `

  10. #50
    Border Desperado RebeccaLovesEagles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sitting in a sad cafe in Dubuque, Iowa
    Posts
    290

    Default Re: Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

    COLOR=blue]One of the things I'm curious about is what happened to Eagles Ltd. [/COLOR]once any member of the band "quit". None of the books, including Felder's explain what happened to L-eadons or Meisners shares/interest in the group. It is almost implied that the only money they continued to receive was related to songs they wrote/co-wrote.
    Now according to Felder, when he was sacked, an immediate offer was proffered to him in the form of a check that was sent for his shares in the company. Had he cashed the check that would have been the end of it, so maybe that is what happened with L-eadon/Meisner when they quit?


    Thank you for responding I believe according to Felder's book since Bernie and Randy quit their shares reverted back to Eagles LTD. so it would have went from 5/5 to 4/4 to 3/3

    You know you have some delicious bugs here about on the Mississippi... Extra Protein thank you very much!!!!-Don Henley- At the St. Louis, MO concert June 2010.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •