Thanks for that. Interesting that she got hired just on the recommendation of his tour manager and a package without even meeting Don - is that the guy named Tony Taibi or is he more of a 'personal assistant' type?
Printable View
Thanks for that. Interesting that she got hired just on the recommendation of his tour manager and a package without even meeting Don - is that the guy named Tony Taibi or is he more of a 'personal assistant' type?
He is both, the same as Tommy Nixon is for Glenn & Smokey Wendell is for Joe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Houston Debutante
I see ~ thanks for the information.
I'm sorry it has taken me so long to get to this, but I actually feel quite emotional after reading that! I love how open Don was, particularly about the way he feels now about himself as opposed to the way he felt in the '70s. It was fascinating to hear him addressing himself as a young man. The bit where he says he's pretty hard on his '70s self but also admires some of his practical qualities was really cute. Also, the part where he spoke about his '70s self being a long way from home and a little scared really backed up what we saw in the documentary. Makes me want to give him a big hug!Quote:
Originally Posted by VAisForEagleLovers
that as awesome
thank you
He is just so sweet and vulnerable there, isn't he?Quote:
Originally Posted by Troubadour
Put this in the General Eagles press thread, too, but thought would link to Don's interview with Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel here, too. Intriguing because he says Mick Jagger? Lord, there's seemingly a cast of thousands backing him on this album. I really get the feeling like it could be a pretty dig deal when it rolls out...
Thanks for that, AEW. The response to the Felder question pretty much said it all. It's very cool that Mick Jagger has provided some vocals for Don's new album! I really can't wait to hear it. Oh, and I am still laughing about Don calling Kid Rock "Mr. Rock". :lol:
thanks for posting.....live the amm
nswers to these question
I love Don's snark. Terrific interview, thanks for posting it.
A couple of Don-centric pieces:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/US-Sav...eb11109980.htm
http://www.wmmr.com/music/news/story.aspx?ID=2041478
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2013...ng-guy_25.html
Here's a small part of an article on singing drummers:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...g-8901714.htmlQuote:
Still, other singing drummers have thrived for long periods, as Don Henley did with The Eagles. While keeping time for the country-rock giants, he shared vocals with Glenn Frey, providing the lead line on some of the band's best-known numbers, among them “Hotel California”, “Desperado” and “Life in the Fast Lane”. Moreover, he made the combination of percussion and vocals look effortless, aided somewhat by a frill-free drumming style that he admits was inspired by Starr.
He was influenced by Ringo Starr?? I didn't know that. I never thought Starr was much of a drummer but I guess since he's a Beatle he's going to be a focus for people like Don.
Cool, thanks for posting that.
I was looking on Yahoo and there was an article on Best 10 Moments from last night's show. Don is mention twice at no. 9 and no. 1.
http://music.yahoo.com/news/10-best-...ing-stone.html
That's nice that he's mentioned but there's not much more than mentions. In number 9 he's just listed as one of the people who sang before Garth Brooks ~ Garth Brooks is the highlight in their minds I guess ~ unbelievable that Garth Brooks gets more attention from them than Don does. Then in number 1 it just lists him as being one of the people who joined Rufus Wainwright onstage. Wainwright is called 'elegant' but nothing said about Don.
As usual Rolling Stone blows it.
True, but WE know he did a fantastic job, and so do normal people (not RS) who watched it.
Not sure where to post this but it's an interview with Don that covers his album, the tour and the digital era.
http://www.latimes.com/entertainment...#axzz2qaVDuuYO
Apologies if it's been posted elsewhere.
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/
Saw this had been posted on another thread but for the life of me, I can't find it now as I wanted to add my impressions so will do it here.Quote:
Originally Posted by secret squirrel
Sad to hear that there will be no new Eagles songs.
Gotta say I love the way Don expresses himself – he’s always so articulate and to the point, e.g. ‘The genie is so far out of the bottle that there's really no putting it back in.’
'''They spread the money and the propaganda around like manna, employing their favorite buzz words like "innovation."'
He’s so right about buzz words. These occur in every field. Community, education, society. And stupid people grab onto them immediately and won't let go till the next one comes around. Where I live is it’s been ‘Partnership’, ‘Initiative’, ‘Strategy’. Check out this blurb from my local council. They’ve got some new ones but some remain the same. Do you suppose it’s whatever nonsense is trending on Twitter?
