Fake Reviews ???

[Ive always been a dreamer]

There has been some discussion in another thread about what seems to be a recent practice of bands paying ‘critics’ to write positive reviews. Without targeting any band in particular, I thought this may make for a good general discussion. Is this something akin to our current day environment of ‘fake news’? Are you okay with this new decorum or do you see it as a disingenuous attempt to sway fans or are you somewhere in between?

Here is a link that Dawn posted to the the NNR site, which is an entity that seems to be engaging in this kind of marketing technique ...

https://www.nationalrockreview.com/about-nrr (https://www.nationalrockreview.com/about-nrr)

====================================

"Whether you’re a national record label, a publicist representing artists, or even an upcoming hard-working band looking for national exposure, National Rock Review staff can help deliver your message and music to the global entertainment market."

[BerniesSurfboard]

To me, this sort of falls in line with radio and TV spots. I think business types will always find creative ways to market their product to the masses.

To avoid this, people have to try and locate legitimate sources.

[MaryCalifornia]

A marketing service that includes "concert reviewers" in its offerings is definitely suspect. But, maybe marketing firms have always provided that product to bands and we just didn't see it in their written materials. I can see up and coming bands paying for a review and then posting it to their social media.

As for the Eagles, considering they don't even take advantage of Twitter or Instagram, which are FREE, to promote ticket sales, I seriously doubt they would pay reviewers in cities that they play in year after year, certainly not random freelance reviewers. Reviews during the HoTE tour were overwhelmingly positive and the reviews for the current tour are in line with those.

If the reviewer is a regular reviewer for a major metropolitan daily newspaper, I would tend to not think that s/he has not been paid by the band, but you never know.

[Dawn]

A marketing service that includes "concert reviewers" in its offerings is definitely suspect. But, maybe marketing firms have always provided that product to bands and we just didn't see it in their written materials. I can see up and coming bands paying for a review and then posting it to their social media.

As for the Eagles, considering they don't even take advantage of Twitter or Instagram, which are FREE, to promote ticket sales, I seriously doubt they would pay reviewers in cities that they play in year after year, certainly not random freelance reviewers. Reviews during the HoTE tour were overwhelmingly positive and the reviews for the current tour are in line with those.

If the reviewer is a regular reviewer for a major metropolitan daily newspaper, I would tend to not think that s/he has not been paid by the band, but you never know.

Here is the review of recent Eagles concert Chicago 2018

March 2018

https://www.nationalrockreview.com/concert-reviews/eagles-united-center-chicago-il

[Dawn]

They also did a review of Jimmy Buffet at Royal Farms Arena in Baltimore

https://www.nationalrockreview.com/concert-reviews/jimmy-buffett-and-the-coral-reefer-band-at-royal-farms-arena-in-baltimore-md

[MaryCalifornia]

Here's the only other Eagles-related review I could find - notice the common denominator?

https://www.nationalrockreview.com/concert-reviews/joe-walsh-louisville-palace-louisville-ky-14-aug-16

It's JD and the Straight Shot - bolded in the first sentence under the headline in both reviews. Blechh.

The reviewer of the Eagles show is a photographer:

https://www.facebook.com/pg/kirstinewaltonphotography/posts/?ref=page_internal

[Dawn]

I also saw one for the Doobie Brothers UK concert in 2017.

I have noticed that of the three reviews each writer is also credited with a photo of the band they reviewed.

[chaim]

I'd understand a young act paying for good reviews (if they - ironically enough - can afford to), but not old, established acts. I wouldn't judge an old band paying for good reviews, I just wouldn't understand it. Having said that there are lines that shouldn't be crossed. Paying for stuff like "they're equally as good, perhaps even better without their dead founder" would be absolutely out of the question. I don't think Eagles have paid for such statements though, if they have paid for any reviews for that matter.

[UndertheWire]

I read a few of the reviews - Eagles, Marillion, The Pretenders and a band I've never heard of. They have a similar format - a summary of the band's prior successful history and major events, blurb about their latest recording and then a very positive "review" of the concert itself. Writing negatively about a deceased or former member wouldn't fit the model but saying they're as good as they ever were would.

For long-established bands, it's about reassuring readers that they are still worth seeing. It's also about making those who have bought tickets feel better about that decision.

[chaim]

Yes, "good as ever" is nicer than "they've lost nothing with the passing of..." But anyway, I don't think anyone's cold enough to actually pay for the latter.

[maryc2130]

I agree with the other MC. I don't think many established, successful bands would pay for good reviews. Most of the Eagles" reviews have been from reputable papers.

I don't really like the implication that just because most of the reviews of the current shows are positive, there must be a hidden reason for it.

It couldn't possibly be that the shows are good and people actually LIKE them. (Gasp!)

[Dawn]

Does National Rock Review contract with a band's management/publicity representatives for a fee to attend concerts and write reviews like the one for the Eagles and Jimmy Buffet, and others published on their website?

That's the central question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

[maryc2130]

Does National Rock Review contract with a band's management/publicity representatives for a fee to attend concerts and write reviews like the one for the Eagles and Jimmy Buffet, and others published on their website?

That's the central question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

Excuse me, but that's not the original question that Dreamer asked. Her question is broader than that and the thread title is "Fake Reviews???"

And I'm sorry if you'd like me to keep my answer to yes or no, but I am entitled to state my opinion as to where this question is coming from. I can read between the lines as well as anyone. Is that why you're upset with my post?

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well – I also said in the OP that this was supposed to be a general discussion, not about any band in particular, which is why I put it in this forum rather than the Eagles forum. However, that directive was predictably ignored by the second response. So, if you want to discuss the Eagles, then fine, as long as the discussion remains respectful.

First of all, Eagles reviews from past tours, including the HOTE, have never been overwhelmingly positive. As expected, there have always been detractors of the band who write some goofy and sometimes even nasty reviews. This hasn’t happened at all going back to last year’s East/West Classic shows as far as I’m aware. Now, I acknowledge that this tour is still relatively young, so it could still happen. And I don’t have an explanation for this any more than any one else, but it does make some of us wonder why. So, it is an oddity and a legitimate question to ponder. I’m not saying this tour isn’t enjoyable for the fans that attend, but I don’t believe for a second that these shows are any more enjoyable than the band’s previous tours.

Now, back to the original question, if there is money actually being exchanged to write positive reviews, then I do personally have an issue with that practice. As I said elsewhere, it just seems backwards and kind of 'icky' to me. In the past, if a critic liked a band, they would write genuinely positive reviews and vice versa. Nowadays, it appears as if bands are paying 'critics' to write positive reviews whether they really like the band or not. For me, that makes it hard to trust that what I read is genuine.

[Dawn]

Excuse me, but that's not the original question that Dreamer asked. Her question is broader than that and the thread title is "Fake Reviews???"

And I'm sorry if you'd like me to keep my answer to yes or no, but I am entitled to state my opinion as to where this question is coming from. I can read between the lines as well as anyone. Is that why you're upset with my post?

