Talk:Eagles (band)

Status of Bernie Leadon

I moved him into the current members area since Joe Walsh first mentioned, and then various radio stations confirmed, that he was back in the band. I see now he's been moved back to former members. If I or somebody else were to find an article that said he was back in the band, then could be moved into the current members area? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 06:57, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but not some blog or rehash of the Walsh statements. Something official, say from the official website or a quote from Henley, Frey and/or Leadon, would do nicely. Please keep in mind the Mick Taylor example, as I assuredly will. A recent article on this states: "Leadon will be joining them on stage during Eagles tour dates for the History of the Eagles tour. Current Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh is scheduled to perform with Leadon."[1] Note the "current Eagles guitarist" bit. Like Mick Taylor rejoining the Stones, Leadon is a "Special Guest", and not a full member of the current Eagles lineup. Doc talk 07:33, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

I guess we will see this weekend when the tour starts exactly how to iron out his status. But I will cite the example of Pink Floyd during The Wall Tour. Richard Wright was not a full-fledged member of the band; he was kept on as a session musician. Even during the recording of A Momentary Lapse of Reason he wasn't a member of the band. But yet, every fan considers him to have been a member the entire time. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 05:38, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

There are legal (i.e. financial) considerations for a band to determine whether a former member becomes a full-fledged member again, despite fan opinion. There is no evidence out there to support that Leadon will be anything other than a "Special" or "Featured" guest. You are strongly encouraged to find sources that contradict this, confirming him as a full member of the band. We are going to go the correct route with this. Doc talk 05:51, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I've just removed another attempt to include Leadon as a full member of the Eagles. First we're going to look here, the official Eagles website. "The Eagles – Glenn Frey, Don Henley, Joe Walsh and Timothy B. Schmit – will perform classics spanning their career, including some that have never been performed live...", etc.[2] Please note that Leadon is not listed as an Eagle on the band's official site. It's not an oversight on the band's part. He is a featured guest. That is all for now. Doc talk 09:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

OK, so I found a YouTube video of Heartache Tonight from last night and Bernie Leadon wasn't part of that portion of the show, however I found an article in which it was implied Joe Walsh was more or less in the shadows for the first half of the show. So, what does that mean if a member and a "non-member" were more or less absent for half the show? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 22:35, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Again, there are contracts that have legal purposes for a band to include anyone as an official member. When Felder rejoined in 1994, he was unequivocally a member of the Eagles again, because the Eagles said so themselves. This has not happened with Leadon, and is very unlikely to happen. Walsh is a member because the band has him as a member. It would be inappropriate and inaccurate to count Leadon as a current member when the band basically says he is not (based on their official website). If they ever do, I will try to be the first to add it. Doc talk 05:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Note - I have now reverted attempts from two more IP editors to include Leadon as a current member. We are not going to contradict the band's official site on who is a current Eagle. It's not up to us to do that. Make no mistake about this. To add Leadon as a current member is original research, which is not tolerated. I will (get ready for it) take it to the limit to protect this factual distinction. Doc talk 09:54, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He is on tour with the band; is there any way one could make the distinction that he is a special guest touring member in 2013 and still leave him in former members? --Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:20, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd also like to add that I did take a good look at the official site for the band, and it looks like it serves no purpose other than push merchandise and ticket sales without giving a detailed biography. Plus some official sites take awhile before updating any detailed info. --Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

The official site could use improvement, particularly with a biography section, but we can't do anything about that. It also has photos of the band at various stages of their career, and Leadon isn't in the current lineup.[3][4] If they update it to include him as a current member, it would be great: it's certainly not like I don't want him to be a current member. We have to stick with the facts, and the fact is he's just not considered a current member by the band that is hiring him for their tour. As to making a note of him as a special touring guest: the only place I can see that working is down at the bottom under Past Members, maybe adding a note of it. Certainly not in the infobox, as it doesn't seem feasible or necessary. Doc talk 02:53, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Update - I was very happy to see that Leadon has been playing with them, and I'm hardly alone. In this article from November 7, 2013, it clarifies what I've been saying. "“Reunited rockers” may not be the most precise wording, as the Eagles’ founding guitarist Bernie Leadon has not rejoined the group. (He has made a few cameos onstage, though.)"[5]

January 2016

Leadon has once again been re-added by another editor as a current member of the band. Needs to be aired again. WWGB (talk) 05:02, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

What is your source for this? The Eagles website still does not list him as a member. He should not be listed as one until a good source says he is. Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 19:08, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's use the statement issued by the band announcing Glenn Frey's death as a guide. It was signed by his family, manager, and bandmates, which included Bernie Leadon. And consistently it's been implied that he's back in the band's core lineup, not an additional musician like Steuart Smith. So I say go with it.Bluorangefyre (talk) 20:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Re "consistently it's been implied that he's back in the band's core lineup"? I would like to see those sources. WWGB (talk) 03:21, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