‘The Council prides itself on being innovative when it comes to making life better in the borough. From this section we provide reports on initiatives that we are particularly proud of and want to share with you. These link to the long-term vision of 'Bexley Together' - Bexley's sustainable community strategy. The strategy sets out a vision to build a strong, sustainable and cohesive community.’
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/
It was posted in the Press About Don Henley's New Album topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by secret squirrel
https://eaglesonlinecentral.com/foru...t=3056&page=32
And also in Eagles Press (another obvious place) which was where I saw it - found it again today. Mea culpa.Quote:
Originally Posted by Freypower
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/
I know it's hard to keep straight! I've been trying to do a little re-organizing but even that leads to confusion, lol.
So, we're talking about his comments about his new album in that album thread and his comments about the Eagles and the Forum elsewhere, but there is one thing in this article that's uniquely Don and that I feel should be talked about right here.
I quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Henley in the LA Times
I've read quite a bit on this issue, and Don Henley's feelings about YouTube and Google as well as his skepticism about the viability of new business models for the music industry in the digital age are not new to me.
However, his statement about lobbying caught my eye. It's amazing to me how everyone always thinks the other side are the ones with the political influence and the lobbyists. I guess it's just human nature to always think of your guys as the noble underdogs, and the opposition as the ones with all the corruption. I see it all the time in debate.
Interestingly, though, the RIAA and MPAA (entertainment industry groups) have outspent Google, and one of their heads was very open about his understanding of how money should talk in Washington DC. Chris Dodd, head of the MPAA, had this to say to politicians to whom he had donated money, but who weren't voting the way he'd told them to vote on IP legislation such as SOPA:"Candidly, those who count on quote ‘Hollywood’ for support need to understand that this industry is watching very carefully who’s going to stand up for them when their job is at stake. Don’t ask me to write a check for you when you think your job is at risk and then don’t pay any attention to me when my job is at stake."Source: http://www.salon.com/2012/01/23/dodd..._sopa_remarks/
So a corporate head donates to campaigns not because he believes in what the politician stands for, but because he expects his money to motivate the politician to act in his financial interest when his "job is at stake." It's not surprising but it's still troubling, and his outrage that they didn't obey his wishes after he gave them money shows that he truly believes that's how politics are supposed to work.
I wonder if Henley knows that the amount the RIAA has spent on lobbying in 2000-2010 is $90 million? (source) That doesn't even count the efforts of the MPAA, nor does it include the amount spent since then, which I didn't have the time and energy to search for, lol.
Now, I truly think Don sincerely believes what he says. He's an honest guy; he's not trying to pull anything. However, these corporate entities are ALL corrupt, in my mind - the RIAA, the MPAA, and Google. I do not believe Google is an innocent bunch of folks only looking to serve the public interest - far from it. I am highly suspicious of their data mining processes, and I am disturbed by their monopolistic consolidation of web services with forced linkage between accounts in order to facilitate their intrusive practices. That of course is separate from the IP issue, but I add it to show I realize that Google is not a victim.
When it comes to spending lobbying money, however, the entertainment industry outpaces them with ease.
Here’s an article that is critical of Don’s stance.
http://themusic.com.au/news/all/2014...ng-eagles-man/
Personally, I’m in two minds about all of this. I agree with Don that the genie is out of the bottle and we can't put it back in. But as far as sites like YouTube go, they’ve enabled me to check out songs prior to buying a cd and/or going to a gig. I listen to tracks while I’m working and if I like them, I eventually purchase something (e.g. I’ve bought a Citizen Cope album and been to two gigs, bought Expando by TBS, Live in London by Kane). Without the internet, I wouldn’t have had a chance to explore any of this music.
However, in regard to this particular case, I think any artist is within their rights to veto a version of their song that they don’t endorse. In fact, when I hear the frankly terrible versions of glorious songs used in adverts (some of which I mention in my latest blog), I wish that more artists would exercise these rights or do what Ray Davies does – allow them to use the original.
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html
I can easily see both points of view. While some go out to YouTube (or wherever) to determine if they like the music and then buy it, there are fa,r far too many who do not buy music at all because they can listen for free on the internet. This was the advice I got last December: "You create an account on YouTube and have your own channel. Put the music there you want to hear. You listen to it or view it anywhere, since you have a smartphone. Why would you still buy MP3s?" I hesitated to mention that I still buy CDs. At any rate, it's not much different than the old days when I would borrow someone's cassette, vinyl, or CD to see if I wanted to buy certain music.
