Page 7 of 8 FirstFirst ... 345678 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 76

Thread: Fake Reviews ???

  1. #61

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Vince Gill is no chump. He has won more Grammys than all the Eagles put together. He is from the country music genre, where you cannot possibly succeed unless you have the vocal goods and one cannot simply rely on gimmicks, a sexy image, etc. as some rock/pop acts have (although that may not be the case anymore now that country has changed). I don’t get why it’s so shocking to some that reviewers consistently praise his performances. It’s one thing to say his voice doesn’t suit the songs or doesn’t appeal to one’s personal taste but as far as “quality” goes—Henley chose him for a reason.

    Rather than conjuring up conspiracy theories or bashing reviewers, maybe it’s to accept that, for reviewers like much of the public, Vince is a damn fine singer.



    Concert reviews should be focused on the performances, IMO. If there were comparisons to be made, they should have been made last summer/fall when this whole enterprise was getting off the ground. Glenn has been gone for almost 2 1/2 years now—and he will never be forgotten—but I do believe the reviewers have struck the right balance between evaluating the performances and remembering Glenn’s contributions. As a fan of Bernie, Randy and Don F, I understand “rewriting history” and I don’t see how that is happening with Glenn.



    How is Glenn not being treated fairly? He’s not in the band anymore!
    Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified

  2. #62
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,586

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungEaglesFan View Post
    Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified
    You did make it clear IMO. You said "wasn't" instead of "hasn't been". At least it was clear to me what you meant.

  3. #63
    Stuck on the Border Freypower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24,191

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    At the risk of sounding like a broken record, Vince Gill is no chump. He has won more Grammys than all the Eagles put together. He is from the country music genre, where you cannot possibly succeed unless you have the vocal goods and one cannot simply rely on gimmicks, a sexy image, etc. as some rock/pop acts have (although that may not be the case anymore now that country has changed). I don’t get why it’s so shocking to some that reviewers consistently praise his performances. It’s one thing to say his voice doesn’t suit the songs or doesn’t appeal to one’s personal taste but as far as “quality” goes—Henley chose him for a reason.

    Rather than conjuring up conspiracy theories or bashing reviewers, maybe it’s to accept that, for reviewers like much of the public, Vince is a damn fine singer.



    Concert reviews should be focused on the performances, IMO. If there were comparisons to be made, they should have been made last summer/fall when this whole enterprise was getting off the ground. Glenn has been gone for almost 2 1/2 years now—and he will never be forgotten—but I do believe the reviewers have struck the right balance between evaluating the performances and remembering Glenn’s contributions. As a fan of Bernie, Randy and Don F, I understand “rewriting history” and I don’t see how that is happening with Glenn.



    How is Glenn not being treated fairly? He’s not in the band anymore!
    Glenn was not treated fairly while he was alive. I cannot believe that has to even be explained.

    It's interesting that you say you understand rewriting history regarding Bernie, Randy & Felder, but you don't understand it when the founding member & leader has died & no attempt is being made to evaluate the performances of the replacements against his performances. You talk about Gill & the number of Grammies he has won. It is not enough to say that he's a good singer. What should be at issue is how his vocals on Glenn's songs compare with Glenn's.

    The replacements. both Deacon & Gill, are being let off too lightly by reviewers. That's all. That is rewriting history, to write Glenn Frey out.

    And a few more words about comparisons. I got into trouble for this before, but I will say it again. People never let up on Glenn for his performance of TITTL. He was never good enough. Now, suddenly, it isn't right to make any comparisons.

    Also, the people in this organisation are billing themselves as 'Eagles' and playing Eagles songs. Did they or the people who support this seriously believe that no comparisons would be made, particularly unfavourable ones? They are using the name. They should be judged accordingly. Just whitewashing them and saying they are 'different' is not sufficient. They want to be different? Then play different songs & stop using the name.

    Or will I be told that they are not pretending to be the 'Eagles'? Well, yes they are, down to Henley's ludicrous claim in his NYT interview that people want to see the band who recorded the songs.
    Last edited by Freypower; 04-24-2018 at 07:15 PM.

  4. #64
    Stuck on the Border Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Long road south out of Cass County
    Posts
    2,893

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by YoungEaglesFan View Post
    Sorry Delilah I meant in the past, I should have clarified
    Ok, I see what you mean. The last couple of pages are about recent concert reviews and you were responding to a post about recent reviews. I guess I was still in that time frame plus I’m not familiar with reviews of Glenn’s past performances. I’m sorry I misunderstood you.

    Take it to the limit, one more time.

  5. #65
    Stuck on the Border Delilah's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Long road south out of Cass County
    Posts
    2,893

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Freypower View Post
    Glenn was not treated fairly while he was alive. I cannot believe that has to even be explained.

