MovieChat Forums > History of the Eagles (2013) Discussion > Terrific but short shrift given to Felde...

Terrific but short shrift given to Felder and his departure!

posted 11 years ago by RandyL712
29 replies | jump to latest

I thought it was a terrific documentary. But I was disappointed in how Felder (and in a lesser sense Meisner and Leadon) were portrayed, adding to the mythology that the Eagles are nothing more than Henley and Frey with some other guys.

Notice how Hotel California wasn't accentuated? It's because Felder wrote it. And the awesome 1994 re-imagining of the song that became a huge hit? It wasn't even mentioned. Bummer. It's easily their best recording since 1979.

But the worst was the complete exclusion of the Felder lawsuit. They have Frey saying, "Henley and I said we wanted a lot more money than everyone else if we reunited. Everyone agreed except Felder." And Felder says "We were an equal partnership at the beginning." And that's about it. Completely glossed over was the real business situation of the band. At the outset, the corporation was an equal partnership between Frey, Henley, Meisner and Leadon. Then the lat two left, they basically gave up their shares for free, and Henley and Frey offered Felder the job and included shares in the Eagles corporation. (Subsequent members are basically hired hands. Sorry Schmidt and Walsh! I know they're well paid, but nowhere near equal partners) So, when Felder was asked to basically give up his shares in the band and take a lot less than Henley and Frey, he knew he was an equal partner in the profits and it wasn't honest, fair or legal. They made him negotiate a deal to get less than 1/3 of what Henley and Frey were getting (not including songwriting credits mind you) for the new Best Of box set. He sued. And they settled for lots.

Anyhow, it was a long contracted lawsuit then ran for over a decade. It deserved a mention in the documentary.

[–] tsrts 10 years ago

I think the reason the doc was more focused on Henley and Frey and less on the other guys, is because Henley and Frey funded the documentary and had control over what was in it. Felder said in an interview with Arte Lang that he was glad they asked him to be part of the documentary as if he wasn't sure if they would ask him.

[–] bsharporflat 10 years ago

Anyhow, it was a long contracted lawsuit then ran for over a decade. It deserved a mention in the documentary.

Well, as tsrts notes, the documentary was mostly from the perspective of Frey and Henley, so that is to be expected. Similar to the Temptations biopic, which focuses on the band from the perspective of Otis Williams.

I find it interesting that Glenn Frey does come off looking a bit dickish here and there. He fights with Glyn Johns, he fights with Bernie Leadon, he fights with Don Felder. Randy Meisner is cast as a wimp. Joe Walsh is the clownish drug addict. But Don Henley comes across as a saint. Perhaps this shows who REALLY has the most power in this band?

Felder said in an interview with Arte Lang that he was glad they asked him to be part of the documentary as if he wasn't sure if they would ask him.

At the end, Felder breaks up a bit and has to walk away from the camera as he says how much he misses playing with the band. That was a nice and appropriate exit.

In my view both Frey and Felder make good points.

Felder was a full member of the band during the greatest glory days of the group and should have been treated a bit more as an equal when it came to being paid for performing. Frey was being a dick when he said that he and Don Henley deserved more money because they had higher profile bodies of work in the 80's. What a stupid rationale. Having far more money than Felder and the others means he deserved to have even more money for doing the same amount of work on stage?

Henley and Frey are already getting far more royalty money for their songwriting and the songs this tour would promote. Why not share the wealth equally for performing on stage. That would have been the nice, fair and cool thing to do.

On the other hand, Felder should not have spent the 70's whining and demanding more singing and songwriting credit. Those weren't his talents and he shouldn't have demanded an inferior product be put onto multi-million selling Eagles recordings just to be "fair" to him. On stage, Felder was an equal, but not in the recording studio. Henley and Frey did start the band and that gives them decision making power. Their instincts proved correct over the years.

I think Felder tried a solo career and it didn't go very far. If singing and performing his own songs was important enough to him, he should have just done it, for smaller audiences and lower pay instead of trying to use the Eagles brand to promote himself while he was in the band.

Also, once the contract to tour and perform had been signed, how could Felder then sue the band and expect them to accept him as a member ever again? He had the choice between being a band member or collecting his fair share of the money. Either his signature on the contract meant something or it didn't. He made the choice on which was more important to him and he'll have to live with that.

[–] tsrts 10 years ago

It is unfortunate they had a falling out with Felder.
He is a good player, he was there for most of the Eagles heyday,
and he co-wrote their biggest hit - Hotel California

In a way, a case could be made for Frey and Henley to get more pay than the others.
Glenn Frey and Don Henley are more important to the reunion, and sing more songs on stage.
At an Eagles Concert, I don't think Felder would sing lead on any songs.

However, their solo careers should not be the reason that they get higher pay.
Henley's careers was very successful, where as Frey's career was barely more successful than Felder's really.
They probably needed to equalize the pay a little more just to keep all band members happy.
When Glenn Frey says in the documentary that he'd only do the reunion if he and Henley get paid more,
it sounds terrible.

Joe Walsh and Timothy Schmitt were ok with their deal and are still in the band.
Felder could be touring with the Eagles now instead of touring with Styx and Foreigner, and it's pretty doubtful that he'll ever get back in with the Eagles as this current tour could be their last.

[–] fivefids 10 years ago

I think this whole video was Henley and Frey's response to Felder's book. When they put this tour together, Leadon and Meisner were both asked to join but Felder wasn't and from what I know of Henley and Frey, they likely did the whole tour just to tweek Felder's nose,to say we respect the other former members but not you."
Leadon joined them for the tour, Meisner did not. Felder was not asked. His appearance in this was likely just tokenism from the Eagles.

[–] bsharporflat 10 years ago

In a way, a case could be made for Frey and Henley to get more pay than the others.
Glenn Frey and Don Henley are more important to the reunion, and sing more songs on stage.
At an Eagles Concert, I don't think Felder would sing lead on any songs.

Clearly, there are different ways to look at the situation.

I don't know if you've ever been in a band, but the standard practice is that all members of a band get the same pay for performing on stage. It makes sense. Do you really want to count the notes each player sings and plays and pay them per each note? Or to get into arguments over whether drums or bass is the more important instrument? Insanity would result.

The difference in pay within a band has always been based on song writing and royalties and that should be enough.

However, their solo careers should not be the reason that they get higher pay.
Henley's careers was very successful, where as Frey's career was barely more successful than Felder's really.

Heh. That would piss Glenn Frey off mightily if he heard that. But you are right. Solo careers are just that. Solo. Band is band, solo is solo. No reason one should control the pay of the other.

They probably needed to equalize the pay a little more just to keep all band members happy.

Not just equalize a little. Fully equal pay for equal work. The Eagles tour was SURE to increase Eagles record sales which would end up paying Frey and Henley a lot more than the others. THAT'S where they can justifiably make more money. But equal time on stage means equal pay for band members. Paying one band member less for time on stage means you are treating them like a hired studio musician instead of a band mate. You just don't do that.

Joe Walsh and Timothy Schmitt were ok with their deal and are still in the band.

And as previously stated, does that mean they did that because they thought it was fair? Or because they had no other choice and didn't want to rock the boat? Maybe.

On the other hand, does it mean that Don Felder was more of an unjustified ego-maniac than his talent deserved? Maybe.

Bottom line as I see it, when Glen Frey says there was only one *beep* in the Eagles, he was wrong. There were at least two. Maybe three counting Henley, though the movie didn't really show his full involvement in the conflicts, only Frey.

[–] hammerbutt 10 years ago

Felder's point was that when he signed with the Eagles he got an equal share of all revenues and that since the band never broke up that Frey didn't have the authority to make him take less or even fire him

[–] bsharporflat 10 years ago

Felder's point was that when he signed with the Eagles he got an equal share of all revenues and that since the band never broke up that Frey didn't have the authority to make him take less or even fire him

The argument could be made that Glenn Frey hired Don Felder and he damn well had the authority to fire him. The Eagles were an existing and successful band long before Felder joined. Usually band majority rules in that situation. But eventually it can become a legal decision, and it was.

The authority to pay one band member less than another for stage performance is another question, as noted above. Perhaps Frey (and Henley?) had the authority to do that, but it is simply a bad practice and guaranteed to create bad blood. If you want to make more money than your band mates, you have to write more hit songs than they do or go solo.

Paying one bandmate on stage less than another is insulting and guaranteed to cause bad blood. I suspect Frey knew that and always hoped he could use that as leverage to kick Felder out.

[–] Prismark10 10 years ago

Frey and Henley made it clear that they had the most successful careers post The Eagles. Therefore if they were getting the band together they wanted the greater share.

This is nothing new. When The Police reunited, Sting is on more than a third!

Its that man again!!

[–] chas437 10 years ago

Frey and Henley made it clear that they had the most successful careers post The Eagles. Therefore if they were getting the band together they wanted the greater share.

Its not that simple, Frey/Henley made Felder a full partner way back in the mid-70's, so they had no right to want to make more $$$, at least without consulting him. They got sued primarily because they were leaving Felder out of the loop.

Frey and Henley's comments regarding this are just laughably stupid, and frankly delusional.

[–] chas437 10 years ago

The argument could be made that Glenn Frey hired Don Felder and he damn well had the authority to fire him

Not really, that wouldn't have held up in court, had it gone to trial. They made all 5 members equal partners in Eagles LLC., back when it was Frey, Felder, Henley, Meisner, Leadon. In fact Felder was CFO of Eagles LLC. That was a one time, binding agreement, Leadon and Meisner forfeited their shares by quitting the band. Future members, Walsh and Schmidt were hired as employees of the Eagles.

Glenn Frey would like to have believed he had the authority to fire Felder, the delusions in a small man's mind, but of course, he didn't and so the Eagles paid Felder untold millions.

[–] NealR2000 10 years ago

Henley and Frey hold the power because of only one thing.

Everyone else in the band (indlding current and former members) are replaceable, and people will still pay crazy money to see them. On the other hand, The Eagles simply couldn't commercially exist without either Henley or Frey. They know this, and it's why they demand and get the lions share.

A similar analogy exists with the Rolling Stones with Jagger and Richards. Also, The Who, although their line-up changes were due to band members dying, but they are still able to tour and record as The Who.

[–] tabbycat 9 years ago

"Felder was a full member of the band during the greatest glory days of the group and should have been treated a bit more as an equal when it came to being paid for performing. Frey was being a dick when he said that he and Don Henley deserved more money because they had higher profile bodies of work in the 80's."

A band's popularity comes mostly from its members. Higher profile equals more value.
There are bands that try to reunite only the letters in the band's name with one familiar craggy face backed by hired hands, but they're scams.

"Why not share the wealth equally for performing on stage. That would have been the nice, fair and cool thing to do."

No it wouldn't.

Members in a band are not equal because their contributions are not valued equally.
It may not be "fair" or "cool" in all eyes, but it's the truth.

"On the other hand, Felder should not have spent the 70's whining and demanding more singing and songwriting credit. Those weren't his talents and he shouldn't have demanded an inferior product be put onto multi-million selling Eagles recordings just to be "fair" to him. On stage, Felder was an equal, but not in the recording studio. Henley and Frey did start the band and that gives them decision making power. Their instincts proved correct over the years.

I think Felder tried a solo career and it didn't go very far. If singing and performing his own songs was important enough to him, he should have just done it, for smaller audiences and lower pay instead of trying to use the Eagles brand to promote himself while he was in the band."

Very well said.
Nothing to add here, except to say this is a detailed description of a common problem that befalls bandmembers who can't accept their station -- and the misguided self-indulgence in trying to use an established successful band for something that really only benefits you.

[–] aimokankkunen 9 years ago

Bands, as much as we would like are not democracies.

Usually the guys who start the band are the leaders Lennon-McCartney,Jagger-Richards, Jimmy Page,Copeland-Sting.
Usually these guys are big time egomaniacs who can`t really appreciate no ones talents except themselves.

Harrison asked many times if McCartney would write songs with Him, Paul did not.
"Jumpin' Jack Flash" is based on a riff by Bill Wyman, He did not get credited.
Feank Zappa told Lowell George that He was fired when Lowell played "Willin" to Him.

Now Felder even though He DID contribute few riffs and such, was never a prolific writer.
He was only a lead guitarist in an already full band of musicians who really knew their worth.

Yes Frey is a prick, the way He treated Meisner and Leadon was less than stellar, but He was right in the end by getting rid of Leadon, Joe Walsh did bring spine to rather spineless solo guitar work in Eagles Although i admire a lot of Leadons work in Eagles, dont get me wrong.

[–] Flexon 9 years ago

I agree with much of what you've written but...

Frey did not get rid of Leadon. Frey, with support from other band members may have pushed the band in a direction that Leadon wasn't happy with, but the decision to leave was Leadon's. He'd quit at least twice before. Leadon has stated many times that leaving was a matter of survival as he wanted a healthier lifestyle.

