PDA

View Full Version : WTF??



Shadowland07
04-05-2013, 04:37 PM
http://www.etonline.com/music/132545_Former_Eagles_Member_Don_Felder_Alleges_Eag les_Rewrote_History/

Not once have I see the order of the credits rearranged. Not on any album, Hell Freezes Over or Farewell 1. It's always been Felder, Henley and Frey. Why can't he just... Get Over It? IMO he's making himself look bad. The others are obviously over it (or getting over it), as they never bring it up or talk about it. What do you guys think?

VAisForEagleLovers
04-05-2013, 04:43 PM
http://www.etonline.com/music/132545_Former_Eagles_Member_Don_Felder_Alleges_Eag les_Rewrote_History/

Not once have I see the order of the credits rearranged. Not on any album, Hell Freezes Over or Farewell 1. It's always been Felder, Henley and Frey. Why can't he just... Get Over It? IMO he's making himself look bad. The others are obviously over it (or getting over it), as they never bring it up or talk about it. What do you guys think?

When I saw this earlier, I noticed that on HFO it is rearranged. However, as I saw in a comment at the bottom, it's different from the original, it's acoustic, and to make it acoustic wasn't Felder's idea, and he states that in his book.

I find it very sad that he's reduced himself to appearing on shows like this show and rehashing this kind of stuff over and over. His fiancee, who I'm sure has a masters or PhD in music speaks up and says he turned in an entire song without lyrics, that she's heard the demo tape, so she knows.

Shadowland07
04-05-2013, 04:45 PM
Are they rearranged on the HFO album or DVD, or both?

VAisForEagleLovers
04-05-2013, 04:46 PM
I don't have the DVD, so I don't know about it. I just looked at the CD. (I decided that if it ever comes out on BlueRay, I'll get that.)

Brooke
04-05-2013, 04:49 PM
Good grief! "It doesn't bother me". ??????????? Then why do you constantly bring it up? Why don't you just get over it and shut up and go on with your life? :ziplip:

I think he just constantly needs to be saying something to promote himself, even if it's in a bad light! :mad:

Shadowland07
04-05-2013, 04:49 PM
Oh ok. I do agree that it's sad he's still not over it. It's pretty obvious he isn't.

WalshFan88
04-05-2013, 05:10 PM
I'm kind of unsure where I stand with the video. I agree with some of it.

I do believe and fully agree Felder did write the music (not the lyrics) to Hotel California, and without him it would have ceased to exist and I agree with the host, the guitar is what makes that song. JMO... Don Felder is an oustanding musician and one of the best in that band's history. He contributed SO much to the band.

But... I do think he needs to get over it and not do these types of shows where it makes him look bad. I love Don and I think Eagles bitterness aside he is a very nice guy and truly loves the music and playing and an incredible guitarist but at the very least, he should refrain from doing all of these media interviews, or just leave it to rest. I agree it paints him in a bad light. I feel he was wronged, but it just needs to be laid to rest and promote his wonderful new solo material and get out there and play guitar like only he can play.

Just my .02c

Freypower
04-05-2013, 05:34 PM
http://www.etonline.com/music/132545_Former_Eagles_Member_Don_Felder_Alleges_Eag les_Rewrote_History/

Not once have I see the order of the credits rearranged. Not on any album, Hell Freezes Over or Farewell 1. It's always been Felder, Henley and Frey. Why can't he just... Get Over It? IMO he's making himself look bad. The others are obviously over it (or getting over it), as they never bring it up or talk about it. What do you guys think?

On the HFO CD the credit reads Henley/Frey/Felder so the DVD probably does too. If he did not have the idea to rearrange it acoustically then I don't see what the problem is in changing it. The acoustic version appears both on the CD & the DVD (it is a live performance, remember). On F1 it reads Felder/Henley/Frey.

And guess who, according to FELDER, came up with the idea for the acoustic introduction (see page 258 of the book).

It was Glenn Frey. Who is still credited second, not first, on the HFO album. I believe that Felder has since changed his tune on this & stated that Glenn had nothing to do with the new arrangement & therefore the credit should not have been changed. Whatever.

I need say no more except agree with what others have said. I will say one more thing though which I have said before & will continue to say. There is more to the song than the music. A great deal more. It is not just about the guitar work. In fact I would go so far to say that for me it is the opposite. The lyrics still intrigue me as do the vocals & drums, but I know the guitar work so well that it's over familiar now.

NYC Fan
04-05-2013, 06:23 PM
FP-

Totally agree with you. The music is great, but without Don's voice and the amazing imagery in the first stanza of HC that immediately draws you in to the song, it's just a flamenco-y intro.

I too think that Felder makes himself look bad by saying all this stuff. It's sad. Of course, I can't relate to how he feels artistically about these things, but, to me anyway, Glenn and Don are responsible for him making more money than your average musician will see in a lifetime, no matter how good a guitar player he is.

I know they sound like they were hard to deal with at times, but let's get real. They are the reason the band was so successful. I don't understand this ongoing bitterness. I read his book and it made me uncomfortable for him. Like some jilted lover writing a tell-all.

It's a great song, but IMHO, it's not their best. And while the whole album appears to have been built around the theme that was that song, can we ever really say that they wouldn't have come up with something else great, without that riff. Not the same of course, but that was an exceptionally great time for them as songwriters.

But what do I know?

:)

WalshFan88
04-05-2013, 06:47 PM
The music is great, but without Don's voice and the amazing imagery in the first stanza of HC that immediately draws you in to the song, it's just a flamenco-y intro.

I disagree. I agree Don's voice and the way they have the imagery is great, but without that guitar intro and let's not forget the guitar solo it wouldn't have been near as great. I personally am not a flamenco/reggae/spanish music fan. I personally see it as a great classic rock song with a cool beat. The guitar solo is simply the best. Bias aside, it's always being rated as the best electric guitar solo by most sites AND guitar players alike and plenty others feel it is one of the best. The guitar wizardry on this track really makes it. I feel it is a true masterpiece. I'll take it anyday over any other song.

It's a great song, but IMHO, it's not their best. And while the whole album appears to have been built around the theme that was that song, can we ever really say that they wouldn't have come up with something else great, without that riff. Not the same of course, but that was an exceptionally great time for them as songwriters.

The world will never know, but one could easily say it would have never happened as much as vice versa. But the addition of Joe Walsh really made them a supergroup and really propelled them into another dimension. Some don't like this era or change, I do but I'm more into mainstream rock n' roll. But while they were very successful prior, I don't think they would be as huge as they are today without that record. I'm not saying DF is the reason, either. But the song and album as a whole with everyone's contributions is really what took them to another level not only musically but in terms of success. I do think it is their true masterpiece and the best song and album they ever did, but that of course is JMO. But one cannot deny the impact it had on not only them but music in general.

....

VAisForEagleLovers
04-05-2013, 06:48 PM
FP-

Totally agree with you. The music is great, but without Don's voice and the amazing imagery in the first stanza of HC that immediately draws you in to the song, it's just a flamenco-y intro.

I too think that Felder makes himself look bad by saying all this stuff. It's sad. Of course, I can't relate to how he feels artistically about these things, but, to me anyway, Glenn and Don are responsible for him making more money than your average musician will see in a lifetime, no matter how good a guitar player he is.

I know they sound like they were hard to deal with at times, but let's get real. They are the reason the band was so successful. I don't understand this ongoing bitterness. I read his book and it made me uncomfortable for him. Like some jilted lover writing a tell-all.

It's a great song, but IMHO, it's not their best. And while the whole album appears to have been built around the theme that was that song, can we ever really say that they wouldn't have come up with something else great, without that riff. Not the same of course, but that was an exceptionally great time for them as songwriters.

But what do I know?

:)

I was just thinking about this earlier when someone posted in Don's review thread about HC. The guitar solo is a great hook, but as a child of the 70's I can tell you the DJ's talked over top of it every time. The rule was they had to shut up when the vocals started and every station played by the same rules. So it was, like you said, the first verse that created the imagery for me. Of course, within about a week I was totally sick of hearing the song and I still have to fight the temptation to skip past it when listening to the CD. For me, the best songs are ones I can relate to and I never could relate to HC.

I also thought earlier about how Glenn and Don were in a real zone at this point in their careers. It may not have been as 'iconic' as HC, it would have been great and successful, and perhaps LITFL would have gotten more kudos if HC didn't exist.

I don't agree with how people attribute song-writing credits, but I'm sure there's a reason it's done the way it's done. To me, Felder's greatest contribution to the band is the bass intro on One of These Nights. Since that's my favorite song of theirs, I certainly don't mean that as a put down. It sets the mood for the entire song, and I listen to the intro at least five times before letting the rest of the song play. Even better, it was strong enough back in the 70's to be heard over the yapping DJs.

The teeny-tiny bit of the song that's played on the documentary when talking about Felder giving Don and Glenn the tape isn't a full song that only lacks lyrics. As well, the best guitar part of the song (in my opinion) is where he and Joe go back and forth and he said on the documentary that Joe came up with that. It showcases the talent of both Joe and Felder. I don't really want to downplay Felder's contributions for this song, he did start the whole thing. I prefer the music on VOL, though.

Ive always been a dreamer
04-06-2013, 01:17 AM
Wow - I pretty much agree with all that's been said and I find it especially grating about how misleading that interview is. For starters, FP is exactly right in that the only time that the order of the credits for Hotel California was changed around was on the HBO CD, and that was because Felder was not the originator of the new acoustic arrangement. Every other release of the song, both before and after HFO, lists Felder first in the credits just as they were on the original album. So to label that as revisionist history is a huge exaggeration and very misleading, IMHO. To me, it was just giving credit where credit is due. I wonder if Felder had rearranged One of Thes Nights for the CD and had been given credit, if he would have complained about revisionist history. :nope:

Additionally, neither Felder, his fiance, or the interviewer made a single mention of the song's lyrics at all. If you listen to the interview, it makes it seem as if Felder wrote the song in its entirety. To me, it is very misleading and anyone who doesn't know a lot about the song would, undoubtably, be left with that impression.

As far as the debate about the music and lyrics, I actually think they are pretty equal in importance. They are both great independent of one another, but together they became a masterpiece. The music is absolutely riveting and has one of the most recognizable guitar solos in the history of rock and roll. However, if I have to pick one, I would have to give a slight edge to the lyrics. When the song was first released, the lyrics sparked a level of discussion and speculation all across the globe that has rarely been seen. I vividly recall the lyrics being endlessly debated by scholars, clergy, educators, theologians, and Joe the plummer, etc., etc., etc. in every medium available at the time. Also, the lyrics were the inspiration for the concepts of the other songs and overall theme of the album. Without those lyrics, in all probability there wouldn't have been a concept album and I believe some of the impact would have been lost.

Brooke
04-06-2013, 09:20 AM
As far as the debate about the music and lyrics, I actually think they are pretty equal in importance. They are both great independent of one another, but together they became a masterpiece. The music is absolutely riveting and has one of the most recognizable guitar solos in the history of rock and roll. However, if I have to pick one, I would have to give a slight edge to the lyrics. When the song was first released, the lyrics sparked a level of discussion and speculation all across the globe that has rarely been seen. I vividly recall the lyrics being endlessly debated by scholars, clergy, educators, theologians, and Joe the plummer, etc., etc., etc. in every medium available at the time. Also, the lyrics were the inspiration for the concepts of the other songs and overall theme of the album. Without those lyrics, in all probability there wouldn't have been a concept album and I believe some of the impact would have been lost.

This pretty much sums up how I feel about it. And without the lyrics we would more than likely have never heard the music.

NYC Fan
04-06-2013, 09:45 AM
I just had time to actually watch the interview. I only read the text of it yesterday. I've always thought Jeff Probst was a smarmy jerk, but he really was so irritating in this interview.

Felder did make a small mention of the track just being an instrumental, near the end of the interview, and Probst immediately diminished the concept of the album and the lyrics, and said the guitar was what makes it memorable. As others have said, it's both that make the song what it is. And the way he read out loud what Glenn said in the documentary, with his snarky delivery, really grated on my nerves.

I did not know about the rearranging of the credits based on who did the arrangement on the HFO album (learn so much here!), but the way Felder presented it was that they rearranged the credit order on all versions of that song to put him last.

It was a very misleading interview by Probst with misleading comments by Felder and was clearly designed to make Glenn and Don look bad. I just don't understand it.

:scowl:

VAisForEagleLovers
04-06-2013, 10:11 AM
I just had time to actually watch the interview. I only read the text of it yesterday. I've always thought Jeff Probst was a smarmy jerk, but he really was so irritating in this interview.

Yeah, the only thing more irritating than Jerry Springer is Not Even Jerry Springer aka Jerry Springer Wannabe.

Having thought about this while cleaning the kitchen earlier, I have to wonder what kind of a person does this sort of thing. I mean, I know 'journalists' do it all the time on networks like MSNBC and Fox News, where only the facts that help your agenda along are presented. Sadly, so many take it as gospel truth because they are too lazy to look up the facts for themselves, or want to believe it's true because it strengthens their agenda. The 'journalists' are paid by the networks to do what they do. Guaranteed, in Felder's next interview, he'll say he's reached out to Glenn and Don and innocently look at the camera and make all those watching wonder why they won't have anything to do with him.

He's continuing to needle at Glenn and Don. All the things he did as a band member on a daily basis, he's doing in the only way he can. He's not looking for sympathy (although he's swiftly earning my pity), he's trying to make life miserable for Glenn and Don, and even the rest of the band. What he's really doing is making it crystal clear on why he was fired. Glenn and Don don't need to talk about it, Felder is proving their point for those who care to look. It takes more than awesome talent to be a member of the team. To put it in football vernacular, he's more like Terrell Owens than Jerry Rice. The talent is there, but the rest of it is not.

GlennLover
04-06-2013, 02:16 PM
Yeah, the only thing more irritating than Jerry Springer is Not Even Jerry Springer aka Jerry Springer Wannabe.

Having thought about this while cleaning the kitchen earlier, I have to wonder what kind of a person does this sort of thing. I mean, I know 'journalists' do it all the time on networks like MSNBC and Fox News, where only the facts that help your agenda along are presented. Sadly, so many take it as gospel truth because they are too lazy to look up the facts for themselves, or want to believe it's true because it strengthens their agenda. The 'journalists' are paid by the networks to do what they do. Guaranteed, in Felder's next interview, he'll say he's reached out to Glenn and Don and innocently look at the camera and make all those watching wonder why they won't have anything to do with him.

He's continuing to needle at Glenn and Don. All the things he did as a band member on a daily basis, he's doing in the only way he can. He's not looking for sympathy (although he's swiftly earning my pity), he's trying to make life miserable for Glenn and Don, and even the rest of the band. What he's really doing is making it crystal clear on why he was fired. Glenn and Don don't need to talk about it, Felder is proving their point for those who care to look. It takes more than awesome talent to be a member of the team. To put it in football vernacular, he's more like Terrell Owens than Jerry Rice. The talent is there, but the rest of it is not.

I agree with most of what you said, VK, but I do think that in addition to trying to get back at Don & Glenn he is also looking for sympathy.

sodascouts
04-07-2013, 08:47 PM
I think he's looking for sympathy, too. He wants to be perceived as the innocent victim of unethical, greedy you-know-whats.


Sadly, so many take it as gospel truth because they are too lazy to look up the facts for themselves, or want to believe it's true because it strengthens their agenda.

Amen.

Ive always been a dreamer
04-07-2013, 10:28 PM
Yeah - I have to agree ... I think he's going after the sympathy vote as well. But, on this point, I absolutely agree with you, VA ...


What he's really doing is making it crystal clear on why he was fired. Glenn and Don don't need to talk about it, Felder is proving their point for those who care to look. It takes more than awesome talent to be a member of the team. To put it in football vernacular, he's more like Terrell Owens than Jerry Rice. The talent is there, but the rest of it is not.

HeatherB
06-02-2013, 12:45 AM
The interviewer is attempting to create drama here and Felder kind of takes the bait. What a shame! Can't stand these ridiculous talk and "reality" shows!

Turf
06-02-2013, 12:14 PM
The fact of the matter is that song-writing credits are a big deal when it comes to musicians. They are official, agreed-upon, representations of work and creativity. It is a standard practice for listing order to represent the significance of contribution, as was the case with Hotel California. So, for Frey and/or Henley to rearrange the order of the credits for Hotel California on HFO, behind Felder's back, is unethical. Sorry folks, it is what it is.

I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would be like if the credit order had been Henely, Frey, and Felder and then Felder had somehow conspired to rearrange the order to Felder, Henley, and Frey. Would people be saying Henley and Frey should just "get over it?" I kinda doubt it.

As far as Frey deserving a higher position due to his suggestion of the rearrangement, that's just flat out invalid.


They did not rewrite the song; they rearranged it - although Felder did write a new introduction. The writing credits for the song should not change. If anything, Felder could argue that the introduction should be credited separately.
If I suggest you write a song and then you go write a song, do I deserve more credit for the song than you? No, I don't deserve any of the song-writing credit. Frey made the suggestion of the acoustic version, Felder did all the writing associated with the version.
If another band had published that version of Hotel California, would they have been justified in listing their names ahead of Felder, Henley and Frey as writers of the song? No, they would not.
Even if you buy into the idea that Frey's suggestion entitles him to be higher on the credit list (which, again, is invalid), there is no justification for moving Henley's name ahead of Felder's name.