    It's interesting that you say you understand rewriting history regarding Bernie, Randy & Felder, but you don't understand it when the founding member & leader has died & no attempt is being made to evaluate the performances of the replacements against his performances. You talk about Gill & the number of Grammies he has won. It is not enough to say that he's a good singer. What should be at issue is how his vocals on Glenn's songs compare with Glenn's.

    The replacements. both Deacon & Gill, are being let off too lightly by reviewers. That's all. That is rewriting history, to write Glenn Frey out.

    And a few more words about comparisons. I got into trouble for this before, but I will say it again. People never let up on Glenn for his performance of TITTL. He was never good enough. Now, suddenly, it isn't right to make any comparisons.

    Also, the people in this organisation are billing themselves as 'Eagles' and playing Eagles songs. Did they or the people who support this seriously believe that no comparisons would be made, particularly unfavourable ones? They are using the name. They should be judged accordingly. Just whitewashing them and saying they are 'different' is not sufficient. They want to be different? Then play different songs & stop using the name.

    Or will I be told that they are not pretending to be the 'Eagles'? Well, yes they are, down to Henley's ludicrous claim in his NYT interview that people want to see the band who recorded the songs.
    It does seem you ARE saying Glenn isn’t being treated fairly in these recent reviews i.e. he isn’t getting enough attention or evaluation.

    With all due respect FP, these guys are in their 70s now. The days of being at the forefront of the music scene are long over. The task at hand is to play the old hits like the fans want and has been done for decades now. Yes they shook things up with a new album and history tour. But still fans wanted to hear the old hits. I just don’t see the need for some deep critical analysis of their shows. They are not blazing new trails in music. It would be different if they were recording a new album.

    I don’t see the point of this evaluation and comparison of Deacon and Vince’s vocals to Glenn’s. It has nothing to do with writing Glenn out of the band’s history which would be impossible in my view. Anyone can recognize they don’t sound like Glenn. His songs will always be his songs regardless. As far as TITTL, I don’t know what to say except that it is one of the hardest songs to sing out of the entire Eagles catalog, probably in the top 3. Not just in terms of technique and vocal ability but in expressing emotion and vulnerability and yearning.

    I brought up tbe Grammy wins b/c of the implication by some posters that it is somehow wrong for reviewers to continually praise Vince’s singing, not b/c he doesn’t deserve it but “just because.”

    I haven’t read a single review where Glenn’s name wasn’t mentioned. Not one. He isn’t being written out of the band’s history. But like the band’s remembering him at each concert, it isn’t good enough apparently.

    Take it to the limit, one more time.

  6. #66
    Stuck on the Border Freypower's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    24,191

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    It does seem you ARE saying Glenn isn’t being treated fairly in these recent reviews i.e. he isn’t getting enough attention or evaluation.

    With all due respect FP, these guys are in their 70s now. The days of being at the forefront of the music scene are long over. The task at hand is to play the old hits like the fans want and has been done for decades now. Yes they shook things up with a new album and history tour. But still fans wanted to hear the old hits. I just don’t see the need for some deep critical analysis of their shows. They are not blazing new trails in music. It would be different if they were recording a new album.

    I don’t see the point of this evaluation and comparison of Deacon and Vince’s vocals to Glenn’s. It has nothing to do with writing Glenn out of the band’s history which would be impossible in my view. Anyone can recognize they don’t sound like Glenn. His songs will always be his songs regardless. As far as TITTL, I don’t know what to say except that it is one of the hardest songs to sing out of the entire Eagles catalog, probably in the top 3. Not just in terms of technique and vocal ability but in expressing emotion and vulnerability and yearning.

    I brought up tbe Grammy wins b/c of the implication by some posters that it is somehow wrong for reviewers to continually praise Vince’s singing, not b/c he doesn’t deserve it but “just because.”

    I haven’t read a single review where Glenn’s name wasn’t mentioned. Not one. He isn’t being written out of the band’s history. But like the band’s remembering him at each concert, it isn’t good enough apparently.
    It isn't that Glenn who is no longer with us should be getting more attention or anything like that. It's just that the reviews to date have been extremely soft. More could have been said about how he sang his songs & whether or not the current performances measure up. But I've repeated this so often that I'll drop it. The people who agree with me know what I mean.

    The second paragraph just emphasises how unnecessary & pointless the entire thing is. They should have recognised what their legacy was and they should have stopped, not continued on with this watered down version. They are a glorified tribute band, and that is sad. You seem to be saying that because of that, they should not be subject to critical analysis, which only emphasises the fact that they no longer have any credibility. Actually, looking at it that way, you may have inadvertently solved my problem in a way you didn't intend.

