Felder's "Heaven and Hell" Discussion Thread

[Freypower]

Then there was that comment in HOTE about the Victim Of Love problem. He says openly there that nobody in the band was as good a singer as Henley. Nobody at all, Frey included. OK, he thought Henley was better (many people do) but just to ignore Frey's vocal contributions so entirely says a great deal.

[UndertheWire]

There are many good things about the book, but while we're in bash mode, I'll add that Felder seems to be deliberately blind about the leadership of the band. This may be because he was a friend of Bernie's and in the early days it appears that there was something of a battle for control between Bernie and Glenn.

Felder's description of his first meeting has this:

There didn't seem to be a clear leader , although I noticed that Glenn was the most confident and was the one who stepped up to make the introductions.

[Sebastian]

On page 193 (I'm in Comic Book Guy mode now), Don F. claims Don H. asked if Susan was home so Don F. could phone her and she'd play the cassette of the 'Hotel California' demo and play it, etc.

When interviewed on the road lately, Don F.'s said he had to phone the maid... so Susan's a maid now? Jeez, no wonder why she found a business of her own...

On page 188, Felder chooses some odd phrasing:

Don said quietly, "I think this should be the single."

That completely ignores 'New Kid in Town'.

Moreover, there's the story of the song being way too long... 'Bohemian Rhapsody' had been certified gold in June 1976, and it was an Elektra release, so it wasn't 'that' anomalous.

What could've been relatively 'rare' for Eagles was that they didn't edit 'Hotel California' into a shorter version for the single, unlike 'New Kid in Town', 'Take It to the Limit', 'Lyin' Eyes', 'One of These Nights' and 'Best of My Love', all of which had been shortened for the single release.

Wings' 'Silly Love Songs' (certified gold in the States on 11th June 1976) was nearly six-minute long, and it'd topped the American charts for over a month; Elton John had scored to No 1 hits in America in 1975 around the six-minute length as well: 'Philadelphia Freedom' and his cover of The Beatles' 'Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds', and they'd both been gold as well...

Personally, I think the biggest anomaly about 'Hotel California' as a potential No 1 was not its length but its style. Those were the days of 'Shake Your Booty', 'You Should Be Dancing', 'Dancing Queen', 'Disco Duck', 'Play That Funky Music' and 'Car Wash', so for a song 'like that' to be No 1 it was difficult, but obviously not impossible as they eventually proved.

[Freypower]

Don't forget Hey Jude. Seven minutes.

I didn't know NKIT had been edited for single release. What was cut out? I can't imagine such a thing. But yes, Felder's deliberate refusal to acknowledge that not only was it released first, it went to Number One, is one of the most galling parts of the book.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Moreover, there's the story of the song being way too long... 'Bohemian Rhapsody' had been certified gold in June 1976, and it was an Elektra release, so it wasn't 'that' anomalous.

Don't forget Hey Jude. Seven minutes.

The length of the song only mattered on AM and not FM. Eliot mentioned this in his book and I had a hard time believing him. I did a search on it and found a few sources that verified that. Were either of these other songs released to AM?

[Sebastian]

I think the single version of 'New Kid in Town' has a shorter solo and/or starts to fade a bit earlier. It ends up being about 15-20 seconds shorter.

By the way, NKIT won a Grammy, so it wasn't just a minor hit from any perspective.

As for AM and length, good point, worth looking up.

[chaim]

I got the book some years ago and read it cover to cover in about a week. Then I read some selected chapters again last year and then again a couple of months ago.

Not being an Eagles trivia guru, a lot of what I read there was 'new' for me and I had no way to know if it was true or not, but I can completely understand how some Eagles experts could feel if they found contradictions and the like (that's how I feel when I watch a Queen documentary or read an article and nitpick on some detail 99% of viewers/readers couldn't care less about, so I can relate).

The structure of the book is quite interesting: quite simple, rags to riches story which reads in chronological order (most of the time, at least) and puts the reader in that world, slowly introducing the 'well-known' characters such as Frey and Henley ... speaking of which, I would absolutely LOVE to read Henley's autobiography (if/when he publishes one), as he's a man with not only loads of stories to tell (GnR, etc.) but also a unique way with words, so the way he'd tell the tale would be as exciting as the content itself... and that's saying something!

Anyway, back to Felder: quite passive/aggressive on his description of his band-mates. He praises Henley's voice (who wouldn't?), lyrics, musical ear and perfectionism, but then he also says something along the lines of 'Joe Vitalle, with an arm and a leg chopped off, could still play drums better.' Even if that were true (from a technical standpoint, well, yeah, Joe's a more accomplished drummer perhaps), that's not quite a nice thing to say, especially for someone who's complaining (read: moaning) about Glenn using nicknames and the such.

What I noted is that Felder hardly ever says something good about Glenn. Sure, he says something about his conceptualising and that he could be fun when he was coked out of his a**se, but when it comes to praising him as a musician, he doesn't, even though he's very appreciative of other people's talents and contributions, such as when he describes Souther's invaluable songwriting input or when he says that Randy had one of the best voices in the band ... not once, as far as I remember, did Felder say anything good about Glenn's voice, or guitar playing to that effect. He didn't say anything bad either, but his 'silence' speaks volumes.

In fact his side of the story's VERY biased when it comes to Glenn's participation. I remember at some point he was implying the audience would be bored of 'Take It Easy' and 'Peaceful Easy Feeling' (he named just those two songs, see a pattern?) - not so much. I know of many people (myself included) who regard both as some of Eagles' best works ever. He seems to live in a bubble where 'New Kid in Town', 'Tequila Sunrise', 'Lyin' Eyes', 'Already Gone' and 'Heartache Tonight' either didn't exist or were mere pittances compared to, say, 'I Can't Tell You Why' (where he conveniently forgot to mention Glenn'd played the solo).