I've stated my stance on this many times, I don't feel the need to do it again, but I will say this. Even kids as young as 15 have lamented to me about how there's no real music out there any more, there's not a lot that's new that's worth listening to. It could be a coincidence. Most of it, I'm sure, is the wider variety of music types than from when I was a kid, but I remember having to make agonizing choices in the early 80's on which new music I could afford that month. Now it's all free and there's not a lot to pick from.
Anyway, it's Don's music and he can do with it as he pleases. If these guys don't like it, they are free to make their own music and make it available to anyone to use. Don takes a lot of heat on his stance, but most of the more heated responses comes from the very people who are trying to use his music for free, so they lack credibility in Don's eyes, I assume. I know they lack it in mine.
Soda, I'm not sure how I missed your post above. I agree with you about the lobbying on both sides, and as much as I love Google and would go to work for them in a minute, I agree they aren't a victim and they aren't innocent. I will say that in my job, we have a site that has a YouTube channel and it hosts many videos that we've made (we are the content providers and own the copyrights). We push them via various social media outlets. To host these at a video hosting site would cost tens of thousands per month. Google lets us put them on their site for free. I can't say that it saves taxpayers a lot of money, because if we had to pay for this, it wouldn't get done at all.
Anything or anyone who helps us help our Active Duty Soldiers has my support. I think what Don is looking for is copyright protection and stricter enforcement, and not for the various entities to go away entirely. At least I hope that's correct.
Yes. I'm probably a bit atypical as I have an MP3 player (a gift) but haven't figured out how to use it yet and I don't have a smartphone, tablet, laptop, iPod or anything like that. I don't download at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by VAisForEagleLovers
SS
xx
Unreconstructed Luddite
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html
http://ultimateclassicrock.com/don-h...kkervil-river/
Henley's at it again! Remember the Frank Ocean debacle? This is about a indie band covering "The End Of The Innocence" and putting it out for free.
Don, I love your vocals and you are probably my favorite singer but I can't stand your ego and personality! Seriously. Between YouTube, covers, and just general ego (remember the paparazzi "bird" photo?). Don is a very polarizing figure for sure. For speaking out against lawyers (Get Over It), he sure uses them a lot! I'm not saying this band was right but Don is over the top with the legal stuff, IMHO.
With regard to the lobbying, I agree that it happens on both sides. To me, bottom line on this is that we need laws with stricter controls on lobbyist.
And with regard to copyright, I also see both sides of the issues. However, the bottom line on this is that I believe a song is the intellectual property of the copyright owner and they have the right to control it's use. I don't see it as any different as my vehicle is my personal property and I have the right to decide if I want you to drive away with it.
Maybe if they actually asked Don if they could use his music he might be more receptive. I would think most people in the industry are aware of his feelings about these matters, and would respond accordingly.Quote:
Originally Posted by WalshFan88
I just don't understand why someone thinks it's OK to take another's song and record it and put it out as part of an album without getting permission. It's Don Henley's song. Just because you "liked" it when you were growing up doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. These are professional musicians, who cares if they're "indie." Who cares if they put it out for free - you're telling me there is no ulterior financial motivation behind their business model? Who doesn't reach out and ask for permission? I think Don is 100% in the right in this particular case. Actually, the perpetrators come across as jerks.
I just think Don is way too overbearing with this stuff. YouTube is another example. Most bands don't have a problem with it. I mean come on, a cell phone video is going to make someone feel like they don't need to come to your show because they've already seen it? No way. I can understand not wanting studio recordings on there, that's different. Or perhaps video from professionally recorded shows. And lets be honest - I don't think Don needs any more money - from videos or concert tickets. :hilarious:
Again, I said I didn't necessarily agree with the band, but I do agree that Don has a tendency to be a stick in the mud and also a bit of a jerk at times. I think he is too quick to threaten lawsuits and his hatred of social media and YouTube make him come across like someone who is stuck in the past.
Well, from what I can tell from Don's end in this particular case, all that happened was that his lawyers sent a cease and desist letter. This is the least aggressive/litigious path and is entirely appropriate. It is the first little "baby step" in getting an issue resolved, and is used to start a discussion or negotiation. It is a "Hey, what's going on here?" communication. This is the type of standard legal correspondence I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Don Henley personally knew nothing about. I'm sure he does now, though!