    No, it's not good enough. It never will be. Without Glenn this band is not 'Eagles' and I for one am not going to pretend that it is. If others think it's 'good enough' and they are happy with it, if they are so willing to just accept this without question, then they have got what they want and they are welcome to it.
    Last edited by Freypower; 04-24-2018 at 11:19 PM.

  7. #67
    Stuck on the Border MaryCalifornia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,010

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by groupie2686 View Post
    This is the first article I've read that wasn't 100% positive.
    Here is one critical of Don: "Henley’s voice has thinned out a bit and at times seemed as dry as a Texas tumbleweed." http://www.stltoday.com/entertainmen...66dfdc719.html

    Here is one critical of Timothy: "was the only member whose singing revealed some wear, especially during a frail sounding “I Can’t Tell You Why.”" http://www.kentucky.com/entertainmen...208555104.html

    Here is one critical of Joe: "Don Henley sounds just about as good as he did when he was 35. Joe Walsh, also 70, maybe does not" http://www.charlotteobserver.com/ent...208663999.html

    I do understand that people are looking for criticism or comparison of Vince's performance or presence as compared to Glenn's, not really criticism of these guys.

  8. #68
    Stuck on the Border
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    1,586

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Quote Originally Posted by Delilah View Post
    I brought up tbe Grammy wins b/c of the implication by some posters that it is somehow wrong for reviewers to continually praise Vince’s singing, not b/c he doesn’t deserve it but “just because.”
    I already explained what I actually meant.
    Last edited by chaim; 04-25-2018 at 05:27 AM.

  9. #69
    Moderator Ive always been a dreamer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Cruising down the center of a two-way street in Virginia
    Posts
    17,361

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    I have been very busy lately and haven't had much time to post, but I wanted to weigh in on this interesting discussion.

    First of all, thank you, pippin, for your insight. I agree with you that there was plenty of schmoozing going on back in the day between the band and critics, but, I absolutely never heard of cash being exchanged for a good review. This does seem to be a relatively new phenomenon. We don’t have any evidence whether the Eagles have or have not paid for positive reviews, but there seems to be little doubt that the practice does now exist for some bands.

    Given that these reviewers are called 'critics', then it makes sense that what they write should be a 'critique'. If critics aren’t willing to criticize the new members, then I have to agree with FP that they are not doing their job. To be clear, I don’t think anyone here is wishing for critics to tear into the band unfairly – we are just looking for some objectivity. For those who believe that reviews for Eagles shows in the past have been overwhelmingly positive, I think you can browse through the old concert threads on the board and see that this is simply not the case.

    As I have said elsewhere, I have never watched any of the videos of Vince’s performances. However, I did see him perform Heartache Tonight at the KCH gala, and I wasn’t at all impressed with his country tinged version of this rocking song. So, I’m not saying that Vince isn’t talented, but I believe his performances should be judged on how he performs these songs in an ‘Eagles’ concert. Like FP said, shouldn’t that be the standard that the ‘Eagles’ should be held to? All I can say is that if fans want to hear these songs performed by the band that recorded them as Don claims, then it seems like they are getting duped. But, hey, it’s their dime.

    In the Birmingham review linked to earlier in this thread, the reviewer wrote, “While greeting the enthusiastic crowd at the BJCC -- not completely sold out, but close to it -- Henley said, "We do it because we can."‘ My immediate reaction to this was one of the most important lessons my dear departed mother ever taught me … I can hear her saying it now ... “Well, just because you can, doesn’t mean you should!”


    ETA: I just realized that I was mistaken about hearing Vince sing Heartache Tonight at the KCH gala - it was Bob Seger who sang it. I guess I haven't heard Vince sing it after all and just imagined what it sounds like given his country twang. In any event, this doesn't change the premise of my belief that Vince should be judged on how he performs the song as an 'Eagle'.
    Last edited by Ive always been a dreamer; 05-06-2018 at 03:06 PM.

    "People don't run out of dreams: People just run out of time ..."
    Glenn Frey 11/06/1948 - 01/18/2016

  10. #70
    Stuck on the Border MaryCalifornia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Location
    Los Angeles, CA
    Posts
    2,010

    Default Re: Fake Reviews ???

    Here is something interesting and relevant to this thread from Instagram this morning. Jerry Saltz is a Senior Art Critic for New York Magazine, here is his post:

    "Why is most current art-criticism positive? *NO* editor dissuades critics from writing negatively. Ever. Let me say that again: Critics are allowed to write WHATEVER they think about an artist. I believe that being critical of art is a way of showing art respect. No one would write that every play by the NY METS is great; or every movie; or every meal. Yet most art reviews are glowing/positive. What has happened to critics? Is this inclination, fear, the academy scaring the shit out of young writers, what?"

    Sounds like the 100%-positive-review culture is alive in other areas of the arts, too.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •