Felder's "Heaven and Hell" Discussion Thread

[sodascouts]

I do seem to remember someone says Ringo IS a Beatle ...

But would you say he is currently in the Beatles because he gets royalties?

EagleLady, I don't know what your definition of "rude" is, but in my book disagreeing with someone's logic is not "rude." However, calling someone ELSE rude is not very nice. Perhaps you should consider that before you toss the term around.

[MikeA]

Since when is collecting royalty checks the same as "in the band"? I daresay if you asked Bernie if he was still "in the Eagles" because he still got checks, he would give you a resounding "NO."

Not to mention that a lot of non-Eagles get royalties as well from Eagles material. Are they also "in the band"?

Is Ringo Starr still "in the Beatles" though the group has been disbanded for decades and half its members are dead?

Well, certainly they are not "in the band" as far as performing goes. But like Ringo and Paul who are and always will be "Beatles", the guys who were in the band and are receiving compensation for their contributions to the success of the band, are still involved from a financial standpoint.

As for the 80's, certainly Felder was "in the band" as much as were Frey, Henley, Walsh, and Schmit. You could make an argument that Meisner and Leadon were not a part of it during the 80's, but you really can't leave Felder out any more than any of those currently performing now who were in the band when they took their Vacation.

I'm not an insider with the Eagles, but I very much appreciate the talent that Felder brought to the band while there! He is bitter now. That is obvious.

But I daresay that there is bitterness on the parts of more than must Felder. He only told "his side" of the story. No one could do more than that. Should he have? Well, there was no decision reached on that point by the legal system. If I'm not mistaken, the Eagles LTD settled out of court with him so they must have not been extremely confident that they had a case against him that would come out in their favor.

I only know that there are two sides to every story (at least TWO). We've heard Felder's side. We have not heard the Eagles side. They pretty much refuse to talk about it.

It must be economically advantageous to Felder to follow the path he is on or he wouldn't be doing it <LOL>. If he has an audience, then I say more power to him <LOL>

If what he is saying is liableous (is that a word?) then The Eagles can sue him again.

[EagleLady]

Well, certainly they are not "in the band" as far as performing goes. But like Ringo and Paul who are and always will be "Beatles", the guys who were in the band and are receiving compensation for their contributions to the success of the band, are still involved from a financial standpoint.

As for the 80's, certainly Felder was "in the band" as much as were Frey, Henley, Walsh, and Schmit. You could make an argument that Meisner and Leadon were not a part of it during the 80's, but you really can't leave Felder out any more than any of those currently performing now who were in the band when they took their Vacation.

I'm not an insider with the Eagles, but I very much appreciate the talent that Felder brought to the band while there! He is bitter now. That is obvious.

But I daresay that there is bitterness on the parts of more than must Felder. He only told "his side" of the story. No one could do more than that. Should he have? Well, there was no decision reached on that point by the legal system. If I'm not mistaken, the Eagles LTD settled out of court with him so they must have not been extremely confident that they had a case against him that would come out in their favor.

I only know that there are two sides to every story (at least TWO). We've heard Felder's side. We have not heard the Eagles side. They pretty much refuse to talk about it.

It must be economically advantageous to Felder to follow the path he is on or he wouldn't be doing it <LOL>. If he has an audience, then I say more power to him <LOL>

If what he is saying is liableous (is that a word?) then The Eagles can sue him again.

Why are you sticking up for Felder? They would not have continued on with him.

[sodascouts]

Felder undeniably contributed to the band, as he is quick to remind us. He is a genius at the guitar and I respect his talent.

While the settlement does indicate that the Eagles were not confident of winning, it also indicates that Felder was not confident he would win either.

EagleLady: MikeA can feel free to "stick up for Felder" although honestly all I see is a man who is making some good points, not someone who is on a charge to defend Felder.

Adults can discuss things reasonably without accusations.

[EagleLady]

Well IMO, I wouldn't stick up for such a whiner like Felder

[ticky]

But would you say he is currently in the Beatles because he gets royalties?

EagleLady, I don't know what your definition of "rude" is, but in my book, disagreeing with someone is not "rude." However, calling someone ELSE rude is not very nice. Perhaps you should consider that before you toss the term around.

Not because of the Royalty checks persay, but definatly because of the popularity. I mean I listen to Abby road and I dont think "AHh the FORMER Beatles..." just as when I listen to Misner sing Try and Love Again, I dont think "OH yes.. the Former Eagles..." I dont know if it's the history or the popularity that makes a person a member of a band (IE the guy who Ringo replaced I wouldnt call a Beatle) but either way, I just KNOW that the albums I listen to that include Misner, Leadon and even Felder are The Eagles .

[ticky]

Well IMO, I wouldn't stick up for such a whiner like Felder

Maybe he is a whiner, but you cant deny his talent and his contributions. Im not Felder fan, but the guy can tear it up!

[EagleLady]

But would you say he is currently in the Beatles because he gets royalties?

EagleLady, I don't know what your definition of "rude" is, but in my book disagreeing with someone's logic is not "rude." However, calling someone ELSE rude is not very nice. Perhaps you should consider that before you toss the term around.

Perhaps you could have given your opinion without such a biting tone IMO

[sodascouts]

Not because of the Royalty checks persay, but definatly because of the popularity. I mean I listen to Abby road and I dont think "AHh the FORMER Beatles..." just as when I listen to Misner sing Try and Love Again, I dont think "OH yes.. the Former Eagles..." I dont know if it's the history or the popularity that makes a person a member of a band (IE the guy who Ringo replaced I wouldnt call a Beatle) but either way, I just KNOW that the albums I listen to that include Misner, Leadon and even Felder are The Eagles .

I think a lot of people have that emotional response, and it's a legitimate one. I know that even if the Eagles disbanded never to be heard from again, a lot of people will still call them "Eagles" forever.

I guess I just think that such an emotional claim isn't the same as an official membership in a band, you know? JMHO.

Anyway, this was never meant to be a big deal! lol

[ticky]

Not a big deal *G* a lively discussion!! *G* who would I have to have lively discussions with if it werent for you Soda LOL
and yes, current membership of a band is important, but how do you determine band membership with something like music which continues to have it's own life long after the band or it's members have moved on? I completely agree that The Eagles today do not include Felder, Misner and Leadon (thats a given of course) but the music remains.. IMHO