The page has been semi'd for a month, maybe this will be "officially" sorted out by then. Mlpearc (open channel) 15:48, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

If The Eagles website doesn't list Bernie Leadon as an official member, then he shouldn't be listed as one. If someone can find a good source saying that Leadon has rejoined the band in the wake of Glenn Frey's death, then maybe we can re-add him as a current member.--Kevjgav (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It would be nice to use the Eagles website to end this debate, but I can't find anywhere on the Eagles website where they list their members, other than the post about Fry's death. GoingBatty (talk) 21:47, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Can somebody edit the timeline to indicate Leadon performing guitar and vocals at the 2016 Grammys? I'd do it but have no clue how. Bluorangefyre (talk) 04:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bluorangefyre:  Done. GoingBatty (talk) 17:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bluorangefyre: My edit was reverted by User:80sMetalHead. Maybe that user can make an alternate suggestion for you. GoingBatty (talk) 02:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Try this on for size: AC/DC announced Axl Rose would be joining as a vocalist to complete their tour commitments. They went ahead and called him a full, honest-to-God member even though he's a fill-in vocalist. So, if we're to go by that example (unless there is a consensus to call him a touring musician or guest), couldn't we consider Bernie Leadon as an honest-to-God member of the band again? Bluorangefyre (talk) 21:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Don Henley said "Bernie Leadon is definitely on this tour".[6] So he was a touring member. WWGB (talk) 23:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Gallery in the members section

This isn't the norm for band pages. I think this will need discussion and consensus, hence my starting this discussion. Mlpearc (open channel) 02:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I cannot say I am enthusiastic. Pictures are primarily meant to support the text, this seems like it makes the pictures too prominent.--SabreBD (talk) 08:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I would say that images of all the members are necessary to support the text, but how you do it is another matter. I have no problem how it was done in the past, even though I have no idea why only current members were shown. The problem as I see it is that there aren't images of Felder and Meisner in the article (others can be seen in the group image), and they should be introduced in some ways if suitable ones can be found. At the moment the article needs relevant images to break up the monotony of the text. See articles on The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, The Who, etc. on use of images. Hzh (talk) 12:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I think most editors would be happy with them throughout the text. I suspect the problem is that we do not have contemporary images of most of the members, so we would have to settle for late images, perhaps roughly placed at the point at which they joined. If no one strongly objects to that I will take a couple of days to see if I can scape up some contemporaneous and rights free images. I have managed to find quite a few in the past for other bands. Whether that works or not I would then come up with some suggestions.--SabreBD (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ideally an image of the original line-up (or one before the breakup) would be perfect for the article, but such images that are free are hard to come by, and it would be fantastic if you can find them. Hzh (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have not found any more free images of the band yet, but since the article is currently closed to editing, I guess I will keep on looking for a bit.--SabreBD (talk) 08:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Official status

There has been no "official" statement from the band as to their current status. "I don't think you'll see us performing again" is not an official statement. Mlpearc (open channel) 18:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Eagles have officially disbanded. Beach00 22:27, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Many bands disestablish without an "official" statement. They simply agree amongst themselves to stop recording and touring. If you listen to the BBC interview, Henley said more about the end of the band than you have quoted, such as "that was the final farewell". If you refuse to accept that the Eagles are finished until you see an official statement, you may be waiting until hell freezes over. WWGB (talk) 22:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, no matter the band, I don't think is not a statement written in stone. Besides, whats wrong with waiting for an official statement ? Mlpearc (open channel) 23:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

This is like the dispute over if Bernie Leadon was a member again or not (which, by the way, if somebody could change the timetable to reflect he performed at the Grammy tribute as a member/tour guest, that'd be great). If it's coming from the one member of the band that was with it from start to finish in all incarnations that this is it, then this is it. Why even dispute it? And if they come back in 2018 sans Glenn Frey, then you can say they were active from 1971-1980, 1994-2016, 2018-present. Just my opinion. Bluorangefyre (talk) 23:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should infer things from a single interview when someone may still be upset (and Henley did sound like he was), and he was just offering an opinion which may be how he felt at the time of the interview, but it could very well change another day. If a band had stopped performing, then just say that, why say they broke up when there is no official statement that they actually did? I'm not sure why there is the need to rush to make such a definitive statement that is not wholly supported by the source. Personally I'd wait for some time even if no official statement comes forth. Hzh (talk) 01:02, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we can yet say with any certainty whether the band is no longer or might continue in some form in the near future. It is simply too soon. Until a reasonable amount of time has passed and further comments are made by band members we just do not know anything much and everything is still possible. So until we have a clearer idea we need to err on the side of caution in the article and maintain the status quo wording. Afterwriting (talk) 02:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I just hope nobody messes with the infobox, putting any "current" members back in. They're done, and Henley's statement isn't really that cryptic. The active years of the band need to end at 2016 instead of "present". And some other stuff that will be dealt with... Doc talk 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

