Dumb things said about The Eagles

[Witchy Woman]

I know he wasn't trying to be a jerk, but Taylor Hawkins from the Foo Fighters was asked in a recent edition of Entertainment Weekly what his favorite underrated album was. This was his response :

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae260/Jack_Bauer24/photo-2.jpg

Of course Joe's contributions to the band have been significant, but to imply that the band would be nothing without him is ludicrous and stupid. They are all valuable members, but Taylor must have forgotten that the biggest selling album of all time does not feature any songs played,sung,or written by Joe Walsh, and 2 of the members quit and 1 was dismissed, and they still manage to tour the world and make a buck or two here and there.

I'm sorry to rant, but I really hate it when people don't get their facts straight before they open their mouths and say dumb things.

[Freypower]

It seems to be that this view is reflected in many reviews of Eagles shows where a lot of the time they concentrate on Joe & say things about how the show would be dead if he wasn't there & so forth.

[tjh532]

Who doesn't love the Eagles? Besides the Dude from The Big Lebowski? ha

And can I just say that the title of your thread made me laugh out loud!

[Midnight Visitor]

It is a shame that the Barnstorm album is out of print. Best album ever IMO. The Eagles certainly would NOT have been dead w/out Walsh. However, they sure got a lot better to SOME of us once Joe joined. I remember when Joe joined, all of us fans thought they had turned into a super group (like CSN&Y) once Joe was in. The Foo Fighter guy doesn't mean any harm. He's just like me, a Joe fan!

[sodascouts]

Who doesn't love the Eagles? Besides the Dude from The Big Lebowski? ha


Now that Big Lebowski quote is definitely a good example of a dumb thing said about the Eagles! lol

[Ive always been a dreamer]

lol I would have to agree with you there, Soda. And you would never get an argument from me about Joe's amazing contributions to this band. However, to say the band would be dead in the water without him is a pretty silly remark, IMHO.

[WalshFan88]

It is a shame that the Barnstorm album is out of print. Best album ever IMO. The Eagles certainly would NOT have been dead w/out Walsh. However, they sure got a lot better to SOME of us once Joe joined. I remember when Joe joined, all of us fans thought they had turned into a super group (like CSN&Y) once Joe was in. The Foo Fighter guy doesn't mean any harm. He's just like me, a Joe fan!

+1 Agreed

[DJ]

I think it's because Joe brings so much life,humor and un rehearsed antics to the shows. Otherwise the shows were pretty stiff.

[Brooke]

There's definitely a surge in energy at concerts when Joe kicks in! The place pretty much goes wild!

I don't think the Eagles would be dead without Joe, but he definitely made a difference.

[Houston Debutante]

Joe is great, it's just Taylor Hawkins was OTT in his praise.

The Lebowski quote ~ :yuck::yuck::yuck: . What's so great about it anyway that people still quote it, he says he hates the Eagles and cusses, what's so genius about that?

[Ive always been a dreamer]

The Lebowski quote ~ :yuck::yuck::yuck: . What's so great about it anyway that people still quote it, he says he hates the Eagles and cusses, what's so genius about that?

I would have to agree with you, HD. But, admittedly, I'm a tiny bit biased. :wink:

[Jonny Come Lately]

I can think of a few dumb ones I've read about the band.

Although Allmusic is undoubtedly an extremely useful resource, I have to say I often myself disagreeing with their opinions - for instance, to use an Eagles-related example, I cannot agree with One Of These Nights getting a higher rating than Desperado. Occasionally though they just don't get it right, and I will point to their description of Take It To The Limit as an example.

http://www.allmusic.com/song/take-it-to-the-limit-mt0026914454

The statement that bugs me most is 'By this point in their career, the Eagles had become successful with stately, string-filled ballads that emphasized their harmony singing'. Examples of such songs prior to TITTL include Desperado, and...er...erm...does the Doolin-Dalton/Desperado Reprise (which features strings in the latter section) count? Terrific song though it, has no claims to being a hit, and those two are about it. It irritates me because if the description substituted 'stately, string-filled ballads' was replaced with 'laid-back country rock songs' or something along those lines, they'd be right!

One other thing that irritates me is statements like 'Witchy Woman initiates the band's career-long examination of supernaturally evil females' (which comes from allmusic's review of the debut album. Only three Eagles songs feature this theme, one of which was One Of These Nights which only really mentions this idea briefly in one verse and while the narrator may be searching for the daughter of the devil himself, he's also searching for an angel in white (of course, ideally, a little of both) - so the only two Eagles songs which are really about these evil women are Witchy Woman and GDIH - from the first three albums. Thus the Eagles have only one more song about supernaturally evil women than they do about frat parties or sleazy film directors, and the same number as they have about trains. None of these are subjects one immediately associates with the band!

Does the B-52s having more songs in the Rolling Stone Top 500 songs of all time than the Eagles (not to mention several other bands vastly superior to the B-52s, such as the regrettably yet all too predictably ignored Dire Straits) count as a dumb thing said about them? I think it should. :scowl: I don't care what Rolling Stone thinks, it's just that I've often seen this list used as a guide to some of the best songs of all time when, to my ears at least, Take It Easy and Sultans Of Swing are clearly better than Love Shack or Rock Lobster.

[Freypower]

I agree about the alleged misogyny the band was always accused of. They were no worse than the Rolling Stones in this regard. They didn't write songs called Under My Thumb or Stupid Girl.

Rolling Stone never got Dire Straits any more than they got Led Zeppelin.

