Felder's "Heaven and Hell" Discussion Thread

[Brooke]

Yes, I agree Tk and WF. I, too, miss Felder, but it's water under the bridge and life goes on. And I'm so glad they are continuing on today. The Eagles and Felder. I also wish him more success.

Tk, I didn't know that about Badfinger. Must go read about it. I loved some of their songs back in the day.

[sodascouts]

I agree. That book came out five years ago. Now, Felder is ready to release a new album and even he probably doesn't want to keep talking about this. Best of luck to him.

[BramwenR]

I see that this got way off track before..someone asked how it veered off like that, well I just happened to mention, was I the only one didn't know about the 3E parties! See where our minds go :hilarious:

Yes, it has been five years but some, even a few on his Facebook page have only just discovered his book too..so it's still kind of new to us, even though it's old..well, you know what I mean.

Was commenting on some parts of it to my son and he said, all rock n roll bands did that, they were all the same..and I said yes, the lifestyle was the same but the music and genius was different. He also said they were all a$$holes, and I said some of them were but they made great music and their egos got in the way.

The stories about Joe in full swing absolutely cracked me up, a chainsaw for Pete's sake!! I'm amazed any of them made it out of there, I was breathless just reading what they got up to!:soda:

[Topkat]

QUOTE; BramwenR "The stories about Joe in full swing absolutely cracked me up, a chainsaw for Pete's sake!! I'm amazed any of them made it out of there, I was breathless just reading what they got up to!"

Joe said in a recent interview that in the early 70's or maybe it was even the late 60's his band "The James Gang" opened for The WHO & he became friends with Keith Moon. Yeah, I could see those 2 getting into a whole lotta trouble!
Moon was the ultimate Hell Raiser & I bet he & Joe had some fun!

[BramwenR]

;) Anybody in the company of Keith Moon I am sure would have a problem being conformist!! :nahnah:

[Grey Sadler]

Ohhh kay...finished the book this evening...how do I put this??

I tried to read the whole thing objectively. I haven't read Eliot's book but I have skimmed it, and I wasn't too pleased. Then I found out some of the "fact-checking" for Don's book came from that one...which will be next on my Eagles reading list (but seriously...how the heck old was Randy when he had his first son, 15 or 17??!!??)

I tried not to read many of the other posts...I tried not to even read the Amazon reviews...but I caved...still trying to be objective...I just can't help but analyze the writing style, he and his co-author seem so...choppy...several typos/mistakes (the 60s were not the Me Generation, were they??)...seems like Don't writing/tone progressed from "high school Senior term paper for Honors English" to quite angrily articulate by the end...

I did enjoy the chapters about his upbringing. I grew up in a single-wide trailer beside my grandparents' house, virtually dirt poor for a time--I empathize with Don there. I enjoyed the parts about learning guitar and starting his early bands. I liked the human part of Don...the father that wished he was at home more and I'm sorry his marriage had to suffer and finally break down.

But what of "The Gods"?? I know the Boys were no angels (especially Glenn), but then, neither was Don F. He likens himself to a battered wife, and maybe that was the case. I do not choose to pick sides in this "battle" though...if anything (even as much as I like Glenn), I might probably be on "Team Meisner"!!

I kept reminding myself "this is just one side, one story"...and I await Glenn and Don's respective memoirs. Funny thing, a lot of you may not know my other favorite band/fandom is KISS (strange, eh?). I could go on for hours about how I see parallels between the two bands (how Randy/Bernie were treated vs. Eric Carr...Don going through a lawyer vs. Ace/Peter doing the same...two band members coming to the forefront...etc etc...)

Speaking of KISS...when Gene & Paul were in the predecessor band Wicked Lester, they recorded a song that speaks to me right now..."what happens in the darkness/will surely reach the light of day". So, I'm waiting...I get the feeling Glenn & Henley will be competing to see who gets their "book" out first...Joe might produce a roller-coaster of a memoir...I wonder if Bernie has much to say about any of it all. I wish Randy could speak for himself, I get the sad feeling that that ain't happening...

...just my $0.02...

[Freypower]

Ohhh kay...finished the book this evening...how do I put this??

I tried to read the whole thing objectively. I haven't read Eliot's book but I have skimmed it, and I wasn't too pleased. Then I found out some of the "fact-checking" for Don's book came from that one...which will be next on my Eagles reading list (but seriously...how the heck old was Randy when he had his first son, 15 or 17??!!??)

I tried not to read many of the other posts...I tried not to even read the Amazon reviews...but I caved...still trying to be objective...I just can't help but analyze the writing style, he and his co-author seem so...choppy...several typos/mistakes (the 60s were not the Me Generation, were they??)...seems like Don't writing/tone progressed from "high school Senior term paper for Honors English" to quite angrily articulate by the end...

I did enjoy the chapters about his upbringing. I grew up in a single-wide trailer beside my grandparents' house, virtually dirt poor for a time--I empathize with Don there. I enjoyed the parts about learning guitar and starting his early bands. I liked the human part of Don...the father that wished he was at home more and I'm sorry his marriage had to suffer and finally break down.

But what of "The Gods"?? I know the Boys were no angels (especially Glenn), but then, neither was Don F. He likens himself to a battered wife, and maybe that was the case. I do not choose to pick sides in this "battle" though...if anything (even as much as I like Glenn), I might probably be on "Team Meisner"!!

I kept reminding myself "this is just one side, one story"...and I await Glenn and Don's respective memoirs. Funny thing, a lot of you may not know my other favorite band/fandom is KISS (strange, eh?). I could go on for hours about how I see parallels between the two bands (how Randy/Bernie were treated vs. Eric Carr...Don going through a lawyer vs. Ace/Peter doing the same...two band members coming to the forefront...etc etc...)

Speaking of KISS...when Gene & Paul were in the predecessor band Wicked Lester, they recorded a song that speaks to me right now..."what happens in the darkness/will surely reach the light of day". So, I'm waiting...I get the feeling Glenn & Henley will be competing to see who gets their "book" out first...Joe might produce a roller-coaster of a memoir...I wonder if Bernie has much to say about any of it all. I wish Randy could speak for himself, I get the sad feeling that that ain't happening...

...just my $0.02...

I don't know about that. I doubt that both Glenn & Don would write a book. It would start to look a bit over the top.

[sodascouts]

Glenn and Henley have both led fascinating lives, well-worth immortalizing in print. I surely hope they both choose to write memoirs. 50 years from now, when people look for memoirs by the Eagles, I hope this isn't the only one there is.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Thanks for your $0.02, GS.

I really don't know that much about the band history of KI$$. If there are a lot of interesting comparisons between the bands, you may want to start a KI$$ thread in the Singing for the Sake of the Song forum to talk about them.

And as far as Don and Glenn writing books, they have both hinted about it in the past, but we'll have to see. However, if they both did decide to write their stories, I wouldn't think they would try to compete with one another. I agree with Soda, they both have their own stories to tell and I would love to hear them both.

[Topkat]

Didn't we hear someplace that Glenn has started writing a book?? I could swear I heard this not that long ago....It will probably be a good long time until it comes out, but would be nice to hear he's started on it!!:eyebrow:

[sodascouts]

He did indeed mention that in a recent interview!

[GlennLover]

Didn't we hear someplace that Glenn has started writing a book?? I could swear I heard this not that long ago....It will probably be a good long time until it comes out, but would be nice to hear he's started on it!!:eyebrow:

Glenn did say during his interview with Tavis Smiley on PBS that he had started writing an outline for a book about his time spent in the Eagles. (I just rewatched it yesterday). He stated that he used this outline when preparing info for the director of the upcoming "History of the Eagles". He then said that the book was something that he still wanted to do & that he hoped to get to it in the not too distant future. Fingers crossed!

[WalshFan88]

I know I've already shared my thoughts on the book but I did enjoy it most of all of the Eagles books, granted it's the only autobiography. I'd LOVE for Joe in particular to write a book, as well as the others.

[Brooke]

I know I've already shared my thoughts on the book but I did enjoy it most of all of the Eagles books, granted it's the only autobiography. I'd LOVE for Joe in particular to write a book, as well as the others.

Joe might not remember much! :lol:

JK!

I'd love to read all of their's!

[Tiffanny Twisted]

I wish they would all right a book but maybe they think keeping everybody guessing is the way to go.
I do hope that Glenn writes one it would be cool.

[zeldabjr]

Joe might not remember much! :lol:

JK!

I'd love to read all of their's!

so maybe Joe's book would be short...but entertaining!

[WalshFan88]

Joe might not remember much! :lol:


Now now! :lol:

[WalshFan88]

so maybe Joe's book would be short...but entertaining!

For sure! :D

[Tiffanny Twisted]

actually Joe should write a book about how he learned to do everthing different since recovery...I mean a book about his career would be intresting if he could remember but I think the story of his 18 years sober is very intresting, jmo:smokin:

[chaim]

I'm pretty sure they all were involved in those parties, married or not!!
What rock star hasn't cheated on his wife or girlfriend??? I think that would be NONE! Women throw themselves at rock stars. The 70's & 80's were totally wild & the amount of drugs going around. Please. There was lots of cheating going on:angel:

As I was going through this thread, this caught my eye. According to Alice Cooper himself he never cheated on his wife even in his drunken days.

[TimothyBFan]

As I was going through this thread, this caught my eye. According to Alice Cooper himself he never cheated on his wife even in his drunken days.

I have to think that there were a few that took the vows seriously and minded themselves. :unimpressed:

[Topkat]

I have to think that there were a few that took the vows seriously and minded themselves. :unimpressed:

If there were a few, I would say VERY few. I don't know at what age Alice Cooper got married, or if this is what he tells his wife & she buys it, but on the other hand Gene Simmons claims to have slept with like 10,000 women? So you can imagine what was going on here. He wasn't the only one.

You've read the bios of some of these rockers....there was some serious partying going on & probably it still goes on. Maybe not for these older guys, but the new young rockers out there, yeah, I would say they have woman all over the globe ready & willing to sleep with them.

[chaim]

If there were a few, I would say VERY few. I don't know at what age Alice Cooper got married, or if this is what he tells his wife & she buys it, but on the other hand Gene Simmons claims to have slept with like 10,000 women? So you can imagine what was going on here. He wasn't the only one.

You've read the bios of some of these rockers....there was some serious partying going on & probably it still goes on. Maybe not for these older guys, but the new young rockers out there, yeah, I would say they have woman all over the globe ready & willing to sleep with them.

I brought up the Alice Cooper example, because I thought that it's funny how a person who many people think is a real bad boy has never cheated on his woman. I believe Alice, or Vincent, has been with his wife since the early seventies. At some point Raquel Welch tried to get him, but he was so in love with this other woman that he didn't even notice this Welch. Cooper really loves his wife.

[sodascouts]

How sweet and admirable!

I always say, all these guys saying it's absolutely impossible to be faithful to your wife if a beautiful woman throws herself at you unless you are a "saint".... BS! It may be HARD, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE. It just takes a lot of strength.

(And you know these same guys would be outraged if their wives slept around.)

[Topkat]

How sweet and admirable!

I always say, all these guys saying it's absolutely impossible to be faithful to your wife if a beautiful woman throws herself at you unless you are a "saint".... BS! It may be HARD, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE. It just takes a lot of strength.

(And you know these same guys would be outraged if their wives slept around.)

Yes, I think they probably would be outraged if their wives slept around, but it wouldn't shock me if some of them did. Many of these rockers who got married at a young age, did end up divorced. I think if you marry a little later, you are less likely to cheat because you get all that fooling around out of your system & realize that it's not all it's cracked up to be!! ( I mean all that meaningless hot sex!)

[chaim]

How sweet and admirable!

I always say, all these guys saying it's absolutely impossible to be faithful to your wife if a beautiful woman throws herself at you unless you are a "saint".... BS! It may be HARD, but it's not IMPOSSIBLE. It just takes a lot of strength.

(And you know these same guys would be outraged if their wives slept around.)

Exactly. Saying that is basically the same as saying that it's ok to cheat on your wife. Really, what's the difference?

[AstraeaLunaAvani]

I am not sure if I want to buy this, so I just went into Barnes & Noble and sat down with it for a while. I only got through about 1/4 of it so far. I plan on going back to read more tomorrow. I looked at the pictures first and was surprised he had pictures of everyone except Randy! (not counting the group pics). I wish every band member would write a book, so we could get everyone's perpective on things. I just realized something too...I saw the new documentary, and I heard Don said it didn't show the whole truth, but he was in it, so he obviously had his say, so i'm a bit confused what parts he thought weren't true. I've also seen some of you say his book wasn't quite truth either. I realize there are some things we can never know the truth about, but is there anything I should keep in mind as I finish the book, that you all KNOW he lied about?

[Freypower]

I am not sure if I want to buy this, so I just went into Barnes & Noble and sat down with it for a while. I only got through about 1/4 of it so far. I plan on going back to read more tomorrow. I looked at the pictures first and was surprised he had pictures of everyone except Randy! (not counting the group pics). I wish every band member would write a book, so we could get everyone's perpective on things. I just realized something too...I saw the new documentary, and I heard Don said it didn't show the whole truth, but he was in it, so he obviously had his say, so i'm a bit confused what parts he thought weren't true. I've also seen some of you say his book wasn't quite truth either. I realize there are some things we can never know the truth about, but is there anything I should keep in mind as I finish the book, that you all KNOW he lied about?

I'll give you two incidents starting with the one that featured in the documentary.

In the book he claims that when they were recording Victim Of Love 'he was supposed to sing the lead vocal'. He says he sang it & then Henley sang it & it was obvious that Henley's voice was better suited to it. In the documentary, apparently Glenn & Don state that Irving took Felder out to lunch while Henley recorded the lead vocal. Henley said that 'Mr Felder' was given the chance to sing it but wasn't up to it. Felder says nothing about this in his book, just that Henley was better for the song.

The other is a baseless claim about the authorship of Silent Spring, the piece of music that was used before the performance of Tequila Sunrise after the interval at the HFO shows. This piece was written by Jay Oliver & Glenn Frey & appears on Frey's Strange Weather album. It is played before Frey's solo performances of Tequila Sunrise to this day (I saw it last month & this month).

Felder claims the track was written by the band's then keyboards player, Timothy Drury. He says it was to be included on the Selected Works box set & Drury was delighted to think he'd be getting royalties from it. Irving offered to 'buy him out' to avoid paying him royalites & when Drury refused it was not included.

It beggars belief for me that Felder would make such a claim & for me that undermined the credibility of the entire book.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

ALA - it's pretty difficult to answer your question without going through lots of threads. So the best response I can give you is that there are numerous contradictions, inconsistencies, and misstatements in Felder's book. Many of them are documented in this thread and the thread with links to interviews he gave to promote the book. Some of this can be found just by reading the book using your critical thinking skills. Just one example that comes to mind is Felder talks about the 80's when the band broke up as a time when he didn't want to do a lot of music because he wanted to focus on his family. But later in the book, he discusses some problems that his youngest son had (who was born in the early 80's), and says that part of the blame was because he did not spend enough time with him when he was growing up. Just seems like a contradiction to me.

Other examples can only be detected if you read the book and then listened to various things he said in the promotional interviews - there were numerous times where his accounts just weren't the same.

And then, last of all, there are examples like what Freypower pointed out where you would have to know a lot about the history of the band in order to figure out that things don't jive.

So, the bottom line is that a casual fan that reads his book won't necessarily be able to pick a lot of these problems out unless they also listen to all of his promotional interviews or have a very good knowledge of the band's history.

[GlennLover]

I know I have brought this up before, but one statement that Felder made in a video interview during the time he was promoting his book still bothers me. The interviewer asked him if the name of the band was "Eagles" or "The Eagles" and he replied with confidence that the name was "The Eagles". This puzzles me. Was this just a slip or was it done as an affront to Glenn, because Glenn has always been particular about pointing out that the name of the band is simply "Eagles"?

[sodascouts]

I am not sure if I want to buy this, so I just went into Barnes & Noble and sat down with it for a while. I only got through about 1/4 of it so far. I plan on going back to read more tomorrow. I looked at the pictures first and was surprised he had pictures of everyone except Randy! (not counting the group pics). I wish every band member would write a book, so we could get everyone's perpective on things. I just realized something too...I saw the new documentary, and I heard Don said it didn't show the whole truth, but he was in it, so he obviously had his say, so i'm a bit confused what parts he thought weren't true. I've also seen some of you say his book wasn't quite truth either. I realize there are some things we can never know the truth about, but is there anything I should keep in mind as I finish the book, that you all KNOW he lied about?