No one said that it is cryptic, just that it is not an official statement. Wikipedia doesn't really make definitive statement as a fact from something that is just an opinion of a person per WP:ASSERT, however significant that opinion may be. It would be different if a definitive statement like "it is definitely over" is made and agreed by most or all members of the band. We don't say "X is rubbish" because one important person says "I think X is rubbish". Hzh (talk) 15:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I personally doubt that the band will ever get back together. HOWEVER, in the absence of an official statement, I agree that we should not listed them as defunct. The other thing to consider is this: What's the hurry? We have a lot of time to see how this shakes out. If Wikipedia shows them as an active band for a time and then it later becomes clear that they broke up now, where is the harm? The article indicates that there is uncertainty regarding their future. That's enough for now. I think the problem are those people who rush to be the first to make a current events change in articles. Their fun has been taken away. As Henley and Frey once famously said, "Get over it." Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Question: if another member of the band, say, Joe Walsh, were to say the band was done, would that satisfy everybody? Bluorangefyre (talk) 18:44, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Time. Give it time.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 20:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Bob Caldwell CSL I say we wait for a statement from the "Eagles" not an interview with a single member. Mlpearc (open channel) 19:23, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the Henley interview, if you listen to it, he says the band is done at least three times, and last time I checked he was the sole surviving majority stakeholder in the Eagles brand per the History of the Eagles documentary and various other sources. Shouldn't that count for something? Bluorangefyre (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course it counts for something but it is questionable whether comments made in an interview can be considered a definitive statement of fact or something said in the moment which might change after some further thought. Although the indications are that the group probably has now finished we simply don't yet know with sufficient certainty to state this as a fact. There is also a question of when and how does a band cease to be. When they have stopped performing is not the only criteria. I suspect that things will become clearer before too long. Perhaps there is some wording which can satisfy both sides of this argument? Afterwriting (talk) 22:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

In the interview Henley says "I don't think you'll see us performing again." That is not a declaration that the band is definitely finished. He did not say "We won't be performing again." Afterwriting (talk) 22:24, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

He did say more than that, in fact he said it in four different ways, including "I think that was the final farewell" and "that was probably it". With the Eagles history of 14-year hiatus, they might be back in 2030. WWGB (talk) 06:56, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Don't you understand that the band is still currently active? As in Right Now, they are an active band. That's correct, right? Doc talk 07:35, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

IMO, no. WWGB (talk) 08:28, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

"I think" and "probably" are hardly definitive statements. They are only speculations at present. We cannot make factual assertions based on speculations. Afterwriting (talk) 11:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is so unbelievably lame. This is going to be expanded. Are they broken up? Or are they not? Doc talk 07:15, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be more helpful to discuss this in terms of Wikipedia guidelines rather than calling something "unbelievably lame". We don't really know if they have indeed broken up, we cannot assert as a fact what we don't know for sure, therefore it would be best to leave it as it is until a more definitive statement comes along. Hzh (talk) 10:50, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Are they "active" as a band right now? Doc talk 11:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

They appear to be inactive (no future show for the band is given in the official website, and only solo shows for individual members are shown), but that is not the same as broken up. At the moment there is a contradiction in the infobox and Band members section stating that they are all past members. Hzh (talk) 11:54, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

So is Frey an "active" member, or are they going to carry on as a trio? Doubtful. They are all past members now. Doc talk 12:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It is indeed doubtful that they will carry on as a trio, but that is irrelevant, we cannot state something as a fact when it is uncertain. There will come a point when it is reasonable to assume that they had indeed broken up, but that point is not here yet. Hzh (talk) 12:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