[thelastresort]

Regarding JCR's last point:
I have very little regard for any of the thoroughly tedious lists or polls music magazines or websites create in order to justify their own existence, as that is exactly what it is: pointless rambling in order to actually still be relevant.

Stuff like the top 100 songs of all time or 50 best guitar riffs is absolute codswallop and serves no purpose at all other than to delight or rile certain quarters and get some more ad revenue in for them. Music should be about uniting people, unique expression and individual association, not some desperate journalist in an office block blindly trying to rank everything so they sell a few more issues that week.

I am of the belief that both The Last Resort and Long Road Out of Eden are better than Hotel California. Obviously neither have had a millionth of the impact that HC has, but as a devout fan who has wasted hours of my life listening to every last note that is the opinion I have reached that verdict. No list anyone compiles ever will reflect that, similarly The Who will always have Won't Get Fooled Again, Led Zepp Stairway to Heaven, Dire Straits Sultans of Swing as their top / sole entry in any list as it's the only common denominator a general rock fan could relate to. You see an infinite amount of times on here how a core of about 30-40 Eagles fanatics disagree on their best song, most underrated work, finest album, best solo, most profound lyrics etc. This just proves the point that any attempt to list or rank music is futile gibberish. *

* - I mean in professional or assertive publications, obviously the many debates and Survivors on here are all just for fun and appreciation of the guys' work.

[chaim]

For me it's always dumb when people use the ICTYW solo to prove how much Felder is missed. And like I said in another thread, I'm sure most of them couldn't actually hear the difference between Don ("the original", ha!) and Steuart ("the copycat") playing it.

[Funk 50]

I know he wasn't trying to be a jerk, but Taylor Hawkins from the Foo Fighters was asked in a recent edition of Entertainment Weekly what his favorite underrated album was. This was his response :

http://i977.photobucket.com/albums/ae260/Jack_Bauer24/photo-2.jpg

Of course Joe's contributions to the band have been significant, but to imply that the band would be nothing without him is ludicrous and stupid. They are all valuable members, but Taylor must have forgotten that the biggest selling album of all time does not feature any songs played,sung,or written by Joe Walsh, and 2 of the members quit and 1 was dismissed, and they still manage to tour the world and make a buck or two here and there.

I'm sorry to rant, but I really hate it when people don't get their facts straight before they open their mouths and say dumb things.


Thanks for posting the link Witchy Woman. Taylor's love of Joe has made me a fan of Taylor. Now I know he loves Barnstorm too, I like him even more. Furthermore, I agree with his comment about the Eagles.

Ignoring the stuff from the last Century (Millennium) The Eagles are a successful touring band. Joe's performance is a large part of that success. That's why they brought him into the band in 1975.

Without Joe, it's debatable whether the Eagles would be able to sell out huge arenas. The audiences are almost unanimously positive about Eagles shows when the shows over but it's not quite so positive after the first set when Joe's been, pretty much on standby. If they can't sell tickets the Eagles wouldn't tour. If the Eagles don't tour they're done.

Taylor didn't question how great the Eagles were/are. He just said they'd be dead without Joe. I'm sure they could make a great album without Joe but these days, they're only interested in selling concert tickets.

IMO the best thing that could happen in 2015 is Joe to re-release Barnstorm with Vitale and Passarelli and tour the world to give it the promotion it deserved in 1972. It's a brilliant, no hits album.

A while ago my brother was dragged to see a big arena show by Take That. He enjoyed the concert. I asked him "What was the highlight of the show?", "The Inflatable Elephant" he answered :D

That's where I think the Eagles could be heading.

[NightMistBlue]

Clearly, some of the people writing for music publications and other outlets don't know as much as they think they do and can't be bothered to learn. Rhapsody, a streaming service I subscribe to, has little factoids that pop up onscreen as you're playing a certain artist's music. Rhapsody credits *Randy* with steering the Eagles in a country-rock direction as exemplified by "I Can't Tell You Why"! It actually says that. I don't have the heart to tell them that ICTYW was towards the end of the band's recording career and Mr. Meisner was no longer with the band at that point. Geez, it's easy enough to Google things these days, it takes all of 20 seconds...

[Freypower]

Thanks for posting the link Witchy Woman. Taylor's love of Joe has made me a fan of Taylor. Now I know he loves Barnstorm too, I like him even more. Furthermore, I agree with his comment about the Eagles.

Ignoring the stuff from the last Century (Millennium) The Eagles are a successful touring band. Joe's performance is a large part of that success. That's why they brought him into the band in 1975.

Without Joe, it's debatable whether the Eagles would be able to sell out huge arenas. The audiences are almost unanimously positive about Eagles shows when the shows over but it's not quite so positive after the first set when Joe's been, pretty much on standby. If they can't sell tickets the Eagles wouldn't tour. If the Eagles don't tour they're done.

Taylor didn't question how great the Eagles were/are. He just said they'd be dead without Joe. I'm sure they could make a great album without Joe but these days, they're only interested in selling concert tickets.

IMO the best thing that could happen in 2015 is Joe to re-release Barnstorm with Vitale and Passarelli and tour the world to give it the promotion it deserved in 1972. It's a brilliant, no hits album.

A while ago my brother was dragged to see a big arena show by Take That. He enjoyed the concert. I asked him "What was the highlight of the show?", "The Inflatable Elephant" he answered :D

That's where I think the Eagles could be heading.

All of the current members are important to the Eagles, not just Joe.

Not everybody goes to see the Eagles only to see Joe & are tapping their feet impatiently when he isn't so prominent, as you seem to be implying. This is a generalisation. It is certainly not the case with me and for many others for whom Joe is not their favourite member.