As for the point that this only happened on HFO, I would like to point out that I have purchased the published music for the Hotel California album. The title song is credited as: Don Henley, Glenn Frey, and Don Felder.

To put it simply, writing the vast majority of the music for Hotel California is the most significant professional accomplishment in Don Felder's life (in my estimation). If, years after the fact, your co-workers conspired behind your back to change the representation of your most significant accomplishment so as to minimize your contribution, I wonder how you would react. I suspect: not well...

Freypower
06-02-2013, 06:35 PM
The fact of the matter is that song-writing credits are a big deal when it comes to musicians. They are official, agreed-upon, representations of work and creativity. It is a standard practice for listing order to represent the significance of contribution, as was the case with Hotel California. So, for Frey and/or Henley to rearrange the order of the credits for Hotel California on HFO, behind Felder's back, is unethical. Sorry folks, it is what it is.

I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would be like if the credit order had been Henely, Frey, and Felder and then Felder had somehow conspired to rearrange the order to Felder, Henley, and Frey. Would people be saying Henley and Frey should just "get over it?" I kinda doubt it.

As far as Frey deserving a higher position due to his suggestion of the rearrangement, that's just flat out invalid.


They did not rewrite the song; they rearranged it - although Felder did write a new introduction. The writing credits for the song should not change. If anything, Felder could argue that the introduction should be credited separately.
If I suggest you write a song and then you go write a song, do I deserve more credit for the song than you? No, I don't deserve any of the song-writing credit. Frey made the suggestion of the acoustic version, Felder did all the writing associated with the version.
If another band had published that version of Hotel California, would they have been justified in listing their names ahead of Felder, Henley and Frey as writers of the song? No, they would not.
Even if you buy into the idea that Frey's suggestion entitles him to be higher on the credit list (which, again, is invalid), there is no justification for moving Henley's name ahead of Felder's name.

As for the point that this only happened on HFO, I would like to point out that I have purchased the published music for the Hotel California album. The title song is credited as: Don Henley, Glenn Frey, and Don Felder.

To put it simply, writing the vast majority of the music for Hotel California is the most significant professional accomplishment in Don Felder's life (in my estimation). If, years after the fact, your co-workers conspired behind your back to change the representation of your most significant accomplishment so as to minimize your contribution, I wonder how you would react. I suspect: not well...

How was it 'behind his back'? He was in the band at the time. He presumably could have objected & didn't.

You say you have the 'published music'. What do you mean by that? I have the sheet music book. The credits for that read Felder/Henley/Frey.

Turf
06-02-2013, 07:13 PM
My understanding is that it happened without him being aware of it. Nobody consulted him - the powers that be just changed it.

The music I'm referring to is this book (http://www.musiciansfriend.com/books-sheet-music-media/alfred-eagles-hotel-california-classic-albums-edition-guitar-tab-songbook), which was published in 2006 or 2007.

Freypower
06-02-2013, 07:18 PM
My understanding is that it happened without him being aware of it. Nobody consulted him - the powers that be just changed it.

The music I'm referring to is this book (http://www.musiciansfriend.com/books-sheet-music-media/alfred-eagles-hotel-california-classic-albums-edition-guitar-tab-songbook), which was published in 2006 or 2007.

Presumably permission had to be granted for that book to be published but it's hardly Frey & Henley's fault that whoever was responsible used the HFO credits.

I know people have every right to discuss this stuff, but personally, it is making me tired. These things happened & unfortunately they have to be accepted.

Turf
06-02-2013, 09:10 PM
Presumably permission had to be granted for that book to be published but it's hardly Frey & Henley's fault that whoever was responsible used the HFO credits.

Yes, they would have required permission in the form a licensing agreement which would have dictated the terms of use.


I know people have every right to discuss this stuff, but personally, it is making me tired. These things happened & unfortunately they have to be accepted.

You're in good company. I've noticed people seem have one attitude when bashing Felder and another when responding to alternative perspectives...

VAisForEagleLovers
06-02-2013, 11:39 PM
I'm glad to hear different opinions. For myself, I talk it all with a grain of salt. Glenn and Don are not evil incarnate and they are not unethical. There was a reason it happened and probably a good one. I find it hard to believe that Felder didn't find out that the credits were rearranged until just before the Probst show nearly twenty years later, but if it really took him that long, then shame on him for not checking something that is obviously held in high regard amongst musicians (it obviously is, I just can't figure out why).

Since I can't believe he didn't notice until a few months ago, the fact that it's not in his book tells me he knows what the reason is and is OK with it. He could have made it part of the lawsuit, yet he didn't. Maybe he was just over it, but then got 'unover it' a few months ago.

MaryCalifornia
06-03-2013, 10:25 AM
Turf,

I don't think anyone on this site is an expert in songwriting intellectual property law, I'm certainly not, but I do have a basic understanding of how the rights to a song work. Bottom line is I agree with you. The order of songwriting credits is extremely important. It is a huge deal, it is their livelihood, especially for the lesser-paid members of the band. We had a whole discussion about this in the documentary thread, which started when I noted that Timothy isn't credited first on I Can't Tell You Why. I think the reason this topic gets attention is that Hotel California is such a famous song, and the rift between Felder and the others is so well known, as is the fact that he was the main songwriter on that song. So when someone notices that the credits have changed, the first thought is, "oooh, look what Don and Glenn did" - I think this is a natural reaction. The fact that the credits get messed with at all is just bizarre - this doesn't happen with the Beatles or Rolling Stones songs, especially songs that are really successful and well-known. Or...maybe it does and we've just never noticed it. Just an Eagles anomaly.

GlennLover
06-03-2013, 10:29 AM
This is all just speculation so we can't rightfully put the blame on anyone. We don't even know how or why the change was made. We don't know for sure that it wasn't an error that wasn't caught, like Best of My Love appearing in the HFO credits when it wasn't included in the final cut.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-03-2013, 12:21 PM
I agree with it being their livelihood and I see it's important to them. Perhaps the grunts who put the things together feel like I do. The things I write (things that are my livelihood) don't get published with my name on them or even the name of the company I work for. It's the customer's name, we just get the money.

I can easily see after thinking about it that it would be important for songwriting. If you know who wrote a song and like it, chances are you'd like other things they wrote. However, I'm an avid listener to music of all types and I never noticed or cared who wrote a song until about ten years ago, and I'll be honest, I still don't care for 98% of the music I listen to. Outside of this message board, I've never met a single person who cared. Harsh, but it's easy to see where those who aren't in the details could have a blase' attitude about it, like whoever did the credits for the documentary.

MaryCalifornia
06-03-2013, 04:35 PM
I don't know if this applies to songwriting, doesn't seem like it would, but I thought it was fascinating to learn that the details regarding writing credits for films and TV shows have actually been litigated over the word "and" versus the symbol "&" - they have different meanings when it comes to writing credits. This is why you will see something like: Movie Title, written by Joe Schmo & Some Lady and Some Guy. There is an entire body of law and court cases surrounding this. Joe Schmo and Some Lady share the main credit together, and Some Guy gets secondary credit. I just could't believe there is an industry-accepted legal difference between "and" and "&". Probably not as strict when it comes to songwriting credits.

Springbo
06-03-2013, 08:31 PM
For me in general, the music has always been more important than the words. If I don't like the melody, I won't even listen to the song. Just sayin'. :shrug:

zeldabjr
06-03-2013, 09:39 PM
For me in general, the music has always been more important than the words. If I don't like the melody, I won't even listen to the song. Just sayin'. :shrug:

funny you should mention this Springbo..I was thinking about this exact thing the other day...and was thinking of starting a thread about it...I'm with you about the music!

WalshFan88
06-03-2013, 11:25 PM
For me in general, the music has always been more important than the words. If I don't like the melody, I won't even listen to the song. Just sayin'. :shrug:

Same here.

Turf
06-05-2013, 01:05 AM
I'm glad to hear different opinions. For myself, I talk it all with a grain of salt. Glenn and Don are not evil incarnate and they are not unethical. There was a reason it happened and probably a good one.

I certainly don't think Glenn and Don are evil incarnate. :stunned: To be sure, they are great musicians. They're responsible for writing and performing (together, independently, or in collaboration with other musicians) some of my favorite music. And, of course, there are millions of others who share this opinion (including most people on this board).

But, at the same time, I try not to let my admiration of their musical talents cloud my objectivity when considering the facts as they are. There is good evidence to suggest that one or, more likely, both of them switched the order of the writing credits so as to minimize Felder's contribution. Perhaps they felt justified in doing it for one reason or another. But, unless they got Felder's approval before doing it (which certainly does not appear to be the case), I think most disinterested people would agree this amounts to an unethical act. Under other circumstances, it's the kind of action that could well result in a lawsuit. Certainly, it's not something you do to a fellow band member whom you respect.

Of course, one unethical act does not necessarily make a person unethical. Life, for most of us, is an exercise in managing our regrets. But, at the same time, how much do we really know about the personal lives of all these rock stars whom we admire? Do we expect that, because they write great music, they also drive under the speed limit and don't cheat at solitaire?

Irving Azoff had an interesting quote from the documentary - something along the lines of: show me a person responsible for managing musicians who's made a lot of friends and I'll show you somebody who hasn't done a good job representing his/her clients.

Do we expect Irving has never told a lie? I'd be willing to bet he's told more than his fair share. Probably, many were strategic and ultimately benefited the people whom he was representing. Those same disinterested people from above would likely label these actions unethical. But, then again, Irving has a net worth well beyond anything most of us will ever achieve. So, his talents in this regard have served him well...



I find it hard to believe that Felder didn't find out that the credits were rearranged until just before the Probst show nearly twenty years later, but if it really took him that long, then shame on him for not checking something that is obviously held in high regard amongst musicians (it obviously is, I just can't figure out why).

Since I can't believe he didn't notice until a few months ago, the fact that it's not in his book tells me he knows what the reason is and is OK with it. He could have made it part of the lawsuit, yet he didn't. Maybe he was just over it, but then got 'unover it' a few months ago.

I didn't mean to suggest that Felder noticed the difference just before the Probst show. And, in fact, he definitely does make mention of the rearranged credits on HFO's Hotel California in his book. His various descriptions suggest that he only became aware of the change after the release, i.e. after it was already done.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-05-2013, 07:10 AM
Turf, you have a very nice reply there. I would like to say that some of my comments weren't directed at you, per se. I've seen a lot of comments here and elsewhere that specifically refer to Glenn and Don as being a lot of really bad things.

I like your comment that one unethical act doesn't make a person unethical overall. BTW, computer games have taken away the ability to cheat at solitaire! Of course, it works in both directions, I've seen a lot of comments about Felder that paint his character a certain color due to a few things that may or may not have been taken out of context.

For the most part, my issue with the Probst show was why he was on such a show to begin with. He has a lot going for him and has no need to go on a show whose business is to sensationalize and dramatize. Leave it for the daytime soap stars and the moms who can't handle their families, and stick to reputable places. In the past, I always felt a little sorry for the people that ended up on these kinds of shows, so I was horrified when that announcement dropped into my newsfeed.

I try not to place unrealistic expectations on our guys. Unless they cheat and sit down, they're men who put their pants on one leg at a time just like all other men. Great talent and drive (and good looks!) don't make a person super-human. On the other hand, given what we're subjected to today in the world of popular music, I have the utmost respect and admiration for our guys. They've made mistakes, but overall, I think they've handled the fame, success, and adoration of fans very well.

Topkat
06-05-2013, 05:38 PM
VA, I don't see what the problem is with him going on Jeff Probst Show. It's a talk show, like many others on tv these days. I don't think it is one prone to scandal & sensationalism...It was an interview, like many others he's done. I guess he is still promoting his album & touring. I don't think he's looking for any sensational publicity....Maybe some of you think this is rather low or tacky, but I really don't think so. JMO...

As for the credit rearrangement. I think I have already voiced my opinion on that, but I do think it was both wrong & unethical. Whatever "excuse" or reason given for it, some have rationalized it for whatever reasons...I can't explain that.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-05-2013, 05:51 PM
VA, I don't see what the problem is with him going on Jeff Probst Show. It's a talk show, like many others on tv these days.

That's pretty much the problem I have with it. You summed it up quite nicely.

ETA: I just did a quick search. On tap this week is:
Sexy Secrets of a Professional 'Wing Girl'. Classy.
Moms on Strike. Seriously?
Days of our Lives' Sexiest Stars Tell All. Serious journalism there.

The other two days are Vivica Fox and then Jillian Michaels & Marissa Janet Winokur. Since I've not heard of any of them I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on those (Vivica looks familiar, though)

zeldabjr
06-05-2013, 09:12 PM
I've never heard of that Jeff Probst or his show...???...maybe I don't get it here??

Topkat
06-05-2013, 09:43 PM
That's pretty much the problem I have with it. You summed it up quite nicely.

ETA: I just did a quick search. On tap this week is:
Sexy Secrets of a Professional 'Wing Girl'. Classy.
Moms on Strike. Seriously?
Days of our Lives' Sexiest Stars Tell All. Serious journalism there.

The other two days are Vivica Fox and then Jillian Michaels & Marissa Janet Winokur. Since I've not heard of any of them I'll give him the benefit of the doubt on those (Vivica looks familiar, though)

I work during the day, so I have only seen the show once. Jillian Michaels is a fitness instructor. She was a trainer on that show "The Biggest Loser" weight loss show.
Vivica Fox is an actress. Not sure what she has been in, but she is probably pushing a movie she is in.

None of these shows are serious journalism, & they usually have a variety of guests with various topics. This is the norm these days, I guess. Not sure what you were expecting???

TimothyBFan
06-06-2013, 08:13 AM
I'll probably regret this BUT, you all know it never stops me------ Why is Don F going on this show worse than when, let's say, Joe went on the Howard Stern show? I mean, Howard has a pretty good reputation for having a lot of sleaze on his show also. Personally, I love Howard Stern and have never seen Jeff Probst's show but if we are basing his appearance on the show as bad because of the guest Jeff has on his show, it seems Howard probably tops him in that category and I don't remember a backlash when Joe was on there. I really liked that interview. Inquiring minds......

VAisForEagleLovers
06-06-2013, 08:28 AM
I'll probably regret this BUT, you all know it never stops me------ Why is Don F going on this show worse than when, let's say, Joe went on the Howard Stern show? I mean, Howard has a pretty good reputation for having a lot of sleaze on his show also. Personally, I love Howard Stern and have never seen Jeff Probst's show but if we are basing his appearance on the show as bad because of the guest Jeff has on his show, it seems Howard probably tops him in that category and I don't remember a backlash when Joe was on there. I really liked that interview. Inquiring minds......

You are absolutely right, TBF. If this is your opinion when you like Howard Stern, you can imagine what someone who doesn't like the man at all thinks. Like me. I did not listen to that interview, and I won't. I believe I did mention at the time that I wasn't happy with it, but it was part of a media blitz and not even the only interview Joe did that day, so it got lost in the shuffle, for which I was grateful.

Topkat
06-06-2013, 08:57 AM
You are absolutely right, TBF. If this is your opinion when you like Howard Stern, you can imagine what someone who doesn't like the man at all thinks. Like me. I did not listen to that interview, and I won't. I believe I did mention at the time that I wasn't happy with it, but it was part of a media blitz and not even the only interview Joe did that day, so it got lost in the shuffle, for which I was grateful.

As I recall, this was a 1 hour interview with Stern, not a typical 2-5 minute interview with the same old questions that everyone was asking. It didn't get lost in the media shuffle as far as I'm concerned. Actually, I thought it was good, because Stern went into areas other interviewers dared not go...It was worth listening to. Joe has known Stern for years, so it was much more personal. Loved that interview.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-06-2013, 09:53 AM
Well, to put in perspective, you all know how much I like Glenn (understatement of the year). If he went on the Howard Stern show, I wouldn't listen to that, either. In fact, I send SiriusXM emails every three months complaining that the Sirius radio in my car gets Howard Stern but not baseball or hockey (which I get on the XM radio in the house).

My first and only exposure to him was two days after the Air Florida jet took off from National and crashed into the 14th street bridge, killing a lot of passengers, motorists on the bridge, and people who tried to rescue passengers by jumping into icy water. He called Air Florida and asked how much they charge for a flight from National to the 14th street bridge, and he was on a DC radio station (DC101). He lost a lot of fans that day. If I remember right, he was taken off the air before his shift was even over.

GlennLover
06-06-2013, 10:43 AM
FYI, Jeff Probst is the host of Survivor. I have watched his show a few times and I didn't think that it was that trashy. On one of the episodes I saw Valerie Harper (Rhoda) did her first interview to speak about her diagnosis of inoperable brain cancer.

Topkat
06-06-2013, 11:20 AM
FYI, Jeff Probst is the host of Survivor. I have watched his show a few times and I didn't think that it was that trashy. On one of the episodes I saw Valerie Harper (Rhoda) did her first interview to speak about her diagnosis of inoperable brain cancer.

I know him from Survivor. Knowing what I know of him, I didn't think the show would be trashy.... I just don't have the opportunity to watch it since it's on while I'm at work...I mean if any of the guys would do a talk show, this would be fine. I guess most of the guests are either actors, or musicians. I would guess nothing political, but that's fine. There are plenty of other shows for that!

