A Good Day In Hell - The Official ILM Track-By-Track EAGLES Listening Thread

all the background harmonies/singing remind me of 60's sunshine pop and not country really. i'd really like to know what curt boettcher thought of this song.

Holy shit that Etta James version. So good.

i think marsh was just being in character for a critic of that time. or maybe even now! you really aren't supposed to like the eagles if you write about music.

don't think so, herr seward. being in character as such ain't in marsh's repertoire. his whole thing is personal: "if you do this music I don't like, you're the enemy."

Never read/heard Marsh that way at all, not even when he's ranting about the Grateful Dead or Queen.

Holy shit that Etta James version. So good.

― carl agatha, Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:14 AM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Seriously, I could listen to this all day. And have, so far.

well, Marsh also said he held Neil Young and his Reaganism personally responsible for the death of his father.

Killing someone's dad is nagl Neil wtf

but, to be fair, they were kind of the enemy! even we are treating them like the enemy. they make our skin crawl! two of them anyway. but they had a couple of choice tunes so we are recognizing that. but really anyone from that time could have written that about the eagles back then. don't think marsh was alone.

x-post

Yeah, I can't imagine Marsh was exaggerating to make a point. Writers, especially critics, hardly ever do that.

xp

Yeah I mean there have been uh...what like 4 or 5 deep cuts out of this mess that I'm glad I heard, but overall this exercise is not really changing my view of this band much

Such uneven records! For such slick pros they really can't seem to make a solid record

Same here. I'm grateful, though, for now I can say I've heard the Eagles' mediocre, undistinguished catalog.

and i'm not a dave marsh apologist or anything. i never found him that compelling. a big mouth and not my favorite writer to read or opinions to read. i like that one book that chuck was in. the rock & roll confidential report.

i THINK hotel california and the long run are the strongest records. haven't listened to them in ages.

also: I may be in the minority in preferring The Long Run to anything else: as rancid a final album as Gaucho, and they got their shit together, only nowhere near as sharp as Gaucho.

ha – I missed scott's post

Take It To The Limit - can't deny the craft, it's a good tune and the drumming's nice. I don't like the strings and for once the guitars didn't register at all. The singing's fine, but really I never want to hear this again.

This is much better than the replacement bassist's moment in the sun. THat's fucking unlistenable.

Why do you say that, Bill?

they are responsible for the two least-eagles-y eagles hits and they might be my two fave tracks! i sense a pattern...

i'm still trying to figure out if i agree with spirit of radio being head and shoulders above every other rush song over here though....might take me a minute.

Actually, I'd say it's neck-and-neck with "Tom Sawyer," or rather it barely noses ahead because Geddy Lee amends the line "glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity" with a "yeah!" that implies he's celebrating said prizes/compromises, which takes it somewhere far beyond what ol' po-faced Peart probably had in mind when he wrote that line.

i do love that song but i don't know if i love it any more than i love free will or jacob's ladder on that album. great first side. the second side definitely got neglected by me when i bought that album.

i still love free will lyrics

Each of us
A cell of awareness
Imperfect and incomplete
Genetic blends
With uncertain ends
On a fortune hunt that's far too fleet

hmm…I seem to be in multiple minorities here: I think Kiss and Rush are totally great, the eagles are great, and that greatness is not canceled out by album filler, and like right honorable Lord above, the Long Run is best they done.

chiefly, my notion of music I like or dislike or viscerally despise or adore beyond measure is more of a good/bad dichotomy, rather than one centered around right/wrong. anyone whose ever made music I dislike is not my enemy.

My guess is that that us ILMers here are a lot lot younger than Marsh and his contemporaries, the Eagles. Marsh (and probly Henley to a significant extent) comes from an ideological standpoint common to boomers upset that the promise of the 1960s did not pan out. He was offended by them as his peers, representing qualities he considered a betrayal in ways that I think most reading this thread cannot sympathize with. Or shouldn't.

For him, Springsteen is RIGHT. So he can be married to Landau's right hand woman, write numerous books about Springsteen, host Springsteen shows on Sirius and thus loudly and often viciously advocate in public and as ostensibly a journalist/writer, a man for whom his household's livelihood depends. This is a conflict of interest any way you shake it. And again, I think any clear reading of his works reveals that everything is personal with this guy.

We need a Rush track-by-track to get over all the Eagles ickyness.

i love rush! or, you know, i did when i was a kid. i don't listen to them too much anymore but when i hear them i like hearing them. maybe an 80's rush listening party. i stopped buying their abums after permanent waves.

"Geddy Lee amends the line "glittering prizes and endless compromises shatter the illusion of integrity" with a "yeah!" that implies he's celebrating said prizes/compromises, which takes it somewhere far beyond what ol' po-faced Peart probably had in mind when he wrote that line."

There's a tension between the content and the delivery of this line that kinda summarizes Rush for me, for good or for ill.

Why do you say that, Bill?

― pplains, Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:46 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Hard to put my finger on. It's just so damn WIMPY

For him, Springsteen is RIGHT. So he can be married to Landau's right hand woman, write numerous books about Springsteen, host Springsteen shows on Sirius and thus loudly and often viciously advocate in public and as ostensibly a journalist/writer, a man for whom his household's livelihood depends. This is a conflict of interest any way you shake it. And again, I think any clear reading of his works reveals that everything is personal with this guy.

― veronica moser, Thursday, September 26, 2013 11:24 AM (22 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

He wrote two books about Springsteen, both of which were combined to make a third, which added maybe 50 pages or so. So say he wrote three Springsteen books. I wouldn't call that "numerous."

He's also been pretty critical of Bruce (for supporting Kerry/throwing his lot in with the Democrats, for making middling records). Granted, not nearly as critical as someone outside the circle. But the comparison to Crouch/Marsalis doesn't hold for me.

For one thing, Marsalis is awful, Springsteen isn't. That aside, Crouch and Marsalis essentially conspired to define what "jazz" is and, more importantly, what it isn't (Miles electric is worthless, the avant-garde is pointless, and retracing Miles' 1965-66 steps is the only conceivable way forward). For Marsh/Springsteen to be the equivalent of Crouchsalis, they would have mounted huge anti-hip-hop campaigns and taken over all available outlets discussing the music and shutting down debate across the board, and putting forth the idea that Bruce is the only current rocker worth listening to. That didn't happen.

He's never hidden his connections with Bruce, and trusts that most readers will be able to think critically enough to keep things in perspective.

Crouchsalis!

a mythical two-headed beast...

Ha, I wish it was mythical (although I'm actually really looking forward to reading Crouch's Bird bio).

there's a third marsh/springsteen book for whatever that's worth: "bruce springsteen on tour: 1968-2005." and none of them will be remembered in time as the definitive springsteen bio. he has been eclipsed in that.

springsteen autobio a la chronicles would be the best. i really only wanna read stuff from the horse's mouth these days. that's why i loved that tom petty interview book so much. though there is probably a springsteen interview book out there somewhere...

dylan interview book is also great.

http://www.amazon.com/Talk-About-Dream-Interviews-Springsteen/dp/1620400723

and even a new one that came out this year

http://store.kobobooks.com/en-us/books/Title/TKab0nUpAki6EYyPi1MIdQ

Tarfumes, i know you are a Who fan and Marsh did a Who book. I kind of loathe Dave Marsh but i liked the book (maybe because i liked the subject matter). You?

Why do you say that, Bill?

― pplains, Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:46 AM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Hard to put my finger on. It's just so damn WIMPY

― One Way Ticket on the 1277 Express (Bill Magill), Thursday, September 26, 2013 10:48 AM Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

So you're saying that you can't tell me why?

I love it. I didn't at first, though. I thought his criticisms of Quadrophenia were off the mark, and my initial impression of the post-Moon years was that Marsh lost interest. But when I went back to it, he gave those years exactly as much coverage as was needed (and probably spent more time on that section than Townshend did on writing those 80s Who songs).

It's really kind of an essential chronicle of how the relationship between artist and audience, particularly concert audiences, changed and decayed into the 70s. Marsh puts the Who's career in its proper sociopolitical context(s), and goes on tangents (e.g., Marxist theories of the avant-garde vis-a-vis what constituted "success" in the UK in the 60s), that I can't imagine any other writer tackling in that way (although it helps that the Who are really the only band that lend themselves to that kind of discussion).

xp

So you're saying that you can't tell me why?

― pplains, Thursday, September 26, 2013 12:41 PM (25 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

hahahaha, nice!

Agreed, i liked the book as well, though i cant articulate my thoughts nearly as well as you did in that post.

"This is much better than the replacement bassist's moment in the sun. THat's fucking unlistenable."

That's my second favorite Eagles song!

Scott there is SO much goodness on post permawaves Rush! And they remastered them to sound less digi-thin now.

Some insight into Bill Szymczyk's methods:

http://mixonline.com/recording/tracking/classic-tracks-joe-walsh-lifes-been-good//index.html

the song also needed a sound effect for the line “I go to parties sometimes until four/It's hard to leave when you can't find the door,” which is followed by a perfectly timed door closing, done in real time by Vitale by shutting the door to Bayshore's bathroom, with a U87 placed about three feet away and in a nicely resonant hallway.

Dude was a meticulous motherfucker.

tarfumes will like this. a composer dude came in just now and he was a percussion major at umass and max roach had a master class and he said to everyone in the room: so you're the guys who want to do this for a living? okay, here's your master class: GET A LAWYER.

and that was his master class.

Hahaha wow, that's amazing.

"This is much better than the replacement bassist's moment in the sun. THat's fucking unlistenable."

That's my second favorite Eagles song!

― i believe we can c.h.u.d. all night (Jon Lewis), Thursday, September 26, 2013 1:10 PM (1 hour ago) Bookmark Flag Post PermaliS

Should have said "unlistenable to me". A big hit, so apparently many people disagree with me (wouldnt be the first time)