I know this is a long thread, but if you really want details, go back and read through it. We go into these things at length.

One inconsistency that really pissed me off was at one point, Felder said Glenn called the track "Victim of Love" by the nickname "Iron Lung" and that it was hugely offensive because it mocked children with polio. Of course, that makes Glenn sound really cruel. However, elsewhere, he admits he (Felder) was the one who came up with that nickname for the track!

[AstraeaLunaAvani]

Ok I finished the book tonight, and now I really want to read all of this thread! I will get right on that! :-)

I just wanna add...after reading it, I didn't quite pick up on the victim vibe, I mean yeah a few times he sounded like he was complaining but in all of those situations I would be complaining too. I did see he talked badly about Glenn and Don a lot but honestly I got that vibe just from watching the documentary. I dont know if all of you read my introduction post but I have only been a huge fan for a week LOL I saw the documentary and became super interested all of a sudden, so thats how this started...anyway...

Without even knowing ANYTHING but what the documentary said, I totally got the vibe from it that Glenn was a jerk. Then i saw other people agreeing with me so I just assumed ok i guess he was just the dick of the band. Of course everyone has their good and bad sides so i'm not saying I hate him. I might be rambling now LOL Let me get to reading this thread!

[EaglesKiwi]

Without even knowing ANYTHING but what the documentary said, I totally got the vibe from it that Glenn was a jerk. Then i saw other people agreeing with me so I just assumed ok i guess he was just the dick of the band. Of course everyone has their good and bad sides so i'm not saying I hate him. I might be rambling now LOL Let me get to reading this thread!
If I'm suggesting one thing for you to bear in mind when you read through - I think they all had their moments. None of the 7 were saints, but they all contributed a lot to the band.

The most telling thing I got from Felder's book is that he doesn't seem to give any credit at all to Glenn. He talks about how wonderful Henley's voice is (although isn't as complimentary about his drumming!) & also about how great his and Joe's playing together was, and about how much Randy & Bernie contributed (doesn't say very much at all about Tim).

[sad-cafe]

I have read Heaven and Hell, I have watched many interviews/vidoes and things. I keep going back to Felder should have just shut the hell up and rode the wave.

[sad-cafe]

he is still hurt, but IMO he screwed himself by doing this. There will never be a happy time because of the dirt that wasn't necessary to sell this bool

[sad-cafe]

after watching the 77 concert, I will admit he was good with the guitar, but he is and would have been my least favorite. Just don't much care for him.

[Freypower]

I am not the moderator of this forum so I can't merge your posts but if you'd like to make further comments about the book, this is the thread:

https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=585

[sodascouts]

Posts have been moved.

[chaim]

I may have said this earlier, but I'm not sure. One thing I don't like about this book, and autobiographies in general, is that Don judges other people by their doings and often by their non-doings. But about himself he says stuff like "I wondered if I still had his number...to call him and ask if there's anything I can do". Glenn didn't reply when Don asked him if there's anything he could do after Glenn's divorce. But in another situation, being a better person, Don himself wondered if he still had someone's phone number. Hey, maybe Glenn, too, thought about replying to Don's message, but didn't in the end. Maybe he was emotionally too drained to reply to ever message.
It's so easy to make yourself look good in your own autobiography, because you can say things like "I thought about..." and "I wondered if...", even when you actually did nothing about it.

[chaim]

I like this book in many ways, and I find myself re-reading it once in a while. I notice some hilariously written bits here and there, like this piece of brilliantly constructed storytelling my eyes caught today:

Don talks about the band rehearsing "I can't tell you why" for the first time:

"This is a killer track, Timmy", I told him, "I'm gonna have some fun working out my guitar parts for this."

Right after this comes: "Don and Glenn seemed burned out".

In other words, Timothy came up with a killer song and Don F helped Timothy with it, while Don and Glenn were being "burned out".:hilarious:
Has Don forgotten that Glenn came up with the intro, the "try to keep your head little girl" counter melody, and all the lead guitar parts for that song?

[Freypower]

We had an entire topic on this.

https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3729

My opinion of Felder's deliberate misrepresentation of events here is well known.

[Turf]

We had an entire topic on this.

https://www.eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3729

My opinion of Felder's deliberate misrepresentation of events here is well known.

I went back and read that thread, read the thread that it referenced, and waited through a minute long birth-control advertisement so I could hear Glenn play the solo live - all well and good (well, I coulda done without the advertisement...).

But I'm not finding Felder's deliberate misrepresentation here. I see some fans were confused about who played on the recording which, IMO, is perfectly understandable given the circumstances surrounding the solo.

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get it...

[Turf]

I like this book in many ways, and I find myself re-reading it once in a while. I notice some hilariously written bits here and there, like this piece of brilliantly constructed storytelling my eyes caught today:

Don talks about the band rehearsing "I can't tell you why" for the first time:

"This is a killer track, Timmy", I told him, "I'm gonna have some fun working out my guitar parts for this."

Right after this comes: "Don and Glenn seemed burned out".

In other words, Timothy came up with a killer song and Don F helped Timothy with it, while Don and Glenn were being "burned out".:hilarious:
Has Don forgotten that Glenn came up with the intro, the "try to keep your head little girl" counter melody, and all the lead guitar parts for that song?

He really didn't go into too much detail about the recording of the song. We know he did play on the song and he didn't contribute enough (if at all) to earn writing credits. I personally don't see these statements as especially misrepresentative based on the limited knowledge that we have about the events.

Anyway, just my opinion...

[Freypower]

He says to Tim that he is looking forward to working out his guitar parts implying that he will be playing the solos. If the 'circumstances surrounding the solo' you refer in your previous post concern the video, all the confused people had to do was read the album credits.

[Turf]

He says to Tim that he is looking forward to working out his guitar parts implying that he will be playing the solos. If the 'circumstances surrounding the solo' you refer in your previous post concern the video, all the confused people had to do was read the album credits.

Yes, he's including a sentence in his book which he specifically recalls, presumably. Do you think he's really caught up in this confusion/debate about whether or not he wrote/played the solo on ICTYW? I sincerely doubt it. I also doubt he's going to say to himself: "I'd like to include that sentence, but if I do I'm afraid people will infer that I wrote the solo to the song." And as you say, the credits are published. I'm sure he knows what the credits say. I suspect he considers it a nonissue.

Additionally, he may well have added something to the way in which his guitar part was played. Walsh probably would have added something if he played guitar. They were all very experienced musicians. It's hard for me to imagine one band member saying "play this chord, that chord, this other chord exactly like this." Of course, whatever he may have done wasn't sufficient to warrant writing credits - understood...

The other thing is that the above referenced thread had a quote where Glenn was saying both Felder and Walsh tried to come up with something for the solo, but ultimately Glenn's was the best.

Regarding the "circumstances," I meant that (a) Felder always played it live when he was in the band and (b) the video showed him playing it. I appreciate the point that people were making about the video not being the actual recording. But, one should also keep in mind that the point of these "recording studio" videos is really to create the illusion that the song is being recorded. It's true that all one had to do was look at the credits, but the fact of the matter is that relatively few people are going to check the credits and if people don't, it's easy to understand how they may believe Felder played on the recording.

[ThePerfectBeast]

I have held off reading this book as I got the impression it would be over-sensationalised or exaggerated.I've read "To the Limit" (admittidley some time ago) and thought some of the stuff had to be taken with a pinch of salt.

One question , is it worth a read? Is it a relatively fair account of things as much as anyone can tell?

[chaim]

Yes, he's including a sentence in his book which he specifically recalls, presumably. Do you think he's really caught up in this confusion/debate about whether or not he wrote/played the solo on ICTYW? I sincerely doubt it. I also doubt he's going to say to himself: "I'd like to include that sentence, but if I do I'm afraid people will infer that I wrote the solo to the song." And as you say, the credits are published. I'm sure he knows what the credits say. I suspect he considers it a nonissue.

Additionally, he may well have added something to the way in which his guitar part was played. Walsh probably would have added something if he played guitar. They were all very experienced musicians. It's hard for me to imagine one band member saying "play this chord, that chord, this other chord exactly like this." Of course, whatever he may have done wasn't sufficient to warrant writing credits - understood...

The other thing is that the above referenced thread had a quote where Glenn was saying both Felder and Walsh tried to come up with something for the solo, but ultimately Glenn's was the best.

Regarding the "circumstances," I meant that (a) Felder always played it live when he was in the band and (b) the video showed him playing it. I appreciate the point that people were making about the video not being the actual recording. But, one should also keep in mind that the point of these "recording studio" videos is really to create the illusion that the song is being recorded. It's true that all one had to do was look at the credits, but the fact of the matter is that relatively few people are going to check the credits and if people don't, it's easy to understand how they may believe Felder played on the recording.

That last post of mine wasn't meant to be about the ICTYW solo, but about the funny way in which those pieces of text are edited together in the book. Right after Don speaks about his "real sensual guitar", he offers that Don H and Glenn seemed burned out. I just thought that it's hilarious, because Glenn and Don did contribute to that same song, more than Don Fin fact. Don F came up with that brilliant rhythm guitar part, and I certainly didn't mean to minimize his contribution.

I didn't remember that other thread, although I started it! Anyway, there are people on YouTube saying that it's Don F's solo and when someone tried to tell them that it was written and originally played by Glenn, he was ridiculed. But like you or someone else said, maybe Don is not aware that people think it's him even on the record, because of the credits. On the other hand, I've seen people who are aware of the credits, suggest that it was an error.

[TimothyBFan]

I started reading this part of the thread simply because it had to do with ICTYW and pretty obvious why that caught my attention. But I found a few things interesting that are being discussed.

This was THE FIRST TIME they rehearsed it.

Don talks about the band rehearsing "I can't tell you why" for the first time:

"This is a killer track, Timmy", I told him, "I'm gonna have some fun working out my guitar parts for this."
The other thing is that the above referenced thread had a quote where Glenn was saying both Felder and Walsh tried to come up with something for the solo, but ultimately Glenn's was the best.

To me it sounds as if Don and Joe both TRIED to come up with the solo but that Glenn's idea was the best so therefore they used it.

Why then is there dispute/argument/discussion about Don making that statement early on? If what Glenn says is true, he did indeed try to work out the guitar parts.



He says to Tim that he is looking forward to working out his guitar parts implying that he will be playing the solos.

I don't see that as he was necessarily talking about the solo parts. There's a lot more to guitar parts in songs than just the solos, especially when you have as many gifted guitar players in a band as the Eagles do. Right?

[Topkat]

I have held off reading this book as I got the impression it would be over-sensationalised or exaggerated.I've read "To the Limit" (admittidley some time ago) and thought some of the stuff had to be taken with a pinch of salt.

One question , is it worth a read? Is it a relatively fair account of things as much as anyone can tell?

I read the book about 2 years ago, & I enjoyed it, but it can be a little hard at times...I think that this is Don Felder's story, & the others will probably say different things about different situations that are written about...You have to keep in mind that they were all doing tons of drugs, so maybe some of these memories are a bit distorted or unclear almost 40 years later.

My impression was that it was a good read. I didn't know much about the guy before reading it, so I wanted to find out more. It also shows me that things between the Eagles were not as harmonious off the stage as it was on the stage...I liked the book, but take it like everything else, with a grain of salt. My feeling is that at least it was written by a band member, not an outsider.

[ThePerfectBeast]

I read the book about 2 years ago, & I enjoyed it, but it can be a little hard at times...I think that this is Don Felder's story, & the others will probably say different things about different situations that are written about...You have to keep in mind that they were all doing tons of drugs, so maybe some of these memories are a bit distorted or unclear almost 40 years later.

My impression was that it was a good read. I didn't know much about the guy before reading it, so I wanted to find out more. It also shows me that things between the Eagles were not as harmonious off the stage as it was on the stage...I liked the book, but take it like everything else, with a grain of salt. My feeling is that at least it was written by a band member, not an outsider.

Thanks for the reply Topkat , sounds like it's worth checking out.

[WalshFan88]

It's a great book, I think you'd enjoy reading it. It is Don Felder's life story and so of course it's going to be based on his experience of his Eagles career but it's still great and gives insight into some things. Try not to read into to much of the negative stuff until you read it - it's definitely a book I've read several times and likely will again. Don was a huge part of that Eagles rock sound, a big contributor to the band, a guitar surgeon, and his story is one worth hearing and listening to. I will keep the other things to talk about that are in the book until after you read it.

[Freypower]

I have held off reading this book as I got the impression it would be over-sensationalised or exaggerated.I've read "To the Limit" (admittidley some time ago) and thought some of the stuff had to be taken with a pinch of salt.

One question , is it worth a read? Is it a relatively fair account of things as much as anyone can tell?

In my view the book is indeed over-sensationalised and written in hyped up tabloid style, grossly unfair & hostile to Glenn Frey & to a lesser extent Don Henley, and extremely self-centred and self-pitying. The objections people like myself have to it is that Felder takes no responsibility at all for his actions and paints himself as a victim throughout. Also, there is very little new information in it about the Eagles; there is some detail about Felder's personal life.

You wanted an opinion; I'm afraid that is mine. I know that some object to this & think it is overly harsh. I also know that my view is shared by some others here. Unlike Austin I can't not mention the negativity of it but I obviously agree that you must make up your own mind.

[Turf]

ThePerfectBeast,

Based on this and other threads, I think it's safe to say that if you're primarily a Frey and/or Henley fan (ThePerfectBeast, huh?), you may not like the book because of what Felder has to say (or doesn't say, or how he says it, etc.). If, however, you are more of a general Eagles fan or primarily interested in one or more of the other members, you may well find it a worthwhile read.

I certainly enjoyed reading it. But then again, I'm a big-time Walsh and Felder fan, so that's to be expected...

[ThePerfectBeast]

In my view the book is indeed over-sensationalised and written in hyped up tabloid style, grossly unfair & hostile to Glenn Frey & to a lesser extent Don Henley, and extremely self-centred and self-pitying. The objections people like myself have to it is that Felder takes no responsibility at all for his actions and paints himself as a victim throughout. Also, there is very little new information in it about the Eagles; there is some detail about Felder's personal life.

You wanted an opinion; I'm afraid that is mine. I know that some object to this & think it is overly harsh. I also know that my view is shared by some others here. Unlike Austin I can't not mention the negativity of it but I obviously agree that you must make up your own mind.

Thanks for the reply , no need to apologise for having an opinion - I can take it :)

[ThePerfectBeast]

ThePerfectBeast,

Based on this and other threads, I think it's safe to say that if you're primarily a Frey and/or Henley fan (ThePerfectBeast, huh?), you may not like the book because of what Felder has to say (or doesn't say, or how he says it, etc.). If, however, you are more of a general Eagles fan or primarily interested in one or more of the other members, you may well find it a worthwhile read.

I certainly enjoyed reading it. But then again, I'm a big-time Walsh and Felder fan, so that's to be expected...

I would say Don Henley does intrigue more than the others and I love him as a wordsmith.That said I'm not going to go on a crazy defence of him just because Don Felder may say some uncomplementary things.I think I'll give the book a go , take it all with a pinch of salt and try to read between the lines.Hopefully I'll come out with a gleen of new info , put it with the stuff other Eagles have said and try to balance it all out :)

[zeldabjr]

I like your attitude about reading Felder's book TPB...that's kind of how I felt when I read it...take it with a grain of salt...

[Topkat]

In my view the book is indeed over-sensationalised and written in hyped up tabloid style, grossly unfair & hostile to Glenn Frey & to a lesser extent Don Henley, and extremely self-centred and self-pitying. The objections people like myself have to it is that Felder takes no responsibility at all for his actions and paints himself as a victim throughout. Also, there is very little new information in it about the Eagles; there is some detail about Felder's personal life.

You wanted an opinion; I'm afraid that is mine. I know that some object to this & think it is overly harsh. I also know that my view is shared by some others here. Unlike Austin I can't not mention the negativity of it but I obviously agree that you must make up your own mind.

I did not think it was written in a hyped up tabloid style, grossly unfair & hostile to Glenn, & a lesser extent Don Henley...Self-centered???? It's a BIO, isn't that what it's supposed to be????? I also don't think he plays a blameless victim here...He took a lot of the blame for things that went wrong in various parts of his life...Everyone makes mistakes.... It's how you look back on it, that reflection on it that can bring some peace of mind. He knows he made mistakes, just like they all did.

My advice would be to read for yourself & form your own opinion...You will learn about Felder's childhood & early days & how he learned to play guitar. It was all interesting to me.

[TimothyBFan]

In reading the two completely different interpretations of the same book, it really makes me wonder how we would all see biographies from any of the other Eagles. I can only imagine. I hope someday we get to find out.