GlennLover
06-06-2013, 12:46 PM
As I recall, this was a 1 hour interview with Stern, not a typical 2-5 minute interview with the same old questions that everyone was asking. It didn't get lost in the media shuffle as far as I'm concerned. Actually, I thought it was good, because Stern went into areas other interviewers dared not go...It was worth listening to. Joe has known Stern for years, so it was much more personal. Loved that interview.

Just as a point of interest, here is the link to the Howard Stern interview. I had posted it recently in the Discussion of Eagles Documentary thread when we were discussing whether Joe always speaks as slowly as he does in the doc. I thought it was very worth listening to as well, even though I'm not a fan of Stern.

http://youtu.be/M0nIbMGocfk?t=41m42s

Shadowland07
06-06-2013, 03:39 PM
I think the "backlash" is that while the other guys do go on similar shows or whatever, they don't go on there to b#$% about the other guys and the bad times. They go on there to promote the band, whatever projects they have going on or to talk about those early years.

....so yeah

Ive always been a dreamer
06-07-2013, 12:37 AM
First of all, I apologize for the length of this post, but there are a lot of topics being discussed here that I wanted to comment about.

My previous response in this thread was about the original topic - the interview that Felder did with Jeff Probst. I stand by my comments that the interview was very misleading and negative. Compare this interview with the one just recently posted in the Felder interview thread. To me, it is an entirely different tone. For me personally, I don’t necessarily care what shows any of the guys choose to appear on - I care more about what they have to say on them. Obviously, some interviewers are much more sensational than others, but my problem is that, in this case, Felder took the bait. It’s been a while since I listened to Joe’s interview with Howard Stern, but I do remember some of us criticized some of the things he did/said in the interview. The one thing that I do remember well is that I especially thought it was a bad choice for Joe to sing Desperado when he was, obviously, blitzed. However, for the most part, I enjoyed Joe’s interview primarily because he did a good job of not letting the ‘shock jock’ bait him.

Now, with regard to some of the other discussion that has come up here, I do believe that listing of credits is important for artists and I also believe that artists are ultimately responsible for what is listed on any officially released band publication. I also think we have to acknowledge that while we have bits and pieces of information from both sides about the Hotel California HFO credits, my belief is that it is unwise and unfair to declare it as an unethical act on anyone’s part since we aren’t privy to all of the facts. In the other known case where the credits are published incorrectly on an official release, which is the recent History of the Eagles DVD, we know that was in error. Should it have happened – absolutely not and I do think the band is ultimately accountable for that unfortunate mistake – but it was, in fact, a mistake rather than a deliberate dishonest act. Again, while I don’t think that absolves the band of culpability for negligence, it is hardly unethical. I am not blindly defending anyone’s actions, but at the same time, I’m not going to accuse anyone of being unethical when I don’t know the whole story. For me, it all boils down to intent. In the HFO case, we don't fully know what all of the reasons were for the change. In the case of the History of the Eagles DVD, it is obvious that there was no purposeful intent to change the credits.


The music I'm referring to is this book, which was published in 2006 or 2007.

As far as this songbook that Turf mentioned – I think that is a whole ‘nother matter altogether. I don’t believe that was an officially released publication by the band, and, again, we have no knowledge whatsoever to make any kind of judgment as to why the credits are incorrect. I am not a legal expert on copyright law either, but I doubt if the band ultimately bears any legal responsibility for this error as unfortunate as it is.


I'm trying to imagine what the reaction would be like if the credit order had been Henely, Frey, and Felder and then Felder had somehow conspired to rearrange the order to Felder, Henley, and Frey. Would people be saying Henley and Frey should just "get over it?" I kinda doubt it.

Speaking for myself, I would feel exactly the same as I stated above if this happened – I would need to know the facts before I felt qualified to pass judgment. However, I can safely say it is very doubtful that I would still be dwelling on it 20 years later.


The fact that the credits get messed with at all is just bizarre - this doesn't happen with the Beatles or Rolling Stones songs, especially songs that are really successful and well-known. Or...maybe it does and we've just never noticed it. Just an Eagles anomaly.

Hardly an Eagles anomaly, MC. I believe there have been ongoing disputes between Sir Paul and Yoko Ono about the order of songwriting credits on Beatles songs and there have been many other disputes in other bands regarding similar issues.

I would also have to take issue with claims that Felder is the main songwriter of Hotel California. I believe it is very subjective, but I’m one who happens to think the lyrics, melody, and arrangement of the song are, at least, as equally significant as the music. It is obvious that Felder originated the song, and it is my understanding that this is the reason that the band agreed to list him first on the credits.

GlennLover
06-07-2013, 09:48 AM
It’s been a while since I listened to Joe’s interview with Howard Stern, but I do remember some of us criticized some of the things he did/said in the interview. The one thing that I do remember well is that I especially thought it was a bad choice for Joe to sing Desperado when he was, obviously, blitzed. However, for the most part, I enjoyed Joe’s interview primarily because he did a good job of not letting the ‘shock jock’ bait him.


The interview that I posted wasn't the one where Joe sang Desperado. It was from 2012 when he was promoting Analog Man. I heard him sing Desperado in the interview when he was blitzed & I totally agree with you that he should not have sung it!

Ive always been a dreamer
06-07-2013, 02:04 PM
Thanks for pointing that out to me, GL. I had actually totally forgotten about Joe doing the Howard Stern show to promote Analog Man. Obviously, I'm going to have to listen to it again to refresh my memory.

Prettymaid
06-07-2013, 05:15 PM
And I've posted the video of the same show in Joe's videos thread. GL's is the audio.

MaryCalifornia
06-07-2013, 10:12 PM
First of all, I apologize for the length of this post, but there are a lot of topics being discussed here that I wanted to comment about.

My previous response in this thread was about the original topic - the interview that Felder did with Jeff Probst. I stand by my comments that the interview was very misleading and negative. Compare this interview with the one just recently posted in the Felder interview thread. To me, it is an entirely different tone. For me personally, I don’t necessarily care what shows any of the guys choose to appear on - I care more about what they have to say on them. Obviously, some interviewers are much more sensational than others, but my problem is that, in this case, Felder took the bait. It’s been a while since I listened to Joe’s interview with Howard Stern, but I do remember some of us criticized some of the things he did/said in the interview. The one thing that I do remember well is that I especially thought it was a bad choice for Joe to sing Desperado when he was, obviously, blitzed. However, for the most part, I enjoyed Joe’s interview primarily because he did a good job of not letting the ‘shock jock’ bait him.

Now, with regard to some of the other discussion that has come up here, I do believe that listing of credits is important for artists and I also believe that artists are ultimately responsible for what is listed on any officially released band publication. I also think we have to acknowledge that while we have bits and pieces of information from both sides about the Hotel California HFO credits, my belief is that it is unwise and unfair to declare it as an unethical act on anyone’s part since we aren’t privy to all of the facts. In the other known case where the credits are published incorrectly on an official release, which is the recent History of the Eagles DVD, we know that was in error. Should it have happened – absolutely not and I do think the band is ultimately accountable for that unfortunate mistake – but it was, in fact, a mistake rather than a deliberate dishonest act. Again, while I don’t think that absolves the band of culpability for negligence, it is hardly unethical. I am not blindly defending anyone’s actions, but at the same time, I’m not going to accuse anyone of being unethical when I don’t know the whole story. For me, it all boils down to intent. In the HFO case, we don't fully know what all of the reasons were for the change. In the case of the History of the Eagles DVD, it is obvious that there was no purposeful intent to change the credits.



As far as this songbook that Turf mentioned – I think that is a whole ‘nother matter altogether. I don’t believe that was an officially released publication by the band, and, again, we have no knowledge whatsoever to make any kind of judgment as to why the credits are incorrect. I am not a legal expert on copyright law either, but I doubt if the band ultimately bears any legal responsibility for this error as unfortunate as it is.



Speaking for myself, I would feel exactly the same as I stated above if this happened – I would need to know the facts before I felt qualified to pass judgment. However, I can safely say it is very doubtful that I would still be dwelling on it 20 years later.



Hardly an Eagles anomaly, MC. I believe there have been ongoing disputes between Sir Paul and Yoko Ono about the order of songwriting credits on Beatles songs and there have been many other disputes in other bands regarding similar issues.

I would also have to take issue with claims that Felder is the main songwriter of Hotel California. I believe it is very subjective, but I’m one who happens to think the lyrics, melody, and arrangement of the song are, at least, as equally significant as the music. It is obvious that Felder originated the song, and it is my understanding that this is the reason that the band agreed to list him first on the credits.

Yes, there is a lot of litigation surrounding songwriting credits. My point is that I would put the song Hotel California in a category with Satisfaction or Hey Jude - one of the most famous songs in pop music history by one of the most famous bands. That's why it is surprising when the credits change, subsequent to original publication, in varying media. That is why it gets noticed by fans of the members of the band. That is why fans ascribe intentions to those who are in charge of the band, rightly or wrongly. If the credits to Can't Buy Me Love suddenly showed up in an official publication as "George Harrison, John Lennon, Paul McCartney", people would wonder what the heck happened. When a band has as much well-known internal strife as the Eagles, its not surprising that fans question motivations when the "out" member of the band loses the lead credit on his most famous song. [Yes, I am aware that it is not "his" song - you know what I mean.]

Turf
06-08-2013, 01:11 AM
As far as this songbook that Turf mentioned – I think that is a whole ‘nother matter altogether. I don’t believe that was an officially released publication by the band, and, again, we have no knowledge whatsoever to make any kind of judgment as to why the credits are incorrect. I am not a legal expert on copyright law either, but I doubt if the band ultimately bears any legal responsibility for this error as unfortunate as it is.

I'm fairly certain I'm not going to convince you of anything. That's fine. For the sake of the argument's completeness, here are some more data points. I went back and looked at my guitar magazines. I have two additional transcriptions of Hotel California. So, including HFO and the other song book, here are the dates, publications, and credit orders:


1991 - Guitar World June - Original
====================
1994 - Hell Freezes Over - Modified
2002 - Guitar World July - Modified
2006 - Song book - Modified

In my estimation, Henley and Frey calculated that few people would notice, believe, or care if they reneged on their agreement with Felder and took primary credit for what is considered by many to be the second-most famous song in Classic-Rock history (behind only Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven). Sadly, IMO, I think they were right.

Freypower
06-08-2013, 08:28 PM
I'm fairly certain I'm not going to convince you of anything. That's fine. For the sake of the argument's completeness, here are some more data points. I went back and looked at my guitar magazines. I have two additional transcriptions of Hotel California. So, including HFO and the other song book, here are the dates, publications, and credit orders:


1991 - Guitar World June - Original
====================
1994 - Hell Freezes Over - Modified
2002 - Guitar World July - Modified
2006 - Song book - Modified
In my estimation, Henley and Frey calculated that few people would notice, believe, or care if they reneged on their agreement with Felder and took primary credit for what is considered by many to be the second-most famous song in Classic-Rock history (behind only Zeppelin's Stairway to Heaven). Sadly, IMO, I think they were right.

These songbooks or entries in Guitar World are not official Eagles products. I suppose you will say that when permission was granted for the songs to be printed it was specified that the credits read Henley/Frey/Felder. Unless you can give proof of that, I think it is unfair to blame them for the credits being changed on something they did not authorise.

sodascouts
06-09-2013, 03:19 PM
The order of songwriting credits is extremely important. It is a huge deal, it is their livelihood, especially for the lesser-paid members of the band.

The person whose name goes first doesn't automatically get paid more. The order of names doesn't affect anyone's "livelihood" one way or the other. Rather, it's a matter of pride. It's not about money; it's about ego.

Not that ego is inconsequential - as has been mentioned before, Yoko Ono got upset when Paul McCartney tried to put his name first on some of the songs he and John Lennon wrote together. She felt that it lessened Lennon somehow, even though there was no financial consequence and Paul actually did write the lion's share of the songs he wanted changed. She thought it didn't matter whether or not Paul contributed more than Lennon on that particular song; in her mind (and the mind of many Beatles fans) Lennon's name should always go first because that was how it was originally.

Obviously, there are no hard-and-fast rules, or it never would have been an option for Paul to change them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-151712/Let-Beatle-credits-Yoko-tells-Sir-Paul.html

It is true that in general, nobody outside of songwriters and hardcores cares about these things, but that doesn't mean they don't matter. It just means that not everybody is going to obsess about matching the order of the names up every time because they don't see it as a big deal, so mistakes happen. That's why I didn't bother with matching up the order on my sites - I didn't think it was a big deal either when I made the sites a few years ago. If I had known then what a federal case it would become to some, I would have made a different choice for sure! However, I have already apologized for that elsewhere, so I won't get into it again here.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-09-2013, 03:53 PM
Here's what I don't get. At all! If it's so freaking important, why does the Songwriters Hall of Fame have them listed differently?

Here's the list of Glenn's songs. You can see that like on the albums, Don is before Glenn. Jack and JD are before Glenn.

http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/songs/detailed/C129

Here's the list of Don's songs. Danny is listed before Don. Glenn is listed before Don.

http://www.songwritershalloffame.org/songs/detailed/C127

Just on the first pages, compare After The Thrill is Gone and you'll see what I mean. Don't you think, if it were truly something that was intended to be written in stone and never changed and mean something truly worthwhile the SONGWRITERS Hall of Fame would be the first to make sure the credits were the way they were supposed to be? I mean, other than what's actually on the albums, this is what will go down in history. Not songbooks, not magazine articles, not even DVDs of live music, certainly not discussions of it on fan forums. If it were so sacrosanct, my feelings are that the SWHOF wouldn't have them different than what's on the albums.

The flipside of that, if it really isn't all that important in the grand scheme of things, why were they changed to begin with?

As a point of interest, I don't see Lennon in the list, but you can get to his list by going through McCartney's. Those lists both list Lennon first. I looked through Barry, Maurice, and Robin Gibbs' list, Barry's listed first on nearly everything. So it seems Glenn and Don are in the minority when it comes to changing songwriting credits to put themselves last (if 2 out of 7 is a real minority, I didn't look further).

Another major point of interest (and could explain the switch in credits...or not) is that Cass County is listed #1 as publisher in both lists. Red Cloud as #2, and Fingers as #3.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-09-2013, 03:58 PM
These songbooks or entries in Guitar World are not official Eagles products. I suppose you will say that when permission was granted for the songs to be printed it was specified that the credits read Henley/Frey/Felder. Unless you can give proof of that, I think it is unfair to blame them for the credits being changed on something they did not authorise.

If you see my post above, the Publishers are listed as Cass County (Henley), Red Cloud (Glenn), and Fingers (Felder), which since these songbooks presumably have to pay to use the material, they could easily assume the order of publishers is the same as the writing credits. This is a publisher listing in SWHOF. I'm not sure where else the publishers are listed to see what's elsewhere?

Shadowland07
06-09-2013, 05:51 PM
My two cents about credits, on The Beatles Please Please Me album the credits are listed as "McCartney - Lennon". The order of the names doesn't matter. If you look at the songwriting credits of Coldplay and blur, the names in the credits are listed in alphabetical order. I believe they are that way with U2 as well, though I could be wrong. Same with The National and The Sounds, all in alphabetical order.

With the Eagles it's all about egos. Whoever wrote the bulk of the song had to be listed first. But no one got paid more for being listed first.

Freypower
06-09-2013, 06:19 PM
My two cents about credits, on The Beatles Please Please Me album the credits are listed as "McCartney - Lennon". The order of the names doesn't matter. If you look at the songwriting credits of Coldplay and blur, the names in the credits are listed in alphabetical order. I believe they are that way with U2 as well, though I could be wrong. Same with The National and The Sounds, all in alphabetical order.

With the Eagles it's all about egos. Whoever wrote the bulk of the song had to be listed first. But no one got paid more for being listed first.

I must disagree, because if that were the case there would be at least a couple of songs which were credited Frey/Henley. I saw that credit once on a copy of Hole In The World (not my copy) & it also occurs for What Do I Do With My Heart. Those are the only times I've seen it.

Shadowland07
06-09-2013, 06:31 PM
I must disagree, because if that were the case there would be at least a couple of songs which were credited Frey/Henley. I saw that credit once on a copy of Hole In The World (not my copy) & it also occurs for What Do I Do With My Heart. Those are the only times I've seen it.

It's weird with the Eagles. Shouldn't "Tequila Sunrise" be credited Frey/Henley? In the doc, Glenn says he came up with the riff and presented it to Don...aaaaaahhhhhh lol.

Freypower
06-09-2013, 06:50 PM
It's weird with the Eagles. Shouldn't "Tequila Sunrise" be credited Frey/Henley? In the doc, Glenn says he came up with the riff and presented it to Don...aaaaaahhhhhh lol.

Well, it isn't. I wish I could present this to all the people who rant about Glenn Frey's colossal ego.

Ive always been a dreamer
06-09-2013, 07:14 PM
Well – As I said before, I would agree that the songwriting credits are important enough so that they should get them right on any officially published materials that the band releases. Per an agreement between the two of them, Henley was always listed before Frey simply because they thought Henley/Frey sounded better than Frey/Henley. With regard to the songwriting credits for other members in the band, I guess it was more subjective as to how they were listed. However, as I also said, IMO, they should not be legally or morally accountable for material that they did not officially release.

