Felder's "Heaven and Hell" Discussion Thread

[MikeA]

I'll be the sacrificial lamb or devil's advocate here. But I want to have the leisure to formulate a meaningful response. My intent really isn't to stir up hate and discontent. I just tend to look at things "objectively". It is my nature.

One thing though that we should all remember is that these guys are artists. I had marks on my report card when in elementary school "Does Not Play Well With Others" <LOL>. The Eagles (i.e., Frey and Henley along with Rhonstat, CSN&Y, POCO....ect...) were all in the ground breaking climate of the late 60's and early 70's as the singer-songwriter designation of musicians was forming itself. On top of that, Frey and Henley were from the beginning trying to make successful a genre of music that had not been successful before (country rock). Combine that with their young ages. They were blessed with tremendous success before they had the maturity to deal with it! Can we say "Volatile?"

They did methodically plan out their strategy and that included enlisting Leadon and Meisner. Later on, they furthered their goals to success by taking the next step for them by moving more into Rock and to do that, they needed another type musician....Felder. One album later, they kicked it up another notch by hiring Walsh and later still, by replacing Meisner with Schmit.

Note that with Leadon and Meisner, partnership as an Eagle was part of the agreement. It was the same with Felder. These three were full partners in the Eagles LTD. Walsh and Schmit were not and are not partners in the Eagles LTD. In the case of Meisner and Leadon, they "officially" left "voluntarily".

Felder, for whatever reason, did not leave even when it was obvious that he was a bone of contention. Why should he? He was as much of a partner of the Eagles corporation as was Frey or Henley.

At that point, I really think that one of two things took place and I do not know if the public will ever know what really happened. But on the surface, it appears that "The Eagles" either made a horrible judgmental call that violated Felder's rights as a Partner or they realized what they were doing and knew they were stepping over the legal lines and decided to do it anyway! They had to have known that you can't FIRE a partner! You would have to assume that they had legal counsel that would have advised them as to the legal Pandora's Box they were about to open up. They could either buy him out or make life so difficult for him in the band that he would leave on his on or Felder could have sold his partnership and walked away. Who knows what offers were made or what conditions existed!

Whatever the case, they got what "The Eagles" wanted eventually though I'm sure it cost them dearly to get it. Felder was out. Maybe it was something that had to be done to allow the Eagles to "move on" where Don and Glenn (the ONLY two remaining Partners in the corporation) wanted it to go. Maybe it was even cheaper to do it that way than to settle without the Judicial System's involvement. But the Eagles were in the driver's seat through all of this. When they "Fired" him, they engaged the game. Felder responded in the only way he could short of rolling over and playing dead. He Sued.

As for his book....I've certainly read a lot worse accounts written by artists! And, knowing something of the background of the 60's and 70's musicians, I do not have a lot of trouble seeing the issues from Felder's viewpoint.

You could say that Frey and Henley elected to take the "high road" by not responding to allegations made in the book. Maybe so. Or maybe they simply believe it is beneath their notice. If they do think it beneath them, then we are all probably making a lot out of something that Don and Glenn do not consider worth rebutting.

I've said it before and will say it again, I love these guys as musicians, but they are NOT ROLE MODELS! They were back in the day, exceptional pioneers in music. Today, they are very good performers (I do not there is anyone better!) though I do not think myself that their current contributions of new material is up to the standards they established in the Sevienties.

They were and are very successful in what they did and still do. But they took it to the limits too! Today, the remaining members of The Eagles Corporation are both artists and also very successful Businessmen. I admire them for their success. But I wouldn't want my son to pattern his life on the flowchart that any of the Musicians of the 60's and 70's charted out!

AS for "sticking up for Felder", he really doesn't need any of my help. But were he to offer me say .00001% of the setlement in the lawsuit, I could retire and would stick up for him then! <LOL>

[EagleLady]

Well Mike seeing as Felder was a source of contention, I feel that by firing him, they were able to go on without any stress or contention. As for the role models thing, well I see it differently. I see them as being complete role models for someone to look by.