[chaim]

In reading the two completely different interpretations of the same book, it really makes me wonder how we would all see biographies from any of the other Eagles. I can only imagine. I hope someday we get to find out.

Didn't someone say that Glenn is planning to write one?
I always seem to bring up negative things about Don's book, but I appreciate a lot of things in it; especially the bits where he talks about songs and albums.

[GlennLover]

Didn't someone say that Glenn is planning to a book write one?
I always seem to bring up negative things about Don's book, but I appreciate a lot of things in it; especially the bits where he talks about songs and albums.

Yes. He said that he had done an outline for a book that he was planning to write about his time in the Eagles and used it as the basis of the HotE documentary. On his Tavis Smiley interview he stated that he still plans to write the book when he has time.

[Freypower]

I did not think it was written in a hyped up tabloid style, grossly unfair & hostile to Glenn, & a lesser extent Don Henley...Self-centered???? It's a BIO, isn't that what it's supposed to be????? I also don't think he plays a blameless victim here...He took a lot of the blame for things that went wrong in various parts of his life...Everyone makes mistakes.... It's how you look back on it, that reflection on it that can bring some peace of mind. He knows he made mistakes, just like they all did.

My advice would be to read for yourself & form your own opinion...You will learn about Felder's childhood & early days & how he learned to play guitar. It was all interesting to me.

TK, because you basically agree with Don Felder about Glenn you would not have noticed the endless hostility & outright dismissal of the man's talents throughout the book, which extended to such gems as claiming Glenn was bipolar & should have had therapy. He tries grudgingly to praise Henley's talents but most of the time Henley gets lumped in with Frey as 'the Gods'; the evil duo who ruined Felder's life. So for you just to say to me you didn't think it was what I said; OK. That is hardly going to make me change my opinion. We were asked for opinions & I gave mine. My view of the book is negative; yes. I believe that in this case negative opinions should be considered just as much as positive ones.

Also, TK, I am saying nothing here that I have not already said many times, so I am not sure why you are now so outraged by what I said.

[chaim]

TK, because you basically agree with Don Felder about Glenn you would not have noticed the endless hostility & outright dismissal of the man's talents throughout the book, which extended to such gems as claiming Glenn was bipolar & should have had therapy. He tries grudgingly to praise Henley's talents but most of the time Henley gets lumped in with Frey as 'the Gods'; the evil duo who ruined Felder's life. So for you just to say to me you didn't think it was what I said; OK. That is hardly going to make me change my opinion. We were asked for opinions & I gave mine. My view of the book is negative; yes. I believe that in this case negative opinions should be considered just as much as positive ones.

Also, TK, I am saying nothing here that I have not already said many times, so I am not sure why you are now so outraged by what I said.

Indeed. It has been said many times by Don H that Glenn deliberately, as the leader of the band, stepped back in the latter part of the seventies so that the others could shine and sort of satisfy their egos. But in his book Don F suggests that Glenn just couldn't do it anymore, and that's why he was more in the background.

[sodascouts]

I know this is a long thread and a bit of a dauntingly time-consuming read, but to those who want to know what people's reactions are to the book, it's worth reading the thread in its entirely. Over the years since the book's release in 2007, many people have gone into a great deal of detail about their opinions and honestly in my own case I don't want to type it all out again, lol.

[chaim]

I know this is a long thread and a bit of a dauntingly time-consuming read, but to those who want to know what people's reactions are to the book, it's worth reading the thread its entirely. Over the years since the book's release in 2007, many people have gone into a great deal of detail about their opinions and honestly in my own case I don't want to type it all out again, lol.

I recognize myself in this criticism. Point taken. ;)

[Topkat]

TK, because you basically agree with Don Felder about Glenn you would not have noticed the endless hostility & outright dismissal of the man's talents throughout the book, which extended to such gems as claiming Glenn was bipolar & should have had therapy. He tries grudgingly to praise Henley's talents but most of the time Henley gets lumped in with Frey as 'the Gods'; the evil duo who ruined Felder's life. So for you just to say to me you didn't think it was what I said; OK. That is hardly going to make me change my opinion. We were asked for opinions & I gave mine. My view of the book is negative; yes. I believe that in this case negative opinions should be considered just as much as positive ones.

Also, TK, I am saying nothing here that I have not already said many times, so I am not sure why you are now so outraged by what I said.

FP, Where did I say I was outraged??? I didn't say that. I only disagreed with some of what you said, which I felt was a bit exaggerated... And, no I don't agree with everything Felder said, but it's his book & his opinions....I said that he admitted to having faults & not always doing the right thing. I gave my opinion, as you gave yours, that's all. It was not meant to argue with you.:-?

[sodascouts]

I recognize myself in this criticism. Point taken. ;)

I wasn't directing it at any one person. I just meant that it was a good idea if people were curious about others' opinions.

[chaim]

I wasn't directing it at any one person. I just meant that it was a good idea if people were curious about others' opinions.

I didn't think it was directed at me. I meant that I was one of those people...

[Prettymaid]

I don't remember ever having to read so many posts of explanation on The Border before. "I didn't mean that", "I didn't say that"...it makes me tired. :-(

[pueblo47]

There's always a few that take everything someone else says the wrong way, it's a sure thing in here anymore. That's the main reason several of us have literally stopped posting. Too much hassle over minor stuff.

Everyone sees the book differently. No need to get angry with anyone that doesn't agree with your opinion.

[TimothyBFan]

I don't remember ever having to read so many posts of explanation on The Border before. "I didn't mean that", "I didn't say that"...it makes me tired. :-(

You've got that right!!!! And it happens often and in several threads. :-(

[Tiffanny Twisted]

I like that line...no need to be angry.....

I stopped reading this thread a long time ago becasuse "some people" found it to be a place to "stick up for DF".

I had my opinion of the man before I read the book and after I read the book andit didnt change much!!! It actually got lower.
I always felt that JMO he was impressed with himself and lacked humility.' I still feel this way.
I liked the line in the docurmentary where GF stated he would give tapes of guitar licks and GF would think ...ok where do we sing on any of this .(sorry if I misquoted but you get the drift)
He screwed around on his wife and couldnt understand why she made a life for herself in his absence ??dudh

We have a quote up on the bulliten board at work that says basically "Its amazing what you can accompplish when no one cares who gets the credit".

the above is JMO

[TimothyBFan]

I stopped reading this thread a long time ago becasuse "some people" found it to be a place to "stick up for DF".

Or you could also look at it as "some people" found it to be a place to "bash DF". All depends on your perspective, I suppose.


He screwed around on his wife and couldnt understand why she made a life for herself in his absence ??dudh


I understand and I hate to say it, but I doubt he's the only one in the Eagles that did that. Just saying, I doubt any of these guys are pure and innocent when it came to fidelity. It was a rock n roll world, baby and that thing happened. I don't think he was in any way innocent but I sure am not going to bash him for something others in the profession do over and over also. He just happen to put it on paper. JMO.

[Brooke]

I know this is a long thread and a bit of a dauntingly time-consuming read, but to those who want to know what people's reactions are to the book, it's worth reading the thread its entirely. Over the years since the book's release in 2007, many people have gone into a great deal of detail about their opinions and honestly in my own case I don't want to type it all out again, lol.

Me either. Water under the bridge for me.

[WalshFan88]

Or you could also look at it as "some people" found it to be a place to "bash DF". All depends on your perspective, I suppose.



I understand and I hate to say it, but I doubt he's the only one in the Eagles that did that. Just saying, I doubt any of these guys are pure and innocent when it came to fidelity. It was a rock n roll world, baby and that thing happened. I don't think he was in any way innocent but I sure am not going to bash him for something others in the profession do over and over also. He just happen to put it on paper. JMO.

I agree.

[sodascouts]

There's always a few that take everything someone else says the wrong way, it's a sure thing in here anymore. That's the main reason several of us have literally stopped posting. Too much hassle over minor stuff.

And yet I can always look forward to you dropping in to complain and criticize every now and then, always about the same stuff. That's the kind of thing that makes me tired.

Pet peeve of mine as an English teacher (this is not just directed at you; lots of people do it nowadays): misuse of the world "literally." That's just me being anal, though!

[Turf]

Tiffanny Twisted,

Well, I think it's save you say you and I are on different wavelengths...



I liked the line in the docurmentary where GF stated he would give tapes of guitar licks and GF would think ...ok where do we sing on any of this .(sorry if I misquoted but you get the drift)

To me, this line felt like Glenn was going out of his way to insult Felder. I mean, one band member is proactively recording and mixing demos of potential song ideas and sending them to the rest of the band for their review. This particular demo contains a nearly complete (musically) Hotel California and also Victim of Love (some version), IIRC. Yet, Frey feels compelled to make a statement along the lines of (paraphrasing): 95% of Felder's stuff was [fill in a word your comfortable with here].

I wonder how many demo tapes Joe and Randy were creating? How many demo tapes did Frey and Henley send around to the other band members? I don't really know the answer to those questions, but I can guess. Yet, many label Glenn the "team player" and Felder the "self aggrandizing [pick another word your comfortable with]."

Another thing that bothers me about that line is that there are numerous stories of people turning guitar parts into complete and successful songs. Usually, the stories go something like:

[Person 1 plays guitar]

Person 2: What's that?

Person 1: What's what?

Person 2: What you just played...

Person 1: I don't know. Just something I was playing around with.

In fact, "Life in the Fast Lane" is one of these stories, as is "Suicide Solution" (Ozzy Osbourne and Randy Rhoads, please forgive my musical eclecticism). So, to me, the assertion that a musical idea has no value simply because there is no existing, identifiable place to sing, is creatively lazy, at best.



We have a quote up on the bulliten board at work that says basically "Its amazing what you can accompplish when no one cares who gets the credit".

There are bands to whom this quote applies. Bands that come to mind are The Doors and Van Halen for much of its existence. These bands credited the whole band on all songs, regardless of who actually wrote a given song - for the good of the band, IMO. But, if these bands are at one end of the credit spectrum, I would have to say The Eagles are at the other end. You're not likely to find any after-the-fact, behind-your-back, credit rearrangements in the share-the-credit bands. Unfortunately, we have to take the good with the bad...

[VAisForEagleLovers]

To me, this line felt like Glenn was going out of his way to insult Felder. I mean, one band member is proactively recording and mixing demos of potential song ideas and sending them to the rest of the band for their review. This particular demo contains a nearly complete (musically) Hotel California and also Victim of Love (some version), IIRC. Yet, Frey feels compelled to make a statement along the lines of (paraphrasing): 95% of Felder's stuff was [fill in a word your comfortable with here].

Glenn said the same line at the songwriter's event in 2011. Maybe it was because I'd just read H&H, it seemed to me to be a direct response to several things Felder said in his book about how they struggled to come up with songs, yet he turned all these in and only two were used, and things along those lines. Glenn was explaining why they only used two of them. It's one of those things that can be looked at both ways, some see Felder's comments in the book as yet another opportunity he took to say how 'the gods' didn't take him seriously or give him a chance. Others see Glenn's explanation as an insult. It depends on which end of the spectrum you're sitting on.

[Turf]

TK, because you basically agree with Don Felder about Glenn you would not have noticed the endless hostility & outright dismissal of the man's talents throughout the book, which extended to such gems as claiming Glenn was bipolar & should have had therapy. He tries grudgingly to praise Henley's talents but most of the time Henley gets lumped in with Frey as 'the Gods'; the evil duo who ruined Felder's life. So for you just to say to me you didn't think it was what I said; OK. That is hardly going to make me change my opinion. We were asked for opinions & I gave mine. My view of the book is negative; yes. I believe that in this case negative opinions should be considered just as much as positive ones.

Also, TK, I am saying nothing here that I have not already said many times, so I am not sure why you are now so outraged by what I said.

To be precise, I think the "bipolar" comment was from interviews around the time of the publication of the book. In the book itself, I think Felder said something along the lines of: Frey could have used some therapy and maybe some Prozac. As far as rockstars go, I found it a bit tame.

At any rate, I think it's safe to say that neither you nor anybody else on this board is going to be writing a You-Might-Be-A-Don-Felder-Hater post any time soon. In fact, the overall level of animosity toward Felder is the single most surprising characteristic about this forum. I mean, do we really presume to know these people so intimately and so well that we are in a position to judge his judgements to such a degree?

It makes me a bit sad, really...

[sodascouts]

IMHO there are only a few extremists who fall into my definition of "hater," hence my post trying to define that. I like to be specific and not speak in vague generalities.

I'll be real. I think there are probably a few people who could be characterized as Felder-haters according to how I have defined the term in the doc thread, but they're hardly the majority.

Still, considering how ugly his break with the Eagles was and the controversial topics in his book, is it really that surprising?

When it comes to Felder's book, I looked for proofs and specifics to back up his assertions and judgments. You can see for yourself the conclusions I came to, and if you do not believe they are fair, that's your right. However, at least I always back up my views, and don't just make it some emotional issue.

One of the things I find infinitely frustrating is when I take the time to present evidence of something - some of my posts in this thread are quite detailed - and the response is nothing but variations of "You just don't like Felder!" How about a MEANINGFUL response addressing my points? SIGH. It was a harsh wake-up call once I realized that there were people not even reading my posts before making their knee-jerk responses! Ouch!

I find it amusing that I know more about Don Felder than 99% of this board - only a handful of people even have both his solo albums - and still I get the knee-jerk responses. Ah well, that's the internet for ya.

Indeed, conflict is the way of the internet. I've been posting on boards since the 90s and I've been running fan boards since 2000, so I've seen all these melodramas and cliques play out many times over a variety of subjects on every board I've been a member of.

The first message board argument I ever participated in was whether or not Sonny should be with Carly on AOL's General Hospital forum (1997). People got VERY passionate about it, just as passionate as people are getting here, and Sonny and Carly aren't even real!

Such conflicts are the norm. I'm sure there are exceptions, but not too many, so I expect it.

Still, I try to keep as many people as possible happy. I just recognize that there will always be people who are going to be pissed off about one thing or another.

There have been many times when people haven't been too happy about decisions I've made on both ends of the spectrum. Those veteran members who hearken back to years gone by when there was very little conflict should also remember that there were a lot fewer people then, and certainly we were all a lot more like-minded. We hardly ever discussed serious stuff. Growth is good but it means change and you can't go back. My hope is that we adapt.

In that spirit, to anyone who finds themselves getting upset: It's so not worth it. Go find something to smile about. Life is too short to spend so much of it complaining. Be glad you can escape the drama and don't have to constantly deal with it as part of running the board!

To keep on topic: I stand behind what I wrote about Felder's book and I hope people take the time to read such posts before making generalizations that may or may not accurately reflect the majority of this thread.

Speaking of keeping on topic, let's try to keep reactions to the documentary in that thread. People who have been around this forum a long time know how I like to keep topics well-organized. This thread is about Felder's book.

[MaryCalifornia]

I read the book about six weeks ago, and came in with no preconceived notions about who was the "bad" guy. I really enjoyed it, especially the early years where he was sooooo poor, and how sweet his relationship with Susan was for so long. I was so happy for him when he joined the Eagles. I will say the only sentence in the book that shocked me, SHOCKED ME, was when he said he had not spoken to Joe Walsh once since he was fired...I did not see that coming. He also said that Timothy sounded "annoyed" when he took Felder's call and said,"What's up, Fingers?" Timothy...annoyed??!! When as far as Felder knew, these two were his friends? It really made me think that these two, in their own minds, were either forced to "pick sides" to stay on Glenn and Don's good side, or they were both really pissed at Felder, pissed enough that they would never speak to him again! I mean, I can see not being all buddy-buddy with him after he was fired, but Joe never speaking to him again? The other explanation is that Felder was completely delusional and didn't realize that Joe and Timothy had wanted him gone for a long time and were thankful they never had to talk to him again. Pretty sad whatever the reason.

OK, now I will go back and read this thread in its entirety, Soda. I didn't want to be influenced by the opinions in here before I gave my mini-review! I'm guessing the description of Joe's/Tim's reaction to his firing is addressed in here! I will settle in with some tea after the babies are asleep!

[VAisForEagleLovers]

MC, I also read the book before reading more than two posts on this thread. I had heard some of the interviews he'd done when promoting the book, so I wasn't totally in the dark about what to expect, but for me, I found it shocking. To someone that loved and respected the entire band, to read one of them saying the things that were said was jaw-dropping. I read the book in less than a day, and then I made the mistake of coming to this thread and posting my thoughts immediately, instead of letting it percolate for a day or two.

