Eagles controversy- what are your thoughts?

[redcrow]

"Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a... "

My enjoyment of some Eagles music (I don't like all their stuff) continues regardless of the technology allegedly used in it's creation and the allegedly questionable moral compass of some of it's creators.

It's music, folks, not the music business, not politics.

Just sayin'...

[edcmat-l1]

Originally Posted by redcrow

"Frankly Scarlett, I don't give a... "

My enjoyment of some Eagles music (I don't like all their stuff) continues regardless of the technology allegedly used in it's creation and the allegedly questionable moral compass of some of it's creators.

It's music, folks, not the music business, not politics.

Just sayin'...

Agreed. If I didn't listen to every musician or band that were personal jerks, or I didn't agree with their politics, I wouldn't be listening to much.

[Railroad Bum]

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

Hi, I'm a recording engineer and work on audio for a living. I put this video up on the big, calibrated monitors here in the studio and analyzed it.

It is true that the vocals sound identical, with just a little phasing between them. However, Fil bases his assertion that they are from two different days on someone telling him that it true, second hand, and on the difference in the background wallah.

The assertion and the background wallah are countered, or at least undermined, by factors within the clips themselves. What are those factors?
1. There is quite a bit of difference in the processing between the two clips. On the left one we are hearing lots of artifacts from the clean up in both Don's voice and the background wallah. On the right one we aren't hearing as many artifacts.

2. Were that not enough to cause concern, there also appears to be reverb added post-cleanup-processing to the two channels. How do I perceive that? I can hear the background reducing software opening and closing and the artifacts imposed on the background modulating, but the reverb isn't discriminated against (as in, sucked out) or modulated much at all. It rings out fairly smoothly. A byproduct of virtually every background noise removal software I've used is removal or tightening up of ambience. The algorithms don't seem to have any problem discriminating between voice and room tone or artificial ambience - they suck it out along with the background noise at least to some degree. As a result, when I am faced with a source that has both background noise and too much room reflection and reverb, I always start with the background noise removal software first. Once I see how much room tone and reverb is removed by the background removal software, I decide whether or not to add a reverb remover. Frankly, all the background noise removal software I've encountered does a pretty good job, so reverb removal is often not needed after background noise removal. I'm not hearing a lot of correlation between the background noise removal and the reverb, so it feels like the reverb was added after the cleanup.

3. And here is another large piece of countering evidence against the idea that these are two performances with the same vocals:
In many places, the reverb trails off to near silence... without any of the band sound in it. If this was truly a recording of the band with cleanup software used to remove the band and leave Don, if the hall reverb trailed off, the band would be in it.

4. In fact, I haven't come across a piece of cleanup software that can clean off a complete band, much less clean off a complete band and leave clean reverb. Remember that the Eagles still use floor monitors and in-ears, and remove the IEMs whenever they want to, so the stage level isn't small, at all..

And crowds? I've got a library of hundreds of selections of arena, auditorium, and club crowds. I could drop a couple of them into each of the tracks and make two copies of the same audio sound convincingly different from one another.

With all these oddities, what is to keep us from believing that these are two copies of the same night that have been tampered with to make them sound as if they are from different nights?

I'm not defending the Eagles. I'm analyzing the primary evidence, the recordings, that was presented. I would need to see the chain of custody on the tracks to draw absolute conclusions on the validity of the claims.

All the best,

Bob

Bob, Fil followed up that video with another one with several versions from different shows, and the vocals were identical, except for one that was about 10 years ago.

[MrDB]

People in their 70's rarely sing like they did when they were 30. For me hearing them live with no "enhancements" is still preferable. Once someone just can't do it anymore then it's time to hang it up IMO.

[Bob Womack]

Originally Posted by Railroad Bum

Bob, Fil followed up that video with another one with several versions from different shows, and the vocals were identical, except for one that was about 10 years ago.

I saw, and stand by my analysis. Show me the chain of custody or the instances appear to be nothing but hearsay.

Bob

[marciero]

Bob's analysis seems to support the possibility that it is the same recording with different post processing, or post processing on one but not the other. I dont see where that precludes the possibility that it is the same vocal recording, used on two different nights, perhaps with different post processing on one, or both. Both scenarios- that a malicious person took an evening's performance, applied post processing, and presented it as a recording from a different night, or that it was the same vocal track used on two different nights, but again, possibly with post processing, applied by who knows whom, seem far fetched to me but who knows.

But this is just one isolated pair of recordings. The entire picture that seems to have emerged on youtube includes a number of different performances, posted by different people, of audio and video, on different songs, and includes other members of the band. We have guys in their mid 70s singing falsetto harmonies in the same keys, audible notes where people appear to have their mouths closed or not in sync. You have Joe Walsh struggling to sing even the less demanding sections of In the City, but somehow perfectly hitting the high parts at the verse endings - again in the same key- but with a slightly different volume and timbre, perhaps a backing track kicking in?

Maybe nothing is a slam dunk, and maybe these posters are all Eagles haters, but in my mind the likelihood that there is at least some vocal track enhancements across the board seems rather high. I dont know why people would be so shocked if that were true.

[Murphy Slaw]

Originally Posted by MrDB

People in their 70's rarely sing like they did when they were 30. For me hearing them live with no "enhancements" is still preferable. Once someone just can't do it anymore then it's time to hang it up IMO.

I agree. If I'm paying money to see a band perform live, I expect them to perform live. Those Millie Vanilli dudes were run out of Dodge for faking it and now everybody thinks it's okay for the Eagles.

It's fake, cheap, crooked and cowardly.

[tinnitus]

What I didn't say in my mini-rant above (#21) is that I've always respected Vince Gill and Joe Walsh as top-shelf, real-deal musicians. It bugs me to think that they might be complicit on any level with this sort of phony baloney.

[TheGITM]

Originally Posted by tinnitus

What I didn't say in my mini-rant above (#21) is that I've always respected Vince Gill and Joe Walsh as top-shelf, real-deal musicians. It bugs me to think that they might be complicit on any level with this sort of phony baloney.

At what is almost certainly a paycheck of over $100k per show (possibly over $200k these days), I think they can overlook adding vocal tracks to the live performances...

There is no other gig on the planet that will pay them what they make off of each Eagles concert. I would play for every dollar I can make...

[tinnitus]

Originally Posted by TheGITM

At what is almost certainly a paycheck of over $100k per show (possibly over $200k these days), I think they can overlook adding vocal tracks to the live performances...

There is no other gig on the planet that will pay them what they make off of each Eagles concert. I would play for every dollar I can make...

That's my take, too. Just a wee bit disappointing since it's not like either one of them might starve on just a small fraction of what the Eagles shows bring.

[LAPlayer]

Originally Posted by Murphy Slaw

I agree. If I'm paying money to see a band perform live, I expect them to perform live. Those Millie Vanilli dudes were run out of Dodge for faking it and now everybody thinks it's okay for the Eagles.

It's fake, cheap, crooked and cowardly.

How do you really feel? However, there has been no validation that there has been any behavior remotely similar to Milli Vanilli - or that it has occurred outside the claims of some internet conspiracy poster at all.

I've found this love-hate pitchfork response to one individual's internet conspiracy/post extremely funny especially since most of the vitriol has been directed at how much money they might be making. It seems far more like some type of resentment that a band (whatever band) that has been around over 50 years and deserved every benefit of releasing albums and selling over 200 million records should not be able to continue working until they decide to retire. I don't believe anyone here would do their job, whatever it is, for 50 years and then stay working for free. This response happens a lot with acting, music and sports. Many bystanders and spectators don't understand ( and dislike) why so-and-so makes so much money for what they do. Why care? If people stop paying to see them, they'll retire. Until then.......... rock on.

[columbia]

I remember watching a Franki Valli "performance" 15 or so years ago and he was so obviously lip synching. I saw he was coming to my city this year, tickets go up to $120, and he can't even mime well anymore.

[SFCRetired]

I will just keep the memories of Frankfort Germany in 1977 during their Hotel California tour when it was the Eagles at their best.

[Acousticado]

Originally Posted by SFCRetired

I will just keep the memories of Frankfort Germany in 1977 during their Hotel California tour when it was the Eagles at their best.

Ditto for me summer of ‘77, except it was at an outdoor horse race track in my town. Jesse Winchester opened. Fantastic concert! I saw them again during the History of the Eagles tour. Great music as usual. Blasé stage presence...just going through the motions. Joe was the only animated character.

[columbia]

I'm not technologically advanced, but even with the limited fan concert audio on YouTube it would seem to be easy to determine what's going on for someone with audio skills. Just get the audio from recent uploads of one song, and see if it lines up. Here are the "Desperado"s I could find.