Page 110 of 195 FirstFirst ... 1060100106107108109110111112113114120160 ... LastLast
Results 1,091 to 1,100 of 1947

Thread: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

  1. #1091
    Administrator sodascouts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where Faulkner collides with Elvis
    Posts
    33,663

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by Houston Baby View Post
    As UTW mentioned on the "Eagles Mentioned in the Press - Retro Edition" thread, Rolling Stone is paying tribute to Charles M Young who passed on August 18th. In this week's edition there is a quote at the end of the tribute....

    ' "Chuck was a complicated man," says Don Henley, who stayed in touch with him until the end of his life. "He was by turns jovial, arch, enthusiastic and demon-haunted, dark. His work mattered. I hope he knew that." '
    Very interesting that Don stayed in touch with him, especially since they seemed to have somewhat of an adversarial relationship in the seventies. Thanks for posting that. RIP Chuck Young.

    Always in our hearts, Never forgotten

  2. #1092
    Administrator sodascouts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where Faulkner collides with Elvis
    Posts
    33,663

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    Found this recent interview while going through old Google alerts:

    http://www.bostonglobe.com/arts/musi...CGJ/story.html

    Also, I found this piece of "Boys of Summer" interesting:
    http://cosmicamericanblog.blogspot.c...y-sticker.html

    Always in our hearts, Never forgotten

  3. #1093
    Border Rebel Houston Debutante's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Posts
    789

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    Interesting, thanks soda.
    ~Sara


  4. #1094
    Stuck on the Border Thirsty&Hot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Location
    LA via NYC
    Posts
    1,558
    If I can't have it all, just a taste will do...

  5. #1095
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24,191

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/music/ne...r-pun-20141010

    They pride themselves on the fact that they have never allowed their names, likenesses or music – individually or as a group – to be used to sell products.

    Not counting that Pepsi ad, or that Jack Lalanne fitness ad, huh? (Those featured Glenn, not Don). Those were done during the 'vacation' era but they were product endorsements.

  6. #1096
    Stuck on the Border VAisForEagleLovers's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Ridin' with Lady Luck in Kentucky
    Posts
    11,013

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    Think I might be with Don on this one. Plus, the Eagles can't support this clothing company because then they'd need to wear their shirts. That can't happen because they make shirts longer so they stay tucked in, and the last thing Glenn needs is longer shirts!

    http://ultimateclassicrock.com/don-h...ading-lawsuit/
    VK

    You can't change the world but you can change yourself.

  7. #1097
    Administrator sodascouts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Where Faulkner collides with Elvis
    Posts
    33,663

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    I cringe every time I read about Don initiating yet another lawsuit, and I think the lawyer is grossly overstating the case when he says that "large numbers of consumers [....] will unquestionably believe that Mr. Henley is associated with and/or has endorsed the company and its products" (see complaint here). Only the stupid would believe that the Eagles endorse the shirt thanks to the cheesy slogan. He can reasonably assert that SOME will, but large numbers? He has no figures or statistics to back that up, which means it is indeed quite "questionable" a claim, regardless of the lawyer's choice of adverb. This is something I tell my students never to do in argument papers - claim something is "unquestionable" without proof - so I notice this type of thing, lol.

    That said, the clothing company is indeed using Henley and the Eagles to sell their product without his consent. They are hoping to profit from his name, and while perhaps they meant no harm, I can see why Don objects in principle. He'll win this case; he's established his own precedent when he sued Dillard's for a similar infraction and won (see info on that here).

    However, someone needs to tell Henley's spokesperson that the statement he/she gave to the Hollywood Reporter claiming that the Eagles "pride themselves on the fact that they have never allowed their names, likenesses or music – individually or as a group – to be used to sell products" is inaccurate. They can make that claim for Henley, but not for all of the Eagles "individually."

    Always in our hearts, Never forgotten

  8. #1098
    Stuck on the Border WalshFan88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    11,238

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    You can't tell me these Marketing guru's didn't know how sensitive Don can be about these things and how lawyer-happy he can be. IMO they had it coming, even though I believe 50+ percent of people wouldn't catch the Eagles reference. So I do believe it is exaggerated, but I find it hard to believe they didn't know how he reacts to these kinds of things. They either didn't care, or didn't know to do their research on him.

  9. #1099
    Stuck on the Border Topkat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    New York, NY
    Posts
    3,321

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts View Post
    I cringe every time I read about Don initiating yet another lawsuit, and I think the lawyer is grossly overstating the case when he says that "large numbers of consumers [....] will unquestionably believe that Mr. Henley is associated with and/or has endorsed the company and its products" (see complaint here). Only the stupid would believe that the Eagles endorse the shirt thanks to the cheesy slogan. He can reasonably assert that SOME will, but large numbers? He has no figures or statistics to back that up, which means it is indeed quite "questionable" a claim, regardless of the lawyer's choice of adverb. This is something I tell my students never to do in argument papers - claim something is "unquestionable" without proof - so I notice this type of thing, lol.

    That said, the clothing company is indeed using Henley and the Eagles to sell their product without his consent. They are hoping to profit from his name, and while perhaps they meant no harm, I can see why Don objects in principle. He'll win this case; he's established his own precedent when he sued Dillard's for a similar infraction and won (see info on that here).

    However, someone needs to tell Henley's spokesperson that the statement he/she gave to the Hollywood Reporter claiming that the Eagles "pride themselves on the fact that they have never allowed their names, likenesses or music – individually or as a group – to be used to sell products" is inaccurate. They can make that claim for Henley, but not for all of the Eagles "individually."
    I actually think the word play is rather cleaver, but I also think over 50% of the people wouldn't even get it....Henley can sue whoever he wants, but it's unlikely the company made much money off his name here. Henley is a type of shirt that has been around for ages. If I were him, I would be like, "who cares", but this is Don we're talking about. He will spend as much on the lawsuit as he will make on it, making it not even worth it, but just to prove his point, he will pursue it. He brings even more attention to the company by doing this too.

  10. #1100
    Stuck on the Border DJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Rocky Mountain Way
    Posts
    1,958

    Default Re: Don in the Press/Blogs/etc.

    Quote Originally Posted by sodascouts View Post
    I cringe every time I read about Don initiating yet another lawsuit, and I think the lawyer is grossly overstating the case when he says that "large numbers of consumers [....] will unquestionably believe that Mr. Henley is associated with and/or has endorsed the company and its products" (see complaint here). Only the stupid would believe that the Eagles endorse the shirt thanks to the cheesy slogan. He can reasonably assert that SOME will, but large numbers? He has no figures or statistics to back that up, which means it is indeed quite "questionable" a claim, regardless of the lawyer's choice of adverb. This is something I tell my students never to do in argument papers - claim something is "unquestionable" without proof - so I notice this type of thing, lol.

    That said, the clothing company is indeed using Henley and the Eagles to sell their product without his consent. They are hoping to profit from his name, and while perhaps they meant no harm, I can see why Don objects in principle. He'll win this case; he's established his own precedent when he sued Dillard's for a similar infraction and won (see info on that here).

    However, someone needs to tell Henley's spokesperson that the statement he/she gave to the Hollywood Reporter claiming that the Eagles "pride themselves on the fact that they have never allowed their names, likenesses or music – individually or as a group – to be used to sell products" is inaccurate. They can make that claim for Henley, but not for all of the Eagles "individually."
    I agree Soda, The lawyer or whomever cannot speak for all Eagles.

Posting Permissions

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