I think I said in here somewhere, if not I meant to, that I am not a fan of auto-biographies as a general rule. I can't remember ever reading one where I thought nearly as much of the author after reading it as I did before reading. As TK said, an auto-biography is supposed to be biased, it's supposed to be selfish. No one writes one and talks mostly about someone else. It's a story intended to give one viewpoint. How that's handled is usually dependent on a ghost writer and the editor, and they work for the publisher whose goal is to create sound-bites and sell books. It obviously works, how many new members (or even lurkers) have read bits and pieces of this divisive thread and then bought the book when they wouldn't have otherwise?

[MaryCalifornia]

VA - agree, especially the part about not liking autobiographies. A funny thing, though, the only other autobiography I have read in the past 5 years was Keith Richards', and I thought about it, and him, for days after...it was really good. I couldn't stop telling people about it. Then, I couldn't believe that in Heaven and Hell Don Felder described Keith's guitar playing as "Neanderthal"!!!! He definitely has a very distinct style, but c'mon, let's give him a little love!! I wish Felder had spent more time describing the music-making process in the studio, like Keith did.

[Topkat]

I really like reading biographies...I think it gives you a better idea of the real person, rather than what other people write about them...I didn't know much about Felder until I read it & I did feel I learned a lot about him from the book. I think he wrote it at a time where he still had bad feelings over what happened, and maybe if he had written it a little later, he may have felt a little differently about it all...Just my opinion.

I read it 2 years ago, so it isn't really fresh in my mind, but overall I thought he gave his honest opinion. I think he had no clue he was going to be fired. Maybe he thought it wasn't even possible for them to fire him; that it took him totally by surprise & he was shocked by it.

I wonder if he & Joe have spoken to this date. I bet they have. The book is now a few years old, so maybe they had some communication, but I think Joe & Timothy both really had no choice, but to desert him, & stay loyal to the band at that time. Frankly, I would love to see them reunited with Felder, even though it's not likely to happen. To me there is just something "missing" in the Eagles without Felder...Many fans have never seen the Eagles with him, but I have & I still say that as good as Smith is as a guitar player....he's not Don Fleder! Sorry, but that is how I feel.

[Turf]

I will say the only sentence in the book that shocked me, SHOCKED ME, was when he said he had not spoken to Joe Walsh once since he was fired...I did not see that coming.

I agree. To me, the saddest part of the whole affair is the fact that Walsh and Felder no longer communicate. I wish we knew more details about the situation. I suspect Joe may be taking a "don't rock the boat" attitude with respect to the band and therefore simply avoiding all contact with Felder.

[Turf]

Then, I couldn't believe that in Heaven and Hell Don Felder described Keith's guitar playing as "Neanderthal"!!!! He definitely has a very distinct style, but c'mon, let's give him a little love!!

Yeah, that was interesting... The sentence from the book is:



The Stones were pretty wild boys, especially Keith Richards, who played a real dirty, Neanderthal guitar and was a walking chemistry set.


It's hard for me to know exactly how to interpret the use of the word Neanderthal here. There is a lot of "bad is good" when it comes to descriptions of guitar sound. I don't think that Felder meant for it to be insulting.

[Caiti]

I just finished reading the book, which, when one compares it to the new documentary on Showtime, was a fairly accurate portrayal of the events and the people. That said, I think Don Felder was a little whiney and a little too descriptive about minor points in the book. Overall, it was a really interesting read. I think it's sad that he ended up being fired. He is a true talent and genius and it makes me sad that my favorite Eagle, Timothy Schmit, was (allegedly) unsympathetic when Don Felder called him. I did really like Don's idea of having a benefit concert for all the roadies and support people to get some retirement money in their accounts.

I always look at books like this as one side of the story. This one has a bit more credence since the documentary confirmed a lot of it. In my opinion, being an Eagle made all of them quite wealthy, but as with anything worth having, there is always a price to pay.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Welcome, Caiti!!

[sodascouts]

Hi Caiti! Welcome!

[Caiti]

Welcome, Caiti!!
Thanks! Happy to be here. Still trying to figure things out and find my way around!

[Caiti]

Hi Caiti! Welcome!
Thanks!! Still trying to figure this website out and navigate around, but I like what I see!

[Troubadour]

Glad to have you here, Caiti!

[GlennLover]

Welcome from me as well. I'm sure you will enjoy it here! :)

[HeatherB]

Finished the book in one day this week. Haven't read any other books in regards to the band, so was surprised at all the tension that seemed to be. I echo what others have said in that Felder was a bit whiney. Whatever has transpired, we'll never know the full extent since we weren't there, so it doesn't taint my view like some. It's the music that makes me smile!

[TimothyBFan]

Finished the book in one day this week. Haven't read any other books in regards to the band, so was surprised at all the tension that seemed to be. I echo what others have said in that Felder was a bit whiney. Whatever has transpired, we'll never know the full extent since we weren't there, so it doesn't taint my view like some. It's the music that makes me smile!

Well stated, Heather! And welcome!!

Also welcome to you, Caiti!

[GlennLover]

Welcome, Heather! You're right! It all comes down to the music. :thumbsup:

[Sebastian]

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.

[Freypower]

Sebastian, what a thoughtful post. Can I say that your views on this book are very similar to mine. :partytime:

[VAisForEagleLovers]

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.

When I read the book the first time, I thought the same thing and wondered if it was 'driven' by the publishing company and/or editor. Since then, I've heard plenty of interviews and heard the same thing. He'll say great things about everyone but Glenn and the silence is as deafening as if he were saying something. It's still preferable to him saying something negative. I just find it sad that he can't or won't come up with one positive thing to say. Glenn doesn't in reverse, but then Glenn doesn't discuss it at all. The other person Felder seldom says anything good about in interviews is Bernie, which is kind of sad.

If any of the other Eagles ever wrote autobiographies, of course I'd read them, but I've determined I'm not natured to like autobiographies. They are by default biased because why write a book about your life and tell it from someone else's perspective? Even given that, each person talks about the good, the bad, and the ugly (unless you're David Geffen and then it's all good), and what a person chooses to label as good, bad, and ugly is very telling.

[GlennLover]

I noticed the glaring omission of any positive comments about Glenn as well. :unimpressed:

[Sebastian]

The other person Felder seldom says anything good about in interviews is Bernie, which is kind of sad.

TBF, I did hear him saying nice things about him in some interviews (mostly about his musicality) and of course he praises Bernie a lot in the book, especially in the beginning.

One more thing I remembered: Sometimes it was clear that Felder went out of his way to emphasise the 'Alpha Male Battle' and he made no effort to hide the fact he considered Henley to be 'better' than Frey at nearly everything (singing, songwriting, producing, confidence), while at the same time ever so slightly belittling Grey's work in the studio: 'he didn't allow us to witness his vocal recordings until he'd made the final comp... he always tried the guitar solo first...' - I'm paraphrasing but, again, even if that were true (I don't know if it was as I wasn't there), it's quite off-putting that he was making it public.

[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 :p

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.

[chaim]

I'm watching an interview with Glenn Frey from 1992. Glenn said something there that made me think of Don Felder's book once again.

In Heaven And Hell Don says:

"Tommy Nixon, Glenn's right-hand man, usually took the brunt, but when Glenn grew bored with baiting Tommy, he'd focus on someone else. Tommy was a nice guy, absolutely dedicated to Glenn after starting out as his guitar roadie in the seventies, and he was totally dependent on him for money and a job. I'm ashamed now that I stood by for all those years watching another human being so humiliated. One of us should have stood up for Tommy, but taking on Glenn when he was in that kind of mood wasn't easy."


In this interview from 1992 Glenn says, "...my road manager Tommy Nixon, who's been my best friend for twenty years". :stunned:

[MaryCalifornia]

These two statements from Glenn and Felder aren't contradictory, depending on the time frame Felder is referring to - he could be referring to events that took place between 1994 and 2001. Obviously, the time frame Glenn is referencing is 1972 to 1992.

Or, if Felder is referring to a time frame of 1975-1980, it's not surprising that he had a different perspective on the dynamic between Glenn and Tommy than Glenn had. Could be that Tommy was used to being berated by Glenn and just let it slide off his back like water, but they were still friends.

When does this come up in the book?

[chaim]

These two statements from Glenn and Felder aren't contradictory, depending on the time frame Felder is referring to - he could be referring to events that took place between 1994 and 2001. Obviously, the time frame Glenn is referencing is 1972 to 1992.

Or, if Felder is referring to a time frame of 1975-1980, it's not surprising that he had a different perspective on the dynamic between Glenn and Tommy than Glenn had. Could be that Tommy was used to being berated by Glenn and just let it slide off his back like water, but they were still friends.

When does this come up in the book?

Page 196 in my copy. Don's talking about the Long Run era. It's also possible, of course, that Tommy and Glenn talked about that stuff privately and Glenn apologized, and Don didn't know that.

On the same page Don mentions that Glenn called him Spot, because his hair had "started to thin slightly at the back". That's interesting, because Don still seems to have a full hair of hair today.

I was really surprised to see Glenn call Tommy his best friend since the early 70's, because Don implies in his book that Tommy was there only because he needed the job.

[MaryCalifornia]

Felder has maintained his looks with some tasteful work, a little bit of hair transplanted where necessary probably as well. He looks great.

Or, Glenn didn't apologize, because he didn't need to. Felder certainly has the right to comment on what he personally observed. But, I wouldn't take his characterization of two other peoples' relationship to be gospel, for sure, especially in this book. He is probably accurate in what he recounts, and Glenn is probably accurate in his description of his relationship with Tommy.

Felder tries to take every snide or joking remark by Glenn that he can remember over a 25 year period and portray it as a big deal, when it might have been nothing at the time. His agenda is obvious. It is an entertaining book, and I don't think he outright LIES anywhere, but I take all of his reports of Glenn acting bad with a grain of salt.

[Freypower]

Felder has maintained his looks with some tasteful work, a little bit of hair transplanted where necessary probably as well. He looks great.

Or, Glenn didn't apologize, because he didn't need to. Felder certainly has the right to comment on what he personally observed. But, I wouldn't take his characterization of two other peoples' relationship to be gospel, for sure, especially in this book. He is probably accurate in what he recounts, and Glenn is probably accurate in his description of his relationship with Tommy.

Felder tries to take every snide or joking remark by Glenn that he can remember over a 25 year period and portray it as a big deal, when it might have been nothing at the time. His agenda is obvious. It is an entertaining book, and I don't think he outright LIES anywhere, but I take all of his reports of Glenn acting bad with a grain of salt.

Hear, hear.

[GlennLover]

Glenn said on the Tavis Smiley interview last year that Tommy has been his best friend for 40 years & he is still his road manager. Tommy can be seen in the video with Glenn taken at a ceremony held when Glenn was honorary chairman of the Boys & Girls Club of La Quinta(?) a few years ago. Also, Tommy was in a scene of the episode of Arli$$ that Glenn guest starred in in the early 2000's. Glenn can't be that hard on Tommy if he has stuck around all these years & Glenn considers him his best friend.

[MaryCalifornia]

La Quinta is the desert resort/golf town near Palm Springs where Glenn's parents live. That's cool Glenn was involved with the Boys & Girls there.

[UndertheWire]

It's hard to write about the book without falling into the trap of nit-picking. It's Don Felder's story from his point a view at a time when he was feeling mistreated. I accept it as a version of the truth. He was there and he's telling us what he remembers of the various incidents. There's little in his book that's contradicted by the documentary or interviews with other band members.

Where I have a problem is that his story his selective and often lacks context and gives a misleading impression. The Tommy Nixon comment is a good example of this as he writes about Glenn treating Tommy badly in 1979 without the context that despite this, Glenn and Tommy remained close decades later. Although his account may be truthful it does not give a true representation.

I also had to remind myself that it doesn't matter what I think of Don's situation as it's more important to understand how he was feeling. When he says he was "dirt poor" growing up, I have to accept that as being true for him, even though it doesn't sound that bad to me compared with conditions in the post-war UK. What matters is that this feeling influenced the way he looks at life and, in particular, his attitude towards money. He believes his father worked hard but was treated badly by his employer and that this contributed to his father's illness and early death. It's not a stretch to see a connection to the way he feels he was treated within the band.

On first read, Don's description of his time within the band made me think back to school time. He sounds like he was so desperate to be part of the "in crowd" but continually felt left out - that Don H and Glenn had a relationship that was too exclusive for the other band members.( I've seen hints of this in interviews with Randy too where he talks about having been close to Don H and Glenn and had good times but that they lived together and he couldn't get between them).

(I'm sure I have more to say but I need to go out.)

[sad-cafe]

I am re-reading this book and I have to say the 2nd time around after watching the HOTE documentary, Fingers comes off as trying to be "better than the others" I really don't like his all the others did this and I was a family man so I didn't attitude. The more I read, the more I understand why Glenn fired him.

[The Thrill Is Never Gone]

I have read the book twice and I do not get that impression at all. Don F said he cheated on his wife and it always made him feel badly. Randy did the same thing. I don't think he felt that he was better than the others, I think he was intimidated by several others and never really felt equal. I am truly surprised that they made him an equal partner when he joined. Which proved to be right, when they came back for HFO he was told that he would not make as much money as Don H and Glenn. Later on when he really complained about this, then he was fired.

[UndertheWire]

Thanks.

Don Felder has frequently said that his book come out of a journal he was keeping as a form of therapy to help him cope with the double-whammy of the end of his marriage and the end of his place in the band. I've tried this kind of writing and for me it works best when I write down everything that's bothering me, no matter how petty. The idea is to clear out all those little things so that you can move forward. Whilst that's great for therapy, an autobiography is going to have quite a different audience. What Don needed was someone to go through and check that he was giving the impression that he intended and maybe remove a sentence or add in a better explanation.

Here's a pre-Eagles example. When touring with David Blue, he gets the chance to play with Crosby & Nash, too. He notes that he was paid double which was very welcome as his wife was expectingbut he also mentions that the tour was saving money, too, because they were only paying one lot of per diem expenses. So as someone who deals with employee expenses, I'm thinking, "Great. It's win-win." Except he goes on to say that he "didn't complain". What? What grounds did he have for complaint and why is he still remembering it more than thirty years later? I switch from enjoying his good fortune with him to focusing on his pettiness in just one sentence and I doubt that's what he intended.

Essentially, I'm saying that if he'd had a good editor, I'd probably have liked him a lot more and been more sympathetic when it came to when he really was treated badly.

[randymeisnerrocks]

When touring with David Blue, he gets the chance to play with Crosby & Nash, too. He notes that he was paid double which was very welcome as his wife was expectingbut he also mentions that the tour was saving money, too, because they were only paying one lot of per diem expenses. So as someone who deals with employee expenses, I'm thinking, "Great. It's win-win." Except he goes on to say that he "didn't complain". What? What grounds did he have for complaint and why is he still remembering it more than thirty years later? I switch from enjoying his good fortune with him to focusing on his pettiness in just one sentence and I doubt that's what he intended.

He could be an ass or he could have meant nothing by that at all. We really don't know how he meant it. Just maybe he meant that in a "tongue in cheek" kinda way, like when someone asks how you are and you reply "Well, I've been worse!" even when you are really happy. How can we be sure?

I'd like to remind everyone that when reading words in a book or on a computer screen, you cannot hear inflections in the speech, expressions in the eyes or sarcasm in the voice, which are the non-verbal conversational clues that signal intent. (In fact, that's exactly why so many people get their dander up online. When you can't be sure what someone is implying, it's easy to take offense when none was intended. Maybe he should have put an "LOL" after the sentence! LOL)

Look, I could be completely wrong. I have forgotten a lot of the book and am now re-reading my copy but I haven't gotten to that part yet. I do know that we can be awfully quick to jump on Felder, especially considering he was there (for all of the Eagles experiences) and we were not. JMO...

[randymeisnerrocks]

Well, not ALL the Eagles experiences...

[UndertheWire]

He could be an ass or he could have meant nothing by that at all. We really don't know how he meant it. Just maybe he meant that in a "tongue in cheek" kinda way, like when someone asks how you are and you reply "Well, I've been worse!" even when you are really happy. How can we be sure?

That's kind of my point. One poorly-crafted sentence can make a difference to the way a story is perceived. Of course, I could be the only one who saw it that way.

[randymeisnerrocks]

That's kind of my point. One poorly-crafted sentence can make a difference to the way a story is perceived. Of course, I could be the only one who saw it that way.

Point taken. :)

[UndertheWire]

"I guess."

... being an example of a small comment being blown out of proportion.

[sodascouts]

It does come off like an overreaction for many people who weren't there (like me). I can only assume it was a "straw that broke the camel's back" scenario.

