Discussion of Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"

[WalshFan88]

If it's between the Eagles without Felder and no Eagles at all, I'll take the former choice.

I would pick the former as well.

That still doesn't change the fact that I am disgusted with the whole deal, but I love the band as a whole and always will no matter who (band member-wise) pisses me off.

[Prettymaid]

Whew! My eyes are crossed trying to keep up with this thread! As someone who does not get Showtime, I was anxious to come here and read your reviews. I can't wait to get the DVD in April and watch for myself. Sounds like Part 2 was a little controversial.

[sodascouts]

While there were a few things I would have done differently, overall, I really enjoyed the documentary. I'm very glad they made it so that we could see rare photos and rare footage, as well as hear so many interesting interviews. What a treat!!!

[TimothyBFan]

A release date!!!! I'm with the rest of you in the fact I get so tired of waiting for Amazon with their pre-order so I don't know if I want to do that this time since I have seen it already or try to get it when it is released on that day. Hmmmmm.... Will have to think on that.

I love all the discussion on the subject and I think we've been pretty civilized and nobody's been unfair, etc... But like I said before--it always amazes me how all of us can be fans of the same band, see the same information and interpret it 2 totally different ways. Such is human behavior. And for me it's not about defending my favorite Eagle and lack of lead vocals, equal pay, etc... if that were the case, I'd be here all day trying to do that.

For the record--I actually get the whole Don & Glenn making more money and running the show and have no problem with that. I think it was Don that said you can't have a band with 5 leaders. That's not what bothered me (and I don't know if bothered is even the right word) I wasn't shocked by the language or what was said so much as how it was said, if that makes sense. It makes me sad to think that people can carry that much anger around after so many years. I've been guilty of that in the past but have honestly tried to NOT let things do that to me anymore. I've learned life is just too short to let anger eat away at me. Not always an easy task, but sometimes you just have to move on.

I loved the way Part 2 started also and hubby and I both cracked up when Irving made a comment about the money and Don and Glenn said "it's not?" and got up to leave. Gotta love the spontaneity and it makes me so happy when I see glimpse of their humor like that.

I do wish we could of heard a bit more about the families, etc... I felt for Don when he was talking about Sharon having to travel for that lawsuit with her MS. Loved the fact that Timothy does household chores. Those little tidbits really puts them in perspective as humans and not the Rock Gods I have made them in my mind.

Joe's honesty about hitting rock bottom and his efforts to get sober where very heartfelt and gave me even more respect for him than I already had. Like someone here said earlier, to go into rehab and get straight only 1 time is amazing. It usually takes a lot more attempts than that. I give credit to the other Eagles and the music for doing that. Music can be a powerful drug.

[Brooke]

Overall I absolutely loved it! I can't wait to get the dvd. It just left me wanting more!

And yes, isn't there also supposed to be an extra dvd of a partial 70's concert with something like 8 songs?

[Houston Debutante]

I'm going to make one very brief comment for thought around here. Something that occurred to me last night.
In all Glenn's arguments that he & Henley deserved more money, I'm going to compare this to the BEATLES. Here Lennon & McCartney did MOST of the songwriting & lead vocals, but did that make Harrison & Ringo LESS of a BEATLE? Did they earn LESS money? I don't think so??? I'm just saying that a band needs all the players, yes some of them can be replaced.... but it's not the same...Would the Beatles still have the same impact if they replaced George Harrison? or Ringo? I don't know, but I'm just saying that Felder was a part of this band, & it IS different without him.

I'm a Beatles fans and I can tell you that Ringo ~ who wasn't an original Beatle by the way ~ does make way less money and Paul has sometimes made biting comments about him not being as important and Ringo said something like "He thinks he's the only remaining Beatle." John and Paul fought over money and who was more important and there were definitely hard feelings. Have you listened to the song How Do You Sleep? Their fueding at the end was infamous.

You sound like you think the Eagles are the only band who has fights over money and who is the most talented or important!

I think Don Henley and Glenn did deserve more but even if you don't think that, you need to get your facts straight when you make comparisons to other bands. If you don't know something, look it up. We have Google. It's not hard.

[Topkat]

I'm a Beatles fans and I can tell you that Ringo ~ who wasn't an original Beatle by the way ~ does make way less money and Paul has sometimes made biting comments about him not being as important and Ringo said something like "He thinks he's the only remaining Beatle." John and Paul fought over money and who was more important and there were definitely hard feelings. Have you listened to the song How Do You Sleep? Their fueding at the end was infamous.

You sound like you think the Eagles are the only band who has fights over money and who is the most talented or important!

I think Don Henley and Glenn did deserve more but even if you don't think that, you need to get your facts straight when you make comparisons to other bands. If you don't know something, look it up. We have Google. It's not hard.

