Did they ask Bernie and Randy to be part of the reunion in 1994?

[moonlight74]

What seems to be continually conflicting is the extension of the future performances that stemmed from the success of HFO. I recall about 10 years ago when the Farewell 1 tour was gathering momentum that these same issues were being brought up then as well.
Publishing rights are king in the music business. Performance based rights are nearly non existent - the loopholes for performers are found in name branding & credits.

[randymeisnerrocks]

Now see, this is where I'm confused - if they have songwriter credit, they would get royalties. It doesn't matter if the song is re-recorded in the studio or is on a live album, right? Re-recording something doesn't deprive the songwriter...To the contrary, it would seem to me that a new recording of a popular song would be a boon to the songwriter.

Exactly right. There are songwirter royalties and then there are performance royalties. It's apples and oranges.

My father was in a band all my life and my understanding is that a certain percentage goes to the songwriter, a certain percentage to the song publisher, and then a certain percentage to the artist.

[MaryCalifornia]

Yes, and wasn't there some discussion in the doc about the band members actually not having the publishing rights to some of their early songs because they had "bad" lawyers? And also, didn't Geffen give Henley back some publishing rights at one point because he had been so successful on his solo stuff?

Perhpas there are generally three entities that can own rights/receive royalties to a song: 1) the Songwriters, 2) the band/performers (in this case Eagles Corp. in the '70s, includes 5 members - shares publishing with the studio - has rights to the original recording) and 3) the Studio (shares publishing with the band according to percentages laid out in a contract). So as far as Randy, let's just take TITTL for an example. On the original recorded version, he gets paid off of 1 and #2. If the Eagles released a live version with Glenn singing, Randy would still get his #1 songwriter credit, but he wouldn't get #2. That could be where he's losing out. But that results in an absurd contention that by making a live album that includes a song he has rights to, the Eagles are intentionally screwing him - I don't think he is claiming that.

This topic may have run out of steam here (sorry!), but I have seen this claim in multiple articles or interviews (intent to defraud Bernie and Randy), and have always glossed over it because I didn't understand. The only argument that makes sense to me is that they intentionally left out his songs, as UTW analyzed above.

Edit: I posted this before I saw RMR's post above - so we're on to something!

[UndertheWire]

The publishing company is separate from Eagles Ltd. To begin with the band had a single publishing company and they all benefited equally, no matter who within the band wrote the song but at some point that changed.

This might help (or it may confuse further):
http://entertainment.howstuffworks.c...-royalties.htm

Just to be clear, I was not suggesting that WW and TITTL were deliberately excluded so as to deprive Bernie and Randy. It's just that I couldn't see any of the other Randy or Bernie songs even being considered.

[Ive always been a dreamer]

This is an interesting discussion. Regarding copyright, publishing, royalties, etc., I agree it can get really confusing. And it only adds to the confusion because contracts can differ a great deal from one artist to another. Thanks for posting that link, UTW. I remember a similar discussion about this a while back and I did a little research. One of the things I discovered about U.S. Copyright law is that apparently only the writers of a song's melody and lyrics are legally entitled to receive songwriting credit. To me, the writer of a song's music should also be entitled to royalties as well. At least, the members of the Eagles apparently agreed because they did credit the writer of the music.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

What seems to be continually conflicting is the extension of the future performances that stemmed from the success of HFO. I recall about 10 years ago when the Farewell 1 tour was gathering momentum that these same issues were being brought up then as well.
Publishing rights are king in the music business. Performance based rights are nearly non existent - the loopholes for performers are found in name branding & credits.

One thing that adds to the confusion is that royalties are paid differently depending on the country. Each has their own copyright laws.

[randymeisnerrocks]

This is an interesting discussion. Regarding copyright, publishing, royalties, etc., I agree it can get really confusing. And it only adds to the confusion because contracts can differ a great deal from one artist to another. Thanks for posting that link, UTW. I remember a similar discussion about this a while back and I did a little research. One of the things I discovered about U.S. Copyright law is that apparently only the writers of a song's melody and lyrics are legally entitled to receive songwriting credit. To me, the writer of a song's music should also be entitled to royalties as well. At least, the members of the Eagles apparently agreed because they did credit the writer of the music.

I'm not completely sure that's right. Queen sued Vanilla Ice over the fact he sampled their song "Under Pressure" and that's was just 8 notes.

[VAisForEagleLovers]

We've referred to the tour and album by many things, and most refer to it as a reunion album/tour. Obviously, that's not a good term as a reunion tour goes the length of the tour and then it all ends. The Eagles always referred to it as a Resumption Tour, which implies picking up where they left off. Randy and Bernie weren't part of the band when things 'ended' in 1980. We've all discussed, ad infinitum, the reasons why they weren't part of the band but the fact remains they weren't. It never for one moment occurred to me at the time or since that they should have been included, until someone here suggested it.

I never heard any of my friends who were fans or DJs or anyone at the time wonder why Bernie or Randy weren't included. I'm sure there were some who did, just none of the ones I listened to. The conversations I remember hearing went between euphoria they were getting back together and disgust they were getting back together. The only personnel chit-chat I remember was surprise that Felder was back with them, given the rumored reasons for the split. I said it before in this thread, Bernie and Randy left the band, and perhaps neither of them really wanted to, and so there were, at least potentially, negative feelings there.

We all know what happened between Glenn and Felder during that last concert in 1980, and there was a long build-up to it, it wasn't just "I guess" and off went the gloves. Glenn and Henley had a history and both had egos, and neither were certain they could work with the other. Then there was Joe. In a world where failed attempts at sobriety were reported on daily, Joe had a very recent recoverty that hadn't been tested at all. I can totally understand why none of these guys, and especially Irving, wanted to take on two additional potential problems. It seems like Glenn wasn't totally sold on doing it at all, and you know Irving was pushing for the scenario that would most likely last long enough to do a tour.

Given all that, I don't think the guys were wrong to exclude Bernie and Randy, and it wouldn't surprise me if they never even considered it, given it was a resumption vs. reunion/history tour. I feel that if they had, it would have been a shorter tour, and the Eagles likely would have ended again at the end of it. I'm glad they included them when being inducted into the RHOF, it seems a lot of bands don't do that.

[sodascouts]

I'm having trouble visualizing it, honestly. It would be like bringing back Bekka Bramlett to Fleetwood Mac when Stevie was there, or former lead guitarists/singers Peter Green, Rick Vito, Billy Burnette, and Dave Mason while Lindsey Buckingham was there. I think most of the audience would be scratching their heads.

I'm not saying it couldn't be done, but it would sure be unusual. I can't think of any other bands who have rotating line-ups at various parts of the show, or two bassists, that kind of thing. The closest you get is Bernie coming off and on for HOTE, but no one leaves when he comes on, although Tim and Joe wait a song or two to come out and join him. Maybe there are bands that do this and I'm just not aware of them... anyone know of any?

Still, it is a lovely fantasy to have all of them onstage together again. That would be wonderful. I just don't know if it was feasible back in 1994. Even now it would be difficult logistically.

[Grey Sadler]

http://www.westword.com/1995-01-11/m...he-limit/full/

Here is another point of veiw about the HOF reunion.

The following is from 12 years down the road...check out the passage about "catching someone at a wrong time when everyone was kind of angry at everyone else"...http://www.smoothjazznow.com/intervi...dy_meisner.htm