I bet there were a lot of people reading the book (or watching the documentary) who went, "That's it?! I thought at least there would be a fistfight!" lol

[Springbo]

It does come off like an overreaction for many people who weren't there (like me). I can only assume it was a "straw that broke the camel's back" scenario.

I bet there were a lot of people reading the book (or watching the documentary) who went, "That's it?! I thought at least there would be a fistfight!" lol

I'm sure there would have been a fistfight, if Don F. hadn't gotten away so quickly, LOL.

[The Thrill Is Never Gone]

Fist fights are not a good thing when your occupation is playing guitar. A broken hand would put a damper on things.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Fist fighters are not a good thing when your occupation is playing guitar. A broken hand would put a damper on things.

If bad enough, could end a career!

[randymeisnerrocks]

I'm sure there would have been a fistfight, if Don F. hadn't gotten away so quickly, LOL.

I dont think Frey wanted any, either. Felder is three or four inches taller and outweighs him, too.

Besides our boys are lovers, not fighters!

[ktdids]

You know, watching the documentary so many times, I got to wondering about thus whole segment. Glenn was furious with Felder, seething he even says, and yet he had opportunity to confront him before getting on stage. Glenn smashed his beer bottle in the room Felder was warming up in, but doesn't say anything? If I'm that angry I think I'd be all over the person in no time! Okay, maybe upon reflection I might try to get past the anger, and try to work it out later, which is what I'm sure Glenn was trying to do...

[sodascouts]

Glenn would have to be a fool to confront Felder before the show. This was a benefit for a politician. It would be a huge embarrassment if two of the band members came onstage beaten and bloodied. The press would've had a field day!

And while some people may smirk at Felder for running, I agree it was smart. Even if he had won the fight, he still could have sustained an injury that would have affected his playing, at least temporarily. What's more important, masculine ego or your career? He's called "Fingers" for a reason.

[UndertheWire]

Here's another grumble from me about a lack of context in the book.

Don writes about the attempted reunion in the studio in 1990. He tells us that Don H had hired Danny Kortchmar as producer and that "Glenn's suggestion had been Elliot Scheiner who'd produced his solo records, but Don didn't rate him as high."

I didn't have any background knowledge and didn't do any research and so I moved on with the impression that maybe Glenn had suggested someone who was a little sub-par because he liked working with him. My mistake, but given the information was presented, I think it's understandable.

So now I'm doing the research, I find that Elliot Scheiner was, and still is a well-respected (and award-winning) recording engineer and producer. He started as Phil Ramone's assistant and has produced for a host of artists, including Steely Dan, Queen, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton.

I think Felder was trying to show that Henley and Frey were disagreeing over the choice of producer and that the rest of the band weren't consulted.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I'd blame it on the editors but they probably weren't informed enough to catch it either.

[MaryCalifornia]

I've had some time to think on the Alan Cranston episode since watching the doc, and I've come to the conclusion that though Felder was impertinent or rude with his "I guess" comment, he was probably in the right as far as not wanting to use the Eagles brand to support a politician, especially at that point in time when they were basically the biggest band in the world, and especially with this particular politician, who ended up being censured by the senate for ethics violations. In the doc, he acted sort of apologetic, like he didn't know anything about politics at the time, but I think his instincts back then were correct. I do think it was a little unfair of Don Henley to say that Felder didn't want to do it because it wasn't putting money in his pocket. From what I've seen, Felder has always been willing, even enthusiastic, to support charitable causes, even back in the 70s.

So since that Cranston show, does anyone know if the Eagles, as a band, have played a show as a fundraiser for any other politicians?

[Freypower]

I've had some time to think on the Alan Cranston episode since watching the doc, and I've come to the conclusion that though Felder was impertinent or rude with his "I guess" comment, he was probably in the right as far as not wanting to use the Eagles brand to support a politician, especially at that point in time when they were basically the biggest band in the world, and especially with this particular politician, who ended up being censured by the senate for ethics violations. In the doc, he acted sort of apologetic, like he didn't know anything about politics at the time, but I think his instincts back then were correct. I do think it was a little unfair of Don Henley to say that Felder didn't want to do it because it wasn't putting money in his pocket. From what I've seen, Felder has always been willing, even enthusiastic, to support charitable causes, even back in the 70s.

So since that Cranston show, does anyone know if the Eagles, as a band, have played a show as a fundraiser for any other politicians?

They appeared at a function for Howard Dean when he was running for President. I cannot remember if they played a show or not.

I thought it was Frey who said that Felder didnn't want money going anywhere else except to him.

The point is that Felder was going against their collective ethos by behaving in the way he did & Frey was right to be upset with him. If he was so concerned at them doing it perhaps he should have said so before the actual show. What you say about Cranston has the benefit of hindsight. The Eagles diddn't know any of that at the time.

[MaryCalifornia]

Yeah, I think you're right, it was Glenn who said that. Agree with the hindsight thing - that's my point. In the big picture, Felder probably had a legitimate position about not wanting to play a benefit for a politician, even if his opinion was discounted. I guess what I'm saying is he was a jerk for the snide comment, but not for his overall position.

[sodascouts]

Certainly, in recent years, Felder has played a multitude of benefits for charities. However, he has not shunned the political arena. As recently as last year, he played at a fundraiser for the Republican Party. Of course, the Felder of today is a very different man than he was in 1980, I'm sure.

[luna65]

I think Felder was trying to show that Henley and Frey were disagreeing over the choice of producer and that the rest of the band weren't consulted.
I get what you mean but I'm thinking it's just as simple as the editor deciding to keep the story in Felder's voice - and he wouldn't necessarily stop and explain about Scheiner. Consistency of voice/tone is something considered important in an autobiography, where the reader should feel like they're in the midst of an ongoing narrative, as opposed to a historical progression. But then again, it could very well be that, respected or not, Don did not hold Scheiner in high regard. It seems to me that there were two factors in play:
-yet another power struggle
-value judgments based on the perceived value of each other's work. These types of decisions can be as much political as artistic or logistical.

[MaryCalifornia]

Certainly, in recent years, Felder has played a multitude of benefits for charities. However, he has not shunned the political arena. As recently as last year, he played at a fundraiser for the Republican Party. Of course, the Felder of today is a very different man than he was in 1980, I'm sure.

Ha, no wonder he didn't want to do that benefit! Well, they say people get more conservative the older they get...

[UndertheWire]

I get what you mean but I'm thinking it's just as simple as the editor deciding to keep the story in Felder's voice - and he wouldn't necessarily stop and explain about Scheiner. Consistency of voice/tone is something considered important in an autobiography, where the reader should feel like they're in the midst of an ongoing narrative, as opposed to a historical progression. But then again, it could very well be that, respected or not, Don did not hold Scheiner in high regard. It seems to me that there were two factors in play:
-yet another power struggle
-value judgments based on the perceived value of each other's work. These types of decisions can be as much political as artistic or logistical.
I felt it was unfortunate that almost the only comment about the producer (who's worked with the band from HFO through to HoTE) is a negative one and that he attributes it to Henley. That's sloppy in that he potentially pisses off three people without even giving his own opinion.

[Springbo]

The point is that Felder was going against their collective ethos by behaving in the way he did & Frey was right to be upset with him. If he was so concerned at them doing it perhaps he should have said so before the actual show. What you say about Cranston has the benefit of hindsight. The Eagles diddn't know any of that at the time.

So Glenn had a "right " to be upset with Don F., but Don F. didn't have a "right" to be upset and say, "I guess"? I didn't understand what the big deal was when I first watched the doc and "I guess", I still don't understand what the big deal is. If Glenn got so upset when Don F. said "I guess", you think he would have been reasonable if Don F. said he had concerns about them playing the benefit? :shrug:

[Freypower]

So Glenn had a "right " to be upset with Don F., but Don F. didn't have a "right" to be upset and say, "I guess"? I didn't understand what the big deal was when I first watched the doc and "I guess", I still don't understand what the big deal is. If Glenn got so upset when Don F. said "I guess", you think he would have been reasonable if Don F. said he had concerns about them playing the benefit? :shrug:

The point is that if Felder had concerns, we don't know if he raised them. You are correct in that Glenn probably would have ignored these concerns. However Felder then decided to behave in a rude & unprofessional manner towards the band's guests at the actual event. I guess, to coin a phrase, not everyone agrees that his behaviour was rude & unprofessional, so I had better state that in my opinion (and also in the opinion of Glenn & Irving) it was. Even if you disagree with someone you behave with basic common courtesy.

[UndertheWire]

Isn't the whole point that it was something small - the final blow-up over something minor because they were just so fed up of each other?

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Well, 'I guess' I see this somewhat differently. I can appreciate that folks think Glenn overreacted about this incident; I can also appreciate that Felder had a right to have a differing point of view; I can even appreciate that both men were partly wrong. However, IMO, the biggest problem is that I don't believe the ‘I guess’ remark was a minor incident. To me, it was inappropriate, rude, and disrespectful, especially when directed at a public servant and his wife at a public event. ‘I guess’ I’m old-fashioned, but where I come from that is indefensible behavior. But mostly, I wish that with years of retrospect and maturity, Felder had expressed some remorse for his behavior. I would’ve just liked to hear him acknowledge some responsibility for the incident or even that he could understand why it may have upset others - similar to how Bernie addressed the beer-pouring incident in the documentary. I totally respect Bernie for the way he handled himself. I’m sure some will say that Glenn didn’t acknowledge responsibility, but remember, he wasn’t the one that disrespected the senator and his wife. In addition, he has expressed regret and taken responsibility for the way he sometimes handled things in the band’s early years.

[chaim]

I haven't really followed this discussion lately, but I've seen occasional posts. I've always thought that Don's "I guess" was not meant to be heard by this politician (whatever his name was). In other words, I've always thought that Don was more or less thinking aloud and didn't mean to offend the politician (whatever his name was), and Glenn just happened to hear it. Did the politician (whatever his name it was) hear it too?

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I haven't really followed this discussion lately, but I've seen occasional posts. I've always thought that Don's "I guess" was not meant to be heard by this politician (whatever his name was). In other words, I've always thought that Don was more or less thinking aloud and didn't mean to offend the politician (whatever his name was), and Glenn just happened to hear it. Did the politician (whatever his name it was) hear it too?

He very definitely heard it! It's one of those things where if he'd been sober and straight, he wouldn't have said it, at least out loud. Of course, if Glenn had been sober and straight he wouldn't have reacted so very strongly.

According to other interviews done after the show, Glenn had already had it with Felder. Felder's "I guess" was just the last straw, as you said. It's a shame the directors of HOTE didn't do a better job of emphasizing that. It comes off as Glenn reacting so strongly to something that doesn't warrant such a strong reaction.

[chaim]

He very definitely heard it! It's one of those things where if he'd been sober and straight, he wouldn't have said it, at least out loud. Of course, if Glenn had been sober and straight he wouldn't have reacted so very strongly.

According to other interviews done after the show, Glenn had already had it with Felder. Felder's "I guess" was just the last straw, as you said. It's a shame the directors of HOTE didn't do a better job of emphasizing that. It comes off as Glenn reacting so strongly to something that doesn't warrant such a strong reaction.

Ok. That puts in in a different light. I'd always kind of wondered why it was such a big thing that Don said "I guess" to himself. I don't know why I misunderstood that from the start, but I'm glad I know better now.

[SilverMoon]

Certainly, in recent years, Felder has played a multitude of benefits for charities. However, he has not shunned the political arena. As recently as last year, he played at a fundraiser for the Republican Party. Of course, the Felder of today is a very different man than he was in 1980, I'm sure.

Ha, no wonder he didn't want to do that benefit! Well, they say people get more conservative the older they get...

In 2012, Don was simply hired to play a private party during the RNC. He didn’t endorse anyone.
He’s not a Republican. He said to ABC News Radio that he’s apolitical:

http://abcnewsradioonline.com/music-news/2012/10/16/ex-eagles-guitarist-don-felder-describes-new-album-as-a-musi.html


Meanwhile, Felder's name emerged recently after a recent Parade magazine interview with Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and his wife, Ann, in which the couple discussed the artists which they'd like to see perform at the White House. Mrs. Romney revealed that she and Mitt were friendly with a member of the Eagles, leading some press outlets to speculate that she was referring to Felder, who reportedly played at a Republican National Convention event. However, Felder says he's "never met Mitt Romney or his wife."

He adds, "I think there was a misleading article…or some quote that he said that he had a friend in the Eagles. Well, it obviously wasn't me."

As for his own political views, Felder tells ABC News Radio, "I am apolitical, to tell you the truth. As a musician, I try to bring joy and happiness to people -- have them dance, party, have a great time. And I think music is really, isn't bound by countries or politics or race or color or sex."


I don't think Don has ever minded playing for free for good causes. As you probably know, on May 25th, 1980 he performed (along with Timothy and Joe) at the Survival Sunday antinuclear benefit at the Hollywood Bowl. And on June 6th, 1982 he performed along with Timothy at the Peace Sunday antinuclear rally at the Rose Bowl in Pasadena. The Peace Sunday and Don and Timothy are mentioned in the book The Rose Bowl (although Timothy’s name is misspelled and the date of the event is wrong, as it says June 17th):

http://books.google.com/books?id=QqYZvro0tB8C&pg=PA58&dq=%22don+felder%22+58&hl=en&sa=X&ei=MrfNUsKMAYX8ygOKl4DoBw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAjgK#v=onepage&q=%22don%20felder%22%2058&f=false


In June 1982, the Rose Bowl began playing host to antinuclear peace concerts. At this “Peace Sunday” concert on June 17 an estimated 80,000 people filled the Rose Bowl. The rallies were spurred by the Second Special Session of the United Nations on Disarmament. Similar concerts took place in other cities across the country, including in San Francisco and New York.
Those showing the peace sign at Peace Sunday could have been moved to do so by a song, a speech, or a prayer. Bob Dylan, Stevie Wonder, and Don Felder and Timothy Schmidt of the Eagles were among the musicians at the event. Speakers included Jane Fonda, Rev. Jesse Jackson, and U.S. president Ronald Reagan’s daughter Patti Davis. Numerous celebrities came to the Rose Bowl to promote peace.

[webvan]

Always been a bit of a Felder fan since I saw his name on the credits of "Hotel California" and "Victim of Love" a...long time ago on a tape, hehe...and I remember being nonplussed when he got canned in 2000 (or technically 01/2001 I guess). Anyway I finally finished his book today, a great read, after seeing the "History" documentary recently and it has left me with mixed feelings overall.

It does sound like a "misunderstanding" overall, as he wanted Azoff to tell "the Gods" when he got canned in the hope of being taken back on board. A misunderstanding because while he was legally an equal partner via Eagles Ltd (the judge agreed/settlement proves it), he was in effect a sideman throughout his tenure(s) with the Eagles and somehow didn't or refused realize it. Too bad his level headed wife only gave him the lowdown when it was too late (the "getting fired is the best thing that happened to you", etc...). Of course the fact that he wrote the music of "Hotel California", the track that too the Eagles to another level entirely, will have dimmed the issue.

Quite sad overall and it was unavoidable he would sue once he got canned although there was mention of a "severance package" but there might have been some confusion with the settlement he got later.

It seems there are still some legal issues outstanding since Henley told RS in 2013 that they weren't going to have Felder back since he "continues to engage in legal action against us" link (http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/eagles-tour-will-feature-founding-guitarist-bernie-leadon-20130705). Seems strange since the settlement should have taken care of that, as well as getting his shares back in Eagles Ltd.

PS - as was noted in this thread I did notice that discrepancy between the "Susan went to get the HC demo tape" in the book and "the housekeeper went to get the tape" in the Vintage Rock interview, odd...

[UndertheWire]

Welcome, Webvan and thank you for your comments. I like the way you describe the "misunderstanding" as that seems to summarise the problems quite neatly.

When I was reading Marc Eliot's book on the Eagles, I realised that Azoff and "the Gods" were used to an environment where contracts were not binding. For example, Azoff was able to negotiate restropective increases in royalties for the earlier albums because the record label were desperate to get the new album.

[sodascouts]

Welcome, webvan; your thoughts are well-stated and make sense to me. I was confused about the ongoing legal action, too. Presumably it's not related to the old termination suit as that was settled, so there must be something else for which he feels he deserves more money. What it is, I have no idea. I assume there's publicly available court records somewhere but I don't have the energy right now to look for them.

