Why I no longer am happy with my favorite band

[AEW21]

Sadly (or actually, maybe for the best) the older we get, the more we're able to see that our "idols" are not perfect, and have faults, just like the rest of us. Frankly, if you peer into the minds and reasonings of any creative type, you're going to find things you might not like or approve of, or disappoint you. The question is, can you separate those feelings from your feelings for the art they've created? In other words, can you "dislike" the artists, but still love the art they made? it's different for everyone. For me, while I might not agree with everything my favorite actor or director or singer, whatever, does in their personal life, it doesn't, for the most part, affect my love for the performance itself. Once released into the world, it has a life separate, some might say bigger, than the artist him/herself. I now pretty much detest Mel Gibson, but I still love his work in "Year of Living Dangerously." I in no way approve of Elia Kazazn's participation in the naming names during the Hollywood Blacklist era, but that doesn't mean I don't think "On the Waterfront" is a masterpiece.

So when you say the doc has tainted your view or the band and their music--don't your personal memories regarding a song trump notions stirred up by the doc? Cling to where you were and why you loved it when you heard "Lying Eyes" or "Take it Easy" or "Hotel California," and how the song made/makes you feel personally. The guys always intended the songs to be bigger than them and whatever personnel made up the band at that time. The music speaks for itself, and how it speaks to you, more importantly than anything else. Band politics or politics of any kind shouldn't interfere with your enjoyment of the music. If it does, I'd advise to take a step back, and let your associations with the doc cool down. Hopefully you'll be able to listen to an album in a month or so and rediscover what made you love them in the first place, before you knew what was "behind the curtain," so to speak. You don't have to approve of all their choices and statements by liking their songs again. Apprecisting their craft dorsn't mean you blanket-accept them at their best and worst. It just means you appreciate how the creative alchemy of those men made some damn good music.

As for the "Glenn was a bully" generalization--could he have handled things better over the years? Sure. Did all of his comments and actions in the doc thrill me? No. But I have no idea what it is like to lead a super-selling band, so who am I to question him? (And I'm sure much more went on behind the scenes than we know, thst went past just Glenn. He's the "press secretary," so to speak, that is the public face of these decisions, but I think Irving and Don play a much larger role than the doc let on.)

It's an accomplishment to have a band last for over 40 years, and I think that was always his and Don's goal--to have the band---No, the band's music--endure past all the fads and ups and downs of music, and the ups and downs of personalities. For them to accomplish that legacy, they felt they had to add or lose members as time went on. One of them said once, the band outgrew certain members, and in think, in their logic, that was true. It's sad and it sucks and maybe the way they went about it wasn't as gracious as it could have been, but the music has always survived, and I think that's what Glenn always wanted. Band business and politics ain't pretty, but a band isn't some magical utopia with no conflict. Nothing in this world is a utopia with no conflict. They did they best they could, and everyone know seems the happier (or at least content) with the changes. Even Don Felder, while he might wish he was in the band again, must appreciate the creative freedom of being on his own now.

In comparison to the ups and downs and dramas of other rock groups, I think the Eagles are typical or even rather mild. It's a success that they've lasted 40 years, and the members have all survived past their excesses into family men in their 60s. if they hadn't made those tough decisions and separations at various times, who knows what the status of the men and the music would be now?

Lord, sorry, this was really long!!

[bluefox4000]

Short Answer.....and I'm totally serious. I've never put a band I like on a pedestal. Closest I came was the beatles. I quickly came out of that though. I couldn't care less what dealings go on backstage. Do I like the music? Good....I'm in.

Mick

[RebeccaLovesEagles]

Very well said AEW

[desperado]

Short Answer.....and I'm totally serious. I've never put a band I like on a pedestal. Closest I came was the beatles. I quickly came out of that though. I couldn't care less what dealings go on backstage. Do I like the music? Good....I'm in.

Mick

well said bluefox!

[Topkat]

This is a sticky point for me too. I feel that Glenn made him a full partner with the best of intentions. Then as Bernie and others started to leave, he realized it didn't have to be that way in order for the band to work, but by then Glenn was stuck. It did become a major source of friction and I can understand how Felder felt being cut out of what the band had agreed

RebeccaLovesEagles

I think a lot of the Felder/Frey stuff would have been avoided if Frey hadn't had him become a partner and just a member of the Eagles. Felder himself said he was surprised by the offer in his book and even Bernie wasn't happy about it.

That being said, Felder was made a full partner but that meant he should have had the right to see and vote on matters IMO but if you are constantly going against the other 2 partners that is going to cause trouble. I know if in my job if one person is constantly causing all the trouble, that person doesn't stay for long. Felder made that choice and if you think about it, he might have had the right but it wasn't smart. That being said I do think Glenn and Don should have included Felder, Bernie and Randy in the decisions as partners. I don't know how if everyone had an equal share how that was loss. I'd think it would have had to have been voted on, like a board of directors.

When you say here that Felder was "causing all the trouble" do we really have any real information as to exactly what this "trouble" was??? It is speculated that he didn't "agree that Henley & Frey deserved more money than him"....So you expect him to agree to that?? Do you just expect him to say, "Sure guys just take more money than me, you deserve more?" Of course not. Who could blame him for that??? I don't know if there were other arguments, if they were having creative differences or about anything else, but mainly it was about the written contract that they had about the money, so he was fighting for what he believed he deserved & what was in his contract.

[RebeccaLovesEagles]

RebeccaLovesEagles


When you say here that Felder was "causing all the trouble" do we really have any real information as to exactly what this "trouble" was??? It is speculated that he didn't "agree that Henley & Frey deserved more money than him"....So you expect him to agree to that?? Do you just expect him to say, "Sure guys just take more money than me, you deserve more?" Of course not. Who could blame him for that??? I don't know if there were other arguments, if they were having creative differences or about anything else, but mainly it was about the written contract that they had about the money, so he was fighting for what he believed he deserved & what was in his contract.

I agree with everything you said.

I just meant regrettably as it was if you are 1/3 going against 2/3 it usually means right or not ; things won't go your way. I never said it was right actually i said I do think Glenn and Don should have included Felder, Bernie and Randy in the decisions as partners. I don't know how if everyone had an equal share how that was loss. I'd think it would have had to have been voted on, like a board of directors.

[Henley Honey]

I appreciate your POV, Vector. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[TimothyBFan]

AEW21, very well said and a lot of fuel for thought. Especially the part about the music being larger than the Eagles themselves. That's why I can overlook the bad stuff-their music is like an old friend who's been with me through thick and thin.

[EaglesKiwi]

The question is, can you separate those feelings from your feelings for the art they've created? In other words, can you "dislike" the artists, but still love the art they made?

Firstly, welcome Vector. I appreciate the amount of thought you put into your posts. As I was reading I was mentally composing my response, then saw that AEW21 has covered most of it off brilliantly (and bluefox - so succinct!).

I will just add - everybody in our lives will do things that we don't agree with, and if they're important (e.g. family) we learn to separate the behaviour from the people. In this case perhaps you can separate the behaviour from the music.

Also - they didn't have to make a documentary that exposed their less-than-angelic behaviour. In choosing to do so, I feel they're allowing us to see that the music does transcend the personalities and conflicts. JMHO.

[Vector]

I must say that I am impressed with the civility and well thought out replies. Heck every time I sit down to take the time to respond to Sodascouts reply(it will take some time since it covers so many aspects of this discussion), I read another great reply like TimotyBfans. So even though I've skipped a few to address others, I will certainly enjoy responding to everyone.

If you are really that interested in reading it as you say, you can certainly feel free to read any of the threads on the board.

Well I signed up weeks ago, but held off on posting because I was still in the midst of reading the books/articles and doing further research. That includes getting a feel for this site and a couple of posts helped lead me to different sources of information.


The one down side of the documentary for me is that it does serve as a catalyst to open up this discussion again.

To you this might all be old hat, but to others such as myself it is all new. As TimothyBfan so eloquently pointed out, there are other reasons the Doc has had a negative effect on some of us. However what true Eagles fan could have resisted watching it.

I do want to address some points in your post though. First of all, I am amazed that you claim to be unbiased in your opinion unlike the rest of us Eagles fans here. You are no less biased than anyone else here - in fact, even maybe more so.