I understand that if a conflict arises between members of the band, it is natural fodder for discussion among fans. I don’t have any problem with fans speculating about various situations that occur, but I do believe it is very unfair to accuse anyone of being dishonest, immoral, unethical, etc. if you aren’t privy to all of the facts. If I remember correctly, even Felder stops short of that.

For the record, here is the history of how the Hotel California writing credits are listed on all the band’s officially released recordings …

Hotel California – Felder, Henley, Frey (1976)
Eagles Live - Felder, Henley, Frey (1980)
Greatest Hits, Volume 2 - Felder, Henley, Frey (1982)
Hell Freezes Over – Henley, Frey, Felder (1994)
1972 – 1999: Selected Works - Felder, Henley, Frey (2000)
The Very Best of the Eagles - Felder, Henley, Frey (2003)

So it seems to me if Henley and Frey calculated to take primary credit for the song, they would have done this on all of the official recordings where it would be very obvious. I’m lost on why they would do this so only a few people would notice. That just doesn't seem logical to me.

Topkat
06-09-2013, 09:34 PM
It seems the writing credits have also changed on ICTYW.
On The Long Run, credits listed as Timothy B Schmit, Don Henley, Glenn Frey
On Hell Freezes Over, credits, listed as Don Henley, Glenn Frey, Timothy B Schmit...
Everyone knows that Tim brought that song it. It's been mentioned numerous times...So why switch around the credits on HFO????

To me this is all so obvious. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything but a power play...To lessen the importance of the roles of both Timothy & Felder...
It was noticed by everyone as soon as the album came out & comments were made about it.

Freypower
06-09-2013, 09:51 PM
It seems the writing credits have also changed on ICTYW.
On The Long Run, credits listed as Timothy B Schmit, Don Henley, Glenn Frey
On Hell Freezes Over, credits, listed as Don Henley, Glenn Frey, Timothy B Schmit...
Everyone knows that Tim brought that song it. It's been mentioned numerous times...So why switch around the credits on HFO????

To me this is all so obvious. I don't see how anyone can see this as anything but a power play...To lessen the importance of the roles of both Timothy & Felder...
It was noticed by everyone as soon as the album came out & comments were made about it.

You say 'everyone'. I never noticed it. I can't recall any discussion of it, ever, until now. And again, isn't HFO the only time this happened? I just looked up Very Best of which is Schmit/Henley/Frey. On Selected Works it is Schmit/Henley/Frey & I have no doubt that on Farewell One it is the same.

VA said something in an earlier post about Cass County Music being listed first. Perhaps it was just to align with that. That is also the case with the HFO Hotel California credit.

I don't know why people have to always attribute sinister motives to everything done by Frey & Henley or everything done in Frey & Henley's names.

Topkat
06-09-2013, 10:23 PM
You say 'everyone'. I never noticed it. I can't recall any discussion of it, ever, until now. And again, isn't HFO the only time this happened? I just looked up Very Best of which is Schmit/Henley/Frey. On Selected Works it is Schmit/Henley/Frey & I have no doubt that on Farewell One it is the same.

VA said something in an earlier post about Cass County Music being listed first. Perhaps it was just to align with that. That is also the case with the HFO Hotel California credit.

I don't know why people have to always attribute sinister motives to everything done by Frey & Henley or everything done in Frey & Henley's names.

If you read it, you had to notice it...I had heard lots of comments about it, (not on this board) This was in 1994.....Some people do read the credits, & it was noticed. As for Cass County Music being mentioned first? Well, that was also changed...What reason is there to change them after so many years?
It's been done, so it is what it is, but it just seems wrong to lessen the importance of someone after so many years. I am not the only one who feels that way.

Freypower
06-09-2013, 10:36 PM
If you read it, you had to notice it...I had heard lots of comments about it, (not on this board) This was in 1994.....Some people do read the credits, & it was noticed. As for Cass County Music being mentioned first? Well, that was also changed...What reason is there to change them after so many years?
It's been done, so it is what it is, but it just seems wrong to lessen the importance of someone after so many years. I am not the only one who feels that way.

I hate to break it to you, but I repeat, I never noticed it.

I think the term 'lessining the importance of someone' is extremely emotive and fraught with difficulty in assiging motive & intent. That is all I will say about it.

VAisForEagleLovers
06-09-2013, 10:40 PM
Darn. I forgot. Glenn and Don are evil. Now it all makes sense.

I guess what I can't wrap my little blonde head around is how changing the order of credits on one or two songs on one album when the song(s) appear on many albums give either Glenn or Don more 'power'. The 2% of people that actually read the songwriting credits on a CD or MP3 player aren't going to make a difference in anything. Before joining this board, I'd only ever met one person who looked at songwriting credits, he was a musician, and he told me they were done in alphabetical order, so obviously he doesn't really count. If those 2% actually walk away from HFO thinking that either Timothy or Felder are less important than they were in 1975 and 1979, then they are the ones with the problem.

Until and if we ever know why it was done, we're the ones making them 'less important'.

I fail to see it's obvious it's a power play when it made no difference in the 'power' before or after. As a power play, it was a rather pathetic effort, especially when they didn't follow through on the following releases.

zeldabjr
06-10-2013, 03:41 AM
I'm not saying anyone is evil or has sinister motives...but I don't like the idea of the writing credits being changed on ICTYW...I don't know whose fault it is or how it happened...I don't like it...He's my favorite...obviously...so I'm a little over sensitive where he's concerned...but this just should not happen...
Does it matter really to any of us?...no...but to me it's a respect thing...just sayin'

Prettymaid
06-10-2013, 07:01 AM
It's too bad we couldn't have sent Soda in with a list of questions for Jack Tempchin when she recently saw him. This would have been a good one for him! (Not whether Glenn and Don purposely changed writing credits, but how it works.)

TimothyBFan
06-10-2013, 08:31 AM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!!!! :brickwall::doh::headscratch::sigh:

VAisForEagleLovers
06-10-2013, 10:03 AM
I'm not saying anyone is evil or has sinister motives...but I don't like the idea of the writing credits being changed on ICTYW...I don't know whose fault it is or how it happened...I don't like it...He's my favorite...obviously...so I'm a little over sensitive where he's concerned...but this just should not happen...
Does it matter really to any of us?...no...but to me it's a respect thing...just sayin'

I can see why, Z, and I'm well aware there are plenty here who would be outraged if it happened to another's songs. Even are outraged because Henley is always listed before Frey. All I'm trying to say is that we don't know the reasons it happened or the logic behind it, assuming there was any. So to attribute motivations, especially negative motivations, and to imply they are facts are what I have the issue with. None of us know the reasons and we probably never will. I prefer to think the best of everyone until proven wrong, and so these negative motivations aren't obvious to me, especially as the result did not come close to satisfying the supposed motivation.

GlennLover
06-10-2013, 01:13 PM
I can see why, Z, and I'm well aware there are plenty here who would be outraged if it happened to another's songs. Even are outraged because Henley is always listed before Frey. All I'm trying to say is that we don't know the reasons it happened or the logic behind it, assuming there was any. So to attribute motivations, especially negative motivations, and to imply they are facts are what I have the issue with. None of us know the reasons and we probably never will. I prefer to think the best of everyone until proven wrong, and so these negative motivations aren't obvious to me, especially as the result did not come close to satisfying the supposed motivation.
:thumbsup: My thoughts exactly!

Topkat
06-10-2013, 03:42 PM
I'm not saying anyone is evil or has sinister motives...but I don't like the idea of the writing credits being changed on ICTYW...I don't know whose fault it is or how it happened...I don't like it...He's my favorite...obviously...so I'm a little over sensitive where he's concerned...but this just should not happen...
Does it matter really to any of us?...no...but to me it's a respect thing...just sayin'

Well, I don't understand why it bothers you on ICTYW & it doesn't bother you on Hotel California? Just sayin' It's the same situation...Obviously that would bother Don Felder

Turf
06-10-2013, 11:00 PM
These songbooks or entries in Guitar World are not official Eagles products. I suppose you will say that when permission was granted for the songs to be printed it was specified that the credits read Henley/Frey/Felder. Unless you can give proof of that, I think it is unfair to blame them for the credits being changed on something they did not authorise.

They are official products a very real sense. People cannot just publish a book of Eagles songs. They have to secure a licensing agreement with whoever owns the publishing rights, which in this case is Eagles, Ltd. or whatever the equivalent legal entity is nowadays... When the above publishers publish the songs, in the form of a book or through a magazine, the Eagles are making money off of them.

The idea that the owner of the publishing rights would not bother to specify the song-writing credits in such an agreement is hard for me to believe; they're too important. Given that Guitar World went through the exercise once before HFO which resulted in the original credits and once after HFO which resulted in the modified credits, I think there is good evidence that the terms of the publishing rights changed in the proximity of HFO.