We can't list Henley, Schmit and Walsh as the "current" members and move Frey to the "past" members section when we have Henley's statements on their continuation as a band. Do you think we should do that? Doc talk 12:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Death is certain, so Frey would be a former member, and entirely irrelevant to the issue at hand. The only question is whether the other three are current members because we are not certain. Henley did not make a statement that is definitive. Hzh (talk) 12:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If they are not an active band then their "active" period ends in 2016, not "present". You do agree that they are a) currently inactive and b) have no plans on being active again, right? Doc talk 12:33, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I said they APPEAR to be inactive, which is not the same as being inactive or not having plans on being active again. The point is about not stating more than what a source say, and not stating something as fact based on an opinion. Hzh (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you list Henley, Schmit and Walsh as the current "active" members, or list all members as "past" members? Doc talk 13:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Short of a definitive statement, I would have left them as active. But personally I'd leave it as it is for now until this issue is resolved, just noting that as it is, there is a contradiction. Hzh (talk) 13:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I just find it odd that when Lemmy died, Motorhead was considered defunct as soon as one member said it was over. If it was fine in that instance, why isn't fine it now? I'd rather not have a double-standard here. The only way I can see the band continuing is if they perform at the Kennedy Center Honors, but did Led Zeppelin perform a few years back? Bluorangefyre (talk) 23:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It seems that two band members of Motorhead made it quite clear that it was over - here, "Motörhead is over, of course. Lemmy was Motörhead", and here, "Unfortunately by now everyone reading this post will have found out that Motörhead is no longer." This is not the "I think", "I don't think", or "probably" that Henley used, so it is a different situation. The official website of Eagles seems to treat Henley and Walsh as current members because they list their upcoming solo shows (the website does not list shows of former members like Don Felder). I guess when the official website stops giving updates on shows of individual members we might consider that the band is gone. That might be one way of telling, since Henley did say in History of the Eagles that if they do break up this time, they'll do it quietly and not make announcement. He might not have been serious at that time, but still it is possible that we might not get any official statement. Hzh (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I find it interesting though the Nirvana (band) article lists members (as final members) of the band even though it is long gone. Hzh (talk) 01:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The Nirvana thing is interesting, but that's a unique situation where you have a band that rose to "mega"fame only with certain members in place. We could look at The Beatles and see the same thing. Doc talk 05:35, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Henley said in an interview in the 90s that this was Frey's band. He said in another interview in the last decade that he would leave the decision to Frey as to when to call it quits. Eagles moving forward without Frey would be like the Beatles without Lennon. The surviving members of the band are pushing 70. Henley probably said "I don't think" because they might perform one last time at the Kennedy Center Honors that they postponed because of Frey's illness. At the Kennedy Center Honors hopefully the band will give an "official statement" and this whole issue is resolved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 180.232.72.198 (talk) 01:53, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Pink Floyd without Barrett ? Sure am glad they went on Mlpearc (open channel) 02:01, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Or, more to the point, what about Pink Floyd without Roger Waters? Bluorangefyre (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The phrase "I don't think" can be considered definitive when coming from an authoritative source such as Henley. Personally I think we should stop hanging on in there and put the band in the past tense on this page until an official statement is made to the contrary, put Glenn and Don in bold and the other erstwhile members underneath. I would strongly suggest this to whichever senior editor put the "do not change to were" bit at the top. Bostart (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Stated fact should be supported by source per WP:VER, at the moment the source does not state unambigiously that the band is over, and we should not over-interpret what the source says. Hzh (talk) 16:27, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Frey is still pictured as a "current" member of the band on their website.[7] What should we do about that? Hmm. They are no longer an active band, and it is assine to list three surviving members as being "current" Eagles. The Eagles are a brand entity like The Doors, but they are not an active band anymore. Doc talk 06:57, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

They are not current MEMBERS but current PHOTOS, that is, what the Eagles look like in the current era. WWGB (talk) 07:10, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

There are no "updated" Eagles photos with the trio. Frey is a former member and the three are current? There are no plans to continue as a band! Only the contrary! Doc talk 07:12, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't know this to be a fact. You are making an assumption. We don't deal in assumptions. Afterwriting (talk) 02:02, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm baffled people think they're still active, that comment was your statement to say it's over, just because it's not in a fancy interview or letter doesn't mean it isn't true. The Events of the Eagles official website only shows Solo performances. It's really quite obvious. CDRL102 (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

It's not that any of us think they are still active. I believe with great certainty that they are done. However, it does not hurt to wait a while. Frey just died 4 months ago. We can leave it as is until there is an official announcement or until enough time has passed that there is no doubt. Bands do have the annoying habit of resuming even after a key member dies. Why do we have to be in a hurry? Their nebulous status is made clear in the text. Relax.Bob Caldwell CSL (talk) 16:11, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Typo

"his lost of creative control" should be "his loss of creative control"

Zalzoid (talk) 19:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

 Fixed Thank you!. Mlpearc (open channel) 21:44, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Active?

"Years active" should be "1994-2016", not "1994 - present". Well, it's not sure did they disbanded, but it's sure they aren't active now. Sorry for bad English ;). 185.28.251.102 (talk) 13:19, 1 June 2016 (UTC)