How public were band tensions?

[thelastresort]

Sorry if this has been done before!

Anyway, I was mooching through some concert footage before (the March 1977 gig that came with HOTE for those interested). We all know the Eagles are absolute perfectionists and they are almost 100% flawless onstage but it made me realise that if I was watching them and didn't know as much as I did I never would imagine things were so bad behind the scenes.

It got me wondering, back in the 70s, how well-aired were the strains within the band, like Leadon's relationship with Frey, Randy and the whole TITTL fiasco and the preludes to Long Night at Wrong Beach?

Cheers

(Also, and this is totally random, if Felder had stayed around long enough for Glenn to get his hands on him, who do you think would have won in a fight?)

[Midnight Visitor]

I don't remember any word of strife coming out before the band took it's 14 year sabbatical. Tho, pretty much as soon as it was over gobs of stuff came out. Mostly in interviews. Lots of nasty backstabbing, etc.....

Glenn seemed more mad so there's a good possibility he would have won except for the fact that Felder is the bigger of the two. Smokey, Joe's right hand man, would have broken it up. He's ex-Secret Service. He would have won! :hilarious:

[DJ]

Yah we've been down this road before and I think the Thread was closed because it's a he said he said situation. I can only imagine the personality conflicts with such creative minds in the room, not to mention there was a lot of alcohol and drugs involved.
They were all perfectionists, which is wonderful for us the fans,but there has to be a happy medium... Some took more than others. They all gave a lot. It is all rock n roll history now....:eyebrow:

[UndertheWire]

If it took two years for the break-up of the band to become public, it's a good assumption that the tensions weren't that public. There are few hints in some of the Rolling Stone articles - the Oakland A reference, for example - but nothing that seems out of the ordinary. Probably because there was nothing out of the ordinary. Bands have tensions. Most break up or change their personel. The general press wouldn't have been interested because there were no bodies in the swimming pool, drug overdoses, or abusive rants in public. When they had The Sex Pistols, why would they bother with a minor kerfluffle in a sweet-sounding band?

As for the fight between Frey and Felder, I don't think it would have come to anything. They'd had enough self-control to complete the set without fighting. Even Felder's guitar smashing was pre-planned (he told his guitar tech which guitar to put out ready) and Frey had stopped to talk to the Cranstons. We're not talking about blind fury.

I was researching The Little River Band the other day and it has 28 former members and none of the current line-up are original members.

I think what I'm trying to say is that what makes the Eagles remarkable isn't the band tensions but their ability to work together despite those tensions.

[UndertheWire]

Pete Best and Stuart Sutcliffe? The Paul, John, George and Ringo lineup only lasted for 8 years. George started his solo career with a triple album because he had so many songs he'd been unable to get recorded by The Beatles.

The Eagles could have split when Bernie left, but (like many bands), they chose to continue. There's not a single template for a band.

[Freypower]

They didn't really work together despite the tensions because the tensions caused Randy and Bernie to leave. I liked what Paul McCartney said at the Grammy tribute, that the Beatles were always just John, Paul, George and Ringo. They never changed personnel and IMO were the greatest band ever, (Eagles second, of course.)

There were tensions & lineup changes but to state that 'they didn't really work together' because of that is an overstatement, in my view.

All bands have had lineup changes & have dealt with them in different ways.

[DJ]

I wouldn't consider my statement a dismissal. All I am stating is that we have had these discussions before and it didn't bode well. All that can be said is there were personality conflicts in this particular band. I believe Timothy B Schmidt said something like all Bands at any particular time are on the verge of a breakup. This doesn't just happen in bands either. Personality,talent and pure ego differences create friction everywhere people are put together. The Eagles lasted a good deal of time with the original four considering they were all smart, self made and extremely talented artists. Even Glen Johns had his personality conflicts with Eagles and other bands.

[sodascouts]

My other favorite band, Fleetwood Mac, has had tons of personnel changes. Many associate them solely with the Rumours line-up, but there are eleven other people who have been in the band in its various incarnations over the years.

Talk about rancorous exits... in 1974, Bob Weston was kicked out of the band because he was sleeping with Mick Fleetwood's wife! I kid you not!

To answer the original question of the thread: I wasn't old enough to know firsthand, but I think UTW's logic is sound; since bickering amongst bands is commonplace, there wouldn't be much reason for the press to take special note of any issues within the Eagles. This is especially true since their "fights" were generally arguing over things like who gets to sing which song, what lyrics are best, what musical direction to take... not exactly TMZ material (or its 70s equivalent). At least no one was having an affair with another band member's spouse/girlfriend. ;)

[MaryCalifornia]

As far as you know...:makeout::hilarious: