Originally Posted by
sodascouts
Glenn and Don played Eagles songs in their sets, although they didn't dominate. They knew the crowd expected to hear some Eagles and they gave them what they wanted. Plus, those are some darn good songs and they wrote 'em... why shouldn't they still play 'em?
However, I think Glenn is talking here more in terms of visibility, not in terms of how much Eagle-talk they were doing. Heck, Glenn was telling everyone and their dog that the Eagles would NEVER EVER EVER get back together. The point is that they were the only ones who found any success at all in the eighties, and thus were the ones who were still on the radar of the public, so to speak. I can tell you that speaking for myself as a child of the 80s, I only knew their names from their solo careers, and had never heard of any of the other Eagles.
Between 1980-1994, Joe actually did actively promote the Eagles in interviews by saying he hoped they got back together again. During that time, he also played Eagles songs during his set, released more solo albums than Glenn and Don did, and gigged just as much if not more. Therefore, if you're talking simply in terms of output, he actually surpassed Don and Glenn. The problem is that he found almost no success as a solo act post-Eagles and his gigs were generally as an opening act, part of "Ringo's All-Starr Band," playing at a mall or guitar store opening, that kind of thing. Thus, he didn't have the kind of visibility to keep the Eagles in people's minds like Glenn and Don did.
Poor Timothy's albums were so unsuccessful he didn't even tour at all.
Don Felder's lone solo album found no more success than Timothy's and thus Felder stayed off the road as well. Therefore, you can't really attribute him not playing Eagles songs to animosity or lack of leads... he didn't play anything! Now that he is doing solo shows, not only does he play Eagles songs, he also bills his show as "An Evening at the Hotel California." Obviously, whether or not things ended well with the Eagles has no bearing on his choice of setlist. I say, more power to him. He has every right to play songs he co-wrote with the Eagles regardless of whether or not he sang lead on them initially. Now, the ones he didn't co-write... well, that's another matter. At any rate, one cannot pretend that he doesn't trade on the Eagles name - and I personally have no problem with that. He deserves to get mileage out of his time with the Eagles. They all do.
All that said, I think the Eagles reunion would have been phenomenally successful even if neither Glenn nor Don had ever scored a hit. The Eagles were one of, if not THE, biggest bands of the seventies with excellent music that was being played constantly on classic radio.
However, it would NOT have been phenomenally successful if either Glenn or Don Henley were missing. In the end, that's why Glenn and Don Henley were able to negotiate for more money while Don Felder was not. They had the leverage as the big names, the lead singers, and the only remaining original members. As the only two men who were absolutely essential to a successful Eagles reunion, Frey and Henley could and did command more money, just like the bigger stars in the movies get paid more than the lesser known ones. By contrast, as the Eagles have shown, Felder is no longer essential to their success. Thus, he did not have the kind of leverage necessary to demand more money. If Frey or Henley walked out, it was over for everybody. If Felder walked out (or was pushed out), it was only over for him.
You may or may not agree, but the logic is sound if you look at it in business terms instead of emotional ones.
Re: Eagles Documentary "History of the Eagles"
Reply With Quote