I am not upset by your post or any other post.

The point is there are services who are in the business of promoting artists and bands, including writing concert reviews.

I welcome opinions - I am simply tryng to establish the fact these services DO EXIST and in this case it appears they are writing about the Eagles and other bands on some sort of contractual basis.

[MaryCalifornia]

in this case it appears they are writing about the Eagles ... on some sort of contractual basis.

Why? What about her review makes you think the Eagles paid anyone? I'm asking for any evidence. She doesn't compare this version of the band with the Glenn version. This is exactly the type of review I would expect from a concert photographer who is being paid by a publication to also provide a generic review of a notable band that the publication can publish. In fact, there is zero analysis of the band's performance. If the Eagles paid for this review, they sure didn't get their money's worth. This is the wrong review to hang your hat on if you believe that the Eagles are paying reviewers to attend and cover their shows.

Here is what she said: "Once the United Center was nicely filled for its sold-out show, the Eagles take to the stage for the second night of their 53-date 2018 tour. This is the first extensive tour since the passing of Glenn Frey, a tour which many thought would never happen. Luckily, Glenn’s son, Deacon, and country legend, Vince Gill have stepped into the breach. After being together for an impressive 45 years plus, the Rock and Roll Hall of Famers proved there’s still plenty life in them. Despite Timothy B. Schmit hurting himself and being worried that he wouldn’t make it for the night’s performance, he remained seated throughout the show with his foot up. There was nothing going to stop this show from happening.

For two and a half hours, the Chicago crowd were entertained with the harmonic voices and guitars as they performed an impressive 27-song set including songs from throughout their lengthy career, as well as including some from Joe Walsh and Vince Gill’s solo catalogs. Alternating between lead vocalist, Don Henley also alternated between drums and guitar when taking the lead. Keeping the “family business” going, Henley’s son also joined the band on stage to assist with guitar duties.

This must have been an emotional time for the band, not least for Deacon, as they performed without Glenn Frey. However, he was never far away from everyone’s thoughts. Following on from “Peaceful Easy Feeling” with Deacon at the helm, the stage lights lowered as a photo of Glenn projected on the large screen behind, which lead to a standing ovation from the audience in honor of the late member, a very touching moment."

The night was rounded out with an encore including their mammoth hits “Hotel California” and “Desperado” marking the perfect end to such an extensive set.

For those who were unable to make it to this show, don’t despair, as they will be back at the United Center once again in October."

ETA: Is your position that every concert review published by NRR has been contractually negotiated for by the band?

[MaryCalifornia]

If the Eagles paid for a review, it wouldn't be the completely uninteresting NRR review. It would be this one from last night:

http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2018/04/is_it_really_the_eagles_when_g.html

[Dawn]

Conversely we don't know if the Eagles did NOT pay them.

We only know someone on their staff wrote a review for publication on THIS website who describe themselves as follows:

"National Rock Review is a nationwide network of music photographers, concert reviewers, and music release reviewers who collaborate with the music industry to provide complete coverage for national, regional and local acts. We live for the passion of live music and strive to capture, document, and preserve timeless imagery and content to share with music fans across the globe.

Whether you’re a national record label, a publicist representing artists, or even an upcoming hard-working band looking for national exposure, National Rock Review staff can help deliver your message and music to the global entertainment market."

https://www.nationalrockreview.com/about-nrr

Note: They have two other media sites as well

National Country Review
National Blues Review

[MaryCalifornia]

As I said earlier, the obvious common denominator between the Eagles and the Joe Walsh reviews on NRR is the bolded language about JD and the Straight Shot at the top of the article. This is why I think they made it onto this company's website.

To be clear, I have no reason to believe the Eagles are paying for reviews and I don't think they do.

[WalshFan88]

As far as the Eagles paying for reviews...it's something I've thought of already.

[Dawn]

As I said earlier, the obvious common denominator between the Eagles and the Joe Walsh reviews on NRR is the bolded language about JD and the Straight Shot at the top of the article. This is why I think they made it onto this company's website.

To be clear, I have no reason to believe the Eagles are paying for reviews and I don't think they do.

Can you explain why the JD & The Straight Shot reference is relevant?

[Freypower]

If the Eagles paid for a review, it wouldn't be the completely uninteresting NRR review. It would be this one from last night:

http://www.al.com/entertainment/index.ssf/2018/04/is_it_really_the_eagles_when_g.html


I could say a few things about that review, but this thread was created to talk about this issue on a general basis, which is why I made my only comment in the Legit thread.

However, "I reserve the right to change my mind. Ralph Waldo Emerson said, 'A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds.' ... People want to hear these songs played live, by the band that recorded them."

Soda has commented on that before, and reading it again, the barefaced ... I don't know.... self-justification? Arrogance? Say what you will. Not to mention that this lineup is NOT the band that recorded the songs. It's Don Henley with a couple of HC & TLR tracks which happened to feature Walsh & Schmit. It's obvious that he now thinks of himself as 'the band'. And this is going to continue to be quoted, again & again, as these 'reviewers' also seek to justify this charade. I hope that makes sense as I am trying to keep this on topic.

Maybe critical reviews of concerts just aren't written any more. Perhaps those days are gone as everything is dumbed down.

[Pippinwhite]

I've written my share of concert reviews for the newspaper. I didn't get any pay beyond my usual paycheck. I did get a media pass to the shows, which is standard procedure. However, it's understood with legitimate media outlets that a media pass doesn't guarantee a good review. A reporter writes it like he/she hears and sees it, whether good, not great or indifferent.

Of course, I've been to shows where I bought my own ticket and wrote a review for the paper, too. But when I did get a media pass, I was serious about doing an honest review, whether it was favorable or not.

It's the same process for book and movie reviews. Some promoters pay for a favorable review (some say Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is one who gets paid for it), but it's not uncommon to get the book or movie ticket for free. And I've written some absolutely scathing book reviews, even though I knew I got the book for free.

Most media outlets would consider a favorable review for pay to be a kind of payola. It's advertising masquerading as actual news. If it's disclosed in advance the person received some kind of financial compensation for the review, that's a little more honest, but most reputable media organizations would stay away from that. Even a freelancer who's paid by the outlet for their time to attend the show and write the review is expected to produce an honest review, favorable or otherwise.

Promoters paying for reviews presupposes that the review will praise the band. Why pay for it, otherwise? IMHO, it's a practice that starts slinking into shady territory.

[UndertheWire]

Can you explain why the JD & The Straight Shot reference is relevant?
I read it as JD probably paid for the review as there it was more coverage than they usually get. Just having a review of JD without the headline act would look silly (and obvious) so Walsh and Eagles got reviewed, too.

[Dawn]

I read it as JD probably paid for the review as there it was more coverage than they usually get. Just having a review of JD without the headline act would look silly (and obvious) so Walsh and Eagles got reviewed, too.

Thanks UTW. 8-)

[Dawn]

Thanks so much Pippin, really appreciate your post and insight about the profession and practices.

