Felder's "Heaven and Hell" Discussion Thread

[WalshFan88]

I agree there is contradiction, probably due to simply not remembering exactly what happened due to drugs or otherwise. I don't believe Felder is a liar by any stretch nor do I believe it's purposeful.

As far as Eagles LTD, I always felt that IMO DH and GF shouldn't have needed more money than the rest. I'll leave the songwriting thing aside but I take issue with Glenn's comment in HOTE where he says their solo careers kept the Eagles in people's minds and alive. I disagree, to me it was classic rock radio. And even Glenn says that in the begining of Part 2. I'm not saying it didn't play a part but IMO isn't a great excuse for needing more money. Again I'm not going to touch on the songwriting thing, as that's been beat to death and I have discussed it. But I've always had a problem with that other comment.

[sodascouts]

I take issue with Glenn's comment in HOTE where he says their solo careers kept the Eagles in people's minds and alive. I disagree, to me it was classic rock radio. And even Glenn says that in the begining of Part 2. I'm not saying it didn't play a part but IMO isn't a great excuse for needing more money. Again I'm not going to touch on the songwriting thing, as that's been beat to death and I have discussed it. But I've always had a problem with that other comment.

I see what you're saying, Austin. It might be something to take to the documentary thread, if you'd like to discuss it more.

[WalshFan88]

I see what you're saying, Austin. It might be something to take to the documentary thread, if you'd like to discuss it more.

Sure.

[UndertheWire]

Felder writes about his attempts to form a new band with other former Eagles during the break and the difficulties of getting a record contract. The first time, with a lineup that included Felder, Tim and Joe, they were offered a deal that Joe considered to be insulting - they would have cleared about $40,000 each. Then the "Mailbu Men's Choir" was unable to get a deal at all. Meanwhile, Glenn and Henley still had record deals.

What I've been thinking is that an important part of putting together the "resumption" was negotiating the terms of the CD, the MTV show, the video and the tour. This wasn't the general public, listening to the radio, but the men (and women) who control the entertainment businesses. Their view would have taken lots of other factors into account but mostly about how they could market the reunion.

The odd thing is that Felder had more than an inkling that he was expendable before the reunion. He wrote about hearing how different former members of the band had been playing together at benefits and yet he hadn't been invited. He even wondered if it was Irving's way of saying "we can do this without you."

[chaim]

I'm stating AN OPINION based on their prior statements and prior behavior, which is my right.

The real mistake is the one you & the mods are making by trying to run roughshod over posters that espouse a different point of view. It's not good manners or good business.

Well, frankly this sounds more than just an opinion to me, especially since you assume that Dreamer "knows" this too:

Felder felt that he was an equal partner who was getting the shaft, hence the lawsuit and the subsequent settlement. You know Frey & Henley's personalities, Dreamer. I believe that they would have NEVER settled if they could have won. Their pride and love for money would not have allowed them to.

However, the "I believe" that starts the sentence after that makes it clear that what follows is an opinion.

[webvan]

"Equal partner" on paper but not in reality, and it could be argued it was always like that. That "equality" concept sounds a bit like a pipe dream but bands like the Rolling Stones seem to use it with the four of them getting an equal share of the profits even though their votes don't count the same...

The problem with the Eagles is that after 1977 and in 1994 two of the five were employees and it doesn't sound like Felder did anything to make them partners throughout the years in spite of telling them he was also "fighting for them" after he got canned.

[chaim]

This whole "equal partner" thing has always sounded funny to me anyway. How often does a person who joins later become a full member in a band? I'm not an expert here, but I assume that this is not always the case. IMO Don should be grateful for becoming an "equal partner" in the first place. I don't remember him talking about his lucky break (becoming an Eagle) as much as he's talked about the Eagles needing him.

From what I've read, Don has IMO always been slightly delusional about his importance and status in the band. All the way to that "I wrote the OOTN bassline and made the song what it is" (not word for word) statement from 1975.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

In reading these posts, the 'equal partner' discussion is confusing me so I thought I'd clarify this. According to Felder's book, he was an made equal partner at the time he joined the band in 1974. However, when the band got back together in 1994, his contract was renegotiated and he was 'demoted' to the same status as Joe and Timothy. The terms were that Henley and Frey received 2/7th's of the band's profits each, while Felder, Schmit, and Walsh each received 1/7th apiece.

[chaim]

In reading these posts, the 'equal partner' discussion is getting confusing to me so I thought I'd clarify this. According to Felder's book, he was an made equal partner at the time he joined the band in 1974. However, when the band got back together in 1994, his contract was renegotiated and he was 'demoted' to the same status as Joe and Timothy. The terms were that Henley and Frey received 2/7th's of the band's profits each, while Felder, Schmit, and Walsh each received 1/7th apiece.

I know this, but my point was that IMO Don F should've just been happy that he was an equal partner at least in the 70's. As far as I know, they didn't have to make him an equal partner in the 70's, but they chose to. From where I'm standing, that was extremely fair.

Having said that, I would probably have reacted the same way if I had been in Don's place.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I know this, but my point was that IMO Don F should've just been happy that he was an equal partner at least in the 70's. As far as I know, they didn't have to make him an equal partner in the 70's, but they chose to. From where I'm standing, that was extremely fair.

ITA chaim.