Maybe I am missing something, but I'm not sure how much more unbiased one could be, starting with the premise of only knowing two of the seven band members name when I started on this quest. Outside of a person who hummed along to certain tunes but didn't even know a group called the Eagles recorded them, I was about as blank of a canvas as could be.

I even provided a disclosure saying if I did have a slight bias, it would be in Frey's favor because Tequila Sunrise was playing during my sons birth, and therefore became one of my favorite Eagles songs.

I think the only thing I failed to mention was that my perception of why they broke up long ago was due to Frey and Henley not getting along. Since they were the only two I'd heard of back then, I just assumed it was true. Needless to say the Doc seemed to gloss over their conflicts and inability to work with each other toward the end. However as we know from other sources, they were at odds much more than they want us to believe.

By your own admission, you are basing your opinion on a very limited amount of information and facts.

Again, maybe I am missing something, but between watching both parts of the Doc several times(also going back and forth to sections with my DVR), and reading all the books I listed except for one on backorder, how much more is there? I've watched several interviews (i.e. 60 Minutes), read different articles, some of which I found linked here, and so on.

There is lots of other information available about the band that would maybe change your mind if you were aware of it. But, then again, maybe not, since you seemed to have already made up your mind. And that is your prerogative, but, please don’t come here and claim to be the voice of reason among us frenzied fans.

First, please list any and all information outside of what I listed in the OP, you think might be helpful/relevant to understanding the bands history. My view is not yet set in stone, but is certainly forming based on many things being confirmed by cross referencing at least two sources, sometimes more.
So if the way I worded my OP was clumsy enough to suggest my view is intractable, that was a failing on my part.
Lastly, I did not intend to demean fans on this forum for being biased toward their particular favorite. My only intention was to point out that fans of anything can tend to see things with a bias they may not be able to control, or even are aware of.
I on the other hand do not have a horse in the race, so I do believe my research and perspective is arrived at from a less biased viewpoint.



I could be wrong, but this statement makes me wonder how aware you are of the details of the settlement.

My knowledge does not go beyond what is publicly known without the benefit of any special sources.
If you have details/sources that can further educate me on this, please feel free to provide them as I will take the time to investigate them.

Many of us here do not believe that there were any angels in this band and none of them deserves to bear all the blame for what went down.

I agree to a certain extent in that no one person is totally to blame. Yet I cannot bring myself to believe that out of the original 5, Randy Meisner was as bad as some of the others. By all accounts he was about as inoffensive as a person could be. He seemed very laid back, shy, naive, etc., and it even comes across listening to him in interviews, both past and present. As to the two "newer guys" Schmit seems to be out of the same mold. While not part of much of the conflict, he became aware of it early on, yet kept his head down. He handles himself with grace and dignity even in the face of his recent battle with cancer. As to Walsh and his multiple personalities(I say that affectionately) he also is more of a go along type of guy. Though I really enjoyed his Doc segments, I think he made an inaccurate statement by describing everyone but Meisner as all "Alphas". Certainly Schmit was more assertive on stage and in his self confidence, but he was no Alpha in the group. For that matter neither was Walsh when it came to bucking heads with Henley or Frey. I believe it is in part because of as he put it, he was in awe of those two, and not as confident in his abilities. That came as a surprise to me, but he is also humble enough to be that forthright.
But I digress.

Glenn is the focus and center of most of the disputes because he was the leader of the band and the one that was expected to address the issues. By, his own admission, he didn’t always handle everything as well as he could have, but to place all of the blame on him is very unfair.

I think we can agree here to some extent as well. As captain of a ship, it is up to you to keep things in order and make certain decisions. However it is also your responsibility to make sure the ship makes it safely to harbor with everyone aboard.
So when he made the self admission he could have handled things better, I respected him for that.
However where he really hurt himself was in the next breath he pat himself on the back saying he had done a better job this time around. I'm sure from his perspective he did. Clearly he is older, wiser, and presumably drug and alcohol free. That combined with much less vinegar flowing through his veins, and he probably is not as confrontational.

Yet by his demand and insistence he and Henley get more money as he put it, he started off on the wrong foot, and ultimately sowed the seeds of discontent when they started anew.



`