You Rock!

:drummer:

[Delilah]

Why? What about her review makes you think the Eagles paid anyone? I'm asking for any evidence. She doesn't compare this version of the band with the Glenn version. This is exactly the type of review I would expect from a concert photographer who is being paid by a publication to also provide a generic review of a notable band that the publication can publish. In fact, there is zero analysis of the band's performance. If the Eagles paid for this review, they sure didn't get their money's worth. This is the wrong review to hang your hat on if you believe that the Eagles are paying reviewers to attend and cover their shows.


ETA: Is your position that every concert review published by NRR has been contractually negotiated for by the band?

The practice of paying for positive reviews is problematic, but if it’s happening, I seriously doubt it is a “new” or “recent” development as is alleged by the OP. Perks and advantages have been bestowed for positive reviews, not just in the entertainment industry but others as well, probably since the early days of print media.

However I agree there is NO evidence that such a thing is happening with the Eagles or even JD and the Straight Shot, although the unusual focus on the latter did not escape me. I have never heard of this National Rock Review organization; how wide is their readership? It appears none of these reviews have been carried by any major news or media outlets. Their ability to influence a significant portion of music fans is questionable. As for the Eagles concert review—this is what Irving Azoff is supposedly paying money for? It’s a fairly tame by-the-numbers review.

You know, it is possible that after decades of performing and honing their craft, the current Eagles are capable of putting on a good show, yes even without Glenn. There have been numerous positive reviews of other older nostalgia-type acts and much of it is due to good old-fashioned experience and musicianship. It doesn’t have to be a great mystery why they keep getting positive reviews. The comments section more often than not show agreement with the positive reviews by those who actually attended the concerts.

[Dawn]

The tour has just started and has a very long way to go before their last playdate. It will be interesting to see if the theme changes.

[Delilah]

I've written my share of concert reviews for the newspaper. I didn't get any pay beyond my usual paycheck. I did get a media pass to the shows, which is standard procedure. However, it's understood with legitimate media outlets that a media pass doesn't guarantee a good review. A reporter writes it like he/she hears and sees it, whether good, not great or indifferent.

Of course, I've been to shows where I bought my own ticket and wrote a review for the paper, too. But when I did get a media pass, I was serious about doing an honest review, whether it was favorable or not.

It's the same process for book and movie reviews. Some promoters pay for a favorable review (some say Peter Travers from Rolling Stone is one who gets paid for it), but it's not uncommon to get the book or movie ticket for free. And I've written some absolutely scathing book reviews, even though I knew I got the book for free.

Most media outlets would consider a favorable review for pay to be a kind of payola. It's advertising masquerading as actual news. If it's disclosed in advance the person received some kind of financial compensation for the review, that's a little more honest, but most reputable media organizations would stay away from that. Even a freelancer who's paid by the outlet for their time to attend the show and write the review is expected to produce an honest review, favorable or otherwise.

Promoters paying for reviews presupposes that the review will praise the band. Why pay for it, otherwise? IMHO, it's a practice that starts slinking into shady territory.

Thank you Pippin, for relating your experience in this area.

As I posted before, manipulating and controlling concert reviews is not something new. Not even the Eagles were immune back in the day. It’s a different climate today, of course, now that they have long been established.

A couple of passages from this book show how PR guy Larry Solters and Irving Azoff managed press relations in the 70s.

“Bumping Into Geniuses: My Life Inside the Rock and Roll Business” By Danny Goldberg, 2008 (https://books.google.com/books?id=Bh_qQxyMmPIC&pg=PT71&lpg=PT71&dq=Eagles+concert&source=bl&ots=qUt74rtrmN&sig=YG7yR9YX2o29PYsXTRf7L4rvJ20&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiC8Nf6s4nUAhVnyoMKHYeUCnA4eBDoAQgtMAY#v =onepage&q&f=false)

[My My]

Thanks for the link, Delilah. I found it very interesting. In my concert review research, I came upon some interesting info from my June 18, 1980 Eagles concert. Zach Dunkin, who was the Indianapolis News concert reviewer at the time, gave the Eagles a less than positive review, 3 stars out of 5. The review was titled,,"What's All the Excitement About?" He questioned a few of the song choices, (some that were listed on their set list at the sound board were not played, but substituted with others), general lack of excitement," 3 time-consuming, self indulgent encores". He also made a big deal that they stood t make over $200,000 for the show, gasp!

On July 3, 1980, Dunkin wrote an article entitled, "Eagles Respond to Negative Review." In this article, he details a phone call he received the day before from none other than Larry Solters, the Eagles' publicist. It appears that they didn't take too kindly to the review and Solters was calling to dispute it. He said that the Eagles sometimes changed up their set list that was written out. He also wanted to make sure that fans didn't think that the Eagles were getting all of the money that they brought in from the concert. Solters also pointed out that Dunkin switched names of the Dons, at one point referring to Don Henley, when he was clearly talking about Don Felder. Dunkin said besides writing the wrong name, he stood behind his review.

Zach Dunkin, by the way, gave the Eagles a glowing review in November 1976, for their Indianapolis MSA concert and another at their IU concert a year or 2 later.

I've found this exchange between reviewer and publicist interesting for a couple of reasons. First, it shows how closely they (or their people) followed their press. Second, it seems like such a moot point, as they broke up a few weeks later!

[Delilah]

“What’s All the Excitement About?” made me chuckle. You know it’s not gonna be a rave review with that title, lol. It’s not surprising the band’s turmoil was probably being reflected in the later performances. I think a lot of the positive reviews that are published now are due to many of these older bands being more settled with nothing really left to prove.

That was interesting, My My, it’s much appreciated.

[Pippinwhite]

@Delilah-- Very interesting! Yeah, it doesn't surprise me this happened at some of the larger papers. This would have been termed a "meet and greet" or "media event," or even a "press conference," because Azoff & Co. were smart enough not to offer cash payments, which could well have gotten the writers fired (payola, bribes, etc.) Chances are, they would have invited a couple of radio station people, and maybe even a reporter from the local TV station, just to make it look a little more legit. However, reporters are human too, and free beer is a great enticement for some of them. LOLOL.

But, at a little bitty pissant paper in north Alabama, no one was inviting US to media events. Hehehehe. When I was working there and doing concert reviews, the circulation was about 30,000 -- not even a blip on most promoters' radars. If you got a media pass, that was a large concession. LOL. Even the music writers at the Birmingham papers, which had the largest circulation in the state, would probably have only rated a couple of tickets, unless the promoters decided a press conference would be a good thing. But I doubt you'd have seen it, especially so close to Atlanta. Newspaper people do tend to stick together though, and if a band did have an event in Atlanta, chances are the B-ham people could have made some phone calls and scored a set of press creds.

The couple of interviews I got were solely because I slinked around toward the front of the stage, found the PR person, showed my press ID and asked for a quick Q&A. That worked best if you were at a show where the artist really hadn't "hit" that big, yet, or they were considered a nostalgia act. The security wasn't as tight. That's how I got an interview with Tim McGraw. It was the summer before "Indian Outlaw" hit, so his PR person was still glad to get some publicity, even from a smaller paper. Of course, that wasn't a concert review, but an actual story.