[MikeA]

Well Mike seeing as Felder was a source of contention, I feel that by firing him, they were able to go on without any stress or contention. As for the role models thing, well I see it differently. I see them as being complete role models for someone to look by.

But that's my point EL. They couldn't legally "FIRE" him. He was one of three equal partners in a corporation. They could buy him out. But that was the only legal way they could exclude him from the Band.

And as for the role model thing....no, I won't even go there! <LOL>

[EagleLady]

I say we should just let sleeping dogs lie. I don't really like Felder's attitude anyways.

[Freypower]

But that's my point EL. They couldn't legally "FIRE" him. He was one of three equal partners in a corporation. They could buy him out. But that was the only legal way they could exclude him from the Band.

And as for the role model thing....no, I won't even go there! <LOL>

The point is that when the band reformed he lost his equal status as a partner - to which he AGREED. He agreed to have his status downgraded. Therefore they were perfectly entitled to fire him. And to me there is no point saying they could not do it, when they did.

[MikeA]

The point is that when the band reformed he lost his equal status as a partner - to which he AGREED. He agreed to have his status downgraded. Therefore they were perfectly entitled to fire him. And to me there is no point saying they could not do it, when they did.

Hi FP,

I don't think he ever relinquished his partnership. He might have agreed to take a low profile so that the reunion could take place with him being a part of it. I do seem to recall something like that happening. But that was what the lawsuit was primarily about....unlawful termination. You'll certainly remember that that lawsuit drug out what seemed like "forever" and never was settled in court. They reached an agreement in the private sector which I assume was an agreement that was satisfying to all parties concerned.

The Eagles did get what they wanted...separation from Felder, but it couldn't have ever happened in such a way as an Employer terminates employment with an Employee. The closest analogy I can think of is if Abercrombie tried to "fire" Fitch....or Sears maybe trying to "fire" Robuck. One could buy the other out if the other wanted to sell, but one couldn't just decide that he didn't want to do business with the other and kick him out.

The Eagles went on to produce a new album without Felder. Felder wrote a book. I'm happy for both parties. It's pretty obvious that the book did the Eagles no real harm....look at their sold out concert performances! Multiply that by the costs of the tickets! They ain't hurtin'! <LOL>

I would imagine that the sales of the book and the notoriety that Felder has achieved with it and the cash settlement he got from Eagles LTD have hurt him none either.

And, I'm thinking that as with any writer, any publicity he gets is good publicity. The more people who hear about the book and the controversy surrounding it, the more copies it will sell. Felder's got to love that <smile>.

Okay, back to the original comments to my first post on this topic:

I am NOT sticking up for Felder. I'm simply stating the facts surrounding the legality of his termination of partnership with the Eagles, as I know them. I do not claim that I know the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

But if the Truth as I know it, be known, I don't think any of the guys were Angels. I would be sort of disappointed if they were! They are Musicians with tremendous talent and I appreciate that in any Musician and in particularly in the Eagles! With that talent and success, they also carried with them tremendous egos. That goes with the territory.

I do appreciate the talent that every doggone one of them has demonstrated time and time again since their first release. I didn't become a fan of theirs because they were Saints nor because they were Sinners. I fell in love with what they did as Musicians!

Knowing that every darn one of them had their faults detracts not at all from my devotion to them as musicians. I really don't care if they steal candy from babies and cheat at solitaire....it doesn't change their ability entertain better than any other group that has ever existed.

And THAT is why I am one of the biggest fans of the Eagles and each of the individuals that make up that group! ALL of them including Felder. Whatever it took to accomplish the success they were after during each phase of their growth was a commitment they made. Each change in the makeup of the band was plotted and executed for a reason. And, each action they took has enhanced their success....even the separation from Felder.