The endless 'they are nothing without Felder' stuff, however, along with the tiresomely predictable Big Lebowski quotation, go without saying for most of us in the 'dumb' category.

[Jonny Come Lately]

Clearly, some of the people writing for music publications and other outlets don't know as much as they think they do and can't be bothered to learn. Rhapsody, a streaming service I subscribe to, has little factoids that pop up onscreen as you're playing a certain artist's music. Rhapsody credits *Randy* with steering the Eagles in a country-rock direction as exemplified by "I Can't Tell You Why"! It actually says that. I don't have the heart to tell them that ICTYW was towards the end of the band's recording career and Mr. Meisner was no longer with the band at that point. Geez, it's easy enough to Google things these days, it takes all of 20 seconds...

That's pretty dumb of them, and bad research on all fronts. Wrong guy, wrong sound, wrong song! The only sensible explanation seems to be that whoever wrote that hadn't actually heard ICTYW and therefore didn't realise that the song wasn't country rock and that it was the other former Poco bassist singing.

While I agree that Joe is certainly centrally to the second half of the Eagles live show nowadays, I can't agree that they'd be nothing without him - Joe has written great songs, yes, but most of them didn't appear on Eagles albums, and as someone who loves the early years as much as the Walsh era while I can see how he helped raise Take It Easy and Outlaw Man to a new level in live performance, there's not a lot I'd want to change about either original recording. Also, Joe wasn't the only other great guitarist in the band, which leads us on to the next issue...

What these comments about Joe do show is that any claims that the Eagles are nothing without Don Felder don't stack up. He is a terrific guitar player, and I would say he has been a loss to the band musically, but he isn't a great singer or songwriter and his contributions to these aspects were limited compared to several other members (not just Henley and Frey). He was able to provide strong musical ideas but not whole songs - out of all the Eagles songs he co-wrote I think he contributed most to Visions, which is credited to just Felder and Henley, and it's far from being a classic. He was crucial in the writing of Hotel California, but frankly in the UK at least I think, as discussed elsewhere, there's a stronger argument for the Eagles being nothing without HC than being nothing without Felder.

[chaim]

Yes, there certainly wasn't any evidence in the 70's that Don F was a great songwriter. I don't know if there's now, because I haven't really listened to his solo stuff. Also, he doesn't seem to realize that his precious song didn't become Hotel California until Glenn and Don made it Hotel California. It was a nice arrangement before that, but not a song. In his book he implies that when they played it live, the other members followed him to the Hotel California. I think it was Henley who led the way to the Hotel California, because he sang the song and wrote most of the lyrics!
In his book there's the picture with the text "writing Hotel California". I'll ignore the fact that I don't think that picture has anything to do with writing that song. It was just taken in the same room. But anyway, it should have read "writing what became Hotel California". Don H's and Glenn's songwriting skills turned it into a song - and into HC.
Off-topic again...

[Funk 50]

While I agree that Joe is certainly centrally to the second half of the Eagles live show nowadays, I can't agree that they'd be nothing without him

Taylor's quote is that "the Eagles would be dead in the water without him"

The Eagles are great writers, great performers and arrangers and work hard at their craft but their early, pre-Walsh hits, as great as they are, just don't transmit as well, in huge arenas (unless you're sat in the first few rows).

[Jonny Come Lately]

I still wouldn't go as far as saying they'd be dead in the water without Joe (although adequately replacing him would be very difficult, to say the least - unlike with Felder, they wouldn't only be losing a musician, they'd be losing a big personality) but I agree they probably would have more trouble filling out arenas. I think the biggest thing was getting him in the band in the first place, which brought plenty of Walsh fans on board for Hotel California. If Joe had left the band post-HFO or had not agreed to a reunion, I think they would still be able to draw in the big crowds, albeit only by playing songs Walsh was prominently featured on originally. Who knows how big they'd be now if Walsh joining had been vetoed, or if he didn't want to join? It's difficult to say as I think Bernie and the Eagles split at the right time (and arguably, judging by how different his OOTN songs are from the rest of that album, one album too late). They probably wouldn't be as big as they became, that's for sure, but

I still think the Eagles break up came too soon for the Felder and Walsh, as their partnership produced some great material on HC but if anything they were even more prominent on The Long Run. I'd love to have heard what they could have come with up together and I feel that The Long Run Leftovers showed that the struggle to come up with adequate material for that album wasn't down to them (of course, the strain placed on the Henley-Frey partnership meant a breakup probable sooner rather later, and explains why there was enough music but not enough complete songs with lyrics).

You are correct about the earlier country rock songs not translating as well to arenas. I think the band was able to make Take It Easy work in the big venues with a more rock and less country arrangement (with a great Joe guitar solo) but acoustic songs like Bitter Creek and Most Of Us Are Sad aren't 'big' enough. Of course Joe's hard rockers are more naturally suited to these venues than the likes of Peaceful Easy Feeling or Lyin' Eyes, although a number of later Eagles songs - maybe not a song like ICTYW, but Hotel California, LITFL and Heartache Tonight all the fit the bill IMO.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well if you count all the folks that make ridiculous comments based on total lack of knowledge and misinformation as 'dumb things', then we could make a very long list of things for this thread. :thumbsup: To me, one of the main downsides to the internet is that people can write whatever they want with little regard for the facts, but that's a whole 'nother topic.

IMO, Taylor Hawkins comment that the Eagles would be dead without Joe fits well in this thread. I absolutely love Joe and agree that he is an important part of the band, particularly in the band's live shows. But, as almost all of the band members have said at one time or another, the Eagles' success comes down to one thing - THE SONGS. They are still alive and kicking because of the great songs and that's why people still pay big bucks to see them perform.

Even though Joe (and Tim) aren't equal partners in the Eagles' organization, I do think that, at this point in their careers, they are all equal partners on stage. Each of them contributes in their own way, so I don't believe there is much appetite for any line up changes now. If any of the current four members became unwilling or unable to perform, I doubt that they would be replaced and the band probably would call it quits, but this certainly hasn't always been the case.

I understand that fans have their favorites, but what I have a hard time understanding is why folks like Taylor feel compelled to make these kinds of comments. I would bet good money that Joe fully understands his role in the band, and apparently seems very satisfied with it since he has often said the Eagles were the best thing that ever happened to him largely because he didn't want to be the main guy. So, if Joe understands and is content with this, why can't fans be? :headscratch:

[Freypower]

Taylor's quote is that "the Eagles would be dead in the water without him"

The Eagles are great writers, great performers and arrangers and work hard at their craft but their early, pre-Walsh hits, as great as they are, just don't transmit as well, in huge arenas (unless you're sat in the first few rows).

Again I don't agree with this.

Also I think you said you haven't seen them since 2011 & yet you are happy to make these generalisations based on 4 year old memories. I haven't seen them since 2010, but my memories are the opposite of yours. As far as I was concerned the pre Walsh songs worked just fine for me & I could tell, for most of the audience. Lyin' Eyes especially has the crowd singing along, as does TITTL.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on Walsh & downplaying the talents of the other members.

[chaim]

I would think that there are a lot of people in the audience today who just go to hear the great Eagles songs they know, like HC, Take It Easy, New Kid In Town, Peaceful Easy Feeling - as much as they go to hear them play rock songs and to see someone jumping around during the second half of the show. I love Joe, but if they replaced him with another showman, there probably would be a lot of people in the audience who would be just as entertained. Today I mean, probably not in the 70's.

I'm not bashing Joe at all. I just don't want to put him on a pedestal either. I don't think Joe himself feels that he's absolutely irreplaceable or that he makes the concerts what they are. He probably just enjoys having a good time up there, playing great music with the guys and making a nice amount of money doing that.

Having said that, I totally understand that people exaggerate these things. "They're nothing without Felder, "dead in the water without Joe" etc. etc. But they are just words, and usually you couldn't tell this from the ticket sales.

But I must admit that I haven't seen that many rock concerts in big arenas, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about!

[WalshFan88]

I would think that there are a lot of people in the audience today who just go to hear the great Eagles songs they know, like HC, Take It Easy, New Kid In Town, Peaceful Easy Feeling - as much as they go to hear them play rock songs and to see someone jumping around during the second half of the show. I love Joe, but if they replaced him with another showman, there probably would be a lot of people in the audience who would be just as entertained. Today I mean, probably not in the 70's.

I'm not bashing Joe at all. I just don't want to put him on a pedestal either. I don't think Joe himself feels that he's absolutely irreplaceable or that he makes the concerts what they are. He probably just enjoys having a good time up there, playing great music with the guys and making a nice amount of money doing that.

Having said that, I totally understand that people exaggerate these things. "They're nothing without Felder, "dead in the water without Joe" etc. etc. But they are just words, and usually you couldn't tell this from the ticket sales.

But I must admit that I haven't seen that many rock concerts in big arenas, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about!

Wow - I must thoroughly and strongly disagree!

To me the highlight (but not the entire show) of the concert is Joe being Joe... I have 0 doubt if they replaced him that their ticket sales would decline. Some people feel the bulk of the Eagles and what makes them what they are is Don and Glenn and I must respectfully disagree. They all as a unit are what made the band what it is and if you just had all different members but Don and Glenn no amount of money would get me to watch that show without Joe and Tim. It was hard enough losing Felder. I'm not saying Joe makes the Eagles or he is the sole reason for a great show, but Don and Glenn by themselves don't either and I find that important to say. It's a team effort. Hell, I doubt I'd ever go if they ever replaced Tim! That's how much the group as a GROUP means to me. I would try not to judge but totally wouldn't understand the people that think they would go see the band with great session players as long as Don and Glenn were there. Now, to be honest I wouldn't go for the reverse either. They ALL have to be there for me.

Now, back in the early days of the band, I probably wouldn't have went to see them with the first or even second lineup, just a bit too tame for me. I much prefer the HC and TLR lineups (equally like Randy and Tim) with a more rockin' edge.

For me I like a rock show, with high energy and I need some of that, so for me Joe fills that gap so I get to have the best of both worlds, the songs and the energy I'm looking for in a rock show. But I've been to big arena shows like AC/DC, Aerosmith, REO Speedwagon, Def Leppard, Styx, Lynyrd Skynyrd, .38 Special, Tesla, RATT, Quiet Riot, Firehouse, Cinderella, Bob Seger, Eagles, Cheap Trick, KISS, etc. So I'm used to high energy rock n' roll. In other words, you may find me at a Jason Aldean (high energy country that is basically rock n' roll) concert but you won't find me at a Merle Haggard show or a Jimmy Buffett concert. I go for the gimmicks and the production and stuff. Otherwise I might as well listen to my CDs. Now the Eagles is the only exception to that, because of their great performance as a collective, and Joe's fun energy and tearing it up in the 2nd half.

The bottom line - Joe is not just another guitar player and I believe he is more recognizable than even Don Felder, so people will know if he's not there. He is NOT replaceable.

[chaim]

I wasn't saying that I think Joe would be easy to replace. What I meant was that at this point there probably are many people in the audience who remember the hits from when they were young etc, and don't care so much for the members. People who are not fans, but like the hits they know.
I feel the same way about The Orchestra performing ELO songs. There probably are people in the audience who even think it's ELO, and even more people who think that most of those guys were in ELO. A lot of them probably don't even care, as they just like to hear the ELO hits.

I'm not saying anything about how important Joe is in my eyes. I'm just trying to imagine what an average concert-goer might be like at this point in their career. And it's just how I feel. I could be dead wrong.

[WalshFan88]

True.. Although I do think most people know who Joe Walsh is by now, even moreso than Felder. I mean he's pretty much a household name.

I've even had people talk to me about the Hotel California solo with Joe Walsh and "that other guy". So as much as I hate to say it, I think Walsh is far more known. I also believe Felder has a more reproducable style due to his fluidity on the fretboard and everything is clean and precise. Joe is all over the place and when given the chance, is an improv master and more all over the place and more unique in terms of style and is more recongizable with his guitar licks and sound. I think someone else posted that the other day in another thread and I think it was spot on...

[VAisForEagleLovers]

We could debate this for a year and still not come to an agreement! I will say there are plenty of people in the audience who have no idea who Joe is. The flip side of that is that generally they don't know Glenn, Timothy, or Don's name, either. I have a friend that owns everything the Eagles have ever done on CD and cassette or vinyl, and has been a fan since the late 70's. She had no idea Don was in the Eagles until she saw Farewell 1. As they've said many times, not putting their pictures on their albums and avoiding the media back in the 70's contributed to this.

As for Taylor and what he said, I agree with others. Why would he say such a thing and what was the point of it supposed to be? He's entitled to his opinion and obviously there's two people here who agree. Many others don't, including me. The biggest reason it falls into the 'dumb' category because the idiotic statement implies that the others could leave and the Eagles would not be dead in the water. Please. Could you imagine the crowd's reaction if someone else sang Take It Easy, I Can't Tell You Why, or Hotel California?

[chaim]

It's also possible that Taylor just got a bit carried away while praising Joe and therefore exaggerated a little. He probably didn't mean to diss the other guys with this statement.
So if it was just a way to praise Joe and not meant literally, it wasn't that dumb a comment.
(Trying to find some middle ground here...)

[Funk 50]

Originally Posted by Funk 50
Taylor's quote is that "the Eagles would be dead in the water without him"

The Eagles are great writers, great performers and arrangers and work hard at their craft but their early, pre-Walsh hits, as great as they are, just don't translate as well, in huge arenas (unless you're sat in the first few rows).


Again I don't agree with this.

Also I think you said you haven't seen them since 2011 & yet you are happy to make these generalisations based on 4 year old memories. I haven't seen them since 2010, but my memories are the opposite of yours. As far as I was concerned the pre Walsh songs worked just fine for me & I could tell, for most of the audience. Lyin' Eyes especially has the crowd singing along, as does TITTL.

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on Walsh & downplaying the talents of the other members.


I'm only defending Taylor's comment.

Glenn, to his credit, recruited Joe back in 1975 because even he thought the live shows needed a boost. That's what turned them into a headline act.

Currently the Eagles are just a touring act. If they don't sell tickets, they're done.

I haven't seen the Eagles since 2011 but their shows haven't changed much since the first time I saw them in 1996.

[UndertheWire]

It's fairly common for "classic" acts to team up for shows, so I imagine the Eagles could do that, too. Not that I think Joe is going anywhere soon. He reaches a much bigger audience as part of the Eagles than he would solo. The whole is worth more than the sum of its parts and that holds true for Joe, too.

However, I'll agree that the show comes alive in the second half and while Joe plays a big part in that, it's not just him. When they start on the rockers, Eagles material included, they are more energised. It's how they structure the set.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

It's also possible that Taylor just got a bit carried away while praising Joe and therefore exaggerated a little. He probably didn't mean to diss the other guys with this statement.
So if it was just a way to praise Joe and not meant literally, it wasn't that dumb a comment.
(Trying to find some middle ground here...)

Yes, I was thinking later that it was probably his way of saying Joe is underrated, and he is. While somewhat true in the Eagles, he is definitely underrated when compared to other guitar players. I realize I'm biased, but he's one of the best, and he doesn't get the praise he deserves from those who sit and make stupid lists of best guitar players.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I haven't seen the Eagles since 2011 but their shows haven't changed much since the first time I saw them in 1996.

I saw them once in 2011 (in Vegas), and a few times in 2012. This HOTE show is different and far better. It would be very hard to look at a set list and see that it's different. When even long time fans who go to multiple shows and pay over $600 for a ticket sit and blink their eyes in stunned wonder at the end of a song like Lyin' Eyes, it says something. I was at the Indianapolis show with a lot of people who'd been to the opening show in Louisville (the cities are less than two hours apart), and that was the looks on their faces. It's impossible for me to describe the difference.

[chaim]

Currently the Eagles are just a touring act. If they don't sell tickets, they're done.



I don't follow sales/charts, but as far as I know the last studio album they released did rather well. If so, they certainly could make new albums, but choose not to.

[WalshFan88]

Agreed on the HOTE show being better... I saw them on the LROOE tour and the HOTE tour. The HOTE tour was WAY better. Mostly due to the setlist (additions of Already Gone, Those Shoes, etc) for me, as well as the fact it was less formal and out of the funeral suits and seemed more intimate.