That's the kind of stuff I miss from working at the newspaper. But my current job is WAY lower in the stress department.

[Freypower]

The practice of paying for positive reviews is problematic, but if it’s happening, I seriously doubt it is a “new” or “recent” development as is alleged by the OP. Perks and advantages have been bestowed for positive reviews, not just in the entertainment industry but others as well, probably since the early days of print media.

However I agree there is NO evidence that such a thing is happening with the Eagles or even JD and the Straight Shot, although the unusual focus on the latter did not escape me. I have never heard of this National Rock Review organization; how wide is their readership? It appears none of these reviews have been carried by any major news or media outlets. Their ability to influence a significant portion of music fans is questionable. As for the Eagles concert review—this is what Irving Azoff is supposedly paying money for? It’s a fairly tame by-the-numbers review.

You know, it is possible that after decades of performing and honing their craft, the current Eagles are capable of putting on a good show, yes even without Glenn. There have been numerous positive reviews of other older nostalgia-type acts and much of it is due to good old-fashioned experience and musicianship. It doesn’t have to be a great mystery why they keep getting positive reviews. The comments section more often than not show agreement with the positive reviews by those who actually attended the concerts.


Reviews which are 100% positive & have no criticism AT ALL, not even minor ones, need to be questioned. I made my position clear in the Legit thread. I will repeat it briefly here. Where is any analysis of the difference the loss of Glenn makes & of the performance of the two new musicians? The most they will do is say lamely 'it's not the same' BUT and then they go on to make excuses. I don't wish to repeat myself but one more time, these new shows CANNOT and NEVER will be the same.

What is being said is that it makes no difference & it doesn't matter because all you are seeing is a human jukebox, even if a huge part of what made the sound special has gone. I suppose if that is what people want, good luck to them. If reviewers don't feel obliged to look closer at this, then in my view they are not doing their job, no matter how often I am told 'but the shows ARE good''! In my view there is more to seeing a band than just going to hear the songs. What matters is who is performing those songs. Contrary to Henley's apparent belief, what we have now is NOT the band which recorded those songs. It's at best an imitation of it.

[WalshFan88]

What is being said is that it makes no difference & it doesn't matter because all you are seeing is a human jukebox, even if a huge part of what made the sound special has gone. I suppose if that is what people want, good luck to them. If reviewers don't feel obliged to look closer at this, then in my view they are not doing their job, no matter how often I am told 'but the shows ARE good''! In my view there is more to seeing a band than just going to hear the songs. What matters is who is performing those songs. Contrary to Henley's apparent belief, what we have now is NOT the band which recorded those songs. It's at best an imitation of it.

Amen, FP. Amen.

[My My]

Delilah- Yes, I'm sure the Eagles' turmoil and maybe general burnout had a lot to do with it's performance and review. Of course, being an avid Eagles fan, I didn't agree with the review at the time. (I always read the reviews of the concerts the next day. That and the little column that always appeared next to it listing the arrests near the venue that evening, LOL! Oh, teenagers, what are you going to do with them?!!)

Zach Dunkin, the reviewer, had a weekly feature in the News called "Rock Pile" and he received many angry letters from fans. It's kind of funny reading them now, but I remember being pissed about the review a the time. And the reviewer for the Indianapolis Star gave it a much better review than the News did.

[peneumbra]

I can guarantee you that any "turmoil and… burnout" in this band leading to the suspension of touring and recording was not due to reviews or outside opinions, good, bad, or indifferent. It just didn't work that way.

And Souther says, and I've no reason in the world to doubt him, that neither he nor anyone connected to his band or management has ever paid anybody to positively review any performance or album release.

The concert promoters I've worked for always try to maintain good relations with local media, but I've never seen anyone bribed to produce glowing concert reviews. 8-)

[My My]

Sorry, I guess I wasn't clear, peneumbra. I didn't mean that the bad reviews and outside opinions lead to their breakup. I think the bad review was possibly just a reflection of the burnout and turmoil of the band a few weeks before their breakup.

[WKMB55]

I think I saw an interview that Glenn did with Bob Costas years ago where Glenn mentioned a "punch 'em on sight list" for critics who gave unflattering reviews. There must have been at least a couple of negative reviews or Glenn was telling one of his many jokes or both.

[Dawn]

I think I saw an interview that Glenn did with Bob Costas years ago where Glenn mentioned a "punch 'em on sight list" for critics who gave unflattering reviews. There must have been at least a couple of negative reviews or Glenn was telling one of his many jokes or both.

Yes, that is correct he did say that.

Good memory!

P.S. Also can't forget the infamous Rolling Stone v Eagles softball match.

[MaryCalifornia]

In my view there is more to seeing a band than just going to hear the songs. What matters is who is performing those songs.

Though fans and reviewers alike miss Glenn, the two new members are virtually criticism-proof (which I'm sure was completely intended and strategic on Don and Irving's part).

No reviewer in his right mind will criticize Deacon. And yes, I believe that Deacon is 100% fair game by putting himself out there. I could care less if a reviewer tells it like it is and says he is lacking in his performance or his voice, I have no reason to be defensive on his behalf. But I think the most we'll get is what we've been getting - he's not as polished/seasoned as the other guys but he's fine and boy, he sure reminds us a lot of his dad.

As far as Vince, he's a ringer, musical performance wise. A virtuoso guitar player with I think nine (9) best male vocal Grammys to his name. He doesn't have to carry the show, he only sings four or so songs. He's not going to get a bad review, because he's not bad. The songs are completely in his wheelhouse and he will be excellent every time. Again, I think the most we're going to get is "different from Glenn, but sounds good." I could care less if a reviewer is critical of his performance, I'm no apologist for him or the band.

Also, I know that FP recalls some significant criticism from the HoTE shows, and I'm just going to have to disagree with that. There may have been mentions of the guys' (all of them) voices not being what they once were, but we're seeing that in these reviews as well. I know that specifically Don's voice and Joe's voice have been called out in the last month. I stand by my statement that the HoTE reviews were overwhelmingly positive, show after show, year after year. They are all in this board. The only reason this is important is it forms the basis of the "they're paying for reviews" conversation - they used to get criticized all the time, and now they don't.

[chaim]

I don't agree that Vince couldn't be criticised because he's a guitar virtuoso and "great" overall. This doesn't mean that he helps Eagles sound Eagles. I don't think FP means that some reviewers should say that he sucks as an artist, but that there should be even a little bit of "how 'Eaglesy' is this?" here and there. And I agree.

[YoungEaglesFan]

I don't agree that Vince couldn't be criticised because he's a guitar virtuoso and "great" overall. This doesn't mean that he helps Eagles sound Eagles. I don't think FP means that some reviewers should say that he sucks as an artist, but that there should be even a little bit of "how 'Eaglesy' is this?" here and there. And I agree.

