Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"

[Scarlet Sun]

If that was the case then wouldn't he have been in England with them? I've never seen mention of that and had always assumed that the first three albums were played solely by the original four members plus Felder for two songs. Frey played piano on Desperado (the song) afaik so I don't know why someone else would then do Outlaw Man (unless JEN played that too?).

Well, since Jim Ed Norman arranged the stings for Desperado maybe that's when he was in England. And remember, Al Perkins played steel on Ol' '55.

[Freypower]

It has always been my understanding that Glenn plays piano on Outlaw Man, just as he does on One Of These Nights, even though he isn't credited on either song.

[UndertheWire]

That will teach me for taking the short-cut of checking wikipedia for credits. Jim Ed Norman did go to London to arrange the strings (according to an article on Uncut.co.uk) so he could have played the piano on Outlaw Man. However, Glenn was certainly playing similar piano on the Seattle video.

It's interesting how who plays what - and even which instruments are used - has changed over the years on many of their songs. They aren't doing exact reproductions of the studio sound whatever critics might say.

[chaim]

It seems to be very common that even though other people could play the actual notes too, the person who has the best "feel" for the part plays it. For example, there's this one KISS song on that terrible Psycho Circus album where, according to Simmons, he couldn't get the "right feel" for the bass part in the chorus, so Stanley who wrote it played it. But when you listen to it, the bass has only two notes in the chorus, while Simmons is all over the place in the verses (?!?).
Personally I probably couldn't tell the difference between takes with a different "feel", but maybe they said to Norman, "Since you're already here and you're a piano player, you might have a great feel for this". Glenn could play the part live later, but perhaps without the same "feel". Or they wanted to cut the track live with the electric piano and of course Glenn couldn't play guitar and piano at the same time. Or it is Glenn. Who knows.

[Shadowland07]

Was it the original or a live version? If I remember correctly, it's not Glenn in the original. I think it was some outsider. Jim Ed Norman?

I think it's the original version. It's the part where they are talking about the Desperado album.

[UndertheWire]

Bringing this over from the Don Felder press thread..

Glenn and Don Henley come across badly in History of the Eagles. From what I’ve read, a lot of people, even those who like the documentary, now have a bad opinion of them. And it is not Don Felder’s fault, he is not the author of the documentary. It is an authorized documentary, so they only have themselves to blame.

A few weeks ago I was speaking to a childhood friend who had recently seen the documentary She commented that they "weren't very nice". Her prior knowledge of the band was probably similar to mine - she knew the music from listening to my record collection back in the seventies and would have known little beyond that - and I'm pretty sure she hasn't read Felder's book or seen any of his interviews, so this is just based on the documentary. Judging from reviews and various online comments, she's far from alone in this impression. I was surprised. I guess I always am when popular opinion doesn't match with mine - why can't they see it my way?

I wouldn't like to go into business with any of these guys. I wouldn't want to be married to any of them. But as a story, a subject for study, I find them fascinating. They all have flaws (except possibly Timothy!) but it's shades of grey rather than black and white. I bring my own biases to it - for example, I have no problem with Glenn's demand that he and Don get paid more but I get uncomfortable with the idea that the books were being fiddled.

What is it in the documentary that makes some people take against Glenn and Don to such an extent? Is it the manner, the language or the actions? Is part of it, just rooting for the underdog?

In the documentary, they blame all the tensions in the band on the drugs and Don Felder. But while making Long Road Out of Eden, the Eagles argued a lot and ended up recording their parts separately and sending the files to the studio. They weren’t doing drugs (that we know of) and Don Felder wasn’t in the band anymore. In a 2007 interview with Independent.ie, when talking about the album, Don Henley said: “Frankly, Joe and Timothy didn't bring in a lot of stuff. We were waiting for it, but it never came." Was it necessary to say that publicly? He really made them look bad.

Nearly everyone (including Don Henley) seems to agree that the documentary played down the tensions between Glenn and Don. One of the reasons I started reading everything I could find (and came here) was because I knew there was something missing. My first impression was that Don Felder wasn't important enough to have caused the breakup and the only plausible explantion was that the Henley/Frey partnership no longer worked. Of course, I've learned that it was never that straightforward.

I don't know about the arguing during LROoE, but Don Henley didn't sound too happy when he was promoting it. Glenn always puts on a positive front for the press, so who knows how he felt. Joe and Timothy just read from the script during Eagles promotions.

Coming back to Don Felder, my problem is that he is too focused on his own contributions and doesn't seem to get or show the bigger picture. If his version is accurate, I'd like to know how Glenn went from being the dominant member in 73-74 (check the set lists) to just contributing a few lines to the lyrics. Was it the arrival of Felder, the departure of Bernie, drug problems, a Henley/Azoff bloodless coup?