My take on Henley's stance re: youtube and everything else is that he is raising awareness. I don't agree with everything that PETA does, but I thank God that someone is out there on the fringes aggressively trying to get legislation in place to protect animals and make us a civilized society. I'm thankful Don is out there, even if he is the ONLY one, trying to make a point about creative artists and their rights. He is doing the right thing, and he doesn't care what people think of him, because he's earned it. I hope his legacy is that he stood up for artists' rights, and that they're thankful to him.
Agree with you here. If they don't ask for permission (and get it) then they should expect some reaction. It's not like they don't know that Don Henley wrote it. And they do come across as pretty objectionable.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaryCalifornia
SS
xx
http://sshh-sshh.blogspot.co.uk/2014...-in-glory.html
There are people hating on Don all over the internet because of this and I'm glad to see some people stick up for him.
It's his song, if you ask me those people are lucky he just sent them a Cease And Desist and didn't sue them.
In that article they sound like entitled whiny douchebags to me. Oh yeah they're happy to give away covers of Don's music but when you go to their site you see that you have to PAY for THEIR original music. If they're so generous why don't they give their OWN music away instead of giving away DON'S!
The answer is easy ~ they give away covers of GOOD music like Don's to promote themselves, so you check out their albums, which you PAY for. That means indirectly they're making money off of him, it doesn't take a genius to figure that out. So they make money off him but they can't be bothered to pay Don for his music or even ask him. I call that a 'dick move.'
Quote:
Originally Posted by WalshFan88
WalshFan88, why don't you try to find a way to talk about your 'favorite singer' without personally attacking him. There's a difference between disagreeing with what he says and calling him a 'jerk.'Quote:
Originally Posted by WalshFan88
Even I think Don's attitude about YouTube and Google can sometimes be OTT but in this case, these people WERE making money off of him indirectly, even if they don't want to admit it and want to make it all his fault.
I wish I took the time and effort to be as passionate about the things I believe in as Don is. I agree with him being OTT sometimes, and I don't always agree with how he goes about it, but I do appreciate his stance. I don't think it's egotistical to stand up for what you believe in, and I don't think it's an ego problem to want others to respect your property. I do disagree with his statements to the effect that the big companies like Google have too much lobbying interests, as others have said, no one has ever been able to top the entertainment industry. Don's problem is that some in his own industry embrace YouTube, others have just given in instead of fighting it. The ones with the real money in the business (not the artists) merely see it as another way to make money for themselves.
At any rate, I totally agree with the 'whiny, entitled' attitude assesment that someone mentioned, of the ones who used the music. Regardless of how you feel about the issue, the sense that people are entitled to something just because they want it and technology makes it possible is not doing anyone any good. I guess when you raise generations of children who think everyone gets a trophy instead of just those who actually win, this is the mentality you're left with. That attitude is in the current workforce, hence the horrible last two days I've had, but that's a topic for a different thread.
Even though both Okkervil River and Frank Ocean put the materials out for free they very likely would have inderectly prfited from them. Sites like YouTube have created confusion between public availavility and public domain. Public domain means copyright on a given creativc work has expired and the work can used by anyone however they chose without permition from the copyright holder http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_domain.Quote:
Originally Posted by WalshFan88
ETA: Also if they did not provide niotice of intent within 30 days of producing and prior to the release of the material and/or pay a roualty they could have been sued for copyright infringment http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_license.
They never said they thought it was in the public domain, I bet they don't even know what 'public domain' is, they don't seem too smart. They just thought Don Henley wouldn't care. They found out different!
True however since they may have inderectly profited from their cover they would been violating copyright if they did not gain Don's permition before releasing it. Copyright law gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to profit from their work unless they permit others to do so except in the case of statuatory licencing. With a statuatory licence they would not require permition but they have to pay a royalty and to inform Don prior to the release.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright
Yes, Don could have sued them, but I'm very glad he didn't. These are young, struggling musicians and paying such a massive fine would have probably broken them financially. At the very least it would have been a crippling setback to their careers. Thank goodness he didn't destroy them with a devastating lawsuit, but rather stopped at the C&D.
I think that shows what a nice person he is at heart, people don't seem to realize that he could have broken them into little pieces, bankrupting them and pretty much destroying their lives if he wanted to, but he chose not to. They should be grateful instead of whining.