It seems to be common for bands to lose members as they become really big because not everyone wants that level of fame and the problems that come with it.

[–] williamsperger 9 years ago

I've followed the Felder/Henley-Frey feud since it began. Have also read Felder's autobiography. And I say now as I did then, *beep* Henley and Frey. Egotistical, pompous, Prima-Donna *beep* What they did to Felder was simply unpardonable. Felder was an equal member, no two ways about it. He might not have been an original member but came on board just when they they exploded. And to eventually ask him to become a hired hand and get paid far less then them? What, are you *beep* me? Thank God, Felder had the balls to tell them to shove it up their collective asses. Yeah, Felder never had the big solo career. But to ask him to give up the band or to be a Timothy B Schmit/Joe Walsh bit player is just too much.

[–] chas437 10 years ago

That makes sense. Its funny, no matter how tightly Henley and Frey spin the narrative, they still come off looking like egotistical pricks, especially Frey.

Perhaps Frey's real beef with Felder was that Felder was becoming more integral to the band by the late 70s and threatening his #2 spot? The Eagles music was getting better with Henley taking on almost all the lead vocals and Felder writing better music than Frey ever could.

I can't help but thinking Frey is one of the most overrated singer song writers of the 1970's, and without Henley, the Eagles would have been Poco 2.0.

I'm a civilian, I'm not a trout

[–] tearsnhoney 10 years ago

I agree with what you said about Frey. I have this video and watched it several times while playing it for others who came to my home to watch it. At first, I blamed Frey for mistreating the other band members. Bernie and Randy were there for the first three albums, the best of album and Randy stayed for one more, I think. My point is the band was composed of 4 equal members from day one until Leadon left and then Meisner. They were treated terribly and it wasn't just Frey. Henley has just as much, if not more, power in the band. He lets the egocentric and pushy Frey treat the others like crap. Frey enjoys pushing people around where maybe Henley doesn't..but enjoys the rewards. Too bad Felder was the only one to sue.

Then we have Felder and Walsh.. the beef of the newfangled band in their Hotel Cali days of true R & R. They made it big thanks to those two. I realize Henley has that gorgeous, warm and sexy voice, plus good lyrical skills. He is the epitome of The Eagles with Frey doing some good early stuff. Henley did some great work with End of the Innocence and more. The crap Frey did like his Miami Vice stuff didn't keep the Eagles popular. All members deserve the same money and I don't think they'd do well without Joe and Tim. I am disappointed in Don Henley.

[–] chas437 10 years ago

Too bad Felder was the only one to sue.

Felder was the only one with grounds to sue, because both Meisner and Leadon quit the band, sacrificing their shares in Eagles LLC.

I agree with what you say, I almost think Frey was Henley's bully when it came to dealing with band members.

[–] TxMike 10 years ago

After reading all the comments in this thread, and having just watched the documentary today, I come up with this perspective.

The Eagles were "inactive" for 14 years. Each member had whatever solo and acting career he wanted and could negotiate. For all practical purposes "the Eagles" no longer existed.

The band did not have to get back together, and for Frey and Henley to take the stance that, if they were to get back together, they needed a bigger share of the earnings seems reasonable. Everyone could have said "NO", the band would not reunite.

Or, the minority members could have gone on without Frey and Henley, maybe that would have worked, but probably wouldn't.

Felder has to accept a lot of blame for what happened post-1994 reunion. His agent was told "accept the deal or we will find someone else." He accepted the deal but made sure the others knew he was unhappy, to the point where Frey could not tolerate it anymore. Had Felder accepted the deal and chosen to be happy about it he would still be an Eagle. He was too greedy for what was an easily replaceable supporting role.

From a business perspective it makes perfect sense. We might not like Frey, we might judge that he is too abrasive and too much of a prick needing to get his way. But the success of the Eagles is mostly a function of the creative efforts of Frey and Henley, and the amazing harmony vocals that the group is able to create. By 1994 they weren't struggling young musicians anymore, the cream had risen to the top over the 20+ years and what Frey and Henley demanded was not unfair. From a strictly business perspective. Tim and Joe seem to understand and accept that.

..*.. TxMike ..*..
Make a choice, to take a chance, to make a difference.

[–] eeleyebrown 10 years ago

That definitely added a sour patch to the documentary. I couldn't even enjoy the rest of it because I kept thinking how much of a dickk Frey was and how greedy him and Henley are though I do believe they're entitled to a more $$ since they're the main songwriters and original band members and have worked the hardest to keep the band together (despite Frey having to be dragged into the reunion, kicking and screaming). I just think they are acting like Gene Simmons and Paul Stanley or Sting by demanding so much more money than the rest of the band that made them famous. Kind of makes their camraderie look phony but at the end of the day, business is business. The Eagles are a business. A big, lucrative one, and at some point you have to take care of business. Walsh and Schmitt see that. They weren't exactly burning up the charts with new songs like Frey and Henley during the band's hiatus but at least they're names were still well-known even as musicians.

But truth be told, Felder should have just grown up and got over it. They're not idealistic 20-somethings anymore. He thinks since the most enduring song in their legacy has been a song that he wrote the main music for ("Hotel California") that he feels he deserves a bigger piece of the pie but no one song, even that one, can or should be bigger than The Eagles (it's actually one of my least fave Eagles songs anyway). In the end, even if he had agreed to the contract, Felder was always one of the least known members of the band (I actually thought some of those riffs he played were Walsh's all these years). The names "Glenn Frey" and "Don Henley" are synonymous with The Eagles. Joe Walsh as well. Not Felder's. I didn't even realize he was still part of the band all the way through they're classic period until the reunion. I thought he disappeared with Leadon and Meisner back in the 70s until I saw this doc. Im not hating on guy. I just think he needs to wake up and realize that the reunion is a separate part of the Eagles history than what they had going before.

Everything since they reunited has been a renegotiated situation that really just involves the five of them being their own tribute band which is a machine that's run entirely by Frey and Henley. Their heyday of hits are long passed. This is basically "The Eagles Revue" also featuring songs from lead guitarist Joe Walsh. Felder should have just got on the gravy train and grabbed the brass rings like everyone else because all this really was is a "money grab". Don't be fooled. As much fun as Frey said he was having being solo, why else would he give it up? He and Henley were having top ten hits on their own. Why give that up unless they were being courted by big money scenarios. Henley got sued by Geffen. Frey's hits were starting to run a little thin after the 80s. Then they see the overwhelming response they get to a supposedly one-off get together. It was a no-brainer. Also don't forget, The Eagles were the first old school band to reunite and charge exorbitant ticket prices ($300+/ticket) to capitalize on your nostalgia. Ever since, every major act that had a loyal fanbase and cult does the same thing when they reunite because the Eagles proved that there was a demand for it buy the music-loving public. That's why Jimmy Page wants to put LZ back together so bad. He can smell the money.

[–] JackSparrow92 8 years ago

It does make you wonder why some bands trudge along for nine years (admittedly managing to put out successful albums) and collapse under the weight of greed, infighting and warring egos, and why other bands manage to stay together far longer without all that crap.

Look at U2, for example. Like them or not (I'm a fan myself), they've been together for over 35 years without a single lineup change. Bono has a massive ego (although who wouldn't after 35 years as a rock star) and overshadows the other three, but somehow they keep it together: if there's one thing you rarely hear about, it's infighting and backstabbing between them. If the other three were bothered by Bono's position as the group's focal point and top "star", they've been remarkably silent about it for a bloody long time.

And AC/DC -- together for over 40 years. Several drummer changes, yes, but the core of the band has remained constant since 1980 (until Malcolm Young's dementia), with Angus Young and Brian Johnson getting the vast majority of the spotlight. Again, if the others didn't like it, you'd think they'd have said something.

Then you get the in-betweens. Led Zeppelin, who lasted for twelve years without any internal spats to speak of (not reuniting isn't in the same category). The Rolling Stones, who have been together for half a century, have weathered their ego-clashes and feuds and still manage to get back together. Metallica, whose feuding a little over ten years ago was made into a documentary, and yet evidently managed to get past it.

And then you get bands like Guns N' Roses, whose internal feuding seems to resemble the Eagles pretty closely.

I guess it's a question of interpersonal chemistry. If one band member has a disproportionate ego (and thus demands a greater share of the income), I guess it's up to the others to decide whether or not they can work with it, or move on. In the case of the Eagles, Walsh and Schmidt could. Felder couldn't.

Revenge is a dish best served cold.
-- Klingon proverb

[–] tabbycat 9 years ago

Notice how Hotel California wasn't accentuated? It's because Felder wrote it.