If somebody can point me to published music of Hotel California that has a copyright after HFO and the original credits, I would be interested in seeing it.

Turf
06-10-2013, 11:55 PM
The person whose name goes first doesn't automatically get paid more. The order of names doesn't affect anyone's "livelihood" one way or the other. Rather, it's a matter of pride. It's not about money; it's about ego.

I wouldn't say it's solely ego. There is (is this case and often) an element of communicating relative contribution. If you wrote a book or an academic paper where you had one or more coauthors who made small - but nonetheless significant - contributions, is it only ego which allows for your name to be listed first and perhaps most prominently? Certainly, it's a factor, but I think there's more to it than that.


Not that ego is inconsequential - as has been mentioned before, Yoko Ono got upset when Paul McCartney tried to put his name first on some of the songs he and John Lennon wrote together. She felt that it lessened Lennon somehow, even though there was no financial consequence and Paul actually did write the lion's share of the songs he wanted changed. She thought it didn't matter whether or not Paul contributed more than Lennon on that particular song; in her mind (and the mind of many Beatles fans) Lennon's name should always go first because that was how it was originally.

The thing that some people seem to be losing sight of in this discussion (I don't mean you, sodascouts) is that what ultimately matters is the arrangement that the contributors agreed to. Yes, some bands choose to list their names alphabetically, some choose to use a pre-defined order, and commonly, some choose to have the order represent relative contribution. Just because all of these scenarios exist doesn't mean that they are interchangeable for a given band.

The Eagles are interesting in that they have a hybrid approach. Henley and Frey appear to use a convention when their names appear together, otherwise the order represents relative contribution.

There are a couple of noteworthy points about the Lennon/McCartney situation. First off, their original order was one of convention, not relative contribution. When McCartney changed the order, he was effectively changing it to represent relative contribution. Second, Paul claims that John would be okay with the reversal, a position which he has good evidence to support since John had been aware of the Wings album from the seventies which included some Beatles' songs where Paul had reversed the credits.

The key point here is that changing from "convention" to "relative contribution" is significantly different compared to changing from one "relative contribution" to another "relative contribution."

VAisForEagleLovers
06-11-2013, 06:54 AM
They are official products a very real sense. People cannot just publish a book of Eagles songs. They have to secure a licensing agreement with whoever owns the publishing rights, which in this case is Eagles, Ltd. or whatever the equivalent legal entity is nowadays... When the above publishers publish the songs, in the form of a book or through a magazine, the Eagles are making money off of them.

The idea that the owner of the publishing rights would not bother to specify the song-writing credits in such an agreement is hard for me to believe; they're too important. Given that Guitar World went through the exercise once before HFO which resulted in the original credits and once after HFO which resulted in the modified credits, I think there is good evidence that the terms of the publishing rights changed in the proximity of HFO.

If somebody can point me to published music of Hotel California that has a copyright after HFO and the original credits, I would be interested in seeing it.

I do not do songbooks and such, so I have nothing with which to contribute to that aspect of it, but as I said, the publishers list is different than the songwriting credit list, and it would be easy for a third party to list songwriting credits in the same order as the publishing, since that is what they are most involved with, having to pay.

Again, I'll also say that just because things are agreed to and licensed, etc, doesn't mean the final product is actually right. Having a responsibility to ensure things are correct doesn't mean they are. I'm still confounded by there being two different orders on the credit for Hole in the World. Was it a mistake that was corrected in a later printing? Who knows? For the people typing it in, it's just a job that has to be done between 9am and 5pm.

ETA: I should mention that even on the original vinyl of HC (the album), Long Run Publishing (or whatever the name was) is listed before Fingers Publishing. When Long Run dissolved, it because the two, Cass County and Red Cloud and as far as I can tell, always in that order. The individual songs do not list the publishers on the album.

EaglesKiwi
06-14-2013, 04:32 AM
Also, errors do happen even on official stuff - my copy of Henley's Live Inside Job didn't even get one of the song titles correct!!

zeldabjr
06-14-2013, 04:51 AM
Well, I don't understand why it bothers you on ICTYW & it doesn't bother you on Hotel California? Just sayin' It's the same situation...Obviously that would bother Don Felder

it all bothers me yes...I'm just more sensitive to it when it's TBS...he's my favorite...not Don Felder...if Don Felder were my favorite...it would bother me more about that song I guess...that's just how my mind works...

Topkat
06-14-2013, 10:51 AM
it all bothers me yes...I'm just more sensitive to it when it's TBS...he's my favorite...not Don Felder...if Don Felder were my favorite...it would bother me more about that song I guess...that's just how my mind works...

What does having a favorite have anything to do with it? It is the principle of rearranging the names on a song that we are talking about here, not Timothy or Felder??

If anything, it makes a bigger difference on Hotel California, being that is one of the Eagles most famous, if not THE most famous song the Eagles are known for.
I am just as much a fan of Timothy as you are, and for much longer, so I just really don't get it???but whatever??

zeldabjr
06-14-2013, 11:21 AM
I said it all bothers me...

EagleLady
06-14-2013, 12:27 PM
TopKat, no offense but you come across as confrontational in that post.

Topkat
06-14-2013, 12:38 PM
TopKat, no offense but you come across as confrontational in that post.

It was a question to Zelda, just sayin' that I didn't understand her comment.
Excuse me, but seem that you are confrontational. No offense?

Prettymaid
06-14-2013, 12:42 PM
It was a question to Zelda, just sayin' that I didn't understand her comment.
Excuse me, but seem that you are confrontational. No offense?

I think Z answered the question when she said, "That's just how my mind works..." ;-). Sometimes that's as good an answer as any. :hilarious:

Heartattack
09-27-2013, 03:25 PM
On the HFO CD the credit reads Henley/Frey/Felder so the DVD probably does too. If he did not have the idea to rearrange it acoustically then I don't see what the problem is in changing it. The acoustic version appears both on the CD & the DVD (it is a live performance, remember). On F1 it reads Felder/Henley/Frey.

And guess who, according to FELDER, came up with the idea for the acoustic introduction (see page 258 of the book).

It was Glenn Frey. Who is still credited second, not first, on the HFO album. I believe that Felder has since changed his tune on this & stated that Glenn had nothing to do with the new arrangement & therefore the credit should not have been changed. Whatever.

I need say no more except agree with what others have said. I will say one more thing though which I have said before & will continue to say. There is more to the song than the music. A great deal more. It is not just about the guitar work. In fact I would go so far to say that for me it is the opposite. The lyrics still intrigue me as do the vocals & drums, but I know the guitar work so well that it's over familiar now.

Glenn told Felder to come up with an acoustic introduction. Congrats to Glenn for his ingenious idea. However, it appeared that this was all it was as the task and responsibility was totally left up to Felder to develope, construct and execute this idea.

IMHO Don Felder has conducted himself with poise, grace and dignity throughout an ordeal that would have caused many others to crumble. I have watched several interviews with him as well as the other Eagles. My conclusion, like others, is that I would rather have dinner with Don Felder than anyone else in this band.

MaryCalifornia
09-27-2013, 05:08 PM
Heartattack, about 99% of the regulars on this board respect, appreciate, and like Don Felder. That is why there are threads dedicated to him on this site. Acknowledged, there is ALOT of robust discussion about how he has handled things, how Henley and Frey handled things, details about songwriting credits, etc...but the bottom line is that given the opportunity, pretty much everyone on here would jump at the chance to share a meal with Don Felder. The people on here go to his solo shows and post information about him. If you're looking for a Don Felder-hating message board, you've come to the wrong place. If you're looking to make people respect Don Felder, you're preaching to the choir.

randymeisnerrocks
09-27-2013, 05:58 PM
How was it 'behind his back'? He was in the band at the time. He presumably could have objected & didn't.

#1 It's not like we were there so we don't really know WHAT he objected to.

#2 I personally believe Felder objected to quite a lot of stuff that was going on around him and that is why he is no longer with the band. Just stating the obvious...

#3 I love every single one of those guys anyway. Chill out, Peeps!

chaim
12-06-2014, 05:17 PM
I don't think I've posted a comment in this thread before. If I have, I've probably said the same thing. Arranging or rearranging a song has nothing to do with writing the song. Well, maybe it has if the new arrangement brings new melodies and lyrics. But I still don't think the arranger's name would be there before the original writers. And anyway, the new HC didn't have new melodies or lyrics.
If Glenn decides to do an acoustic version of HC, it has nothing to do with the writing of the song. Plus Don F still initiated it. It should still have been Felder/Henley/Frey IMO. Different arrangements are done all the time, but as far as I know the credits remain the same unless it's partly a new song.