I'm no expert on the Beatles, I'll admit that, but I doubt that all the financial information is out there on them. How do you know that Ringo made way less money? I never heard that one. Lennon/McCartney probably get more in songwriting royalties. It's way too complicated for us to get into anyway
I'm not going to get into the entire history of the Beatles, but Ringo became a Beatle before they became famous. Their manager wanted a better drummer before signing & recording them. Yes, I'm sure the Beatles had fights over money. I guess maybe every band does, but the Beatles really only lasted for 7 years as a band, so yes, obviously there were arguements & the Eagles thing is also very complex & only the lawyers & managers know for sure what really goes on.
Everything you read on the internet or look up with Google is not necessarily always 100% truth. As with the Eagles, there are also several different accounts of what happened with them. You have to be an entertainment lawyer to figure it all out,& even then it depends on who's giving the information.

I guess my original point with that comparison, was that once the Beatles became famous, nobody got fired.

[Houston Debutante]

I'm no expert on the Beatles, I'll admit that, but I doubt that all the financial information is out there on them. How do you know that Ringo made way less money? I never heard that one. Lennon/McCartney probably get more in songwriting royalties. It's way too complicated for us to get into anyway
I'm not going to get into the entire history of the Beatles, but Ringo became a Beatle before they became famous. Their manager wanted a better drummer before signing & recording them. Yes, I'm sure the Beatles had fights over money. I guess maybe every band does, but the Beatles really only lasted for 7 years as a band, so yes, obviously there were arguements & the Eagles thing is also very complex & only the lawyers & managers know for sure what really goes on.
Everything you read on the internet or look up with Google is not necessarily always 100% truth. As with the Eagles, there are also several different accounts of what happened with them. You have to be an entertainment lawyer to figure it all out,& even then it depends on who's giving the information.

I guess my original point with that comparison, was that once the Beatles became famous, nobody got fired.

Nobody got fired from the Beatles at the end because the band broke up. Nobody got fired from the Eagles in 1980 either because the Eagles broke up. Is that somehow better? Like WalshFan88 and sodascouts I'd rather have the band without Felder than nothing.

If you don't believe the information I gave you about the Beatles than GO LOOK IT UP and see for yourself.

Glenn could have been more professional in the way he treated Felder but this is a rock band, not an accounting firm.

And was he really all that terrible? Many, many rock bands end on uglier notes. I'm also a fan of the Smashing Pumpkins, and band leader Billy Corgan fired drummer Jimmy Chamberlin over a fight about money. As for another former bandmate, guitarist James Iha ~ Corgan called him "a piece of s—” and "one of the worst human beings I’ve ever met in my life."

As far as I know Glenn Frey has never talked about the firing of Felder until now, in the documentary, when he is specifically asked about it, and some people are all over him for it as if he cussed out Felder for 10 minutes and ripped him a new one when all he did was recount a phone conversation from 1994 where he told Felder's lawyer ~ not even Felder directly ~ that Felder was an asshole.

I can see why people would think Glenn and Don Henley were being greedy but saying Glenn is 'abusive' is away OTT, IMHO.

I don't have any investment in defending Glenn but a lot of this just seems an overreaction to me. Maybe it's because I'm a fan of a lot of bands and I've seen a lot worse.

[Shadowland07]

Actually the Beatles lasted 10 years and were pretty well known before Ringo joined. Pete Best was fired while they were well known and that caused a stir among fans to the point where a fan actually punched George in one of the tunnels of The Cavern. As far as money Geore and Ringo made less than John and Paul due to the songwriting royalties and then with the producing royalties they got when they started Apple and they did their own thing producing albums for their artists (Bad Finger, Jackie Lomax, James Taylor, etc).

[Topkat]

Actually the Beatles lasted 10 years and were pretty well known before Ringo joined. Pete Best was fired while they were well known and that caused a stir among fans to the point where a fan actually punched George in one of the tunnels of The Cavern. As far as money Geore and Ringo made less than John and Paul due to the songwriting royalties and then with the producing royalties they got when they started Apple and they did their own thing producing albums for their artists (Bad Finger, Jackie Lomax, James Taylor, etc).

Ok, I just looked up the whole Best story & he was in the group from Aug 1960- Aug 1962, but was let go because the EMI producer, George Martin & engineers thought he wasn't good enough to record with them. So although they appeared in clubs in England, they had not yet recorded anything. Originally called the Quarrymen, the name was changed to the Beatles. They were known in the clubs, but the real fame didn't come until later. If Best was fired before the recording, I don't think he was under the recording contract the Beatles had.
Anyway, this has gotten way off the track, so lets get back to the Eagles & the dvd.
Sorry about any mistaken information.