[thelastresort]

With regards to the LROOE tour, I know this has been discussed in the past on here, I would much prefer them (or any band indeed) to play just four or five pieces from the new work and then stick to what the punters probably shelled out to see. Like with the Eagles, using this random date from the tour (http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/eagles/2008/dcu-center-worcester-ma-bda7946.html), you have 9/28 as new songs, with legendary hits like New Kid in Town, Tequila Sunrise, Already Gone and Best of My Love sacrificed. I'd personally go for the title song then one vocal each then just stick to what you've done for the past however many years. I'm sure your bog-standard Eagles fan would much rather hear something like Already Gone or NKIT, a song which they most likely grew up on or whatever, than a pretty bang average song from your latest album. Just my opinion though!

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Yeah, the band has made no secret that they believe folks want to hear the hits, and for that reason here is a core group of songs that they never drop. I happen to agree with them. There are enough variations in the set list and there is always a brand new set for each tour and some rearranged songs to keep it interesting and keep many of us buying tickets. Although, I have been a huge fan since the very beginning, I never had a chance to see them live until 2003. I didn't see them again until 2005 and I don't think I've missed a year since seeing them live or solo. And I'm gonna keep on going as long as I can. I would also agree that for a hardcore like me, this HOTE tour is the best yet, and that's a high compliment from someone who has loved each and every show that I've seen! :thumbsup:


It's also possible that Taylor just got a bit carried away while praising Joe and therefore exaggerated a little. He probably didn't mean to diss the other guys with this statement.
So if it was just a way to praise Joe and not meant literally, it wasn't that dumb a comment.
(Trying to find some middle ground here...)

lol Toni. Nice try at being a peacemaker, but no matter what the motivation, it was still a dumb comment, IMO! :twisted:

[Freypower]

I'm only defending Taylor's comment.

Glenn, to his credit, recruited Joe back in 1975 because even he thought the live shows needed a boost. That's what turned them into a headline act.

Currently the Eagles are just a touring act. If they don't sell tickets, they're done.

I haven't seen the Eagles since 2011 but their shows haven't changed much since the first time I saw them in 1996.

They were a headline act before Joe joined.

The shows have changed a great deal since 1996. If you didn't notice any changes, fair enough but others have pointed them out. For a start there are no Don Henley solo songs now. They don't have a brass section. They don't have an acoustic segment in the second half. Henley plays drums on songs he didn't play on before.

They are selling tickets. I'm not sure why you keep saying if they don't they're done. If you are implying that they only sell tickets because people come to see Joe, I couild not disagree more.

[Jonny Come Lately]

I think compared to most bands the Eagles seem less worried about 'playing the new stuff', even back in the 1970s - see Lyin' Eyes and Take It To The Limit only becoming regulars in 1976 rather than immediately after the release of One Of These Nights. Frankly they have more than enough really good songs to fill a setlist anyway, even more so with the inevitable inclusion of Walsh solo songs (and prior to the HOTE tour, solo Don and to a lesser extent solo Glenn), so even with three hour shows something has to give. Fortunately, in the case of HOTE this has mainly been solo work, enabling the aforementioned 'lost classics' to rub shoulders with the big hits.

I must admit I think the Eagles should play at least one song from LROOE on the history tour. Yes, it's relatively recent compared to most of their other work but it makes it look like they think the album isn't up to scratch (which I have to disagree to with). If they only had a limited amount of time to give to the album to fit everything else in I think the title track would be a bit too long to include, as perhaps would WITW as terrific as it is, but I think playing How Long would be a great idea as it's recognised by fans of the early days on top of being an excellent tune. Somebody would be a cool inclusion too. Also, I know many are likely to disagree but as far as Tim songs go I'd rather they played Do Something than Love Will Keep Us Alive.

Off-topic: just had a look through the list of songs played by the Eagles and discovered that they played Chug All Night with Neil Young in 1974 along with Carol and Neil's own Down By The River. On the same night according to this site he also played for the first time three songs from his then new On The Beach - Vampire Blues, Ambulance Blues and the brilliant Revolution Blues. If someone invents time travel I'd love to go and see that concert!

http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/neil-young/1974/cuesta-college-auditorium-san-luis-obispo-ca-7bc10678.html

[DJ]

I think compared to most bands the Eagles seem less worried about 'playing the new stuff', even back in the 1970s - see Lyin' Eyes and Take It To The Limit only becoming regulars in 1976 rather than immediately after the release of One Of These Nights. Frankly they have more than enough really good songs to fill a setlist anyway, even more so with the inevitable inclusion of Walsh solo songs (and prior to the HOTE tour, solo Don and to a lesser extent solo Glenn), so even with three hour shows something has to give. Fortunately, in the case of HOTE this has mainly been solo work, enabling the aforementioned 'lost classics' to rub shoulders with the big hits.

I must admit I think the Eagles should play at least one song from LROOE on the history tour. Yes, it's relatively recent compared to most of their other work but it makes it look like they think the album isn't up to scratch (which I have to disagree to with). If they only had a limited amount of time to give to the album to fit everything else in I think the title track would be a bit too long to include, as perhaps would WITW as terrific as it is, but I think playing How Long would be a great idea as it's recognised by fans of the early days on top of being an excellent tune. Somebody would be a cool inclusion too. Also, I know many are likely to disagree but as far as Tim songs go I'd rather they played Do Something than Love Will Keep Us Alive.