[MaryCalifornia]

There could be ongoing issues related to technologies that didn't even exist in the 2000s - Pandora, Spotify, iTunes, that Felder is looking for his share of. A well-written settlement agreement would have included language to the effect of "...any technology existing now or developed in the future..." - that's standard. So, who knows what issues remain. If there are issues in 2013, the lawyers did not do a good job for Don and Glenn. They should have been able to pay off Felder and be done with him. But, I'm sure it is very complicated and we don't know the half of it. I'm also sure that none of their current issues, if any, are in the court record and that they are using a private mediator. They don't want to air their Dirty Laundry (see what I did there hahahha!!).

[webvan]

That could be it, but Henley might be "stretching" reality a bit just to come up with a convenient excuse not to consider having DF around. He could have just said he didn't want him around since he sued him, most people would understand that, but that might create more problems...

Thanks for the welcome and I'm glad I found this nice place to discuss this topic that I've been interested in for a while and more so since viewing "History" and finishing DF's book.

I was puzzled that DF wanted Eagles Ltd to be dissolved in his initial filings, but that's probably to force the accounting of its assets and force a payoff to the partners.

Haven't read that here but on a blog I read that GF had forbidden that Joe and Timothy talk to DF (certainly seems consistent with what's in the book) and there was speculation that the same would happen with BL rejoining the band...on the other hand it seems (description of their meeting during the HFO tour I think) like DF didn't bother staying in touch with his "best friend" after he quit the Eagles in '75 so it probably doesn't matter a lot...somehow that reminded me of DH's comment "it was poignant, assuming it's real" after DF got choked up in History.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Welcome, Webvan, nice to have you on board!

I didn't see the settlement as proving anything other than the Eagles needed it resolved before continuing with LROOE. I've had family members settle things without it going to court because continuing only benefits the lawyers on both sides, and it certainly didn't mean they were in the wrong. So, I get touchy when that logic is used!

I don't see Don as someone who feels the need to justify a whole heck of a lot, so I lean towards the continuing legal action being true. I wondered if it was tied to the DVD in some way, but really, it's all just speculation designed to make our heads swim! Anyway, I have enough drama in my own life (the politics where I work just can't be described) I don't want to concentrate on someone else's drama as well...

[chaim]

At some point I talked about an old interview (from the OOTN era) where Don, IMO, emphasizes his contribution to the songwriting and downplays Glenn's contributions - like he, IMO, does in his book. I got criticized by some people. At the moment I'm going through interviews with different bands and artists on the Rock's Backpages website and came across that same interview. I stand by what I said. IMO he clearly states that the Eagles songs are born either with the band working together or with him working with one of the guys. I can't remember/find the thread my post is in, so I post the quote here, because I see some elements that I see in Don's book - written decades later. I don't want to spread more Felder hate, I just want to support what I said by showing the quote:

"Somebody will have an idea and spit it out, whether it's one line, two bars, no words but a chord change, words but no chord change. Henley's a really far-out lyricist. He and Glenn [Frey] work really well on the lyric part of it, and Bernie [Leadon] and I work primarily on the musical end of it."

For example, Don Felder cites the procedure behind 'One of These Nights': "Glenn would go 'One of these nights, cha cha chachacha cha cha chachacha,' and that's it, no chord changes. Then I sat down and played bass on it and dubbed the bass part to it and it was just me and Henley and Glenn sitting around and jamming. It's just being around, listening to ideas, criticizing ideas, and just working together.

"That's usually how it comes together on certain things; on other things Randy [Meisner] and I will work on like 'Too Many Hands' or Henley and I will work on like 'Visions'. The ones that come together as part of a band instead of one guy writing the song and presenting it are the ones that come out best. There is just a certain magic this band has when it works together."

What about Lyin' Eyes and After The Thrill Is Gone? Glenn had no chords for them either and Don F and Bernie "worked on the musical end of it"?

ADDED LATER:

I Wish You Piece? Hollywood Waltz? Journey Of The Sorcerer? Take It To The Limit? As far as I know those songs were neither group compositions or songs Don F worked on with one of the guys.

[UndertheWire]

Maybe Felder is only describing the songs in which he's involved. He probably wasn't present for a lot of the Henley-Frey colaborations. Though there's a touch of if he doesn't see (or hear) it, it doesn't exist.

On the subject of Bernie, the book describes a couple of events after the split and I'm glad for the information. When the band played Nashville during the HFO tour, Bernie went backstage and had seen Glenn and Don and said it was "fine". And around 2000, Bernie organised a benefit for Fred Walecki in which Henley, Randy and Timothy all played.

I was trying to stay positive but I got quite annoyed with Felder in those sections because he put a negative spin on both. He blames Glenn and Henley for Bernie not keeping in touch with him and for Bernie not inviting him to take part in that benefit.

[randymeisnerrocks]

Anyway, I have enough drama in my own life (the politics where I work just can't be described) I don't want to concentrate on someone else's drama as well...

Man, it must be something in the water. Everyone at my work is completely assed up. I need a beer, some Calgon and some MEISNER. :D

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Man, it must be something in the water. Everyone at my work is completely assed up. I need a beer, some Calgon and some MEISNER. :D

Well, I'm thinking it might be something in the air! The frigid air! We all handle our stress in different ways, I guess... I need a conversation with the Captain and some After Hours!

[webvan]

@chaim (https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/forum/member.php?u=526) - do you have a link for that interview ? I've always wondered why DF didn't get any credit for OOTN considering it really wouldn't have sounded anything like it did without him...seems a bit more than just "arranging" to me, oh well I guess he was OK with it at the time.

Since I last posted I watched the 2008 DF interview by Howard Stern on YouTube. Actually I was looking for the HC version he played there but it seems to have been pulled from YouTube and only found the audio in the end on...donfelderonline.com ;-)

Anyway he made some comments there that didn't jive with what is in the book for some reason :
- HS : Henley asked him to come up with a new intro to HC on the spot for HFO...vs...in the book it was Frey and he got a 24 hour notice
- HS : His wedding to Susan had gone on for 8 years too many..vs..in the book it seems he only realized it was finished in late '99. That's personal stuff so I mention it in passing but I was also surprised that she served him with divorce papers after he told her it was over. Why would she do that?
- HS : he last spoke to Joe Walsh in 2005 when he was deposed as part of the lawsuit, also gave him a hug...vs...in the book, in 2000 just after he found out he was fired and Walsh was dismissive when he called him.

I guess that last one was more or less part of the "gag order" included in the settlement, but these differences, plus the Susan vs housekeeper (I think it was repeated during HS too) to dig up the tape for HC, do put a bit of a different perspective on what's written in the book, i.e. everything probably shouldn't be taken at face value and Henley's comments last year (poignant if it was real, suing us left and right) gain some traction.

HS also mentioned Henley's comments (that I'd read at the time but forgotten) that Felder was "washed out" in the sense that he didn't contribute anything creative anymore, just showed up on time and played what he was expected to play. For sure none of his ideas was used for HFO and with his dissatisfaction with the business arrangement for HFO it's plausible that he was somewhat "dragging his feet" maybe not consciously. The bottom line is that there was "bad blood" and it just couldn't work out.

In hindsight Felder should probably have had someone (his wife, a lawyer, a friend, etc...) tell him that the Eagles Ltd arrangement didn't make sense anymore in 1994 and that he should accept some kind of revamping to get things back on track and show his "team playing", easier said than done of course and when he realized it after being fired it was too late...Maybe Frey, Henley and Azoff didn't force the issue in 1994 because they were afraid that he'd prevent them from using the Eagles name (i.e. Eagles Ltd not licensing the use of the name/rights to the "new entities") but in 2001 after he was a "complete sideman" from 1994 to 2001 they probably felt that threat was gone.

[chaim]

I can't post a link, because I don't have an access to the Rock's Backpages website. I was able to go there via the local library's computer when I worked there one weekend. I copy-pasted all the interesting interviews to Word documents. You can find the interview in Rock's Bakpages (http://www.rocksbackpages.com/) among the Eagles articles. They are in chornological order, so that OOTN era interview with Felder is easy to find. I don't know if you can register there for free. I've never bothered to find out...

Felder has contradicted himself on other issues too. I have mentioned the Victim Of Love example before. In his book he says that he called it Iron Lung, because the into riff reminded himself of his childhood illness. Later in an interview he said that somebody else, "probably Glenn", gave the song that nickname, and that Don would it offensive because of his childhood illness. He's a walking contradiction, like the guy in the Kris Kristofferson song.

[sodascouts]

Good catches, webvan. I agree it's foolish to take everything Felder says as gospel when he even contradicts himself.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

I really enjoyed reading Felder's book, it gave you a lot of inside information about the band that you would have never known.

Very interesting, but I have a totally opposite take on this. Let me preface this by saying that I did enjoy reading parts of Felder's book. But, one of my major complaints with the book is that it did not give us fans hardly any new information about the band; it simply gave us his spin on events that were already common knowledge, at least among hardcore fans. That is probably why my favorite parts of the book were about his life prior to becoming an Eagle. I suppose it was new information if you had never read previously published books and interviews though.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Welcome, Webvan, nice to have you on board!

I didn't see the settlement as proving anything other than the Eagles needed it resolved before continuing with LROOE. I've had family members settle things without it going to court because continuing only benefits the lawyers on both sides, and it certainly didn't mean they were in the wrong. So, I get touchy when that logic is used!

I don't see Don as someone who feels the need to justify a whole heck of a lot, so I lean towards the continuing legal action being true. I wondered if it was tied to the DVD in some way, but really, it's all just speculation designed to make our heads swim! Anyway, I have enough drama in my own life (the politics where I work just can't be described) I don't want to concentrate on someone else's drama as well...

With regard to ongoing legal action between Felder and the band, I am also perplexed. Like VA, my guess is that it has something to do with publications that were released after the lawsuit was settled. Given that Felder was not an equal partner in Eagles, LTD. at the time of his firing, I can't imagine what other legal issues could have transpired since the original lawsuit was settled out of court. Maybe, we will learn more after everything is resolved (again). :?: :?: :?:

[randymeisnerrocks]

With regard to ongoing legal action between Felder and the band, I am also perplexed. Like VA, my guess is that it has something to do with publications that were released after the lawsuit was settled. Given that Felder was not an equal partner in Eagles, LTD. at the time of his firing, I can't imagine what other legal issues could have transpired since the original lawsuit was settled out of court. Maybe, we will learn more after everything is resolved (again). :?: :?: :?:

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.

[sodascouts]

I don't presume to know their personalities. We all create our own narratives about what we think they're like based on our own observations and experiences; that's natural. However, I believe it's a mistake to be absolutely positive you know people's personalities when, in most cases, you've never even met them.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

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.

And maybe exactly the same thing could be said for Felder. But, I doubt that Felder is uninformed enough to know if he was an equal partner. He knew he was not, he just didn't like it. That is why he wanted the court to ignore the contracts from 1994 and later, and go back to the original contract he had with the band in the 70's when he was an equal partner. In any event, the past lawsuit has already been rehashed in this thread ad nauseam - I was commenting on the present ongoing litigation. If more information about it becomes available, it probably deserves it's own thread because it isn't really related to the book.

[sodascouts]

Hmm. I see your point about making a new thread for that, dreamer. I'll do so if we hear more about than this one reference from Don Henley.

[randymeisnerrocks]

I don't presume to know their personalities. We all create our own narratives about what we think they're like based on our own observations and experiences; that's natural. However, I believe it's a mistake to be absolutely positive you know people's personalities when, in most cases, you've never even met them.

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.

[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.

[UndertheWire]

To muddy the waters further, I want to say that the partnership wasn't just about money - it was also about having a vote in band matters. My understanding is that under the 1994 agreement, only Glenn and Don H would have voting rights.

[webvan]

Actually I don't think he got demoted in Eagles Ltd in 1994, you can't demote a partner as they found when they got sued, but apparently the trick they used was "new business entities" with the "unequal" partnerships 2/7 and 1/7. I assume these entities licensed the right to use the Eagles name from Eagles Ltd, likely for a nominal amount.

I'm not sure how the partnership agreement worked but I suppose that Felder could have vetoed some deals back in 1994 and blocked the use of the name, however in 2000 after being an effective sideman for 6 years they probably thought they were safe and that Eagles Ltd was only a shell.

What's not clear is why Azoff became DF's manager in the nineties since he explains in the book he had another one in the 70s. That clearly was a miscalculation as another manager could have served his interests better than a lawyer who would (and was) be seen as a threat by the others.

Someone was asking about other bands where members became partners after joining later, the Rolling Stones did that. First with Mick Taylor in 1969 and then Ron Wood in 1992 after Wyman left. Jagger's been derided as being a "business" guy but he certainly treats his partners better (at least financially) than Frey and Henley!

[LuvRandy]

I've read where Azoff got in Randy's face at their office when Randy came to see him and told him to get out & don't come back. Randy could've been a great client for him with some promotion.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

I've read where Azoff got in Randy's face at their office when Randy came to see him and told him to get out & don't come back. Randy could've been a great client for him with some promotion.

If he did tell Randy to leave, then at that point Randy would have been free to get another manager. I wonder why he didn't? I would have, that's for sure.

UTW, I didn't realize that about the voting rights. I thought someone said earlier in this thread or the documentary thread that it wasn't the case, that it didn't work like normal corporations where votes were based on shares, and that Irving had a vote as well (and he wasn't one of the 'sevenths'). Since it worked out that Glenn and Don made the rules, maybe it just was without it being official? If so, it seemed to me that was the way it was in the 70's, too.

[UndertheWire]

Now you have me wondering where I read about the voting rights. I thought it was in Felder's book but I can't find it there so maybe it was Eliot's book a Felder interview.

Anyone know when Glenn and Joe stopped being managed by Irving in the 80s? Did he carry on managing both Dons troughout?

[BRD]

If he did tell Randy to leave, then at that point Randy would have been free to get another manager. I wonder why he didn't? I would have, that's for sure.

UTW, I didn't realize that about the voting rights. I thought someone said earlier in this thread or the documentary thread that it wasn't the case, that it didn't work like normal corporations where votes were based on shares, and that Irving had a vote as well (and he wasn't one of the 'sevenths'). Since it worked out that Glenn and Don made the rules, maybe it just was without it being official? If so, it seemed to me that was the way it was in the 70's, too.

Randy had already recorded his first album under his manager Azoff. When he asks why it is not being promoted, he tells him to leave and not come back. So you have a recorded album with no manager to promote it. I am sure that after that he got another manager but at that point he is stuck. Azoff had his priorities and his instructions.

[UndertheWire]

It's not the manager's job to promote an album. He probably should have been chasing the record label on his client's behalf but it didn't just come down to him.

There's obviously going to be a problem when a manager works for multiple artists as he has limited time and resources and someone's going to think they're not getting a good deal. It happened with the Eagles and Geffen-Roberts. It happened with Poco and America. Azoff also branched off into other areas (MCA, movie production etc) and maybe that's why most of his clients found new management. Don Felder probably stayed with him because he wasn't doing much that required a personal manager.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

Actually I don't think he got demoted in Eagles Ltd in 1994, you can't demote a partner as they found when they got sued, but apparently the trick they used was "new business entities" with the "unequal" partnerships 2/7 and 1/7. I assume these entities licensed the right to use the Eagles name from Eagles Ltd, likely for a nominal amount.

I'm not sure how the partnership agreement worked but I suppose that Felder could have vetoed some deals back in 1994 and blocked the use of the name, however in 2000 after being an effective sideman for 6 years they probably thought they were safe and that Eagles Ltd was only a shell.

What's not clear is why Azoff became DF's manager in the nineties since he explains in the book he had another one in the 70s. That clearly was a miscalculation as another manager could have served his interests better than a lawyer who would (and was) be seen as a threat by the others.

Someone was asking about other bands where members became partners after joining later, the Rolling Stones did that. First with Mick Taylor in 1969 and then Ron Wood in 1992 after Wyman left. Jagger's been derided as being a "business" guy but he certainly treats his partners better (at least financially) than Frey and Henley!

wv – I didn’t make up this part about Felder being demoted in 1994. I took it right from his book where, in talking about the 1994 resumption, he says …

"To add to my feeling of being abused, Don, Glenn, and Irving also announced that they’d struck a deal with MTV for a live performance in April, to be aired six months later. As a final insult, “The Gods” told me they’d formed new business entities that gave them a majority position in the new companies, all but muscling me out. Don and Glenn were to be getting a much larger slice of the pie, while Joe, Timothy, and I were to share the leftovers.

