I checked the thread and setlist.fm. The only reference to setlist.fm from that thread is a post by Funk 50 which leads here: https://www.setlist.fm/setlist/eagle...-4bf8d736.html
Reading that, it doesn't appear to be a claim about any dying wish, but about Glenn's wish for that concert before his passing. I read through the 3.0 thread for a few pages after the post, but didn't find any more discussion on the setlist.fm quote.
Hence, i think that this is a misunderstanding, and that no-one has claimed that Glenn had a dying wish that the band play again.
Sorry about my disjointed post yesterday. I had a few thoughts which I wanted to share but I didn't put in the time to make it coherant.
I know the corporation vs partnership may not seem like a big deal, but when talking about control of the company, I believe it is. It's hard to explain why without sending everyone to sleep. I agree with Delilah that we don't have enough information to know how decisions are made, but even if it was all written down in front of us, I'd take it with a pinch of salt. For example, Don Felder may have been CFO on paper but he didn't perform the duties. As Joe put it in his recent Rolling Stone interview "we all got to vote and then they did whatever they wanted."
I'm still not sure what any of this has to do with the barren post HFO years unless it's that the arguments about the business and control made it harder to work together creatively.
And that's the saddest part of all. Greed and ego. I should get this much because I'm this, and you should get this much because your that.....
I'm not sure who said it in the doc, but one of the members said that one of Felder's biggest hang ups was that he always looked at the band as a band in the truest sense of the word, where they all 5 go out and play, and split the profits 5 equal ways.
It sounds like the band stopped being that after "One of These Nights".
When Felder joined during "On the Border", they brought him in as an equal partner, but a couple years later when Bernie left, they absorbed his partnership, and brought Walsh in as a hired gun. Then the same thing was done when Randy left. They absorbed his share, and became 3 members and 2 players.
You go from having a vote of 3 out of 5 to make something happen, down to 2 out of 3, where the 2 were, as it seems, mostly sticking together on things.
And by HFO, it seems that Glenn and Don really wanted it to be 2 members and 3 players, but Felder was still part owner, with a 1/3 interest.
It sounds like they pretty much strong armed the situation to get more than everyone else during HFO, and that was the source of a lot of friction during the resumption.
Walsh and Schmidt had no choice but to be OK with it, because they had always been players, but Felder was an owner, a member, so I can see him having a harder time being relegated to a lesser status in the band.
Without making a judgement about who was right, it's obvious that having conflicting views on business matters would make it harder to work together.
I wasn't talking about day-to-day operations; I was talking about the decision to continue as the Eagles. In that case, she would have a vote and very likely exercise it, and in that case asking her would not be a courtesy (as someone else suggested). If she vetoed it, it would not have happened. But if she is half owner of the Eagles, she can be involved as she wants to be in the every day running of things. I doubt that she is involved in decisions such as choice of set lists, but if she wanted to be, it would be her right to do so, unless is was stated somewhere in a will or other legal document that she wouldn't be.
Very nice post, BillBailey. I would add that another element to Felder's perspective is that unlike Walsh and Schmit, he wasn't brought in as a replacement. He was there to specifically to enhance the band's sound with a more rock edge. He had to forge his own path in doing so and create all his guitar parts, and thus, part of the Eagles sound. He was there when the band went from moderately successful to super successful band at the top. I can see why he was reluctant to simply bow down and accept the new terms.
I do find it conflicting that some of those who claim Glenn had the final say in everything also hold Felder more responsible for the barren years than Glenn.
Please note: this is an observation, not a criticism. If Glenn preferred to sail around the world rather than tour, good for him.
Right or wrong, what’s done is done
It’s only moments that you borrow...
The barren years ended when Felder was sacked. They've been very active ever since. If you ignore the HFO years (1994-1996), Felder didn't produce anything since the early 80s.
I don't think it was egos and greed that led to Felder's exit. I genuinely believe that they all wanted to continue playing as the Eagles where-as Felder's priorities seemed to be non-musical.
I feel that they still want to carry on playing as the Eagles. After continuing after Glenn's death, I've no idea what will cause them to stop. It looks like there will always be money to be made for whoever's on the payroll.
I think you'd have to have to be very skilled in business law to know exactly how the Eagles work.
I went to corporationwiki.com and was looking.
Oh my gosh. There were bunches of Eagles related corporations listed.
One thing I noticed is that on most of them Don Henley was the president, and Glenn the VP, Treasurer, or Secretary.
I don't know what it means, but Don is listed as president of: Eagles Recording Company II, Eagles Touring II, and Eagles Merchandising II.
So, I have no clue as to what authority Cindy or Don or any of them have after looking at all that.
Well, not completely barren as Don Henley put out an album in 2000 and Glenn was also writing but he let Max Carl record his songs.