I don’t think many reviews would cover the question of how “Eaglesy” the band sounds. These aren’t articles meant to discuss the validity of the lineup and how it could be optimized. It’s just a review of how they have sounded in concert. None of the members on stage are bad performers. I do not see a reason for a bad performance from them as long as they play up to their standards. It’s a different question of how they sound compared to Glenn but that would be personal taste. If someone prefers Gill’s voice to Glenn’s then you would probably find them to be performing better. That’s just my take on it

[chaim]

I don’t think many reviews would cover the question of how “Eaglesy” the band sounds. These aren’t articles meant to discuss the validity of the lineup and how it could be optimized. It’s just a review of how they have sounded in concert. None of the members on stage are bad performers. I do not see a reason for a bad performance from them as long as they play up to their standards. It’s a different question of how they sound compared to Glenn but that would be personal taste. If someone prefers Gill’s voice to Glenn’s then you would probably find them to be performing better. That’s just my take on it

If there was just one "(as fantastic as he is) Vince Gill's voice doesn't work as well in this song" kind of comment here and there....but everything seems to be just perfect. A guy replaces a person who founded the band and was there until his death and there doesn't seem to be even one such comment. BTW I don't agree that the Eagles sound is just a matter of taste. To some degree it probably is, but IMO it's not quite that simple since Glenn was an essential part of that sound until his death.

I'm not going to shout this from rooftops. My point is that I understand what FP means and I happen to agree with her.

[Delilah]

Reviews which are 100% positive & have no criticism AT ALL, not even minor ones, need to be questioned.


If there was just one "(as fantastic as he is) Vince Gill's voice doesn't work as well in this song" kind of comment here and there....but everything seems to be just perfect. A guy replaces a person who founded the band and was there until his death and there doesn't seem to be even one such comment.

Well here you go FP and Chaim, a concert review that is not 100% positive and includes a comparison with Glenn’s voice.


Less successful were "Peaceful Easy Feeling" and "Take It Easy," which lacked some kick and sounded more like covers with Deacon Frey at the helm...Never has the encore fake-out been less convincing than when the Eagles left the stage before playing "Hotel California." Rather than cheering, clapping, and stomping, the audience calmly lit the stands with cell-phone flashlights. They didn't have to persuade any bandmates to come back. They knew the Eagles wouldn't leave without playing it.


”The Eagles Played on Without Glenn Frey at Hard Rock Stadium” by Celia Almeida, Miami New Times, Apr. 23, 2018 (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/review-jimmy-buffett-and-the-eagles-at-hard-rock-stadium-april-21-10287367)

[chaim]

Thanks, Delilah. Nice to see that someone didn't find everything perfect. Everything doesn't even have to be perfect.

[YoungEaglesFan]

If there was just one "(as fantastic as he is) Vince Gill's voice doesn't work as well in this song" kind of comment here and there....but everything seems to be just perfect. A guy replaces a person who founded the band and was there until his death and there doesn't seem to be even one such comment. BTW I don't agree that the Eagles sound is just a matter of taste. To some degree it probably is, but IMO it's not quite that simple since Glenn was an essential part of that sound until his death.

I'm not going to shout this from rooftops. My point is that I understand what FP means and I happen to agree with her.

I agree that the Eagles sound has gotten worse since Glenn has left, as in they don’t sound as Eaglesy. But what I meant is just on the basis of how the song is performed someone might like Vince’s take of tequila sunrise vs Glenn’s etc. or like Linda singing desperado vs Don. I think that how well they performed is less opinionated because we can hold them to their high standards but how Glenn’s version of a song is compared to another persons is more personal taste.

[groupie2686]

Well here you go FP and Chaim, a concert review that is not 100% positive and includes a comparison with Glenn’s voice.



”The Eagles Played on Without Glenn Frey at Hard Rock Stadium” by Celia Almeida, Miami New Times, Apr. 23, 2018 (http://www.miaminewtimes.com/music/review-jimmy-buffett-and-the-eagles-at-hard-rock-stadium-april-21-10287367)

This is the first article I've read that wasn't 100% positive.

[chaim]

This is the first article I've read that wasn't 100% positive.

Maybe they paid for a less kind review when they noticed we were onto them. :mrgreen:

[Dawn]

Maybe they paid for a less kind review when they noticed we were onto them. :mrgreen:

Well, I did say I hoped someone was paying attention. :bow:

[New Kid In Town]

This is the first article I've read that wasn't 100% positive.

Thanks Delilah. First of what I would call a semi negative review.

Chaim - :lol:

[Freypower]

I agree that the Eagles sound has gotten worse since Glenn has left, as in they don’t sound as Eaglesy. But what I meant is just on the basis of how the song is performed someone might like Vince’s take of tequila sunrise vs Glenn’s etc. or like Linda singing desperado vs Don. I think that how well they performed is less opinionated because we can hold them to their high standards but how Glenn’s version of a song is compared to another persons is more personal taste.

Well, here you go with the 'Glenn's voice didn't really matter' stuff. It's only 'personal taste 'whether you prefer his singing, whereas the overall performance has to do with 'high standards'.

Guess what: the vocals of someone who has sung the songs for six months cannot & never will match the vocals of someone who sang them for 40 years, and that is not just a matter of 'personal taste'. The decline in quality of the vocals on these songs, you may be surprised to hear, is going to lower the 'high standards'.

Also, regarding your previous post to which Toni replied & I agree, how on earth can there be a 'review' of these shows without drawing comparisons? Talk about rewriting history. That seems to be what the people who are in favour of this want.

[WalshFan88]

But what I meant is just on the basis of how the song is performed someone might like Vince’s take of tequila sunrise vs Glenn’s etc.

That would be very wrong IMO. I'm sorry if that sounds bad, but it just is wrong. I have a problem with that. If that sounds judgmental then I'm sorry but I do.

It's Glenn's song.

[chaim]

I agree that the Eagles sound has gotten worse since Glenn has left, as in they don’t sound as Eaglesy. But what I meant is just on the basis of how the song is performed someone might like Vince’s take of tequila sunrise vs Glenn’s etc. or like Linda singing desperado vs Don. I think that how well they performed is less opinionated because we can hold them to their high standards but how Glenn’s version of a song is compared to another persons is more personal taste.

Every reviewer sure seems to love Vince's performance on everything. And those who do mention Glenn seem to think the Glenn songs sung by Vince are at least as good now.

[YoungEaglesFan]

Well, here you go with the 'Glenn's voice didn't really matter' stuff. It's only 'personal taste 'whether you prefer his singing, whereas the overall performance has to do with 'high standards'.

Guess what: the vocals of someone who has sung the songs for six months cannot & never will match the vocals of someone who sang them for 40 years, and that is not just a matter of 'personal taste'. The decline in quality of the vocals on these songs, you may be surprised to hear, is going to lower the 'high standards'.