I took immediate issue with the deal and told Irving, “Hey, man, this wasn’t what the arrangement was with Eagles Limited. What the hell’s going on?” Irving told me not to worry and arranged a meeting in his office. Joe and Tim were summoned and left the building happy with the arrangement. Then it was my turn. I walked in to see Glenn and Don looking stone-faced. When they explained to me what they were planning, I was initially rendered speechless. When I finally found my voice, I said, “Well, wait a minute guys, that’s not what we’ve done for the last twenty-something years. We always had equal shares before. Now you want double of everything else. What’s changed?'”

The documentary pretty much backs up this story, although Glenn's version was that all the contract negotiations occurred prior to the band actually getting back together. I, obviously, do not know exactly how the partnership agreement worked either, but I never read anything in Felder’s book or elsewhere that indicates that Felder could have vetoed some deals back in 1994 and blocked the use of the Eagles name. Even if he had voting rights in 1994, which I don't think he did, wouldn't he have been out-voted by Frey and Henley (and possibly Irving)? I followed the lawsuit very closely so if something is out there that indicates otherwise, I love it if someone could point me to that.

[webvan]

Right, he got muscled out but not from Eagles Ltd, they couldn't do that. What apparently happened is that they set up new business entities where they got the lion's share. Now these entities could only sign contracts on behalf of The Eagles with some type of licensing deal with the owner of the brand, i.e Eagles Ltd. It would have been easy for a 1/3 partner of Eagles Ltd to sue saying this was "unfair" and create a lot of turmoil that could have blocked/delayed the reunion. He caved in for reasons easy to understand.

In 2001, he'd gone along with that "unfair" deal for 6 years so they felt safe he wouldn't come after them. Not very smart since he obviously had nothing to lose by doing just that (some people have said he was offered a "package" but other than the nominal value for his shares, I haven't seen confirmation of that). DF did settle so that (likely) argument would have had some weight.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

wv – Thanks a lot for clarifying your previous posts. Even though a lot of this has already been discussed at length in this thread, I realize we were coming at this discussion from two different angles. When we were talking about the events in 1994, you were referring to the situation prior to Felder signing the new contract, whereas I was referencing the situation after the ’94 contract was signed. I totally agree that Felder had much more bargaining power as an equal partner in Eagles, Ltd. before he signed the ‘94 contract. I have said several times before in this thread that if he had refused to sign the new contract at that time, I would have totally respected and understood his decision. And I also agree that he may have been in a position to create turmoil that could have impacted the resumption. To me, if he wasn’t happy, I wish he had done that for his own sake (but, as a fan, I’m selfishly glad he didn’t). However, once he decided to sign the new contract, he pretty much screwed himself out of a lot of future negotiating power. But, as you said, it is understandable why he decided to sign.

I just wish that he could have been more at peace with his decision for everyone’s sake. He acknowledges in his book that many people, including his then-wife, were advising him to let go and accept the things he couldn’t change at that point, but he let it eat away at him. As a fan, I truly wish that things would have worked out differently. But, when he was finally let go in 2001, I believe everyone knew that lawsuits were inevitable, and it is understandable that it was in Felder’s best interest to ask the court to throw out any contracts that he signed in 1994 and after and defer to original deal. We’ll never know whether this legal maneuver would have worked or not since the case never went to trial. Felder also states in his book that he anticipated a settlement all along since that had been Irving’s and Don’s modus operandi in previous legal matters. I have always maintained that it was in both parties best interest to settle out of court since there were so many grey areas that would have probably resulted in a ‘no win’ verdict for anyone other than the lawyers.

[webvan]

All good points, and it's hard to imagine scenarios where it wouldn't have come down to this really. Well I can see one : if Azoff/someone had convinced Frey and Henley to get back on the road with an equal partnership for the 5 of them, I don't think Felder would have had a problem with that. After all that's how it works for the Rolling Stones (and most other bands), Watts and Wood get to share the profits of touring and recording with Jagger and Richards on an equal footing. It doesn't prevent Jagger and Richards from having more of a say and raking in more cash thanks to the songwriting royalties.

[MaryCalifornia]

I don't know if this topic has been discussed in this thread - I went back to read from the beginning and got to page 10 and gave up. I was recently watching a 2009 interview with Timothy, and he said that all of the Eagles had the opportunity to review Felder's book before it was published, which sort of surprised me. But then I realized this made sense, obviously the publisher had concerns and didn't want to get sued for libel. I wonder how much time and care Don and Glenn (and their lawyers) chose to put into reviewing it? Do you think they were like, "Whatever...", or did they go through it with a fine-tooth comb? Perhaps they were just looking for serious factual inaccuracies, as they knew they couldn't argue with Felder's perceptions of things.

[MaryCalifornia]

After all that's how it works for the Rolling Stones (and most other bands), Watts and Wood get to share the profits of touring and recording with Jagger and Richards on an equal footing. It doesn't prevent Jagger and Richards from having more of a say and raking in more cash thanks to the songwriting royalties.

Webvan - Thank you for bringing up Charlie Watts and Ronnie Wood (esp. Ronnie since he wasn't a founding member). (I'm going to include Bill Wyman in this comment, too.) They don't write the songs or sing them, but they are clearly members of the band. This is what I always think of when people refer to Joe Walsh and Timothy as "sidemen." These two do not fit any definition of "sideman," yet people attempt to deride their status with this pejorative term. I always want to say, "so, do you think Charlie Watts is a sideman?" Are the drummer and bassist from U2 sidemen? Joe and Timothy may not receive the same percentage and Don and Glenn, but they are in for a percentage (and I'm assuming it's a percentage they all agree is fair). They are not paid by the show or the tour. [end of rant]

[sodascouts]

Amen! They are definitely NOT sidemen!

MC, I think Felder said he had to remove a few things, actually. Whatever is left may not have thrilled the band, but it wasn't anything they threatened to sue over. However, I can't find the particular interview right now, so take it or leave it.

[MaryCalifornia]

I'm sure he did have to change some things. I have read in a couple of articles that the publisher backed off of publishing it at one point due to concerns. It would be interesting to see his original draft, I'm sure it's just more Don and Glenn-bashing that crossed a line from his being his opinion to factual error.

One other observation I've been meaning to bring up. I have no doubt that the same day he was fired, the Eagles' lawyers instructed Timothy and Joe not to speak directly to him, as they knew without a doubt nasty litigation would ensue. Any communications would have to go through lawyers. Felder must have understood this - I have no doubt that he was disappointed to lose those two as allies, but he must have known they were not at liberty for legal reasons to be all buddy-buddy with him. So, I feel like his "Joe and I were best friends and we don't talk anymore" is a little disingenuous and a plea for undeserved sympathy. And, from that 2009 interview with Timothy, I get the sense that they are still enjoined from speaking about him or to him. And I'm not surprised.

[Wasted]

I'm sure he did have to change some things. I have read in a couple of articles that the publisher backed off of publishing it at one point due to concerns. It would be interesting to see his original draft, I'm sure it's just more Don and Glenn-bashing that crossed a line from his being his opinion to factual error.

I'd like the sources for those articles, please. I'd like to check them out.

[sodascouts]

I found one of the sources that mentions he was forced to make changes to the book here (http://blogs.westword.com/backbeat/2008/08/qa_with_former_eagles_guitaris.php). Of course, he can't be explicit.



DF: No, I had an acknowledgement in [the book], but I took it out.

WW: What was your rationale for taking it out?

DF: There was no rationale. It’s an area that I can’t discuss. All I can say is that as a result of our legal settlement, we have a confidentiality agreement regarding certain things I can’t speak about. Why that wasn’t put in the book would fall into that category, so I can’t discuss it.

[GlennLover]

I remember reading that much of the concern was about financial info Felder revealed in the book regarding the band.

[MaryCalifornia]

I'd like the sources for those articles, please. I'd like to check them out.

Most recently, I read this:

"The book, Heaven and Hell: My Life in the Eagles (1974 - 2001), was published in the United Kingdom on November 1, 2007. The initial U.S. release was cancelled after publisher Hyperion elected to back out, in September, when an entire print run of the book had to be recalled for further cuts and changes. The American edition of Heaven and Hell was published by Wiley on April 28, 2008, with Felder embarking on a full publicity campaign surrounding its release."

here - http://bonnieblue828.tripod.com/EaglesPhotos.html

The writer does not provide his/her source, but it sounds like something that would be verifiable, if one were inclined to follow up.

[Wasted]

I would be so interested to read a book from each of the members, although I know that will probably never happen, as private as these guys are. Especially if everyone was able to tell the unvarnished truth. I'm just nosey, I guess, and I love autobiographies and biographies. Maybe when they are older...

[MaryCalifornia]

Agree 100%!!! It would be awesome. I thoroughly enjoyed Felder's book, I took the snarking and sniping for what it was. Though some didn't enjoy the part about his childhood, that was actually my favorite. He was super poor, as in, his dad literally built their 2-room house with his own hands. I love rags to riches stories. I like to see what makes some people successful.

In the same 2009 Timothy interview I've been referencing in this thread, he said, "I would never write a book like that..." Doesn't mean he would never write a book, though! I would be particularly interested to hear about the weeks and months when he transitioned into the Eagles and what that was like for him. It's obvious what he gained, but I'd like to hear about what he had to give up as well. I think people underestimate his ambition, drive and talent - he has been on the radio straight through since he was 18. If you look at his credits - http://www.allmusic.com/artist/timothy-b-schmit-mn0000604940/credits - it's obvious he is respected by so many artists and has been asked to participate for so many decades on so many projects - his career is just fascinating! I don't need to hear any personal dirt about band dynamics. Sorry...got off topic here...

And, welcome!

[GlennLover]

Both Don & Glenn havr talked about writing books. Glenn said on the Tavis Smiley interview that he had written an outline for a book & used it for the basis of the HotE doc.

[MaryCalifornia]

Well that is encouraging, GL. We can only hope! If Keith Richards can do it, no reason Don and Glenn can't. Keith even says some pretty crude things about Mick, and they're still touring together!

[UndertheWire]

I'd love to read those but what I want to know about most is the relationship between Don Henley and Glenn. The documentary skimmed over that and the potential for major disagreements between the two of them about what should be published is huge so I can't see that happening while they're still touring. Maybe it falls under "If you're reading this, I must be dead" category.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

As for Don and Glenn's relationship, I think it's like every other relationship in life that lasts over 40 years. There's going to be highs, lows, and a lot of in between. The media and books like this sensationalize the bad and don't spend a lot of time discussing the good. Our entire society seems geared towards wanting the Dirty Laundry, to steal a line from a man who has found this the hard way. No one seems particularly interested in the good stuff, and even doesn't believe it when they hear it.

As I mentioned about a year ago in the HOTE thread, they definitely had issues between them for a time, but once away from the Eagles, it seemed to me that with some perspective they both got over it. I'm sure it's not been all peaches and roses since, no relationship ever is, and they still have their moments, I'm sure. When there is true forgiveness on both sides of something like this, a little forgetfulness is supposed to take place. It's my honest opinion that after all this time, this is what's happened, and why they both glossed over it.

[UndertheWire]

I want to know the good stuff, too. As for the bad stuff, it would be interesting to see their explanation of it with the benefit of hindsight and maturity.

[sodascouts]

Right; you can talk about the contentious past with a new perspective that allows you to understand it. That's different than "airing dirty laundry." I'd like to see that rather than a whitewash or a gloss over.

[SilverMoon]

Webvan - Thank you for bringing up Charlie Watts and Ronnie Wood (esp. Ronnie since he wasn't a founding member). (I'm going to include Bill Wyman in this comment, too.) They don't write the songs or sing them, but they are clearly members of the band. This is what I always think of when people refer to Joe Walsh and Timothy as "sidemen." These two do not fit any definition of "sideman," yet people attempt to deride their status with this pejorative term. I always want to say, "so, do you think Charlie Watts is a sideman?" Are the drummer and bassist from U2 sidemen? Joe and Timothy may not receive the same percentage and Don and Glenn, but they are in for a percentage (and I'm assuming it's a percentage they all agree is fair). They are not paid by the show or the tour. [end of rant]


Here’s a quote from an interview that Glenn gave to the magazine Musician in 1984:
MUSICIAN: When all is said and done, can't it be said that the Eagles were really you and Don and your sidemen?

FREY: I think you can say that, and I think so too.

[SilverMoon]

One other observation I've been meaning to bring up. I have no doubt that the same day he was fired, the Eagles' lawyers instructed Timothy and Joe not to speak directly to him, as they knew without a doubt nasty litigation would ensue. Any communications would have to go through lawyers. Felder must have understood this - I have no doubt that he was disappointed to lose those two as allies, but he must have known they were not at liberty for legal reasons to be all buddy-buddy with him. So, I feel like his "Joe and I were best friends and we don't talk anymore" is a little disingenuous and a plea for undeserved sympathy. And, from that 2009 interview with Timothy, I get the sense that they are still enjoined from speaking about him or to him. And I'm not surprised.

When the Eagles came to Italy (where I live) in 2006, they gave an interview to a music website. When asked about “Love Will Keep Us Alive,” Timothy mentioned Don Felder, Paul Carrack and the band they had tried to form in the ’90s. He said, among other things:”For fun, we called ourselves the Malibu Men’s Choir.”

[sodascouts]

Here’s a quote from an interview that Glenn gave to the magazine Musician in 1984:

When I read that 30-year-old interview, I find myself wishing that Glenn had told that guy, "No, I don't agree with the way you characterized the band."

Interestingly, Don Felder said that he was once told, "In this band there are no sidemen" (Hollywood Reporter (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/earshot/don-felder-gives-history-eagles-427098)). In fact, in his book, he says that it was Glenn who told him that (pg 253).

So I guess it depends on when you caught the guy.

[sodascouts]

When the Eagles came to Italy (where I live) in 2006, they gave an interview to a music website. When asked about “Love Will Keep Us Alive,” Timothy mentioned Don Felder, Paul Carrack and the band they had tried to form in the ’90s. He said, among other things:”For fun, we called ourselves the Malibu Men’s Choir.”

I'm glad they apparently didn't forbid Tim and Joe to talk about/to Felder. They let those guys make their own decisions.

Tim and Joe chose not to talk to Felder. Felder is understandably sad about it, but in life, we've got to accept that sometimes our choices will alienate those who were once our friends.

In his book, Felder says Tim and Joe were not there for him when he was fired. They believed he was being unreasonable. I think Felder's persistence in this matter alienated them from him.

Here's an excerpt from Felder's book:
"The last conversation I had with any of the Eagles was with Tim, whom I'd considered a good friend for many years. To my utter dismay, his response was similar to Joe's.

'What's going on, Fingers?' he said, his tone irritable, when his wife, Jean, handed him the phone. 'All I know is they sent me some papers, they looked good, and I told my attorney that I'd sign. Why couldn't you just sign the papers like everyone else so we can get on with this? You keep harking back to some deal you made in the seventies, which is history. I don't know why you think you're entitled to more.'" (319)
I think Felder would have done well to consider Tim's words, but of course he had every right to reject the deal he was offered. He gambled that Glenn and Don would offer him more. He lost that bet.

Tim and Joe decided they didn't want anything to do with him anymore, at least at that time. Perhaps that will change as the years pass and resentments fade with time.

[MaryCalifornia]

When the Eagles came to Italy (where I live) in 2006, they gave an interview to a music website. When asked about “Love Will Keep Us Alive,” Timothy mentioned Don Felder, Paul Carrack and the band they had tried to form in the ’90s. He said, among other things:”For fun, we called ourselves the Malibu Men’s Choir.”

This sounds about right - when he is asked about Felder in interviews, he doesn't say, "no comment", he definitely answers the question - it's not like he doesn't speak Felder's name. It just seems to me he is still careful about what he says and keeps his comments very vanilla and non-controversial. I guess "not speaking about Felder" was too blanket a statement. More like, has some parameters he stays within, which makes sense.

I think that in 1984, Glenn was so absolutely fed up with the Eagles and DONE with them, most of his comments would have been derogatory. I would be very surprised if his sentiment was the same since HFO. But, who knows? Maybe it really is just "Henley and Frey" and their backing musicians. Maybe Timothy and Joe could disappear from this tour and nobody would notice or mind.

[sodascouts]

Maybe Timothy and Joe could disappear from this tour and nobody would notice or mind.

That's definitely not true. In the documentary, Azoff says they knew if they were going to do an Eagles reunion in 1994, they'd have to have more than just Don and Glenn. Obviously, that wouldn't be true if Tim and Joe were literally just "sidemen."

I'm sure Tim and Joe aren't so desperate for work that they'd stay in a band where they weren't appreciated.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

Life needs a sarcasm font! Love it, MC.

[sodascouts]

Yeah, I know MC doesn't believe that, but I was addressing the issue for those who might.