Don Felder

DID

**NOT**

WRITE

HOTEL

CALIFORNIA.

What are you, a politician?
Repeating a falsehood over and over will never make it true.

He wrote the chord structure and some of the guitar parts, including the intro.

He DID NOT WRITE the melody.
He DID NOT WRITE the lyrics.

Saying "he wrote the song" is like saying the guy who poured the concrete foundation built the house.

"There's this little thing called reality ..."

[–] Flexon 9 years ago

Never mind that. The OP was mistaken. Hotel California was accentuated in the documentary. It was played all the way through, with lengthy comments from Felder, Henley, Frey, Symzyck and Walsh. IIRC, the song that got skipped was their first #1, Best of My Love and that seems a big omission given that it was their breakthrough.

[–] eeleyebrown 9 years ago

I can't believe they left out "Best of My Love". That's one of the first songs I learned on guitar. Such a soulful tune. All of their songs are clinics in songwriting.

[–] jokeco68 9 years ago

A really great discussion going here and just wanted to add my 5 cents as I just finished watching it. I always recall rock media taking a swipe at Glen Frey at every opportunity and now I know why, he is one miserable SOB. One would wonder how much money does any man need and I have to agree with some opinions here, they should have all gotten an equal split on the concert revenues, I just find that extremely greedy that Frey had to implement a bigger split towards him and Henley. And his justification for it was just so childish, we were bigger solo artists after so we're naturally just better. By that logic then Henley should have gotten 90% of the concert revenue because a couple of hits played in the background of a 'Miami Vice' episode does not qualify you as a rock god, sorry. From watching this at least I now have an understanding at how this great band fell apart like it did in the late 70's and, of course, it begun during their pinnacle, the release of Hotel California. Initially, I was a little hesitant seeing a run time of over 3 hours but I thought it was well worth the watch.

Life is always intense for a repo man.

[–] eeleyebrown 9 years ago

Indeed, Frey is a major douche. Like was said before, someone has to be the big dickhead in order to get certain things done or you'd just have five guys constantly arguing over who should get paid what, what songs should be performed and in what order. They probably wouldn't have the success they've had without Frey and Henley stepping up. But Frey has taken douchebaggery to knew heights. And I'm pretty sure him and Henley probably take in about 80-90% and split that up as their cut while Walsh and Schmidt are left with 10-20% (and it was probably still about the same when Felder made it a five-piece). I don't begrudge Frey and Henley taking the lion's share since they are the main songwriters (now anyway) but their greed is pretty astounding. No reason why they couldn't settle for 70-75% tops. Im sure they included Walsh's addiction and how they helped him to underscore their need to be the bigger breadwinners. They also have to realize they need Walsh and Schmidt to legitimize the band otherwise they'd just be The Frey & Henley Traveling Money Grab & Carpetbagger Medicine Show & Revue. To which they also needed to keep Don Felder but I can see how he was kind of a distraction with some of his actions but that was only because Frey couldn't get him to be a good puppet like Walsh and Schmidt.

[–] mburns955 9 years ago

It's not surprising since this was a Frey/Henley
Production. Reason it wasn't discussed is that Felder
is getting his 1/3rd of eagles earnings and they r bitter.
More depressing than the frey/henley actions was
the lack of backbone from Joe Walsh. Hell , felder
drove him to rehab but Walsh chose money over
a good supportive friend.

[–] mgconlan-1 8 years ago

I think Don Felder should have heeded the advice of Otis Blackwell, who wrote some of Elvis Presley's biggest songs, including "Don't Be Cruel" and "All Shook Up," but had to split his songwriting credits and royalties 50-50 with Elvis (who never actually wrote or co-wrote a song in his life) to get Elvis to record his songs. When asked why he put up with this, Blackwell replied, "Because 50 percent of something is better than 100 percent of nothing." Frey's and Henley's attitude of "we're the leaders, we write the songs, we should get more money than the rest of you" sucks, but if Felder had followed Blackwell's example and accepted a smaller share he'd still be an Eagle and he'd be better off financially. Besides, Frey's and Henley's attitude isn't uncommon among bands; in one of his last interviews, John Lennon said, "Paul and I were the Beatles. The other two could have been anybody."

[–] cinles 8 years ago

he'd be better off financially.

Felder has no money problems.