Also, regarding your previous post to which Toni replied & I agree, how on earth can there be a 'review' of these shows without drawing comparisons? Talk about rewriting history. That seems to be what the people who are in favour of this want.

I didn’t say Glenn’s voice didn’t matter. I would find it absurd to think that it’s impossible to like Vince gills voice more than Glenn’s. I do not feel that way but it is again a matter of opinion. That should not be controversial. It would be like saying someone cannot cover a song and do it better. I wouldn’t blame someone if they felt Glenn sang take it to the limit better than Randy despite the fact that Randy was the original singer, and was famous for it. It is again a matter of what kind of voice you prefer. If someone was to say Randy’s voice was the best in the band who am I to say no you cannot believe that? I happen to agree with you but the fact that I believe it’s a matter of opinion leads to an argument. Why?

[YoungEaglesFan]

That would be very wrong IMO. I'm sorry if that sounds bad, but it just is wrong. I have a problem with that. If that sounds judgmental then I'm sorry but I do.

It's Glenn's song.

I don’t take any offense. I would also be put off by it but if someone was a big gill fan I would understand that belief

[YoungEaglesFan]

Every reviewer sure seems to love Vince's performance on everything. And those who do mention Glenn seem to think the Glenn songs sung by Vince are at least as good now.

Don’t get me wrong. Glenn was not treated fairly by reviews. Vince Gill has also been praised way too much. What I’m saying is he is still a very good singer and can perform the song well.

[chaim]

Don’t get me wrong. Glenn was not treated fairly by reviews. Vince Gill has also been praised way too much. What I’m saying is he is still a very good singer and can perform the song well.

I think I understand what you're saying. But I think that reviewers (not all of them anyway) shouldn't just look for a good performance of a song when the song has such a long history with its originator. That history should be acknowledged more IMO and the history of the band soundwise - when the band still performs under the same name.

[YoungEaglesFan]

I think I understand what you're saying. But I think that reviewers (not all of them anyway) shouldn't just look for a good performance of a song when the song has such a long history with its originator. That history should be acknowledged more IMO and the history of the band soundwise - when the band still performs under the same name.

Yeah I suppose you’re right. I’m not sure what I was really getting at there. I do think reviews should focus primarily on the performance within the concert but context from the past is important as well.

[Delilah]

Well, here you go with the 'Glenn's voice didn't really matter' stuff. It's only 'personal taste 'whether you prefer his singing, whereas the overall performance has to do with 'high standards'.

Guess what: the vocals of someone who has sung the songs for six months cannot & never will match the vocals of someone who sang them for 40 years, and that is not just a matter of 'personal taste'. The decline in quality of the vocals on these songs, you may be surprised to hear, is going to lower the 'high standards'.


Every reviewer sure seems to love Vince's performance on everything. And those who do mention Glenn seem to think the Glenn songs sung by Vince are at least as good now.

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Vince Gill is no chump. He has won more Grammys than all the Eagles put together. He is from the country music genre, where you cannot possibly succeed unless you have the vocal goods and one cannot simply rely on gimmicks, a sexy image, etc. as some rock/pop acts have (although that may not be the case anymore now that country has changed). I don’t get why it’s so shocking to some that reviewers consistently praise his performances. It’s one thing to say his voice doesn’t suit the songs or doesn’t appeal to one’s personal taste but as far as “quality” goes—Henley chose him for a reason.

Rather than conjuring up conspiracy theories or bashing reviewers, maybe it’s to accept that, for reviewers like much of the public, Vince is a damn fine singer.


Also, regarding your previous post to which Toni replied & I agree, how on earth can there be a 'review' of these shows without drawing comparisons? Talk about rewriting history. That seems to be what the people who are in favour of this want.

Concert reviews should be focused on the performances, IMO. If there were comparisons to be made, they should have been made last summer/fall when this whole enterprise was getting off the ground. Glenn has been gone for almost 2 1/2 years now—and he will never be forgotten—but I do believe the reviewers have struck the right balance between evaluating the performances and remembering Glenn’s contributions. As a fan of Bernie, Randy and Don F, I understand “rewriting history” and I don’t see how that is happening with Glenn.


Don’t get me wrong. Glenn was not treated fairly by reviews. Vince Gill has also been praised way too much. What I’m saying is he is still a very good singer and can perform the song well.

:confused::confused: How is Glenn not being treated fairly? He’s not in the band anymore!

[chaim]

Delilah, you quoted my post, but I have never talked about the quality of Vince as a singer. What I meant was that every reviewer seems to think that his voice works perfectly for every song Glenn (or Randy) sang. Nothing to do with Grammys. (I'm not talking about "fake reviews" either although this thread is about them.)

Celine Dion is a fabulous singer, but people don't necessarily love her interpretation of every song.

[YoungEaglesFan]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Vince Gill is no chump. He has won more Grammys than all the Eagles put together. He is from the country music genre, where you cannot possibly succeed unless you have the vocal goods and one cannot simply rely on gimmicks, a sexy image, etc. as some rock/pop acts have (although that may not be the case anymore now that country has changed). I don’t get why it’s so shocking to some that reviewers consistently praise his performances. It’s one thing to say his voice doesn’t suit the songs or doesn’t appeal to one’s personal taste but as far as “quality” goes—Henley chose him for a reason.

Rather than conjuring up conspiracy theories or bashing reviewers, maybe it’s to accept that, for reviewers like much of the public, Vince is a damn fine singer.



Concert reviews should be focused on the performances, IMO. If there were comparisons to be made, they should have been made last summer/fall when this whole enterprise was getting off the ground. Glenn has been gone for almost 2 1/2 years now—and he will never be forgotten—but I do believe the reviewers have struck the right balance between evaluating the performances and remembering Glenn’s contributions. As a fan of Bernie, Randy and Don F, I understand “rewriting history” and I don’t see how that is happening with Glenn.



:confused::confused: How is Glenn not being treated fairly? He’s not in the band anymore!

Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified

[chaim]

Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified

You did make it clear IMO. You said "wasn't" instead of "hasn't been". At least it was clear to me what you meant.

[Freypower]

At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Vince Gill is no chump. He has won more Grammys than all the Eagles put together. He is from the country music genre, where you cannot possibly succeed unless you have the vocal goods and one cannot simply rely on gimmicks, a sexy image, etc. as some rock/pop acts have (although that may not be the case anymore now that country has changed). I don’t get why it’s so shocking to some that reviewers consistently praise his performances. It’s one thing to say his voice doesn’t suit the songs or doesn’t appeal to one’s personal taste but as far as “quality” goes—Henley chose him for a reason.

Rather than conjuring up conspiracy theories or bashing reviewers, maybe it’s to accept that, for reviewers like much of the public, Vince is a damn fine singer.



Concert reviews should be focused on the performances, IMO. If there were comparisons to be made, they should have been made last summer/fall when this whole enterprise was getting off the ground. Glenn has been gone for almost 2 1/2 years now—and he will never be forgotten—but I do believe the reviewers have struck the right balance between evaluating the performances and remembering Glenn’s contributions. As a fan of Bernie, Randy and Don F, I understand “rewriting history” and I don’t see how that is happening with Glenn.



:confused::confused: How is Glenn not being treated fairly? He’s not in the band anymore!

Glenn was not treated fairly while he was alive. I cannot believe that has to even be explained.

It's interesting that you say you understand rewriting history regarding Bernie, Randy & Felder, but you don't understand it when the founding member & leader has died & no attempt is being made to evaluate the performances of the replacements against his performances. You talk about Gill & the number of Grammies he has won. It is not enough to say that he's a good singer. What should be at issue is how his vocals on Glenn's songs compare with Glenn's.

The replacements. both Deacon & Gill, are being let off too lightly by reviewers. That's all. That is rewriting history, to write Glenn Frey out.

And a few more words about comparisons. I got into trouble for this before, but I will say it again. People never let up on Glenn for his performance of TITTL. He was never good enough. Now, suddenly, it isn't right to make any comparisons.

Also, the people in this organisation are billing themselves as 'Eagles' and playing Eagles songs. Did they or the people who support this seriously believe that no comparisons would be made, particularly unfavourable ones? They are using the name. They should be judged accordingly. Just whitewashing them and saying they are 'different' is not sufficient. They want to be different? Then play different songs & stop using the name.

Or will I be told that they are not pretending to be the 'Eagles'? Well, yes they are, down to Henley's ludicrous claim in his NYT interview that people want to see the band who recorded the songs.

[Delilah]

Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified

Ok, I see what you mean. The last couple of pages are about recent concert reviews and you were responding to a post about recent reviews. I guess I was still in that time frame plus I’m not familiar with reviews of Glenn’s past performances. I’m sorry I misunderstood you.

[Delilah]

Glenn was not treated fairly while he was alive. I cannot believe that has to even be explained.

It's interesting that you say you understand rewriting history regarding Bernie, Randy & Felder, but you don't understand it when the founding member & leader has died & no attempt is being made to evaluate the performances of the replacements against his performances. You talk about Gill & the number of Grammies he has won. It is not enough to say that he's a good singer. What should be at issue is how his vocals on Glenn's songs compare with Glenn's.

The replacements. both Deacon & Gill, are being let off too lightly by reviewers. That's all. That is rewriting history, to write Glenn Frey out.

And a few more words about comparisons. I got into trouble for this before, but I will say it again. People never let up on Glenn for his performance of TITTL. He was never good enough. Now, suddenly, it isn't right to make any comparisons.

Also, the people in this organisation are billing themselves as 'Eagles' and playing Eagles songs. Did they or the people who support this seriously believe that no comparisons would be made, particularly unfavourable ones? They are using the name. They should be judged accordingly. Just whitewashing them and saying they are 'different' is not sufficient. They want to be different? Then play different songs & stop using the name.

Or will I be told that they are not pretending to be the 'Eagles'? Well, yes they are, down to Henley's ludicrous claim in his NYT interview that people want to see the band who recorded the songs.

It does seem you ARE saying Glenn isn’t being treated fairly in these recent reviews i.e. he isn’t getting enough attention or evaluation.

With all due respect FP, these guys are in their 70s now. The days of being at the forefront of the music scene are long over. The task at hand is to play the old hits like the fans want and has been done for decades now. Yes they shook things up with a new album and history tour. But still fans wanted to hear the old hits. I just don’t see the need for some deep critical analysis of their shows. They are not blazing new trails in music. It would be different if they were recording a new album.

I don’t see the point of this evaluation and comparison of Deacon and Vince’s vocals to Glenn’s. It has nothing to do with writing Glenn out of the band’s history which would be impossible in my view. Anyone can recognize they don’t sound like Glenn. His songs will always be his songs regardless. As far as TITTL, I don’t know what to say except that it is one of the hardest songs to sing out of the entire Eagles catalog, probably in the top 3. Not just in terms of technique and vocal ability but in expressing emotion and vulnerability and yearning.

I brought up tbe Grammy wins b/c of the implication by some posters that it is somehow wrong for reviewers to continually praise Vince’s singing, not b/c he doesn’t deserve it but “just because.”

I haven’t read a single review where Glenn’s name wasn’t mentioned. Not one. He isn’t being written out of the band’s history. But like the band’s remembering him at each concert, it isn’t good enough apparently.

[Freypower]

It does seem you ARE saying Glenn isn’t being treated fairly in these recent reviews i.e. he isn’t getting enough attention or evaluation.

With all due respect FP, these guys are in their 70s now. The days of being at the forefront of the music scene are long over. The task at hand is to play the old hits like the fans want and has been done for decades now. Yes they shook things up with a new album and history tour. But still fans wanted to hear the old hits. I just don’t see the need for some deep critical analysis of their shows. They are not blazing new trails in music. It would be different if they were recording a new album.

I don’t see the point of this evaluation and comparison of Deacon and Vince’s vocals to Glenn’s. It has nothing to do with writing Glenn out of the band’s history which would be impossible in my view. Anyone can recognize they don’t sound like Glenn. His songs will always be his songs regardless. As far as TITTL, I don’t know what to say except that it is one of the hardest songs to sing out of the entire Eagles catalog, probably in the top 3. Not just in terms of technique and vocal ability but in expressing emotion and vulnerability and yearning.

I brought up tbe Grammy wins b/c of the implication by some posters that it is somehow wrong for reviewers to continually praise Vince’s singing, not b/c he doesn’t deserve it but “just because.”

I haven’t read a single review where Glenn’s name wasn’t mentioned. Not one. He isn’t being written out of the band’s history. But like the band’s remembering him at each concert, it isn’t good enough apparently.

It isn't that Glenn who is no longer with us should be getting more attention or anything like that. It's just that the reviews to date have been extremely soft. More could have been said about how he sang his songs & whether or not the current performances measure up. But I've repeated this so often that I'll drop it. The people who agree with me know what I mean.

The second paragraph just emphasises how unnecessary & pointless the entire thing is. They should have recognised what their legacy was and they should have stopped, not continued on with this watered down version. They are a glorified tribute band, and that is sad. You seem to be saying that because of that, they should not be subject to critical analysis, which only emphasises the fact that they no longer have any credibility. Actually, looking at it that way, you may have inadvertently solved my problem in a way you didn't intend.

No, it's not good enough. It never will be. Without Glenn this band is not 'Eagles' and I for one am not going to pretend that it is. If others think it's 'good enough' and they are happy with it, if they are so willing to just accept this without question, then they have got what they want and they are welcome to it.

[MaryCalifornia]

This is the first article I've read that wasn't 100% positive.