Off-topic: just had a look through the list of songs played by the Eagles and discovered that they played Chug All Night with Neil Young in 1974 along with Carol and Neil's own Down By The River. On the same night according to this site he also played for the first time three songs from his then new On The Beach - Vampire Blues, Ambulance Blues and the brilliant Revolution Blues. If someone invents time travel I'd love to go and see that concert!

http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/neil-young/1974/cuesta-college-auditorium-san-luis-obispo-ca-7bc10678.html
Johny Come Lately I love Neil Young's Vampire & Revolution Blues. And that was from the first time I heard them when I was a wee lassy! Agree with you.

[sodascouts]

One time PLS, Dreamer, and I heard a guy call the Eagles "one-hit wonders."

Our reaction:

:lol::hilarious::rofl::rofl::hilarious::lol:

[Ive always been a dreamer]

OMG - I remember that well! I mean really???

[Funk 50]

I suppose the explanation for ignoring LROOE during the HOTE tour, despite it's success is that people would rather hear the old hits. I'm thinking this argument is a bit dumb.

I've read many, many posts on this site of extra special, non casual Eagles fans and I've noticed that most of the posters didn't become Eagles fans until the second incarnation of the band.

I didn't think much of the HFO version of Help Me Thru The Night but when people mention that song to me, that seems to be the version they are referring to.

I remember a radio DJ, explaining why the radio always played the latest chart hits rather than the classic old stuff (before the classic radio format took off) and he said (paraphrasing of course), if I play something from 10 years ago, it may spark a memory for maybe 20% of the audience, 5 years ago, it maybe up to 60% but everybody gets to experience a new song together and they'll create a memory to go with it.

I'd bet that the majority of Eagles fans memories of Doolin-Dalton/Desperado reprise are less than 10 years old. To some it could even be a new track released after the Long Road Out Of Eden album.

If Doolin Dalton was from LROOE, which did a tonne better than Desperado album did, when it was first released, it wouldn't have been performed during the HOTE tour. You could say the same for every track in the show.

In the past, millions of people bought the records, even more millions of people heard the Eagles on the radio. That's not the case in the 21st Century so there is a chicken and egg situation. The audience want to hear something they are familiar with. Playing a song live, familiarises the audience with the track.

The first time I saw the Eagles in 1996, I was quite apprehensive, I had my whole family of casual and non music fans with me and I felt I'd look a right fool if the Eagles turned out to be rubbish live. First song, Hotel California, brilliant, worth going, no worries, enjoyed the rest of the show.

The rest of the first set was fine but wasn't up to the standard of Hotel California. The second set started good then became an absolute joy when they started rocking. Everyone I was eith was knocked out by the performance.

Without Hotel California at the start, though, my apprehension could've dragged on for a good portion of the show and made it less enjoyable.

In the last several years the Eagles have tried a shortened set list,with a support act or dual headliner thing but they've returned to the format that sells the most tickets.

No support act, an easy going first set and then a rocking out closing set and mandatory encores. Even the History Of The Eagles has been compromised to fit that formula.

The Eagles are successful because they're always better than expected, despite the huge price of the tickets. The ability to deliver than winning formula is more important than the number of hits they play. IMHO.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

The Eagles are successful because they're always better than expected, despite the huge price of the tickets. The ability to deliver than winning formula is more important than the number of hits they play. IMHO.

I agree with this! For me personally, one reason I'm willing to see them so often and pay such high prices is that it's difficult for me to tolerate live music. There are a lot of bands that get out there on that stage and almost get it right. For some, the entertainment and performance tops execution. Dancing around on stage is more important than having the breath to hit a note. For others, they're just phoning it in, doing what they have to in order to get back off the stage. I like a lot bands and artists across several genres, but I've limited myself to seeing the Eagles, Seger, and Billy Joel for this reason. There are others I'm open to seeing if they ever come close to where I live. For people who see a lot of acts live, seeing the Eagles is always a bit of a revelation on what live music can and should sound like.

[sodascouts]

I suppose the explanation for ignoring LROOE during the HOTE tour, despite it's success is that people would rather hear the old hits. I'm thinking this argument is a bit dumb.
So are you using this thread to call the band members dumb, then, since they themselves make this argument?

[Funk 50]

er... Yes. I'm uncomfortable calling anyone dumb or stupid but it's the name of the thread!

I'm very pleased that the band put that argument forward themselves, I was thinking that maybe I'd made it up.

Back in 1976, with a Greatest Hits album fresh out of the oven, the Eagles concerts featured a few tracks from Hotel California before the album was released along with some Joe Walsh solo numbers. I'd be surprised if that is what the audience were expecting. Cheap tickets, different era etc.

Ignoring an album in a History Of The Eagles show is a serious omission even if it's not dumb.

[WalshFan88]

For me, a couple that bother me are:

1. The band is a corporate rock band

2. They are too soft

I get tired of hearing people comment that they think the band can't rock or is corporate rock or pop rock or they are too soft. I put them right there in the same breath as the Stones, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Zeppelin, GnR, etc... To me with Walsh and Felder in the band it rocks as hard.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

The Eagles are successful because they're always better than expected, despite the huge price of the tickets. The ability to deliver than winning formula is more important than the number of hits they play. IMHO.

I agree with this, but I have to add that the ability to deliver the winning formula is because the major ingredient in that winning formula is those awesome songs. Although the band members say that often, Timothy actually repeated it once again just this past week in one of the Australian interviews.

[Freypower]

For me, a couple that bother me are:

1. The band is a corporate rock band

2. They are too soft

I get tired of hearing people comment that they think the band can't rock or is corporate rock or pop rock or they are too soft. I put them right there in the same breath as the Stones, Aerosmith, AC/DC, Zeppelin, GnR, etc... To me with Walsh and Felder in the band it rocks as hard.