I do admit that I do not understand that separation very well, other than from a standpoint of personality conflict. Prior to that "transaction" the separations had been more practical though there was conflict in personalities there as well. They terminated relationship with Leadon and Meisner with the idea of moving away from Folk/Country and more into Rock and brought Felder in to further that move. The same happened when they brought Walsh in though in Joe's case, there was some compassion involved I think. I think Joe has never forgotten that nor do I think he is ungrateful for that act on the part of the Eagles....but it was a two way "transaction" that benefited both Walsh and the Eagles.

I do think that the loss of Don Felder hurt the Eagles "Musically", but I also believe that if they could not work together toward getting LROE finished and continue touring as they so obviously wanted to do, then it was predestined that somehow they sever relationships with Felder. This they did and I think they did it with their eyes open knowing the consequences.

[Prettymaid]

Thank you Mike. I'm rather objective about it too, but am not willing to receive the wrath of The Border members!

Most of the members here see the guys as handsome iconic figures and will always stick up for them through thick or thin as if they were their own husbands!

I'm afraid Felder has become a bad word here.

[sodascouts]

Ouch, PM! That's pretty harsh criticism.

If I have ever given anyone the impression that I will be angry if they support Felder, I apologize. Everyone has a right to their opinion and, as I said before, I am happy to have an intelligent discussion with anyone on the topic. MikeA has several good points.

By the same token, though, if someone believes that the Eagles were right to fire Felder, that doesn't mean their opinion is not "objective" or that they worship the guys. It simply means their opinion is different from yours.

As long as there's no attacking going on, I don't see a problem. It's true that some people feel that if you disagree with someone else, and say so, that you are being rude. I don't think MikeA is that delicate a flower, are you Mike? I appreciate someone who can hold their own.

I know sometimes people think that if they disagree with an opinion of an administrator, they'll "get into trouble." Let me assure everyone that that is not the case on The Border. I welcome your opinions and again, if I have somehow given the impression that I do not, I am sincerely sorry and will work harder to clear it up.

I'm afraid that doesn't mean I will hesitate to give my opinion, though! lol

[MikeA]

No Soda, my skin is pretty thick.

But I really don't want anyone thinking that I am attacking either THEM or their position. I'm not.

As to whether or not the Eagles LTD was "right" to get rid of Felder....I think I understand why they needed to do it. My only point was that they couldn't legally fire him. But if they could continue without him, but couldn't continue with him, and if they wanted to continue, then it was pretty much etched in granite that they had to part company. I just think they took a pretty sloppy way of doing it <LOL> It would have probably been a LOT cheaper to have just bought him off at a price that Felder was willing to accept in order to resign and turn over his 1/3 control of Eagles LTD. I think that would have been much cheaper than what they probably ended up paying plus the legal fees and the delay in being about to release anything "new" that Felder would have had no claim on as a member in the Partnership (Eagles LTD).

I wanted to point out the fact that there were a LOT of circumstances, many of which we know nothing about, that might have and probably did trigger Felder into saying the things he said. Nothing is ever done without reason even when the "reason" is founded upon something that isn't correct. Felder obviously believed it to be correct and as long as his perceptions were what he was experiencing (right or wrong), he was then being honest as to what he wrote.

I'm re-reading that and it doesn't even make a lot of sense to ME! Felder might be wrong, but he I think, was "telling it like it was" from the way he perceived it. That at least, is "honest". After all, this is an 'AUTOBIOGRAPHY'.

If someone writes an autobiography and describes in detail having a friendship with a pink rabbit with purple poka-dots, and if that is something that he actually experienced...fact or fantasy, it would be "factual" to him and in writing about it, he is being "honest".

Since his book is about HIM (Felder) then what he experienced from his own perspective was a perfectly legitimate situation for him to document. As I've said before, there are two sides to every story and we are only hearing Felder's as Frey and Henley have chosen not to defend the allegations.

[sodascouts]

But I really don't want anyone thinking that I am attacking either THEM or their position. I'm not.

As far as I can tell, no one thinks that.

Regarding Felder's perspective: I too think Felder was being honest about his emotions.