Here is one critical of Don: "Henley’s voice has thinned out a bit and at times seemed as dry as a Texas tumbleweed." http://www.stltoday.com/entertainment/music/reviews/unbreakable-the-eagles-sound-better-than-ever-at-scottrade-show/article_3356ab08-f861-5289-93e8-2f266dfdc719.html

Here is one critical of Timothy: "was the only member whose singing revealed some wear, especially during a frail sounding “I Can’t Tell You Why.”" http://www.kentucky.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article208555104.html

Here is one critical of Joe: "Don Henley sounds just about as good as he did when he was 35. Joe Walsh, also 70, maybe does not" http://www.charlotteobserver.com/entertainment/music-news-reviews/article208663999.html

I do understand that people are looking for criticism or comparison of Vince's performance or presence as compared to Glenn's, not really criticism of these guys.

[chaim]

I brought up tbe Grammy wins b/c of the implication by some posters that it is somehow wrong for reviewers to continually praise Vince’s singing, not b/c he doesn’t deserve it but “just because.”

I already explained what I actually meant.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I have been very busy lately and haven't had much time to post, but I wanted to weigh in on this interesting discussion.

First of all, thank you, pippin, for your insight. I agree with you that there was plenty of schmoozing going on back in the day between the band and critics, but, I absolutely never heard of cash being exchanged for a good review. This does seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. We don’t have any evidence whether the Eagles have or have not paid for positive reviews, but there seems to be little doubt that the practice does now exist for some bands.

Given that these reviewers are called 'critics', then it makes sense that what they write should be a 'critique'. If critics aren’t willing to criticize the new members, then I have to agree with FP that they are not doing their job. To be clear, I don’t think anyone here is wishing for critics to tear into the band unfairly – we are just looking for some objectivity. For those who believe that reviews for Eagles shows in the past have been overwhelmingly positive, I think you can browse through the old concert threads on the board and see that this is simply not the case.

As I have said elsewhere, I have never watched any of the videos of Vince’s performances. However, I did see him perform Heartache Tonight at the KCH gala, and I wasn’t at all impressed with his country tinged version of this rocking song. So, I’m not saying that Vince isn’t talented, but I believe his performances should be judged on how he performs these songs in an ‘Eagles’ concert. Like FP said, shouldn’t that be the standard that the ‘Eagles’ should be held to? All I can say is that if fans want to hear these songs performed by the band that recorded them as Don claims, then it seems like they are getting duped. But, hey, it’s their dime.

In the Birmingham review linked to earlier in this thread, the reviewer wrote, “While greeting the enthusiastic crowd at the BJCC -- not completely sold out, but close to it -- Henley said, "We do it because we can."‘ My immediate reaction to this was one of the most important lessons my dear departed mother ever taught me … I can hear her saying it now ... “Well, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should!”


ETA: I just realized that I was mistaken about hearing Vince sing Heartache Tonight at the KCH gala - it was Bob Seger who sang it. I guess I haven't heard Vince sing it after all and just imagined what it sounds like given his country twang. In any event, this doesn't change the premise of my belief that Vince should be judged on how he performs the song as an 'Eagle'.

[MaryCalifornia]

Here is something interesting and relevant to this thread from Instagram this morning. Jerry Saltz is a Senior Art Critic for New York Magazine, here is his post:

"Why is most current art-criticism positive? *NO* editor dissuades critics from writing negatively. Ever. Let me say that again: Critics are allowed to write WHATEVER they think about an artist. I believe that being critical of art is a way of showing art respect. No one would write that every play by the NY METS is great; or every movie; or every meal. Yet most art reviews are glowing/positive. What has happened to critics? Is this inclination, fear, the academy scaring the shit out of young writers, what?"

Sounds like the 100%-positive-review culture is alive in other areas of the arts, too.

[Dawn]

Very interesting, thanks Mary, I agree with the writer and feel he makes a good argument.

[New Kid In Town]

Here is something interesting and relevant to this thread from Instagram this morning. Jerry Saltz is a Senior Art Critic for New York Magazine, here is his post:

"Why is most current art-criticism positive? *NO* editor dissuades critics from writing negatively. Ever. Let me say that again: Critics are allowed to write WHATEVER they think about an artist. I believe that being critical of art is a way of showing art respect. No one would write that every play by the NY METS is great; or every movie; or every meal. Yet most art reviews are glowing/positive. What has happened to critics? Is this inclination, fear, the academy scaring the shit out of young writers, what?"

Sounds like the 100%-positive-review culture is alive in other areas of the arts, too.


Wow, Thanks for finding that Mary - very interesting. I have noticed mostly positive reviews for things lately. However, my local newspaper gave the recent Bon Jovi concert at the Prudential Center a bad review. He said Bon Jovi's voice was gone and he sounded terrible !

[Dawn]

Wow, Thanks for finding that Mary - very interesting. I have noticed mostly positive reviews for things lately. However, my local newspaper gave the recent Bon Jovi concert at the Prudential Center a bad review. He said Bon Jovi's voice was gone and he sounded terrible !

Thanks NKIT ... Yep interesting some reviewers actually can get denied access to a concert.

----------------------------

By Bobby Olivier | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Bon Jovi doesn’t want you to read this concert review.

I’ve covered hundreds of performances over the years, providing my fair share of criticism, and only twice have I personally been denied access to a show, due to what was deemed unsavory previous coverage: both denials came from New Jersey’s own rock icons, all because I noted that Jon Bon Jovi’s voice is shot — which it is.

Read more at the link

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/music/index.ssf/2018/04/bon_jovi_nj_concert_review_2018_prudential_center. html

[New Kid In Town]

Thanks NKIT ... Yep interesting some reviewers actually can get denied access to a concert.

----------------------------

By Bobby Olivier | NJ Advance Media for NJ.com

Bon Jovi doesn’t want you to read this concert review.

I’ve covered hundreds of performances over the years, providing my fair share of criticism, and only twice have I personally been denied access to a show, due to what was deemed unsavory previous coverage: both denials came from New Jersey’s own rock icons, all because I noted that Jon Bon Jovi’s voice is shot — which it is.

Read more at the link

http://www.nj.com/entertainment/music/index.ssf/2018/04/bon_jovi_nj_concert_review_2018_prudential_center. html


Yep, that's it Dawn. I have never been to a Bon Jovi Concert but he sounded ok at the R & RHOF Ceremony. I have some friends who are die hard BJ fans and went to this concert. They thought it was great. However they are so hard core BJ fans they would go to any concert he does. Kinda like the Bruce fans here.

[Dawn]

Yep, that's it Dawn. I have never been to a Bon Jovi Concert but he sounded ok at the R & RHOF Ceremony. I have some friends who are die hard BJ fans and went to this concert. They thought it was great. However they are so hard core BJ fans they would go to any concert he does. Kinda like the Bruce fans here.


Thanks NKIT, I actually enjoyed this review - IMHO the critic does not come across as unduly unfair or unsavory - and it is interesting to note that critics can be denied access to a show by virtue of their review track record. I truly did not know this but not at all surprised.

[MaryCalifornia]

It seems so petty for any artist or sports team to deny a press pass to a journalist who has criticized them in the past. Man up and invite your most vocal critics, I say. It's pretty obvious when a reviewer simply detests the band and is being snarky, versus when s/he is making valid critiques about the actual performance.