Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
I wonder if there is some sort of stigma to lowering a key. I remember JD Souther saying at a concert in 2009 how proud he was that he still sang all his songs in the original key, and scoffed at his contemporaries who had lowered songs in their sets.
In the doc, it's said that Randy didn't want the song in the setlist at all, not that he wanted the key lowered. I think he didn't like the spotlight, period.
There we go. I hope no one was emotionally scarred by my reply. ;)
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
Soda--- First I must compliment you on your avi. I'm a bit fond of the team that Glenn is sporting on his shirt there. ;-)
I don't know about Randy not being fond of the spotlight. I'm just going by what was stated about him being uncomfortable about hitting the high notes, especially the exceptionally high ones at the end of the song. I guess he could have been uncomfortable in the spotlight but it seems that if that were the case, why bother trying to be a performer in the first place. But then again, Jim Morrison used to sing with his back to the crowd because he didn't like the spotlight, so what do I know? :lol:
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
sodascouts
I wonder if there is some sort of stigma to lowering a key. I remember JD Souther saying at a concert in 2009 how proud he was that he still sang all his songs in the original key, and scoffed at his contemporaries who had lowered songs in their sets.
In the doc, it's said that Randy didn't want the song in the setlist at all, not that he wanted the key lowered. I think he didn't like the spotlight, period.
There we go. I hope no one was emotionally scarred by my reply. ;)
In talking about the songs on After Hours, Glenn said many times that he wanted to perform the songs as near to the originals as possible because there was a good reason the songwriter wrote it that way. He also said he tried for the same key with all of them and mentioned the ones he had to change, almost like he was trying to explain the difference. I found it very confusing because I spent most of my childhood rewriting my favorite songs into either a key that was easier for me or easier to play on the piano. I assumed everyone did this, so I think that's why I remember him mentioning it and so often in his interviews. I guess I'm saying it seems to be a big deal.
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
Willie, I see your point, but here's something to think about: The bass guitar is not an instrument typically chosen by those who wish to be the center of attention (although there are certainly exceptions like McCartney). As you know, a person can love music and want to play in front of people without being a spotlight-seeker.
I think audience size also comes into play. An interesting parallel is Fleetwood Mac's John McVie. Back when they were a small blues band and playing for a few hundred or even a few thousand, he would be talkative on stage - you can hear him on bootlegs introducing songs. Once they became a mega-band and were playing for tens of thousands, he clammed up and retreated. Nowadays he hovers in the shadows during most songs, and rarely looks up except during band intros and exits.
I bet the size of an audience changes the vibe. I know bigger crowds must be intimidating. Just something to think about.
I think it's hard for us to understand because we don't have any idea what that must be like!
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
OK, don't get mad at me, I just want to see if anyone else feels the same way...I will start by saying that I found Glenn to be very interesting and entertaining in the documentary. It didn't bother me the first few times I watched it (a couple of months ago), I thought it was funny, but in hindsight and after reading some of the posts in this thread, I am questioning why he felt the need to belittle Timothy when describing his entry into the band. He started out saying that he was the only one to replace Randy, he was a perfect fit, etc...which is gracious and complimentary and what you would expect. But he didn't leave it at that - he had to make fun of Timothy's lack of money and success with Poco. I know that it was hyperbole (we all know Tim wasn't in Poco for 11 years). But I think fans understand the relative stature of Poco compared with the Eagles at the time. What grown man publicly makes fun of how much money another man makes? What Glenn really wants the viewers to take away is that Timothy was a perfect fit for the band, but that the Eagles really did him a favor by asking him to join, because his career with Poco was no good. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but sheesh...I don't know why Glenn felt the need to put Timothy in his place. I did like the part about Irving running into him drunk in the hotel bar, I'm sure it was true:D
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
I actually took that more as a subtle criticism of Poco than of Tim.... Poco wasn't paying Tim what he deserved and in the Eagles, Tim would be treated better.
Interesting how people perceive the same sentence different ways!
I know we have Poco fans on the board.... Do any of you guys know who decided what amount Tim got paid in that band, and why he never got a raise?
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
MaryCalifornia
OK, don't get mad at me, I just want to see if anyone else feels the same way...I will start by saying that I found Glenn to be very interesting and entertaining in the documentary. It didn't bother me the first few times I watched it (a couple of months ago), I thought it was funny, but in hindsight and after reading some of the posts in this thread, I am questioning why he felt the need to belittle Timothy when describing his entry into the band. He started out saying that he was the only one to replace Randy, he was a perfect fit, etc...which is gracious and complimentary and what you would expect. But he didn't leave it at that - he had to make fun of Timothy's lack of money and success with Poco. I know that it was hyperbole (we all know Tim wasn't in Poco for 11 years). But I think fans understand the relative stature of Poco compared with the Eagles at the time. What grown man publicly makes fun of how much money another man makes? What Glenn really wants the viewers to take away is that Timothy was a perfect fit for the band, but that the Eagles really did him a favor by asking him to join, because his career with Poco was no good. Maybe I'm too sensitive, but sheesh...I don't know why Glenn felt the need to put Timothy in his place. I did like the part about Irving running into him drunk in the hotel bar, I'm sure it was true:D
Mary I'd have to disagree, I don't think Glenn was making fun of him at all. Maybe the situation that Tim was in, but I don't think his intention with the comment was to belittle Tim. Then again that's just my opinion :rockon:
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
I love Timothy B and I don't think Glenn meant any disrespect. At least I didn't take it that way. I took it as the move would be perfect for Timothy B but also that he would fit in with the Eagles perfectly as well. Playing it low, singing it high.
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
Quote:
Originally Posted by
VAisForEagleLovers
Seriously, what a horrid review. You know, I'm so glad the world is full of so many perfect people who are capable of judging someone like this. Where would we be without these people? Where on earth does this guy get off calling GLENN an '***hole'? Seriously? Talk about a despicable piece of humanity, this guy seriously needs to look in a freaking mirror. Judge a man who throws rocks while he throws boulders. What kind of a person even writes such a thing about anyone? Makes it impossible to respect his opinion, that's for sure. I would love to see this guy's end-of-year performance review, and what his neighbors and coworkers have to say about him.
Glenn certainly didn't destroy the Eagles. Last I checked, they're on tour and booking up places pretty quickly. His uncanny leadership skills make the Eagles one of the biggest bands of all time with the number one selling record of the 1900's. If that's his definition of 'destroyed', then he's out of touch with reality.
I agree with this & with Dreamer's later comment, and I have nothing more to add.
Re: Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
I didn't take what Glenn said to be disrespectful to Timothy...never thought of that at all...I will watch that part again...