[sodascouts]

Here's the excerpt about Felder's last call to Joe, if anyone's curious:
"[Joe's] attitude was decidedly cool. 'Well, I dunno, Fingers,' he said lamely, from his home in San Diego. 'As far as I can see, those guys have decided that they're gonna do what they're gonna do. There ain't much I can do about it.'

I'd never been more in need of my old buddy Joe, but he wasn't there for me any more. There was no compassion in his voice." (319)

[sodascouts]

About the edits I referred to earlier... this article from the Toronto Star (http://www.thestar.com/news/2008/11/15/hotel_california_checking_out_took_27_years.html) goes into more detail. The pertinent excerpt:
"When ex-band mates Don Henley and Glenn Frey heard about the book deal, they successfully held up publication of the memoir for six years, threatening lawsuits until, in exchange for a buyout package from his former band mates, Felder agreed to massive edits. If it's sex, drug tales and scandal you're looking for, there's precious little to be found in this 'tell-all.'

'I didn't want another six years of litigation,' said Felder, whose fiancée, Katharin Nicholson, from Niagara-on-the-Lake, first suggested his 'meditation' should be published.

'Am I happy with how it turned out? No ... the edits altered the intensity of the story. Lots of the salacious details and first-hand perceptions of the dynamics of the band, as well as stuff about how the songs were written, are gone. The legal massage took out the sting.'"

[MaryCalifornia]

Wow. I'll bet the original version was pretty crazy. Six years sounds like a long time for a book to be held up. So, it does sound like they went through it with a fine tooth comb. Also, what a strange deal, taking money for agreeing to edit your book, I've never heard of this. I always thought that by writing the book, he was demonstrating his freedom from being under their control. I bet that was an extremely painful process - editing that thing and having to send it for review by Don and Glenn every time. Crazy stuff!

Felder's perceptions about Tim and Joe's relationship with him when he left/was fired makes me wonder what it was like for Felder being on the other side of the fence, as it were, when Bernie left the band. I can't remember if he addressed it in the book (I don't own it, I checked it out from the library). Did Felder remain close to him and stay in touch, or did he do what Tim and Joe did and sort of cut ties? There must have been a really awkward period of time there between those two old friends...

And I agree that Felder strangely downplayed the fact that he went from virtual anonymity to all of a sudden being in the Eagles! He was like, "Whatev...guess I'm in the Eagles. Or, should I stick with David Blue?" My guess is that he was somewhat of a guitar virtuoso/prodigy, who could learn any style of music at will, and anyone within earshot of him would be immediately impressed - that's pretty much all it took to get into the Eagles. Right place, right time, huge musical chops.

[UndertheWire]

In the book, he writes about not really keeping in touch with Bernie. It's in the part where he describes Bernie coming backstage at an HFO gig in Nashville. Still friendly but lost touch. There doesn't seem to have been any bad feeling between them

I can't remember what he has to say about Randy leaving and why he and Joe didn't leave too.

Update: He talks about Bernie in Chapter 18. He says that Bernie moved to Hawaii and then Nashville and withdrew from his (Felder's) life. He even suggests that the reason might be that Bernie didn't want any further association with Glenn and Don.

[DJ]

I'll be receiving my copy anyday now and am very excited to read it.
I am disappointed that it had to be edited, but then again the Eagles are very private and precise about everything that was said and done.
It will be fun to read though. :thumbsup:

[Rachel]

Received a copy of H&H years ago from a friend who lives in the UK. Read & enjoyed reading it. This version is more detailed as it has fewer legal copyright restraints.

[MaryCalifornia]

Interesting, thanks, Rachel. Might have to try to get it from ebay or amazon!

[Rachel]

It's only about 25 or so extra pages which describes more of the back-story behind the lawsuit. The legal details are still kept under wraps somewhat, but Felder does discuss the tactics used to suppress the book in more detail.
I found a few errors in this version, the usual poorly researched info about Meisners year/date of first marriage - off by 2 years, and typos regarding family musical history. The original manuscript was probably a juicier read but that wouldn't have attracted me to the book anyway.

[chaim]

It's only about 25 or so extra pages which describes more of the back-story behind the lawsuit. The legal details are still kept under wraps somewhat, but Felder does discuss the tactics used to suppress the book in more detail.
I found a few errors in this version, the usual poorly researched info about Meisners year/date of first marriage - off by 2 years, and typos regarding family musical history. The original manuscript was probably a juicier read but that wouldn't have attracted me to the book anyway.

Does On The Border still contain fourteen songs; nine of which were written by Don and Glenn?:rofl:

[UndertheWire]

Cuts of salacious details, I understand - wives and family to protect and from Marc Eliot's book we know how touchy Henley is about his court case. Besides, I'm not sure I want to read more about how Felder was "drugged into promiscuity".

Cuts about the court case is another obvious one as there was a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement.

But how songs were written? I've seen comments (from chaim, I think) about how Felder only describes two ways of writing a song and both involve him. Maybe he had to cut the descriptions of songwriting where he wasn't involved - he wasn't there so how would he know?

I have the Kindle edition and I guess that has all the cuts even though I bought it from Amazon UK.

[chaim]

Cuts of salacious details, I understand - wives and family to protect and from Marc Eliot's book we know how touchy Henley is about his court case. Besides, I'm not sure I want to read more about how Felder was "drugged into promiscuity".

Cuts about the court case is another obvious one as there was a non-disclosure agreement as part of the settlement.

But how songs were written? I've seen comments (from chaim, I think) about how Felder only describes two ways of writing a song and both involve him. Maybe he had to cut the descriptions of songwriting where he wasn't involved - he wasn't there so how would he know?

I have the Kindle edition and I guess that has all the cuts even though I bought it from Amazon UK.

Yes, that was in an interview from the OOTN era. People, even Glenn, just bring vague ideas, which the group builds into songs. Or he works with one other guy, like Randy (Too Many Hands) or Don (Visions). I found that a bit arrogant, especially since he was a new member at that point. But it didn't seem to bother anyone else here, so maybe it was just me being Mr. Nitpick - my alter ego.8-)

[UndertheWire]

I'm not sure it's arrogance but more self-centredness. He knows what he does and doesn't talk about things that happen without him.

[Freypower]

Yes, that was in an interview from the OOTN era. People, even Glenn, just bring vague ideas, which the group builds into songs. Or he works with one other guy, like Randy (Too Many Hands) or Don (Visions). I found that a bit arrogant, especially since he was a new member at that point. But it didn't seem to bother anyone else here, so maybe it was just me being Mr. Nitpick - my alter ego.8-)

It bothers me too & that is all I will say about it.

[SilverMoon]

This sounds about right - when he is asked about Felder in interviews, he doesn't say, "no comment", he definitely answers the question - it's not like he doesn't speak Felder's name. It just seems to me he is still careful about what he says and keeps his comments very vanilla and non-controversial. I guess "not speaking about Felder" was too blanket a statement. More like, has some parameters he stays within, which makes sense.


In that Italian interview from 2006, the interviewer didn’t mention Don Felder. He just asked about “Love Will Keep Us Alive.” Timothy mentioned Don Felder on his own initiative. However, in my opinion, Joe and Timothy are not always free to do or say whatever they want. After all, according to Joe, the Eagles are a “democracy with two dictators.”

[SilverMoon]

Felder's perceptions about Tim and Joe's relationship with him when he left/was fired makes me wonder what it was like for Felder being on the other side of the fence, as it were, when Bernie left the band. I can't remember if he addressed it in the book (I don't own it, I checked it out from the library). Did Felder remain close to him and stay in touch, or did he do what Tim and Joe did and sort of cut ties? There must have been a really awkward period of time there between those two old friends...

Here’s an article/interview from 1994 in which Bernie talks about leaving the Eagles in 1975:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1320&dat=19940715&id=1M0zAAAAIBAJ&sjid=fOoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3834,4080190

[UndertheWire]

Thanks for the link. Bernie sounds so together and able to view it all objectively, much the same as in the documentary. I'm sure he's doing fine on the current tour as he can treat it like being in the military and told when and where to report for duty.

[MaryCalifornia]

Thanks, SM - good finding. So, Bernie answered my question - he and Felder didn't speak for a decade after he left the band, even with their long history and the fact that Bernie brought him in. That's too bad. Maybe after that decade they reconnected. I like the part about, "Well, if I'm leaving, I might as well as give the job to Don."

It makes you realize how intense those four years '71 - '75 were for the guys - such a short period of time in the big picture, but so much happening, so much pressure (and this was before HC!). It's clear Bernie was trying to/planning on leaving even earlier than '75. Interesting that he think's Meisner's departure was less "well thought out" - Bernie must have been thinking A LOT about his own departure!!

[UndertheWire]

Twenty-eight-year-old Bernie Leadon... admits to twice leaving and rejoining the Eagles.
From an interview in September 1975, so not long before he left for the third and final time.
http://www.theuncool.com/journalism/rs196-the-eagles/

[UndertheWire]

I found this when looking for something else. Chris Hillman was talking about autobiographies, including Graham Nash's and Linda Ronstadt's. Then there was this (the bolder line is the interviewer, the rest is Hillman):


Here's the one book that was a mistake. Don Felder's. Did you read that one?
No, I did not.
Well, Don Felder wrote this book when he left the Eagles -- it was apparently a mutual situation -- it was very negative thing, slamming everybody, and I read it. I don't know why I read it. Somebody loaned it to me. I heard it had a hard time even being published because Irving Azoff, the Eagles' manager, put the kabosh on it. After I read it, I didn't have any sympathy for him. I thought, what are you, a knot-head? He's a guitar player -- I shouldn't be gossiping -- but he got all upset at Don and Glenn reorganizing the Eagles. Well, they were the songwriters and the singers. So you're the guitar player. So here's this poor guy -- and he's probably a good guy, but I don't know him -- but the Eagles are out working, and he's not. So now I feel bad for him. You don't write those kind of things slamming other people. It will harm you the rest of your life. How can you pass judgement on other people? Like I said, I didn't know the man. I think he's a really good musician, and it's not for me to judge him either. It's not for any of us to judge others. We all make mistakes. It's the same story, Lee. You get together in the band, you go after the gold ring. It's working great. You get the success and it starts to splinter. Drugs come along ... usually the women and the wives leave. Dah de dah de dah. And you end up flat broke. So either you find a religious outlet and are saved, or whatever. But it seems like that is the story I would avoid. I don't go there. I would rather talk about all this great music and why I had the passion I did at 18 years old. I was just talking to Herb about this. Good God, we didn't even think about getting paid. To be able to play was the thing, and if you got a little extra money, that was a treat. In those days, you just wanted to play. You're 17 or 18 years old, you're up in L.A. and you're in those small clubs and that was what it was all about.
http://www.thebluegrasssituation.com/read/chris-hillman-bluegrass-byrds-and-back-again-interview-pt-1

[sodascouts]

Interesting to see it from another musician's perspective. Hillman worked with Bernie so he would have probably heard another side of the story that might not quite have matched up with the book.

[chaim]

Interesting comments from Hillman. I agree with him on some points, but I think he went a bit far calling the book a "mistake". Don wanted to say things and he said them, and only he can call it a mistake later if he feels so. I may not like a lot of the things that are said in an autobiography, but it is an autobiography (which means one person's version of a story), so I'm in no position to say that it was a mistake.

[UndertheWire]

I think Hillman said it was a mistake because he thinks it harmed Felder. He may be talking from a Christian/spiritual stance - you reap what you sow etc.

You're right in that it's only Felder who can decide if the catharthic and financial benefits of publishing the book outweigh the harm it may have done to his personal relationships.

[webvan]

Not sure the book changed much to the "situation" since no one from the Eagles was talking to him anymore anyway at least according to what's in it and since it was not blocked it was certainly true. The "mistake" was rather that he played hardball with Frey and Henley starting in 1994 and didn't have much (as a "guitarist" mentioned by Hillman) to back up/enforce the old Eagles agreement.

In hindsight, yes, I'm sure life would have been easier for him had he found a way to live with the "new deal" in 1994 as he would still likely be touring the world with the them. A better deal for us fans too, for the tours of course, but that 2007 album would also have been more memorable too!

[UndertheWire]

The difference is that the legal proceedings are now locked away from sight and over time might get forgotten or forgiven whereas the book is out there for anyone to read.

[webvan]

Which I think is a good thing since it can serve as a reference and explain how things came down. Now if that book had been the cause of the current situation then, yes, it would have been a "mistake". In comparison, at one point it looked like some of Keith Richards' petty comments (I won't dignify them by mentioning them here) in his autobiography could cause the demise of the Stones, now that would have been sad.

[UndertheWire]

A couple of days ago, I was listening to a bootleg of the 1980 Long Beach concert and later that day I was looking something up in Felder's book and noticed a couple of discrepencies.

We walked onstage, and he came over while we were plying "The Best of My Love" and said, "F--- you. I'm gonna kick your ass when we get off the stage."Except "Best of My Love" isn't on the bootleg. Did it get edited out or is his memory at fault? (I suspect it was copied from Marc Eliot's book rather than being a true memory).

Next, when writing about the MTV concert:

This was the first show I'd ever played with the Eagles when it wasn't just the five of us. All of a sudden, because Don and Glenn wanted to bring their own people in from their solo backup bands, we had a whole orchestra behind us, with violins and the works, plus another drummer, two keyboard players, and a saxophone/horn guy, none of which the Eagles had ever had.And yet, in the Long Beach concert, Glenn introduced not just Joe Vitale who had "been touring with them for the last 11 months" but also a saxophonist.

Sure, they're minor things but when I spot errors in things that I can check, I start to wonder how many errors there are in stories I have no way of validating.

[webvan]

Yep, no BOFM that night it seems : http://www.setlist.fm/setlist/eagles/1980/unknown-venue-long-beach-ca-bdb2526.html - odd...

[sodascouts]

A couple of days ago, I was listening to a bootleg of the 1980 Long Beach concert and later that day I was looking something up in Felder's book and noticed a couple of discrepencies.

Except "Best of My Love" isn't on the bootleg. Did it get edited out or is his memory at fault? (I suspect it was copied from Marc Eliot's book rather than being a true memory).

Next, when writing about the MTV concert:

And yet, in the Long Beach concert, Glenn introduced not just Joe Vitale who had "been touring with them for the last 11 months" but also a saxophonist.

Sure, they're minor things but when I spot errors in things that I can check, I start to wonder how many errors there are in stories I have no way of validating.

I think Felder and his co-author's reliance on Marc Eliot's book to "fill in the details" was a big mistake. Eliot has lots of errors, and it damages Felder's credibility when he echoes them.

Of course, there's always the chance he's remembering things incorrectly, too.

I love how precise and detail-oriented you are, UTW!

[SilverMoon]

Glenn Frey on the 1980 Long Beach concert:

For me, it ended in Long Beach, California, at a benefit for Alan Cranston. I felt Don Felder insulted Senator Cranston under his breath and I confronted him with it. So now we're on stage, and Felder looks back at me and says, “Only three more songs till I kick your ass, pal.” And I'm saying, “Great. I can't wait.” We're out there singing 'Best of My Love,' but inside both of us are thinking, ‘As soon as this is over, I'm gonna kill him.’ That was when I knew I had to get out.
http://www.glennfreyonline.com/quotes/eagles.htm

[UndertheWire]

Maybe it's one of those myths that everyone starts to believe.

[sodascouts]

They did several shows in Long Beach... is it possible something happened at another one? It's weird that they both misremembered it.

Or, Glenn misremembered, and Felder was relying on that interview with Glenn to fill in details. Now THAT would be irony, my friends!

[UndertheWire]

The quote from Glenn is from the In their Own Words (http://www.superseventies.com/sshenleyfrey.html) interview which seems to from the mid-80s. I'm fairly sure Marc Eliot would have read that when he was researching his book. So Glenn may have misremembered (or deliberately changed the detail because it makes a better story) and that version got used by Eliot. Then Don Felder/Wendy Holden used Eliot's book for background. That sounds plausible.

Sorry, I'm such a nit-picker. It's just that when I notice a difference I start to wonder why. What I've learned from this is that neither Felder nor Frey are reliable when recalling details years later. Which is not too surprising given the state they would have been in and the amount of time that has passed.

[webvan]

Makes sense and I'll add that when reading these bios (Felder's but also Bobby Keys' that I'm currently reading) I'm left a bit puzzled by how much of the details they remember, it's almost like watching a movie...obviously that's what the co-authors are hired for ;-)

[thelastresort]

Could it also be possible that setlist FM is wrong? Or is the bootleg full and unabridged?

[Freypower]

To be honest, I really don't think it is that important which song it was. The basic facts are right apart from that.