Don't take me wrong, I understand it was HIS book, about HIS life, so he needn't spend page after page talking about Glenn's songs or input, but it wouldn't have been a massive effort on his side to add the occasional line such as 'Glenn played some nice guitar on that song' or 'the album opened with a good song which Glenn sang', and the whole tone of the book would've been different and not as spiteful.

Don's quite a clever bloke, clever enough to offer open statements where he's quite claiming some credit without directly doing so (thus trying to come off as a saint in the process). His whole description of 'Life in the Fast Lane' was nauseous for me, as he's giving himself credit for the riff; he then says something along the lines of 'Joe took it over and the song became his' but it reads more like a patronising 'I threw him a bone and then he developed something from it.'

About 'Hotel California', the song, he's telling the story in a quite romanticised way IMO, which isn't just his fault, it's just rock 'n' roll journalism... big songs' 'biographies' are usually told in a spectacular way, as that's, in a way, what the fans want. I mentioned Queen earlier, and I'll use them as an example: saying that 'Bohemian Rhapsody' had about twenty-something vocal overdubs, was played by Kenny Everett four times on his radio programme, and had a popular video, is far, far, far closer to the truth than 180 overdubs, broadcast 14 times and being 'the first video' ever, but which version of the tale is more appealing?

So, 'Hotel California' was described in a quite biased way keeping that in mind. Omitting details such as 'New Kid in Town' preceding it as a single, and the fact that having such a long song as a hit single was statistically rare but not at all unprecedented or unique, helped building a more legendary picture. Of course, the song's great and a masterpiece and all that, but there's no need to falsify it ... or maybe there IS need, but I don't want to get too sidetracked on that... at least not at the moment.

I pretty much agree. But, to be fair, Don doesn't claim that he wrote the main riff in LITFL. I think he means the "secondary" riff after the intro.
And, definitely, the story about Hotel California is very much romanticised. "The afternoon was perfect...". He pretty much sums up his life until that point, and then this grand thing happens one delighful afternoon - HE DISCOVERS THOSE MAGICAL CHORDS (!!!!!); chords that had been used before by others. The picture where he's "writing Hotel California" is also a bit weird also, because, 1) I'm sure he's not actually writing the song there. The picture was just taken in the same room, 2) it wasn't "Hotel California" until Glenn and Don came up with the concept and the title.

[Sebastian]

Another complaint is when he talks about other people doing drugs, especially his younger son. Even if he got permission to do it (which he probably did), it's completely distasteful and off-putting IMO. He could've been more subtle and say something such as 'I had problems with Cody, and those were keeping me up', but to openly reveal 'my son was doing drugs...' was, IMO, the literary equivalent of publishing a picture of his kid on the toilet... certain things are very, very private.

I don't like, by extension, when he goes into detail about his bandmates' substance abuse... again, it's like showing a picture of Joe throwing up or Tim with chicken pox.

The moments he described songwriting and recording sessions, including those that didn't include him, are great. I wish there'd been more of that and less of the tabloid stuff.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Since I've pretty much said most of what I have to say about the book, I don't comment much anymore. However, I don't recall any discussion about the drug issue coming up so I'll give my thoughts about it.

Another complaint is when he talks about other people doing drugs, especially his younger son. Even if he got permission to do it (which he probably did), it's completely distasteful and off-putting IMO. He could've been more subtle and say something such as 'I had problems with Cody, and those were keeping me up', but to openly reveal 'my son was doing drugs...' was, IMO, the literary equivalent of publishing a picture of his kid on the toilet... certain things are very, very private

I don't like, by extension, when he goes into detail about his bandmates' substance abuse... again, it's like showing a picture of Joe throwing up or Tim with chicken pox..

Sebastian, I would have to disagree with you about this. I didn't have a problem with Don addressing the drug issues with either his son or the band. I would assume that his son was okay with what his father wrote, and, if not, that is between the two of them to work out. As far as the band, I really don't think he exposed anything about the drug use that any of the band members haven't already said before.

I'm not an expert by any means, but I think that part of the recovery process from addiction is to acknowledge your problem. From my experiences, most recovering addicts are pretty forthcoming about their issues, and find it cathartic to get it out in the open. So, I would defend Don's decision to discuss this at the level he did. I don't recall him crossing the line about divulging anything extremely personal.

The moments he described songwriting and recording sessions, including those that didn't include him, are great. I wish there'd been more of that and less of the tabloid stuff.

Now - on this, ITA with you.

[Sebastian]

Yeah, it's just a question of different perspectives on the matter. I'm fine with us disagreeing, as it'd be too boring otherwise

Acknowledging your problems is indeed very purgative and it is admirable when it is about *your* problems. When it is about someone else's, IDK, I don't feel comfortable, as a reader, because it resembles a tabloid, even if/when it's not with that intention.

ITA with 'that is between the two of them to work out', and that's precisely my point: the rest of the world didn't need to know about that, IMO. One of Cody's kids could find out about their dad's sordid past because their granddad 'ratted him out'... unfortunate implications all the way. When he, on the other hand, talked about his oldest son and his relationship with his eventual wife, that was lovely, and something his grandkids should be quite happy with when they read it (if they haven't already).

Despite everything I've 'criticised' lately, I actually like the book, a lot. My quibbles are about the overwhelming minority of its contents.