[Freypower]

Glenn did not go from being dominant to only contibuting a few lines of lyrics. Despite Felder's exaggerated claims, he still has songwriting credits on most of the songs. He sang fewer songs, as we know, because as he said in HOTE 'we had Don Henley' thus doing his usual trick of downplaying his own contributions (in which he is the polar opposite of Felder). Felder had/has one agenda; to diminish Glenn as much as he can.

Those who like to talk about how Henley became so dominant forget the quality of the songs which Glenn did sing; they were Lyin' Eyes, New Kid In Town & Heartache Tonight. Two of them were Number One singles & all three of them won Grammies. They contain some of the finest Eagles vocal performances ever. They were the songs which were so important to me on a personal basis; they still are. I know that not everybody agrees with this (certainly Felder doesn't; he pretends those songs don't even exist, although he plays HT in concert).

It was Glenn's band & he decided to leave & therefore it broke up. No matter how dominant Henley was, he could not have continued on without Glenn & I doubt he wanted to, regardless of their differences.

Yes, the split between Glenn & Henley was downplayed in HOTE.

Regarding what Felder did that was bad, to put it in a nutshell from what I understand, he caused disruption. He always complained. Nothing was good enough for him. The VOL fiasco in HOTE was used to illustrate this. *NB this is an edit in response to the post below mine by tjh532.

Some of us were very disappointed with Don Henley's attitude during the LROOE promotion period; but most of us decided that we should just try to focus on what a great album it was. He changed his tune after a while and did become more positive when he promoted it.

As for 'Glenn & Don come across badly' in HOTE they might to Felder fans. They don't to people like me. They told the truth.

[tjh532]

I didn't know about the arguing during the recording of LROE. I knew that quite a bit of it was done by emailing files back and forth, but I always assumed that was because they were all busy and off doing other things. Don's statement about Joe and Timothy was harsh!

I would have to say that we all have pretty strong feelings about how Don and Glenn are portrayed in the documentary, but let's face it. Most of us are more than just a casual fan, and we all have our favorite Eagles(s). I can see how, after watching HOTE, that Don and Glenn came off looking kind of bad. Now please don't shoot the messenger but, in reading other message boards and sites, they were not seen in a positive light in regards to the whole handling of the Don Felder situation. Most of us know a lot more of the story than the casual fan, so we might see things in a different light. Or we may be willing to excuse certain behaviors because we like someone so much.

I have to applaud Don and Glenn both, because they were honest about a lot of things that happened. I wish that they would have talked about the friction between themselves. I think that is where most of the tension came from. I wonder sometimes if Glenn's frustration with Don was more easily taken out on Felder. After all, besides the contract/money issues, I'm not really sure what Felder did that was so bad? Well, except for his tell all book and suing them - haha - but that came later.

I get the feeling sometimes that Don and Glenn agreed to the documentary, but decided that they would put up a united front. If you hadn't already known that there was friction between the two of them, you would think (from the doc) that they really got along great most of the time. I don't think that's the case - especially in the later years.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I have to applaud Don and Glenn both, because they were honest about a lot of things that happened. I wish that they would have talked about the friction between themselves. I think that is where most of the tension came from. I wonder sometimes if Glenn's frustration with Don was more easily taken out on Felder. After all, besides the contract/money issues, I'm not really sure what Felder did that was so bad? Well, except for his tell all book and suing them - haha - but that came later.

it is very true that Don and Glenn do not go into much detail about what Felder did back in 70's. I think that was a mistake on their part. Both of them said in interviews in the early eighties that the guitar players were never satisfied.I got the impression that it was a gradual build up of things. it seems from those interviews and even from the documentary that Felder would play one against the other consistently. It wouldn't surprise me if it was the constant needling and put-downs like he does now in interviews. A person can usually deal with that when it comes in small doses, but when it's non-stop it gets under your skin until you explode.

[UndertheWire]

Eliot's book has a version that's more or less in line with the documentary. He doesn't name his source.

Felder had always wanted to be considered a lead singer in the band, which he was not capable of being, at least in this band. He had also wanted to write more songs than there was room for. There were also complaints from Felder about money. He insisted on knowing where every penny was going, often going into other band members' rooms on the road to make sure his was as big as theirs. One close to the band thought it became a pathological thing: "Am I getting my fair share of the money, am I getting my fair share of the glory, am I getting my fair share of the chicks, am I getting my fair share of the dope, is my limo as big as his limo?"

Eventually his pushing and shoving brought a measure of reward when he became, along with Henley and Frey, one of three corporate owners of "The Eagles." For all he had gotten, especially having joined the band after the first, and hardest, incarnation, Frey felt Felder was profoundly ungrateful. Even as a full business partner, he remained unsatisfied, feeling that no one gave him due credit for his musical contributions to the band.

Felder's version is a little different. He writes about getting a better room and using that to wind up Don and Glenn who then made sure they got the best rooms after that.