I don't thnk the Eagles are like any of those bands, not even the Stones & Zeppelin. The other bands listed do nothing for me. I don't know why everything has to be reduced to 'Walsh and Felder' all the time given that in reality there were only a handful of tracks that feature Walsh & Felder rocking 'hard' and given that neither man was in the band for its entirety. Their vocals & lyrics are something else and what they are best known for. Why can't they be given credit for that?

[sodascouts]

I agree with Austin's sentiment that they don't get enough credit for how hard they rock, though!

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I agree, Austin, with your two main beefs. The people who heap that criticism on them aren't bright enough to realize they have the talent, as songwriters, musicians, and vocalists, to encompass a wide range of influences. Some of their songs are soft. Some are not. Some are pure rock, most are rock with strong influences from other genres. Those that do recognize they can't be put in a box figure they went outside the box purely for corporate success.

I still can't figure out why keeping an eye on the bottom line in any business is supposed to be a bad thing. The music business isn't any different. There is still equipment to buy, beer to buy, drugs to buy, mouths to feed, crew to pay, and parents who deserve a better house or car. Not keeping an eye on the bottom line just generally means you aren't smart enough to do all that math.

[WalshFan88]

I don't thnk the Eagles are like any of those bands, not even the Stones & Zeppelin. The other bands listed do nothing for me. I don't know why everything has to be reduced to 'Walsh and Felder' all the time given that in reality there were only a handful of tracks that feature Walsh & Felder rocking 'hard' and given that neither man was in the band for its entirety. Their vocals & lyrics are something else and what they are best known for. Why can't they be given credit for that?

All I can say is that I must disagree.

There were more than a handful of tracks, and I consider them every bit as much of a guitar band as a vocal band - personally I feel that side of the band is underrated here. I mean not just Hotel California - they are known for their guitar sounds I believe especially in the guitar world and their signature riffs.

ETA: You have to keep in mind I got into this band not for their singing or even their songs - my first experience and the thing that took my breath away was the guitar work. I wasn't even a huge music lover until I heard that solo on HC. It was the guitar on that record that did something that nothing else at the time could. Before then, I wasn't a music listener. And then I listened to all of their songs with all of those riffs, and certainly Bernie and Glenn's riffs too and immediately fell in love with their triple guitar attack and the way they crafted guitar parts and sounds and I loved nothing more than seeing that guitar thing happen onstage. I recognize their immense talents as singers and songwriters but it was guitar that lit the fire, so I will always gravitate to that as being my favorite about the band. Even today when I see a band - my eyes never leave the guitar players and I'm mostly listening to them. I'm just a guitar oriented guy. Where lyrics and words move some people in a song, I'm moved by notes and pouring your heart out through the strings.

[Funk 50]

I'm a rock music fan but I can enjoy all types of music. One of the highlights of a Phil Collins show I attended was his schmaltzy ballad Separate Lives which, on record I really can't stand.

During the HFO tour I was amazed at how great the Eagles performances of the Henley and Frey solo material were. I always thought the Eagles were workmenlike to adequate playing the solo Walsh stuff, nothing outstanding but, for 20 minutes during the HFO show, the Eagles were rocking as hard as U2 or Genesis at their strongest. It's not about the guitarists or the tempo, it's about the power of the music.

Joe says the Eagles are primarily a vocal harmony group. If he turns up too loud, he says he gets a drumstick on the back of his head :D. but the Eagles can kick-ass with the best of them, with the added bonus of material that sounds great, at home on the turntable too.

I must mention Timothy's brilliant bass playing. I've seen him a few times, solo, with the Eagles and playing bass for a Ringo Starr line up that had four rocking lead guitarists, Todd Rundgren, Dave Edmonds, Nils Lofgren and Joe Walsh. His rock bass playing was fabulous. Brilliant on the solo Eagles tracks too. Boy was he wasted in Poco.

[WalshFan88]

I agree Funk 50... I also enjoy rockin' country songs as well as RnB/Motown but even in that, I gravitate to the guitar sound as what has my attention.

They definitely consider them and Joe considers them a singing band that is all about the songs, which they are. It's guys like me who love them for what they are seemingly unappreciated for, which is their recognizable guitar sound throughout all eras, but I prefer the Walsh era. To me they have a certain guitar sound that is hard to duplicate but it like candy to my ears. But for all music I love, the guitar is what I always gravitate to and focus on, so obviously I'm biased to that, where as most people focus on lyric content, vocals, or the whole package. Guilty as charged. I do however, like guitarists that serve the song and don't overplay. But I still focus on them regardless.

Joe has said many times he has to use small amplifiers in low wattage to keep the stage volume down and keep the sound from bleeding into the vocal mics. Peter Stroud, who played for Don Henley, said the stage volume was quieter than the audience in the front row talking during slow songs and that he really had to attenuate his amps to accommodate.

[Funk 50]

To me they have a certain guitar sound that is hard to duplicate but it like candy to my ears.

Have you heard Richard Marx's Don't Mean Nothing WalshFan88?

When I heard it on the radio, I nearly fell off my chair, "Jesus, the Eagles have got back together" I thought until Richard's voice came in. I think Paul McCartney's Wings, for one, were inspired by the Felder/Walsh twin guitar attack but I can't think of many tracks that sound like the Eagles even though a lot of bands (Poco come to mind) are constantly compared with them.

I know having 2 drummers forces the drummers to play more straight forward, less complicated fills, I suppose it's the same for two lead guitars.